Debates of Oct. 29th, 1996

Committee Of The Whole

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Of course, we should not forget the head of that administration. I am allowed to say this because it is the administration. It is the Chrétien administration. I believe that is parliamentary, but I will not use it again, Mr. Speaker, if you object to that phrase. He is a great leader of the administration.

Which country is it that the United Nations in two out of the past three years has said is the best nation in the world in which to live? It is not Japan. It is not the United Kingdom. It is not France. It is not Germany. It is not the United States. It is Canada.

Members opposite would have the Canadian public believe that we have gone downhill from the days when we were not number one, when we were actually number six of the G-7. Those were the days of the Tory administration to which the Reform Party would love to return.

In analysing all of these promises and all of the promises of the Government of Canada, we should never forget and the Canadian public should never forget that we are dealing in this House with a difference in philosophy. It is a great difference in philosophy.

They would have the banks own our highways and our airports. They come out and say it in this document, which I will not show you, Mr. Speaker, because that is against the rules. On page 14 they say that given our current fiscal climate governments are ill equipped to spend money on infrastructure. And they say Canada should privatize airports and aviation. Privatize it, not pass it over to management boards. They say we should allow the private sector companies to build and maintain roads and bridges. Imagine. What a change of philosophy that is.

That carries through in practically every discussion we have had in this Chamber, including those on taxes. Which party was it in this Chamber that stood up and demanded greater tax cuts for American companies that were operating in Canada? It was the Reform Party of Canada. Somehow the Reform influenced the Tories and the Bloc because the Bloc did the same thing.

Bloc members claimed their excuse was that they had many friends living in the United States. That is what they said. The Bloc members stood in this Chamber, the official opposition of this House of Commons which is supposed to represent the commoners, the ordinary people of Canada, stood in this House and agreed with the Reform Party.

They demanded a 50 per cent cut on all taxes, on all the moneys that go back across the border into the United States, on all the interest made by foreign banks that goes back to the United States. They demanded that tax credits be given to people who have relatives in universities in the United States of America. Not only that, but they demanded that tax credits be given if per chance one happened to be subjected to the death tax in the United States, that we call the inheritance tax in Canada, and if a person owned over $600,000 of property in the United States.

The Reform Party and the Bloc members stood in this Chamber and demanded more. Why? Because it is a matter of philosophy with the Reform Party. It is a matter of philosophy with the Tories. And it is a matter that the Bloc said they have friends who have lots of money in the United States.

What we have here is this great difference in philosophy. On the one hand political figures are in favour of what? In favour of the very rich. That is why this party, the government leads the polls today because Canadians are asking: "What other choice is there? Where do we go? Why would we vote for a party that would want the banks to own our highways, our airports, our bridges and which would want to throw our medicare system down the stream?" Not only that, but they have the gall to put it in black and white in their policy statement for distribution to the people of Canada.

We can understand why they are all frustrated. They are trying to change their policies. Their leader now has a new policy statement-

[An hon. member]

And a new haircut too.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

He has not only flipped his hair, he has flipped his lid.

We are judged to be the country that has dealt with its deficit better than any other industrialized nation in the world today. They are frustrated because of the progress this government has made.

The Canadian people will never allow them to get into power, either the Reform or the Tories, to go ahead and ruin our medicare system as they promised and to pass our infrastructure over to the banks.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tough act to follow, at least in terms of theatrics.

I came here as a new parliamentarian in 1993 to debate issues. I came here to talk about the different ways my party thinks things ought to be done, to talk about the way the finances of the country ought to be run, to talk about what we can do to maintain a good, healthy education program for our young people, and a health system that is satisfactory to Canadians, old and young alike. I came here to talk about true parliamentary democracy and true representation. What I have found is considerable frustration in that process.

I would like to begin by saying that it is a false assumption, as was made by the previous speaker, that unless the government does it, it is not done right. He has been talking about the privatization of airports. He says it is terrible and awful. I fly quite frequently in and out of airports which have been turned over to regional governing authorities in Edmonton. The improvements in that airport since that was done are immense. The cost to the taxpayers is little or nothing.

Whereas, when the governments run these things we always find an infrastructure so large and so cumbersome that we get much less for our money. I also think of the Pearson airport. If we would not have had the interference of the Conservative government followed by this Liberal government, who knows what condition the Toronto airport would now be in. Instead it is now languishing. Nothing is happening there, while we are fighting and spending $600 in how to get out of doing anything at all and trying to cancel the contracts.

The member opposite just asked what was wrong with it. It is adequate.

[An hon. member]

When were you last in the airport?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

I was there about 48 hours ago. It needs to a lot of improvements made to it. That is generally accepted. It was established and it is time it proceeds.

I would, however, like to say a little about the motion that is before us today which has to do with the election of the chairman of committee of the whole of this House. The standing orders state that this position is elected by the House. This of course brings me immediately to one of the first commitments that I made as a member of Parliament to the people who elected me. I made this commitment during the campaign and am doing my best to keep that commitment.

However, it is interesting that the Liberal candidate in my riding made exactly the same commitment; at least the people thought there was no difference between us on that particular issue. The issue was on votes. When we actually come to the vote on this particular motion, and if I were a betting man I would put up to a nickel on this one, I would predict that every Liberal member will vote for the motion. This of course will elect the person nominated, the member for Kingston and the Islands, to the position, which is fine. I do not mind that.

However, the problem I have with this is that each member who ran under the Liberal ticket with the red book in hand promised, as did the Liberal candidate in Elk Island, that if they were elected they would assure more free votes in the House of Commons.

I really do not expect that the vote on this is going to have the appearance of being a free vote at all. I do not know whether it is going to be whipped, as they say-probably not, but it is going to certainly look that way. The incredible thing is that in so voting the Liberal members will actually be breaching another one of the commitments they made in that same campaign, which was in one of the ancillary documents to the red book, that opposition members would also have a role to play in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committees.

I have to confess that my disappointment in the process and in the results of that process is very great. I am very disappointed in the fact that in this House we cannot have a free and open vote on an issue such as this. Some members, particularly those in my party, have said that they have nothing personally against the member for Kingston and the Islands gaining this position. That may be true for most of the members here. I would suspect, and this has come from both sides of the House, that most people here believe he has an adequate command of parliamentary procedure, that he would certainly be well qualified in that regard. He is a man of experience. I think that one of the qualifications of the person in the chair of this House at whatever stage of the debate we are in has to be a very high level of impartiality. I say as carefully as I can that we need to assure in this House that we have people who are guiding our deliberations who will be impartial, who will not display disdain or contempt for any member of this House regard-

less of which side of the House that member is on. I believe that is a very important qualification.

Let us talk about the particular member who has been nominated at this stage and who is the object of this motion. When I think of some of the antics that he has used during his parts of the debate, speaking about the Reform Party, he is going to have to have a real change of attitude.

I would expect that to happen, but it will have to happen if he is elected. Very often he hauled out his infamous green book, full of short quotations taken out of context, distorting the message of Reform. He is going to have to, if he is elected to that position, put all that behind him and prove to us his impartiality.

Beyond that I want to talk to the members on the government side who will drive this vote to its conclusion, and again I accept that process. I accept that in a democracy majority should rule. All 295 members in this House will have the opportunity to stand in favour or in opposition of this motion. I challenge the members of the governing party to individually think, as the Deputy Prime Minister did, what the meaning of a promise is.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that this had to do with the great goods and services tax which everybody in the country hated. The member running in the riding that I ran in said under the Liberal handbook: "We will abolish the GST". The Deputy Prime Minister, recognizing the depth of the commitment that she made on that, came to the point where she admitted she could no longer look people in the eye. She felt so bad about not keeping that promise, she actually resigned from this place and sought the reapproval of the people in her riding. It is significant to note that the support level for her because of that experience dropped by about one-third.

