Hugh Hanrahan

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and I will try to avoid the use of the word, you.

I understand where my colleague is coming from. I understand where the Reform Party is coming from and I realize that it is a philosophical difference.

The free trade agreement was between two nations. This is an agreement between 13 individual groups and that can be very complex. The one area we agree on is section 9. Decisions regarding trade should be debated in Parliament at least. They should not be finalized in an order in council. They should not be finalized by cabinet. I am sure my colleagues from the Bloc would agree with that.

Where we disagree is that they look at a separate Quebec and a separate English speaking Canada. We see it as 10 equal provinces. That is not something we are going to decide in this debate. That is something that will be decided, I understand, according to the Bloc's agenda, by the end of this year. We have to wait until that decision is made and then perhaps we can discuss this question further.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have completed my point. I do apologize for not directing it through you.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg for his comment. It is a fair question. I do not really see this as a political question to make points.

What we are arguing is the speed of the process. The member has mentioned, as have I, the length of time Nova Scotia has been trying to get agreement and the effect it has had on them. That is also true of the other Atlantic provinces. As well, other provinces at various times have been affected.

However, it cannot be done overnight. One of the previous speakers stated that the government plans to expand the scope and improve more. The question Canadians want to ask, when it is costing us jobs and money, is when and what is the government's overall plan. This is what we would like to see. If we had something in that regard then you might find that there is more co-operation from this side.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

That is what it says.

Cabinet should be accountable to Parliament in relation to any decision concerning a change in federal law. While this agreement does contain a code of conduct that restricts the tax breaks and grants a province can use to attract business from another province, it also provides a number of exceptions to the code for the provinces and the federal government. The most significant of these are the provisions that establish barriers based on "legitimate objectives".

Most people agree that a determined province will find a way around the intent of the agreement based on the so-called legitimate objective. Other exemptions from the agreement include agriculture, alcohol, energy, natural resources, culture, regional development and, of course, crown corporation procurement.

It is for this reason that the Reform Party believes that the overall intent of the agreement does nothing more than reinforce the status quo. In other words, the agreement is like a toothless tiger, lots of noise and no bite.

A perfect example is how the premier of New Brunswick recently lured UPS to his province from Newfoundland through tax relief exemption plans. However there was an outcry from the other provinces that claimed New Brunswick was breaking the deal, even though the deal was not in effect as New Brunswick so rightly pointed out, and was in fact poaching jobs from other sectors of the country. These cries, of course, fell on deaf ears.

Reformers want to see the elimination of all interprovincial trade barriers. We want to see economies of scale. We have confidence that our country can compete with the best for the benefit of all Canadians, especially in the global economy. We feel this can be achieved by two methods: first, through provincial agreement and, second, by constitutional challenges.

The agreement in Bill C-88 does not eliminate barriers. It only reinforces barriers which already exist. The federal government has the power under section 121 of the BNA Act to eliminate these trade barriers. Section 121 states clearly that "all articles of growth, produce, manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces". This power can and should be used unilaterally if necessary.

The federal government could enforce section 121 by striking down any provincial laws which impede interprovincial trade. Our colleague from Dartmouth mentioned that Nova Scotia, when it came into Confederation, was an economically strong province. It has been waiting 125 years for changes in the trade barriers. This will not be what it wants. It must go farther. It must go back to the original of section 121.

To enforce this the federal government could simply withhold all transfer payments to those unco-operative provinces until they have removed all barriers to interprovincial trade. The process is there. We have it.

Bill C-88 is moving in a direction but not nearly far enough. I hope that provinces such as Nova Scotia do not have to wait another 125 years before it gets any movement.

The central question from the Reform Party point of view is the speed at which the movement is occurring. I understand the Bloc's position. It is a philosophically different position, but ours is in terms of speed and process.

In conclusion, I think a quote from the book titled Common Ground for the Canadian Common Market is quite relevant as it states that:

If one province plays the restrictive game, it can do better than free trade, but if they all play it, they do worse.

It is like one individual who stands up at a football game to see better. When everybody does it nobody sees better.

This power can be used unilaterally and should be used if necessary. The federal government could enforce section 121 by striking down any provincial law which impedes interprovincial trade or by simply withholding all transfer payments to those unco-operative provinces until they have removed all barriers to interprovincial trade. Therefore let us work to ensure an agreement which will remove these trade barriers rather than settle on one which simply reinforces the status quo.

