James Moore

[Democratic Representation, November 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election we promised to give British Columbia more seats, its fair share of seats, in the House of Commons. We have kept our promise and tabled legislation to give B.C. seven more seats in Parliament.

Equal representation is good for Canada. Premier Campbell said it best, “This is a non-partisan measure that strengthens our democracy. This legislation recognizes B.C.'s growing population and the increasingly important role of the west in the federation's future”.

The Liberals are opposing this bill. This is not surprising. The Liberals voted against the gateway funding. They voted against B.C.'s forest industry by opposing the softwood lumber agreement. They voted against dredging on the Fraser River and a number of other B.C. issues.

By opposing British Columbia's fair share of seats in Parliament, the Liberal MPs from British Columbia are ignoring their responsibility to defend the province's future and its equal say in Canada's future.

Shame on them for ignoring their constituents. Shame on them for turning their backs on the future of British Columbia.

[November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have egg on my face.

Let me just finish by saying that the bottom line is the Conservative Party obeyed all the campaign finance laws in this country in the past. We do so today. We will do so in the future.

My colleague from Notre-Dame-De-Grâce--Lachine can be the continuing scandal monger of the Liberal Party, but she loses credibility every day in the House of Commons when she gets up and says slanderous nonsensical things, smearing people without evidence and without information. Her constituents deserve better than that kind of nonsense. It is a waste of the House's time.

[November 20th, 2007]

The city of Montreal, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine.

She should know very well that the charges she has made and what she alleges the Conservative Party did in this case was improper are, in fact, utterly baseless.

I think that her constituents believe that their member of Parliament should be focused on issues that are of concern to them rather than getting up in the House of Commons day in and day out and raising phantom issues. All she has done since she has been in opposition is raise phantom issues, phantom concerns that are simply non-existent. She tries to smear people's names and reputations, which she just did here as she did in her question a few weeks ago.

The member's constituents deserve better than a member of Parliament who just gets up and persistently smears people's names, raises innuendo, and alleges scandals that do not exist. Her constituents want a member of Parliament who will stand up and deliver for them. If she is not prepared to do it, then in the next campaign they will find someone who will.

[November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member can give it a rest because the Liberals have been going on about this for a number of weeks in the House. In fact, the allegations that the Liberals have raised a number of times in the House of Commons are baseless.

What the member alleges that the Conservative Party did in the instance of the last election campaign is not an uncommon practice. In fact, her own party, the Liberal Party, has engaged in this itself. No political party in the House is going to take any lessons from the Liberals when it comes to appropriate campaign finance reform.

We know that a principal reason the Liberals are sitting on that side of the House of Commons is the extremely long list of corrupt behaviour by the Liberal Party in the past. The member was a contemporary and I believe her riding abuts the former riding of Alfonso Gagliano. Perhaps in the one minute that my colleague has to respond she could tell us--

[Paillé Report, November 19th, 2007]

Soon, Mr. Speaker.

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure), November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what our government has endeavoured to do is put forward non-constitutional but effective reforms regarding the Senate, for example, consultation with the provinces and term limits. We want to limit the Senate term from a maximum of 45 years to 8 years, as this bill proposes to do.

My colleague has said, and I respect my colleague as a good friend, and a number of Liberals have persistently said over the years, they are in favour Senate reform. The Prime Minister joked in the last election campaign that the previous leader of the Liberal Party was not in favour of piecemeal Senate reform and was not prepared to engage in comprehensive Senate reform, but other than that he was all in favour of Senate reform. It has to be one or the other.

The Liberal Party, as my colleague must know, historically supported Meech Lake and Charlottetown, both of which had an elected Senate as part of their mandate.

It has opposed all of our efforts for electing senators. In the province of Alberta, where the new elected senator Bert Brown was just appointed, the Liberals in the province of Alberta and the federal Liberals opposed that Senate election. They did not want to get involved in that process.

