House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 49% of the vote.
Petitions December 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Swift Current, Saskatchewan and district.
The petitioners state that whereas 38 per cent of the national highway system is substandard and whereas Mexico and the United States are upgrading their national highway systems, the petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to make the national highway system upgrading possible.
Peacekeeping December 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that after we have spent most of this day responding once more to time allocation we now have an opportunity with motion M-31 to discuss at least partial restoration of the prerogatives, dignity and relevance of Parliament.
I would like to open my address by quoting some remarks made by the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House on October 23. I quote from Hansard : ``When a peacekeeping mission is being launched, reviewed or renewed, debate is encouraged and the House is asked to support the initiative''. There is no requirement in that statement that the House give its consent but only that it be encouraged to support the government's moves.
In the same address the parliamentary secretary went on to say: "The government agrees that a debate on our commitment should be held either in this House or before the Parliament of Canada, but it is quite another story to ask that there be a vote before Canada can make any commitment". Is that not nice? "It is quite another story to ask that there be a vote before Canada can make a commitment".
It has not always been that way. There was a time when Parliament had some relevance, when Parliament had real power.
As usual I notice that most of the Liberal members are conspicuous in their absence from the House. Those sweethearts may have nothing but contempt for this institution but, by God, they should have a little respect for their fellow members. They should show that respect by at least hearing our views and going through the motions of having a real debate.
There was a time when cabinets, no matter how powerful, respected this place. I quote Hansard for June 30, 1950, when the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent said the following:
If the situation in Korea or elsewhere, after prorogation, should deteriorate and action by Canada beyond that which I have indicated should be considered, parliament will immediately be summoned to give the new situation consideration.
"Parliament will be immediately summoned". How Liberal attitudes have changed in this post-Pearsonian era. Parliament is now regarded as little more than a nuisance, but never a serious threat to governmental activity.
In September 1950 Parliament was indeed recalled to debate sending ground troops to Korea. The debate began on September 4. The mobilization order was issued on September 9. Some might call this undue delay, but remember that the UN resolution calling for joint action had been passed on June 27. The government had waited for two months before it decided to bring the matter to a head, discuss it in the House and set the subsequent events in motion.
When the Suez crisis developed in November 1956 the House was already in session, but Canadian participation was nevertheless determined by order in council. That was only six years after the Korean involvement.
In theory, and it is a great theory, Parliament had 10 days in which to determine whether to fund the action. However, in practice, as we all know, it was an exercise in rubber stamping. Here in Canada, with no separation of executive and legislative powers, Parliament cannot, without a vote of non-confidence, restrain the government by denying funding for its adventures.
In contrast, the U.S. Congress 25 years ago was able to stop military operations in Laos and Cambodia by tying the purse strings of the government.
In this century, for those of you who have not followed the political life of our giant neighbour to the south, the U.S. president, prior to the Laos and Cambodia situation, had gradually usurped the power of Congress to declare war. However, Congress is nevertheless the ultimate authority because of its power to withhold funds.
Of course, the flip side to that is, contrary to our domestic situation, the power of the president as commander in chief confers what has been described by some as a vast reservoir of powers in time of emergency, with the authority to do just about anything anywhere that can be done with an army or navy. It is the type of power which has been usurped by cabinet in this country.
It has become possible to deploy troops in situations where, although combat is not technically involved, there is danger of provoking conflict or where the deployment of troops could be regarded by others as a hostile act. Under the Canadian system governments are not supposed to possess such draconian powers, but cabinet abuses in the post-Pearson era have conferred them as a matter of custom, a custom which must be reversed if we want to reaffirm democracy in this country.
In M-31 it is stated that not only should Parliament be vested with the power to send our troops abroad, but that it should be subject to a free vote of the members. It should not be a partisan issue. Members of Parliament, before they put their constituents or the sons and daughters of their constituents into life-threatening situations, should be able to look into their own souls and they should be able to consult with their constituents to make a decision which bears the imprint, if you will, of the will of the country. We should not be rushing about, sending troops hither and yon without the absolute support of the people of Canada.
It is possible, although I would say by no means certain, that if we had had a reasoned debate and a free vote in the House on the Rwanda adventure that particular fiasco might have been avoided.
I see the Speaker is giving me the finger. I will terminate my remarks at this point.
Excise Tax Act December 10th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I suppose I should feel guilty for disturbing the free lunch of the Liberals. In case they follow the usual practice of getting a quorum and then quietly sneaking out like naughty children evading the headmaster, I am prepared to stand here and call quorum all afternoon if necessary.
With regard to the question of closure, it is unthinkable that the government of a democratic country could use this heavy-handed blunt instrument to bludgeon Parliament with the regularity that this government has done. I do not know what the final outcome will be. Perhaps at some point in the not too distant future it will simply dissolve Parliament and say: "We do not need it any more. Let us have permanent closure, permanent time allocation" because that is the Liberal idea of the democratic process.
Remember, 31 times it has moved time allocation or closure in the short period of three years and one month. That is one-third more times than those blunt instruments were used in the entire pre-Trudeau era in this Parliament, back in the days when people actually believed in democracy and when Parliament was still a place where people came together to debate the issues and arrived at conclusions.
