Debates of June 6th, 1995

Budget Implementation Act, 1995

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that we remember that all Canadians, all parts of our society are going to share in it. Have there been reductions in Saskatchewan? Surely there have been, as there have been across the country. Everybody has to pitch into this equally everywhere. Provinces, individuals, businesses, agriculture and industry, we all have to work together on this.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. As a fellow member in the northern Ontario caucus under his chairmanship I know he is an excellent member of Parliament for his riding. In his short but effective speech over the last few minutes we have seen a side of the member which is not surprising but is very inspirational. I would like to tell the member publicly that his comments were right on the mark. He said many very important and true things.

I will reiterate something which the hon. member said, and I may be paraphrasing him. We have our Reform colleagues and thankfully they are not the official opposition. His apology should have been to Canadians, not to the Reform Party. The Reform Party is constantly calling upon us to run Canada like a business, like a bank or like a large corporation. It is one thing to run a country in a businesslike fashion; it is another matter to run a country like a business.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka hit it right on the head when he said that a government is first about people. In February the Minister of Finance presented a budget that was about people, about Canadians. While wanting to preserve those things in our society that make Canada a special place, he also presented things that deal with the concerns Canadians have that we respond effectively to our deficit.

We know that each year our national debt is growing. We have made a commitment as a government to deal with the growth in the debt. We made a commitment as a party competing with others to govern this country back in the fall 1993 election to get the annual deficit down to 3 per cent of the GDP. If we listen to the Minister of Finance carefully and analyse the kinds of results that are available, we will meet our 3 per cent target and quite possibly do better than that.

As my colleague said in his speech, the government is first about people. It is not just a business. Along with several other members of this House, I am a member of the finance committee. I had the opportunity to hear and read hundreds of witnesses and their presentations last fall as the finance committee undertook the prebudget consultations and prepared its report for the minister as part of the overall guidance he was seeking in preparing for the budget.

With very few exceptions, the witnesses we heard did not call for massive slashing of programs. They did not call for draconian measures that would turn back the clock and bring us back to the middle ages. Consistently we were told to deal with the deficit, not to raise personal income taxes and not to forget the importance of this country's social infrastructure. The infrastructure ensures that all Canadians have a fair stake in the future.

The natural resources of the country belong equally to all. We expect mining companies to find minerals and metals and to extract those resources. In so doing they pay a share to the community at large to the provincial treasuries and to the federal treasury. We expect forest companies to harvest our forests. At the same time we expect them to give something back in terms of stumpage fees and taxes because all Canadians own those trees. All Canadians can benefit from our resources.

This is why a Liberal government has proven to be the most effective in doing this over the decades. Liberal governments have consistently been able to find the way to balance the needs of industry and business to be profitable. That is important for job creation.

On balance with that there is the need to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to the benefits of the country. We can hardly blame Parliament or finance ministers for doing great damage to the country when we have the best country in the world.

Even though we can criticize past governments for mistakes, the Canadian attitude which is one of balance, taking care of those who have and those who have not in a fair and balanced way is the kind of country the world admires. That is why Canada is in its way so much of a leader. Other countries look to us for examples. As I mentioned, in the prebudget consultations last fall we heard a call for balance, deal with the deficit, do not raise personal taxes and make sure that everybody is treated fairly.

I do not think any of us can say that as a country we do this perfectly. Sadly, the rate of illiteracy is still too high. The rate of poverty particularly among children is still far too high. We still have household and family violence. We still have crime.

All we can do is work together to do better and to improve our communities and the quality of life. Liberal governments have consistently been able to find the way to do that. The budget as represented in Bill C-76 takes us a long way down that road.

I pick out one example of the kind of leadership Canadians have come to expect and can continue to expect from this government. I pick out an issue that became a hot issue in the lead up to the budget, the possibility there would be taxation of employer paid health benefits. Those are the benefits provided to those in the workplace for drugs and dental care, paid fully or partially by the employer.

There was a notion that perhaps the government was thinking about taxing these employer paid benefits. Many people spoke out against this. I received numerous cards and letters from constituents. The minister heard from the finance committee in its report that at this time no such measures should take place.

