Debates of May 30th, 1996

Questions On The Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I would like to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 19 minutes.

Supply

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

moved:

That given the Prime Minister's 1993 election commitment "that there will not be a promise I do not keep", and his government's subsequent record in breaking promises on job creation, safer streets, governing with integrity and scrapping the GST-the last of which culminated in the resignation of the former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps-this House condemns the government for betraying the trust of Canadians and contributing to the overall "cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians and the political process".

Madam Speaker, I did not hear the entire motion go into the record. The motion we are debating today reads:

That given the Prime Minister's 1993 election commitment "that there will not be a promise I do not keep", and his government's subsequent record in breaking promises on job creation, safer streets, governing with integrity and scrapping the GST-the last of which culminated in the resignation of the former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps-this House condemns the government for betraying the trust of Canadians and contributing to the overall "cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians and the political process".

That is the motion. By the way, that last quote came from page 91 of the Liberal red book.

The promise the Prime Minister made during the election campaign was very bold. I think the Prime Minister knew exactly what he was doing. At that time Canadians were very cynical about politics, federal politics in particular given the record of the Mulroney government. When the Prime Minister made the promise that he would not break any promises, he played on the hopes people had for a new government. People were desperate for some integrity in government. They wanted to believe that a new Prime Minister would instil some integrity and that they would be able to believe what the Prime Minister was saying.

How disappointed Canadians must be today. How disappointed they must be after the red book made all kinds of pronouncements about the promises the government would fulfil. Although there are many, the most obvious example is the breaking of the promise with respect to integrity. I point in particular to the recent resignation of Sheila Copps, the former Deputy Prime Minister who is now pursuing re-election in Hamilton East.

I want to talk a bit about the sequence of events which led up to the breaking of that promise. I must underline how important it is as politicians that during an election or at any time when we make statements about what we propose to do, people regard those words very seriously. We need to take these matters seriously. We cannot just hope that people are going to say: "Oh, it is just another

politician making a promise. We do not really take it very seriously anyway so if they break it, it is no big deal". We have to do something to restore the confidence people had at one point in politicians. I will talk about the events which led up to the breaking of the GST promise.

In the three or four years between the time the GST was introduced and the time the present government came to power we heard over and over again from members across the way when they were in opposition that they would scrap the GST. They would kill the GST. The GST would be eliminated. We did not hear it just from the former Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps, although she went on national television and said it. We also heard it from the Prime Minister himself who said: "I hate it. I will kill it". We heard it from the finance minister. We heard it from the current human resources development minister. We heard it from many backbenchers across the way. The promise was made by many people.

Subsequent to that, about a month before the election, the red book came out. It was distributed to about 70,000 people. It certainly did not get the distribution the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks received on national television. That document said that the GST would be harmonized, or would be replaced rather, with something that was equivalent in terms of the revenue it would generate.

Now we have a new broken promise to deal with. Subsequent to that the finance minister introduced a harmonization agreement in Atlantic Canada, along with other sundry rule changes, which will actually increase the amount of revenue that goes to the government. In fact it could increase by as much as a billion dollars a year. Again, that promise is being broken. Again, the government is not living up to its word.

I want to take the point a little further. Two months ago the finance minister said the government was not raising taxes and would not raise taxes. He was talking about personal and corporate taxes but I point out that although he is living up to the letter of his word, he is not living up to the spirit of his word.

Since the government came to power it has raised taxes and increased revenues in various different ways to the tune of $10.5 billion. That is unbelievable. Two months ago the finance minister said they were not raising taxes.

What did the minister do after that? He effectively raised taxes in Atlantic Canada. Before the House broke last week the Government of Nova Scotia revealed that the new harmonized GST in Atlantic Canada was to cost Nova Scotia consumers $84 million. That is another broken promise and a breach of integrity.

The finance minister lived up to the letter of his word but he did not live up to the spirit of his word. The government deceived Canadians in the budget by saying it was not raising taxes. That is absolutely untrue. Nova Scotians will pay more and anybody who deals in used goods will pay more. It is to be a billion dollars a year in extra revenue to the government.

How the government can say it is somehow fulfilling a promise is beyond me. However, we have the Prime Minister who is still to this day saying they have met their GST promise and that it was only the former deputy prime minister who overstepped the bounds and went too far. I cannot believe he truthfully believes that in his heart. The Prime Minister knows that somehow Canadians do not buy this. Even if the finance minister lives up to the letter of his word he is not living up to the spirit.

Deception takes many forms. Sometimes deception is not lying to people. Sometimes deception is withholding the truth, which is what the government has done over and over again.

I wish I could say it ends with the GST promise, but it does not. There are many other instances. I refer to page 95 of the red book:

In particular, a Liberal government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day to day application of the code of conduct for public officials. The ethics counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

Has that promise been fulfilled? The answer of course is no. What do we have today? We have a situation in which the defence minister is embroiled in a controversy. He is alleged, although it goes beyond alleged because he has acknowledged it, to have given $100,000 to a former campaign worker, broken up into small contracts so he could get around the rule that contracts over $30,000 have to be tendered. We have called for the ethics counsellor to be brought in.

What has happened? The ethics counsellor has not been brought in because the government did not fulfil its promise. It broke its promise to make the ethics counsellor accountable to Parliament. The ethics counsellor is a lapdog for the Prime Minister. He answers only to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister refuses to bring him in to do a proper investigation into this matter. This is another example of a broken promise. I want to talk about another broken promise.

One of the promises in the red book is: "We will examine such programs with the objective of reducing waste and inefficiency and promoting economic growth. Expenditure reductions will be

achieved by cancelling unnecessary programs, streamlining processes and eliminating duplication".

If the government is so efficient at reducing waste, I wonder if members across the way can tell me why last year the Department of Human Resources Development gave $105,000 to the Canadian Bankers Association. That is the organization that promotes the bank industry. If my memory is correct, the banks made about $5 billion in profits last year. I heard yesterday or this morning that the Royal Bank posted a quarterly profit of $324 million.

Why is it that when the banks are making $5 billion and the government says that it will reduce waste, we are giving banks $105,000 of taxpayer money? That somehow defies logic. How does the former deputy prime minister explain that when she is campaigning in Hamilton East?

Hamilton East is a working class neighbourhood. People there are probably wondering about the profits made by the banks. When Sheila Copps comes knocking on their doors, when they hear her government has given $105,000 to the bank industry and they have heard the banks made $5 billion, I wonder how she answers their questions. I wonder how she would answer a question when going door to door about all the money the government gave to the Canadian Bar Association, $277,000. The government promised in the red book it would get rid of all that waste.

The government gave $277,000 to the Canadian Bar Association. Does that not seem odd? The association received $20,000 from its buddies in the justice department and approximately $250,000 from CIDA, of all places. I expect that lawyers, some of the most well paid professionals in the country, would be able to afford to fund their own lobby organization. I would not have thought the Liberal government would have to give them $277,000. Another broken promise.

