Debates of May 30th, 1996

Supply

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that I stand to make these comments today as a proud Canadian and as a proud Greek Canadian, my two heritages.

The hon. member for Bourassa stated that we did not keep the promises which appear on page 82. He mentioned racial intolerance, hate propaganda and racial discrimination. I do not know where he was when we voted on Bill C-41 which covered this entire area. Maybe he did not support it.

I know the hon. member for Bourassa has been abroad on various committees. He has heard, as have I, people in different countries saying: "We cannot understand what you people are doing in Canada. You are working toward splitting the best country in the world which has been recognized not once but twice by the United Nations".

I do not understand it when he talks about tolerance. There is not a country on the universe which has exercised more tolerance than Canada. I am proud to say so. The member said that they pay taxes. Just paying taxes does not give anybody the right to split the country. We all pay taxes.

I was not born in this country, but I cannot accept anybody who works toward splitting it. The member stated that he came from a country which had political difficulties. When he arrived in the country it was not Quebec that welcomed him, it was Canada that welcomed him. It was Canada that gave him citizenship. It was Canada that gave him the opportunity to sit in this honourable House, as I have that opportunity.

He talked about honouring flags. As long as this country is one united country, the Bloc Quebecois and the province of Quebec should respect the flag and put it in their offices and in every institution in Quebec. It is a shame they do not. It is a shame they have falsified Canadian history and continue to do so.

I stand behind what the Minister of Human Resources Development said. We have an obligation to defend this country. He took an oath. I took an oath. We all took an oath. Part of that oath was to ensure we would keep the country strong and united. When it comes to rights and freedoms, we do not have the right to split the country. I will work along with the Minister of Human Resources Development and every other colleague in the House to ensure the country remains united and a beacon of hope to the world.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the situation is more worrisome than I said earlier. That a member would back the racist and discriminatory remarks of a minister hurts me deeply.

When the minister made his remarks last Monday, he received a standing ovation from his colleagues. All the journalists are saying that he made a mistake, that this government has committed a monumental error. Reform members applauded him-at least they did not stand up to do so-because they also share the minister's views. What country is this? Did any journalists defend the minister? Did any editorial come to his defence? None did. On the contrary.

I will read a letter-I received numerous letters of support-from the Centre de recherche-action sur les relations raciales. Mr. Fo Niemi, the director general, says: "Mr. Young's excessive remarks demonstrate a flagrant lack of-"

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I would remind all members that just as we may not name another member directly, neither may we do so indirectly. Therefore, when reading something written by someone else, members must replace the name of the member or the name of the minister by his title or riding.

I know this requires more effort, but it is the rule of parliamentary debate and I ask for and encourage the co-operation of the member for Bourassa. This is already a very emotional debate. I

nonetheless hope that we can go on respectfully, according to our parliamentary tradition.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue with my quotation:

The hotheaded comments by the Minister of Human Resources Development demonstrate a flagrant lack of respect toward thousands of Canadians and Quebecers who have chosen Canada as their adoptive country and who wish to exercise in complete safety, freedom and dignity all of the rights, duties and privileges conferred upon them by Canadian citizenship.

I would encourage you not to stand for this type of xenophobia which is unworthy of our parliamentary traditions and our fundamental values as a pluralistic, fair and democratic society. The minister in question must be made to apologize.

Continuing with another quotation, from the Ligue des Noirs du Québec:

La Ligue des Noirs du Québec is totally scandalized by the words of the federal Minister of Human Resources Development concerning Bloc Quebecois MP Oswaldo Nunez. We find his words insulting, discriminatory and profoundly racist.

They are calling for a public apology to all Canadians who have been deeply offended by these statements.

This morning's Le Devoir contained an article which said the following:

We must not hesitate in condemning the words of the Minister of Human Resources Development concerning the Quebec MP of Chilean origin. To state, as the Minister of Human Resources Development did, that a new Canadian MP ought not to be allowed to criticize Canada's immigration policy and that he ought to find another country, smacks of xenophobia.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke comes from Chile. In the early seventies until the change to democracy it was a country that gave 40,000 to 80,000 lives to preserve democracy.

He says he is not paid anything or receives anything in Canada. I might remind him he is paid to be a parliamentarian in the Parliament of Canada and well paid.

He says he is here for harmony. I come from Italian ancestry on my maternal side. What kind of harmony does he bring to this country from Chile if he would separate the 450,000 Italian Canadians in Montreal from the one million Italians in Toronto? They have one thing in common. They are Canadian.

What kind of harmony does he bring to this country if he would separate the five million francophones of Quebec from the 600,000 francophones in Ontario? Would he do that in Chile?

They have Yugoslav communities in Chile. They have aboriginal communities in Chile. They have Hispanic communities in Chile. Would he go back to Chile and split Spaniard from Spaniard, Yugoslav from Yugoslav? Would he do that? If he is prepared to do it in Canada, then perhaps he should be prepared to go back to Chile and do it there.