It is very important for every member in this House to think about the commitment they made when they were running. They ran with the red book in hand. Included in that red book and in the attached documents, the appendices, was this article that said: "We intend if we are elected to make Parliament work better, to give more responsibility and more freedom to our members of Parliament, to make committees work better". Included in that was a commitment that the deputy chair be shared by members of the opposition.

If those words during the campaign did not mean what they said, then they should not have been said. If they did mean what they said, then how should there now be this debate wondering as to whether we should elect a Liberal member to this position?

This is now an opportunity to fulfil, to put into practice the words that were said during the campaign. I am challenging the Liberal members. I am challenging them one on one to exercise here an act of conscience, to ask whether when this election is over, when this vote is over later on tonight, they will be able to stand beside their bank machine and look at the person beside them and say yes, to the best of their ability they kept the promises they made. That is a very critical point.

Something else that is very closely related to this is the appointment of deputy chairs of committees. It is the same principle. I know there have been some heavy politics involved in this. I know the Liberals are languishing under the burden of ensuring they do not in any way offend the opposition. Of course the separatists who sit beside us got every deputy chair position in committees. It must be frustrating.

I cannot accept intellectually or emotionally that every one of the Reformers who could have been eligible for one of those positions was inferior in ability, inferior in leadership qualities, inferior in the ability to conduct a meeting if called on. I cannot believe that Reformers were inferior to act in that role to every member of the Bloc. I just do not accept that.

I know enough about statistics that by the law of averages, as we have about the same number of people, we would have expected about half and half. Half the time it would have been one of them, half the time it would have been one of us. Did that happen? No.

Did MPs get more independence as promised in the red book? No, they did not. They were told, orchestrated from the Liberal hierarchy: "When you get into those committees, you will elect a member of the Bloc". For the life of me I cannot understand that quite aside from the fact that these are members whose primary goal is to take their wonderful province right out of our country.

It totally escapes me why this arbitrary decision was made to take away the independence of members of Parliament who are serving in committees. It is a severe flaw in the system. I bring this up because it is the same principle. I am talking about the principles of parliamentary democracy, one of the issues I was elected on and which I believe in very strongly.

I believe that the majority in a democracy should prevail. I believe that in this House of Commons that is the only way it can be, but I do not accept that every one of us in representing our constituencies has to be shackled and not permitted to represent our constituents because of some party hierarchy and party discipline. That is not acceptable in a democracy and that is one thing I am committed to change if my people in Elk Island will re-elect me next time and if we in the Reform Party can form the government of this wonderful country. It is one thing that we will change because it is one of the founding principles. It is one of the key things that attracted me to the Reform Party.

We need to have what was actually promised in the red book. We need to have a greater freedom of members of Parliament to represent their constituents. Some will say that has its dangers; now the government will not be able to fulfil its programs. I do not accept that either. That is not a fair assumption or a fair conclusion.

Whether it is the Liberals or the Reformers or the Bloc or maybe some other party in the future that may come to sit in this place as a party, there may be a motion to introduce a bill or to amend a bill, a really good bill that would carry the support of the majority of Canadians under a free vote system. Members will be representing each of their constituents. If that carries the day, if that carries the judgment of the people across this country, then we will have good laws passed but we will also finally have a mechanism to defeat bills that are bad or at least to pass amendments to them if needed. That is a crying need in this country. It is a need in this Parliament. It is one of the deepest most frustrating flaws I have experienced.

Members in this House probably without exception have come here with high ideals. I know. I have spoken to members, not only those in my own party but also to others. Some in all of the different parties that I have spoken to have expressed similar frustrations.

I remember talking to one person. I will not identify the party but it was a person from another party. I asked why he voted the way he did in committee. He looked at me and said: "I really did not have a choice". That is a sad commentary. The red book promised more freedom, more accountability. It promised more independence for individual MPs. I would like to see that exercised in the vote that is coming up later tonight.

I would like to see every member of Parliament, particularly people like the member for Broadview-Greenwood who gave such an eloquent speech earlier, once again exercise their power of independent thinking, do what they believe is right. It is not going to cause a big failure in the system. It will enhance the system.

I want to talk just a little bit in response to a previous speech here this evening. It was mentioned at some length. I have finished the comments I wanted to make here, so I am going to use my remaining few minutes to talk about question period.

The member for Broadview-Greenwood talked at length about question period. I too am very frustrated with question period and the direction in which it has gone for a very simple reason. In debates in this House, whether on a bill or motion such as the one we are conducting now, or in question period, what we ought to be doing is dealing with issues that affect the public. We should be debating those issues.

I do not appreciate the fact that a campaign has begun to discredit members of my party and myself with statements that are not true. The subject in question period today was a great distress to me. It was not particularly what happened in question period although that bothered me too, but more so it was what generated it.

Can we, as parliamentarians, not say to our people: "Here is what we believe, what we stand for". Let the other parties say: "This is what we stand for, what we believe in". Then the people would have their options. They could choose and cast their votes. If we cannot do it on that basis, then how will this country be governed correctly and efficiently?

What is happening instead is that a campaign has already begun with statements which, if repeated often enough, come to be believed even though they are not accurate. That is a tremendous disservice. When we react in question period as we did today, it is as a direct response to the fact that we are not satisfied with that kind of campaign, that kind of tactic.

One of my goals is to openly and honestly debate issues, to talk about what affects Canadians, to offer alternatives and options. Frankly, if the constituents of Elk Island believe that the model of democracy, the model of a health care system, the model of a tax system, the model of all these other aspects which affect us, are best represented by a Liberal rather than a Reformer, they have the right to choose. But let us give them the facts. Let us let them choose. Let us stop all the vindictiveness.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am really puzzled by the antics of the Reform Party members in this debate. I find it puzzling and absolutely amazing that they would object to the appointment of the member for Kingston and the Islands to the position of deputy chairman.

The member for Kingston and the Islands is eminently qualified, immensely qualified to carry out the duties for which he has been nominated. I feel absolutely confident that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will do an outstanding job. For the Reform Party in a very straightforward way or obliquely to criticize this appointment is amazing to me. I must say again that I am puzzled.

I will say one more thing about the appointment. The hon. member for Elk Island said that the member for Kingston and the Islands would have to, and these are my words but I think he was suggesting that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would have to suppress his partisan Liberal feelings. I can assure members that I know the member for Kingston and the Islands. I have been in the House with him for eight years and if there is one man who can suppress his partisan feelings when sitting in that

Chair, it is the member for Kingston and the Islands. There is absolutely no question about it.

Why are we puzzled by the antics and performance of the Reform Party members in this debate? The member for Elk Island said he was frustrated. I think he is frustrated, but it is not for the reasons he would like to have us believe. He is frustrated because he knows that his party is going absolutely nowhere in this country. The party across the way has been totally rejected by the Canadian people. That is why the member for Elk Island is frustrated. That is why all the Reform members are frustrated. It is because they know they are not going anywhere.

They are not even halfway up the polls to where they were in the 1993 election. That party elected over 50 members in the 1993 election and they cannot even sustain themselves in the Canadian public opinion polls. What does that say about that party? It certainly says a lot about their frustrations.

The Reform Party likes to go on about the red book. Reform members like to go on about the government and they love to talk about our promises. I will tell the House why they are frustrated. It is because they do not like the fact that we are doing as well as we are.

The Prime Minister, the cabinet, the entire government came out with a record of achievement based on the commitments made in the red book. What does the record show? It shows that we have kept 78 per cent of our commitments. It is not 100 per cent, not 95 per cent, it is not even 90 per cent. It is 78 per cent.