The government cannot get the message that people do not want it to spend money on organizations like the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Bankers Association when we keep going further into debt, when we are cutting social programs and when people are really suffering. Yet the government continues to spend on wasteful projects like those. Another broken promise.

I would think lawyers already benefit enough from the government. We have 36,000 challenges before the tax courts today, which should keep lawyers plenty busy. They do not need any more help from the federal government.

I point to another waste issue. Recently the auditor general reported that a $2 billion family trust had been transferred to the United States from Canada without any Canadian tax being paid. That is odd. The government said it is committed to ensuring there is no waste. That is a waste. There are tens of millions of dollars in taxes that should have been paid on that to the Canadian treasury, but all that money escaped.

The government will argue that was before it was in power, which is very true, but why did it not lift a finger to close the loophole? Why is it waiting for all the horses to get through the barn door before it closes it? Why is it allowing people with big money, people with all kinds of ability to navigate through loopholes and complex regulations to transfer millions and billions of dollars out of the country? By doing that it is ensuring that ordinary people like the steel workers in Hamilton and farmers in my riding, fishermen on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts have to pay taxes to make up for it. Why are the Liberals doing that? It is another promise from the red book blatantly broken.

I wonder how Sheila Copps would answer that? Unfortunately we do not know because Sheila Copps will not come to any all candidate forums. Sheila Copps will not take calls from her constituents when she is on talk shows. I guess we have to talk about it in here. Hopefully when she goes door to door people will ask her some of those questions.

A major promise the government made during the election campaign was jobs, jobs, jobs. I wonder if people remember during the election campaign when the now Prime Minister pounded Kim Campbell for saying she did not think there was any prospect that the job picture would improve before the year 2000. I think a lot people will remember that. It was a fairly prominent headline in the news.

Recently the Prime Minister said in Calgary and in the House "I guess we will have to live with high levels of unemployment". At the time of the election he said Kim Campbell was wrong. He suggested that somehow things were to be much better under the Liberal government.

What is the situation today? Today there are 1.4 million unemployed Canadians. There are approximately 13 million people in the workforce. One third are underemployed. One quarter are nervous about losing their jobs. As a result of all of that the economy suffers because there is so much uncertainty about the future.

The point is the government in many different ways implied that somehow things would be radically better than they were under the Conservatives. As I pointed out before, deceit has many different faces and sometimes it is not a blatant lie, it is a withholding of the truth. The government again has broken its promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.

When we look at the numbers there are actually 4,000 more unemployed young people today than there were in 1993 when this government took power. I cannot help but wonder how the Liberals are saying they are keeping their promises on the job issue, as some members did a moment ago. They have absolutely not done that.

The debt has climbed, interest rates have climbed, taxes have climbed and course unemployment climbs. The people over there have added $120 billion to the debt; $10.5 billion in new taxes and revenue measures since this government came to power. That not only ultimately kills jobs, it prevents jobs from being created because there is much less money in the economy and so people are not able to start businesses.

I have argued on may different fronts that the government has repeatedly broken promises and it does it without even batting an eye. It took overwhelming public opinion to force the deputy prime minister to resign. The Prime Minister denies there are any problems. I put to the House that the government has done a terrible job of fulfilling its promises and should be punished in the byelection in Hamilton East.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether to cry or to laugh. Today we could have had the opportunity to debate a very serious manner, the business of looking after the Canadian people, and at the same time the opposition could bring forward suggestions and ideas. Instead we have a nonsense motion which really does not do anything except signify to the Canadian public and to members of Parliament, on this side at least, that the old Tory party is back.

There are two children of the Conservative Party on that side of the House. The reason the Bloc was created was because its members were not happy with Brian Mulroney so another party was formed. The reason the Reform Party was created was because its members were not happy with Brian Mulroney's Conservative Party so they created another party.

Only one Reform member was around in the Mulroney years. The Reform movement was very concerned about the Conservative Party and where the right wing was going so it started its own party. During the process of becoming a new party those members said they would be different. That was one of the major promises of the Reform Party during the last election. They said they would come to the House of Commons to change things.

I have been in the House almost eight years and I have seen many interesting politicians come and go. I have seen many interesting motions from the opposition. However, I have never seen a motion as difficult as this one is to be serious about. We should be sad. I will try not to laugh because we have to try to bring some points forward today. I will do that because it is important for the Canadian public to see how ridiculous the reformed Conservative Party has become and how much disarray there is within the party.

I will spend some time talking about the government's record as it relates to job creation and the economy. That is important. The member opposite just finished telling us that the economy has not improved, that the economy is falling apart, that the economy under the government has not made any significant improvements. I want to put on the record some factual information, not simply rhetoric.

Before I do that I would like to have a bit of fun. It is important for people to know just how bad the Reform Party has become as the new child of the Conservative Party.

I recall during the last election campaign, when I ran against the Reform Party for the first time, that its members said they would come to the House to be different. They were going to represent their constituents and they were going to have all sorts of free votes. We know that the leader of the third party does not allow free votes. They pretend they do, but you never see any major free votes over there. You get the odd person who votes against the party. When a member votes against the party, their seats keep going backward.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

If you are going to speak, tell the truth.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

The member who is chirping in his seat used to be a lot closer to the front. He moved to the back, as he must have had the odd occasion to vote against his leader.

That was one promise which the Reform Party made. When we run in the next election we will be able to say that they are free to vote with their constituents, but, quite frankly, we know that the leader of the third party muzzles his members.

Speaking of muzzling, we now know that the party is very similar to the Tory party of Brian Mulroney. A few members have been placed in the penalty box. They were muzzled because they were too extreme. If a member of the Reform Party wants to be extreme, let him be extreme. Quite frankly, that is the philosophy of the party. That is what the party projects out on the hustings. I have heard that on many occasions from the members who were booted out by the party because of things they have said about certain individuals in society.

The member, when he made his speech, continued to suggest, in sort of a roundabout way, that somebody is on the take and that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. That is the theory I heard during the election campaign from the Reform candidate.

This member has followed through, saying that there are evil people out there who are running the government and who do not care about the people of Canada. After hearing statements like that, that is why the people in Canada are cynical. Had he taken the facts and said this is what I am disappointed about, this is what the

government can improve, and talk about it, then it would be a reasonable debate.

We could have a debate on what the Reform Party would do about the GST. When I was in opposition we had that debate. It would be a good debate. I would love to have a discussion about taxation and about what could do done differently.

All the member wants to talk about is poor old Sheila Copps, how she made a mistake, how terrible it is, how deceiving it is. Yes, she has paid a price. She has admitted that she was wrong. She has admitted that she went further than the red book.

I campaigned on the red book. I can tell members that my little Reform friends in Kenora-Rainy River spent about two months trying to figure out whether I said something I was not supposed to say about the GST. My friends in the press have come back to me and said that I must have followed the red book very closely because I am pretty clean. They have spent weeks trying to figure it out.

