Debates of May 30th, 1996

Business Of The House

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, given that the House will not sit next Thursday, the ministerial statement regarding House business will be a bit longer than usual.

First, we designate June 5, June 13 and June 20 as allotted days.

Starting tomorrow it is our intention, subject to revision from time to time, to call the motion of the Minister of Justice regarding Newfoundland. This will be followed by third reading of Bill C-20,

the air navigation bill, which will be followed by second reading stage of Bill C-24 respecting tobacco; Bill C-32 regarding copyright; Bill C-6 concerning mines in the Yukon; Bill C-17 amending the Criminal Code; and Bill C-27 regarding prostitution.

We shall then call report stage of Bill C-26, the oceans act. This will be followed by the agricultural bills, Bill C-34 and Bill C-38; Bill C-35, the labour code amendments; Bill C-25 respecting regulations; Bill C-37 respecting certain tax conventions; the two flooding agreement bills, Bill C-39 and Bill C-40; and Bill C-23 respecting nuclear safety.

As I said at the beginning, we will continue consultations since this is the House's business statement for two weeks. If necessary, we will make adjustments so that the House may continue to work in an orderly fashion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this motion.

The motion is deliberately written in a very broad fashion to bring attention to many deficiencies in the government's actions to date, the many promises it has broken and not followed through on. There were many things the Liberals campaigned on so vociferously during the last federal election. There have been many failures to deliver on what many Canadians thought were sincere attempts to deliver the goods on politicians' promises.

It is no wonder as we put together this motion and put together the list of promises that were broken that it turned into quite a project. We started out with the obvious ones such as Sheila Copps' nationally televised GST promise which eventually led to her resignation. There were some in my own riding. I remember during the election campaign the Liberals promised they would not sign the GATT agreement without a strengthened and clarified article XI.2(c). Remember that one? Of course that one has gone by the wayside. We remember some of the other promises that were made.

Many of us thought we would put together this supply day motion to bring this to the attention of Canadians. There would probably be a couple of other things which would come to mind. It ended up being a major research project. We started it on the broken promises and it turned into a major research paper. We could write Ph.D. on this.

The motion states that given the Prime Minister's 1993 election commitment "that there will not be a promise I do not keep", and I remember him standing in front of the cameras saying: "Every day you can check in the red book and see where I am". It has rapidly become one of those things which has accounted for the astounding 21 per cent drop in the approval rating of the Prime Minister over the last year. It is an astounding drop. Maybe he feels proud that his approval rating is still up around 48 per cent but one-third of the people who supported him a year ago no longer do. They have run out of patience.

Today the Minister of Natural Resources came before the committee. I reminded the minister again that although she is a very engaging person and talks a good line, people are getting impatient with the lack of follow through. For example, what was promised a year ago July, an energy chapter to the internal trade agreement, has now become a broken promise. There was a promise from the Minister of Industry last December to streamline regulations in the mining industry. It is now almost June and still there is nothing. There was the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.

The rhetoric was good but the follow through just has not cut it. That has largely accounted for the 21 per cent drop in the approval rating of the Prime Minister. I also think it accounts for some of the paranoia I see on the Liberal side when they talk about many of the issues of the day after a week back in their ridings. They are starting to get the message from Canadians. Promises are fine but the follow through is what counts.

There was the GST debate during the last election. It has gone on here now for a couple of years. We all remember the actions of the Liberals, the ringing of the bells, the playing of the kazoos, doing whatever it took to raise the profile of why they were not going to approve the GST.

At all-candidates meetings my Liberal opponent was telling the world how they were going to abolish the GST. I remember saying: "That is not a serious proposal. You have no alternatives. Something cannot be abolished which brings in $17 billion. Let us be realistic about this". The promises were made. In my riding of course people did not believe it but they did in many other ridings, especially in Ontario where the Liberals won 98 of the 99 seats. However, the GST promise has now come home to roost.

Think also of the other specifics of the GST and how it has been handled. In 1990 a Liberal member in the House said that the GST was to be applied to reading materials and how could we expect to have another generation of people who could know more and compete in the world if the GST was applied to reading materials? Now the Liberals have harmonized the tax in Atlantic Canada and made it 15 per cent across the board. Lo and behold it is being applied to the very products they said three or four years ago they would not support.

Canadians are beginning to see. In Sheila Copps' case the GST brought down the minister. It caused her to resign and go door to door right now saying: "Please trust me this time". I think she is going to have a hard sell back in Hamilton East.

Where do we go? I am not sure which broken promise you are particularly interested in, Mr. Speaker. How about the CBC funding? During the election campaign the Reform Party had the zero in three plan which we said would balance the budget. We had to make some tough decisions. We said we would be tough with the CBC. Doggone it, we would cut $365 million from CBC funding.

For saying that the Liberals got up on their high horse and started in with: "What kind of a draconian feature is that?" They were going to provide stable funding for the CBC. As the member for Kingston and the Islands so readily noted, we promised to cut $365 million from CBC funding. Members can check in the zero in three plan.

The member for Kingston and the Islands has been busy with constituency work lately. He has a lot of time for that as he does not have many parliamentary duties to get in his way. When he goes home I am sure he will be interested in talking to his constituents since he has a lot of time to do that. They will ask: "What about this promise of stable funding for the CBC? What did that Reform Party promise?"

The Liberals have cut more from the CBC than the Reform Party proposed. To date the Liberals have cut $377 million from CBC funding. Our proposal is in the Reform Party's taxpayers budget, which I am sure the member called slash and burn at the time. He can get a copy of our proposals. I would be happy to send him one.