Frankly, I am at a loss to understand exactly what the Liberals have in mind in terms of Senate reform. I think if we ask Canadians, they would vote 95 to 5 in favour of the idea of limiting Senate terms from 45 years to 8 years. It seems like a layup. However, I am still at a loss to find out exactly what the position is of the Liberal Party with regard to Senate reform.

In February of next year, my province of British Columbia, the third largest province of Canada, the fastest-growing province, is going to have three Senate vacancies. Half of our Senate delegation will be vacant. I am personally encouraging Premier Campbell to support the idea of electing senators in the province of British Columbia.

What is the Liberal position? Do the Liberals continue to oppose the idea that Alberta should have elected Bert Brown, having an elected senator appointed to the Senate?

When British Columbia has half of our Senate delegation vacated in February of next year, is it the Liberal position that the province of British Columbia should not have Senate elections in order to fill those seats?

Specifically, what is the Liberal position on Senate reform?

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure), November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this debate today. I appreciate the passion from my colleague from Hamilton and from the NDP on this subject.

I really do disagree with the NDP's position on this issue. I want to talk a bit about some of the merits of Senate elections and the demerits of the NDP position.

I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works. As members know, the Minister of Public Works is a senator. One of the benefits of the current system is seen when we have a federal election. In the last federal election, the Conservative Party did not get a member of Parliament elected from downtown Montreal. We have the view that the second largest city in Canada should have somebody sitting at the cabinet table to defend the issues relating to the city of Montreal. We appointed Mr. Fortier as a cabinet minister and Minister of Public Works.

We also decided that there should be a measure of democratic accountability, so he was appointed as well to the Senate, because the Senate has a question period and has an access so that opposition parties can ask him questions directly about his activities as Minister of Public Works.

I suspect the NDP may well condemn what we did in this regard, but my colleague should know that when the NDP was in government in British Columbia, it did the exact same thing. When the NDP was in power, it appointed as minister of aboriginal affairs an individual who had not been elected. The NDP did so because at the time we were just coming out of a debate over the Nisga'a agreement in British Columbia and that party wanted to have an aboriginal cabinet minister at the cabinet table.

We believe that at this time in Canada's history all regions of Canada should be represented at the cabinet table. We also want to make sure that all the diverse regions of Quebec are represented, including Canada's second largest city. This is an important thing. This is a practice that has been done before.

We want to make sure that regions of this country are represented. There are 50 separatists here in the House of Commons who want to rip Quebec from the future of this country and we want to make sure that the province is well respected and well represented at the cabinet table. We have done that. Minister Fortier will be putting himself forward to be a member of the House for the riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges in the next election campaign.

I have a question for my colleague. It has not been uncommon for provincial premiers historically to be in favour of abolishing the Senate, because they all have unicameral legislatures so it makes sense for them to say that this should be transitioned federally. The problem, of course, is that historically it is a two party system in most provincial election campaigns so there are majority governments and of course it makes sense to get rid of an upper chamber so there is unfettered support.

However, in our system it does not serve our best interests. I believe that my colleague's constituents in Hamilton would not support the NDP position of abolishing the Senate, given that if it is abolished, the cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver alone, those three cities, would have an absolute majority of seats in the House. The regions, the suburban areas, the rural areas and the northern areas in this country would not have the same effective voice that they do now with a balanced system where we have provincial representation and a fair voice in the House of Commons.

There are reasons for the status quo. There are ways to improve it, but I think the NDP approach is thoroughly backward.

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure), November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order as my colleague from Prince George, then perhaps the Speaker could clarify. Is there quorum in the House of Commons if no Liberals are present?

And the count having been taken:

[Electoral Representation, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not understand. The bill protects Quebec's interests. The bill will protect Quebec's 75 seats in this House. The Bloc Québécois is making a lot of noise, but it is our Conservative government—the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and our new colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean—that is protecting the interests of all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

[Electoral Representation, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the document my Bloc Québécois colleague mentioned, the bill that our Conservative government will introduce today, will protect every one of Quebec's 75 seats in this House.

I hope that my Bloc Québécois colleague will not oppose our plan to protect Quebec's seats and its interests in this House.