Many of us on this side ran on the red book. We knew changes had to be made to the GST but in this place, like everywhere else, people make mistakes.

The member suggested that the government has broken all its promises. We are human and err. We are willing to admit that we make mistakes. However, the member stated that everybody on this side has become as bad as Brian Mulroney. I was here. I know why the Tories have only two seats. I know why there are two children of the Tory party on that side of the House: one is a separatist party and one is so far right wing that its policies are extreme because that is the way it is on the far right. Those are the facts and the reality.

Remember also there is the odd moderate in that party. One was kicked out and it has a couple more to go and I suspect it will not be long before they are out. One of them is laughing across the way. He is probably closest to being a moderate.

Reform will get rid of them because they do not fit into where this party is going. I look forward to the Vancouver convention when Reform makes it quite clear to the few moderates there are that they have to go. They just do not fit into the mould of the Reform Party, which is the very cynical view of how politicians and Canada work. It is unfortunate that it continues to portray that as the economy gets better and better.

I have one last little point to make about what makes me angry about this silly little motion we are debating today. The leader of the third party has a suit allowance paid by taxpayers' money. Remember how different these members were going to be. Heaven knows, my wife would like it if I had a suit allowance paid by the taxpayers of Canada. She does the shopping. If you do not like my suit, Madam Speaker, it is my wife's fault.

I am very disappointed in the member across the way who portrays his party as so sanctimonious and lily white, as a party that has never done anything the public would disagree with. Meanwhile, the leader of the third party is down at Moore's shopping for free suits at taxpayers' expense.

That is the fun I thought I would have in relating to the people of Canada why the Reform Party is in such disarray. It is pretty obvious to me when we see a motion like this that this party is running out of steam. Its members are looking for things to use to criticize the government, but they cannot find them because things are starting to improve in the economy.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, my role is to talk about job creation and the improvements that occur in the economy because of the economic policies of this government.

The government has had to make some very difficult choices. We admit that. We came in after the right wing government of Brian Mulroney. The folks across the way voted for but did not want to get branded with the mistakes made Brian Mulroney and his Tory party, therefore they started their own party. They do not want to take responsibility for that mess. I can understand that. I would not want to be part of that party either if I had to admit that I voted for those folks on a number of occasions. I can tell members from experience that I never voted any other way, but one way.

I do not have to pretend that I flip-flop on which party I belong to. It is very clear to me that the reason why that party exists is because its members did not want to take responsibility for the Mulroney years and I quite frankly do not blame them.

The Liberals came into a total mess, after a right wing party had said it was going to be fiscally responsible, good managers of the economy, that it would deal with the deficit and the debt. Its biggest issue during the 1984 campaign was that the Liberals could not manage the economy. When we came in there was a $42 billion annual deficit. We have a huge debt. We know we are going to have to deal with that and we are working toward that.

Since coming into power the deficit has been reduced by $25 billion. Members opposite are not saying: "That is pretty darn good". When the right wingers were in power the deficit never went down, it always went up. After three years the government will be able to show the Canadian public at the end of this fiscal year that the deficit is down to $17 billion.

I cannot guarantee this because I do not know how the economy is going to react, but I am very sure that if the economy continues at

the rate it is going by 1998-99 the budget will be balanced. What are those folks across the way going to say then? Are they going to do what they are doing now and say: "They are terrible managers"?

It is because of the policies of this government that we have now proven-

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Talk about the debt.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the next issue is the one that my chirpy friend is talking about and that is the debt.

There is no doubt that the Liberals are going to deal with the debt. We have a strategy to deal with it because it is a major issue. We cannot deal with the debt until we deal with the deficit, get our fiscal house in order and clean up the mess of the Mulroney years.

When I sat in opposition there were 42 cabinet ministers over here. They took up two and a half rows of seats. They all had their fancy limos. They all ran around creating programs. We have come in with a very streamlined and clean government which is working toward improving the economy. I want to prove that we have.

So far I have explained to everyone in the House and across Canada that we have met our commitments in moving toward a balanced budget. We have worked very hard at that. We have had to make tough choices.

If the party across the way were to be different than the Tory party of old, it would admit that the government has done a very good job as it relates to that issue, even though it has been tough. None of us on this side are happy when programs are cut because we are Liberals. Liberals like to give service to the Canadian people. Liberals do not rejoice when somebody is cut off. We do not rejoice when a program is cut because it hurts people.

Therefore we do not spend our time running around the country saying: "Man, are we ever doing a good job cutting the deficit," because it hurts. We just carry on with other areas by focusing on issues that we think are important.

I want to talk about the government's record on jobs. The member talked about that at the end of his speech. I do not want to talk about it very long. It is a pretty darn good record. Quite frankly anybody should be proud of it. The question Canadians should ask is: "Are we better off than we were before? Are we better off now with this government than we were under the old government? Are the directions, the policies and the programs of this government proving to be successful in going where we want to go?"

There are key indicators that should show that. One of course is interest rates. They are at the lowest in 30 years. The inflation rate is at the lowest in 30 years. The bond raters and even the Globe and Mail said that the government has really got its act together and is going in the right direction. That is two areas.

The other area is job creation. Nobody in this Chamber will say that Liberals are happy with the unemployment rate because they are not. If we had our way we would like to see the unemployment rate down to the lowest level that it has ever been in history or at least lower than it has ever been in my lifetime and that is under5 per cent. We have a long way to go because the rate is still over9 per cent.

I want to lay these facts on the table. Perhaps the Reform's research is not very good. If the Reform members would ask us we would send the facts over to them.

Reformers continue to pretend that something is not working in the government as it relates to jobs and strategy but the numbers do not prove that. Six hundred and thirty-six thousand more Canadians have jobs than when we took office. That is not bad. The average gain in 1996 has been roughly 30,000 more jobs every month since December. Full time jobs were up 47,000 in April. That is the fifth month in a row there has been growth in jobs. Most of the increase in that month was in the manufacturing sector with 37,000 very good, high quality jobs.

Another issue which I find very cynical about the Reform members, as sanctimonious as they can get, is that they pretend there is some sort of conspiracy over here. They just want to be very selective in their facts.

Let me give the reason the unemployment rate has not gone down as fast as it should even though jobs have been created. The labour force was up 54,000 in April and up 137,000 since October 1995. What does that mean? It means people who had quit looking for work over a number of years are now beginning to look for work and are finding work. The labour force is getting bigger which changes the numbers and makes it look in some cases as if the unemployment rate is not going down as fast as it should. The reason is that people are now getting so much a sense that the government is going in the right direction that there is hope and they are now looking for work more than they ever have before.

Another statistic comes from the private sector. This is another indication of how well the government's policies are working. Twenty-three per cent of employers told Manpower Temporary Services, which is a private sector group that does monitoring of this, that they expected to increase staffing in the third quarter of 1996. This survey found that 23 per cent of employers expected that they would be hiring more employees.