We said to cut $365 million. Did we want to cut $365 million because we thought that would be the end of the CBC? No. However, we were honest with the Canadian people, unlike members opposite who said one thing to get elected then broke those promises once they were in power.

I am sure the member for Kingston and the Islands will be interested in another broken promise, which sprung to mind as I was considering him and his busy constituency work. He wrote on revamping, modernizing and democratizing this place. His little report, which he wrote with a couple of other members from the Liberal Party, was attached to the red book as an appendix on how they were going to democratize the House of Commons.

I am not sure if you are ready for this, Mr. Speaker, but one of the proposals from the member for Kingston and the Islands concerned your very own position which he said should be held by members of the opposition parties. That was his proposal, not a particular campaign promise from myself. I will defer to his experience.

Mr. Speaker, I find you to be a very credible, very fair and an excellent Speaker, as you were in your former occupation. The member said that from his experience, in order to bring credibility to the Chair it was not good enough just to find a fair person; we had to have someone from the opposition parties. Do you remember the promise?

When we got into the House of Commons and went through a couple of sessions, some of the Chair positions were switched around. We brought this to the attention of the member for Kingston and the Islands and asked: What happened to the promise in the appendix of the red book to elect the deputy speakers from the opposition ranks?

I am not sure which person on this side would run but it is an instance of a broken promise. He wrote the report. He promised it to the Canadian people. He said it would help make this place more credible. It was not my proposal. It was a promise made by the Liberal Party of Canada which has not been fulfilled. It is a broken promise. It is another broken promise.

Another issue was the ethics counsellor. When I think of broken promises I think of the ethics issue. The Prime Minister has gone on at some length as to the appointment of an ethics counsellor. He found a person he felt he could trust, and we can take that anyway we like. He felt he could trust the ethics counsellor to give him the verdicts he wanted, the work that he wanted or whatever. The Prime Minister put him in the position. Instead of reporting through the House of Commons to the Canadian people, where does the ethics counsellor report? He reports to the Prime Minister himself.

When the Prime Minister appoints an ethics counsellor he finds someone he has worked with for 20 or 30 years for the position. The ethics counsellor is told to investigate whatever the Prime Minister wishes. When the investigation is finished the ethics counsellor hands the report to him to read at 24 Sussex Drive. Depending on what the verdict is, the report may or may not be shared with the Canadian people. That is not an answer to a promise for an ethics counsellor; it is an ethics lap dog.

The ethics counsellor does not report to Canadians but only to the person who hired him. A hired person is not independent if he must report to the person who is paying the bills. In our opinion that is what has happened to the position.

I return to the GATT and the NAFTA. During the election campaign the Reform Party said that we must sign the GATT. It was going to happen. One hundred and fifty nations of the world wanted to sign the GATT. We were going to sign it. We said that we

should be up front with Canadians. We thought we should sign it. It was becoming a worldwide, rules based trading economy. We should sign the GATT and get on with it.

I can remember the Liberal candidates in both Chilliwack and Abbotsford in my riding saying that they would lay down on the railroad tracks before they signed the GATT without a strengthened and clarified article XI.2(c). I am not exaggerating. The supply managed people had nothing to fear. The Liberals would never sign such an agreement. They would lay on the railroad tracks before they would sign that deal.

Within a month of the election, before Parliament even sat, the Liberal government had signed the GATT. I am not surprised. It was the thing to do. We in the Reform Party campaigned on it. We told the truth to the Canadian people. The Liberals said one thing to get elected and did another thing once they were in power.

The same thing happened with NAFTA. The Liberals railed against that in opposition. They were going to renegotiate the NAFTA. It was a mess. Mulroney had botched it. We wondered if there was anything to salvage. They were going to renegotiate the NAFTA. Again, they got in power and they signed the NAFTA. I am not upset with the decision. That was the thing to do. I campaigned on it. I told the truth. The Liberals campaigned on one thing and did another.

The list is growing. Mr. Speaker, you will notice the list is growing. I am sure you are as alarmed as I am that lists of broken-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With great resistance I rise, certainly not to participate in the debate, but simply to-

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Please do, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

No, even at the invitation of the minister I will resist.

I would like to remind the hon. member that although his intervention, like all interventions, should be made through the Chair, no one should expect the Speaker or the chair occupant to respond. I realize that sometimes we may be somewhat useful in debate, but I would ask for the hon. member's co-operation.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I was not impugning motives or anything. I am trying to direct my conversation through you. As I said, I know you, even from your previous occupation, as being one of those fair people that I want to chat with.

I will return to the issue of broken promises. Issues of integrity have arisen since the last election campaign. Promises made by the government have not been fulfilled. I must bring up the issue of MP pensions. We were promised in the last campaign that the MP pension plan would have a major overhaul. On this side of the House we put it down in black and white. We were going to scrap the MP pension plan. When we ran in 1993 there was no way it was a fair pension plan.

We got a slightly revised MP pension plan from the government. People qualify only after six years. They start to draw at the age of 55. It is fully indexed. At the same time people on pensions and OAS have been told to stay tuned. In three or four years their pensions will not be what they are today. Pensioners will start to lose their pensions in three or four years. The government campaigned on no problems. However, it will start to cut back on seniors' pensions while it guarantees itself a lavish MP pension plan the likes of which no one else in Canada could possibly qualify for. I feel like an old timer.

