James Moore

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the NDP. I am not surprised, nor is he that the government has not had particular forethought in this regard.

That is one more argument that we in the Canadian Alliance have to oppose the government financing bill. But the principal opposition I have with the government's campaign finance bill is less so in terms of the incongruity with regard to financing than it is morally wrong to take money from people to be used against them ideologically and politically. I am sure even the member for Windsor West would be appalled to know that some of his money is going to finance some of the ideas that are being espoused by some of the colleagues who are sitting not too far from where he is.

I am personally appalled that money from my pocket, my tax dollars, would be going to finance a political party, particularly the Bloc Quebecois, that has set forward a single ideology, whose members do not agree on taxes or on health care, they do not agree on anything, except they believe in destroying Canada. I do not like the fact that the government is forcing me to finance those destructive ideas.

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the reason I support this motion while at the same time I oppose proportional representation personally is that, and I suppose this is the difference between being a Canadian Alliance member of Parliament and a Liberal member of Parliament, I entrust Canadians to make some of these decisions. I believe in open dialogue and open conversation.

I do agree frankly with the member's criticisms of proportional representation, particularly as seen in Germany and especially as seen in Italy. As it has been organized in Italy, I think it has caused incredible political problems and organizational problems in terms of governing.

I do agree, as I said in my speech, that when one is setting up a democratic system and setting up a mechanism by which people are electing their government, there is a list of virtues. Among those virtues are voter participation, stability, intellectual identity and so on.

In my view, while it is immensely important, voter participation does not override the need for stability, particularly in the example which the hon. member gave in the case of Germany of smaller political parties, perhaps overly ideological parties, perhaps single issue political parties or as could be the case in Canada, political parties identified by language or by aggressive regional anxieties.

If that were to take place, we would have to have a coalition government, which is almost always the case in a proportional situation. Then we really could have a situation where rather than having high voter participation, people think there is high voter participation and therefore we have the rule of the majority because more people are voting, but the reality is we have more political parties that represent a segmented view of the public.

As a consequence, what would happen is we would actually in an inverse way have a tyranny of the minority. We would have broad political parties, a wide number of political parties in a coalition government but no single political party would have a large enough constituency to be able to speak for the majority.

In an inverse way, and a kind of perverted way, while we would have an elevated number of people participating in a campaign, because we would have more political parties without which a coalition could not survive, we could have a tyranny of the minority through smaller political parties that are driven by regional anxieties, by language, by religion and by all kinds of other things. That is why I am personally opposed to proportional representation particularly as a stand-alone reform.

At the same time, coming back to answer the specific question, the reason I will be voting in favour of the motion is I believe that Canadians are intellectual beings who are fully prepared for the discussion and prepared for the dialogue. I am prepared to put forward my view of proportional representation and a wholesale reform of our electoral system, Senate reform, reform of how we choose the Governor General, holding judges accountable and so on. I am prepared to have that debate. I am not afraid of giving more power, money, control and influence to Canadians, but then again, I am not a Liberal.

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the NDP motion by my friend from Regina--Qu'Appelle, which reads:

That this House call upon the government to hold a referendum within one year to determine whether Canadians wish to replace the current electoral system with a system of proportional representation and, if so, to appoint a commission to consult Canadians on the preferred model of proportional representation and the process of implementation, with an implementation date no later than July 1, 2006.

I am not a supporter of proportional representation as the best electoral reform for Canada, but I will be voting in favour of this motion because I think it is far overdue for Canadians to have a say in the undemocratic nature of our institutions and processes.

There are several variations of proportional representation. Under a pure PR system, every party with one per cent or more of the vote elects the appropriate number of MPs from a political party's list. This system, and most variations of it, becomes confused in a federation like Canada. Does the list simply mean a pool from which the leaders choose, or must there be a list from each of the provinces so that Parliament, while made up of people selected from a party list, will also represent the provinces in proportion to their population?

Another key question is, how would these lists be compiled? Would there be conventions and if so, would they be province by province, perhaps by patronage or lineage? Some systems, recognizing that there must be regional representation or constituencies, have a mixed system in which half the MPs are elected off a list, the others by the first past the post method that is currently used in Canadian elections. New Zealand and Germany are examples of this compromise.

I have a great deal of respect for proportional representation or some variation of it as an alternative to the status quo, but I do not believe that simply changing our current first past the post system of electing MPs to PR, proportional representation, would be a healthy or wise reform. In fact, I believe particularly that as a stand-alone reform it would lead to unhealthy and unintended consequences for Canada.

First, as with all PR systems, Canada could quickly devolve into constant minority governments, rendering Canada ungovernable absent potentially exotic coalitions of rivalling single issue parties, language based parties, or aggressively regional parties that would be destructive of the development of a national vision.

Second, by simply reforming the mechanism of electing members of the House of Commons and ignoring the need for Senate reform, accountability of judicial appointments, accountability in the election of the Governor General, and a host of other problems, we would be prescribing a placebo for Canada's ills rather than engaging in a more comprehensive and thoughtful process of democratic reforms broadly.