In northern Ontario, 40 per cent of the employers in the Sudbury area expect to hire more people in this next quarter. Thirty-three per cent of the employers in the Thunder Bay area, which is close to where I am from, said they expected to hire more individuals because of the faith they have in the economy and because of the policies of this government. This comes from a private sector

group which knows that growth is coming and that we have our fiscal house in order and the benefits are beginning to show.

In the last budget we focused on certain areas. I could spend another hour talking about the nonsense motion of the Reform Party simply because it shows just how desperate Reformers have become. I know how frustrating it can be to be at the same level in the polls as the Conservatives were two and one-half years ago during the 1993 election. They were hovering around 12 per cent. Those were the good days. That is about where the Reformers have been hovering around. Sometimes they jump to 16 per cent, the odd time when somebody says the right thing. I can understand why they would get very depressed and why they would have a nonsense motion like this one.

Let us remember that in the last budget we said that because we could not raise taxes, which we recognized, and because we knew we had to deal with the deficit and debt, we would have to repriorize some of our spending. We focused on three areas: youth, technology and trade. A multitude of things are going on with respect to youth, which I wish I had some time to talk about but I do not. There is also technology and trade, the Team Canada approach and the $20 billion worth of trade and exports we have been able to help employers with because of the priority we put on international trade. Those are the kinds of things Canadians expect us to do.

In closing, I will tell the opposition members about this government's very good record and the integrity it has brought back to this place. I can understand how difficult it can be for right wingers to understand what integrity is. They had to live through the Brian Mulroney government and all of the scandals that I lived through between 1984-88 and 1988-93 when some 20-odd ministers had to pack their bags and wonder off. Of course they voted for those folks.

Let me give Reformers one bit of advice. If they are going to be successful as a party they are going to have to do it based on facts, not on fiction and not on trying to scare Canadians that this party is doing a bad job. Talking to my constituents and the polls prove to me every day that we are doing the right thing. We are improving people's plight every day and we are working very hard at it. We are not doing it overnight but we are making a difference.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are so many issues and so little time.

I smelled the distinct odour of Liberal arrogance when the member was boasting about their standing in the polls. I remind the hon. member that the Conservatives were very high in the polls the summer before the last election and they ended up with two seats.

The member mentioned a number of issues. He pointed out that the deficit has fallen by $25 billion. Will he also acknowledge that revenues for the government have gone up by exactly $25 billion and that $10.5 billion of that has come from new taxes?

When the member was talking about how difficult it was for him and his colleagues to cut social programs, he did not mention how easy it was for them to vote themselves a very fat MP pension. A very fat one. They are cutting seniors benefits and benefits to people in Atlantic Canada, but I note he forgot to mention how much money he had given himself in the form of a huge MP pension. That was noticeable by its absence.

Will the member acknowledge that when the debate was going on about my leader's $30,000 receiptable expense allowance, the newspaper accounts also pointed out that his leader received $400,000 a year from the party, absolutely unreceiptable in the form of an entertainment allowance? Will he acknowledge that the empties from that entertainment allowance would be more than enough to make most people happy?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member made the exact point I was hoping he would make.

I never said there was anything wrong with giving the leader a slush fund, if that is what they want to call it. They do not want to call it the suit allowance, so we can call it a slush fund, an entertainment allowance or whatever. I understand that as the leader there are many other activities involved which involve a lot of expense that average members of Parliament would not have to deal with.

My issue is with the sanctimonious attitude of the member across the way. He pretends that no one in the Reform Party would ever have the gall to do anything like that. Just admit that there are certain things to being an MP that are necessary, that funds have to be allowed for them and then we can get off this little sanctimonious trip his party is on.

I have seen this before. I come from the labour movement. I have listened to the NDP for years and years and years with their pie in the sky kind of attitude and their sanctimonious attitude toward how government is run. Then we brought in our good friend Bob Rae in Ontario where I come from. Then the people really saw what it was like and what the NDP was capable of doing and not doing.

The people of Canada should be careful not to buy into this nonsense across the way and giving them the chance to run this country. They will do what Brian Mulroney did. They will do what Bob Rae did. They cannot give us the kinds of policies they are proposing without completely raising Cain and ruining Canada's economy. I am very fearful that someone will buy into this rhetoric.

About my pension. The member said I got a raise in my pension. I have been here since 1988. I am on my eighth year. My pension was cut by 33 per cent. The member across the way does not have to worry about that because he will not get elected again and he does not have a pension. However I have a pension which is fine. I have a family. I have a young child at home and a wife who does not work. In this job it is pretty tough for my spouse to work when I am on the road. I represent one-fifth of Ontario's land mass.

What I dislike the most is when a member stands up and suggests that I got a raise when in fact I got a 33 per cent cut. I am not saying I am underpaid, but at least be honest. If the pension is too lucrative for his liking, then we will give him another cut in pay. If he wants to work for less than we do, we will oblige him. He can send us a letter from his House leader and we will see what we can do through a private member's bill.

My friend from North Vancouver likes to sponsor private members' bills that do not make much sense. Bring one in that says the Reform Party will work for free and we will pass it in a big hurry.

[An hon. member]

In one day.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

We will pass it in one day. It will not take us long. I would vote for it because I do not think Reformers are worth the money they are being paid. I know I am because I have one of the largest ridings in Canada. I have 80 communities, 46 reserves. I would like to bring my little friend from Medicine Hat on a three or four week trip up north on a float plane. He would come back a lot skinnier than he is now.

I want to make it clear that that sanctimonious attitude is the reason this country is in trouble now. We are working very hard to clean it up. Canadians will not buy into his party's nonsense.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will add my voice to the proceedings to touch upon the issue of honesty within government.

The Reform Party is also known as the son of Brian. When Reformers need ideas they go south of border and huddle with Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan. Then they come back thinking this is the United States of America. I will go beyond that to talk about decisions and standing by what one says and there are several examples.

After the budget presentation the first person who stood up to applaud the budget was none other than the Reform finance critic from Capilano-Howe Sound. Five minutes later he was out of the House. Later the Reform defence critic said that the Minister of Finance cut too much. Still later the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands said that we went too far. We do not know if we are cutting enough, if we are going too far, if we are not going too far. Reformers cannot make up their minds which way to go.

When Reform members talk about pensions it is really insulting. There are members in the Reform Party who are so-called double dipping. One of the first things we did as a government in our commitments was eliminate double dipping as well as the cuts which were mentioned earlier by my colleague.

In Reformers' own ridings, 55 per cent of their constituents have stated that the Reform Party is too extreme. This is from their own constituents whom they say they represent. Their constituents sent them here to represent them. They vote against their own constituents. Consider the gun issue. They were sent here to vote against it and they voted for it. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.

It is no coincidence that the Reform Party membership is down by 65 to 70 per cent. I ask myself why. It is simple: Nobody wants to be associated with the extreme views of the Reform Party. Nobody wants to be associated with the Newt Gingriches of this world who look at the esoteric picture as opposed to the global relationship we have.

