House of Commons Hansard #196 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was dollar.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Harvey Progressive Conservative Chicoutimi, QC

Madam Speaker, our Reform Party colleague scornfully tells us that the debate is irrelevant.

He would like speedy tax reform to increase productivity, but there are always two ways of attaining one's goals in life: get there directly through tax reform, and he knows very well that the present government does not seem to want to move quickly in that direction; or get there indirectly.

If one wants to establish a balance of power during negotiations, this debate about striking a committee to consider the matter will certainly put us in the position of having to carry out a tax reform.

I think the debate is badly aligned. If the motion is well drafted, and I believe that it is, it contains no mention of a common currency. It talks about a pan-American monetary union. This in no way excludes national currencies.

I would like to ask the member if he in fact makes a distinction between a common currency and a pan-American monetary union that retains national currencies as is, with a strict variation in the rate of exchange.

I think the motion has been well drafted but very badly understood by all members of the House, and I would ask him to provide some clarification.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Madam Speaker, I guess I see the actual motion as a bit of a distraction from the important issue of the day which is that Canadians are seeing their standard of living eroded. We see the government coming up with trumped up, very feeble arguments as to why that is somehow a good thing and the way to attract business.

I would hate to see the debate get off track and get away from that when the government has something to account for. That is why I am not really opposed to having the discussion but opposed to having any amount of emphasis put on it at this time. It may be a discussion for somewhere down the road.

There is no magic bullet to fixing this problem. There is no single solution that will fix it. The best way to address the issue of a weak currency is to ensure that Canadian business and investment is competitive. The way to do that is to start to cut taxes and pay down debt. That is the way to address this.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Madam Speaker, I feel like I have been watching a ping-pong match and wondering who the players are because we have a member of the Conservative Party saying this is not about common currency. We have a member of the Reform Party saying the Canadian public does not want to have this debate but he thinks it should go to a committee anyway.

It is really quite bizarre but it has helped me today in one way. I finally discovered what the united alternative is. I see the member for York South—Weston who would be their leader. Let me tell the member what he will be leading. He will be the Conservatives and the Reformers, and the bed will be awfully crowded because it will be full of separatists. It is truly mind boggling. That is what we are hearing.

We should take this debate today and play it back for the members opposite just to see how much they have gone from here to there during today's debate. It is quite remarkable. The member for Saint John must be shaking her head. She is coming out to give some leadership to her caucus colleague, to say “you didn't really say we were going to support this”. She is probably having apoplectic attacks over the fact that someone in her caucus has committed her caucus to vote in favour of this.

Why would that bother a true Canadian? My colleague from Wentworth—Burlington hit the nail on the head. For someone else to suggest there may be a hidden agenda is bizarre. What is the driving force behind the Bloc every day?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

An hon. member

It's the Bloc.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

The member says it is the Bloc. It is worse than that. Every day its raison d'être, its reason for coming to work, is to destroy Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

An hon. member

It's a paycheque.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Maybe it is a paycheque. That is a bonus, and only in Canada would we be stupid enough to give paycheques to people who want to destroy the country. It is absolutely amazing.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

An hon. member

Point of order.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

There is a point of order over there. He does not like the amount of his paycheque, I guess.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member opposite is trying to say that I do not earn my pay cheque. I am a duly elected member just as he is. I do my job and I ask him to withdraw his words.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Once again I advise members to please use their words very judiciously.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Madam Speaker, I thought I did. I made the point and I will make it again. Only in a country like Canada, where our dedication to democratic principles is clearly the highest in the world, would this institution allow for paycheques to be handed out to individuals who are dedicated to the destruction of this place and this country. If they want to take offence that is their problem. It is really quite amazing.

What we see is this crowded bed. It is clear to me that the so-called hidden agenda is not really so hidden. Their counterpart, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, a former cabinet minister in a Conservative government, has said that he is dedicated to creating winning conditions. Those would be winning conditions so that he could win a referendum, so that he could lead the province of Quebec out of the federation of Canada. That is their goal. No one can deny that. They can rise all day long if they wish.

Since Bloc members have been elected by certain people in the province of Quebec I presume that they support Mr. Bouchard's position. If not they should rise on a point of order and tell us they do not agree with their premier. Clearly they are attempting to create winning conditions so they can take their province out of this country.

This motion is supposedly not about common currency. It is about a united pan-American monetary policy without currency. We will have funny money, Canadian Tire money. Maybe they will accept that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

An hon. member

What is wrong with Canadian Tire?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Nothing is wrong with Canadian Tire. It is great. This member would obviously try to build an economy on a foundation of coupons. We have a policy on the books being debated that we should convert to a system of coupons. It would not surprise me if that is where the supposed would-be leader of the united alternative tried to lead this great country.