It is for these reasons that the Reform Party will not be supporting Bill C-88.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade.

The issue of internal trade should be a priority for this government. However it has taken almost one year to introduce this legislation after the deal was struck between the federal government and the provinces. We as a country trade almost as much between provinces as we do with foreign countries. To put it another way, this agreement should mean as much as if not more than GATT and NAFTA. However we hardly hear it discussed.

As we have already heard from our colleague opposite, interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians $6.5 billion annually. Because of these internal barriers it is easier to trade with Mexico and the United States than within our own boundaries. The elimination of these barriers will only strengthen our economy, which would enable us to get the unemployed employed. It would provide greater freedom for Canadians to work where they choose. It would also create a single economic market in Canada, giving us economies of scale. It would also help counter our nation's current regional drift.

With that said, the internal trade agreement, which C-88 would implement, does little else for free trade. The signing of the document almost went unnoticed. Perhaps that is because it is an agreement that can best be described as a political facade. This agreement among provinces did a little to break down a few barriers but it has left much undone. The federal government and the provinces had a chance to solve what is perhaps one of Canada's most solvable economic problems and for the most part unfortunately failed.

Internal restrictions on trade are not imposed on us by foreign governments; they are self-imposed. In a nutshell, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Since these restrictions are self-imposed, they should be relatively easy to remove. That is not always the case, as this agreement clearly illustrates. Instead of removing the barriers and stopping the economic war that has developed between the provinces, they agreed in essence to reinforce the status quo.

The removal of interprovincial trade barriers can be accomplished without any monetary expense. It simply requires those involved to have the political will to remove them. It is obvious that we lack this will. Canadian politicians have to stop protecting interest groups such as big business which will suffer from free trade between provinces. They must start looking out for the interests of ordinary Canadians.

A survey of businesses done by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce states that only 5 per cent of businesses benefit from these barriers while 95 per cent do not. Need I say more? Apparently I do because it is clear this government has not gotten the message.

I would now like to speak briefly to a few of the specifics of the internal trade agreement. I will start with the positives, and there are positives. This agreement prohibits provinces from using subsidies to entice businesses to set up local shops. It forbids preferential government procurement and improves the mobility of labour, particularly in the trucking sector.

However the essence of the agreement seems to have forgotten agriculture, energy or the financial sector. In other words consumers will still have to pay too much for electricity, eggs, milk and many other products. It also has loopholes the size of our national debt that would allow any determined government to drive through them.

As mentioned earlier, these 500 or so internal trade barriers cost Canadians nearly $6.5 billion each year, which can be broken down into approximately $3,500 a year for the average Canadian family, according to the Fraser Institute. I cannot speak for everyone, but I can say that I would love to have an additional $3,500 in my pocket each year.

According to a recent Fraser Institute article, and I quote: "The public debate has ignored that when a market grows several things happen. Costs fall and producers become more competitive. Japan is a fierce international competitor because it has a large internal market. This market is like a school where students learn from each other. Efficient producers pass into the world market while bad producers fall into mediocrity or even bankruptcy." I could not agree with this statement more.

If we look at Canada's world competitiveness, we ranked third in 1987, sixth in 1991 and eleventh in 1992 out of the 22 OECD countries. These numbers are not surprising when we look at the amount of trade that is done between provinces rather than out of the country. Over half of all provinces' interprovincial trade is more than their international trade. Perhaps more to the point, over one-third of Canadian businesses encountered barriers when attempting to do business in another province. This is according to a Canadian Chamber of Commerce study.

According to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, eight out of ten construction companies encounter interprovincial barriers. Some provincial governments are willing to pay local firms as much as 10 per cent more than non-local firms for procurement contracts. This must stop. Hopefully the bill will allow us to move in that direction.

This agreement reached among the provinces does nothing to put an end to the protectionist policies of the past. In relation to C-88, clause 9 of the agreement is a cause of particular concern, as was mentioned by my Bloc colleagues. It simply states that for the purpose of spending benefits or imposing regulatory measures, cabinet may take any measure that the governor in council considers necessary. Not Parliament-cabinet.