The finance committee suggested what had to be in the mind of the minister, because it makes sense. That is, the current system is unfair to the working poor, who must pay for their health benefits out of after tax income. We called on the industry, the insurance companies, dental providers, and asked if they would work together to help us find a way so all Canadians can be covered when it comes to drug benefits and dental care. I was very impressed, as I am sure my colleagues in the committee were impressed, by the very positive response from the insurers and from the dental providers that they would try to find a way in which all Canadians can be covered in some fashion for drugs and dental care. I am not saying we are there yet, but I have in the last two weeks seen some very strong evidence that this challenge is being responded to in a very positive way.

The Minister of Finance responded thoughtfully and carefully and decided not to move on that. This will give us some time in this country to find a way to make sure all Canadians are treated fairly when it comes to those particular benefits.

There are elements of unfairness on the subject of RRSPs as well. The more income you have, the more you can contribute. If you are poor, you are not as likely to be able to contribute to an RRSP. There tends to be an imbalance toward Canadians with higher incomes. Here as well reform is in the wind.

The whole issue of aging and pensions needs to be rethought in this modern era. The minister has wisely deferred on this issue pending further research and consultation.

I emphasize to my colleagues in the House, to my constituents, and to all Canadians that the public support for Bill C-76 and the budget is tremendous. It is a fair and balanced approach.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have listened very carefully this morning and this afternoon to the arguments presented by my Liberal colleagues across the way. I am surprised that they continue to argue we are not in a serious situation, that they are somehow being more compassionate than we are in what they are doing, that they are not seriously addressing the debt and deficit situation.

Is balancing the budget not the most compassionate thing we could ever do to preserve our social programs? Is it not the fact that we must stop borrowing more money, that we must immediately come to a situation where we stop increasing the interest payments? Are these interest payments not the most serious threat to our social programs?

If they are the most serious threat, is not the most compassionate thing we can do to get our house in order to balance the budget as quickly as possible, decide on what is important and get there as quickly as possible?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I appreciate his suggestion that Liberals are more compassionate, although he put it in the form of a question. I would like to answer his question with a resounding yes.

The member fairly asks if it is not more compassionate to deal with the deficit. That is the essence of his question. It is logical to deal with the deficit. It is not an issue of compassion. I submit that if we were to have taken an approach as proposed by the third party, the Reform Party, compassion would have gone out the window.

When we are undertaking an operation as difficult as putting the finances of the country back on track, that is not something we can do overnight. It is like moving a huge ship. They have to have a number of little tugboats that work diligently to get the ship turned around in the harbour.

The finance minister recognizes, if the Reform Party does not, that you cannot do this overnight. With the draconian measures the Reform Party proposed in its own prebudget budget, the numbers frankly did not add up. It is something like the Harris budget plan for Ontario, for which there is a very indecipherable bottom line.

The issue of compassion must be balanced certainly by logic. That logic must lead us to a conclusion that is fair to all Canadians. For example, let us just say we are going to have a massive tax cut and that would be fair. It is more fair to the rich and less fair to the poor. If taxes are slashed 30 per cent, as Mr. Harris pretends he will do, then certainly if I were rich, which I am not, I would have a greater benefit than a poor person.

While the member's question in the context of his own party's philosophy might seem fair, I go back to my comments in my speech that a country is not a business. While it might need to be or should be run in a businesslike fashion, it is not a business. It is first about people. There is no way we can close our eyes, turn the pages of the budget, and stroke out items with a pen without considering their impact on people.

This government has taken action. The program review undertaken by the ministers of the crown has resulted in measures that will be effective. The result is in the reaction of Canadians and the reaction of the marketplaces around the world to the budget. There has been an extremely positive, balanced, and well considered response to this budget. That is the proof that the budget has hit the mark.

With that I suggest the member go back and look at his own prebudget plan. It would be too generous for me to say it was compassionate.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, today I would like to tell a story, the story of Nibor Dooh, a mythological character from history who landed on the shores of the great country of Adanac. Adanac was a peaceful, prosperous, and tolerant place when he arrived. The people had no complaints, other than those that are inevitable in life. Nibor Dooh went about the land telling the people of Adanac that their lives could be much better than they were. They could be richer, more tolerant, and more prosperous. If they followed his scheme they would be much better off.

The good people of Adanac scratched their heads in bewilderment. "We already work the land", they said, "and we look after our families and we look after the less fortunate in our communities. How can we all do so much better?"

"It is very good news", said Nibor Dooh. "You all remember that awful Xram, who said we have to steal from the rich to give to the poor. You were right not to listen to him. Stealing is wrong. I can make you all rich without any of that".

