Debates of Nov. 28th, 1996

Judges Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Was it France?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Was it the U.K.?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Was it Germany?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Was it Japan?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Was it the United States?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

There is only one left. It was Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

When Reform Party members look at these international reputations, when they look at the international setting of Canada, when they look at our reputation in other countries, they do not particularly like what they see on the basis of economics, the very basis on which they ran their last election campaign.

There is a simple solution to the problem of the Reform Party. It should tear up its policy papers. It should tear up its budgets. How do Reformers expect the people of Canada to follow their party when they are suggesting that we cannot afford medicare any more? Imagine a political party in Canada today that says we cannot afford medicare any more. Notice they are not denying it.

[An hon. member]

Tell the truth, George.

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

The hon. member says that I am stretching the truth.

I keep their budget in my desk just for the occasion when they say that I am not telling the truth about their platform.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

What page is it on?

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

It is on page 24. The document is called "The Taxpayer's Budget: The Reform Party's plan to balance the federal budget, provide social and economic security for the 21st century".

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Lost your place, eh?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

You can't find it, George?

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

I was not going to read all of it but I will now. This is according to the Reform Party of Canada. This is why its members are so frustrated with their lack of support: "The public may in time agree that although access to a broad range of basic health care should be guaranteed to everyone, the original medicare model in which everyone received everything health care professionals wished to deliver is not only intolerably expensive, it is undesirable". Imagine. What a position for the Reform Party of Canada to take.

Reform members not only say to the Canadian people that we cannot afford our medical services and medicare, they also say that if they are elected they are going to see the medicare system go down the tubes. They make other ridiculous claims. They want, for example, the banks to own our roads.

[Some hon. members]

Oh no.

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

Oh yes. They want the banks to own our bridges. They want the banks to own our airports. I notice nobody across the way is saying no to this because I was going to read it out. It is on page 14. It states: "Typically, physical infrastructure refers to traditional features like highways, ports, railways and airports. Given our current fiscal climate, however, governments are ill-equipped to spend money on massive improvements. In Canada, privatize airports and allow private sector companies to build and maintain roads and bridges". Tollgates. Imagine the tollgates in Canada if the Reform Party ever got elected.

If one notices, there is a likeness. There is another political party in Canada that now has practically identical policies to the Reform Party. That party passed at its most recent conference a resolution stating that we no longer can afford the Canada pension plan. Imagine passing a resolution at a national conference stating that we can no longer afford the Canada pension plan. While the Government of Canada and the provinces are struggling to try to fix it, along come the Tories, that great Tory party that was wiped out, having a policy meeting and stating: "Let's allow people to invest their money in a bank account and take the interest".

It made the same statement as the Reform Party of Canada when it talked about medicare. It stated: "Canada can no longer afford our present medicare system and for other reasons", they claim, "it is undesirable".

What we have is a situation where we are asked today to pass a bill that will allow judges to take part in international activities on invitation from other nations, international tribunals and organizations. We have the obstructionist tactics of the official opposition and the third party in the House, namely the Reform Party, to pass a simple bill of seven clauses.

The reason is that the Reform members are frustrated. The bill came from the Senate. They only want to see things from the Senate that match their policy, that is, give more to the rich, give it to the billionaires, give it to the big corporations. That is what they supported in the last amendments from the Senate and that is what they love to see. That is what they put through the House with only one speaker for a period of seven or eight minutes.

The other reason why the Reform members are so frustrated is because Canada is seen today on the international scene as progressing more than any other industrialized democracy in this world. We are now placed on the top by every international standard, from the IMF to the OECD whose job it is to examine the economies of industrialized democracies around the world. That is why Reformers are so frustrated. They do not know what they are going to do because they know they are going to end up in defeat again after the next federal election.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, that was certainly a very eloquent, very refreshing, very exciting speech of the hon. member and certainly one that Canadians would appreciate.

Perhaps the hon. member could talk a bit about what could be the reason for this hesitancy on behalf of the Reform Party to participate in international tribunals, to take part in very just and worthy enterprises within the international community. Canada has a tremendous reputation in the international community for participating, for helping, for working hard to make sure that the rule of law is obeyed and enforced at all levels.

I wonder if the hon. member could tell us why the Reform Party is so reluctant to participate in these very noble endeavours.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all let me congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River for the magnificent job he has done in this Chamber since his election and his great contribution to the passage of legislation and also the great speech made by the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair a few moments ago.

In response to the hon. member's question, the answer probably is this. Since the Reform Party has been a member of this Chamber it has seen Canada internationally become somewhat of a hero not just in the economic field, not just in the field of peacekeeping, but also in the field of making international law, of standing up for the environment, of passing legislation that says that nations around this world can no longer plunder the resources of the sea and get a way with it; that Canada has led the way in the United Nations, at the United Nations conferences of the sea and the environment and

has consistently led the way in practically every issue that has dealt with the environment in the past three years; and also our economy.

I think that is why mainly the opposition party really does not want to become involved in any of these international activities of the Government of Canada. But of course the one exception is if these international agreements that we pass in the House help along, I suppose we could say their policies, that will assist in some way in their philosophical direction; that is, in giving tax breaks to the very wealthy or in having tax treaties, for example, that is fine.

The House will notice that whenever a tax treaty is introduced they always have been, if we examine the committee proceedings, very interested in giving huge tax breaks to the international corporations of the world who do business today. They are not too anxious to talk about transfer pricing or anything like that, but they are certainly interested in those across the board tax cuts to those very large U.S. corporations who do business in Canada and elsewhere in the world.