House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 70% of the vote.
Health November 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, notice the legal approach to this rather than the compassionate approach.
The Liberal government said that it would be too expensive to look after those victims outside the 1986 to 1990 period. Therefore my question for the health minister is very specific. How many victims have been compensated and how much money is there left unused in the bank that could and should be directed toward those victims outside this artificial legalistic timeframe? How much?
Health November 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I note that was not an answer to my question at all. Let me pose the question another way.
The senior federal bureaucrats who have been charged, and I note charged criminally, by the RCMP in the tainted blood scandal were employed by the government prior to 1986. The government categorically said that there was no responsibility before 1986.
Will the government change its stubborn policy and now look at looking after every single victim of hepatitis C prior to 1986?
Health November 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Quebec and Ontario compensated all hepatitis C victims. Now that we know that the federal bureaucrats who were involved in this tragedy were on staff before 1986, will the Minister of Health ask cabinet to compensate all those who were infected with the hepatitis C virus and have contracted the disease?
Parliamentary Reform November 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, as we talk about how to make Parliament work better, which is the subject today, I would like to pose the question: Why should Canadians care about this? Let me give an example of why Canadians should care.
When I first came here in 1993, I was very idealistic. I came from a different background, a background where I was used to making suggestions, having them listened to and sometimes getting things done. I found on the committee on which I sat that we were asked to vet in fact the Prime Minister's appointments. When I asked whether there had ever in fact been a case n Canada where one of the Prime Minister's appointments was turned down by a committee, the answer was no. I then asked why we were doing it.
It turned out that question had some resonance with the members of the committee. We set out and did a little study on it and made a recommendation after some time that rather than the committee vetting the Prime Minister's appointees, we should vet them as nominees. That has not taken place. There are still committees vetting appointments after they have taken place. That is nonsense. What a waste of an MPs' time and the appointee's time who comes to committee to be reviewed when there has never been a single case of an appointee being turned down.
In the business world and in the world from which I come, the health world, that would not be done. It would be so easy to change. Simply let the Prime Minister pick the nominees, have them presented to the committee and be vetted by the committee. If there was a problem with a nominee, surely the Prime Minister would want to know. If there were no problems, then the Prime Minister would pick from those nominees and we would have an appointee.
I was going to spend a bit of time on the Westminster way or the British way of handling whipped votes. Because we have spent quite a bit of time on that I will not go over that. I wanted to talk a bit about the mother of Parliaments and about it having a process whereby the government does not force its members on every vote to vote as a vote of confidence.
Let me simply say that there are examples in the time that I have spent in Parliament where I watched majority Liberal members vote against their conscience in a way that was heart-rending. The vote specifically on compensation for hepatitis C, an issue that has raised itself again recently, was one that I found very difficult because individuals voted against their conscience, against the way their constituents wanted them to vote, and were forced to vote that way.
Canadians wonder how that could happen. It happens because of the convention which says that if the government is defeated on one of its bills or motions it is a vote of confidence in the government and will be followed by an election. That is not sensible and it is not necessary.
There is a solution to that and it does not even involve three levels of whips. The solution is simply to say that a defeated government motion or a government bill will be followed by a vote of confidence. The vote of confidence of course, in the case of a majority government, would automatically be in favour of the government. The bill would fail but the government would not fall. That is the approach that the Canadian Alliance would take to the issue of whipped votes, to follow a defeat by a vote of confidence.
Most bills then, unless they were confidence bills, that being money bills, or bills that the government had campaigned on, would be free votes so that individual members could go back to their constituents and get their impressions and their ideas and be able to bring to bear their own personal perspective on those bills. A defeated bill then would not defeat the government.
I omitted to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey Central.
I have also found it interesting and fascinating that the member for LaSalle—Émard has stepped into the debate on democratizing Parliament. Without being too critical of the proposals he has made, he is somewhat of a johnny-come-lately to this issue. He did sit in cabinet since 1993, although recently he has been removed from cabinet, but I did not hear once during that period of time a single mention of these issues. Let me go over, for the public, the things he is suggesting. I think most of the public, and I personally, support these proposals.
First, loosen the hold of party discipline. That refers to the issue of pushing members to vote one way by the party.
Second, increase the capacity of all members to shape legislation. That enters into the field of private members' business.
Third, members would be allowed to initiate legislation. Once again, this is private members' business.
Fourth, standing committees should be overhauled to provide increasing independence or expanded authority. That gets into the recent issue where we now have secret ballots being used for the committee chairs and vice-chairs.