The people scratched their heads a bit harder. How could this work? "Well", said Nibor Dooh, "it is all a bit complicated. First we take from the rich to give to the poor and then the poor are rich, or they are richer. So we can take from them and give back to the rich. Then the rich have even more, so we can take more from them and give to the not poor any more, and so on".

The people of Adanac scratched their heads some more. They really did not understand how this all could work. "Look", said Nibor Dooh, "it is all in this wonderful book by the philosopher Sen Yek. It is called The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Free Money . I can't say I quite understand it myself'', said Nibor Dooh, ``and I am sure you wouldn't, but trust me. It will all work out''.

Nibor Dooh assembled the elitist class in the country to help him rule the land. He explained that this way it would not be so bad that initially he had to take from them. He was to hire a lot of them and they could all get together, look very clever and rule the ordinary people. They would have to adopt his ideas, some of which were actually very odd. After a few years, they would even claim that it was their culture and that it was what made their country great and gave it its identity.

Nibor Dooh was able to convince some of the tribe of Aidem to explain his scheme to everyone in the land. Aidem had a lot of influence and most of his tribe were part of the upper elite class.

At first the whole thing seemed to work to perfection. The elite class paid more, but not much more. They got to be rulers and talk in very clever and compassionate sounding ways. The tribe of Aidem praised them with great praise and Nibor Dooh went up and down the great land of Adanac taking small amounts of money from the people to give back to the rich but also giving them large amounts of money that he said he had got from the rich without taking much from them.

"Look how well it is working", he told them, and the Aidem echoed him. "I take a small amount of money from you and I increase it. I do more with it than if you keep it yourself. I provide free health care for you. I will pay you a pension when you get old. I take care of the poor among you better than you could. I provide work for those without jobs, and if I cannot provide work I pay them anyway. There is no need for any of you to concern yourself with your neighbour's well-being, for I, Nibor Dooh, take care of all those who have problems".

Every once in a while some village idiot would ask how he could defy the laws of economics, but Nibor Dooh would just smile patronizingly and wave copies of the works of Sen Yek and Htiarblag. Nibor Dooh was so clever and so urbane that the people just laughed at these idiots.

Other quite vicious people spread rumours that Nibor Dooh was actually borrowing from the rich and promising to pay them back with the money of the poor. No one listened, because if it were true he was making the poor richer and they would easily be able to pay for what they had consumed now.

No one worried about tomorrow. Adanac became known as one of the best countries to live in. As the years went by there was a gradual but marked change in society. People did not take as much responsibility for their own affairs. They did not save their money for when times were lean or when they got to be older. People did not take as much interest in helping their neighbour as they did previously. A saying became common in the land: "Don't worry, Nibor Dooh will take care of us", and Nibor Dooh became a very popular person in the land of Adanac.

Another gradual change began to occur. The poor people had to always pay a little more to Nibor Dooh every year for the services he provided. Every year there were more and more people who did not have jobs. Some of the people began to murmur and ask questions. It appeared as though they were paying more to Nibor Dooh than they were getting back in the services he provided. Some of the people from the Aidem tribe came to Nibor Dooh's rescue. They told the people Nibor Dooh was doing what was best for them. They told the people of Adanac they were becoming a more caring and compassionate society, kinder and gentler than they used to be.

Meanwhile, Nibor Dooh was looking more tired and worried than he once had and had less time for the common people. "See how he wears himself out for us", they said. They did not know he had to spend more and more time begging the rich to lend him more and more. They knew that Nibor Dooh kept saying the rich would have to pay more, but somehow it was always them who had to pay more.

They began to listen to people criticising the whole arrangement. Some were the old time village idiots like Reklaw and Namdeirf, and others were new voices like Notserp Gninnam. Notserp really annoyed Nibor Dooh with his impertinent questions like where is all this money coming from to provide all these services? Why are we paying almost half of our hard-earned money to Nibor Dooh? Why are the services declining but the amount we give Nibor Dooh keeps increasing?

Also about this time Notserp made the discovery that Nibor Dooh was actually taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Notserp discovered that Nibor Dooh had an agreement with the wealthy in the land whereby they would give Nibor Dooh money if he gave them a portion of what he collected from the poor every year. Aidem came to the rescue of Nibor Dooh again but the word got out to the people he was taking from the poor to give to the rich. Some of the poor people saw they were not rich enough to afford what he demanded of them and they began to demand that this stop.

