Ray Speaker

[Criminal Code, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we moving to the vote on Bill C-46 at third reading?

[High Tech Industry, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would like to recognize the tremendous accomplishment and entrepreneurial spirit of the high tech industry in the Ottawa-Lanark-Carleton region, better known as silicon valley north.

In just a few short years these pioneers of the 21st century have grown from an idea, to a dream, to a reality.

Last Wednesday our leader, Preston Manning, and the Reform candidate Darrel Reid held a breakfast meeting with the Canadian Advanced Technology Association to discuss the role of government in assisting in their success. Prominent industry leaders such as Denzell Doyle came to let Reformers know what they feel has to be done.

Topics discussed included their hunger for highly skilled workers, the need for better high tech training, the damage taxes do to high tech ventures, and their number one priority, a reduction in the capital gains tax to encourage entrepreneurs and risk takers.

These are the leaders of tomorrow. Like the Edisons, Fords and Rockefellers who fashioned a world from concrete and steel, they will build a new one of fibre optics, copper wire and silicon chips.

[Vimy Ridge, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 80 years ago yesterday a Canadian identity was forged at the battle for Vimy Ridge. That day 100,000 Canadians took a critical German stronghold, something the French and British units twice failed to do.

The price was high: 3,600 dead and more than 10,000 wounded. But the hottest flame produces the strongest steel. The sacrifices made that day won Canada a seat at Versailles and membership among the family of nations.

The people of France have not forgotten this sacrifice. Nearly 2,000 gathered to watch France's veterans affairs minister award six Canadian survivors the French Veterans Medal.

A number of our World War II veterans also attended yesterday's ceremony, one of whom I know personally. Retired air force Captain Ken Branch of Lethbridge served as a pilot overseas in that war. He returned safely, unlike many of his comrades, and Lethbridge has profited ever since. His contributions have enriched the lives of many in our community.

To Ken Branch and the thousands of other Canadian men and women who sacrificed in order that we might remain free, I say thank you.

[Points Of Order, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is somewhat similar to the point of order by the member for Elk Island.

My reference is to Beauchesne citations 348 to 350 as well. There is no opportunity during question period for either a House leader or a member of this assembly to stand on a point of order or raise a question at the point of time when what we felt was a violation of principle occurred. That was very difficult. We were in your hands at that point in time. We felt that the Minister of Finance may have had a very important answer.

I know some of my colleagues reacted very strenuously and we are not in character when doing that kind of thing. But under the circumstances there was no other way that we could react to the situation than to-

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to be involved in the debate on Bill C-17.

We have considered the other bills that were before the House, Bill C-41 and Bill C-45, and we have talked about victim impact statements. We are talking about not those bills themselves but the whole approach of the Liberal government to dealing with crime, safety, victims and criminals. That is really what we are dealing with.

As we proceed with debate in the next two, three or four weeks prior to embarking on a national election, I know Canadians will want answers to those questions.

My hon. colleagues on the standing committee dealing with criminal justice issues have focused on these issues for over 3.5 years. They have tried in every way possible to move the government from the position of being soft on criminals and giving no real attention to the victims of crime, either direct victims or their families and friends.

The question on the table today is whether the Liberal government has dealt with the matter of crime and safety on the streets of Canada. Can we walk at night without fear?

We visited many people in our constituencies in the last two weeks and found no clear answers. Members of Parliament in all parties heard from many people that victims of crime, their families and friends were not being recognized by the government. The criminals had a higher priority than the victims. That is wrong. I beg leave at this time to adjourn debate.

[The Budget, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate a point I made earlier. If the Liberal government had been elected with a plan to reduce the deficit and bring forward a balanced budget during the 35th Parliament, there would have been a greater amount of stability in the Canadian economy and a greater amount of confidence in the nation.

The 1997-98 budget could have been a balanced budget.

If that happened, the confidence of the investors in Canada would have been greater. We would have had investment in all kinds of small and medium size business across this nation.

The consumers of Canada who would have been more secure in their jobs would have been ready to spend money and buy. However, the problem is confidence is not there. The Minister of Finance stands in the House and says interest rates are low.