During the last campaign our budget balancing proposals included an idea for pensions. We said that the old age supplement should be targeted toward those most in need. What is most in need? We decided the cut off on OAS would be the national average family household income, $53,000. We said if someone makes more than that then they do not need help from the federal government on OAS. We are not talking about CPP which people contribute to, but about the non-contributory plans.

From the reaction of the Liberal I campaigned against one would have thought we had commissioned a study to spread-eagle people on anthills and pour honey on them. We had done a terrible thing, but what are the Liberals' proposals now? The cut off for the OAS is $53,000. It is exactly what the Reform Party campaigned on in black and white. We were up front and honest, telling it like it is.

Members over there said: "That Reform Party, what a slash and burn bunch it is". Yet when they got in what did they find? They found the Reform Party's proposals were pretty doggone good. They used our dollar figure for their own cut off, which is remarkable.

Imitation is the ultimate flattery. In that sense I am flattered. However, I would rather feel flattered about being up front. I would rather be imitated on the honesty and integrity of my party than I would on a particular issue, although it is nice to be proven right once again.

The government has a case of selective memory when it comes to fulfilling its promises. It is a case of: "When I was on the opposition side I chastised that Mulroney character. I called him every name in the book. I did whatever it took to be a rat packer and throw the dirt on him, but when I got over here my memory became selective. My promises became slurred and garbled. My vision became Ottawa depth perception instead of looking at the whole country", which is too bad.

This behaviour lends some credibility to the views of people who were surveyed in the Globe and Mail recently. They said that they

held politicians in the lowest regard of almost any occupation in Canada. It is because of broken promises and lack of integrity.

I am reminded of a story in which three people were arguing over which of three occupations had been around the longest: doctor, lawyer or politician. I think it is a true story. The first guy was a doctor who said: "Our occupation has been around the longest. The Bible tells about how in the beginning God took a rib out of Adam and made a woman. Therefore the doctoring skill has been around since the beginning of time". The lawyer jumped in and said: "Hold it. It says even earlier in the Bible that in the beginning it was all chaos, and God had to put the laws of nature in place. That is a lawyering skill, so lawyers have been around forever". The politician, who was Liberal, jumped in and asked: "Where do you think the chaos came from?"

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sorry, the member's time has lapsed. Let us now move to questions or comments.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take the previous member and his party seriously when one looks at the opposition day motion.

Let me first express some regret because when the Reform Party was first elected to the House its members promised to do politics differently. That really has not been the case. They probably represent the worst in partisan politics. The electors in British Columbia know that as they only elected two out of seventy-five Reform members in the very recent election.

The leader of the third party said: "I will not accept a chauffeur and a car from the government. I am going to be different". Then we find out that the chauffeur supplied by the Reform Party is subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. Later we find out that there is a suit allowance which provides clothes for the leader of the Reform Party. People within the party who raised these matters were subject to criticism.

We also have the case where the members of the third party waxed eloquently when we were dealing with one of the members in our caucus for opposing the government on a matter of confidence. What does the Reform Party do? It suspends two of its members for voicing concern over its policy, which is a matter of freedom of speech. It drove a third member out of the party, one who is regarded by most people as a moderate Reformer.

The motion ends with "cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians and the political process". Surely the member recognizes that by Reform members cynical actions during the referendum campaign, where they tried to undermine the very integrity of this country, they are the ones who have promoted cynicism about public institutions and politicians in a way that has not been done in the history of this country.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is from Atlantic Canada or not but that is a bunch of codswallop. That is a diatribe of the worst kind.

Sometime when he wants to walk home with the leader of the Reform Party I can arrange it because member for Calgary Southwest does not have a chauffeur to this day. The hon. member should know that.

Without getting into the gutter with the member opposite, I will quickly go through some things. Why did the B.C. Liberal Party, along with the B.C. Reform Party and the independents capture 60 per cent of the vote in British Columbia? What did they promise? They promised to resign if they did not do the following Reform things: Go for referendum and recall, reduce taxes, balance the budget, bring in fixed election dates, reduce the number of MLAs in the legislature in Victoria, eliminate the MLA pension plan. The B.C. Liberals said that maybe they would renegotiate the Nisga'a contract. It goes on and on with an entire Reform Party package that captured 61 per cent of the vote in British Columbia.

The B.C. Liberal Party has nothing to do with the federal Liberal Party of course. When he appeared before it, this caucus over here booed the B.C. Liberal guy out of town. He was happy to do it because he said: "I have nothing to do with that bunch. They don't stand for anything I stand for". He did not say it but he stands for almost the same package of reforms that this federal party, the Reform Party of Canada, stands for.

That is why many people supported the B.C. Liberal Party or the B.C. Reform Party in the B.C. election. Together they had a vast majority of British Columbians who stood for none of this nonsense over here, but stood for all the things I just mentioned.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention the committees during his speech. It brought to mind that during question period today the Minister of Justice mentioned that if he could withstand appearing before the justice committee, he could face any tribunal in the land.

I have a letter from the Minister of Justice to a committee that I sit on called the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I think that the member will appreciate the frustration and be able to confirm it. The committee is not a high profile one but it is pretty important. It determines which government regulations are appropriate. It is really sort of a community watch dog. It can even disallow regulations so it is pretty important.

The committee wrote to the minister in February 1995 with regard to Bill C-84 with some questions and suggestions. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River who is sitting opposite was a signatory to that letter to the minister.