Nibor Dooh began to accuse Notserp of being heartless and cruel for making such a suggestion, but Notserp contended that we must not keep giving more to the rich because it would enslave the poor. In return Nibor Dooh accused Notserp for wanting to slash and burn these wonderful programs. If we went back to allowing people more control over their lives the country would fall apart.

The Aidem tribe also contended that if Notserp had his way we would lose our identify as a nation. Nibor Dooh said the poor would be unable to defend themselves from the adversities of life. When people asked Notserp about this he explained that we are all becoming poorer because we were giving so much of our hard earned money to the rich. He said it was wrong to steal from the rich and that since we have borrowed from them we have to pay them back. He said going into debt to them had not made us richer and would not so we should stop borrowing and just pay them back.

Notserp became more and more popular with the poor people as they began to realise he was telling the truth. The trust the people had in Nibor Dooh began to disappear. The Aidem people tried valiantly to defend Nibor Dooh, but the stranger their explanations became and the wilder their attacks on Notserp the less convincing they became. People asked Notserp how he could keep attracting larger and larger audiences even though Aidem and Nibor Dooh called him such terrible names. You cannot fool all the people all the time, he told them.

Finally the people became so angry that they sent Nibor Dooh back to the land of Larebil and proclaimed Notserp their new leader. Notserp told them clearly he was not a magician, but neither was Nibor Dooh. He said: "There are simple answers to your problems, but they are not easy ones. Nibor Dooh has made us poor and we will have to go back to working hard to fix the damage he caused. It will take years but at the end you will feel better not because of what I have done but because of what you have done".

That is what happened. The people worked hard but they felt proud of the work and they learned a great lesson. They could take care of themselves better in the long run than Nibor Dooh could with his grand scheme of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

That is the end of my story. One observant person realized Nibor Dooh is Robin Hood spelled backwards. Just like Nibor Dooh was Robin Hood spelled backwards, what he did was backwards. All his great schemes that had the effect of stealing from the poor to give to the rich were backwards. We are doing the very same thing in Canada. The government, like Nibor Dooh in my story, has convinced the people it can do more for the people than they can do for themselves.

I listened to the arguments all morning and I heard them repeated over and over again. The government is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. We borrow from the rich and they get richer. Every year the situation deteriorates.

A parallel to this story can be found in the history of Canada for approximately the past 25 years and it is still unfolding. What is the answer? Get government less involved in the lives of people. Let them take care of themselves; stop interfering. Reduce the size of government and government programs and reduce taxes so people have more control over their lives.

Like the people of Adanac, Canadians are becoming increasingly cynical of government and politicians. They need to realize there is absolutely no compassion in doing what we are doing, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. They need to realize there is nothing noble about being told they cannot take care of themselves, their families and the less fortunate without the help of a wise, all seeing government. That is the great lesson of this story.

Like the people of Adanac, we have the will, the imagination and the energy to live well and to share generously all by ourselves and that is what we need to do.

What are the key points in this story I created? Governments have created the impression that by borrowing money, by going into debt, we are being compassionate and caring. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are enslaving our people, especially our children. We are taking the money from the hardworking, ordinary, not wealthy people of Canada and we are giving it to the rich by our schemes.

People pay over one-half of their money to the government. What tactics does the government use to transfer this money from the poor to the rich? It convinces the people it can take care of them better than they could if they were allowed to keep their hard earned money, which is a myth. Many people in Canada are beginning to realize this myth. Another tactic government uses is to keep telling the people: "Trust us, even if you do not understand it all. The government is doing what is best for the country". This too is a great myth.

All the names in this story are spelled backwards. For example, the tribe of Aidem that helped Nibor Dooh and the elites to spread their lies across the land is the media. Aidem, like Nibor Dooh, was able to get some of the elite tribe to help him convince everyone that being left wing is more compassionate than being right wing, but it proved to be a myth. Before these left wing Liberal ideas were spread across the land of Adanac, Canada spelled backwards, we had strong families and communities to give support to those in society who were less fortunate. When these ideas of Senyek were spread across that land it began to erode the strength of our families and charitable institutions.

Notserp, whose name I will let others decipher, began to tell the people these ideas of Nibor Dooh would not work. The agreement Nibor Dooh had with the rich to borrow money was to destroy the land. That is happening in Canada today. By borrowing money we are destroying our country.