By any standard put forward, it is a very good mark. Whether it is a public institution or a private institution, if it hits 78 per cent achievement, it is not doing a bad job. Remember, it is not only the keeping of 78 per cent of our commitments, but another 10 or 12 per cent of those commitments are in progress. We have not finished the job yet. We still have a year or two to go in our mandate. We still have some time to make the mark even better than 78 per cent.

That is why those members over there are frustrated. They do not like the job we are doing because we are doing it too well. They know that if we do our job as well as we have been that the Canadian people will support us strongly. Canadians want good government and that is exactly what they are getting under this Prime Minister.

Let us talk about promises specifically.

In the red book we talked about deficit reduction. We talked about deficit reduction in a credible manner. We did not say: "Elect us and we will eliminate the deficit in 12 months". We knew the Canadian people would not buy that. We knew they realized it was a huge task. We said to the Canadian people in the 1993 election campaign and in the red book that we would deal with the deficit in an incremental way. We would do it slowly and gradually, but we would do it with credibility.

The first target that we set was to reach 3 per cent of GNP. We promised that we would clean up the fiscal mess and our first target was to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GNP. Did we do that? You betcha. Not only that, we have surpassed our goal. The finance minister has done the job so well that he has revised his target. It is no longer a 3 per cent target; it is a 2 per cent target and is well on the way to 1 per cent.

Our finance minister has done the job so well that in a couple of years we will not have to borrow any more money. That is how well the job is being done. It will not be long after that before the deficit is zero. It will be gone. It will be eliminated. That is why those members are frustrated. They do not want that kind of success. They do not want the government to succeed. They would rather we fail. But we are not going to fail. We are keeping our promises.

What does it mean when we clear up the fiscal mess? What does it mean when we bring down the deficit? It means lower interest rates. How low are our interest rates today? I wonder if the Reform Party is spreading the good news. I doubt it very much. I do not hear Reformers talking much about the deficit these days. They are mute on that issue. When it comes to the deficit, not only have we surpassed our targets, it has led to the lowest interest rates in 40 years, in four decades. What does that mean for the average Canadian?

Reformers talk about tax cuts. There are different ways to assist Canadian workers, borrowers and consumers. With the interest rates we have today, if a person holds a $100,000 mortgage, what does that mean in terms of cash in their pocket? It means an additional $3,000 in their pocket. That $3,000 is after taxes. If a person buys a car and they pay the modest sum of $15,000, what kind of saving is it? It is a saving of $500 a year.

These savings as a result of low interest rates are not only realized by individuals and families; they are also realized by the provinces. I was looking at some statistics today. Ontario is the province with the largest population in the country. As a result of the low interest rates, the Government of Ontario is realizing a saving of over $300,000 a year. I do not think that is bad.

That is why those members are frustrated. Because we are doing the job too well for them.

However, we on this side are not satisfied. We think we can do even better. We have committed ourselves to doing better. We are not going to be smug. We are not going to be complacent. As the Prime Minister has said over and over again, there is still lots of work to do.

What else? What about trade? The Reform Party I think has mentioned, in a rather oblique way, that we have done quite well on the trade front. Well, you betcha we have done very well. How well? The Team Canada effort; the Prime Minister led Team Canada three times overseas, a couple of times to Asia. He came back with contracts worth $20 billion. That is a lot of money, a lot of investment and lot of work for Canadians. How much is it for Canadians?

I do not think a lot of Canadians realize, and why I want to mention it, that every billion dollars in trade-listen to this closely and especially the Reform Party members-translates into 11,000 jobs for Canadians. Does anyone know how much our trade has gone up since we came to office in 1993? It is over 30 per cent. Thousands and thousands of Canadians have been employed because of our trade initiatives and the Team Canada effort.

The Reform Party talks about the fact that we did not keep our promise on jobs. Oh no, we really slipped in that department. I and the government are not as happy as we would like to be. The unemployment rate has come down since the government came to office about 2 percentage points or a little more. I think it was about 11.6 per cent when we came to power and now it is about 9.4 per cent.

Let us look at the job numbers. Despite all the transitions in the economy, despite the transformation of the economy and despite all the difficulties in the economy as a result of globalization and so on, how many jobs have we created? We have created well over 600,000 jobs at the very time when governments at all levels are downsizing.

When we take a look at it from that point of view and take into account that the private sector has had to create jobs at a time when the public sector is getting its house in order, we still have well over 600,000 new jobs. I do not think that is bad. It is not the greatest and we are going to do better.

I think it was the previous speaker from Newfoundland who referred to figures given out by the OECD. If everything goes according to Hoyle, if things pan out as well as they might or as they should, Canada is going to have the best record when it comes to GNP growth in 1997. That is the best record of all the G-7 countries. I do not think that is bad. That is why Canadians support this government. Canadians realize that we have the right policies. Canadians realize that we are on the right track and that is why they support us. That is why the Reform Party is so frustrated.

It talks about frustrations but it likes to give some other reasons. Reform members would like us to believe that their frustrations have to do with something else. It has nothing to do with something else. It has to do with our performance.

Remember in the red book back in 1993 when we talked about how important our children and youth were in this country, especially when it comes to the economy? We talked about a youth internship program. What have we done? As of the last few weeks I have noticed a figure: 37,000 young Canadians are now involved in youth apprenticeship programs. I would like it to be 137,000 but it is a lot better than what it was. It is a lot better than what it was under the previous administration. I suspect, God forbid it, that it would be a lot better than if the Reform Party were ever in power. There are 37,000 young apprentices getting the necessary experience and exposure to the workplace. It is a start and it is going to get better, but I think 37,000 is not bad.

When we are talking about promises, the Reform Party never talks about these promises. In the campaign of 1993 the Prime Minister to be said: "If I become Prime Minister, if I become the head of the government, the former prime minister's VIP airplane will be gone. There will be no more of that style of a king belonging to the Prime Minister". He kept his promise.

The Prime Minister to be said: "No more of that bullet proof limousine". What did he do? No more. No Cadillacs. None of that big long limousine stuff.

He also talked about trimming the government at the very top. He was not talking about just trimming the bureaucracy, which we have done. If you are going to trim the bureaucracy then trim the ministerial offices. Has he done it? You had better believe he has, to the tune of saving about $10 million.

While we are talking about promises, what did the Liberals say about the Canada Health Act? We said we would uphold the five basic principles of the Canada Health Act and we have done exactly that. We have not wavered not one bit.

The premier of Alberta thought we will take them on. We will not stick to the principles of the Canada Health Act. We will allow some eye clinics to be established and we will levy so-called facility fees which is a disguise for a user fee. Do not worry, the Liberals back in Ottawa will not uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act. The government will cave in when the going gets tough. Did this government cave in?

Who blinked when it came to a showdown over those facility fees at an eye clinic in Calgary? Was it the Prime Minister? Was it the federal Minister of Health or was it the premier of Alberta? I think every Canadian knows the answer to that question. It was the premier of Alberta. He realized we were going to stick to those principles and that if he did not cave in it was going to cost his taxpayers a lot of money. When the Prime Minister talked about upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act he did exactly that.

I want to conclude by reiterating what I said at the beginning. The Liberals have kept most of our promises. Seventy-eight per cent is not bad compared to most standards if not all standards. We would like to do better and we are still working on our commitments and I think we can get that above 78 per cent before the next election. We are doing too well for the Reform Party members. They do not like us doing that well because they cannot find an issue. That is why the Reformers are frustrated.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a part of this debate this evening.

When I sought the nomination to run for the Reform Party in Cariboo-Chilcotin I was reminded by some people who had been a part of the political scene there that I would get used to Cariboo-Chilcotin's not being a high profile constituency.

Cariboo-Chilcotin has not been a terribly high profile part of the country. Most of them have gone to that part of the country because it is that way. It is a place where people can go. We are used to sending a lot of our money to the city. We are used to politicians coming and telling us how things should be.

