Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. I think we forget the Prime Minister of Canada has been elected six times in the province of Quebec. No one knows how to handle the province of Quebec better than the prime minister.
We have to encourage the prime minister and the cabinet to be much more supportive in grassroots activism in the province of Quebec.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest, I would support the Government of Canada being very active in the province of Quebec, but I would go at it differently from the current course we are on.
I would go over the heads of the Bloc Quebecois, over the heads of the premier and the legislature of the province of Quebec, and right to the people. The bottom line is that their vision of Quebec is a purely separatist system. If the country is to have a chance, we really should not waste a lot more time with the Bloc Quebecois or Lucien Bouchard. We should go right to the people. The proof is in the pudding. When Pierre Trudeau went right to the people he got 74 of 75 seats. That is the way the prime minister should do it.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I support many items in the Calgary accord, “Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity”. All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by the law. A lot of it is easy to handle.
Point six reads:
If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.
Obviously as a passionate centralist, as a passionate interventionist, I find the pendulum has gone too far the other way. I would have some real difficulty on that point.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, I congratulate the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for his initiative in presenting to the House of Commons an opportunity to speak on national unity.
This is the type of debate which should throw the clock away. As long as members want to speak on it we should be allowed to keep going.
The objective of the motion I totally support. It may not seem as a surprise to him but I come from a totally different direction on how we resolve the issue of national unity.
I came to this city in 1979-80. I had the privilege and the pleasure of working for the prime minister of Canada at that time, the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau. One of the central themes of the prime minister was the Constitution. One of the areas within the Constitution the prime minister was passionately committed to was the whole are of national programs. He believed, and nearly all of us supported him in this House, even many members in the opposition, that national programs create national will. From national will you have a spirit that can promote and bind the country together.
I can remember from 1980-1984 the taxpayers of Canada spent millions of dollars promoting the Government of Canada's presence in every region of the country. In early 1980 there was this great feeling of western alienation, that the Government of Canada did not do anything for the west. We were all surprised because there was billions of dollars, whether in direct grants or programs or services, which went to western Canada, as to other regions. We discovered when we looked closer that the Government of Canada's presence was hidden. It really was not well known. We had to educate and show people what the Government of Canada did in providing service, presence.
Agriculture Canada had 55 research offices across western Canada. Very few people even knew they were there providing a service to farmers and the agricultural community of western Canada.
We tried vigorously to have a Government of Canada presence in anything and everything we were doing, not just in western Canada but right across the country.
Since the election of Prime Minister Mulroney I have noticed something that has not stopped. There has been an almost complete dismantling of the Government of Canada presence in the country. In name of being fiscally responsible or fiscal discipline, we have offloaded, sold off airports, given away properties, have walked away from responsibilities and have given them to the municipalities or the provinces. We have done all this in the name of being fiscally efficient or in the name of it being important in terms of promoting partnership.
With respect and admiration for my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona, I think the pendulum has swung too far. The Government of Canada presence has dwindled to a point where many people are wondering whether we even have the capacity to deliver on some of the programs and services we should be delivering on if we are to properly manage the country.
By the way, I will be sharing my time with the parliamentary secretary for international affairs.
I said earlier and I will say again that I support the member's objective of talking about national unity. However I do not think we can be in a community or a marketplace if our product is not on the shelf. In the last 10 to 15 years we have removed the the Government of Canada presence from all shelves not just in Quebec but in other regions of the country. I make no apology; I am a passionate believer in the Government of Canada having a major presence in every community and region of the country.
I abhor the fact that the postal service of Canada has practically written off the Government of Canada presence. For many years in many villages and communities across Canada that was the only shelf presence of the Government of Canada. It was the community's only link to this place. When we move from post office to airports to ports, the litany goes on and on and on.
Let us just take a business example. If someone is selling Pepsi-Cola and I am selling Coca-Cola and the only thing in the market is Coca-Cola, what will happen? Will we go to the store and ask for Pepsi even though we never see it?
In my judgment what we have in Quebec is a total lack of Government of Canada presence. We have given the separatists a free ride. Those of us who were in the House in the last parliament, those of us who were here when Lucien Bouchard was here, notice the distinct difference. When Lucien Bouchard was here as the leader of the official opposition they had lots of presence. They owned the market. They controlled the market. Thank God the Reform Party has moved into official opposition, because not only have we lost Lucien Bouchard, who was a charismatic leader, but we now have the Bloc Quebecois slipping off the radar screen. The Bloc is starting to slip. Its presence in the marketplace is starting to slip. Its own people are asking what it is here for.
I say to my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona that if we are to have success in pulling the country together it is time for the Reform Party to shift gears a little. It should change its direction of dismantling, offloading and decentralizing national government.
The objectives of members are founded on good will, but perhaps the Reform caucus will say it should be looking at amplifying the Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec rather than what it says every day. They ask “What are going to sell off? What are we going to offload? What are we going to give to the provinces?”
We have 10 different chunks across Canada and the Government of Canada is rendered meaningless. It is off the shelf.
In the last few years we have all been obsessed with putting the fiscal framework of the House back together. Obviously all members have worked hard to achieve that objective.
If we are to hold the country together, Government of Canada presence through proper services for young people, proper services for small business, proper activism and knowing that creativity and activism come from the House, we will have to shift gears and get back into an activism in all markets.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for having the initiative to table in parliament such an important issue.