The grand experiment this country has undergone for the last 25 years or so has not worked. Hard work, strong families, community organizations, values that emphasize responsibility, these have made our country great, not this idea that big government programs have made our country great and make us a great society. Nothing could be further from the truth; it is a myth. The government still creates the impression it can take better care of us than we can take care of ourselves if we were allowed to keep our hard earned money.

Nibor Dooh created the impression that he could multiply the money he took from the people but in the end it was a myth. The opposite actually happened. He impoverished the people. This is happening in Canada. My hope is that we can learn a lesson from the story I have told. We cannot keep taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this fairy tale and I think there is a fairy tale within a fairy tale; some rather strange myths articulated by the member opposite.

I ask members present if they agree with the myth that perhaps the member is right about us interfering too much and that, following his logic, a person without food and shelter should be left without food and shelter.

The member is very much a proponent of the marketplace. I ask him if he believes that begging on the street is the marketplace's answer to helping people in vulnerable positions to find enough food and wherewithal to support themselves.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all morning to the same type of reasoning, the big flaw in what is happening in Canada today. We are trying to convince the people these big government programs, the borrowing of money to sustain all of this, are the answer to our problem. This absolutely is not the answer.

We have to run government in a businesslike manner. We have to be more responsible. We have to allow people to assume responsibility for their lives. If the member is suggesting that if we remove this from them and we have big government programs we are solving the problem, she should take a look around her. She should open her eyes.

The interest we are paying on our debt and the interest that continues to grow and multiply is doing more to destroy what we can do for the people than any other factor. You missed the entire point of the story I told. The time will come-

[The Speaker]

It being 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by Members. I remind all hon. members to address the chair at all times in the matter of debate.

Peacekeeping

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the diplomatic discussions between the governments of Ireland and Great Britain are apparently moving to a successful conclusion. There are new structures and processes to ensure full religious tolerance and co-operation within a new, plural Irish constitutional system.

In congratulating the political leaders involved, the Canadian government might help with our acquired historical experience in international peacekeeping in any transitional governmental arrangements.

Tiananmen Square Massacre

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we wish to draw attention today to the sixth anniversary of the sad events that took place in June of 1989 in Tiananmen Square, where thousands of students were massacred in the violent crackdown on their democratic movement by the Chinese leadership.

Despite the hopes that this widespread movement had raised, democracy is no further ahead today in China.

All the while, this government just turns its back on the promotion of human rights by concentrating exclusively on the economic aspect of its relations with China.

By repudiating a well-established tradition of promoting human rights, the government reduces the status of Canada to that of a minor and petty market power lacking vision, with a foreign policy based on double talk.

Senate Committee On Euthanasia

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today the special senate committee on euthanasia and assisted suicide will table its report detailing its findings and outlining its recommendations. I applaud the committee for its careful consideration of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

Of importance is the emphasis on palliative care which must be addressed by the medical community and all levels of government through its promotion of public health policy. This was a consistent theme presented by witnesses before the committee.

Canadians are asking what control they and their families have in the direction of their own care. Certainly all issues surrounding the withholding and withdrawal of life support need very close attention with public education and input.

It concerns me that judges may be given leniency in handing out mercy killing sentences, once again calling into question the integrity of our justice system. Respect for life and the protection of the most vulnerable in our society should be paramount in public health policy and the law.

Wentworth Consolidated Elementary School

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, recently I had the wonderful opportunity to present a new Canadian flag to the children at Wentworth Consolidated elementary school.

As we stood around the flag pole in the beautiful spring sunshine, we talked of the importance of the flag as a symbol of nationhood, the respect and care that our flag deserves, and the great price paid by our veterans to make our nation so great and free.

Inside the school the children showed me a giant aquarium in which they watched baby fish grow from eggs caught from the nearby fish hatchery. When these young fish are big enough the school children transport them to the Wallace River for restocking.

Today I congratulate the principal, Dr. Gordon Jeffrey, the dedicated staff, and the students of the Wentworth Consolidated elementary school for their environmental awareness and their community projects.

Youth Sports

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize three young people from the city of Mississauga: Jane Lea, Michelle Lo and Frank Luisser. All three secondary students have been named athletes of the year for outstanding participation and ability in a wide variety of sports.

Today when the media seems to focus on troubled youth it is important to recognize adolescents who, from small children, have enthusiastically refined their skills to a superior calibre that is recognized by all. As individual athletes and successful

team players they have been recognized not only for their skills but for their positive outlook on life.