I might remind him that it was not P.E.I., Newfoundland or Ontario that saved his hide. It was Canada that gave him his passport. May I remind this member, that yesterday when we celebrated 14 Parliaments, on that podium were five French Canadians: the Speaker of the House, the Speaker of the Senate, the Governor General, the person who sang the national anthem and the Prime Minister. Only one of those French Canadians came from Quebec, two came from Ontario, one came from Manitoba and two from New Brunswick. Would he split that type of spirit?

May I end with this. This hon. member sat with other Bloc members during the national anthem with five French Canadians up there trying to keep this country together. They did not sing a word, some of them sat with their arms crossed. Is that the kind of harmony that he would bring from Chile to Canada?

I say to this hon. member that he should be ashamed of himself if that is his stated goal. It is certainly not demonstrated by the party he has joined which incidentally does not think highly of immigrants, if we look at what Mr. Parizeau said after the referendum.

I suggest to the member that he should be ashamed of what he is doing to Canada. He should be ashamed of what he is doing to the immigrants who do not support his position.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I have a Canadian passport, like all of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, but I hope one day we shall be able to have a Quebec passport.

The minister refers to his Italian roots. I would reply that all of his Italian friends, at least all those I know in Quebec, are not in the least pleased with the comments made by his fellow minister. On the contrary, they are unanimous in their condemnation. I have not seen a single article today in the press defending the untenable, unsustainable, unbelievable, unparalleled comments made by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I have here the editorial by Mrs. Agnès Gruda in today's La Presse . She sees the Minister of Human Resources Development's words as a reflex that ends up stigmatizing the 'Other', the foreigner, for the political problems one has not been successful in solving''. She adds:Before sinking any further into this quagmire, with its slight scent of xenophobia, it would be in the Prime Minister's best interests to acknowledge that the immigrant in question has had Canadian citizenship for donkey's ages. Let his party respect the rules of democracy. The hon. member for Bourassa is fully grown, has had all his shots, and is entitled to his

opinions. And his political commitment is as legitimate as the next person's".

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon.

We have before us a motion presented by our friends in the Reform Party, a motion, which, incidentally, is not votable, and in which Reformers tell us that the promises made in the 1993 election campaign were, in their view, not kept, particularly with respect to the GST.

They refer to the resignation of the former Deputy Prime Minister, who will be re-elected, I predict, in very short order with an overwhelming majority. Then the Reform Party condemns the government, if you can believe it, for betraying the trust of Canadians, and so on. They finish with a comment about the harm done to public institutions, governments, politicians and the political process.

There is not much truth in that. First, let us talk about the commitments of the government which can be found in the red book. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are very familiar with that book and you will listen to this with the objectivity, neutrality and the unbiased view that Mr. Speaker gives to these things. Let me read from page 22 of the red book:

A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.

Remember the word harmonization. What did the Minister of Finance propose some months ago? He proposed exactly this: a system to harmonize the tax with the provinces. That is exactly what was said in the red book. Not all provinces have opted for that yet and I regret that. The Minister of Finance has announced that he regrets that. But Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario who had previously said he was in favour of harmonization, will have to answer to that in the future and that is very unfortunate.

The member across the way asked why the Deputy Prime Minister resigned. I will get to that in a minute. I ask him to be patient, the way people should be. He will find in very short order that his party is wrong, just as wrong as the Reform Party.

Mr. Speaker, you will probably know that the finance committee had hearings on the issue of the GST. Do you know what the Reform Party members recommended? They had a dissenting report and in it they recommended that the GST be replaced with a harmonized system with the provinces. Would you believe that? No less than the member for Calgary Centre signed those recommendations.

The member for Calgary Centre is not just anybody. The member for Calgary Centre is someone we know very well. At one time he was the whip. He was the second whip for the Reform Party in this Parliament. Some people will recognize him as the fourth whip because the Reform Party has had five so far. He was the second and fourth whip. Anyone who can hold that office twice within the same Parliament and not be there on two other occasions is obviously someone who knows what he is saying, otherwise why would he have the confidence of his party so many times?

This is the member for Calgary Centre speaking here. Page 118 of the document states: "We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces". Let me read that again. This is amusing: "We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces". This is the member for Calgary Centre speaking. That is enough to make hon. members across the way in the Reform Party blush. Even worse, it is enough to make them silent. The Reform Party document goes on:

John F. Bulloch from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business put the harmonization issue into stark terms when he said on March 8, 1994:

"-you do not have a technical problem. There is nothing that is not known about this tax. You have one big political mess on your hands-the problem is how to build a political consensus".

It goes on to say that they support the need for harmonization of the tax. Who said that? The member for Calgary Centre.

That is precisely what the government did. I know we followed the advice of the Reform Party. We do not do it very often but this time we did and we promise not to do it too often in the future.

