Preston Manning

[Points Of Order, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order to seek the consent of the House for a small amendment to the Standing Orders which I think every patriotic member will support.

All of us participated enthusiastically today in the singing of "O Canada". Many of us, if not all of us, would like that to become a regular feature of the House just like the flag.

Eighteen months ago an amendment to this effect was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs but nothing came of it.

I, therefore, seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That Standing Order 30(1) be amended by adding immediately after the word "upon", the following:

On Wednesdays, immediately after Prayers, the Speaker shall cause Canada's national anthem to be played or sung in the House.

That Standing Order 30(2) be amended by deleting all the words after the word "prayers" and substituting the following:

Or on Wednesdays after Canada's national anthem has been sung or played, the business of the House shall commence.

And that the clerk be authorized to make any consequential amendments to the Standing Orders in this regard.

If this was the only piece of business we did on this particular day, I think it would be a good piece of business for Canada.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in order to address many of the concerns on the Canadian agenda there needs to be a realignment of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments.

Canadians want the control of the financing of services, like social services that affect their daily lives, to be in the hands of the level of government which is closest to them. They want the federal government to play a co-ordinating role in the establishment of national standards and a stronger role in the area of international trade on which so many jobs and incomes depend.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In the days following the referendum is the government prepared to fundamentally rethink its relationship with the provinces and realign important federal and provincial responsibilities?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we saw on Friday and again throughout the weekend the power that Canadians can exert when they work together. Tens of thousands of Canadians joined together in a common cause and voiced a common concern. They want a united country and a Canada that is open to change. On that point I think I can speak for every member of this House when I say that we love this country and we will fight for change within a united Canada.

Is the government prepared to invite greater public input and greater public participation, like we saw on the weekend, in developing and implementing a Canadian agenda for change?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the outcome of the Quebec referendum, Canada must go on with important changes in the federal system. The priorities of the Canadian people must be met. The federal debt has risen to over $560 billion. Canadians are staggering under an oppressive tax burden. Our health care system is on the critical list. Canadians are increasingly concerned about their public safety.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is the government willing to make changes, real changes, in these important areas to prepare Canada for the 21st century?

[Quebec Referendum, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the most compelling reason for making changes in the Chamber have been provided by the Quebec referendum debate itself.

Here we have a debate on the future of federalism and the country itself, but where has it occurred? Not directly, not forcefully, not thoroughly on the floor of the Chamber, but everywhere else. While the number one priority of the agenda of the people has been the future of their country, formal debate in the Chamber has focused on manganese as an additive to gasoline and the national horse act. That is why the House must change if the federal government is ever to lead change in the country.

Is the government open to changes in this institution so that the agenda of the people and the country becomes the agenda of the House?

[Quebec Referendum, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister might have said that one of the most important changes the government could initiate the morning after a no vote would be to start real reform of this institution, the House of Commons.

Canadians inside and outside Quebec want their priorities and their concerns to be better represented in the Chamber. That can be achieved through a simple government commitment to freer voting in the House and the exercise of less party discipline by the governing party. Are these the sort of practical and positive changes the government would be willing to vigorously pursue after a no vote on October 30?

[Quebec Referendum, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the Quebec referendum campaign Reformers have made every effort to show Quebecers that Canada is open to real change, change that is not founded in the exaggerated promises of the separatists and change that is not found in symbolic constitutional amendments.

We want a no vote on Monday to mean a mandate for a new Confederation, a decentralization of power and the reform of federal institutions. Reformers and provincial governments are going to work for those changes. The tens of thousands of Canadians who are going to Montreal will work for those changes.

On the eve of the Quebec vote, does the federal government have anything more substantive and constructive to say on its agenda for change, something that would persuade a soft sovereignist or a discontented federalist to vote no on October 30?

[Federalism, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even address the substance of the questions being put to him.

We are not talking about constitutional changes like the Charlottetown accord. We are not talking about changes to relations between the provinces and the federal government. We are talking about some simple changes in federal institutions which the federal government can make unilaterally which would send a signal of things changing to Quebec and other provinces.

I repeat my first question. Is the federal government open to changing federal institutions, Parliament, the Senate and the Bank of Canada, to make them more accountable and representative?

[Federalism, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was not asking about change in the Constitution or in the distribution of powers. I was simply asking about changes in the federal institutions.

In many federations the upper chamber of parliament is the place where the distinctive interests of various parts of the country are represented and reconciled. Accountable and representative upper chambers can serve as a shock absorber for potential unity problems.

Countries like Germany, Australia, Switzerland, and the United States have upper chambers that actually work. Unfortunately our Senate is not even democratically accountable let alone able to represent and reconcile regional and provincial interests.

In order to demonstrate its openness to the reform of federal institutions, is the federal government willing to commit to at least the democratization of the Canadian Senate, another change which can be made without constitutional amendments?

[Federalism, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last night the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said again that federalism cannot change, will not change, et cetera. The great

rebuttal to that is to demonstrate more clearly than heretofore that Canada is going to change for the better through a no vote on October 30.

One of the major ways in which Canada can change without constitutional battles is through simple reforms to our federal institutions. Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Bank of Canada can all be made more representative and accountable to every region and citizen in the country without reopening the Constitution.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is this federal government open to changing these federal institutions-Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Bank of Canada-to make them simply more accountable and representative to every region and citizen in the country?