I congratulate their families who have spent many hours supporting and encouraging these superstars. I congratulate Jane, Michelle and Frank for being the best they can be.

Maple Leaf Public School

[Ron Fewchuk, Liberal, Selkirk—Red River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to praise the students of Maple Leaf Public School.

I have received two different projects from the students who expressed their concerns about the environment. I commend the work done by Jillian Morris and Maria Locht on their project entitled "Oil Spills".

I also commend the time and effort that Lauren MacKenzie and Jennifer Mairn put into soliciting names for their petition on acid rain.

International Trade

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the opening in Toronto of the first official round of negotiations on the inclusion of Chile in NAFTA, which, according to the Minister of International Trade, will make this agreement more vigorous, flexible and open. We are pleased to note this sudden conversion to free trade on the part of the Liberals, who so fiercely opposed the signing of the free trade agreement with the U.S.

Today, the federal government is in favour of every free trade initiative: free trade with Asia by 2025, free trade with Europe, free trade here, there and everywhere. That is Canada's new motto. A sovereign Quebec will make an economic association offer to Canada. Given our current commercial ties, this is an offer that can hardly be refused.

With a volume of trade with Canada 150 times that of Chile, Quebec certainly has at least equal merit.

Expo 2005

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Expo 2005 has ground down into an unpleasant east-west tug of war in which the west appears to be shafted yet again in a decision rigged to favour Ottawa over Calgary.

The foot dragging Minister of Canadian Heritage demonstrates how the momentum of mediocrity can sustain a faltering political career as his indecisiveness cripples the bid process.

How did a process based on integrity and fairness become so tainted that Ottawa is now lobbying more fiercely than ever before? The Mulroney way is back. Once it appeared that Calgary was going to be awarded Expo 2005, the backroom politics of the Mulroney years took over the process, and an incompetent minister was the perfect foil by which the emergent controversy could gather momentum.

The Liberals are faced will a real dilemma for not only did the independent review committee unanimously recommend Calgary but this fact was also widely reported. Although choosing Ottawa over Calgary will be a difficult public choice for the Liberals, the confidence exhibited not only by the lobbyists but also by cabinet reveals that the Mulroney way is still very much a part of Canadian politics.

Taher S. Madraswalla

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an extraordinary individual. Mr. Taher S. Madraswalla has been on a peace mission for 14 years.

In October 1981, at the age of 18, he left his homeland of Ahmedabad, India, on a bicycle tour and now 14 years and some 116,000 kilometres later he has visited 30 countries spreading his message of peace.

Throughout Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Australia and now Canada he has spread the word of international brotherhood, peace and understanding. Fittingly the last stage of his mission will be to cycle to the headquarters of the United Nations where he is hoping to bring his message to the secretary-general.

In tribute I must quote Mr. Madraswalla:

I have seen too much fighting because of religion and I don't believe that religion and skin colour should keep people apart.

On behalf of all members of the House I congratulate him for dedicating the past 14 years to an honourable goal.

Freshwater Institute

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I protest the cuts being planned for the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg, not just with respect to the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg but also with respect to the experimental lakes project in and around Kenora which is apparently threatened by the same set of cutbacks. I say to the government that these kinds of cutbacks are acutely shortsighted.

There is not just the fiscal deficit. There is what we sometimes call the human deficit. There is also what we call the environmental deficit. A lot of very good research having to do with acid rain and other environmental problems has gone on under the auspices of the institute.

It is shortsighted in the extreme to cut off this research. We may well regret many years from now that the government saw fit to do away with this research. I urge the government to take a second look at its plans in this regard.

National Transportation Week

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Transportation Week. In a country as vast as Canada, the transportation network-with all its railways, highways, ports and airports-is very important.

Most of the largest Canadian port, the Port of Vancouver, is located in my riding of Vancouver East.

In addition to fast growth of its traffic in the movement of goods, the port of Vancouver has a very dynamic cruise industry which in 1994 delivered an estimated $140 million in benefits to the British Columbia economy and over 580,000 passengers.

Recently the Ballantyne pier, built in my riding in the twenties, reopened its terminal to help serve the cruise industry. This season the Ballantyne terminal will greet 64 of the 292 sailings calling on the port of Vancouver.

The terminal is now a state of the art facility for new cruise ships, boasting passenger loads of 2,000 to 3,000 people, thanks to new gangways that have the capability to be set up in a record seven minutes.