Having done that, the Reform Party came back to the House and said that the Deputy Prime Minister had not lived up to her promise and therefore she should resign. They asked for her to resign and she did. I hope that she will shortly be re-elected. Then they criticize her for having resigned which is what they asked her to do to start with. She resigned because her government adhered to the policy that the Reform Party had proposed. That is another contradiction.

It gets better. The Reform Party blue sheet said on taxation: "The Reform Party will work toward a simple, visible and flat system of taxation". Later on they proposed the flat tax: "The flat tax is not new to Reform nor is Reform following the American lead. Quite the opposite. The Reform initiative led the way on American tax reform, ahead of the Americans and way ahead of

any other political party". This is the member for Calgary Centre who said that harmonizing the tax for the province was a good idea.

The member for Calgary Centre also said a number of very good things that are worth quoting. He spoke about the way other Reformers were behaving. This is an article from the Ottawa Sun dated May 13, 1996. I am again quoting the hon. member for Calgary Centre who said: ``Would you vote Reform, for a party as disorganized as this?'' He was talking about the fact that the leader of his party had asked the member for Calgary Southeast to resign. She was booted out of the caucus or put in some sort of purgatory.

This is what happened. The leader of the Reform Party found that remarks from two Reform MPs were unacceptable and that they should be turfed out. However, the member who pointed out that the remarks were unacceptable was turfed out because she said that the remarks were unacceptable even though the leader agreed and did throw them out.

This is a little hard to follow but this is the way it worked. If Reform Party members denounce something that is wrong, they are criticized for denouncing that which is wrong even if the leader recognizes it himself by turfing out those who were wrong to begin with.

Here is what occurred next. The member for Calgary Southeast then said that since they were going to turf her out for a little while she did not want to be part of the gang at all and she walked away. The member for Calgary Centre looked at all that and exclaimed: "Would you vote for Reform, for a party as disorganized as this?" The member for Calgary Centre was quoted in the Ottawa Sun and if it is in the Ottawa Sun it is obviously true, as we all know.

Let us quote some more about the Reform Party. This is the party that today talked about ethics and so on. I have in my hand a little book. I will not put it in front of the camera because I do not want to use it as a prop. It is the little green book of reform. I want to read a few quotes from the book because some of them are pretty good.

There is a little quote by the member for Beaver River. She said: "Women are just trying to lift themselves up to the detriment and expense of men". Let us find another one here. This is good stuff on the ethical behaviour of MPs and so on. Here is a great quote from the leader of the Reform Party: "It is a mistake to meet immigrants at the boat or plane and offer them a grant to preserve their culture".

Let us move a little further. We now have the member for Capilano-Howe Sound. This is what the member said: "Having programs in support of single mothers causes mothers to be single and in need of support". Let us have another one. The MP for New Westminster-Burnaby when he was running in his campaign said: "Old age security is welfare for the aged". It gets better. I will read some more. It really gets good here.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

He got elected.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I know, this is enough to make Reformers heckle.

Those are not labels, they are quotes. I know it is unfair to quote hon. members across the way using their own words. Unfair as that is, thems the breaks as they say.

The Edmonton Journal wrote about that gang in 1989. Writing about Reformers it said they were shrill and intolerant. The Calgary Herald , not exactly a bastion of Liberal support, said the Reform Party was strident and repugnant. The Globe and Mail said about the Reform Party in 1989 that it was narrow minded and disturbing.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

I want to hear more.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

My colleagues are urging me on. I was going to stop but I will continue at the encouragement of my colleagues.

Here is what The New Canada said. This book was written by the leader of the Reform Party. He said: ``Why should a few extremists and eccentrics have more influence with you than I do? Why should they have more influence than the large number of Reformers who are neither extreme nor eccentric?''

This is one of the member for Beaver River's most famous quotes, and it is a good one: "I am basically a Tory". Mr. Speaker, how would you like to make that admission? I ask that rhetorically of course. I would not expect you, being the neutral person you are, to answer a question like that.

The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said: "I have been called a red neck. It is a label I wear with considerable pride". The Prime Minister answered him after thinking it was an insult: "As long as it is on the record and he is proud to be a red neck, I will honour him by calling him a red neck. That is what he wants to be".

Let us continue with a few more quotations from the little green book. The former senator from the Reform Party said: "The Canadian government is the kind of organization that would fund the black lesbians from Dartmouth". This is from the only senator the Reform Party has ever had.

These are quotes from that gang, from those people before and after they were elected, and they are reprimanding others? They are talking about issues of ethics and so on?

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In English only.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

On the contrary. I say to the hon. member across the way, who is criticizing me for having committed this terrible crime, as it appears to him, of having addressed the House in English, there is no reason for me to apologize. I was fortunate enough to represent and to have lived in a community where I can, I think, use one language or the other, with equal, or almost equal, facility.

I have other examples here of quotes from the Reform Party, and we could go on for a long time, but I would prefer, in the few minutes remaining, to tell you about our government's accomplishments. This could keep us going for a while, because our government has accomplished some very wonderful things.