With respect to this marvellous HST that is being brought in by this bill in the Atlantic provinces, it is pretty easy to see why the government is so desperate to hide the GST. However, it is only going to be able to hide it in three provinces because nobody else is willing to get on board.
I would like to quote a comment by the hon. member for Mississauga West with respect to the GST. She said: "I keep hearing from the finance department that Canadians are getting used to the GST and now accept it. If anyone really believes that I do not think they are in touch with reality". Bravo to the member for Mississauga West because she sure had that right.
Then the hon. finance minister said: "We have to do something about this GST because we made a mistake. We are sorry, but it was an honest mistake". That is not good enough. Let us face it, despite their public pronouncements, the Liberals never had any intention of killing the GST. Instead they had this cockamamie plan to run around and hide it, meld it in with provincial sales taxes and then maybe nobody would notice. Long term planning, harmonization of the dreaded GST.
The fact that it is going to cost citizens of the three non-harmonized provinces something in the order of $900 million in subsidies does not bother this government. What does it care, it is only money and this is a Liberal government. It is going to hurt small businesses in the three Atlantic provinces. What does the government care, it is not in business. It is made up of politicians and politicians do not care what happens behind that cash register. We are going to have it because the hammer has been brought down. Democratic debate has again been forbidden in this place which was designed for the democratic debating of the issues.
I see the Speaker is signalling me, my time being up. I do thank all of those good Liberals who allowed their lunch to get very slightly cold. Members will notice that I did not fulfil my threat of continuously calling quorum.
Excise Tax Act December 10th, 1996
Madam Speaker, before I get into any remarks that I would call GST specific, I would like to comment on something that is happening here today, which is the use of time allocation again by the Liberal government on this debate. That makes 26 times that this heavy handed throttling of Parliament has been practised by this government.
It is a rather curious phenomenon that is taking place. It actually started in the Trudeau years. His was the first government in Canadian history that opposed free speech in Parliament. It was the first government that began to routinely use time allocation and closure. Prior to the election of Mr. Trudeau, these two means of throttling debate had been used only 23 times in the entire history since Confederation. I think it was first used by Sir Robert Borden during the first world war.
Then Mr. Trudeau came along and what did we get? Forty-four uses of time allocation or closure in 15 years. That is a bit of an escalation. Then in the Mulroney years they were used 63 times in
eight years and nine months, a new record, a new champion on the block.
But what is happening under the current Liberal government? It has only been in office for a short time, three years and one month. Already it has used time allocation or closure 31 times. This is unprecedented. It is contemptible that any government would treat any parliament in this manner.
Today the Liberals are showing their contempt for Parliament in two ways. One is through time allocation. The other is contempt for their fellow members in that only one of them has even bothered to come in and listen to this debate. I refuse to blow air into an empty room. I request a quorum count.
An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel December 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak as a westerner for a few moments about Louis Riel.
A lot of people do not realize that Louis Riel was born in the west and spent most of his life in the west and that he was a staunch federalist, which makes me wonder to some extent why members
of the separatist party in the House are taking this opportunity to press their motion.
He was not a violent man but was caught up in the whirlwind of events that were beyond his control. Actually he partially controlled them. Had it not been for Louis Riel's influence on Gabriel Dumont, there would have been a lot more deaths in the north-west rebellion. It was Riel who restrained Dumont from using guerrilla tactics against Middleton's troops. On that basis alone, the man should have been shown more mercy and compassion when he was tried.
There is no question that the trial was unfair. However that was 110 years ago. I do not believe that any good purpose is served by this attempt to fudge over one of the darker episodes of our history. It happened. It is over. I would take this same attitude to any historical event. It serves no purpose. It does not help Louis Riel in any way for us to stand in this House and say he was not guilty. The deed was done. History is history. I think there are other things that this House could attend to.
Excise Tax Act December 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Inasmuch as we members are outnumbered by the pages, I would suggest we probably do not have a quorum.
Judges Act November 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I had the privilege of having a rather lengthy conversation with a few security guards here on the Hill. Many of them, having been here for a number of years, are a source of much more knowledge and perhaps intellect than most of the members opposite and so they give me reasonably good guidance.
One thing that came up from two or three of them was why do we not have an elected judiciary in this country? I tried to explain to them the pros and the cons of this as I saw it. I wonder if the hon. member, since we are talking here in Bill C-42 about a band-aid bill when the government should be revising the whole lousy system, would give me his views on whether or not we should have an elected judiciary.
Judges Act November 28th, 1996
Nobody knew when he was here.
Infrastructure November 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the two lane Trans-Canada death trap between Gull Lake, Saskatchewan and the Alberta border claimed yet another life when a pick-up truck slammed into a jack-knifed semi-trailer. This raises the death toll on that short section to 25 in 16 years.
Liberals have no trouble funding the distribution of free flags or topping up the treasuries of Liberal friendly companies, but they cannot find the money to save lives by contributing the federal share to complete our national highway system.
The government collects $5 billion annually in fuel taxes and siphons 90 per cent of it into general revenue. Given the deplorable state of the national highway system not only in Saskatchewan but in northern Ontario and in Labrador as well, how can this blatant misappropriation of funds be justified?
Supply November 21st, 1996
But we don't.