House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 13 with the following:
"list contains the surname, given names,"
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 13 with the following:
"his or her surname, given names,"
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 12 with the following:
"updating the surname, given names,"
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-63, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 8 with the following:
"name, given names and date of birth if the"
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:
"given names, civic address and mailing"
Canada Elections Act November 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-63, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 1 with the following:
"surname, given names, civic address"
Judges Act November 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, just for further clarification, I will be voting yes on this motion.
Canada Labour Code November 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as opposing the motion.
Quebec Contingency Act (Referendum Conditions) October 30th, 1996
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to establish the terms and conditions that must apply to a referendum relating to the separation of Quebec from Canada before it may be recognized as a proper expression of the will of the people of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this bill outlines a process for dealing with any future referendum on the issue of Quebec sovereignty. There are three main features of this bill. First, it allows the Government of Canada to determine whether a referendum question in Quebec is clear and unambiguous. If it is not, the Government of Canada is required to undertake a number of actions, including the holding of a parallel referendum in Quebec which asks a clear question on separation from Canada.
Second, in the event of a yes vote, the bill authorizes the negotiation of separation subject to consultation with the provinces. Any final settlement would be subject to approval in a national referendum.
Finally, the bill affirms that a unilateral declaration of independence is ineffective with respect to Canadian law and does not affect the functioning of the Canadian Parliament, government or courts with respect to Quebec.
These proposals avoid the mistakes of the past, ensure a respect for our legal order and ensure that all Canadians, including Quebecers, have a role in shaping their future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
National Unity October 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, one year ago we came within a whisker of a yes vote in the Quebec referendum. Mr. Parizeau was ready with his plans but the federal government had no plan for a yes vote and, for that matter, no plan for a no vote.
What has happened since? Canadians overwhelmingly want to preserve this as a country of equals in a federal system. Yet the government persists in its concept of distinct society, appealing to the same kind of special status sentiment as Quebec separatists do. Little if any progress has been made on the reform of federal institutions or decentralization to the provinces or respect for their jurisdictions.
The federal government's plan B is also more words than action. It has referred the question of unilateral independence to the Supreme Court but has not developed plans of its own for the next referendum. It still has no contingency legislation to avoid the mistakes and ambiguities of the past.
We must all stand on guard and that must mean more than just standing still.
Canada Elections Act October 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I rise very briefly to address Bill C-307. I consider this an important proposal, an important piece of legislation that apparently has the support of the government and all parties. In light of this unanimity, as a private member I thought it was more important than ever to put on the record my reservations about this bill.
This bill is to address, as I understand it from the member who proposed it, two problems. One problem is people finding out in western Canada the results of elections in eastern Canada before the polls have closed. In other words, knowing what the election results are, which could influence the vote. The second is addressing the problem of western alienation. On the first count, there are some valid concerns. That is the reason the House is looking at this legislation.
For example, in the last election it would be pretty easy to guess that had more westerners known the results from Quebec, it might well have influenced their vote in terms of the choosing of the official opposition. No doubt, with modern computer technology, these results will become more and more known before the polls are closed in western Canada. That is a valid concern.
However, I want to express my own objections and, more than objections, it is an insult to suggest that this is a serious attempt to address western alienation. Westerners often find out that Parliament has already been elected before the polls close in their riding. Our system is structured such that governments can be elected without the support of anybody in western Canada, and can rule this country without any input from westerners no matter what order the votes are counted in.
The cry of government members who are in trouble in the west is that the whole problem is the counting of votes. Let me use a specific reference. In the 1980 federal election, shortly after I relocated to western Canada, the federal Liberal Party got itself elected in eastern Canada by running on a platform of expropriation of western resources. That is how it got elected.
It got elected by getting a majority of the seats in Ontario and Quebec with virtually no representation whatsoever in western Canada. It then proceeded to govern the country, making massive changes to western industry and the resource base without any
input whatsoever from western Canada. It did that on the basis of how our system of government operates. If the votes had been counted first in the west and later in the east, or at the same time, it would have made no difference whatsoever to that.
It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the counting of the ballots was the problem in that instance. It was a problem of the system of government and the actual policies pursued by the federal government vis-à-vis western Canada.
My colleague from North Vancouver has outlined in great detail and very confidently the deficiencies of this proposal as well as the deficiencies of alternatives. I congratulate him for that.
I want to add, however, one additional concern I have once again as a westerner about this proposal. The staggered hours as modified by the chief electoral officer means that the voting polls would close very early in the evening in western Canada.
Those of us who have worked in many elections know that the evening hours are the heaviest voting hours anywhere in the country. What this proposal does which worries me the most is restrict the access of westerners to the polls far more than it does other Canadians because it impacts the hours when they are most likely to vote. This is a serious concern. I hope the committee will look at the reservations of the member for North Vancouver and consider some of the options available.
That is all I want to say. I want to make it very clear in this atmosphere of unanimity that there are serious reservations about this bill. I want them on the record.