Debates of June 7th, 1995

Ontario Election

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Ontarians will be called on to elect a new government.

Mike Harris and his crew are catering to the extreme right by promising unrealistic tax and spending cuts. I call on the Conservative leader to come clean with Ontarians and tell them exactly how these cuts are to affect education, health care and social programs.

I pledge my full support behind Lyn McLeod and her excellent team of candidates. I am convinced that if Ontarians focus on provincial issues and see Mike Harris for what he really is, a Mulroney clone, they will elect a majority Liberal government.

Mike Harris will cut education and create a two tier health care system. Mike Harris wants to bring us back to the future of the 1950s old boys network where you take from the poor to give to the rich.

Let us move forward with the realities of the 21st century and elect a fiscally responsible-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois awards its prize for the best bungler to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

After his murky role in the Ginn Publishing affair, his attempt to influence the CRTC's decision regarding a broadcasting licence, his decision to slash the CBC's budget and refusal to admit that he had done it, his embroilment of the CRTC in the Power DirecTv matter, his less than timely visit to Los Angeles and its impact on the Seagram matter, the minister just keeps on going.

Why should we be surprised that the minister accepted to be the host of a $2,000 a plate dinner organized by a lobbying firm? Why should we be surprised to see that the minister's office awarded that very firm three contracts?

In light of these revelations, one question comes to mind: Why does the Prime Minister protect this minister who is singlehandedly bringing down the semblance of respectability and ethical conduct that the government has so painstakingly built for itself?

Aboriginal Affairs

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the native blockade at the Douglas Lake ranch has finally come to an end. It was taken down not because the RCMP enforced the law and removed this illegal blockade but apparently because charges against the four Nicola band members that were illegally fishing were dropped. Because the RCMP refused to enforce the law this whole affair has cost the Douglas Lake ranch around $200,000. Who pays for that?

Now the chief of the band is warning that if progress is not made to their satisfaction more blockades will go up. The RCMP action will undoubtedly result in B.C. being transformed into a blockade battleground this summer.

This whole Douglas Lake affair is clear evidence that a two tier justice system is being actively pursued by the government. So much for equality and so much for equality before the law.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members of Parliament I extend congratulations to Superintendent Len Olfert of the RCMP and to other members of the force for their exemplary performance in fulfilling their professional duties of enforcing the court order to remove the blockade erected by the Upper Nicola Indian Band.

The barricade was removed in a peaceful and safe manner. The RCMP demonstrated a cultural appreciation, recognition and sensitivity that enabled a communication channel to be

maintained between the members of the force and the First Nations leaders involved in this serious dispute.

Appreciation must also be extended to the First Nations peoples involved. Despite their serious historic grievances they were prepared to co-operate with the RCMP and agreed to resolve any differences through a process of negotiation.

This action bodes well for a satisfactory resolution of the issues. It once again reminds us why the RCMP is the most professional and respected police force in the entire world.

Ontario Election

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the Reform Party like tactics being used by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party during the Ontario election campaign.

Mike Harris and his party troops are spreading a gospel of fiscal fantasy. On the one hand they promise $4 billion worth of income tax cuts; on the other they pledge to balance the budget in six years. On the one hand they would promise not to cut health care and education; on the other they would spend millions of dollars on end of pipe solutions, punishing youth in boot camps, a system that has already failed in the United States. Are they for real? To top it all off, the Harris posse pledges to take a 25 per cent pay cut if they fail to meet their deficit targets, targets set for some time after the next provincial election.

The people of Ontario do not need naive politicians who make lofty promises that do not make any sense. They need the McLeod team: realistic promises, realistic goals, good government.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker,

There once was a man from North Bay, Who dreamed of a win on E-day, Harris promised a tax cut, Thinking we'd fall for that smut, Sounds just like Mulroney, wouldn't ya say!

That is right, Mr. Speaker. We will not be fooled by the fairy tale provincial Tory election plan. We heard tall tales like these from Brian for nine years.

Economists are being polite when they express their scepticism about the Tory plan for balancing the budget. However, behind closed doors they are rolling on the floor laughing at Harris' Alice in Wonderland election ploy.

Let us get real. The Ontario electorate is not so naive as to believe that a 30 per cent personal income tax cut will ever come their way. This comes from the guy who wants Ontario students to sell chocolate bars in order to subsidize the huge Tory tuition plan and the increases his party has planned for them.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the Ontario election I want to look at the hot buttons the Tories are pushing.

They are telling the people of Ontario that workfare will work. I was glad to see in the Globe and Mail today, the number one Tory supporter, that it has identified that plan as an unworkable policy clunker.