Where is the openness? Where is the transparency this government claims to be adhering to? Specifically, clause 9 confers on the cabinet a blank cheque for retaliatory measures taken against a province, including the modification or suspension of the application of any federal law.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss report stage of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. This is perhaps the most controversial piece of legislation the House has seen since the implementation of the GST. It is also a piece of legislation which has caused a great deal of debate and at times heated discussion since this issue was first raised in the House.

I have learned there is little or no middle ground on the issue of gun control. It is an issue that Canadians either do or do not support. I surveyed my constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona twice to gauge their feelings on this issue. I did this through household surveys and received conflicting results. Some individuals suggested the first question was too broad and all encompassing and others felt the second question was too narrow. This is a problem in which each side is divided into black and white; there does not seem to be any shade of grey.

How do we resolve this conflict in order to vote according to the wishes of the majority of our constituents? I felt the best way to resolve the problem was to bring in an independent third party. In this case it was an independent pollster. This polling

firm's objective was to find out how my constituents truly felt on the issue of gun control. The results were as follows.

Just under 50 per cent of the respondents said they believed the government's proposed gun control legislation should not be passed without modification or amendment, while only 28 per cent said it should be passed. Over 55 per cent believed that the potential benefits of the proposed legislation would not justify the cost of the bureaucracy required to enforce it compared with 30 per cent on the yes side. An astonishing 70 per cent believed that the authorities would be granted too many powers concerning the issues of search, seizure and compensation, while less than 25 per cent felt that the new powers would be justified. Finally, almost 80 per cent of the constituents from Edmonton-Strathcona believed that criminals would not comply with the justice minister's proposed gun control legislation compared with only 11 per cent who said that criminals would.

It is also interesting that this government seems to be travelling down the same road as the previous Conservative government. There was an outcry of self-righteousness from the Liberals while they were in opposition over the Conservatives' use of time allocation to ram through legislation.

The Liberals had managed to make the most faithful individuals of our democratic process turn into pessimists. This Liberal government is trampling on Canadians' democratic rights by limiting the time in which we as parliamentarians can debate legislation put forward in this House.

The Mulroney government used time allocation 35 times to pass 200 bills. That is 17 per cent of the Mulroney government's bills, which is shamefully unacceptable, as was indicated by the other side.

Now let us look at the government's record, in which time allocation has been used an unprecedented 14 times on only 59 bills, including this one, Bill C-68. On this bill time allocation has been used not once, not twice, but three times. In other words, the government has used time allocation 24 per cent of the time, 7 per cent more than the Mulroney government. That is totally unacceptable to me and to the constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona and I believe to all Canadians.

The government must start to listen to the people and not the spin doctors, or else it as well will be able to hold its caucus meetings in a phone booth.

The people of Edmonton-Strathcona have spoken out on this issue, and the majority concur with the Reform Party's position that registration is not the means to an end in which the end is a decrease in crime. It is for this reason that the Reform Party has brought forward amendments to split the bill during second reading. We would have passed the crime control measures immediately, which would have allowed us more time to spend debating the merits and pitfalls of a full scale registration plan.

We as a caucus applaud the justice minister's endeavour to curtail the deliberate criminal misuse of firearms. He has done this through increased penalties for criminal misuse of firearms and through an increased effort to further enhance controls on illegal border crossings.

Unfortunately certain aspects of Bill C-68 will have a detrimental impact on the competitive sports shooting group. If we are to believe the majority of shooting organizations, they feel there is a real possibility of the loss of Canada's sports shooting structure. Prohibiting or restricting firearms that are commonly used in legal, legitimate, recreational circumstances such as casual target shooting or in formally organized competition does not prevent criminal acts. It only further restricts the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

As the Reform Party's critic for amateur sports, I feel obligated to speak directly to the specific sections of the bill that have the most direct effect on sports shooting organizations across Canada. We proposed amendments in committee that would have allowed those individuals who are members of the registered recognized shooting associations to be exempt from Bill C-68, and this was defeated. Our position is that we do not want to prohibit guns that are used specifically for competition and thereby prohibit those at the entry level from entering the sport.