On May 3, 1996, more than a year later, the minister sent back a reply so far off topic, so full of incorrect information, that the only conclusion that could be reached was that he either thought we were a bunch of idiots or he never read the letter that he signed. Now we are placed in the position of having to call the minister before the committee in September to find out if he even knew what he was signing.

If the minister thinks that the worst thing he has ever faced is the justice committee, wait until he comes to the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. That is the sort of frustration and idiocy that goes on in this place that produces the cynicism that so many voters out there feel.

Does the hon. member agree that these sorts of frustrations occur in committee?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought earlier when he was talking about the two possibilities for the minister, it would be a tough call. I am not sure whether he did not read the letter or he just did not care. It does highlight some of the frustrations in committee and in the House of Commons.

I have sat on a committee where members have passed amendments to bills without allowing a vote on the amendment. I have been refused the ability to submit amendments because I did not have them in both officials languages even though they were properly typed. I do not speak French, I did not have time to get them translated and so other members refused to hear them. There have been occasions where they have just moved to closure immediately without giving anyone the right to debate the issues.

The government regulations committee, as the member correctly points out, is a very important committee that really is the nuts and bolts of how government enacts its legislation. Committee members had to wait a year first of all for a response and second the response had nothing to do with the original request.

The member for North Vancouver should be relieved in a sense because the regulations that went with Bill C-68, the gun control legislation, were so ill-prepared and not understandable that the justice minister tabled the regulations and then withdrew them in a week because they were totally unworkable even by federal Liberal standards.

The hon. member's frustrations are understandable. The reform of committee work is basically a make work project for backbench Liberal MPs. That is what it is and that is another reform that has to happen. I hope that will happen before the Canadian people get more cynical and distrustful of the process, but also before the Liberal backbenchers do.

Just another little aside, they say that laws and sausages are the same. You should not watch either one being made. I was wishing that we could at least watch laws being made without getting ill at ease.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this opposition motion which has been put forward by my colleagues who represent the third party.

Unaccustomed as I am to participating in debates in this Chamber, I thought I would go back and review for members, as well as for those who might be viewing the proceedings on television, the fact that at another time I was responsible for putting forward opposition motions. One of the things we learned while in opposition was that it was very valuable to the debate if the motion being put before our colleagues was very focused. Unfortunately today is not that kind of a day.

The motion put forward by my colleagues representing the Reform Party is very long. It is a whining, snivelling bunch of lines which really does not come to any substantive focus in what it is supposed to do.

One of the things that struck me while I was sitting in my place and listening to the member opposite wax, somewhat eloquently I might add, his flippant use of the word "integrity". We heard that from the leader of the third party well before the election in 1993. We heard him during the campaign and we have heard him since he became member of Parliament and leader of the third party in the House. Without qualification, on every issue that hon. member refers to he likes to use the word integrity.

I am not as well read as all those members opposite, therefore I need the guidance of a dictionary. I have looked at page 616 of The Concise Oxford Dictionary where I found the definition of the word integrity. This is what it states: ``moral uprightness; honesty, wholeness; soundness''. That is what integrity means.

This was the party and these were the representatives who, before the election, during the election campaign and since that time, have used that particular word. Now they have to confront their own rhetoric.

Here is what the leader, or as some in Nova Scotia would refer to him, the extinguished leader of the third party, but that would be rather unkind, so I will just refer to him as the leader of the third party, said on October 24, 1993. I think these words are rather telling: "We want to position ourselves in that Parliament not just as a whining, sniffling opposition group but as a constructive alternative to the government itself".

What has happened since October 24, 1993? Have we seen constructive policies come forward from the Reform Party as it relates to health care? Have we seen a proposal with regard to senior citizens? Have we seen a proposal as it relates to a two-tier system of medicare and their opposition to it?

The answer to all of those questions is that unfortunately the Reform Party, and I want members to recognize that in particular it is the leader of the Reform Party who has been bankrupt of the

word that he used prior to his election to the House, during the campaign and since that time of his own word which is integrity.

I say that about the leader of the Reform Party. Mr. Speaker, you know it is not in my character to say those kinds of things about the hon. member opposite. However, we all know that the leader of the Reform Party is going down.

He is going down in the polls and he is going down as the leader of the Reform Party. They will make it so difficult within the Reform Party itself to sustain a bankrupt leader in the leader of the Reform Party.

Let us come back to integrity. Let us come back to what the leader said on October 24, 1993. Let us compare not a year and a half ago but to October 1995 and ask ourselves what have the members of that party been saying about the position the leader took in 1993.

Here is what we find by the member for Macleod: "I will do anything I have to do in the House of Commons, even stand on my head on the bench and hold my breath if it is necessary. That, I guess, is an indictment of my original approach, which was to come here and to be dignified".

This is the word the leader of the Reform Party talked about before he was elected during the campaign and since that time, integrity. His own colleagues have abdicated their support of the leader of the Reform Party. They are now in the gutter where all of their policies seem to be formulated.

I only have great regret and disappointment for the hon. members of the Reform Party. There are some who would like to put forward constructive alternatives but they do not get that opportunity. There are those in the Reform Party who would like to make meaningful suggestions. Because a large group of individuals within that party and are so inconsistent they cannot get a cohesive policy to come forward.

I do not take exception to any of the hon. members in the Reform Party, none at all. This is their Parliament too. They have the right to stand in this place and echo their sentiments and their views in any way they wish.

If they wish to make fools of themselves, as they have done consistently since October 1993, so be it. I take great exception, strong exception to the leader of the Reform Party. He is the person I wish to direct my comments to, not those members who fall at his feet.