People have become very independent there. I can tell an interesting little story. There is a place there called Rudy's Bridge, put up by an entrepreneur. It crosses the Fraser River, just north of Williams Lake.

There is a need for a bridge there but there has not always been a bridge there. The people of Cariboo-Chilcotin petitioned the government for a long time for a bridge there. What we were told it is impossible to do it. The ground is not right. The location is not right.

One of our people, Rudy Johnson, went and looked it over. He needed a bridge there and therefore he scouted the country and found a bridge. He bought it, he hauled it there, built the approaches and he put the bridge across.

"If you have a commercial vehicle, it will cost you $5 to cross, but everybody else can use it for free". Today, of course, it is possible to have a bridge there. Rudy was glad, finally, to turn that over to the government which maintains it. It is not improved it but it is maintained.

I can tell another story about what is impossible. At the coast is a community called Bella Coola. For years the people in the Bella Coola valley were told they are so far away, so far below the high country of the Chilcotin that they cannot have a bridge there and will have to depend on boats and aircraft.

Quite a few years ago two people said they thought they could put a road in there. One started at the bottom of the hill with a bulldozer and another started at the top with a bulldozer. What the government could not do because it was impossible to build a road there this community did by itself.

We are used to having to do things ourselves. We are used to the government telling us what is impossible and what we must do as well.

We may be used to it but we do not very much like it. The biggest difficulty I had as a budding politician was dealing with the cynicism people hold in their hearts and their minds toward government. It is a cynicism out of years of excuses why things cannot be done, years of why it costs so much for the government to do what it does, years of government now more and more being in the face of people without really providing the services people need and years of government simply not performing as politicians have said it would when they come to seek people's votes.

I got into politics because I perceive a great need for reform, for change of direction of politics in our political system, the way we do our business. We need to have a system of politics in which we talk about the issues, in which we do not hammer each other because of the colour we are, the way we talk. If we like their policies and we like the proposals that they have, we want to vote for them.

In dealing with this cynicism, what I often had to do was look the person in the eye and say: "Look, I have been as cynical as you have been. I know what governments have done to us but I see what they are doing to our children, to our young people. Unless we face them and look them in the eye and stare them down, we are not going to change the system". Are you going to revel in your cynicism about the way politicians do their business or are you going to try to change the system? Will you help me to do that? Will you join me in trying to do that?" That is what I am about in this Reform Party, trying to bring a political system into being that will serve people's needs.

The cynicism is still there, alive and well. A couple of weeks ago I was at a meeting at 100 Mile House. The whole question period after the speech on government spending was to do with politicians and the way they do not keep their promises. Canadians are terribly frustrated and are sick and tired of politicians that make promises and then do not keep them. A great deal of their frustration is now directed toward the Liberal government. The Liberals have broken so many promises we can hardly count them. If there is one thing that is said to me with regularity as I leave the Cariboo-Chilcotin to come to Ottawa, it is: "Phil, give them hell. They deserve it".

The track record of broken Liberal promises is the topic of this entire debate today. As members of Parliament we want Canadians

to have faith in their leaders, to feel confident that politicians will do what they say they will do and will do it fairly and honestly.

As legislators we have a role in establishing this positive reputation for ourselves. The Liberal government has an opportunity to begin to repair its tarnished record today by appointing an opposition member as deputy chair, which is no more than keeping a promise it made during the election campaign of 1993. If that was done that action would begin to instil some small measure of confidence in its sagging reputation.

The debate today is not about the member for Kingston and the Islands and his ability. I hope that the member for Broadview-Greenwood understands that. In fact, the member for Kingston and the Islands very likely would be a very good deputy chair. His abilities to do this are sound, so I am told. The member for Calgary Centre attested to this yesterday. We all agree he has the qualifications.

However, that is not the issue. The issue is the integrity of the government and its willingness to not simply seek more and more power, but to do what it says and to have as its first priority serving the people of the nation, the welfare of the nation. The issue today is about politicians doing what they say they will do. It is about honesty and principle.

As we all know, in 1993 the Liberals came out with their list of campaign promises, the Liberal red book, which might also be called Creative Opportunism, I suppose. Others refer to it as the Liberal dead book. In the book, listed in appendix B at the back entitled Platform Papers is a document; "Reviving Parliamentary Democracy-The Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform". On page 9 of the document can be found something very interesting which relates to the debate today.

"In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party, two of the junior Chair officers should be from the opposition so that the four presiding officer positions are shared equally by government and by opposition".

This document was co-authored by none other than the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is the member for Kingston and the Islands the Liberals want to appoint to the deputy chair position, not an opposition member as the document states would be the best idea.

The Liberal decision to appoint the member for Kingston and the Islands violates the integrity of the government because the document I just quoted from is part of their red book, the list of promises. The Liberal decision also violates the integrity of the member for Kingston and the Islands. How can a person say one thing at one time and then turn around and do the opposite at another time and still keep his or her integrity? That is exactly what the people of Canada object to. That is exactly what their cynicism is rooted in.

I say to the member for Kingston and the Islands that he has an important decision to make. He has the opportunity to do something that his colleagues are not used to doing. He could begin to clean up his party's tarnished image on integrity. Most importantly, he could preserve his own integrity. I know he is a person of integrity.

I urge the member for Kingston and the Islands to do what he said he would do in 1993 and show real leadership. I urge him to help his party keep at least one of its promises which it made in the red book. I urge him to encourage his party to appoint a member from the opposition benches to the position of deputy chair.

If he made this bold move he would take an important step for the people of Canada. He would show Canadians that the Liberals can be trusted to keep their word at least once.

I know his colleagues want to discourage him from taking the high road. They do not think their record is tarnished. They boasted at the Liberal love-in last weekend that they kept 78 per cent of the red book's promises. We heard that repeated here a minute ago. The Prime Minister even boasted that any student would be happy with this score. I suppose any student would be happy to keep a score of his own test results, too, like the Liberals do.

The reality is that the Liberal record is tarnished. Liberals made all kinds of promises during the last election campaign and, according to a very honest and accurate analysis, the Liberals only kept about 30 per cent of the pledges they made to the Canadian people. It is no wonder Canadians are cynical about their government.

That is why the motion which we are debating today is so important. It is why we are not prepared to sit down and let the government roll over this matter. The Liberals and the member for Kingston and the Islands could take this opportunity to be different than their record of the past. They could show Canadians that they are a party of their word, that they can be trusted, that their promises mean something and are not imaginary. Such a step would go a long way in instilling public confidence and trust in our political institutions.

Let me give the House a little more detail on the Liberal record of broken promises.

The Liberals could add to this list today or they could start down a new road, a fresh path toward integrity and honesty by appointing a member from the opposition benches to the position of deputy chair.

During the last election campaign the Prime Minister promised Canadians jobs, jobs, job. On October 15 the Prime Minister said

that Canadians did not have to read his lips, that they could read their record. Let us read that record today.

First, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed. Second, two million to three million Canadians are under employed. Third, four million workers are worried about losing their jobs. Fourth, this is the longest stretch of unemployment above 9 per cent since the great depression of the 1930s. That is the record. Where are the jobs, jobs, jobs? What we have, sir, is another Liberal broken promise.

The Liberals would want us to believe that they are still working on fulfilling this promise, that they have a plan to create jobs. We have not seen it. The finance minister's message to Canadians is that low interest rates are the best medicine for the economy. Despite the lowest interest rates in many years, unemployment increased last month from 9.4 per cent to 9.9 per cent. That is half a percentage point.

It is quite clear that the economy cannot be pushed uphill with interest rates. There has to be growth. There has to be job growth. To create jobs in the country the government must reduce taxes. Reduced taxes will mean more money in the pockets of consumers, small business people and investors. Consumers who spend more money will create permanent, well-paying jobs that the Liberals promised and that Canadians desperately need. What consumers need is a tax cut, not another interest rate cut.