Our reasoning is that you do not come into the world of competitive shooting with a $5,000 or $6,000 target pistol. You start off at the entry level with a very inexpensive firearm. You join a club and you take up shooting. Invariably these firearms tend to have barrel lengths of four inches or so and to be .32 calibre, which is what the Olympic shooters use.

It is a concern for me that the proud tradition that Canada has in competitive shooting may be lost. A perfect example was during the Commonwealth Games last year, an event that resulted in 43 medals for Canada. Twenty-two were shooting medals. That is over 50 per cent of Canada's total medals awarded. Under this bill, that number will decline dramatically.

Bill C-68 prohibits two-thirds of the pistols owned by law-abiding citizens. Many of these are collectors' items or are target pistols in current use in competitions such as the Olympics and Commonwealth Games. Some of these firearms may be grandfathered, but that is simply a delay.

The majority of my constituents feel that Bill C-68 is an ineffective and intrusive piece of legislation. What Canadians, both rural and urban, want is crime control, plain and simple.

Until these types of problems which I, the rest of the Reform caucus, the people of my constituency and the people of Canada have raised are dealt with, we as a party and I as an individual cannot support this bill.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous speaker, I will confine my remarks to the bill before us. His comments show the obvious lack of confidence in his own party's bill.

It gives me great pleasure to address Bill C-85 which deals with the issue of MPs pensions. This issue is of great concern to myself, the Reform Party and to all Canadians. This plan was indefensible even in the good times when Ottawa's vaults were overflowing and the public was feeling generous toward its politicians. However, in bad times such as we are now experiencing, when many Canadians are suffering and the government is hard pressed to fund basic programs, the MP pension plan amounts to little more than the great Canadian ripoff.

When I say I know Canadians truly do want the MP pension plan reformed, I am speaking for those individuals who live in my constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona. I asked my constituents for some feedback on this issue in my first householder. The results were overwhelmingly in favour of pension reform. I cannot help but believe if the Liberals were to ask their constituents the same question, they would find the same result.

Constituents were asked at what age should an outgoing MP be able to collect a pension. Seventy-five per cent of my

constituents felt an outgoing MP should not be able to collect until after his or her 60th birthday.

The second question asked regarding MP pensions was how many years should an MP serve before being eligible for a pension. The results again are staggering in favour of pension reform. One hundred per cent of respondents said the number of years should be no less than eight. Eighty-one per cent felt the minimum number of years of service should be no less than 16.

Answers to these questions are a far cry from the present situation in place today and also a far cry from the pension reforms the government has introduced. It is important to illustrate a few facts about MP pension plans, as they will clearly illustrate why the constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona and Canadians as a whole feel there is great need for the present pension plan to be reformed.

First, pensions are payable immediately upon retirement and only after six years of service no matter at what age the MP retires or is not re-elected. Second, payments continue even if the ex-MP holds another permanent job, which would be defined as double dipping.

Third, pensions begin at $23,390 per year and increase 5 per cent per year of service to a maximum of 75 per cent average salary. Fourth, inflation indexing kicks in after age 60 but is retroactive to retirement day.

Fifth, MPs pay 11 per cent of their base salary into the pension fund. The government matches this amount and covers shortfalls, an unfunded liability which cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $160 million last year.

By no means is this list inclusive. There are, however, a few items of concern to me. I have stated in the House repeatedly that Reformers have come to Ottawa to make a difference. I ran for Parliament to serve my constituents. I did not run for a pension.

The Liberals state in their red ink book: "A Liberal government will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament and put an end to double dipping". Bill C-85 is a poor attempt at addressing the issue of pension reform.

We have been sitting in the House for over 18 months and we are discussing still the pension issue. Obviously it was not as important a commitment to the Liberals. It is also interesting to note the current Prime Minister challenged the former Prime Minister to recall Parliament if she were was truly serious about pension reform. This was just before the last election. I quote the present Prime Minister: "Reforms would pass in a day". It has been over 500 days since he became Prime Minister and still no reforms have been passed. I find it ironic the only member of the House whose benefits are not reduced by this bill is the Prime Minister.

Canadians will not tolerate political injustices. The evidence lies with the now defunct Conservative Party. We on this side of the House know the government has delayed on the issue of pension reform. Perhaps it is because the Liberals are concerned about having to adapt to another of the Reform Party's policies such as they have done in the past on issues such as the Young Offenders Act, parole reform, criminal justice reform, debt and deficit reduction, and let us not forget immigration.