There are certain expenditures but they do not talk about the the leader of the Reform Party who has gone from the $44 a night Travelodge Hotel to one that is $165 per night.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. Reformers should be honest with the people of Canada.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this well written motion put forward by the Reform Party. I fully agree with the motion, which points out the Prime Minister's Liberal government did not keep its many promises.

There were frequent reports in the press about the promises that were made, like those the Prime Minister dared to make before the election. For example, the promise on free trade was abandoned, as well as the one on job creation. An attempt was made with the infrastructure program, which created a few jobs. Few jobs have been created since then. In fact, the government did not even keep its promise to make job creation the focus of its budget. On the contrary, everything was done to try to protect wealthy families, for example, rather than to help the poor, as this government took all kinds of measures to go after the most disadvantaged and the weakest, as we well know. We know all about this.

To this we can add the famous promise to scrap the GST, which was not kept. Ms. Copps had to resign because of this unkept promise, a promise that, unfortunately, did not bear fruit. In fact, her resignation seemed to mock voters. When Ms. Copps promised

to resign, she was supposed to resign for real and not stand for re-election again the same day.

There is much to say, and the evidence is there that this government is very dishonest when it comes to its promises, as well as very hypocritical.

There is one promise that few people will remember, except you, Madam Speaker, and francophones outside Quebec. It is a promise the Prime Minister made in Acadia, not before the election but in August 1994, when he was already Prime Minister.

Mr. Chrétien came to the Acadian convention, where he solemnly promised that part VII of Canada's Official Languages Act would be implemented. As he said himself in his August 12, 1994 speech, he was making that promise not only as Prime Minister of Canada but also as the former member for Beauséjour. Therefore, he seems to know the situation of francophones living outside Quebec.

In his speech, the Prime Minister said: "It is always a good thing to remember that there are over one million francophones living outside Quebec". There is a minor mistake here, since we all know that, given the current rate of assimilation, there are no longer one million francophones living outside Quebec but, perhaps, only half of that figure.

The Prime Minister added: "Therefore, the federal government will not stop here: it will continue to protect and to promote the rights of French speaking minorities everywhere in Canada. This is one of the major principles I have defended throughout my political career and it will remain a priority for the government of which I am the leader".

This is a very solemn commitment. The Prime Minister then added that the Minister of Canadian Heritage had announced earlier that same day, during the same event, "how, from now on, the government will ensure that all federal institutions likely to play a role in the development of French speaking communities take into account the particular needs of these communities".

Madam Speaker, you are from Acadia and you will surely remember that, in making this statement, the Prime Minister effectively pledged to establish the implementation process for part VII of the 1988 Official Languages Act.

Earlier that same day, the heritage minister had said very clearly: "Therefore, I am pleased to announce that cabinet has approved a corporate policy regarding the participation of federal institutions in community development, as well as a work plan". The minister was also referring to part VII of the Official Languages Act, which had been approved in 1988, but which six years later, in 1994, remained an unused part in the statutes of a government claimingto be very concerned about the survival of French speaking communities outside Quebec.

For those concerned with this question, it is a very serious problem affecting a number of communities, as we know. In addition, it is part of the symbol of a bilingual Canada. This is why the Prime Minister, of all people, has repeatedly referred to himself as the champion of francophones outside Quebec.

The problem is a serious one, when you think that not only is the rate of assimilation of francophones outside Quebec very high, but it is also increasing rather than declining. The Official Languages Act was passed in 1969 for the very purpose of slowing down the assimilation of francophones.

Another part of the Official Languages Act of 1969 was also to ensure that Quebec is respected as a French speaking province in Canada. This is another promise not kept by several prime ministers, including Mr. Chrétien, the current Prime Minister, but I will not go into that.

Not only is the situation of francophones living outside Quebec precarious, but it is steadily worsening, despite the solemn promises made by this Prime Minister. As the minister has just said, separation will obviously not help matters.

This government, as the Prime Minister and certain of his ministers have often done, is using francophones outside Quebec as pawns in a game against Quebec. He says that francophones outside Quebec will disappear if Quebec separates, when they are already disappearing because the Government of Canada, in the most scandalous display of hypocrisy, is doing nothing to implement the Official Languages Act in Canada, including Part VII. I could also mention other parts of the Official Languages Act, but the most glaring omission is Part VII.

Reformers are not perhaps as sympathetic to francophones living outside Quebec as are members of the Bloc Quebecois or the people of Quebec. Like the people of Quebec, we respect French culture in Canada and it is in our interest to see that francophone communities, whether they are located in Canada or in the United States, survive. This is an obvious and fundamental principle for all those who respect the French culture.

Ministers and members in this House who say that francophones outside Quebec are a symbol of the survival of this country should look at what is happening to them. Once again, not only is the rate of assimilation very high, but it is on the increase. This means therefore that the situation is not improving for francophones outside Quebec. There are a number of reasons for that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

If members were a little quieter, I could talk to you about it. The rate of assimilation continues to climb. In the 20 years between 1971 and 1991, it has increased. I could provide official statistics from Statistics Canada, which indicate that this is the case in all provinces, including yours, New Brunswick.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The rate of assimilation is nonetheless a serious thing, basic. Francophone communities outside Quebec are going through this ordeal. It is true. There is no doubt. Statistics confirm it very clearly.

I could, obviously, give you the rate of assimilation in all the provinces outside Quebec, but you know about that, Madam Speaker, because you are Acadian. Assimilation is happening and is on the rise in all provinces outside Quebec. New Brunswick is, perhaps, the sole exception, with a rate of assimilation of between 8 per cent and 10 per cent. In Ontario, for example, the rate is 35 per cent to 40 per cent. In western Canada, it is over 70 per cent.

This rate of assimilation is bad, because francophone communities outside Quebec, the symbol of Canadian bilingualism, are being destroyed.

Just last week, another Statistics Canada study was published. It concerns young people and indicates that there are fewer and fewer young francophones outside Quebec and that francophones are producing fewer and fewer children, thus contributing to the tendency of francophones living outside Quebec to disappear.

In its report, Statistics Canada says, and I quote just one sentence: "Unless the situation changes or the number of francophones increases through migrational activity, the size of the francophone population outside Quebec will decrease in the future".

This is from a study published two weeks ago by Statistics Canada. When Statistics Canada publishes a report, it uses neutral language. This marks the condemnation, so to speak, of the future of francophone communities outside Quebec. When young people leave, when there are fewer and fewer of them, when they no longer have access to French schools, when their numbers keep going down and the trend continues, this portends a very dark future for francophone communities.