The two most effective critiques of our current first past the post system is that one, it elects MPs who may not be representative of the majority of their constituents, and two, it can therefore produce governments that are not themselves reflective of the wishes of the country. This second critique is of particular concern because of the nature of the concentration of power in the hands of a majority government and the possibility of an increasing disconnect between the governed and the government.

This is fueled by an important consequence of questions that must be considered by political scientists. The first question asked is, what is the worst form that government can take? The answer is tyranny. To what form of tyranny are democracies prey? The tyranny of the majority. To that end, mature democracies that understand this danger inherent in democratic systems have developed mechanisms to check power, mechanisms such as bicameralism in Germany and the United States, a dual executive such as in France, a separate elected executive such as in the United States, and internal governing mechanisms that check majorities from imposing irrational, ill-conceived or incongruent ideas on a hostile or unconsenting public.

There is no perfect electoral system for all countries. There are only perfect ideals to which systems can aspire to embrace. Those ideals include, but are not limited to, fair representation, voter participation, national unity, intellectual identity and civic participation. While I cannot address each of these elements in the time that I have, I can say with certainty that proportional representation, as a stand-alone reform as is proposed by this motion, would not move Canada forward democratically but would move us backward.

Proportional representation might make sense if we had an elected Senate to balance the needs of regions in our national discourse. Proportional representation might make sense if we had some mechanism to ensure that citizens would still have a say in who their specific representatives would be rather than having elites thrust upon them via party lists, where candidates are placed by patronage and plucked from by sequence.

I believe in free elections for the Senate, free votes for the House, open nomination contests in parties, empowering Canadians with ballot initiatives, curbing the power of cabinet to stifle free speech and free votes. I believe in separating the executive from the legislative branch to allow Canadians to democratically choose their head of state in a stand-alone vote.

Canada is a profoundly undemocratic country with archaic institutions, an arrogant and unaccountable Governor General, a Senate staffed with allies of political elites, leadership campaigns without the free sale of memberships, and new campaign finance rules that force Canadians to finance ideas to which they do not subscribe through the direct financing of political parties with taxpayers' dollars.

We need a wholesale reform of our democratic system in Canada. Proportional representation is one of many possible reforms. I support the motion as a means of starting a broader discussion to renew Canadian democracy and ensure Canadians have a say in the governance of this great country. However, were this referendum ever to come about, I would vote against proportional representation and in favour of a broader dialogue for broader reforms.

Madam Speaker, I am out of time as I would like to divide my time with the member for Prince George--Peace River, but I am prepared to entertain any questions.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this company is under RCMP investigation. It is the job of the minister, not advisory boards, to avoid conflicts of interest.

The Techlink grant was green-lit despite Liberal connections, criminal investigations and patronage. Why has the Liberal government learned nothing from all its scandals and why does it keep giving corporate welfare to a company under criminal investigation for influence peddling?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for ACAO told the House that a $2.7 million grant to Liberal-connected Techlink had been vetted by an advisory board. Yes, but that is part of the problem because two members of ACOA's advisory board are former Liberal members of Parliament and a third one is a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister.

Could the minister explain why this company, above all others in Nova Scotia, should receive millions of taxpayer dollars with its criminal allegations and its clear corrupting ties to the Liberal Party?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister failed to add on to this company's resumé is that it also has strong ties to the Liberal Party through one of the Prime Minister's golfing chums, Mr. Louis Friedman.

In addition, Techlink has been involved in a three year RCMP investigation for influence peddling in Nova Scotia. Now comes the news that Techlink International has received a $2.7 million grant.

Can the Minister of Industry explain why a company, above all others in Nova Scotia, should receive multiple grants from ACOA with its criminal allegation and clear ties to the Liberal Party?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic innovation fund of ACOA has released a new list of projects. Leading the list is Techlink International Entertainment Limited. This is a company that makes video lottery terminals for gambling in the gaming industry.

I wonder if the minister responsible for ACOA can explain why a company under criminal investigation for influence peddling is receiving taxpayers' money, and why the government cannot be just a little bit more prudent with the dispensation of taxpayers' dollars?

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, September 23rd, 2003]

Those are the cries of a party in fear of being snowed under in the coming election.

Section 5 of the social union agreement, entitled “New Canada-wide initiatives supported by transfers to Provinces and Territories”, states:

With respect to any new Canada-wide initiatives in health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services that are funded through intergovernmental transfers--

That means from one level of government to the other. It goes on to state:

--whether block funded or cost-shared, the Government of Canada will:

Work collaboratively with all provincial and territorial governments to identify Canada-wide priorities and objectives

Not introduce such new initiatives without the agreement of a majority of provincial governments

Each provincial and territorial government will determine the detailed program design and mix best suited to its own needs and circumstances to meet the agreed objectives.

This is the important paragraph:

A provincial/territorial government which, because of its existing programming, does not require the total transfer to fulfill the agreed objectives would be able to reinvest any funds not required for those objectives in the same or a related priority area.

I will repeat the last part of that paragraph.

A provincial/territorial government which, because of its existing programming, does not require the total transfer to fulfill the agreed objectives would be able to reinvest any funds not required for those objectives in the same or a related priority area.