All this is doing nothing but costing the taxpayer more and more money each day. As we know, the National Citizens Coalition set aside a day this year and called it national trough day in which another group of 52 MPs of all political stripes became eligible for this outlandish of extravagant pension plan. These new members of the trough club could collectively receive $53 million if all of these 52 MPs quit today and lived to the age of 75, while at the same time the average Canadian citizen must work 35 years to accumulate a pension which is not nearly as gold plated as this.

This gold plated MP pension plan should be renamed from pension plan to cash for life rip off of the Canadian taxpayer. This plan is perhaps one of the federal government's most offensive examples of waste. What strikes to the core of the issue is we as parliamentarians have to set an example for all Canadians and delaying issues such as pension reform is no way to lead by example.

I can stand in the House and state unequivocally that the Reform Party is different. We want to see changes in the pension plan; not just superficial changes, substantial changes.

These changes would include a pension plan brought in line with pension plans offered in the private sector, an end to full indexation, postponing eligibility until at least age 60, ensuring the MP pension plan is adequately funded by MPs for the benefits they will receive so there will be no shortfalls, allow MPs the option to opt out of the pension program and allow the flexibility to invest in a private pension plan such as an RRSP with a maximum contribution in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

Let us now look specifically at what the Liberals have introduced. They have decreased the contribution and benefit rates, but only marginally. They have raised the minimum age to 55 for benefit eligibility. I refer to a survey of my riding in which 81 per cent of constituents feel the minimum age should be 60. The Liberals claim to have ended double dipping and yet benefits will continue to grow under the generous inflation indexing provisions. They offer an opting out clause but it is a one time deal, as coverage will be compulsory for members of future Parliaments. The benefits will continue to be fully

indexed to inflation from the date they retire. This has not changed and that is no big surprise to me or to the Reform Party.

We must stop this insanity. We must make real changes and real reforms to the MP pension plan now.

[Funding For Cultural Organizations, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Bloc motion that, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider funding cultural organizations on a multi-year basis in order to promote their stability.

However, it should be noted from the outset that before we start considering multi-year funding we should be examining the appropriateness of our present commitment to cultural funding.

This opportunity also permits me to set the record straight with respect to the Reform Party's position on Canadian cultural industries and artists. There seems to be a perception that we are unconcerned or even disinterested in Canadian culture. That really is a simplistic criticism of our policy.

Our policy is clear and concise. We are simply suggesting and encouraging less government involvement in the funding and promotion of the cultural sector. This has been our message firmly and consistently since the early days of this Parliament. What we want to see is less government involvement.

We promote the idea that the cultural community be given the tools necessary to flourish in an open, competitive, and changing marketplace. That includes less government intervention, less taxation, and less regulatory control, which will ultimately permit competition, not strangulation. Our approach recognizes that a Canadian cultural policy must be sustainable in a world of rapid technological change, one which fosters an environment in which individuals are free to choose. We need to ensure that the industry can make it on its own. This can and should be done through less regulation, less taxation.

We were elected with a mandate from our constituents to bring to this public forum their commitments and concerns, and we will not be intimidated by special interest groups. We do not support the concept of stable multi-year funding to organizations, which should be receiving the funding through the private sector and not through the federal government.

Albertans are demonstrating that they are willing to support the arts without massive federal assistance. So perhaps it is time that this government start to re-evaluate the way in which it is dealing with the cultural sector. This attitude change in Alberta has been perpetuated by the fact that shrinking budgets in all areas of the economy demand that we seek new innovative and creative ways of accessing funds, including the cultural sector.

Big Rock Breweries from Alberta is leading the way as a private sector supporter for the arts. Last year Big Rock provided over $1,000 to over 40 different arts groups. It views its cultural support as a wise business practice and not as a charitable donation. Thanks to the support of Big Rock, groups like the Alberta Theatre Project and the Muttard Public Art Gallery are thriving. Albertans indeed are leading the way in private sector support for the cultural sector. I applaud Big Rock for showing just what the private sector can do if left alone by various levels of government.

