Don Boudria

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to respond to some of the things that I have been hearing over recent minutes and hours when I see the opposition delaying this bill today.

There is some irony here. People are saying in this House: "This bill is going to delay the process by 24 months. We are against delay", but they are delaying the bill, ensuring that the 24 months will happen later had they not delayed the bill to start with. Maybe that needs to be said.

What about the fact that the Reform Party wanted this delay to be 24 months when the government initially asked for 18 months? Whose fault is that? Could it be that there is a little duplicity going on, that we are not hearing the facts exactly as they are?

We heard in the speech today that the electors of the hon. member's province are going to be unhappy if the redistribution as presently planned does not take place. Mr. Speaker, I am sure with your being a fond reader of the Globe and Mail you will know of the story of some weeks ago which outlined perfectly well how B.C. and Ontario were being short-changed by the redistribution that is going to take place now unless we amend it, that true rep by pop does not exist in Canada at the present time, that it should be restored, that the whole debate about that needs to take place and the process we have now has been there for 30 or 40 years unamended. What about the 1986 amendment that was done by the Conservative government? That amendment made it such that no province should lose seats even if it loses population.

Which provinces are the victims of that? B.C. and Ontario are, and that is the process that the member wants us to proceed with. Then he says to top it all off that we need to elect our senators. This is coming from a bunch of people who voted against the Charlottetown accord and who campaigned against it.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I fail to see the logic in the hon. member telling us that the 24 month suspension is unacceptable, when in fact he himself, or at least his party, requested it. We proposed a period of 18 months, and now he wants to reduce this to 12. Well, what is it going to be? Make up your mind. What do you want? Twelve, eighteen or twenty-four months? Convene a caucus meeting, discuss the dress code?

Discuss suits. Do something. Discuss it privately and then come back to the House and make up your mind whether it is 12, 18 or 24 that members want I say to my colleagues across the way. We need to review this whole system of redistribution. At second reading the Bloc members across the way voted in favour of the bill if I remember correctly.

Of course they are filibustering a little bit today, but perhaps that will change over the next few minutes or at least we are hoping. If we are serious about not wanting any more delay let the bill proceed so that we can go ahead with this review. If we are serious about not having unnecessary delay, I say to the Reform Party that it cannot have it both ways. It cannot ask to lengthen the delay and say that it is against the delay after it did just that. I say that to the members across the way.

Members must realize that the redistribution as presently planned in the law is most unfair to British Columbia and Ontario according to all independent observers. Rep by pop exists the least in those two provinces because of the structure there now and in particular as a result of the 1976 amendment proposed with the previous government that made it such that no province lost seats.

I call upon my colleagues, if they are serious, forthright and honest about wanting no delay, to proceed with the bill. Let us get the process started. Let us do things and let us do them quickly so that we can have good and proper redistribution to give fair representation to all Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that was a question or a litany. I thought it would never end.

The hon. member asks us why we are in favour of consultations with regard to family trusts. Does he not remember that it was his own colleague, the opposition finance critic, who called for consultations? You see, we are so receptive that we are even willing to take advice- not too often, of course-from a member opposite.

The hon. member questions us about the budget, claiming that the general public does not like it. I will read you a quote: "The federal Finance Minister's first budget is modest but true to what the Liberal Party told Canadians during the last election campaign. It will not please those who, like the Reform Party, want to slash spending across the board. But, for once, it spares the vast majority of taxpayers who already shoulder a heavy burden." That quote is from Le Devoir .

Would you like to hear another one, Mr. Speaker? Here is what the Vancouver Sun had to say: ``Mr. Martin kept his word. He gave us a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that will reduce the deficit a little without compromising a fragile recovery.'' Canadians across the country are saying unanimously that it is a good budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.

I want to start by congratulating the Minister of Finance for having brought forward such a balanced budget for our country. Mr. Speaker, lest you think that I am partisan when I make these remarks, which is probably the furthest thing from your mind at this point, let me tell you what others have said about the budget.

John Reid of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association says that the budget sends a good message for the economy and our rapidly changing job structure. Is that not great?

Ted Bryk, president of the Canadian Home Builders Association-an appropriate name for a job like that-said: "I think it is fantastic. I see it as a really positive move that will encourage young buyers into the housing market". This is in reference to the extension of the RRSP Home Buyers Program.

"It is a huge incentive for small business to create business. You take a tax off jobs, you get more jobs". This is in reference to the cut in UI premiums by John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Even bankers have said that this is in bankers' language a good budget. Mike Chandler of the Royal Bank says that the market seems to have given the budget a passing to good grade. Considering bankers' compliments as they are, I consider this to be pretty complimentary.

So, as you noted, Canadians agree that this budget is good for the future of our country. It is not only commentators who made comments on this; we have already seen the effects of this budget, and also the effects of having a government that we can trust, and we see it in the reduction of the unemployment rate since the Liberal government took office.

What has this meant? It has meant that in March the unemployment rate had fallen to 10.6 per cent. Of course that is still way too high but we have only just begun. We have reduced it from 11.1 per cent in February and the month of February had a huge increase in the number of jobs. I say to all hon. members that this is good news for Canada.

So, the infrastructure program is not even implemented yet we are receiving bids and we award contracts.

The other day, I heard the Minister of Finance tell us that, at first, we thought that the infrastructure program would create 60,000 jobs. Well, we were wrong. It will create 90,000 jobs, according to the most recent estimates. And it is not even in place yet.

So, you see, this government is here to serve the Canadian people and to serve them well. We are here, of course, to make sure that Canada will prosper. It is useless to preach despair, as some of our colleagues opposite do, or as those who like to say that we should cut everything and that perhaps the economy will work by itself. No. The government is here to govern. It is here, of course, to have its say for the good of the Canadian people and for the good of our economy.

