Jack Ramsay

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing forward those points and I want to thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forward this motion. It points to a very serious problem, the fiscal and monetary situation that Canada is in.

We have seen successive governments plunge this country into debt to the point where the members who speak on behalf of the Fraser Institute of Canada, which held a seminar here that many of our members attended, are suggesting we may be beyond the point of return in getting our fiscal and monetary house in order.

I want to thank the member for bringing a debate to this House that focuses to a certain degree on that issue. It is the greatest and most serious issue facing Canada today. The powers of the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments to tax wealth away from the people is the greatest threat to the economic well-being of our families and individual businesses and so on that we have in this country today.

The unbridled power and the irresponsible exercise of that power as reflected in the governments of the 1970s and the 1980s and up until this time poses a very serious threat to the economic well-being of our future.

If those experts from the Fraser Institute know what they are talking about, and I believe they have put forward a very logical case, then the government should be focusing on this aspect of the crisis, and that is the economic, fiscal and monetary aspect.

We are looking at the signs of a tax revolt. We see the underground economy, cross-border shopping, and we ask ourselves why thousands of normally law-abiding citizens will buy bootleg cigarettes. These are all signs that people are simply giving up on a tax system that has burdened them to the point where they can no longer make ends meet and they are seeking illegal ways to get around it.

I would like to compliment the hon. member and ask him a specific question. He has answered my question partly but could he highlight the differences between the committee he is recommending and the existing public accounts committee. Would he respond to that please?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, we have heard much about the transfer of wealth of Canada to the provinces.

If we look at our debt and our deficit and the borrowing we have to do we are not transferring the wealth of Canada, one might say, we are transferring the wealth of other countries we borrow from and the people of Canada from whom we have borrowed.

We have seen the Liberal government of past years plunge our country into a debt situation of approximately $200 billion. We have seen the Conservative government more than double that in the last nine years until we are now sitting in a situation looking at a $500 billion debt. We are plunging into debt by another $40 billion approximately and we have paid interest on that debt of $40 billion in the last year.

I would like to ask the member, if he has time to respond to the question, if he feels we can continue in this way in view of the plunge into debt we have experienced over the last 20 years.

[West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that there are already losers in this situation and those are the hundreds of thousands of farmers, many of whom are going to lose drastically as a result of what has happened over the last eight or ten days.

It seems strange to me and to them that the government of the country will grant groups the power to destroy their economic viability and not allow them a seat at the table. That is the situation. Inasmuch as that is what is happening, where the hundreds of thousands of people in agriculture are suffering as a result of this and do not have a seat at the table, their representative is the hon. minister who has brought forward this document. Inasmuch as this document represents the interests of the people in agriculture, I support the minister because we must move this forward.

If the minister and the government of the country will pass a resolution or the necessary legislation that will allow grain to move through the Seattle port when it is having its strike, the agricultural community will not be injured at all and everyone will allow this strike and negotiate until the cows come home.

I support the minister because he is representing the injured third party in this whole process. I am prepared to vote in favour of this bill.

[Longshoremen's Strike, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government must recognize the importance of the prairie farmers and how

vulnerable they are to actions beyond their control. These people strive to earn an honest living and they do so using sweat and tears. Why do they constantly have to meet one challenge only to be confronted by another?

The farmers in my riding of Crowfoot, Alberta are a sturdy bunch who let nothing get them down. They truly represent the real spirit of the west: When you are down, get up, brush off the dust and get on with life. But when you are being held hostage, how do you get on with life?

The west coast strike will have disastrous effects on the economy if we do not get millions of tonnes of grain, potash and forest products moving and with that our reputation as a reliable supplier will be tarnished.

Hopefully the farmers will survive. Thank goodness they usually do. Meanwhile the reputation of the government is taking a beating in the agricultural community over this issue.

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the hon. member and I would like to ask a simple, straightforward question.

Our country continues to plunge into debt, and it appears that before we can wrestle the deficit out of existence we could hit $650 billion of indebtedness. As each year goes by, we lose a little more of our ability to help the poor, whether it is the needy

refugees coming into our country or any other poor within our society. What would the member suggest? How would the member suggest we help the poor in this country when we lose the financial and economic ability to do so?

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like as well to congratulate the hon. member for what I thought was a wonderful speech. She can rest assured that she has much support for what she said in the Reform Party caucus.

It goes to show what I have believed for some time. It is that the reform that is sweeping across the country certainly goes beyond the borders of the Reform Party of Canada.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she would be prepared to elaborate her thoughts, time permitting, on two areas that she touched on, the Young Offenders Act and the gun control bill. Would she be willing to share with us her thoughts about the amendment to these two bills?

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that this debate or this discussion is open for all comments.

The real threat to our security that we must guard against lies in the unwillingness of the individual to respect the legal and human rights of others. As long as we have people like Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin and the other tinpot dictators we have seen through the annals of history, we will have to protect ourselves against their unwillingness to respect the rights of the human individual.

That begins right here in the House. I have watched the operation of this House on television for a number of years and I have watched it since I have been here.

When hon. members in this place do not have the tolerance to respect the rules of this House and then violate those rules, that in fact is the threat to the security of the individual. It is simply a degree. One magnifies that degree and it becomes the real threat to the security of individuals, communities and nations.

I would like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken this question. It is on a different issue. During the cold war we had the two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. They controlled the majority of the nuclear weapons in the world. Since there has been the break up of the Soviet Union, I would like to ask the the hon. member if he feels that there is a greater threat of nuclear attack upon the nations of the world now or before?

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very impressed with the speeches that have been given on this issue so far, both on the pro and the con. I want to thank the hon. member who has just finished speaking.

Some of the speeches tonight have been very vivid and to the point. I would like to address part of the speech given by the hon. member for Davenport when he asked a very important question. He referred to the threat to our security and he asked who is the enemy.

Who is and what is the threat to the security of the child who has been molested? What is the threat to the security of the women who has been raped or the senior citizen who has been murdered?