I want to go to the source of the Reform Party, the raison d'être of the Reform Party, the leader. I make the prediction that this hon. member as the leader of the Reform Party will not be here after the next election for two reasons. I ask the co-operation of the House so I can demonstrate that my thesis about his absence after the next election is based on not only sound information but on probably the best political evidence anyone could ever gather.

That is and that will be the downfall of the leader of the Reform Party. As we have seen in recent weeks, members want him out. Wait for the big show on June 6 and June 7. They will have a

convention. They will have flags. They will wear sweaters. They will say "we love Preston, he is so wonderful, he is our leader, he is the best thing that has ever happened to us". Reformers have gone down in the polls ever since they came to Parliament in October 1993.

For these members opposite, but more important for the leader opposite, the greatest opposition he must face is his own political party. I respectfully suggest the other reason he will not be here after the next election, as hon. members know, is his bankrupt substantive policy alternatives.

This is a person who has assumed a high office as the leader of a third party. No leader in Canadian history has demonstrated such a lack of understanding of the nation, of its people, of its resources and of its history as the leader of the Reform Party.

Any time, anywhere, on any occasion, on any issue members on this side of the House, members on that side of the House and even members of the Bloc Quebecois would be happy to debate any substantive issue the hon. member raises.

However, we have seen in the last two and a half years, for example on issues of health care, how he tries to duck them. If they are issues concerning aboriginals, he ducks them. If they are issues of safe streets, he ducks them. On economic policy he will submit a budget one year and not submit a budget the next. In terms of job creation they have a plan but nobody knows where it is at. It is one of these: "We will put it this way here".

It is amazing to think that Canadians will be gullible enough to be sold on the bankruptcies of the policies of the leader of the third party. We on this side of the House and on that side of the House will not take an aggressive position in relation to the Reform Party; we will take a position to the Canadian people. We will demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bankruptcy other members may label Reform with is not only there rhetorically but is there in reality.

I find it passing strange that hon. members opposite would stand in their places today and have the unmitigated gall to suggest this government, which has not completed its mandate, has not fulfilled a good number of the commitments we made in the red book. To be clear, I provide a few examples.

We promised to cancel the EH-101 helicopter. We did that. We said we would privatize Petro-Canada. We did that. We reduced government subsidies to business, transportation and agriculture, the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Atlantic region freight assistance and the maritime region freight assistance.

We have wound up over 70 agencies and done away with 600 governor in council appointments. We reviewed all government programs and agencies to reduce the waste and have done so not only in government departments but in each and every agency of the Government of Canada. That is what we have done.

We met our economic targets set by the Minister of Finance not once, not twice but three times, which is very significant in terms of meeting our economic targets.

Unemployment is staggering in my region. In terms of the national levels it has been reduced from 11.2 per cent to 9.3 per cent.

[An hon. member]

Are you happy about that?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

No, I am not happy about that. I will tell the hon. member opposite that I am not happy with the leader of the Reform Party, who tries to play on fears of those Canadians who are unemployed by offering, not in the House of Commons but while he is on the stump, whether in Newfoundland, in Hamilton or in western Canada, all the answers in relation to job creation. No substantive program has come forward from the leader of the Reform Party. I suggest to the hon. member he ought to be ashamed of his party and particularly of the leader of that party.

There are other initiatives we have taken as a national government. We created the Canada Lands Corporation to dispose of surplus federal properties. We introduced the direct deposit program which saves Canadians over $28 million. We restored the court challenges program and we created and implemented the national infrastructure program.

The hon. member laughs, but I recall with great clarity a day in the House, and I stand to be corrected by the hon. Speaker, when the hon. member with eloquence and fervour told the minister responsible: "I am not in favour of the national infrastructure program". The minister then stood in his place and read a letter from the hon. member which said: "Would you please support these projects in my constituency".

Let us go back the word integrity. I ask the hon. member is that integrity? Is that the Reform Party's idea of the definition of the word integrity? One thing is said in the House and then hopefully the minister would be slipped a little note which will not come up in his briefing book and then their constituents can be told: "I had to say that. I do not support the national infrastucture program because the leader does not support it. I had to ask if he would mind putting those projects in my riding". Is that Reform Party's definition of integrity? I think it is; say one thing but do the exact opposite.

I am sure the House would want to give me extra time to complete my remarks. Let us come back to the national infrastructure program. What was the national infrastucture program?

[An hon. member]

A $6 billion waste of money. A boondoggle.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member opposite said it is a boondoggle and a $6 billion waste of taxpayer money. Municipalities all across the country, from the urban centres of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver to villages and towns, have all benefited from the national infrastructure program. It put in communities infrastructure that in most instances would never have been done.

I am ashamed and appalled the hon. member opposite would say to the residents of Goose Bay, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie or Saskatoon that money to give them quality water for children, mothers and fathers is somehow a bad policy for the Government of Canada. I say to the hon. member that it shows the leader of the Reform Party is bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of programs and bankrupt of knowing what Canada and Canadians are all about. That is very clear.

We announced funding of $315 million over three years to help young Canadians get their first job, $60 million of which will go to increasing summer student employment in 1996. The only person opposed to that is the leader of the Reform Party. He says to middle class Canadians who work hard to put food on the table and to educate their kids "no, we do not want the state to help your son or daughter get a summer job". That is the party of the rich. That is not the party that supports the working middle class of the country. I say to the hon. member with his computer on his desk and his colleagues beside him that the leader of the Reform Party should clearly examine the definition of the word integrity and should do the honourable thing and find another vocation.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the minister is holding a bit of a grudge over the attacks on his highway project. I certainly would like to hear a little more on that.