The Tories say that employment equity is all about quotas and if we just get rid of the legislation we will find all the jobs that we need for Ontario. That is simplistic and is a totally outrageous misrepresentation.

The Tories tell us they will cut our taxes by 30 per cent, they will balance the budget and they will not touch health care. We all want that but there is nothing in their plan that will get us there except perhaps a new Ontario health tax for individuals.

What bothers me the most is that they are speaking to the dark side of human nature. They are giving licence to us to attack people who are least able to defend themselves. It is unfair and unjust. The people of Ontario will not vote for that platform tomorrow.

G-7 Summit

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the final press release of the G-7 Summit in Halifax, a summit that has not even taken place yet, was available to all. The source of this leak, which has embarrassed the governments of the six other G-7 countries, must be the Canadian government, the host of the summit. How confident the other G-7 countries must be of this government's reliability!

This amateurism puts us to shame. Quebecers and Canadians could be proud of the accomplishments of previous governments on the international scene. In earlier times, we were on the cutting edge of peacekeeping missions the world over. We once were the conscience of the western world regarding human rights. We once were the bridge between east and west, north and south, the United States and Europe. Today, the lack of imagination, of a vision for the future and the failure to see big have relegated us to a second rate role. The Canada of which so many people were once proud is no more.

Government Expenditures

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the election in Ontario I rise to outline yet another Liberal broken promise.

On page 20 of the red book the Liberals promised to reduce the professional and special services budget of the government by 15 per cent. What has happened? The professional and special services budget has increased by $136 million.

The Department of Transport saw an 86 per cent increase in the need for special assistance over the past year. Even the governor general needed special help to the tune of $87,000 more than last year.

This is just another example of the lack of Liberal will and ability to cut spending. Meanwhile the Reform Party has put forward more than 50 motions to eliminate wasteful spending in the main estimates which will be debated tonight.

Will the Liberals live up to their red book promises and vote for spending reductions? We will wait to see.

Ontario Election

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers, Tories, same old stories in Ontario.

Tomorrow is E-day and in Windsor and Essex county, the centre of the universe, we are ready. We live on the U.S. border and we can see the effect of Mike Harris style politics every day. We do not want Ontario governed by the republicans of the north.

We want universal access to health care. We want our brand new casino industry to thrive. We want good, competent, compassionate government: McNamara, Duncan, Pupattello, Crozier, Hoy.

Republican, Tory, same old story. That is not what Windsor wants.

Mike Harris

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, a few days before the Ontario provincial election, the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, ACFO, held its annual convention in Toronto. This organization has defended the interests of Ontario's francophone community for decades.

The leaders of the Liberal, New Democrat and Conservative parties were invited to attend. Mike Harris, the leader of the Conservative Party decided, however, not to. Would Mr. Harris' decision not indicate how little interest he has in Ontario francophones? It would seem so.

Ontario's francophones want a government that is sensitive to their needs, a government that is not afraid to respect their rights. Clearly, Mr. Harris has little concern for these claims and for the francophone community of Ontario in general.

Ontario Election

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario Conservative leader Mike Harris has promised a referendum on any future tax increases. This reads like Reform Party policy. Maybe the people of Ontario could call Mike on a 1-900 user pay service. His motto could be "when I want your opinion, I want you to pay for it". Mike could seek advice on issues that are important only to him, or Mike could do what Reformers are known for, ignore the people and vote the way the Reform politicians think best.

The people of Ontario want action and they want jobs. Liberal promises are real and they will be kept. In 1993 the people of Ontario elected only one Reformer. They have shown their common sense. Tomorrow they have a chance to once again reject doom and gloom and lots of empty promises by putting the Conservatives where they belong, as they did the Reformers, in opposition to stay.

Immigration

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the pathetic muddling of the officials of the Department of Immigration is getting worse at the Canadian embassy in Paris.

As members will recall the immigration department refused to grant a visa to the Algerian film maker Mrs. Koudil so she could present her film at the Vues d'Afrique festival. The department had to reconsider its position.

Then, visas were denied to three Algerian actors, who were to put on a play at the Theatre Festival of the Americas denouncing the rise of fundamentalism in Algeria.

Now, two Algerian grandmothers are drawing the officials' ire. These women are over 65 years old and want to visit their children and grandchildren living in Canada, as they have done in the past.

We could talk of bad faith. The question is, does it lie with the ambassador or with the minister.

Justice Committee Chairman

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, will history repeat itself? Will the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce be removed from his position as the chair of the justice standing committee? Will the cowardly and shameful exercise of power be displayed one more time?