The government knows this. We have been saying so long enough. Even the spokespersons for the association of francophones outside Quebec said so in a report entitled "The Heirs of Lord Durham". This report is worth reading. I could even give a copy to the members of the Reform Party. Its subtitle in English is: "Manifesto of a vanishing people". One paragraph at the beginning of the report from the association of francophones outside Quebec reads as follows:

"Our dreams have been shattered. We are going through a severe crisis which may even have been planned and deliberately cultivated. Francophones outside Quebec are like a family whose home has been destroyed by fire. We are without shelter, our eyes fixed on odd belongings scattered here and there, but we are still alive".

That was in 1977, 20 years ago. The problem has gotten worse and, only two weeks ago, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, which published this report in 1977, wrote in another report: "The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada expects elected parliamentarians to carry out the mandate entrusted to them by the Canadian people. The urgent situation faced by members of our communities is unacceptable. The government, and especially its officials, does not seem overly concerned about the fact that the assimilation rate increases from one census to the next".

This report was published by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne after the Prime Minister made his solemn promise to the Acadians in August 1994.

Application of part VII of the Official Languages Act is just a manifestation of the government's commitment to promote the development of francophone communities. That is absolutely normal. If the Canadian government, and the Prime Minister first and foremost, portray themselves as the champion of francophones outside Quebec, committed to the survival of the French language in Canada and the symbol of a bilingual Canada, then they have all the more reason to react swiftly when the very communities which form the basis of this symbol are threatened with disappearance.

The act was passed in 1988 and the Prime Minister made his promise in 1994. Nothing has been done in the intervening six years. And since the Prime Minister took office, two years ago, I must tell you that, with regard to enforcing part VII of the Official Languages Act, nothing has been done, nothing at all. That about sums up the action taken by the Prime Minister in terms of his solemn undertaking to implement part VII.

These are not my personal observations. The facts speak for themselves. I read and quote the report of the commissioner of

official languages, who is supposed to be impartial in this matter, although I doubt that seriously, because it seems to me that he sometimes plays the government's game of covering up the fiasco involving francophones outside Quebec. Time permitting, I will get back to this point.

The commissioner has examined everything the government has done in relation to part VII. In his detailed study released this year, two years after the promise made by the Prime Minister before the Acadian congress, in August 1994, the commissioner stated that, according to his study, nothing indicates the existence, even after August 1994, of a systematic effort to ensure compliance with section 41, that is to say part VII, in the restructuring process of the government's institutions and programs. Instead, notes the commissioner, this restructuring was sometimes done in a way that reduced, instead of increasing, support to the development of minority official language communities.

After solemnly promising to defend and support francophone communities outside Quebec, communities now confronted with a difficult and disastrous situation, not only did the Prime Minister of this country not make any effort to ensure the law was enforced, but the commissioner, himself almost in the Prime Minister's pocket, was forced to admit that nothing has been done. What is more, the situation has actually deteriorated.

The Prime Minister has no right to claim to be the champion of francophones outside Quebec when he is not doing anything. Not only did he not enforce the law, but he is cutting back the resources allocated to programs supporting francophone communities. This year, in some cases, cuts in subsidies have been as high as 50 per cent. For some, this represents a death sentence.

There is a francophone community in Saskatchewan and this community has been treated very unfairly because, as you know, legislation contravening the Canadian Constitution was passed in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, prohibiting the teaching of French. Several Supreme Court rulings were made, telling these provinces they had to respect these rights.

When they complied with the Supreme Court's decisions, the provinces received certain amounts from the federal government to try to encourage communities to make up the ground they had lost over the past century.

I will conclude by saying briefly that, in Saskatchewan, subsidies for francophones were cut by 50 per cent. Had I had more time, I would have read you the letter of a 12-year old girl. It was handed to me just minutes ago. This 12-year old wrote Mr. Chrétien, asking him: "How can you say, Mr. Prime Minister, that you care about francophones outside Quebec, like us in Saskatchewan, when you are cutting our subsidies by 50 per cent?"

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I had a difficult time following the member's debate based on the Reform motion. Nonetheless, I would like to ask him a fairly obvious question.

As separatists, his party is advocating that Quebec leave Canada. At the same time he is spending a lot of time complaining about the non-existence of the French language outside Quebec.

The province of Ontario, the province of Quebec and all other provinces control their educational system. Quebec controls immigration. It also controls labour markets, labour market adjustment and training. We are now in the process of transferring that area to the province of Quebec.

The province of Quebec has all the tools to protect its French language. The premier of Quebec has stated categorically that he would protect minority rights in Quebec, which means that English would still be a part of Quebec's culture, unless they are suggesting everyone who is English leave.

I would like to know from the member, as a separatist, where he is coming from. Is there a fear that French will disappear if Quebec stays in Canada? Is there a fear that unless things are done differently the French fact in North America will not exist? Can he explain to me what will be better under a separate country as far as the ability to keep the French fact in North America?

Why does Quebec not have a policy to help French speaking people in the rest of Canada? Why does Quebec not seem to have an interest in French people outside Quebec? Why does it continue to tell its population that in provinces such as Ontario there are no French people? We know that is not the case.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is from Kenora-Rainy River. Not many francophones live in that area of Ontario but there are francophones in Ontario, especially in northern Ontario.

What I noticed in what he said is there is a lot of misunderstanding with respect to language laws. That is probably one of the major problems in the country. People do not really understand the application of language laws and the situation of francophones versus anglophones.

The member said francophones in Ontario control their school boards. That is not true. Francophones in Ontario have been fighting for years to get adequate schools. Only recently have they been enabled to control four school commissions out of a possible 15. Ontario is very resistant to the survival of the French language. It could have been a province that had been bilingual like New Brunswick. There are 5 per cent to 10 per cent francophones in Ontario. Ontario has mistreated the francophones more than other provinces because of the number of francophones living in Ontario. Francophones of Ontario do not control their school boards.

Coming back to the members questions of what will happen to francophones if Quebec leaves and why Quebec does not help francophones, we cannot have the situation both ways. Francophones outside of Quebec are being assimilated at a very dangerous rate. They are losing their schools, they are losing the foundations of their survival in a country that is said to be bilingual.

Quebec also suffers from the discrimination which is practised against francophones. One form of discrimination, particularly in Ontario, is that francophones cannot automatically provide funds for their own schooling. In other words, whenever they pay school taxes those go automatically to English language schools.

If you are a francophone and you really want to have French schooling for your children you have to go out of your way and assure yourself that your tax dollars are to be served for French language schools. For example, in Ontario in a business with 15 employees, 14 of whom are francophone, where do the school tax dollars go? They go to the English school board, not to the French school board.

There is a form of discrimination against francophones, translated in Quebec as well. Everyone knows Quebec has a long history of discrimination with respect to its survival as a French culture. That is proof and the reason Quebec has come to the conclusion that the French language is not respected in so-called bilingual Canada. It is proof that Francophone rights throughout Canada have never been respected. Even today francophones rights are not respected according to the charter of rights and freedoms of 1982, article 23.