Allow me to remind you of just a few. First, the government has reached the deficit reduction targets. This has to be said. We restored the confidence of the market and created a climate propitious for lowering the interest rate and creating employment. The unemployment rate dropped from 11.2 per cent to 9.3, still too high, but over 600,000 more people are working today than on the day we were elected.

What is more, today we see an atmosphere of confidence in the investment field. The people who heeded us and invested in the Canadian stock market will know just how confident people now are in the Canadian economy.

The Canadian economy is picking up. There is, of course, still too much unemployment, and we are in the process of looking at this area. Today, the Minister of Human Resources Development has tabled an initiative on manpower training.

We could talk of the deficit, which has dropped from 6.6 per cent to 3 per cent of GDP in three years, something no other G-7 country has accomplished. Just today we saw news reports on the productivity levels of our country, and the improvements that have taken place. At this very moment, according to the OECD, we are more productive than Germany, France, Taiwan and a number of other industrialized countries. And why?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Fifteenth in the world.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

My colleague opposite says we are the 15th most productive country in the world. In fact, depending on the study, it varies between 8th and 11th-but nevertheless. I say to him that it is still not so bad in terms of productivity. We are talking about our level of productivity and not our standard of living. If the member opposite wants to talk figures, in terms of standard of living and human development index, I would say to him-

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

There are also one million poor children.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

-in terms of the human development index, the UN has decided three years out of four that Canada is the best place to live.

I ask the Bloc Quebecois member why they said this, and I just heard someone talking about his sovereignty, yet again. The members across the way think that all they have to do is sprinkle a little sovereignty on an issue to make it more palatable in their riding. I say to them that they are mistaken.

They can sprinkle sovereignty all over the place, but that will not change the facts, that will not alter what the UN said, that will not stop the rest of the world from envying Canada's position, and the inhabitants of most other countries from wanting to live here. The hon. member knows that, the members across the way all know that. They wanted to discuss numbers a while ago, but now that we have some numbers, they do not want to hear them.

What I have told them is true. The members across the way, whether they are Reformers or members of the Bloc Quebecois, should work with this government to make this country, which is the best in the world, even better, not just for us, but for our children and our children's children.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to remember a few things. The government whip got carried away. He began by talking about numbers, but these same people who tell us about numbers also tell us that, right now in Canada, one child in five is living under the poverty line. One child in five. He spoke to us about the rate of unemployment, which has dropped slightly since the Liberal Party came to power.

However, what he does not say is that the welfare rolls jumped by 40,000 in Quebec because of the UI cuts. This government has cut spending on social programs by $7 billion since coming to power. Seven billion is not negligible.

He boasts that the government has managed to reach its budgetary targets, but how? By slashing social programs, particularly UI.

I would like to ask him the following question: concerning the GST, if the government was so good at keeping its promises, such as those in the red book, we heard the Prime Minister, during the debates and on television, and it was reported in the papers, say that he would scrap the GST, meaning eliminate it. Eliminate does not mean replace or change.

Soon after this promise, the Deputy Prime Minister said that if they did not eliminate the GST, she would resign. And she did. But she is running again, and says she will be re-elected. The Liberal whip is no doubt well aware of what it will cost to clear her reputation and show that she kept her promise to Canadians. We will perhaps see her again in the House, and I hope we do. I am not

opposed to her coming back, of course, that is up to the people in her Ontario riding and has nothing to do with me.

So what does he think of that? That is good enough, you break your promise, you resign, you run again in a byelection, you come back, and there you go, everything is taken care of? I would like to have his comments on that.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that I find the hon. member's comments rather interesting, since he says, on the one hand, that the government has not fulfilled enough of the red book promises, although indeed we have.

On the other hand, he accuses the government of having done precisely what it said in the red book with respect to the GST. I have just read that into Hansard already. We also tabled a copy of it a while ago. Are we to conclude from this that the hon. member wants us to adhere to the red book when it suits him, and not to do so when it does not suit him?

Second, I find the comment on the former member for Hamilton East-and the future member, I hope-rather interesting. The hon. members opposite are the ones who forced her resignation. And resign she did. From that very moment on, the job of finding her replacement does not belong to the hon. members across the floor, but strictly to the voters in her riding.

As for those who question Ms. Copp's right to run again, I would say they need to have more respect for democracy. It is the people who choose. I am willing to bet that I know already what the people in her riding have in their minds, but they will be the ones to have the final say and they will decide. When their decision is made, the hon. members over there will have to pipe down and respect the people's choice, as they ought to have respected the choice of the people of Quebec in two referendums when they said no to the sovereignty the people across the way were proposing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the negative comments of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. He quoted a lot. He quoted some Reform statements which I would support. However, most of what he quoted was totally out of context, including the dissenting report on the GST. He said that Reform supported harmonizing the GST.