This is a paragraph of great importance to us. I am no lawyer, but I am told that this provision specifically addresses the right to opt out with full financial compensation.

The social union framework agreement contains the right of provinces to opt out with full compensation. The federal government has expressed its willingness to respect this clause in all dealings with Quebec, even though Quebec did not in fact sign the agreement. We must therefore conclude that Quebec already has the opt out right that Motion No. 394 seeks.

It seems to me then that Quebec already has the right to opt out that the hon. member for Trois-Rivières wants. This pleases us in the Canadian Alliance, because we are fully in agreement with this type of policy andr the division in our federalist system.

At the same time, however, Quebec is not a de facto nation, and nothing can be done here to change that reality.

Consequently, neither I nor my Canadian Alliance colleagues can support Motion No.394.

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, September 23rd, 2003]

I am pleased to speak today in this important debate on Motion No. 394 brought forward by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. The motion asks:

That the House acknowledge that Quebec constitutes a nation, and accordingly, as it is not a signatory to the social union framework agreement of 1999, the said nation of Quebec has the right to opt out of any federal initiative encroaching upon Quebec jurisdictions, with full financial compensation.

I wish to speak against this motion.

Motion No. 394 has two purposes. It seeks to have Quebec recognized as a “nation” and to entrench a right for Quebec to opt out of any federal initiative, with full financial compensation.

With regard to the first goal, we believe that the Province of Quebec is not a nation in the legal sense of the word. Black's Law Dictionary defines a “nation” as:

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.

The Larousse dictionary defines the term “nation” as follows:

Large human community, most frequently occupying the same territory and having a certain degree of historical, linguistic, cultural and economic unity.

The flag of the city of Montreal features the emblems from the city's coat of arms first adopted in 1833. The emblems represent the city's ethnic heritage as being from France, England, Ireland and Scotland.

Few modern observers of the city of Montreal would find that its residents speak a common single language, use the same customs or possess a pure straight line historic continuity. Indeed, the Quebec government's own provincial website states in English, French and Spanish:

Québec's openness expresses a wish to go beyond exclusive reference to cultural origin and simple coexistence of diverse peoples. Québec has adopted a wider vision, one of civic relations. The individual successively or simultaneously integrates various identities, i.e. occupational, familial, ethnic and so on.

This statement is an acceptance of the fact that Montreal, the largest city in the province of Quebec, is one of the most diverse cities on Earth, and its residents, for the most part, do not consider themselves members of any singular nation but rather citizens of Canada.

Thus, being a nation is a legal matter; if Quebec is not a nation in fact and if most residents of Quebec do not consider themselves to be members of any singular nation, there is nothing we can do here that will change that reality.

With regard to the second objective of Motion No. 394, it is my understanding that, under the terms of the social union framework agreement, Quebec has the right to opt out of any federal initiative with full financial compensation. The right exists already.

I specifically looked into this point because it is virtually identical to the Canadian Alliance policy.

Article 74 of my party's policy declaration reads:

We believe that the Government of Canada must respect the vision and intent of the original Confederation agreements regarding the division of power and responsibility inherent in Canadian federalism as enshrined in our Constitution. We are committed to ending any misuse of the federal spending power that undermines that intent. We will seek appropriate provincial consent for financing any new program in a field of provincial jurisdiction, and provide full compensation for provinces choosing not to participate.

We fully support this principle but I believe the social union agreement already gives this right to Quebec even though Quebec did not sign the social union agreement. The website for the Canadian Centre for Management Development contains the following statement:

The Social Union Framework Agreement was signed on February 4, 1999, by the federal government, nine provincial governments, and the two territorial governments. Although Quebec and Nunavut are not signatory to the Agreement, the federal government has indicated that it will adhere to the provisions of the Agreement when dealing with all provincial and territorial governments, including Quebec and Nunavut.

It is therefore helpful to read those provisions to ensure that Quebec's right to opt out is in fact respected.

The right of a province to opt out is found in the fifth paragraph of the social union framework agreement.

The right to opt out is mentioned in section 5 of the social union framework agreement.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years a new kind of violence against women has reared its ugly head at parties, on campuses and in nightclubs. Date rape drugs have become a violent weapon used to victimize women in cowardly assaults. It is long overdue for the government to act.

Starting today, and over the next two weeks, 48 Canadian Alliance campus clubs across Canada are involved in a campaign to raise awareness of date rape drugs and to encourage the government to classify them as a weapon in the Criminal Code.

From the University of Victoria, to York University, to Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, and all points in between, the Canadian Alliance is pushing the need to protect women and students from the dangers of date rape drugs and to encourage the Liberal government to act to protect women from this ugly, and sometimes deadly assault.

Awareness is the first line of defence for young people targeted with this cowardly assault. Second is the strong arm of the law. Date rape drugs should not be treated the same way in the Criminal Code as heroin or cocaine because they are used to victimize other people involuntarily. Young Canadians deserve laws to protect them from sexual assault.

It is time for the Liberal government to step up and fight the cowardly use of these drugs and the sexual assault of women.