On top of going back on their word and giving Canadians high unemployment, the Liberals have dished out more pain for Canadians through social program cuts. The Liberal red book states: "It is essential to provide financial certainty and predictability for our health care planning". The Liberals have not done this at all.

What they have done is cut transfers to the provinces by 40 per cent. They have cut health care payments by $3 billion a year. They are dismantling social programs to pay the interest on the ballooning $600 billion federal debt.

All Canadians have received from the Liberals is pain, pain, pain. In many communities if people knew the truth about Liberal slashing of health care transfers there would a sign in front of many closed hospitals saying: "This hospital closed by the Liberal Party of Canada" and I quote my leader on that.

To repair this gaping hole in the social safety net a Reform government will commit $4 billion a year to increasing federal transfers to the provinces for health and education. These funds will come from the savings generated by our refocusing and downsizing of the federal government and not from increased taxes.

I urge the Liberals to keep their commitment to sustain health care. I urge them today to begin to rebuild their tarnished reputation. They can begin by keeping their promise to appoint an opposition member as deputy chair.

There are so many Liberal broken promises that I could mention. I could take all night listing them. What about the GST? The Liberals promised Canadians they would scrap, kill and abolish the GST but the tax is still here, blamed on acts of God and loose lips and a $1 billion bribe paid to the Atlantic provinces to shore up the government's image after harmonizing the GST and the PST, hiding the taxes in the sticker price. Where is the integrity? Where is the promise kept?

No wonder Canadians feel cynical toward the government. The Liberals promised stable multi-year financing of the CBC, but when they became the government the Liberals slashed more than $400 million from the national broadcaster. The Liberals promised to renegotiate the American free trade agreement to obtain codes on subsidies and dumping and a more effective dispute resolution mechanism. But when they came to power the Liberal signed NAFTA without renegotiation. The list goes on and on and on.

Just to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of how blatant the Liberals have been breaking their word, let me read a bit more of their patronage record: 18 partisan appointments to the Senate; Richard Campbell, former campaign manager for Lawrence MacAulay appointed director of Marine Atlantic; Richard Cashin, long standing member of the Liberal Party and MP from 1962-65 appointed member of the Canadian Transport Harvesting Adjusting Board; Dorothy Davey, wife of former Liberal Keith Davey appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board; Fred Drummie, executive assistant to minister Doug Young, appointed to the International Park Commission Board; Raymond Guay, Liberal member from 1963-68 appointed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

The list goes on and on and on.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Szabo)]

I would remind hon. members not to refer to members of Parliament by their names during debate.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but speak after listening to the Reform Party attacking a colleague whom I have known for the past eight years since I came to this House, a colleague for whom I have a lot of respect, a colleague who probably knows the ins and outs of this House like the back of his hand.

None of the people in the opposition have had time to talk to the individual or to come to know him as some of us on this side of the House have.

Personal attacks by the Reform Party are constantly being made against the member for Kingston and the Islands. I heard with great interest the speaker before me saying that one of their members attested to the knowledge of the member for Kingston

and the Islands. This is not something they want for the opposition party. They did not say a member from the Bloc. They want their member.

Reform members who were elected in 1993 and came here said they were going to make changes. There are no changes. They are politicians just like the rest of us. They just speak differently. We see the whip get up and say "or anybody who wants to vote differently". Nobody stands up and wants to vote differently. They all sing the same tune. They were going to do things different; anybody else who wishes otherwise. If they wish to do otherwise here comes the leader and they are out of here. They will be kicked right out.

[An hon. member]

They whip them and cane them.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

They cane them, as my colleague says.

The Liberals presented their platform which was called the red book. We had enough guts after three years to come and say this is our accounting and what we have done, 78 per cent. By any accounting, we presented 78 per cent. I do not see what the Reform Party promised. I do not see the Reform Party accounting for what it promised and what it is doing.

I challenge the Reform Party to bring its accounting. Not only can it not do its accounting, it forgot about the leader pointing graphs up and down. There is no accounting here.

[An hon. member]

They crossed the road.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

They crossed the road, as my colleague says.

I want to speak about my constituents who were unemployed three years ago and who now have jobs. I want to speak about the bank rates going down and stimulating growth and potential. I want to speak about the industries in my riding that do not have to go to the banks and borrow at 12 per cent to 15 per cent as they did in the previous administration. Now they can borrow at 5 per cent.

I hear my colleagues across the way. They do not like the words 5 per cent interest at the bank. Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not like it, tough. My constituents like the 5 per cent. My constitutes enjoy not having to carry 10 per cent and 15 per cent on rates that they have to borrow. That stimulates the economy.

I as an individual have a mortgage. I wanted to renegotiate my mortgage. It dropped down.

[An hon. member]

Now we know why these rates came down.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You have mortgages.

[An hon. member]

They do not have any mortgages.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

No, they do not have any mortgages.

[The Speaker]

I hate to bother the hon. member, but you must address your remarks to me in the Chair rather than to your colleagues across the floor. I hope you get back in full flight.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess sometimes the blood flows very heavily and when you do not hear the truth and you hear things in remarks that sort of make the blood boil in your head you sort of forget the procedure. This is why colleagues like the member for Kingston and the Islands are people we need.

In Toronto we were just named number one of all the cities. That is something that the Reform Party does not like because it does not have any members elected in the vicinity of Toronto. It has one, just north. In the next election I promise we will work hard to make sure it does not have any.

We have kept 78 per cent of the promises. More than any other previous administrations or any other party we have had the guts to stand up and say: "These were our promises, these are what we kept and this is what we are". By all accounting we have the guts to account and put the numbers down.

Some of my colleagues across the way do not like those numbers because they know what they are showing in the polls is the same as the interest rate, 5 per cent and it is going down.

In closing, I hope the interest rate goes down and along with the interest rate going down so does the performance of the Reform Party.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well established fact that most governments are not defeated but in fact defeat themselves. Let us just think back to the Trudeau government. The Canadian people finally got tired of this arrogant, spend thrift government after 15 years and booted it out in 1984. When the people threw it out they turned to the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. They said they would give that government a chance: "We are tired of the amount of overspending this government does, the fact that it does not consider the best interests of the Canadian people, and we are going to give the Progressive Conservative Party an opportunity".

The people gave the Conservatives a huge majority in 1984. They told the Mulroney government to clean up the mess. Mr. Mulroney and his government were only in power a short while before it became obvious that they were not going to do things much differently from the Liberal government before them. If anything, they were worse, if that is possible.

The result of nine years of the Mulroney government was that in 1993 the Canadian people were so absolutely fed up with the

Conservatives that they decided to get rid of it. And this government across the way, the Liberal Party, did not win that election; rather, the Conservative Party lost it. These people are sitting in government now almost by default. In getting to government, the Liberals offered Canadians a booklet of promises they refer to as the red book.

I knew a fellow in my riding who passed away some time ago. I knew him for a long time. I was in the construction business before I became a member of Parliament. I remember this fellow by the way he did business. He used to say: "I really like to do business with people I can shake hands with, look in the eye and feel that the commitments we make to one another are going to be respected and honoured without going to a lawyer and getting a seven page legal document drawn up so I can go back to court and enforce it. I like to do things on a handshake. I like to do things on the strength of people's words. Their word is their bond".

I always had a great deal of respect for that gentleman because I knew that I could go to him on a construction project, on a business deal, we could sit down and negotiate a deal. We could shake hands on it, without ever going to a lawyer, without ever having to rely on the systems in place to enforce agreements. I could sleep at night knowing that he would respect the agreement we had between us.

I wonder how my friend would view the Liberal Party on the strength of the book of promises it gave the Canadian people and on its performance.