As I read the member's motion I felt a couple of things were missing but one in particular. Toward the end of the last parliament one of our members, Len Hopkins from Renfrew, the dean of the last parliament, sponsored a private member's bill, Bill C-441, an act respecting the territorial integrity of Canada.
I will read one sentence on the principles:
This Act reaffirms that the Government of Canada has a moral and a legal responsibility to maintain and protect the territorial integrity of the Federation as it presently exists, or as its territory may be increased in future by constitutional amendment or otherwise, and that this responsibility is based on the following principles:
He goes on and on to indicate that Canada is a sovereign state, one and indivisible.
In the spirit of open debate, would the member consider including an amendment in his motion that would take in that member's private member's bill?
Committees Of The House November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee October 1st, 1997
The member talks about transfers and economics. One of the reasons given by the province of Newfoundland for changing its entire separate school system was that it wanted to save $9 million to $11 million. I for one think that is a pitiful sum of money to shut down an entire system and a tradition that has always been a part of this country.
I want to repeat that it is important that Canadian who want to speak out on this issue, those who want to make representation, have an opportunity to appear before the joint committee between now and the end of November.
I have always accepted the outcome of any vote in this House but between now and then it is very important that we reflect on what is the responsibility of this Chamber. I urge members to make sure that this Chamber does not become a rubber stamp for the provinces.
Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee October 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my friends in the Bloc always get a little concerned when I speak on these issues. It is no secret to members of this Chamber that I came here almost 10 years ago from downtown Toronto because my constituents wanted somebody to make sure they had a voice that would always speak up for a strong national government.
They wanted someone who would be outspoken at the appropriate time on minority rights. When disadvantaged regions of our country needed financial support or extra support as they were going through difficult times and did not having the necessary infrastructure, they wanted advantaged regions to be there to help them.
I have always tried to be consistent on the primary reason I was elected. That was why I originally opposed the Meech Lake accord. The Meech Lake accord essentially dismantled the national government. It was essentially a process that promoted offloading on to the province's national government responsibilities. It has been like a litany of transferring of powers over the last many years.
I would like to say to the minister I applaud the fact that he is putting this motion into committee where over the next few months we can have broad based support from both sides. Members will have an opportunity to speak on the amendment. Even though the amendment is different from term 17, make no mistake. It is inextricably intertwined with what is happening in terms of the constitutional amendment process in Newfoundland.
Again I say to the minister that it is a good thing it is going to committee. I appreciate that the prime minister has also said the vote on the amendment would be a free one.
I do not have all the answers in terms of the process today. That is why we will be going into a joint committee over the next few months. In the last little while we have moved so quickly on so many offloadings and dismantling of national government responsibility that I would appeal to members of the House, as we head into a new term, to remember the Chamber is not a rubber stamp for the provinces.
The Chamber has always been the custodian of minority rights. It has been here from time to time to stand up to the provinces and say it will not agree with them on a particular program or policy thrust.
A few of us in Ontario have concerns about what the amendment will mean, could mean or might mean in terms of setting a precedent in the province of Ontario and the separate school system that exists there, which is recognized as an efficient system.
In spite of that efficiency we have a government in the province of Ontario right now that in the name of a dollar would save putting up the Ontario flag on a day. It is a very tight, cost cutting government.
Some of us are concerned this could set a precedent that could affect our educational system, especially those of us who do not believe in a total secularization of the school system.
Supply September 30th, 1997
No, it is not in a tax cut. If we really had a payday here and we can do both, terrific. However, I want to be on the record that I really think that some very important programs have been gutted, and I hate to say this because I have been part of a government that was a party to this. I feel badly for some of my colleagues who went down in Atlantic Canada because the cuts were too severe. They were victims, in my judgment, of extreme cuts.
In my own community, and I know the member will believe me when I say this, I have human capital, which is a very important thing to nurture, training and retraining. The member talks about the brain drain. One of the reasons we have a brain drain, even in the public service, is that we get all upset if we bonus some of our most respected senior public servants.
I think the Reform Party, which has been very effective as an opposition, has to take a more balanced approach and realize that we have to start creating an atmosphere of hope in our public service and hope for some of our more disadvantaged. I hope that he would modify his approach somewhat over the next few months.
Supply September 30th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I would first like to welcome my friend from Kelowna back to the House of Commons. Over the last four years we had a lot of constructive debate together and I still feel that when we work in a constructive way that is when we achieve the most.
The member for Kelowna today wanted more of a public debate on where this surplus should go. I find it really encouraging actually that the Reform Party has now come to the conclusion that the surplus is within sight. I think we can honestly say that just a couple of years ago the Reform Party had very little confidence in our ability to manage the fiscal framework of this nation. I am glad to see that today we have basically received its endorsement on the basic trajectory or direction that we are heading in.
When it comes to the debate on the surplus, I want to say to my friend from Kelowna that we will be on opposite sides. As passionately committed as the member is to tax reduction, and I have done some work in this area, I am passionately committed to making sure that the human capital that has been through a lot of suffering, those people at the lower end of the income spectrum who have not had a voice in this Chamber for a long time, I am going to be with that voice. I am going to be with that voice to make sure the Minister of Finance keeps his commitment that was stated during the election.
I was elected in my community, which is a disadvantaged community in downtown Toronto, on the basis that we have been through a lot of belt tightening. There have been a lot of cuts. There has been a big ratchet on this sort of obsession with the deficit and there has to be a dividend to look after the people in our community who are the most disadvantaged.