Fifth, reform the process surrounding government appointments. That reflects back to my first point.
Sixth, appoint an independent ethics commissioner.
Every one of those proposals has been long advocated by the official opposition and many members in the House. There has not been, in terms of movement on these issues, anything until the last few weeks, and that is fascinating to me.
What is missing from those proposals? Those proposals give more power to members of Parliament. There is not a single mention of anything that would be based on the constituents. I call that power to the people, which is missing. In these proposals, every one of them gives power to the party. What is missing then? We also need the ability of citizens to push for legislation, not just the MPs pushing for legislation but citizen initiated proposals. We need more use of the other levers of democracy as well to give power to the people, such as very specific use of referenda, possibly at election time to not add extra cost, to invigorate and reinvigorate the democratic process; and plebiscites. Those are tools that are very seldom used at the federal level here in Canada.
We also need to have the ultimate check on an unruly member of Parliament. I call that “fire a liar”; to be able to remove a member of Parliament who breaks the voters' trust.
We need fixed election dates; a reduction of power for the party in power so that everyone in Canada knows when the next election would be, not an election date at the whim of the Prime Minister.
We also need to take back some of the power that Parliament has let slip. I call that judge made law. The charter has put a lot of emphasis on looking at the laws in terms of the charter. Parliament has, I think, left some of its significant power to judges. That should be addressed.
Because I am an optimist I would like to state that there are some glimmers of democracy here. The fact that we are having this debate today, to my mind, is a glimmer of hope. A Speaker that is now elected by secret ballot is hopeful. That was not always the case. We have private members' business that will be votable. That is a glimmer of democracy. I mentioned that committee chairs and vice-chairs will be and have been chosen without the Prime Minister's stamp of approval.
This debate is one that will touch the future of Canada's youth. It should and must matter to Canadians. I urge the Liberal majority government to go one step beyond and give some of the power of the party back to the people: power to the party versus power to the people. The people should win.
Parliamentary Reform November 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite did what he said should be done in the House. He did not read his speech and I give him credit for that. He talks from the heart. In talking from the heart, he did say that members should be voting on things that they ran on, in other words, in an election platform, significant issues.
I am certain there must be a reason and I would like to have him give that reason. The red book promise back in 1993 was for an independent ethics counsellor. The member had an opportunity to vote for that principle in the House not so long ago. He voted against it. I would like him to explain why he would campaign on one thing, have an opportunity to vote on it and vote against it.
National Defence November 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I think we could turn the lights off again with that answer. Last year the former minister of finance said, “We will provide whatever funding is required for national security”. Obviously the former finance minister failed.
The government simply did not budget properly for the military. Here is the question that I asked before, and I want the defence minister to answer this question. Why did the government choose $100 million for luxury jets, when our military has said that it is $100 million short? Why?
National Defence November 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to have joint action, but joint responsibility is quite another; to turn our sovereignty over to somebody else. The government's lack of foresight and planning has resulted in something very specific. The military says that it has a shortfall of $100 million this year.
Is it not interesting that the Challenger jets, the luxury jets chosen by the cabinet, just happened to add up to that exact same figure? Why did the cabinet choose luxury jet instead of looking after our military, a real priority?
National Defence November 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the government's lack of priorities is putting Canada's security at risk.
The Coast Guard is parking ships because it cannot afford the fuel. Naval patrols have been grounded, leaving our borders exposed. The Liberal government is quite content to have the United States look after us. The minister said yesterday:
There is a lot of water around our country. It is always a challenge for both Canada and the United States to defend it. We will be working more closely together in the future to do that.
Especially at this time of year when we honour our military, why is the government abandoning the military and turning our security over to others?
Petitions October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present today and it adds to the signatures of literally hundreds of Canadians who have condemned the Liberal government for its stand on child pornography.
This petition comes from the citizens of Okotoks and the surrounding area in my constituency. The petitioners want the Liberal government to take far more powerful steps against child pornography.
Health October 25th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, let me make a specific suggestion: that we take it out of the wasteful spending of the government.
The Deputy Prime Minister somewhat jokingly said that he would rather jump off the Peace Tower than raise taxes. I have a little news for him. He would not have to jump off the Peace Tower. He would be pushed off the Peace Tower by the millions of Canadians who are fed up with the taxes that the government has raised.
My question stands. I would like a commitment from the finance minister today that he will not raise new taxes to put money into medicare. It should come from the wasteful spending of the government.