Let us examine some of the promises that have been made. My colleagues in their earlier interventions highlighted a number of them, but I will talk about some of the promises in depth. This government campaigned-it started before the campaign-that it would scrap and abolish the GST. It did not say that it would try to deal with it, that it would try to find a replacement tax, that it would try to find a way to soften the blow for Canadians. The Liberals were unequivocal in their statements and in their promises: "We are going to scrap and abolish the GST. We are going to get rid of it".

That was a very ill advised promise to make, and I think many of them knew that at the time. Evidence that has come to light in the last few months reveals that there were advisers within the Liberal Party who said they should not make that promise, it was a dumb promise to make. I agree that it was a dumb promise to make but they went ahead and made it anyway and now they have to live with it.

What did the Liberals do? They came back three years later and said: "Sorry. First, we did not really mean we were going to scrap and abolish it. We just meant we were going to replace it. Maybe we did say that we were going to scrap and abolish it but we are sorry about that. We can't meet that promise. Canadians understand". Frankly, I do not think Canadians understand.

They understand that getting rid of the GST, put in place by Brian Mulroney and his government, is a very difficult thing to do. What they do not understand is why a political party made this a major plank in its election platform, in its bid to win Canadians' votes in the 1993 election then turned around and said "shucks folks, we made a mistake".

The Liberal government in its red book campaigned on a promise to reform MP pensions. Canadians from one end of this country to the other were livid when they came to understand the terms of the MP pension plan. Canadians were absolutely beside themselves. How is it that the richest pension plan in the private sector pays benefits on a scale of 2:1 and yet parliamentarians, politicians, can go to Ottawa for six years and collect a benefit package on a ratio of 7:1?

This government made a solemn promise to the Canadian people in its red book to reform the pension plan. It left no doubt in the voters' minds that the government did not mean it was going to tinker with it a little bit, that it was going to reduce it a little bit. It was made very plain that what it intended to do, what it was promising to do, was to get the MP pension in line with private sector pensions. Three years later we see that the government tinkered around a little and left it at that.

My colleagues, 51 Reform MPs, looked at the pension plan and said when they had an opportunity they were going to opt out. As a result, Mr. Speaker, all the MPs you see here tonight are not going to get an MP pension regardless of how long they serve in this Parliament.

With regard to the member for Beaver River, she had already qualified and was fully vested in the pension plan. If she had resigned and left office she would be collecting her pension the next day. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that. Her pension was worth approximately $1.4 million.

It would have been easy to say: "We disagree with the MP pension plan but under the circumstances until we can form a government and actually change it ourselves we are all stuck going along with it. I do not agree with this but until we have an opportunity to change the system there is really not much we can do about it". No, she took the high road.

I ask every Canadian watching tonight to think about the integrity, the ethics, for somebody to turn around and walk away from $1.4 million simply because they know it is not right. This government could learn a lot from this lady from Beaver River. Obviously it has not.

This government campaigned and attacked the Reform Party: "The Reform Party is going to kill medicare. The Reform Party is out to gut medicare. Do not vote for Reform, they are bad people, they have no scruples when it comes to budget cutting, no scruples

when it comes to spending cuts. Reform is going to cut you out of medicare". Three years later the reality is the Liberal Party has done far more cutting in the area of medicare and education than the Reform Party ever proposed in its campaign in 1993.

When it comes to ethics the Liberal Party in the red book said: "We are going to restore Canadians faith in their government and their politicians. We are going to make Canadians feel good about politicians, about Ottawa and the federal government. We are going to restore integrity". Let us look at the record there.

Without tender, Liberal cabinet ministers hired consultants at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that ethical? It might be technically legal, but is it ethical?

Liberal junior cabinet ministers are flying around the world with a government credit card, on holidays purchasing clothes. Is that ethical? Then they say: "Oh, I am sorry. I am going to pay it back. It is okay because I meant to pay it back". It may be technically legal, although I question whether it is even technically legal. But it is a big stretch for anybody in this country to believe that it is ethical by anybody's standards. Yet this is the record of the government.

Let us examine the $87 million no interest loan to Bombardier. I cannot suggest that the fact that Bombardier made a $170,000 donation to the Liberal Party over the last three years was the reason it got the $87 million loan. What I will suggest is that there is a longstanding cosy relationship between Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin and the Liberal Party. It goes back many, many years. We know that. We also know that the Liberal Party defends this no interest loan by saying it is doing it in the interests of providing research and development.

In the same week that the government went to Montreal and announced the $87 million loan to Bombardier, it announced a $7 million slash in the coast guard budget in British Columbia and $30 million across the country. It announced that it did not have enough money to fund fish hatcheries in British Columbia. It announced that it would have to destaff light stations in British Columbia. Let us examine the cost of those three items alone.

Light stations in British Columbia cost $5 million a year. Destaffing them does not mean there is no cost. It means that the cost will be reduced by about $3 million. So it is saving about $3 million by destaffing light stations, maybe.

The cuts to the coast guard are about $7 million a year. I assure the House that the coast guard presence in British Columbia was razor thin prior to the cuts being made. The search and rescue capability of the coast guard on the north coast is virtually non-existent. I do not know how many fishermen I talked to who fish out of Masset, Prince Rupert and Port Simpson, who tell me that they are sure happy that the American coast guard is not far away because that is who they rely on to pick them out of the water if their boats ever go down. It is not the Canadian coast guard. There is no presence capable of doing that for Canadians. And what is the government doing? It is cutting more.

The government has destaffed light stations and has cut money from the budget of the Canadian coast guard, $7 million, in the same week it announced the $87 million loan to Bombardier.

The Liberals said they had to cut back on the funding of fish hatcheries in British Columbia. In the fall last year they announced they were going to cut $4 million out of the budget. Thankfully, there was a huge amount of pressure from elected representatives and from the people of British Columbia in the face of the fisheries minister saying they had to downsize the fleet in British Columbia because there were too many boats chasing too few fish, the Mifflin plan. Then in the same breath he said that by the way, at the same time they were going to cut back the funding to hatcheries.

In the case of the community of Kitimat where I live, there is a world class fish hatchery which is extremely productive. It costs the Canadian taxpayers about $850,000 a year to own and run that hatchery. But no, the government had to cut that. Maybe not specifically that hatchery. We do not know which hatcheries because they were never announced. The Liberals did not go ahead with the cutback in 1996 but we are now told it is back on the books for 1997.

The people of British Columbia are losing valuable and in some cases essential services as a result of government cutbacks. Let us not forget that British Columbia is a net contributor to this federation and it has been for a long time. It puts more money in than it takes out every year. Then the government turns around and punishes the people of British Columbia and at the same time gives an $87 million interest free loan to Bombardier. Bombardier is a company that has accepted $1.2 billion in corporate welfare over the last 15 years.

That kind of announcement does not play too badly in Ottawa or in Montreal, but if we talk to the men and women on the street in British Columbia we will find that their blood is boiling. The people of British Columbia have suffered government cutbacks. They have seen the government make a loan to a company which has made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit in the last several years. It is one of the wealthiest corporations in Canada. It has billions of dollars in fixed assets. The people of British Columbia have lost their faith in the government's commitment to restore ethics and integrity.

The government also promised in the red book to appoint deputy speakers from the opposition benches. It is another promise that is going by the wayside.

The premier of British Columbia set up a forest renewal fund two years ago. He promised the people of British Columbia that he would under no circumstances touch the fund. It was going to be there for silviculture, for the restoration of B.C. forests and for no other purpose. They are now dipping into that fund because there is a big budget shortfall.

I was interviewed recently by an announcer in northern B.C. who said: "I suppose this is probably good news for you". He was thinking cynically that anything which tarnishes the NDP will help me in my bid to be re-elected. I said: "On the surface it appears that way. Yes, it may as a result tarnish the NDP and make my re-election a little easier, but in the long run it hurts me". It hurts anybody who runs for public office in Canada because it is yet again a politician who is not keeping his promise, who is not ethical and who is not prepared to act with integrity. That is what we have with this government.

