House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
Unemployment Insurance February 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers are sick of people who abuse our social programs, but they are even more sick of politicians who do not do anything. The minister is bent on making his programs bigger; he seems incapable of making them better.
Will the minister finally admit that big government programs are actually the root of the problem?
Unemployment Insurance February 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, what is happening here is that we have a government that uses consultation as an excuse for inaction. That is what is happening. This report is available.
Unemployment Insurance February 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a report that was produced over a year ago by the department that answers to the Minister of Human Resources Development. This report shows that the unemployment insurance program is so poorly designed that the unemployment rate could be .5 to 1.5 per cent lower than it currently is.
The minister's own department admits that unemployment insurance needs reform. He has had over a year to do something and has done nothing. When will we get some real action?
Petitions February 9th, 1995
Madam Speaker, the last petition I have requests that Parliament support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime and support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and support legislation which will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable. The number of names on this one is quite extensive.
Petitions February 9th, 1995
Madam Speaker, the second petition requests that Parliament consider that a very vocal minority of citizens are requesting Parliament to institute a dual marketing system for wheat and barley for export.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament continue to give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly power in marketing wheat and barley for export.
The third petition is from a similarly small but very vocal group of citizens requesting Parliament to put in place a dual marketing system for the sale of wheat and barley. They also call on Parliament to continue to grant monopoly powers to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Petitions February 9th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I have several petitions that I would like to present to the House.
The first petition asks that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Social Programs February 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, if the government would get its fiscal house in order there would be a lot less need for social programs.
I travelled with the Commons committee for five weeks. Many ordinary Canadians I heard were not saying the things that are in this report. It is obvious the government is paralysed because it has spent too much time listening to government funded special interest groups.
Can the minister tell us, is his government going to continue the Liberal tradition of social programs dominated by decisions made in Ottawa and make promises it cannot keep and add to the worry of average Canadians because of its lack of vision?
Social Programs February 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the report tabled by the human resources development committee offered the curious vision that social programs are working brilliantly yet they are desperately in need of reform.
Almost all of the recommendations are based on three false assumptions: that governments create jobs through ever increasing public spending; that a government monopoly is the best means of caring for those in need; and that ever increasing government debts and deficits are justifiable if they are spent on government run, make work projects and social programs.
Last week the Minister of Human Resources Development told the news media that deficit reduction had overtaken social program reform as the top priority. Can the minister tell Canadians if he will proceed with social program reform only if he can spend more money and control program delivery?
Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss the motion put forth by the member for Verchères. It would have the government officially recognize the historical contribution of the Patriots of Lower Canada and the reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the Government of Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a national Patriots day.
It is extremely troubling for me to stand before the House and unequivocally support a motion dealing with an issue that historians have not even settled on. The hon. member is asking us as parliamentarians to stand and officially recognize the contribution of the Patriotes and reformers. That point is clear. I cannot.
This is an issue which Canadians will have to make an individual value judgment about and the appropriateness of recognizing the extent of the contributions of the Patriotes and reformers. It would be wrong for parliamentarians as a whole to make a judgment about an event in history that is still controversial in the minds of many Canadians.
In fact what lies at the heart of the controversy is the methods used by the Patriotes and reformers. To some they are considered to be great Patriots. Yet to others they are considered to be nothing more than traitors who deserved what they received.
I also state unequivocally that the Patriots and reformers have some legitimate concerns which need to be addressed. I am sure that everyone, and not only in the House but all Canadians, would agree with that.
However we would be doing a great disservice to the idea that it is possible to have the freedom to debate ideas and achieve things through peaceful means, while at the same time lending
credibility to the notion that the end justifies the means, that it would be all right to raise arms against the state when there is a dispute. By no means do I support the idea that violence is a way to achieve a political end.
Support for the motion would then also be essentially a stamp of approval for the violence which took place during the revolts of 1837 and 1838. There were many deaths during those quasi-revolutions and I would certainly not want to suggest this is the proper way to bring about change.
Let us now take a moment to look at a few of the major players of the Patriote and reform debate, because I feel it is important sometimes to look at the past as if the lessons learned are forgotten. We are doomed to relearn them.
I also believe there are a number of similarities between the Party Patriote and the Bloc which need to be highlighted. In fact Papineau as Speaker of the House had no qualms about pocketing a large government salary while at the same time plotting his revolution. Interestingly enough we have seen much of the same during this 35th session of Parliament.
Papineau was also quite happy to extract harsh levies from the habitants living on seigneuries in the Ottawa Valley and allowing English merchants to do the same.
Papineau, through his charisma, focused habitant grievances against the English and reflected the fury of the francophone professional class who, as they saw it, had been systematically denied government advancement.
He also headed a party which demanded economic development at the local and regional level. Their concerns seem to be much of the same type of rhetoric to which many of us have listened every day in the House.
It is extremely important to illustrate that the lower Canadian revolution failed not only because of the division of the province into French and English but because of the divisions among the French themselves and of the type of men who attempted to make it. To upset a regime requires more than oratory, more than a prophetic fanatic such as Papineau was. It requires the support of the masses. The Patriotes had none of this.
Joseph Howe was primarily responsible for the election of a majority of reformers in Nova Scotia. He managed to bring about political change and bring about responsible government without having to resort to violence. This would be a good lesson for everyone to remember.
There is a more subtle lesson to be learned from all this, that the politicians might think they know what is best in terms of the best interests of society and those who encompass it, but it is ultimately up to the citizens of that society to determine what is best for them. Politicians better start listening to the people and not their own rhetoric.
Another key problem with the motion is the narrowness of its scope. It does not even attempt to recognize that a lot of people have made significant contributions to responsible government in the country other than simply the Patriots and reformers, many of whom are from western Canada. These other individuals would include William Aberhaart, Ernest Manning of the Alberta Social Credit and Agnes Macphail of the Progressives who was the first woman ever elected to the House of Commons. Let us not forget about the contributions of Henry Wisewood of the Alberta wing of the Progressives during the 1920s.
A final problem we see with the motion is the fact that we already celebrate the contributions of Canadians from the past on Canada Day. It is a time when Canadians can look back and reflect on all those individuals who contributed in some form or another in terms of greater representative democratic governments.
In conclusion, I will not impugn any motive or agenda beyond the motion. Yet many people feel that the motion appears to be the legitimization of a rebellion in the dismantling of the state apparatus, the legitimization of the use of force. Therefore I cannot support it.
As I mentioned earlier the reformers, Patriots and all their followers certainly have enriched Canada's history. In opposing the motion I do not want to belittle their contribution in any way. However I am concerned that if we legitimize the actions of those such as the Patriots we will be sending out the wrong message to those Quebecois who are sovereignists.
The PQ seem to be using the battles of 1837 and 1838 to legitimize its struggles against Canadian federalism. A Patriotes in Quebec has become anti-English, anti-federalist. The original Patriots fought for responsible government while the PQ Patriotes seemed to be fighting for the demise of this great country.
It is for these reasons I urge all the members of the House to vote against Motion No. 257.
Gun Control December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, if this government would come clean and explain exactly what registration is all about and what it would accomplish, we would not have these difficulties.
The chief inspector and registrar of firearms in the state of Victoria in Australia recommended that its firearms registration be abolished after three years of trial in the 1980s because it did not control the criminal misuse and irresponsible use of firearms. If that were clearly communicated we would not have this problem.
Does the minister have measurable objectives and what will he do when his registration system fails to reduce violent crimes? Will he abolish it like Australia did, or will he ban even more guns and place more restrictions on law-abiding, responsible gun owners?