As a father of two adolescents, I cannot wait for the economy to improve. I have a son of 22 years who is just completing his fourth year of university this year. I want him to be able to have a job, yes, but a good job even more so. I say that we must move now to do these things. Every day we wait to pass Bill C-17 is costly.

For instance, I say this to my colleagues from the Reform Party, if the bill is not passed by June 16 in all stages, the Senate, royal assent and so on, it would cost $34 million more pursuant to the Western Grain Transportation Act. If changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are not made by the first week of July, a one month delay would cost $175 million more. The people opposite say they are in favour of saving money. This would rise to $350 million after three months. That being said, we have waited long enough. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the purposes of considering the second reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.

And fewer than 15 members having risen:

[The Economy, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it being the last day before the Easter break, it is time for a report card on the government.

House sales are up 14.3 per cent over the same period last year. Employment is up 66 per cent February over January. The composite leading index is up .8 per cent for one month. Car and truck sales are up 12 per cent over the same period last year. Merchandise exports are up 13.1 per cent over the same period last year. Inflation is only .2 per cent.

Finally let me quote the Governor of the Bank of Canada who said that the signs show that strong foundations are being laid for a sustainable expansion to our economy.

This government deserves an A-plus.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add very briefly a few points to what has been raised by my colleague the parliamentary secretary.

The member across the way invoked the fact, and I believe I am quoting him accurately, when he said: "We may be in favour of some articles and against others". That is precisely why committees of Parliament exist. Clauses can be deleted from the bill at committee.

There is a second remedy as well as was quoted by my colleague the parliamentary secretary for those members who do not sit on a particular committee. Of course that is the report stage of the bill where motions can be introduced to delete sections of the bill.

Finally, the member opposite indicated something to the effect that the bill was disjointed or did not fit the criteria of omnibus bills. He indicated that the subjects were diverse.

If that argument stands then surely it should have been made on the budget itself. After all this is a bill to implement the budget. If the bill has that disjointed characteristic that was ascribed to it by the member opposite, surely the argument would have also stood for the ways and means motion that was debated in the House and the budget itself.

If that was not true or if it was not invoked at those stages, and it has not been invoked since the bill in question was introduced on March 16, may I suggest that the argument has no more value today.

Perhaps I could add one last point. The Speaker ruled in the last Parliament that a bill which was far more comprehensive than this one, this bill only having some 20 pages, was not deemed to be offensive and against rule 634 of Beauchesne. That bill was at least 10 times the size of the one that we have now. If a bill 10 times the size was not deemed to be so omnibus that it offended this House, surely a bill one tenth the size of the previous one would not be any more offensive.

[Party Fundraising, March 18th, 1994]

I would say the same about my colleagues opposite and I will say that the old ways of doing things are gone. Canadians got rid of all but two of those responsible for the situation we were in.

I would like to conclude by saying that I do not intend to support this motion. However, I congratulate the hon. member for Richelieu because I know that he meant well. But I want to warn all members of the House against making absurd accusations against people who want to contribute to the democratic process.

[Party Fundraising, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you have said it yourself, this is not a point of order. This is not even a good point, as the hon. member should know.

The point I want to make is that rules like this one, which can be so easily violated that it becomes absurd in a way, should never come into force.

I believe that it is more up to members of this House to stop saying that all those who contribute to a political system expect something in return, as was pointed out by the member from the Reform Party. However, I commend the member for Richelieu for putting the issue to the House. I know his intentions are honourable. He moved this motion because he too wants public standards of behaviour to be high.

Our party and our government made a commitment in this regard and, in the last few months, we noticed that Canadians realize that the government is there to serve them and not to serve its own interests.

[Party Fundraising, March 18th, 1994]

We know that others did not agree with the proposition, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands just mentioned so appropriately and eloquently.

There is also the whole issue of the application of the charter to this kind of limitation.

Finally, I want to draw to the attention of this House how the application of such a rule as the member for Richelieu is advocating would be implemented.

We are aware that similar rules exist in some jurisdictions, for example at the provincial level in Ontario, where I used to be an MPP, as most of you know. That legislature puts a cap on contributions. However, if an individual wants to give more than the limit which, I believe, is set at $1,150 per year in Ontario, that person simply gives the extra money to his or her spouse or son, so as to circumvent the rule-

[Party Fundraising, March 18th, 1994]

Those comments on the part of the member should be withdrawn. People contribute toward the process because they want good government. People who contributed to the member's campaign felt that he would do a good job and I do not believe that his constituents had a self-interest in contributing or helping him to get elected. They wanted good government just like the people who contributed to getting me or you elected, Mr. Speaker. The same thing applies. They do not deserve to be insulted because they took their holidays to work on an election campaign or took a couple of days from their pay cheques to contribute or because they took 15 minutes of what they would have spent on their coffee breaks to contribute.

I go back to the rest of the issue at hand, the motion by the member for Richelieu.

The hon. member knows that the Lortie commission did in fact recommend that no restriction be put on contributions. Of course, there should always be restrictions on contributions from foreign sources, to ensure that the Canadian system remains accountable to Canadians. I agree with that.

[Party Fundraising, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a couple of minutes to tell this House how I raised money during my election campaign or otherwise. There is an annual fund raiser in my constituency at which people contribute $100. Last year 400 people attended the event. Granted, it was an election year. Normally approximately 300 or 325 people show up for this event. Many Liberal MPs attend the function in question as well. I know people who have attended the event who make $15,000 a year. I also have three other events a year to which people come and pay $5 for a spaghetti dinner.

Then I hear the member from the Reform Party who just spoke making these kinds of broad accusations that everyone who contributed toward the political process is some sort of a sleazebag.