We remember what happened in the 1970s when interest rates ballooned into the 18 to 23 per cent range and there was a floating interest rate that a small company or as a small businessman or a farmer took out. It devastated their business. It took all the cash flow and we are scared that that could happen again. This government has not come to grips with its finances. The confidence level in this country is horrible even though it has been glazed over by a good media communications plan by the Minister of Finance.

That is not going to hold water very long. If the interest rates in United States start to increase, we know the Canadian interest rates are going to follow. That, in turn, is only going to reduce the confidence of the investor and the consumer.

That leaves our young people, 25 per cent between the ages of 18 and 25, who are now currently unemployed in a very unstable condition. We must deal with our budget in a more responsible way.

[The Budget, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, favouritism has been going on for years. Federal largesse has been handed out in an unplanned way to Quebec, the maritimes, Ontario and even to the west in an attempt to buy votes. That is one of the observations I made with respect to the current Liberal government.

When the Liberals were elected in 1993 it was over a year before we saw a budget plan. We heard about studies. We were told they were thinking about things. They were delaying. They were going to hear witnesses. They were going to do all kinds of things but they were not going to implement a plan.

What happened in the 1994-95 budget? The Minister of Finance was not ready with a plan. We lost a year in which we could have reduced the deficit significantly. We could have dealt with it when Canadians were in favour of that type of action. We had to wait until the budget of 1995-96 for the Liberals to do something.

As long as the government has as its priority handing out money to Quebec to get political support and to maintain political power, Canadians will be discontent whether they live in B.C., Alberta or the maritimes. Somewhere along the line that approach to government must stop.

[The Budget, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate on the 1997 budget. I will be splitting my time with one of my colleagues, so in my 10 minutes I will talk about an issue that has aggravated western Canadians for years: the endless attempt by successive governments, Tory and Liberal, to buy Quebec's love with large amounts of federal largesse.

To understand the source of this irritation I will point out a few blatant examples from this and recent Parliaments. Second, I will talk about why successive Liberal and Tory governments have felt compelled to perpetuate this habit of favouring Quebec to the detriment of other provinces and other territories. I would like to spend my last few minutes outlining why my Reform colleagues and I feel there is a better way to address the Quebec question.

On the first point, I have watched this dance play itself out between Ottawa and Quebec for the last 30 years. Quebecers say they are unhappy with the federal system and if something is not done they will leave.

Instead of sitting down and addressing Quebec's concerns, the federal politicians in Ottawa are consistent in trying to buy its love instead of dealing with the matter. Here are a few examples.

To put it bluntly, in dollar terms Quebecers benefit disproportionately from the federation itself. For example, Quebec accounts for only 25 per cent of the Canadian population yet it receives30 per cent of all federal transfers to provinces.

The equalization program is supposed to assist the poorest provinces to provide services to their people. Quebec, the fourth richest province in Canada, receives more equalization dollars than any other provinces. It receives more than the four Atlantic provinces combined.

The separatists will dispute these facts and claim that Quebec pays more to Ottawa in taxes than it receives in transfers and program spending. This is not true. The fact is that Quebec paid22 per cent of total federal income tax, which is less than its 25 per cent share of the population and considerably less than its 30 per cent share of federal transfer dollars.

This systemic bias in favour of Quebec is not what really irritates western Canadians. Rather, what galls my constituents in Lethbridge, in southern Alberta and in other places in western Canada is the blatant political pork which successive federal administrations, Liberals and Tories, have shovelled into Quebec.

Let us take some examples. The infrastructure program was supposed to be for roads and sewers, basic infrastructure. The very first infrastructure project announced by the government was a convention centre for Quebec City. Do we need another example? How about the canoe museum in the Prime Minister's home town of Shawinigan? Then there were business subsidies. Last weekend it was $600,000 for a hotel in Shawinigan in the Prime Minister's riding. The next day it was an $8.1 million sock factory for Montreal, with the taxpayers of Canada footing the bill.

How about Bombardier? Over the past 15 years total federal subsidies to this giant corporation totalled $1.2 billion: 1.2 billion of taxpayers' dollars to a company that earned $400 million in profit last year. It had a profit. It could have gone to the market and got the money on its own without the intervention and the handout of the Liberal government in Ottawa.

