Lost his last election, in 2000, with 28% of the vote.
Petitions March 22nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have 27 petitions but I have narrowed them down to three for today.
The first one contains almost 45,000 signatures. The petitioners are primarily concerned about the hideous GST tax. They suggest that the Government of Canada take action to phase out this tax as a very progressive tax measure.
Health Care March 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, last night I read through the memoirs of Paul Martin, Sr. when he was working on the establishment of hospital insurance, the forerunner of medicare. On the day that it was proclaimed Mr. Malcolm Taylor had this to say: “Paul Martin, like Moses, was denied the opportunity of leading his people into the promised land”. Nevertheless, his dream, the founding of hospitalization, the forerunner to medicare, was now a reality.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. In his budget, why is he now allowing Alberta and Ontario to turn his father's dream into something like a two tier health care nightmare? Why is he not following his father's footsteps and actually doing something to assist medicare and health care in this country?
The Budget February 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I got a letter from a constituent. It says, “I appreciate that the Minister of Finance said that he has a significant surplus in this year's budget. Did he not get this surplus by dipping into the EI fund, money that was set aside by employees and employers for people who lose their jobs?” What is my colleague's view on this question from my constituent?
Petitions February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure for me to present this next petition. As you can see by the petition itself, Mr. Speaker, this is not a prop. This is a petition bearing thousands and thousands of names, maybe 20,000 names, of people from Kamloops who are concerned about the GST.
They are suggesting that if we are going to have a tax reduction in the upcoming budget, we should phase out the GST so that everyone benefits from the tax reduction: children, people on low incomes and people with fixed incomes. They feel that every single Canadian would benefit from a reduction in the GST; whereas if we simply reduce the income tax only people who pay income tax will benefit. This is the fairest way to reduce taxes. Thousands of people in the great city of Kamloops are calling on the government to do just that.
Petitions February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also from the people of Kamloops, who are calling on the Government of Canada to simply abolish the Senate.
Petitions February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners are all from Kamloops.
They are calling on the Government of Canada to amend the criminal code to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal, except in exceptional circumstances.
Canada Elections Act February 14th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate my hon. friend has introduced a set of amendments. In light of the fact that this is a very crucial piece of legislation, could I seek some explanation of what is going on at this point. I do not understand the procedure.
Canada Elections Act February 14th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on the report stage of Bill C-2. Some very major changes have been made to the Canada Elections Act, but this is the first major overhaul of the act since 1970. There have been changes over the years based on various court decisions and so on, but this is the first opportunity we have had to modernize the Canada Elections Act.
Some very notable improvements have been made to the act, but I do not have to list them because they are essentially well known now by most members of the House. However there have been a number of real missed opportunities.
At the top of the list of missed opportunities is one that perplexes me as we hear the rhetoric from all political parties about the value of today's young people, the need to involve more young people in the election campaigns of the various political parties, the need for young people to be more involved in the electoral process, and the need for young people to be paying more attention to the process of government and the process of politics in Canada. Yet when the proposal comes forward to involve young people, particularly at an age when there is significant interest in becoming involved, the answer is no, a blatant and clear no.
Let us think about this point. Other countries, and I will use Brazil as an example, lowered the voting age from 18 to 16 a number of years ago. The question was whether people of 16 and 17 years of age would be interested in politics and the electoral process and whether they would join political parties and campaigns.
The evidence in Brazil was very clear. Given the opportunity, 16 and 17 year olds participated in the electoral process in greater numbers on a percentage basis than did their parents or anyone else. When the offer went out to young people asking if they were interested in politics and in joining in the electoral process, the overwhelming response was a resounding yes. They wanted to get involved. They were anxious and interested.
If young people in Brazil want to get involved and young people in Nicaragua want to get involved, and I could list all sorts of other countries, why not send out an opportunity for young people in Canada to get involved?
The reality is that a proposal went out to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 as part of this legislation. There was some debate but overall people questioned whether 16 year olds had the intelligence, the knowledge and the understanding of politics to cast a serious ballot.
What a terrible comment to make against young people of the country. I suspect it is the same argument that was made against women years back in terms of whether they had the understanding and the intelligence to participate in the electoral process. We know now how embarrassing it is to even raise this as an issue. It seems as absolutely stupid and silly as of course it is.