I think it is also important to illustrate at this time a few examples of why it is essential to bring back accountability to these cultural organizations. These examples will illustrate that not only does the Liberal Party not have a cultural policy, but the government's funding of these groups is indeed in need of reform.

For example, the artist Stephen Ellwood, an American who came to Canada because we give more money to artists than does the U.S., threw $300 in nickels, or 6,000 nickels in total, off a building and others were discarded in the street. This was to make a politically artistic statement. All this money is at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, thanks to the Canada Council. If that is not government spending run amok, then I do not know what is.

Do not get me wrong; I truly believe in the freedom of expression. However, I do not believe Canadian taxpayers should be left on the hook for every political and artistic problem we encounter.

The Canada Council needs to be overhauled in its granting practices to ensure greater accountability as to how funds are distributed. It is time we looked at the current structure of the Canada Council to ask how it can continue to exist as we know it today.

Thanks to the Canada Council, the Liberal government is not even addressing the promises made in this year's budget regarding government accountability and reducing government spending. So I would like to thank Mr. Ellwood on behalf of all Canadians for pointing out the hypocrisy of this Liberal budget.

Another example of poor cultural policy was when the CRTC removed the American country music television network from Canadian airwaves. Canadian country artists used to be seen in 32 million homes around the world. But in retaliation for this decision, CMT now refuses to play Canadian artists' videos, restricting their airplay to Canadian homes only.

Promoting Canadian culture by closing our borders is like trying to mix oil and water. Canadian artists themselves denounced this decision, yet it was allowed to continue.

How does the government expect to promote Canadian cultural exports and allow for more consumer choice? It is unclear. Until this type of question can be answered, we should not be securing any multi-year funding to any cultural organization. This government seems to be moving toward a policy of protectionism in the cultural industry rather than one of a free market.

In typical Liberal fashion we are now seeing a flip-flop regarding our cultural policy. One day the government is restricting choice and competition in the country music industry. The next day it is opening up the doors for its Liberal friends in Power Corporation and their American buddies to set up satellite networks across the country.

Through the direct to home satellite debate the government has attempted to deflect criticism by portraying the Reform Party as anti-competition. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government has also said that we should not criticize the process. Wrong again. This can be clearly seen in the direct to home process. The only thing that has been clear in all of it is that Canadians are paying the price for the government's lack of a coherent cultural policy that favours true competition.

If the government truly wants competition, why will it not live up to its commitment to release a comprehensive cultural policy? I think the answer is clear: it does not have one.

I am also quite concerned that this debate is grinding down into a Quebec and English Canada issue. That is not the issue today. The issue we are looking at is entrenching multiculturalism funding and the fact that we as a nation cannot afford it. We are looking at a nationally enforced bilingualism, and we cannot afford it. We also cannot afford the funding of special interest groups.

This government's cultural policy is so misdirected that the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism in a recent interview stated eloquently that we have no national culture. I would like to take this opportunity to respond to that statement.

Most Canadians believe, as Reformers do, that we must uphold the rights of citizens and private groups to preserve their cultural heritage using their own resources but are opposed to any taxpayer funded multicultural programs. The Reform concept of culture is that as Canadians we believe we have something others do not. Collectively we see ourselves as a tolerant, peaceful and independent people.

Canadian culture is not stagnant. Rather, it is in a constant state of metamorphosis. The difficulty is that we continue to debate what our self-concept is. We need to stop struggling with our self-image and accept who we are.

Visually, our culture is an array of images, finely integrated and ever changing. Visual symbols such as the maple leaf, the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and hockey connect us to one another at the deepest level of our consciousness. This is our Canadian culture. It has nothing to do with money or cultural groups, but has everything to do with us as Canadians.

We should not forget that Canadian culture has been around since our nation's conception and will certainly outlast this Parliament and even the next Parliament. It will do so simply because it is in our hearts and in our minds. It is what makes us Canadians.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

I said very clearly in my speech that is exactly what we do not want. We want to save the basic elements of medicare for all Canadians regardless of income.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if we do not allow other moneys into the program, if we continue the decline in financing for medicare which has been occurring over the last number of years, combined with increase in the interest on the debt, we will find there will be a no tier system, not a two-tier system. There will be no medicare for anyone.

This is an attempt to save medicare.