The minister did say specifically that he does not take exception to hon. members of the Reform Party as individuals. Then he followed up and said the policies are in the gutter. I would like to ask the minister then if the policies are in the gutter, and since the policies were produced by the public of Canada with its input and voted on by members of the Reform Party at convention, is he saying that the more than two million people who voted Reform in the 1993 election, 20 per cent of the voters of Canada, are stupid,

intolerant, bigoted and that they would be so stupid as to produce those policies?

If that is what he is saying I would like him to repeat it so that anyone who wants to read it will know exactly what he thinks of them.

With respect to the infrastructure program, in my riding I always select a random committee from the voter's list. I have no idea who they are or what political party they represent. They come, usually about 30 people, and they make the decisions about the grants in the riding. They make some pretty good decisions.

It is not true that the leader or anybody else in this party tells me what to do about those grants. It is true that the majority of people out there feel it is a waste of money, that we are giving money to places which do not need the money to create the jobs.

I will give an example. Morguard Properties, which runs a big shopping centre in my riding, is obliged to look after the gardens in that shopping centre. It would obviously employ students to do it because it is the least expensive labour. Yet year after year it applies for a grant. It is outrageous that we are giving Morguard Properties money.

A better way to do it is through persuasion of the business community to give jobs. It always does if it is persuaded. It does not need the grants.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his two questions. I want to be very clear with the hon. member because I think he has asked serious questions with regard to the policies of the Reform Party and those members who allegedly make up the Reform Party and who have allegedly participated in the development of the policies. I have great respect for individuals who involve themselves in the political process.

I want the member opposite to understand and accept that. I do not accept the leader of the Reform Party espousing one day a policy on health and the next day reversing himself and saying something different. To me that is not integrity. To me that is not good social policy. To me that is not good policy for the nation.

This is the leader who says one thing on Monday and then the following Monday something else. It is evident as it relates to the health policy of the Reform Party, or the lack of health care policy of the Reform Party. I am sure most Canadians, as the polls indicate quite clearly, and wherever I travel and with my caucus colleagues, have overwhelming support for medicare. In excess of 70 per cent do not want a two tier system of medicine. They want a one tier system and they want one taxpayer to fund that system.

The hon. member has gone out on a limb here. I hope I will have an opportunity to visit him in his constituency and to talk with municipal councillors. I hope I have the opportunity to go into the kitchens, as I do in my own constituency, and have tea and biscuits and tell senior citizens and various organizations they do not need a new water system, a new sewage system or an environmental clean-up of a particular problem in their community. I will be glad to discuss that with residents of his constituency.

The Reform Party, in particular the bankrupt leader of the Reform Party, are very envious of our national infrastructure program. It came from the municipalities and we, as a national government, thereafter supported it. They are envious that we as a national political party supported and have implemented that program. It has been overwhelmingly successful all across the country.

Have there been examples in a program of $6 billion where we probably would have had a different view on a project at any given point in time? I say to the hon. member he is correct in that intervention. However, the overwhelming success of the national infrastructure program has meant jobs for Canadians. It has built up the infrastructure in the country, which has been in great need. The hon. member knows it has been successful. We as a national political party have had that success. The hon. member's bankrupt leader is now having to suffer the consequences for opposing the national infrastructure program.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully for the past few minutes to the Minister of Health, who, I must say, has livened things up somewhat in the House today. He has brought a little life to the place, and should be congratulated for doing so.

However, he is avoiding the motion by attacking the Reform Party and particularly its leader. He neglects to say that the motion in question talks about keeping promises. I will remind him of a few of them.

When it was in opposition, the Liberal Party promised to eliminate the GST-it did not. I do not know whether he was here at the time, but the people in his party criticized the unemployment insurance reform proposed by the former Conservative minister when they were in opposition. However, they went a lot further: $2 billion in additional cuts. They had promised to reduce, indeed eliminate duplication in the field of health care. I would like his response to that, as that is his particular concern.

I am a new member of the Standing Committee on Health. I have been on it for only a month and have discovered a series of duplications. Could he tell us what he plans to do during the time he has remaining as minister, between now and the election, about eliminating duplication in the area of health?

Finally, he spoke of integrity. He was Minister of Public Works, he knows the rules, because there are lots of rules, but we could go a lot further. For example, we know that there are rules for contracts of $30,000 and over, however in the case of contracts under $30,000, to encourage greater public confidence in the system of public administration, would he support, as an example, legislation on the funding of political parties by individuals rather than by corporations, as is currently the case?

The traditional parties are receiving considerable funding from big business and the banks. Six of the major funders of the political parties are banks. Does he consider this normal? In the interest of integrity and at the invitation of the Reform Party would he support legislation limiting the funding of political parties to that provided by individuals?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give the House the impression that I am attempting to be meanspirited toward my colleague. Obviously he missed the first part of my intervention.

I said the motion before us is not very focused and is very widespread. I was able to indicate to the House some of the words being used in the motion, such as the word integrity, which seems to be a synonym for all of the things the bankrupt leader of the third party was using before the election in 1993, during the election and thereafter. Therefore I am speaking to the motion. It is members of the third party who are attacking us as a national government, saying we have not fulfilled our commitments.

I say to the hon. member opposite that our mandate is not complete. We still have a number of months and maybe even years. God, it might be even decades before we complete our mandate.

