Debates of March 10th, 1999

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed. .[Text]

Question No. 137—

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

What plans does the government of Canada have for the future development and promotion of the following alternative sources of energy: ( a ) wind power; ( b ) geothermal; ( c ) solar; ( d ) co-generation; and ( e ) ethanol?

Return tabled.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion No. P-59 to be called.

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos and correspondence regarding the storage of nuclear waste in Canada.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 97(1), I suggest that this Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion No. P-53 to be called.

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, notes, memos, minutes of meetings, contracts and correspondence regarding all aspects of the termination of employment of Mr. Bernard Dussault, from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 97(1), I suggest that this Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on December 8 of last year I placed a question on the order paper with respect to the taxation of tobacco products in Nova Scotia.

Some three months have elapsed since it was placed on the order paper. I would like to request that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader expedite the response to this order paper question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the representation has been made, but we have moved off questions. We are now on Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers. Perhaps we could complete dealing with those.

If the parliamentary secretary wishes to respond to this point, he can.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to, but to be honest I missed the number. If the member would give me the number I would be glad to look into it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure this could be sorted out between the members.

Shall all the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be read the third time and passed.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume debate on this important topic.

I began last day by talking about the government's approach to governing, its way of dealing with the Canadian public and with the provinces. I reiterate that today.

The way the government deals with Canadian taxpayers, with provinces and with all individuals in the country is reprehensible. It is an arrogant approach. It sees itself as the one that has the only answers and it does not give credit to those individuals who are doing the hard work in the country, the taxpayers of Canada, the governments of the provinces and the local governments.

I refer to some of the comments made by the government member for Broadview—Greenwood last day when he stated that he was an interventionist and stood proudly in this place to claim so. He said his government's approach to intervening in the lives of Canadian individuals and provinces was the way to go.

That is what the Liberal government believes. I reiterate what he said, that the sectors of the western economic fabric were reinforced and embellished because of Government of Canada intervention.

What the member of the government is saying is that the development of western regions of the country was a result of the Liberal government, that it did it. That is unbelievable. I will list the provinces because I am not even sure the member knows those are the areas he is talking about: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

[An hon. member]

The alienation committee can find it now.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Yes, perhaps the alienation committee can find out on a road map where western Canada is. It is no wonder the government has to send a crew out to do some kind of damage control when there are members of the government standing in this place making these kinds of comments, saying that the central Government of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, has been the creators of economic development in the country.

Let us just talk about one example of that interventionist approach called the national energy program. I am sure members of the government remember that. It sucked billions of dollars out of Alberta to fund all kinds of other programs.

[An hon. member]

$100 billion.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

It was $100 billion, my hon. colleague reminds me, that it sucked out of the province of Alberta in the name of interventionism, in the name of “we have all the answers for you”. That approach simply has not worked. That is why there is Liberal alienation in western Canada. That alienation is growing in all regions of the country with the kinds of things we are seeing the government do.

We saw reference to that yesterday in the House. We saw it today in question period talking about the government's continued discrimination against families, against families that have made the decision to have one of the parents stay home to look after the kids. We heard discriminatory and inflammatory comments being made by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, the finance minister and other key members of the government. That is their approach to governing and it is shameful.

The bill which would seek to establish equalization payments was done in the same fashion. There was three days of notice that the bill was coming, after having five years to deal with the issue. The government has had five or six budgets to deal with the issue of single income families and remedy the tax discrimination that it continues to enforce penalizing families in Canada and it did nothing about it.

The government pays lip service to the things Canadians are most concerned about yet it fails to take action. The bill is another example of the way of doing business with the Liberal government. The people of Canada are growing very tired of this approach. That is why there is western alienation and alienation in other parts of the country.

I used an analogy last day of a famous Charlie Brown comic strip of which we are all aware. There is character named Lucy who continues to pull the ball away from Charlie Brown just before he kick it. That is how the Liberal government deals with the people of Canada. It is holding the football, pulling it away every time and punishing taxpayers and other individuals as well.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Shame on him for repeating my remarks.