Don Boudria

[supply, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. member opposite. I want to congratulate him on his speech. Nevertheless, we should not, either inadvertently or intentionally, tarnish all CIDA projects.

I am one of those who had the privilege, during my many years as a member of Parliament, to visit a number of projects in developing countries.

I remember a project in Niger, Africa, where I went to see that a $1,500 grant from the Canadian government made it possible to lay a pipe bringing water to a vegetable garden tended exclusively by village women.

Some 75 families were using that garden and, given Niger's climate, they could have fresh vegetables almost year round thanks to a small investment by this country.

It is all right to talk about all the audits needed to meet requirements, but it would not make much sense to spend $3,000 on audits to review something that cost $1,500.

I remember visiting a well in Niger. This well had cost $5,000 and was providing water for a complete village. This was made by Canadian contributions exclusively. When our delegation entered that village everyone was waving little Canadian flags to greet us.

It made me proud to be a Canadian because of what we were doing for those people. Let us not lose sight of that.

It is easy for all of us to think of a CIDA grant, as what I once heard on television, as buying ham slicers for Muslims. There is no such thing as a ham slicer, it is a meat slicer. There is nothing that says on it that you can only slice one kind of product. In any case, it had been put that way because it was the sexy way, I guess, of appealing to the constituency you wanted to appeal to.

I say to our colleagues across the way and to everyone who cares to listen that it is important for us to keep all of these things in perspective.

All those of us who have worked in the area of international development know that the theories explained by some hon. members-theoretical audits, bills and so on-do not always work like they are supposed to in the field, across the globe, where there is no electricity, no computers, etc., and where someone can be hired off the street to dig a hole. Let us keep that in mind.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda-age group).

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment that I am offering today to the Criminal Code would amend the hate propaganda provisions whereby someone who advocates or promotes the physical destruction of a person of an identifiable group would be prevented from doing so.

At the present time the Criminal Code says that an identifiable group is differentiated or distinguished by race, colour, religion or ethnic origin. I would like to add the word age to that, thereby preventing the promotion of violence or destruction against children.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Committees Of The House, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding changes in the membership of the standing committees, pursuant to Standing Order 114 of the House.

I would ask that the House dispense with the reading of the report. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.

[Capital Gains Tax, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many farmers in the great constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are concerned about the future of the capital gains exemption for farmers.

Of particular concern to me and my constituents is that farmers are jumping the gun and incorporating their farm operations now before the budget is tabled. This is costing them between $5,000 and $10,000 for the incorporation plus additional accounting fees of as high as $2,000 per year. Worse yet, the decision to incorporate is virtually irreversible. This certainly cannot go on. Farmers need their capital gains exemption. It is the equivalent of a pension.

I call on the government to keep this exemption and to state so at the earliest opportunity.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Another one.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I still did not quite understand the member's comments. Earlier, he was calling these kinds of things a duplication. If I understood him correctly, and I will check Hansard tomorrow, he said that there was no reason why veterans deserved to have a different service than others. Does he not believe that veterans deserve at least some special consideration? If this is not his position, I would ask him to take this opportunity to correct what he said a little earlier today.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard some the remarks of the opposite member. He was talking about the veterans and the few institutions established to help them. Do I understand that he advocates the closing of the institution in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue? Did I hear him right?

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member may think I am an elitist. I find the comment rather odd as I came from the most humble beginnings to take my seat in Parliament. As the member gets to know me he will learn about that. The last thing I have ever been called is elitist as I will describe to him privately later. But that is certainly not the case.

The proposition I am advancing to the member is that governments have to be accountable, MPs have to be accountable for what they say. That does not mean they cannot consult with their electors all the time. But it also means another thing; that if members do not have discipline as a party, no obligation to live with the program their party makes, either the one that I present or the one the member presented to the Canadian people, then surely the freedom he is advocating could also be used to go against the collective wishes of those who sent him here in the belief that within his own constituency there would be half or 1 or 2 or 3 per cent of the people more against the program of his own party than those who are for it. That is the caution I want to give the hon. member.