The hon. member talked a bit about overlap and duplication. I have worked very closely with provincial governments not only in this portfolio but in other portfolios to rid ourselves of overlap and duplication. In most instances it was a clear road ahead in terms of ridding ourselves of overlap and duplication. We will continue to work with governments.

However, the phrase overlap and duplication should be put in context. Where there is overlap and duplication one has to vet out the respective responsibilities of the different parties and come to some sort of consensus in terms of which level of government, if that is the case, or a third party might be able to do the service or produce the product in question.

With regard to UI reform, the hon. member comes from a great province, la belle province du Québec, where there is high unemployment. There is also high unemployment in my region. However, if the hon. member is suggesting we should not have modernized the unemployment insurance, I think he is wrong. I think the vast majority of Canadians wanted to see the modernization of the unemployment insurance.

The hon. member can debate a provision of the UI changes which have been brought in by my distinguished colleague, the Minister for Human Resources Development, who members opposite support wholeheartedly, as I look across. Those reforms have been predicated on the sense of fairness and what is right.

In terms of political contributions and amendments to the elections act, all of those matters can be discussed at a more appropriate time in terms of committee or other institutions which may be reviewing them from time to time. I do not really think this is the place for me to debate today.

We on this side of the House have attempted to fulfil the commitments we announced in the red book to the best of our ability. We have a period of time remaining in our mandate and we will endeavour over the months or years that are left to achieve all of those things we believe to be important. However, we need the co-operation of people in all parts of the country, including the province of Quebec, the western provinces, the Atlantic region and Ontario.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Shefford, the Somalia inquiry.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion presented by the Reform Party on this opposition day. We are looking at the extent to which the Liberal government elected in 1993 has failed to keep the promises it made in its red book.

These unkept promises are numerous. For example, on page 86 of the red book, it says:

At a time when racial intolerance and ethnic hatreds are in resurgence around the world, a Liberal government will take measures to combat hate propaganda-In addition, a Liberal government will encourage "tolerance and mutual understanding", and will make efforts to combat racial discrimination in Canada.

The Minister of Human Resources Development showed intolerance last Monday when he asked me to find another country, if I was not happy with his government's immigration and refugee policies and if I continued to promote sovereignty for Quebec.

This has been a trying week for me, a difficult week. As politicians, we are almost all accustomed to being the target of attacks, but I was not prepared for the extent and aggressiveness of the attack by the Minister of Human Resources Development,

when he clearly asked me to leave, to find another country because I do not share his views or the views of his government.

Following these discriminatory comments, I received telephone calls and letters from people with racist views, telling me they are ready to buy my plane ticket so that I can leave Canada as quickly as possible, and offering to pack my bags to speed me on my way.

First of all, I thank my family, who have been very supportive this week, particularly my wife, who was in the visitors' gallery. I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois who have given my their unanimous support. I would particularly like to thank the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of my party, who took my defence to heart.

I was deeply wounded, I admit. I was not expecting attacks on this scale. The statements made by the Minister of Human Resources Development are discriminatory and offensive. These remarks encourage the Canadian public to be xenophobic and are an insult to all immigrants and refugees.

The minister is sending an unacceptable message to Canada's ethnocultural communities and to the public at large that there are two kinds of citizen in Canadian society: those who were born here and those who came from somewhere else. It is particularly worrisome when the minister, in the House, or outside, mentions "real" Canadians.

Who are real Canadians, in the minister's opinion? Are they people who agree with his ideas and with the government's positions? Who are not real Canadians? People like me, who criticize his views, his positions. Barely a few months have passed since the end of the International Year of Tolerance declared by the United Nations. Throughout the world, there were activities to promote tolerance, including in Montreal North in my riding. I marked the end of the year with a large brunch on behalf of tolerance, with the participation of the police, ethnic, economic and social groups, and the general public.

The minister's comments are worrisome as far as Canadian rights and freedoms are concerned. He is jeopardizing freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, the right to secede. I would like to quickly quote two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 6 (1) on mobility states that "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada". The minister wishes to deprive me of that basic right.

Section 15 on equality rights reads as follows: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability". It is very clear that the charter protects all citizens, even if they were not born in Canada.

I would like to quote here a sentence that had a profound effect on me when I was experiencing political difficulties in my country. Voltaire, the great 18th century French philosopher, said: "Je suis en profond désaccord avec tes idées, mais je donnerais ma vie pour que tu aies le droit de les exprimer".

If that is not clear in French, let me repeat it in English.

"I may disapprove of what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it". Everyone knows that in the United States this quotation has been used often. It is one of the most famous quotations from Voltaire and one of the most popular quotations among American civil libertarians.

I fled the terrible dictatorship of General Pinochet in February 1974. During the dictatorship, hundreds, thousands of people were murdered or disappeared in my country. Human rights violations were flagrant and systematic. I came here because of that dictatorship. I did not want to leave my country, and I would probably still be in Chile, had there not been a dictatorship.

I came to Canada, to Quebec, a profoundly democratic country, and I thank Canada, I thank Quebec, for having taken us in, myself, my wife and my two children, who were two and five at the time, at a very difficult period in our lives.

As the Minister of Human Resources Development said, this country welcomed us with open arms, with generosity, but I must tell you that it was primarily Quebec that did so. I arrived in Montreal, Quebec, and it was the Quebecers in particular who welcomed me with enormous generosity, with understanding, with unfailing solidarity.