The final example I would like to use is the allocation of federal funds to assist provinces with the settlement of immigrants and refugees. Under the terms of a deal signed during the Mulroney administration Quebec was guaranteed $90 million per year for that program. In turn Quebec agreed to accept 25 per cent of Canadian immigrants. Quebec has not honoured that agreement. Today Quebec only accepts 12 per cent of Canada's immigrants but continues to receive the $90 million. That is wrong. That represents roughly 30 per cent of the total funds allocated to that program.

To illustrate this geographically, British Columbia receives about $1,000 in federal funds for each immigrant. For the same immigrant in the province of Quebec the allocation is $3,327.

My constituents want to know why there is a double standard. The reason is that successive Liberal and Tory governments-and this one is as bad as the rest-have refused to address the legitimate concerns of Quebecers about the federal system. Their selfish refusal to abandon the status quo and make real change means the federal government has nothing to offer Quebecers except federal largesse. Instead of renewing the federal union to keep them in Canada the government tries to buy their loyalty instead.

It is a losing proposition. After three decades of overspending the federal government simply does not have enough money left. More important, people's loyalty or love for the nation cannot be bought with government money.

The bottom line is that Quebecers are unhappy with the way the nation works and have been for some time. Quebecers object to a domineering federal government that intrudes into provincial jurisdiction. They object to an elitist status quo that vests powers to the Prime Minister and his respective cabinet which not allow them to elect their own senators or appoint their own lieutenant governors.

It is ironic that many other Canadians object to exactly the same things, especially western Canadians. As my leader said last week in Oshawa, Quebec sent 50 BQ members to Parliament and western Canada sent 50 Reform members to Parliament because both parties articulated the contempt felt by Canadians toward the political status quo. The big difference is that Reformers offered a plan to rebuild the federation while the separatists in the House are merely offering to tear it down.

What is the new path Reformers would like to offer Canadians? It should reach the ears of some Liberals who sit rather deaf in the House. What would we like to do?

We would rebalance the federation by transferring control of jurisdictions such as resources, training, culture, housing and tourism back to the provinces where they belong. We would forbid any new encroachments on provincial jurisdiction through use of federal spending power. We would replace federal cash transfers with a tax point system of transfers to prevent future governments from slashing such transfers the way the present government has done. We would reform our democratic institutions to allow for election of senators, freer votes in the House of Commons, provincial input into judicial appointments and much more. We would give the final word on any constitutional amendment to the people of Canada in the form of a national referendum.

The bottom line is that if the next federal government continues to resist fundamental systemic changes to our federation Quebecers will more than likely choose to leave. The concern in western Canada will continue.

If, however, the next government commits itself to real change and offers all Canadians including Quebecers a new deal then the Canadian federation would finally be placed on the foundation it needs to lead us in a confident and united way into the 21st century.

As we move into the possibility of a spring election it is incumbent upon the current members of Parliament to consider that it is easy to play political games and to seek re-election for the sake of having power in the country. However, if parliamentarians and those going into the next election look at their responsibilities and their goals and are unable to say they have a new plan to build a Canada for all Canadians rather than just for a political party, we are doing a major disservice to our history. That will be the challenge of the 1997 election.

Can the Liberal Party and the Tory Party step over the bridge and away from their continuous goal for years of seeking power and of handing out federal government largesse to Quebec and maybe to other provinces just to get votes which allow them to stay in power? Can they cross over that bridge and change their ways and take responsibility for building a better nation? It is time they tried.

[Committees Of The House, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to move:

That the member for Calgary Centre be now heard.

[Committees Of The House, March 19th, 1997]

It was $87 million. Well, $87 million and $100 million is not very far apart. By the time it gets an interest free loan it is soon going to be $100 million. This is a company that made $400 million in profits in the last year and could have financed $87 million very easily.

This goes on and on. The Liberals try to claim they are defenders of the poor but at the same time they shovel the money out to the rich. The poor people are being held by the long arm of the tax collector. The tax collector grabs 40 per cent of the wages of young people so they cannot get ahead. I would appreciate a comment from my hon. colleague on that matter first.