A few years ago the issue was with first nations people. Up until 1960 we said that first nations people were not allowed to vote. They could volunteer and die in World War I. They could volunteer and die in World War II. They could volunteer and die in Korea but they could not vote in this country. They fought for democracy. They died for democracy. However, the minute first nations people came home from those wars we said that they could not vote, that they could not participate in democracy in their own country. Let us imagine the signal that sent to first nations peoples across the country.
I suspect we are sending a similar signal today. Young people who want to participate are not allowed to when it comes to voting. Yes, they can choose leaders of our political parties. Yes, they can participate in campaigns. They can do anything else they want in the political process but the one thing they cannot do if they are aged 16 and 17 is vote. This is disgraceful.
At the age of 16 a whole number of things occur in people's lives. They can get a driver's licence and drive a truck or a high powered vehicle on our highways. They can join the armed forces and serve in Bosnia and other areas of combat. They can get married and raise children. They can qualify for employment insurance. They can be tried in adult court. However they cannot vote in our country.
If they are 16 or 17 and want to vote to choose the people who will represent them and future generations they cannot participate. The people who have the most to win or lose in an election cannot participate. This is one of those ideal opportunities for the House of Commons to acknowledge it, to send out a welcoming hand to young people who want to participate and to give them a chance.
I am not saying everyone has to do so. Perhaps the people who are listening to this speech could reflect back on the election campaigns of members of parliament and candidates that they worked on. They went to local high schools to participate in debates and discussions. In my experience the level of discussion, participation, knowledge and understanding of those young people was significantly greater than that of their parents.
At the evening meetings—and God knows if they are a road show or some sort of political theatre—very seldom is there intelligent, sensible, meaningful debate like there is in high schools. Young people are keen and knowledgeable. They are far more knowledgeable than we were as young people. They have access to information and knowledge. Their teachers are much more open than ours were to discuss in classrooms the role of government and politics.
Why not extend a welcoming and open hand to young people across the country? However the government decided that this was not appropriate. I have a heavy heart when I have to say that. I thought the government would say yes.
We are entering the new millennium, the 21st century, a century that represents changes of all sorts in terms of demographics, the economy, society and the way we debate budgets in the House. Everything is changing except this aspect of keeping young people pushed down and not permitted to participate in federal elections.
I am very disappointed that we were not able to accomplish it, but I will not give up. One day we will look back and think how stupid we were as a country for not allowing young people of 16 and 17 years of age to vote. One day we will do that but we are not quite there yet. We will not give up the effort.
I have to mention another missed opportunity, the whole issue of voting through proportional representation. Our voting system is rather goofy. When a small number of Canadians choose the government that acts in a sense as an elected dictator for five years, is that the way the system should operate? No. I am not saying this is the fault of the Liberals. Of course it is not. It takes place in provincial jurisdictions and so on. It is our collective way of the first past the post approach to electing government. It is absolutely bizarre.
Let us look at intelligent countries around the world. We would be hard pressed to find a country that has a system like ours. Their systems are much more reflective of the population's wish as to who should represent them. This place does not represent what people said in the last election.
With all due respect, in the last election the majority of Canadians did not say they wanted half the House plus a few more filled with Liberals. That is the way it turned out but that is not what the people said. We have should looked at some other form of choosing members of parliament that actually reflected what Canadians say when they cast a ballot. That was a missed opportunity.
We made a number of amendments to the whole issue of campaign reform which basically said that more access should be allowed to smaller political parties to more accurately reflect what people in our country are thinking about. We should ask for disclosure on spending limits on party leadership elections. Let us face it. If somebody buys the leadership of a political party, should people not know about it as opposed to being elected in a fair and open democratic process?
What about numbered companies? We have to do something about numbered companies. When number company 12754 makes a huge contribution to a political party, should we not know who is behind the particular firm? Of course we should. Let us get these numbered companies back on the transparency pathway so we know that when somebody makes a political contribution to a political party or an individual in our country, we know who is actually making that contribution.
Petitions February 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is about child pornography. Like some of my colleagues have already indicated, people are outraged about the recent developments concerning the child pornography situation in British Columbia.
They are asking parliament to do whatever we can possibly do to strengthen the laws relating to the possession of child pornography and to ensure that it is never legalized.
Petitions February 11th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the second petition goes on at some length about people concerned about violent criminals.
They are asking the Parliament of Canada to amend the criminal code to prevent people convicted of serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeals except in exceptional circumstances.