Harmonization by its very nature means that the provinces and the federal government must be in agreement. We do not have harmonization. The Liberals have not kept their promise of harmonizing the GST. Only three provinces have agreed to harmonize the GST at the expense of taxpayers in the other provinces. They have even refused to compensate the province of Quebec, which had previously harmonized the GST federally with its provincial sales tax.

The member is totally out to lunch. He is not making any sense at all. The harmonization which he talked about will raise taxes.

The hon. member quoted Reform members. I have a letter written by the government whip regarding the GST. The letter was in response to a constituent from Ontario and was dated March 1, 1995. I do not think the hon. member wants to hear his own words, but he is going to hear them anyway.

He wrote one paragraph on the GST: "Lastly, concerning the GST, our government did promise to do away with it". Those are the words of the government whip. This is a member who has some credibility in the House because of his position. The government whip said: "Our government did promise to do away with it". Not to harmonize it, but to do away with it. It is written on this piece of paper. The letter continues: "However, we still have four years left in our current mandate to fulfil this promise and, like the others, it will be kept". Like the others it is being broken.

The Liberals are not talking about doing away with the GST. The hon. member himself will admit they are not talking about doing away with the GST. They are now talking about harmonizing it. They are not really harmonizing it because there is no harmony between the federal government and the provinces. It is a bunch of balderdash from the member.

He quoted Reformers out of context. He should look at his own words and decide if he should resign. At least the former hon. member for Hamilton East kept her word. She resigned when she was unable to fulfil her promise to Canadians. Maybe the member did not promise to resign. Maybe he does not think it is important to resign when he fails to keep his word.

Here it is in black and white: "Our government did promise to do away with it". The hon. member is not fulfilling the promise he made in his own correspondence to a constituent, which is wrong. Would the hon. member consider resigning and going back to face his constituents? He did not even have the courage to face 700 of his own constituents on the gun control bill. He did not even have the courage to go to the meeting to talk to his constituents.

[The Speaker]

Before I give the floor to the government whip of course no one's courage is in question in the House, as we mentioned the other day. I would admonish all of you please. Do not question each other's courage. It is a given in this House.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member across the way is equally courageous.

When that party was elected it talked about keeping promises. They said they would have a new way of doing politics. They are the worst hecklers in the place. They are the most disruptive people. They got kicked out of the Chamber for bad behaviour and everything else. They talk about breaking promises. They are on thin ice.

Let us talk about the letter given to Rick Anderson's relatives which was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member when I said that the government would do away with the tax and replace it with something else. I believe that we are replacing the system with one that is harmonized with the province.

I will repeat what it says on page 22: "A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equal revenues," so it is not a matter of having no tax at all, "equal revenues, is fairer to consumers, a harmonized tax that collects money from consumers once, that is fairer to businesses", it achieves that, "minimizes disruption to small business". It is less disruptive to have one system than two, "and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization". That is what we have offered.

So far only four of the ten provinces have joined. It is true to say that Reform MPs approved, and I read from the report of the committee that it was their solution as well. They wanted to replace the system. I read again to them: "We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces". "We commend" says the Reform member for Calgary Centre with his usual eloquence. That is precisely what the government proposed.

The members across the way can change their minds five times, ten times or as the health minister said, change their position every single Monday. It will not matter. The Canadian public knows that we live with that promise as we do with all others.

Finally the member accused me and my party of doing exactly what we promised to do on gun control. That is what it means to keep a promise. That is what we would like to do with not only the gun control promise, the GST promise but all other promises as well.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I welcome you back after your reception with the 21 scholarship winners of the Canada Trust scholarship for special community service. I met them this morning at the Governor General's residence where the Canada Trust official presented the scholarships. It was a wonderful experience to meet with these beautiful young people.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon you would have been treated to probably one of the most theatrical performances of the Minister of Health, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I have never seen anybody come forward with such rhetoric and such oratory and with such theatrical excitement as we heard here. In fact there was one point at which I thought he should be joining some kind of a ministerial association because he was really bringing about fire, brimstone and everything else that could possibly be perpetrated on the people of Canada.

He also demonstrated extreme skill as a debater. The people of Canada will be the judge of whether or not he spoke the truth.

Similarly, we just heard a performance by the hon. whip of the government. He took certain quotations very selectively from certain documents and made it abundantly apparent to everybody concerned that if one wants to prove a particular point and take words out of context one can prove virtually anything.

The point that needs to be recognized is that in the House, members first responsibility is not necessarily to debate for the sake of debating, but to debate to get the best possible decision, the best possible policies, the best possible laws for the benefit of all Canadians. They are not here to prove each other stupid or make each other look like they do not know what they are talking about or that they are not consistent in the things they say. That is the issue.

Sometimes things happen in this place which should not happen. Members fail to recognize that while they debate and are concerned about the big and lofty issues in the House, the people in the constituencies are concerned about the safety of their streets and whether their concerns are being dealt with. They are concerned about their pensions, their health care. There is uncertainty developing in Canada today.