After 15 years every province in Canada should have granted proper schooling and control of school boards to francophones, but that has not been done. It has not been done in B.C., in Ontario or in Newfoundland, despite the fact we are most likely to pass a motion that will provide for the premier of Newfoundland to change the school system. He has not spoken about granting the rights to francophones to control their own school system. That is against the Constitution. These are provinces that have not respected the Constitution of Canada in granting rights to francophones, and that is a serious problem.

It is natural that because the situation is so disastrous Quebec looks at its own survival as a French language and culture, as they are far from being guaranteed.

There are other reasons but one cannot stand in the House and say Quebec is not trying to do the utmost to help the survival of francophone communities. Quite the contrary. That is why we are working for sovereignty.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the member is wrong when he says you cannot put your tax dollars toward a French school. I have a house in Ottawa. I bought it a couple of years ago. I put my tax dollars toward a French separate school system. They came to the house and asked which system I wanted to be under and I put it there. The member is factually wrong and should stop saying that.

If the member is so concerned about bilingualism nationally why is it that Quebec is not bilingual? Quite frankly, it is grossly unfair to suggest we have a bilingual country but New Brunswick is the only bilingual place, and Quebec is not.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

A very short answer.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as a short answer to that comment. Canada is not a bilingual country. The public service in Ottawa is not a bilingual public service. Ottawa is the capital of the country and it is not a bilingual town.

I might have committed an error with respect to the school taxes. What I was trying to say is that in Ontario you can provide your tax dollars to the French school system. I am not saying the contrary. It is just that you have to go out of your way to assure yourself those tax dollars are put into the French language school system, otherwise they go automatically to the English school system. It is discriminatory in Ontario.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today in support of this motion which severely criticizes the government because it does give me the opportunity to talk about all the broken promises.

I bring up some matters mentioned by the member for Kenora-Rainy River. He mentioned the importance of voters selecting a party based on facts, not fiction. Let us get something very clear. Fifty-one of fifty-two Reform MPs in the House gave up their right to any pension. Therefore nobody can point a finger at us. All of the greed is on the other side of the House.

I am getting a bit sick of having my constituents attacked as racist, bigoted, homophobic, extremists or any other derogatory adjective these Liberals keep bringing up. Just because my constituents do not believe in Liberal tax and spend policies does not mean they are intolerant. Every time the member puts a label on us or our policies, which incidentally have not changed since the 1993 election, he is attacking our constituents. More than two million people, 20 per cent of the voters of Canada, voted Reform in the last election. Therefore every time he gets up arrogantly to use those labels I suggest he give a little thought to what he is doing.

I continue with the latest set of broken promises from the government. Canadians will remember that about a week ago the Prime Minister in western Canada said Canadians will have to live with high levels of unemployment. By admitting failure on the job front the Prime Minister has confirmed that neither he nor any of

his government employed for life colleagues have the slightest idea how real jobs are created.

The Prime Minister claimed during the 1993 election campaign that his $6 billion job creation infrastructure project would create all sorts of wonderful jobs and we would return to the days of low unemployment. He had this theory that all the people employed by the program would spend the money in their communities and that this would then reduce unemployment.

However, anyone with business experience could see that the plan could not work from day one. The reason was the government was not creating long term, meaningful jobs. It was buying jobs using taxpayers money and borrowed money, and those sorts of jobs are only short term.

Frankly, if running deficits and accumulating a $583 billion debt could create jobs we would each have at least three by now. Instead the overspending has led to punitive levels of taxation. It has driven businesses out of the country. It has reduced the amount of disposable income in the pockets of consumers. Debt and deficits have caused unemployment. Until the people on the other side of the House-and we can laugh at this right now-come to grips with that we will not make any progress.

Although governments cannot themselves create meaningful jobs, they can create the climate that permits private enterprises, the private sector, to create those jobs. The steps to success would require the federal government to balance its budget as quickly as possible so that those who are to be affected by the changes can adjust as quickly as possible and then immediately get into tax reductions to put more money into the pockets of consumers. With that money in their pockets, consumers will spend more, stimulating the demand for products, increasing the demand for jobs and subsequently lowering the unemployment level.

These steps were the foundation of Reform's zero in three plan for balancing the budget, which we used during the 1993 election campaign. We are three years down stream from that now. If the government had taken our plan the day it came to office, we would today be running surpluses and arguing about what to do with the surplus money instead of arguing which social program we are to cut next.

We would not be talking about disassembling CPP and cutting the transfers to medicare. We would have a surplus and would be talking about enhancing those programs.

I come from New Zealand. New Zealand politicians were forced by a fiscal crisis in 1984 to take exactly the steps I just detailed. Today the New Zealand unemployment rate is below 6 per cent. It has large budget surpluses. It is applying those surpluses to expanded health care programs, better social programs, and at the same time workers this week received a $100 per month reduction in income taxes.

Imagine if the Minister of Finance had been able to stand in the House in his last budget and announce a $100 per month reduction in income taxes. The government side is always paying lip service to eliminating and reducing poverty. The best way to make that happen would be to get taxation down so that there is more money in the pockets of consumers.

New Zealand has proven that a dollar in the hands of an investor, a business person or a consumer will be spent more wisely and will create more jobs than that dollar in the hands of anyone on the other side of the House. We can have jobs, jobs, jobs if we want them but first we need to get a few MPs in the House who understand how jobs are created.

The sad thing is that even though there are methods for job creation that have been proven in other countries, one must ask why we cannot not get that in the House.

The basic problem is there is a party unwillingness on the other side to admit that any idea that comes from this side might actually be worth considering. That problem stems from the fact that Parliament in its present form is much more suited to the enactment of a party agenda than it is to the enactment of sensible policies or the will of the people.

In blunt terms, the $125,000 plus to run this place every hour gives us little more than a charade of meaningless debates and answerless questions. The outcome of every vote on every government bill is known in advance, before the first speaker even gets up. The government knows every one of its bills will pass. The problem is that to change that sort of thing we will need a lot of sacrifice by those in power. At the moment those people are the least willing to sacrifice the power they maintain.

Despite their resistance I can feel the tide turning. I feel the tide of Canadian support turning against those traditionalists. The progress of the revolution can be measured at the ballot box. It certainly manifested itself in tremendous uncertainty for the traditional parties over the last five years or so.

We need look only at the success of the Reform Party of Canada, which jumped from one seat in Ottawa prior to the 1993 election to 52 seats. It was contrary to the predictions of the pundits and despite the vigorous, completely unfounded media attacks against the party. It used to use the old labels of racist and bigoted, but those long ago lost their effect because they were not true.

Let me give a personal example. My riding was held from the middle of the 1970s until 1993 by Chuck Cook, a Progressive Conservative. In the vote of 1993, I received a higher number of votes than Chuck Cook ever had in his entire history in this place, votes paid to any suggestion that this party is a reincarnation of the

PCs. Through our policies I took 18 per cent of the NDP vote to Reform. That happened in Reform ridings throughout western Canada.