I started out by saying that governments usually are not defeated, that they defeat themselves. This government and this Prime Minister are so afraid right now that they have to put out memos to their supporters across the country trying to counsel their friends on how to slander and libel the Reform Party of Canada. That is how concerned they are about the position they are in. I know that their polling numbers do not look very bad right now, but I believe their support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If it is an inch deep, we are bailing out right now and it will not be an inch deep by the time the next election rolls around.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion which deals with the Deputy Chairman position. From all of the debate which took place yesterday and today it is clear-

[The Speaker]

It was probably someone from the gallery. I heard some words coming from some place.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate that has been taking place has been very helpful and useful to all members of Parliament in expressing some views on what has happened within the House over the past three years. The debate has actually changed to a debate on what is the record of achievement of the government and what is the reaction of the opposition parties to that.

The national political party, the Liberal Party, presented its detailed election platform in a red book. I recall during the election campaign that the Prime Minister was grilled on that book, on each and every point, particularly on page 111, the page where the financial specifics were included regarding the cost of the various programs and the commitments that the government was going to make.

I will never forget that the Prime Minister said to all openly and publicly that during the mandate we would be able to go through the red book page by page by page, point by point, dollar by dollar to see where we were in terms of the commitments that we made and the record of achievement that we have made.

At this point, the government has indeed put forward a report on its level of achievement on its campaign commitments. If members would look carefully, they would find within that book several sections that indicate areas where the government has gone beyond those platform undertakings, and other areas that were not specifically committed to but on which the government has made significant progress in the first three years of its mandate.

The primary areas of the platform had to do with the creation or stimulation of an environment to promote job creation and economic growth. Our approach to restoring the health of that has been measured, deliberate and responsible. The approach has been balanced: carefully reducing spending, restructuring government and strengthening the economy. Using rolling two-year targets is the right way to reach our ultimate goal of eliminating the deficit. It keeps the government's feet to the fire.

The deficit for 1995-96 was $28.6 billion, $4.1 billion below our target. This is the second year in a row that we have beaten our targets. We are on a clear path to fiscal health. We are also on a track to meet or better our deficit target of $24.3 billion in 1996-97 and to meet our deficit target of $17 billion in 1997-98. Our deficit target for the following year, 1998-99, is $9 billion or 1 per cent of GDP.

This is down from $42 billion or 6 per cent of GDP when we took office. We have reduced the deficit by $33 billion or nearly 80 per cent in those five years. It will mean that in 1998-99 the federal government will no longer have to go to the financial markets for new borrowing requirements. That is the way most G-7 countries, including the U.S. and the U.K., measure their deficits.

We have used spending cuts, not tax increases to reduce the deficit. Spending cuts in the last three budgets account for almost 90 per cent of actions taken to bring down the deficit. By 1998-99, program spending will be 14 per cent lower than the peak level of the 1992-93 year. Program spending will then represent only 12 per cent of GDP, its lowest level since 1949-50. Between 1993-94 and 1996-97, the percentage decrease in federal program spending will be three times larger than the percentage decrease in overall provincial program spending.

Reducing the deficit is essential for job creation and growth. Our strategy is beginning to pay off. The government's number one priority has been and continues to be job creation. Getting interest

rates down is the most effective way for the government to help create jobs. There is no more effective way to get interest rates down than to get government finances under control. The strategy is already beginning to pay off. Short term rates are down by more than 4.5 percentage points since early 1995. They were 2.5 percentage points above the U.S. rate in early 1995 and they are a full 1.5 percentage below.

Canadians interest rates are below the U.S. rates for maturities up to five years. Except for five weeks in early 1994 the bank rate has not been at its current level of some 4 per cent or a little lower now, down to 3, since October 1964.

Lower interest rates produce real savings for Canadians. That is an important point. Earlier this day one of the members said: "We don't need lower interest rates. We just need tax cuts". Lower interest rates to Canadians are effectively a tax cut because they put real dollars after tax in the pockets of all Canadians. In fact, consumers are saving almost $500 annually on a $15,000 new car loan over a four year term. To someone renewing a $100,000 mortgage this means saving over $3,000 annually.

A new report by the Royal Bank says that owning a home is the most affordable it has been in 10 years. Payments on a five year $100,000 mortgage now costs $765 a month.

In 1990 the same mortgage would have cost more than $12,000 and according to the report that is equivalent to getting an $8,000 raise. Clearly the economy is improving.

Two hundred and twenty thousand jobs have been created in the private sector since last November, housing starts and resales are up sharply, business investment intentions are improved, GDP was up by .5 per cent in July, and for the first time in 12 years Canada has had a surplus in its current account.

The private sector forecasters are expecting the economy to strengthen during the rest of 1996-97 and the International Monetary Fund in its latest world economic outlook predicts that the Canadian economy will grow faster than any other economy of the G-7 countries.

I know there are many other members who would like to get up and share some of the great successes that this government has achieved in the first three years of its mandate. I would urge all members to stand up and let Canadians know, let their constituents know, let the Reform Party know, let the Bloc know, let the NDP and the Tories know that the Liberal government is doing a very good job for the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I rise this evening to speak to this bill, I listened to the rhetoric of the member across the way. I hear in that rhetoric a hollowness that does not reflect the loss of hope of many Canadians who are looking at no job. They are looking at the potential of no position that matches the training for which they have invested their time. They are looking at the possibility of losing the job they presently have.

For all the numbers and all the rhetoric Canadians do not feel secure today. That is compliments of the activity of this Liberal government.

Tonight as I rise I address the issue that is at the very heart of this discussion. That issue is at the heart of the disillusionment of Canadians. It is at the heart of the national distress, the national feeling of insecurity for the future. That is not helped by the rhetoric that we hear tonight.

It is the history of politics of Canada, the history of promises, promises, promises that lead to taxes, taxes, taxes. We have seen that in the last three years. It is a history of governments bent on serving their own interests.

The members across the way try to say that taxes have not gone up. Twenty-six billion dollars more is coming into the federal coffers every year from the Canadian taxpayers than there were three years ago.

Governments are bent on serving their own interests, not the interests of the Canadian public. Canadians now look to an insecure future. They look to the future of their children as being unknown, without jobs and possibly without the means for an education or a means to use that education.

Tonight we are specifically talking about the appointment of the member for Kingston and the Islands. This member I believe is an honourable and concerned individual, as many members are, and he certainly qualifies for the position to which he is going to be appointed.

It is interesting that this member was the driving force behind a report referenced in the red book during the last election. In that reference this member co-authored a report entitled "Reviving Parliamentary Democracy", something that perhaps many of us came to this House for. However, this was the Liberal plan for the House of Commons and electoral reform. That very member, when he co-authored this report, made a recommendation that two of the junior Chair positions in this House be occupied by members from the opposition members. That is two of the four positions. That was in the red book and part of the Liberal promises during the last election.

In the last while the Liberals in this term have a record of patronage appointments in different areas. Recently they have had a resignation of a senior minister, a minister of the crown. I remind the public and this House that it was certainly under questionable circumstances. Now they have had to shuffle ministers and mix people from bench to bench without notice to this House. Our party made mention of that.

This same individual, who was appointed without notice to answer the needs of shuffling patronage appointments and the resignation of a minister for a real cause that perhaps was not identified in his resignation, is the same person who, in his own words, said that he should not be the one to fill the position but someone from the opposition. He will be four of four Liberal members occupying the Chair of this House and he will be occupying it as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.