I cannot help but refer to the hon. whip who just a moment ago seemed to be so proud of the fact that Canada ranks eighth or fifteenth in the world in the productivity of the people. Why cannot we be first? The United Nations has declared Canada to be the most desirable country in the world in which to live. I think that is wonderful and I am proud of it. However, Canada should also be number one in productivity. But it is not. Some people are satisfied to rank eighth or fifteenth in the nations of the world. We can become first, but we need to make some changes.

I want to refer to a letter I received a year ago from 12-year old Joshua Goode of Winfield. "My dad says that Canada is more than $500 billion in debt. Is that true? It worries me because that means one day I will have to pay for it and I did not have a choice in the matter of spending it".

What can I tell him? I have to tell him that not only is it $500 billion but as of this morning it is $582 billion and rising. For Josh and the rest of the constituents of Okanagan Centre, I want an end to unnecessary government spending and I want a balanced budget.

The constituents of Okanagan Centre are debt weary. They are tired of talking about the debt. They want to see results. They want light at the end of the tunnel. Empty words that sound nice do not do any good when it is discovered the truth lies somewhere else.

I was in a grade 12 class not too long ago and we went through what the Minister of Finance indicated so clearly. He said: "Look, our deficit is going down". The students looked at it and said: "That is wonderful. The deficit is going down each year". Then we looked at the fact that each year's deficit is added to the previous year's debt. As the deficit is going down the debt is rising. As the debt rises the interest charges against the debt also rise. That is the natural predator of our social and other programs that people want assurances will continue.

Members need to recognize that things have to change in order for us to give Canadians the assurances they need. The people of Canada know only too well that governments cannot keep spending more than they take in without some day finding that the freedom which is enjoyed today will be placed in jeopardy because of previous commitments and there is no longer the financial freedom to do the things they want to do. People are being asked through a decision by this government to surrender their personal freedom in the future in order to pay the debt which is growing on a daily basis.

They do not want to face the prospect that this 12-year old Josh Goode should have to worry about the debt. My constituents want no more deficits. They want to see tax and debt relief so that their household incomes will stop being eaten away. They want a reformed tax system which is fair and rewards success, innovation and productivity.

What about social well-being in the future? Here I refer to Mrs. Laursen of Kelowna who writes: "I am so very angry hearing about the waste of government spending, when my husband, a senior, and myself have to live on a small amount of income, to make repairs, pay rent, pay gas, hydro, medical bills. My advice to the government is, you had better learn to adjust. We have. You do too".

If the seniors in my riding can adjust, why cannot the government? I submit that it can. Why should Mr. and Mrs. Laursen and people like them have to carry the debt? They do not have to. Something can be done. Something should be done. Something must be done.

My constituents want greater personal security. They want to be assured that the level of support they have for social programs will continue to exist. They want their pensions to remain at the level where they are today and not threatened to be reduced in the future.

They want the quality of their health care to be maintained. They want access to income support programs in periods of unemployment. They want them to be there in sickness and in other personal hardship. They do not want them reduced. They want them to be maintained.

Unless some changes are made in the current fiscal situation, not only will these programs not be maintained where they are but they will be cut back. We will not be able to afford them.

Our young people should have no fear about growing old, to feel that they will not have the security that they need. It is terribly unfair for the government to leave them hanging, wondering what they can look forward to.

I want to suggest to members opposite that we must stop. We can no longer justify unnecessary spending like the most recent invitation to Magna International, a highly profitable company, to be offered $2.4 million for a training program. Who is paying for that training program? It is the taxpayers in Kelowna. It is the taxpayers in Okanagan Centre, the businesses with whom Magna International is sometimes competition. Their tax dollars are going to pay for a training program that Magna International can well afford to do on its own.

What I want for my constituents is courageous leadership that is not afraid to say what needs to be done and then acts quickly to avoid further erosion of our social net in Canada.

Elimination of the deficit is the absolute number one requirement and then retirement of the debt through expenditure reduction, not increased taxation, will give assurance to retirees.

What about justice? I refer to Mr. Oliver who is a resident of Okanagan Centre and lives in Kelowna. He is an ex-officer of a police force. He says: "The death of Margaret Shoup of this city formed part of a series of crimes committed by a 17-year-old youth who blatantly ignored the fact that he had earlier been found guilty of serious crimes and who continued his recklessness and threatening escapades, thumbing his nose at the law at every turn.

"Were the justice minister to tackle the problems of crime, especially juvenile crime, with half as much vigour as has been directed toward gun control, citizens might be inclined to show respect.

"As a former police officer, I hold every sympathy for citizens, especially the elderly, who see the continual erosion of the justice system in our country and who, in many instances, are terrified of continuing violence and the puny measures that our government insists on levelling to combat the same". The justice system is a disgrace according to this ex-police officer.