This is a unique way of protecting the past while serving the future. The Vancouver Port Corporation deserves to be congratulated for its vision.

The Late Clifford Corey

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, more than a week ago we lost one of Carleton-Charlotte's most noted entrepreneurs with the passing of Mr. Clifford Corey.

For many years Mr. Corey was a distinguished leader in New Brunswick's forestry industry. He resided and established several businesses in the Southampton-Nackawic areas of my constituency. Not only was he a business leader but he was also well respected as a community leader.

The country and indeed the world need more Clifford Coreys. He was admired as a leader by family, friends and the entire community. On behalf of all members of the House I extend sincere condolences and sympathy to Mr. Corey's wife Evelyn, son David, daughters Marion and Margaret; to the entire family and their many friends.

National Transportation Week

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, National Transportation Week provides an excellent opportunity to thank all the men and women in the transport sector. These people work to ensure the free movement of goods and people throughout Canada at any time of the day or night, putting food on our tables and taking us home after work.

Quebecers are fully aware of how important the transport sector is. To the workers at Orléans Express in Montreal, at the Viens bus company in Farnham, at Transport R.P.R in Cowansville, to the independent truckers across the country, to CN, CP and VIA employees, to airline and shipping company staff, to the industrious taxi drivers, to the dispatcher's secretary, to all the people of Brome-Missisquoi who are associated in any way with the transport sector, to all the people from coast to coast who maintain all kinds of links between each province and the rest of Canada, I join with my parliamentary colleagues in saying, "Thank you for all you do for us, and I wish you all a great National Transportation Week".

Revenue Canada

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 1,400 Quebec taxpayers gathered at the Place des arts to denounce a decision made by Revenue Canada. Indeed, after allowing a research and development investment tax credit for four years, Revenue Canada is suddenly changing its mind and asking 15,000 Quebecers to refund amounts three to four times higher than their tax savings.

This about-face by Revenue Canada may force thousands of Quebecers into bankruptcy. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a mistake made by the federal revenue department. How can you expect to restore taxpayers' confidence in Revenue Canada, when that department is asking them to retroactively repay amounts which they invested in good faith?

Not only does this government refuse to undertake a complete tax review, it also makes taxpayers pay for its own incompetence.

Liberal Party Of Canada

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a very poor record of keeping its promises on open government, independence of members, and the integrity of Parliament. We will soon see if the Liberal brass respects the right of members to vote freely in the House, or if it considers them to be nothing more than trained seals expected to show up just to make up the needed members and then bark yea or nay as they are told.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has expressed some real concerns about the federal budget. While I do not share his specific concerns I support his right to vote freely in the House to keep the promises he and the Liberals made in the red book, the promises the Liberals are now breaking.

It is unfortunate the Liberals do not support this right. We have already seen three Liberals punished for not toeing the party line. Page 92 of the failing Liberal red book talks of parliamentary reform. It says that open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program. It would be a shame if the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was punished by his own party for keeping his promise when his Liberal masters are breaking theirs.

Ontario Election

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in two days, Ontarians will go to the polls to elect a new government.

At this point in time, French-speaking residents of the province must think carefully about the choice they will make. They must ensure that the new government will protect their community's acquired rights, while also promoting its vitality.

The Ontario Liberal Party has shown that it is a good protector of the rights of French-speaking Ontarians. Just think of Bill 8, or the establishment of the Cité collégiale, where young French-speaking Ontarians already receive training. In fact, it is party leader Lyn McLeod who reached an agreement with the federal government regarding the Cité collégiale, when she was education minister.

Since the past is often indicative of things to come, when French-speaking Ontarians go to the polls in two days, they must make sure to vote for the party which will best serve their interests.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario has had constant slides to the left under the NDP. Now the Conservatives are offering a four-year slide to the right. This province needs balance and the Liberals offer that balanced approach.

The Conservatives offer unattainable promises of 30 per cent tax cuts with no cost to our health care system. Ontarians know that is not possible. They know that a 30 per cent tax cut would mean a tax on health care. They know it would mean punishing the average Ontarian while rewarding the rich.

People of Ontario have a choice between a balanced approach that builds on the hopes of Ontarians for the future and a misleading radical approach that plays on the fears of people.

On Thursday Ontarians should protect their health care, protect essential services in the province, and vote for the balanced approach. Vote Liberal.