The anticipated removal of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be another example of the broken promises of the government to allow for more free votes in the House of Commons. It will be a blatant demonstration of this government's disregard for the principles of democracy.

I do not share the hon. member's political ideologies. However he has earned my respect as chairman of the justice committee as he has displayed an enormous amount of fairness and skill in his duties, particularly during the proceedings on the gun control bill.

Such an act will result in the justice committee losing a skilled and experienced chairman, a loss that will be greatly felt by members who sit on my side of the table and all members of the justice committee.

Ontario Election

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario are getting wise to the reality of Mike Harris' ultra conservative policy. His pie in the sky promises of a 30 per cent income tax cut are an insult to the intelligence of the people of this province. How does he propose to juggle a massive tax cut and balance the budget without slashing essential services? He does not.

Mike Harris is deceiving the people of Ontario, shamelessly exploiting the discontent brought about by five years of NDP government. He is using it as a pretext to dismantle progressive and essential programs that the Liberals across this country have helped establish.

There is only one real choice for the voters in Ontario. Lyn McLeod has demonstrated her commitment to the people of Ontario by proposing realistic and workable proposals for change, realistic tax cuts to stimulate job creation, a balanced budget in four years, a firm commitment to cut $3.5 billion from government spending while maintaining funding for education and health.

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Ontario goes to the polls to elect a new government.

The Liberals have promised not to increase taxes but to balance the provincial budget within four years. They have presented a responsible and prudent plan that recognizes both the government's fiscal responsibility and its social responsibility not to place the burden of reducing the deficit on the backs of the least advantaged in society.

It is one thing to hold the line on personal tax increases. It is irresponsible to substantially cut them when facing a large deficit. Ronald Reagan showed us in 1981 what happens when taxes are cut without a sound economic plan. The rich get richer, the debts get larger, and the middle class becomes poorer.

The people of Ontario know that it will require leadership and not gimmicks to guide the province. Lyn McLeod and the Liberals will provide that leadership.

Crtc

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday CRTC chairman Keith Spicer was very critical of the directives the federal government is about to approve with respect to direct to home satellite television services. He referred to these directives as illegal and condemned their unprecedented retroactive effect as well as their incredibly detailed content. Mr. Spicer said that government intervention undermined the independence and integrity of the CRTC and could lead to political interference with its operations.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering that yesterday, Mr. Spicer felt it was necessary to remind us that the government's authority with respect to communications did not extend to giving preferential treatment to certain friends, would the Prime Minister agree that these statements by the CRTC chairman cast doubts on the government's integrity in the case of DTH satellite television services?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what has happened here. The government has pursued a process which is set out very clearly in the Broadcasting Act. We have tabled a direction in Parliament.

The job of the government is to make policy. It was for that reason we were elected. It is the job of the CRTC to implement policy. It is for that reason it was created.

We have tabled a direction in the House which is part of a parliamentary process. It sets out a policy which is in favour of competition and in favour of consumers. Consumers have asked for leadership. That is what we are providing.

If the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party would like to suggest either that the direction be withdrawn and that the monopoly created by the exemption order remain or that the direction be amended, let us hear their suggestions.

The direction is on the table of the House. It is an open, transparent and public process. We are looking for good policy. Let us hear what the opposition has to suggest.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, obviously these excellent arguments failed to convince the chairman of the CRTC who knows the subject inside out.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

My question was about the integrity of this government, and the custodian of the government's integrity, the person who is ultimately responsible for the government's integrity is the leader of the government. My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I want to ask him to explain how he can claim that his government followed normal procedures in this case and acted with integrity, when we know that the orders were tailor made for Power DirecTv in which his son-in-law has an interest?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition chooses to confuse policy with accusations that have nothing to do with reality.

Let me remind him again that the origin of the issue was the issuance of an exemption order which effectively created a monopoly in the direct to home satellite sector.

Let me remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition exactly why the exemption order was created in the first place in the bill proposed by the former government.

The explanatory note says that an exemption order exists as part of the technology neutral approach of the act. An example of a service which is technically broadcasting but which the commission would probably want to exempt is real estate radio.

What we have here is the use of the exemption order by the CRTC to authorize the entry into a very major component of the broadcasting service in the country of direct to home satellite broadcasting.

It was never anticipated that an exemption order would be used for such a purpose. It is entirely appropriate that the government seek a transparent method of looking at the means of licensing and recognizing the entry into the market in this important sector.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I pity the CRTC! Someone is responsible for defending the government's integrity: it is the Prime Minister, and he is not saying a word. Someone is responsible for defending the CRTC in this House; he is not saying a word, and the Minister of Industry is trying to cover for these people. He is getting involved in something that is none of his business.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.