May I refer to an article that appeared in the Globe this morning. It is a front page news story. I do not have time to read the whole thing. It concerns one of the boys who murdered some of these other young people. The article states that the boy who is well known to police said to the arresting officers that they cannot do anything to him because, under the Young Offenders Act, he is not old enough to be charged with a crime. Why is this so? This is probably one of the most serious statements I have read in a long time, on May 29, 1996.

Dr. Louis Morissette, age 41, who is working with some very seriously disturbed people says this. "Youth today have less hope for the future than we did. When I was growing up, I never thought about the future. The future was there for me to take. It is not true today. It is not true for the jobs. It is not true for the family. It is not true for security in a general sense. It is not true for sexuality, because you can get AIDS and things like that.

"Young people are growing up too soon, too fast and with too little love and encouragement. They do not feel for other people because they have the impression that other people do not feel for them. I do not excuse them. As a society, we have to look at how we take care of our children". That should be our concern. We need to love our children. We need to encourage them, we need to give them role models. By having legislation that deals with young offenders in such a way that they have no respect either for the arresting officer or for the punishment levied will not give the kind of support and direction our young people need.

My constituents want to feel safe on their streets. They want to know that appropriate punishment will exist and will fit the crime and that communities are all taking responsibility for our young people to prevent crime. That is not just a matter for the government, it is not just a matter for the social agencies, it is a matter for everyone of us.

We must place the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals, eliminating statutory release provisions for high risk offenders and changes to the parole board so that qualified correctional officers and not political appointees make the decisions.

I refer to unity. I read extensively from a letter I received from two of my constituents. Mr. and Mrs. Sprecher wrote the following on December 8, 1995, addressed to the Prime Minister:

You are making a big mistake. Your proposals for distinct society for Quebec and constitutional vetoes are not sources for unity of Canada. They will divide Canada. Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord were both soundly defeated by the people. You have no mandate to offer them to Quebec again. You obviously want to sacrifice western Canada to appease Quebec. Are you prepared to alienate B.C., Alberta and Ontario? These are the three provinces that supply the money for the transfer payments so you can buy your votes in Quebec. Canadians do not want a distinct society. We want our country united. You might gain Quebec for a short time, then lose the rest of Canada because of it.

You have not been listening to Canadians. There is no need for special status or veto powers to be granted to any province. Canadians are giving you a strong message that they want fair laws applicable to all equally. You are being grossly misinformed if you believe that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are ready to make concessions to appease separatists and to reward Quebecers for their no votes during the referendum. Canadians are fed up with the eternal costly ranting, whining and threats from Quebec. We are fed up with the huge amount of money spent on bilingualism and repeated concessions made to pacify Quebec. It is time for Quebecers to learn the truth about our country. They should be told they will not be allowed to break up Canada. They should be told that they are not distinct, not part of France, and told once and for all that they are Canadians. There is one terminology, we are all Canadians.

If Quebec wants change the rest of the country must also benefit from change. Any change that gives Quebec an advantage over the rest of Canada is not acceptable. The federal government must know that we will not stand for any additional Quebec handouts, no rewards for staying in Canada with the constant threat of yet another round of separation talks in the future. We do not want another Quebec referendum, ever. No one ethnic group should be treated any better than others. This includes Quebec, native Indians or any other group that think they should receive special status and their own government.

It is high time we recognize we are together in this nation. I was so proud of my colleague from Scarborough who said so clearly what Canada meant to him as an immigrant to this country. That was a wonderful message coming from the heart of that individual. I identified completely with the message he was giving to Canadians and to me as another member of Parliament.

I am proud to be a parliamentarian. I am happy we can have altercations back and forth across the House. What makes me sad is when people take things out of context deliberately to prove a point which was never the point what was intended to be made. The truth ought to stand, and that is integrity. It is not a mark of integrity to take things out of context to prove a point which was never the message in the first place.

Many constituents of Okanagan Centre condemn the government for betraying their trust. Because of the lack of promises being filled there is now developing a cynicism about public institutions, about government, politicians and the political process.

There are two encouraging points. They are willing to help. I quote a letter from Bruce Eckhoff to the Minister of Finance:

I am willing at any time to assist you in determining a constructive means of performing this task.

I wish to advise you that I can no longer tolerate any increases in taxation. In addition, I will not tolerate anything less than meaningful reductions in government spending.

By increasing taxes you are forcing more Canadians to the underground economy. You are taxing the incentives to work out of this country. Many of my co-workers no longer believe it is possible to get ahead, as the government will tax any additional effort away.

It is time to wean the corporations and special interest groups off the government payroll. I am fed up with out of control spending by government. It is time for you to leave the money in the hands of the individual taxpayer and let them make choices on how to spend it. Government has gone too far.

Please do not place any additional burden on the future generations of this fine country. It is time to get the house in order. I am willing at any time to assist you in determining a constructive means of performing this task.

No more taxes. Enough is enough.

There is willingness to co-operate and willingness to help. There is more.

Peter Greer, a columnist with the Winfield Calendar writes: "I am going to vote. I want to vote for a politician who shows true leadership; one who leads, not one who merely wants to manage. I want to vote for someone who truly cares for his fellow man".