The truth is voters saw through the attacks, the labels attracted to the party. What they saw they wanted, a populist set of policies based on their input and a promise that MPs would represent the will of constituents in Parliament.

Perhaps this is an appropriate time for me to mention again that my constituents are getting fed up with hearing Liberals in the House continually implying, through their personal attacks on Reform MPs, that the millions of Reform voters and supporters across the country are racists, bigots, homophobes and extremists simply because they do not agree with Liberal policies and because they do not agree with the way bills are rammed through the House.

They are not racists, bigots, homophobes and extremists. They are caring, responsible, compassionate Canadians, and they are sick and tired of being attacked by the politically correct who sit on that side of the House. It has to stop because it is unacceptable. It would do well for those taking part in the smear campaigns to remember that every time they stand in the House to make those kinds of accusations.

This morning I had a call from a constituent who watched the television coverage of yesterday's extensive ceremonies involving MPs. I ask members to put themselves in the shoes of ordinary Canadians who watched that yesterday. They saw former members of Parliament honouring themselves by unveiling a series of wall plaques listing their names in the House of Commons. They saw them heading off for a cocktail party at the governor general's residents.

Those taxpayers were asking who was paying for all of this self-glorification. Do they not have big enough pensions already? Do they not have a big enough trough already? Do they not take any responsibility at all for what they have done to the country? Are they proud of the $583 billion debt they left for our children and our grandchildren? Are they proud of the highly excessive taxation levels forcing people to deal in the underground economy? Are they proud of a justice system that cannot protect us? Are they proud of the Young Offenders Act which lets young offenders roam out of control in gangs, not accountable for the crimes they commit?

They are the ones who caused all the problems. Why are they honouring themselves? It was because of them that millions of Canadians voted in 52 Reform MPs in the last election, a party with ethics that would stop wasting taxpayer money on gold plated pension plans and would restore some common sense to government.

The truth is the real extremists in our political system are sitting on the opposite side of the House. They are the traditional politicians who flocked to this place yesterday to admire their names on the gold plaques on the walls. They were the ones who before they began dismantling the CPP for ordinary Canadians voted themselves a gold plated pension plan that would be illegal in the private sector.

They were the ones who ignored the will of ordinary Canadians and rammed their politically correct legislation through Parliament. They are the ones who invoked political correctness so that Canadians are afraid to speak openly about the issues that concern them. As a Reform MP I have had to live through a lot of attacks from special interest groups which see their funding threatened.

On this latest attack that we have heard over the last couple of months, this extremist label that has popped up, the public sees labels for what they are, a smear campaign without foundation. As the constituent who called me this morning said, we have only to look at the actions of the traditional parties to see who the real extremists are.

Their $583 billion debt is extreme. Their punitive tax rates are extreme. Their decision to let dangerous offenders out of prison after a few years of sentence is extreme. Their actions in ramming special interest group bills through the House are extreme. Closing off debate on important bills is extreme. Their thousands of annual patronage appointments and grants to special interest groups are extreme. Most extreme of all is the legislation they passed for their own pension schemes.

All these things were achievements of the people like those on the opposite side, the traditional old line politicians who ignored what the people wanted them to do and enacted the will of the special interest groups instead. Yesterday they celebrated their achievements and people watched on television. Members should have heard the comments they made.

The people on the opposite side of the House are slow learners. There is no doubt in my mind that we have now reached the point where any party, federal or provincial, which does not listen to the voters and start enacting the will of the voters is going to find itself subject to elimination by the voters of the information age. We can already see the evidence that it is happening by looking at matters in the provinces and even at the federal level.

It is only the social engineers who still cling to the belief that people are too stupid, too mean, too intolerant, too lacking in compassion to govern themselves. Those social engineers are resisting change.

The traditionalists think they are the sole possessors of compassion, understanding and tolerance and that the voters can only be

trusted to make a decision once every five years about which benevolent dictatorship will govern them next. I know for certain, and every MP in this House must know, the public notices how every party when it gets elected says how clever the voters were to have selected it to run the country. Any time the public will is against one of its bills the first thing the party does is label the voters as ill-informed, mean-spirited, racist, homophobic, extremist. No wonder the voters have become cynical about their governments. They have good reason.

Let us look at an example which happened in the House just a couple of weeks ago. The member for York-Simcoe stood in this House and criticized the member for Yorkton-Melville who made a statement on behalf of a group of Cree Indians. Leonard Iron, a Cree of the Canoe Lake Band had handed a letter to my colleague from Yorkton-Melville and asked him to read it in the House. That is exactly what that member did. Then last week the member for York-Simcoe said in her statement in the House:

Once again a member of the Reform Party has lashed out against a minority group, this time Canada's aboriginal community. This Reform member made derogatory remarks about Canada's native leadership when he said that its leadership will turn native self-government into fascist states.

After she made the comment I walked across the floor of the House and I said to the member: "When you read that statement, did you know that my colleague was reading it from a letter from the Cree nation?" She said to me: "Yes, I did". I said: "What sort of person does that make you?"

I can respect differing opinions in this House. I am prepared to argue for the policies that I stand for but I have no respect for people who set out to destroy others by not using the facts.

Here is another example. I have been waiting for the answer to a question I put in this House in March of last year. I realize there has been a prorogation but anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that if any work had been done on the question it could continue after the House came back. Since March 1995 the question is:

With respect to the Squamish Indian Band in North Vancouver, what has the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development determined to be (a) the total number of band members living on the reserve, (b) the total amount of funding provided to the band in each of the years from 1990 to 1994 from all federal government transfers, including but not limited to, transfers and grants for any purpose, government leases of land from the band, housing costs, education and training, special purpose funding and income from Park Royal South Shopping Centre lease collected on behalf of the band?

I have been waiting for an answer to the question for my constituents for more than a year. It is a disgrace the way this government conducts itself.

Unfortunately our parliamentary system has made it possible for the MPs of the traditional parties to be unaccountable between

elections and to ride to election on the coattails of a dictatorial leader who will tell them how to vote in the House. In my opinion this has the potential to rob them of their dignity, their decency and their morality and could reduce them to the level of trained seals.

Unfortunately those who hold the reins of power presently pay lip service to consultation and input. It is very rare for anything to change in their plans as a result of that input.

The Prime Minister has done nothing to rectify this problem despite the promises of free votes. If he truly believed in democracy, all he would have to do is rise in the House, the way Pierre Trudeau did when the present Prime Minister was the minister of finance, and state that a vote lost on a government bill does not mean the defeat of the government but should be followed by a confidence vote to restore confidence. This would allow democracy to prevail. It would allow meaningful debates in the House in which members would have a chance to talk openly and freely to perhaps convince one another to vote a different way.

The problem is there is no accountability. There is the same lack of accountability by ministers. For example, the minister of immigration answers letters from my constituents with ridiculous statements which I do not have time to read.

It is very depressing to see what happens here. I support the motion of my colleague and I hope others will also vote in favour of it.