Since our arrival we have, like thousands of immigrants before us, tried to make a contribution, to give something back to Canadian society, to Quebec society. I have always worked, I have never been on unemployment insurance or welfare. My wife has always worked. As for my two children, today one of them is an economist working for INFORUM at the Montreal World Trade Centre, a respected economist. My other son works for the Quebec National Assembly. I am very proud of the work Gonzalo does. He is a communications graduate and has a very popular radio program in Montreal.

I am satisfied with what my family has done here. We pay taxes like all other Canadian citizens, and like all other immigrants as well, and therefore we, all the immigrants and refugees, are entitled to the same rights.

But we still have a way to go, in this regard. Before I became a member of Parliament, I was an advocate of individual rights and freedoms in Montreal on behalf of immigrants and refugees, because this issue is very important to me. This is why my party gave me the job of citizenship and immigration critic.

I was elected in Bourassa through the francophone and the immigrant vote. The francophones were incredibly open to someone from another country, who does not speak French with a local accent, who arrived here at the age of 35, who was educated elsewhere and whose habits, sometimes, and traditions are different. I am proud to represent my riding of Bourassa in Montreal North, which is typical of Quebec and Canada, where francophones, anglophones and immigrants understand each other.

My name is neither Bouchard nor Tremblay, it is Nunez, and everyone knows I am a hispanophone. I was elected to Parliament to defend the interests of Quebecers, which I do vigorously. I work hard and I demand a lot of myself. I also here to promote the sovereignty of Quebec along with all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, the party that took me into its ranks.

I am also here to promote social justice, equity and solidarity, to try to create a better place for immigrants and refugees in this society. I visited Canada, I met with cultural communities, I met with anglophones, and I explained why I am a sovereignist. I know that it is an emotional issue.

I understand when there is opposition, when there are vicious attacks, but I do not understand when a senior minister, an important minister in this cabinet, goes so far as to make discriminatory and offensive remarks. That I cannot accept.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

With the Prime Minister's blessing.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, I am not the slightest bit intimidated by the minister's remarks. They only strengthen my cause, my decision to continue the fight, my sovereignist convictions. He will not stop me. He will not drive me out of this country. He will not tell me what to do. I have already survived a dictatorship. I can survive here for years and years, even if the attacks are tough, personal, discriminatory, and even racist.

This is not the first time I have been attacked by members of the Liberal Party of Canada. My former adversary in the riding of Bourassa, Denis Coderre, never accepted defeat. Last year, at a public meeting, he made some disagreeable remarks about me, in the presence of the Minister of Labour. He never dissociated himself from these remarks. My former adversary wants to bring back the deportation act and get rid of me, because I do not espouse the federalist cause. He accused me of spitting on the Canadian flag.

Let me tell you, I have never spat on anyone's flag. I have great respect for flags, particularly the Canadian flag, because it is the symbol of a country and is close to people's hearts, they love it.

Why is this Minister of Human Resources Development making such comments? The present Minister of the Environment and former Minister of Immigration is not from here. He was born in Argentina and is a member of the Italian community in Canada. I do not recall the Conservatives ever asking him to leave Canada because, in his criticism of them as a member of the official opposition, he did not share the views of the Conservative government then in power.

I profoundly regret the silence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in this matter. It is her role to promote tolerance. And what has she said to date? Nothing.

I profoundly regret the silence of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Immigration, who has also had nothing to say. I profoundly regret the silence of the hon. member for Saint-Denis, who is also the chair of the Citizenship and Immigration committee, also of ethnic origin, and has not dissociated herself from the remarks made by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

There is much to be understood from their silence. I would like them to react, as they did when Mr. Parizeau made improper remarks about the ethnic Quebecers.

I must also frankly acknowledge the solidarity of certain Liberal members who have come to see me and have, discreetly, expressed their support. They have told me that they are not pleased, and cannot support the views and the attacks of the Minister of Human Resources Development against me.

I am also pleased that this incident has triggered a debate on the place of the cultural communities in Canadian society. Are immigrants and refugees full-fledged citizens, or are they not?

Fortunately, there have been newspaper articles and editorials in a number of papers, including the Montreal Gazette , which is not a sovereignist publication.

"But Mr. Young was out of line this week when he singled out Osvaldo Nunez, the Bloc Quebecois MP for Bourassa, to criticize him for supporting Quebec independence. Mr. Nunez has the right to support independence. Citizens, old stock and new, enjoy equal freedoms. All have the right to express their views and to be politically active. Mr. Nunez has the right to voice his opinions just

like any other Canadian. If freedoms are to have value they need the respect of all Canadians. Mr. Young should apologize". This is from the Montreal Gazette . Le Devoir and La Presse devoted editorials to the question. I thank all those who sent me their support. The FTQ, by labour federation, sent me a message this morning. The Canadian Jewish Congress does not support my sovereignist ideas, but is fighting so that all citizens may enjoy the same rights, particularly the freedom of speech.

The B'nai Brith Canada League for Human Rights, the Chilean and Latin American community, the American multi-ethnic centre, the premier of Quebec, who condemned the remarks of the Minister of Human Resources Development and a Montreal lawyer, Richard Kurland, have all expressed support. If I may, I would like to quote from the lawyer's letter, because it speaks for a lot of people who are concerned by the minister's remarks. Unfortunately, I cannot find it.

I would not want a repetition of this incident, because it damages the reputation and the image of Canada and of all Canadians.

I was given a mandate by the people. I want to continue to fulfil this mandate, to fight for justice, equity and a pluralistic society more open to immigrants and refugees.