There have been special little demonstration of that caring in the House in the legislation presented in the last two years. Not enough caring has gone on. Not enough caring has been demonstrated by the speeches made here today.

We have seen feeble legislation dealing with justice. We have had legislation of a harmonization program of the GST, which really is not an elimination of the GST, which has been so aptly illustrated by a number of my colleagues. The results of that harmonization will not help. It will add additional taxes and additional requirements. People will pay more as a result of this. Other provinces will have to add more to the transfer to those provinces which are being bribed into harmonization.

Canadians do want to help and that is why the Reform Party came into being. However, there can be no help if government is not prepared to listen. None are so blind as those who will not see. None are so deaf as those who will not hear.

May this resolution draw our attention and awaken all of us to a challenge that we as Reformers are prepared to endorse, that we will bring about a better society for Canada, that we can be the best country to live in, that we can be the most productive country in the world where we listen to the people and we will bring to the people of Canada that which they look for, and that is what we will give to the country when we form the next government.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say that it was time the west stopped making sacrifices for Quebec. I would like to point out to him that Quebec made sacrifices for at least 75 years to develop western Canada. He should perhaps remember his history. We paid for the railways, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and so on.

The hon. member belongs to the Reform Party, a party that supposedly wants to reform the British parliamentary system, to improve things. I am partly in agreement with that. I think some changes are required in the British parliamentary system.

It is still somewhat worrisome to see polls showing that barely 14 per cent of Canadians still trust parliamentarians. It is an important question that must be asked, and I think the Reform Party is right to want to make changes with respect to the British parliamentary system, I grant it that.

The principal method they have chosen, which, in my view, is a good method, is the free vote. In the last few election campaigns, we have seen that governments make promises, they have platforms, they try to please the public with these platforms and these promises, and they win elections on them.

What we are noticing is that, after the election, and this is what the motion presented today by the Reform Party is all about, after getting elected, most of the time the government does exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, as government members have to vote along party lines, the government does pretty much as it pleases.

If members had the possibility of a free vote, governments elected on the strength of promises and platforms would have to deliver on them. I know that the majority of government members are often not in agreement with the government. They often feel a bit dishonest voting against the very issues that led them to run for office.

When I ran for the Conservatives in 1984, I had looked at the Conservative platform and felt that it was the best match with my aspirations. It is very important for me to be able to continue to promote the aspirations which I have and which I have undertaken to promote with the party for which I ran.

I find there is a major flaw in the British parliamentary system, and this is it: the Prime Minister has so much power, has all the power. He has the power to appoint ministers, parliamentary secretaries, committee chairs indirectly, so most of the time he is involved in blackmail, rewarding or punishing his MPs. This creates a system which, when it comes down to it, does not match the public's perception of their MPs. That is one of the reasons for MPs' very low popularity; 14 per cent of the population believe in their credibility.

As parliamentarians we should be counteracting that. I am asking the Reform Party, which has set out to reform the parliamentary system, to go still further. Each time the members of that party vote, they should point out that they are voting freely. If there are two, three, four, five MPs who vote nay, great. Vote against, if you are not in agreement. This parliamentary system must be reformed, slowly of course, but it must be done so that one day some of the public trust will be regained. Otherwise, the parliamentary system will end up being unacceptable; people will no longer believe in us. They barely do now.

I am anxious to see that day come. I know that parliamentary systems cannot be changed over night. I know that it takes a fair amount of time to change old habits, but I hope that the Reform Party will put a great deal of stress on this and will make MPs both more responsible and entrusted with more responsibility, so that the day will come when our governments will be more responsible. When they go before the people seeking a mandate to govern the country, they will have a platform, and it is on the basis of that platform that the government will defend the interests of the public.

I am asking the Reform Party to continue its efforts to reform the British parliamentary system, particularly this aspect of it.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his endorsement on changing the democratic process and the system in the House. I would like to expand on it one step further because it allows me to make some very specific suggestions. One has to do with a vote of confidence.

Not long ago in the House a government member voted against the budget. The Prime Minister interpreted it to be a vote of non-confidence.

I think that is false. I recommend the parliamentary system be changed. The Reform Party recommends that with regard to any government bill, including a financial bill, it should be possible for members, including members of the ruling party, to vote against a bill. Then following that if they really have no confidence in the government it should be a separate motion which could be voted on separately. Much better decisions would be made, better legislation would be passed and the wishes of constituents could be expressed more clearly.

Another area concerns the other place which is populated only by individuals selected and appointed by the Prime Minister without consultation with his caucus, constituents or the House. We suggest those people be elected in their respective provinces and that each province should have the same number of senators so there could be a balance of representation across Canada and there would be an appropriate balance of regions and effective powers.

There needs to be a checks and balances in the way decisions are made in Parliament. If members of the other place were elected they could carry out the responsibilities of that place the way they should be done.