Where is the integrity of those who would ask him or where is the integrity to accept that appoint? I challenge that member to own up to his own words and to deny that appointment. This, may I mention, is one day after a convention when these same Liberals, who are nattering at me at this moment, said that they have kept their promises or will keep them. We have a promise they made in their book and one day later they are blatantly against what is in that book. Where is the honesty and commitment to serve the people?

We wonder why there is cynicism and disillusionment that grows in the public minds. Each person in this House pays the price for promises broken. I take exception to that because for many of us that is the reason why we came to this place. It was because of that very cynicism that we felt three years ago. Perhaps the choice three years ago of the majority of this House was not as wise as it could have been.

This same party gave itself a rating of 78 per cent in keeping its promises at a recent convention. I wonder if any mention was made of this issue as part of that percentage and I wonder how many students in a classroom would grade their own papers and come up with such a poor mark.

If we listen to radio shows or if we take our own poll of those same promises we get results of 30 per cent, 20 per cent, 10 per cent. Seventy-eight per cent is a construction of the very party whose behaviour we are considering.

We hear that the Liberals have reached their target of 3 per cent of GDP. They have a target the size of a barn door. In the last three years the debt of this country has gone up by $111 billion. We have a deficit of $27 billion. It does not make sense that a government could be proud of that.

We have promises broken. I want to go on but I must discuss the promises of NAFTA to look at the subsidies, to look at the resolution mechanisms, to take a closer look at that legislation. That has not been done.

There were promises for day care spaces which have not been answered. The GST fiasco has been blamed on everything, as my colleague mentioned, from acts of God to loose lips. Nothing has been done to make that real. There has certainly been a sellout of the Canadian people in a $1 billion plan for a partial program that will probably cost the taxpayers across Canada, including the very places concerned, more in the long run.

The aboriginals have completely rejected government progress in terms of their priorities. Where are we with interprovincial trade barriers? Nowhere. Health care? We have line-ups growing. Seniors, people from coast to coast do not feel secure with our health care system. CBC funding, stable? Let us take another look at it.

Youth unemployment is at 18 per cent. Overall unemployment is at almost 10 per cent. As I mentioned, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed and 2 million to 3 million are underemployed. What is wrong? What is wrong with what the government seems to feel is just fine, thank you? I suggest it is the basic philosophy of this government, as with governments before. The questioning of that philosophy is what brought many of us as Reformers to this place.

That philosophy is one of government knows best, government will solve all the problems of this country. Government will create jobs. Government will sustain Canadians. Government will sustain aboriginals. That is rejected by them. Government will sustain and protect children. I believe government cannot do all things and that individual Canadians should be trusted and empowered to do those very things that this government and pervious governments have felt they can do in a better way. With the basic philosophy that government knows best, we have bigger government, more intrusive government.

Taxes have grown by $26 billion in the last three years. We have a less responsive, less accountable, more arrogant government as it takes the reins and control of the lives of Canadians. This is in stark contrast to the Reform approach.

In our fresh start program we feel that government can be less. Government can be less expensive, less intrusive, $15 billion less, from $109 billion to $94 billion in government expenditures. With this philosophy we will balance the budget by March 31, 1999. With that we will provide Canadians with the ability to create the employment they need, to create the freedom from government that they need. By increasing the basic deduction for every taxpayer in Canada and matching the spousal deduction to the basic deduction to $7,900 we would level the playing field for one and two income families. That would give Canadians a choice and more money in

their jeans, more money to use in the economy, more money to create the jobs that are needed.

The Liberals are afraid of the new and fresh approach they see from Reform. Maybe it boggles their minds to think perhaps things could be done differently. I saw in this morning's paper: "Liberals turn sights on Manning". They have labelled us with things which simply display their own arrogance and their discomfort with something which may be different and that might work.

One thing the Liberals have said is that Reform does not understand the modern family. I find that very interesting. What is Liberal definition of a modern family? I would like to tell the House what I see their definition of a modern family to be. I would like to ask Canadians if it is their definition.

The Liberal definition of the modern family is two wage earners by decree having to pay exorbitant taxes on what they earn. If they have a job they are afraid of losing that job. They are unsure of their children's future. They are unsure their pension plans. They are earning less and less after tax income each year as the government strips more and more money away to fund programs that it invents. That is the Liberal definition of a modern family. That is the way they would like every family to be. I question if that is what Canadians want.

We have a government which gave $87 million to Bombardier and in the meantime families pay higher taxes. In my province the coast guard has been cut by $7 million, the fish hatcheries which create a livelihood for many people in my riding have been cut back. They have cut back the staffing of light stations which many people depend on for their security. This is a choice which certainly does not serve the families in my area.

There is a $23 million flag program. We are not sure which budget it comes out of but it certainly comes out of the pockets of taxpayers. In the meantime health care has been reduced by $6 billion in the last three years. People are worrying about what will happen if they need care in a short time.

Our plan would give tax relief of $2,000 to the average family by the year 2000. We would create job opportunities through a capital gains tax cut of one-half of what is now being paid, down to 37.5 per cent. We would reduce job killing payroll taxes by reducing the employer's contribution to UI by 28 per cent. We would remove the surtax and move toward a simplified flat tax.

What do Canadian families care about? They care about the best possible care for their children. That, as opposed to the Liberal view is choice, not coercion in day care. Canadians would like to have the choice of how and who takes care of their children, including being able to take care of their own children.

Presently the day care deduction is only for receiptable day care. Reform would change that to a deduction for every child below the age of 13 years. Families could choose to take care of their own children or they could have grandmother or Aunt Bessie or Uncle Jim. Right now that choice is not theirs. It has been stripped by the Liberal vision of the Canadian family, and a wonderful vision it is.

Reform values choice. Reform values parenting. Reform values the safety and security of Canadian families in their homes. Reform wants to address the issues of family violence, child prostitution and child pornography. Reform wants to look at the issue of victims' rights and address them. Reform wants to eliminate the parole of violent offenders. We want them to serve their full sentences. Reform wants to take a look at the Young Offenders Act, eliminate it and make young offenders more accountable in the process.

In terms of the social safety net what do we want to do? We want to give priority in education and health. Those are the priorities of Canadian families.

In the last four years the Liberals have worked hard to destroy the health care system. They talk about supporting it but in fact they have taken $6 billion away from health and education through their CHST changes. Reform would like to restore the UI program to something that works, something that is restored to its original purpose.

Reformers would like Canadians to have security by having control over their own pensions. Certainly it would like the security for existing plans. Our fresh approach to national unity just boggles the mind of a Liberal. We want that plan to speak for all Canadians. We want it based on the equality of all Canadians in all provinces.

Reform wants greater control given to provinces and to municipalities and we want the federal government to focus on what it does best.

Much of tonight's discussion has been about promises. Reform will give money back promises in the form of our democratic reforms in recall where we can fire a liar if necessary. We will give those tools to Canadians and that will be a cure for a political trend that we have seen for too long and too often. We look for real democracy, legislation that can be brought through citizen's initiative, decisions by the people through national binding referendums and free votes in this place. MPs must represent their constituents' wishes if those are known.

Not too long ago an MP on the other side asked about accountability. Reform does what it says. One promise the Liberals made that they did not keep was to reform pension plans. The pension plan held by most Liberals is still five times greater than any other Canadian can get. Reform was presented with that same decision and Reform rejected the gold plated pension. One member probably lost $3 million when she signed her name on that line that said

what she could accept. The integrity of the member for Beaver River made her say: "This is not good enough. This is not what Canadians want. I lead by example".

Members on the far side of this House will not lead by example. In fact their leadership is something that Canadians must and will challenge in the next election.

Integrity is on this side. Reformers do what they say they will do. We walk the walk. Fresh start is the option to old politics. Instead of promises and big government and old politics we believe Canadians deserve better. There is a choice for change. The cruel reality is that Canadians made the wrong choice last time. They will be able to change-