The point I want to make is that the Bloc is interested only in undermining anything Canadian. It would undermine anything that stands for principles of democracy in this country. That is its goal. It wants to destroy the country. It is in its interests for it to pass a motion if it believes or subscribes to that particular policy.

Let us be soft and gentle. Let us send it to committee. It really will not hurt anybody. It is interesting. This is an opposition day. This is the opposition's opportunity to put on the floor of the House of Commons issues of concern to its constituencies, to its party, to the people of the nation.

Why would it not talk about some of the things that concern all parliamentarians if it is doing its job on an equal footing? Why would it not talk about poverty? It is a problem. We in the government have to acknowledge that. It is a problem that we intend to do something about. We will work with the Canadian people toward ending it.

Why would it not talk about housing programs? We know what the provinces have done across this land. I know what happened the minute Mike Harris took office in Ontario. He cancelled all social housing in the entire province.

Why would we not have a debate about that? Maybe it is time the federal government got back involved along with the provinces, along with the area municipalities, along with the regions, along with the non-profit housing corporations, along with the charitable sector and along with the private sector. It is time we got involved in housing.

Why would we not have a substantive debate over something like that? Opposition members want to put forward nonsensical motions the Canadian public could care less about. It is concerned about those issues that hit it.

I want to talk about the Reform for a minute. I do not often do that. I will take a minute because I was very interested to hear the member for Medicine Hat say Canadians are not producing. It is fair game for these members opposite to stand up in this place and take their best shot at the government. Go ahead, we are big boys and big girls. We can handle it. They have trouble taking it back.

Why would that respected member, the finance critic for his party, criticize Canadians and say that they are not producing? Why would he lead an attack on the Canadian people? The truth is the Canadian people are hardworking, honest, dedicated and community oriented. We have a wonderful country with wonderful people in it.

It seems to be in the interests of members of the opposition to stand up and denigrate Canadians right across this land. I fail to understand it. He then said Canadians do not understand what we are debating here today. I wrote it down the minute he said it.

Let me tell the member what they do understand. They understand they are not Americans. They understand they are not separatists. They understand they are not extremists. They are Canadians. They understand and they do not want to be any of those things.

A Conservative member made reference to the ides of March. It reminded me that we are only two days away from St. Patrick's Day, which then reminded me of that wonderful photo op that occurred when Ronald Reagan and then Prime Minister Mulroney sang “When Irish Eyes are Smiling”. There was a wonderful sense of warmth and feeling in this country as Mulroney climbed into bed with the elephant on one side and the separatist on the other side. This is clearly déjà vu all over again.

The Tories will support this motion. That is remarkable. The Tories are actually agreeing that we should go to committee and discuss what amounts to the break-up of this nation. I find it astounding.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Every sparrow that falls.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

I am not sure what the member means by that.

The opposition is uniting to support a motion because its members see an opportunity to derail and to set the agenda. The NDP has not said it will support this, so there is a tad of common sense on the left extreme in this place. I am pleased to say that.

In this section why are those members doing this? They want to drive the agenda. They want to throw a cog into the wheel of government any way they can. It does not matter. They have principles and if we do not like them, they have others. It is not a problem.

If we have to mess things up in this place by supporting a Bloc motion, one of the most nonsensical ideas I have ever heard of, they are not beyond doing that. They will lower themselves to whatever level of expectation or non-expectation, and the Tories agree.

Why would they not? If they were prepared to go dancing with Mr. Bouchard, why would they not climb into the sack with these guys here? It does not surprise me at all.

What we have is a regionalization of the political spectrum across this country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Who did that?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Brian Mulroney did that. I thank the member for asking the question. Keep throwing me more little tidbits. It helps.

We have regionalization. We have a western based party that is so confused it has actually gone to the rank and file in the Reform Party and said it wants to close shop. It does not think it can go any further than it has been.

I had an interesting opportunity when I was an observer delegate on behalf of the federal Liberal Party at the united alternative conference. It was like sticking a thousand pins in my eyes for the entire weekend, but I did it and saw the most incredible thing I could not believe.

When Jean Allaire, a committed separatist, stood to speak to the gathered throng of some 1,500 mostly Reformers, there was a standing ovation. Can anyone imagine a standing ovation? Then Rodrigue Biron, a noted economist from the province of Quebec who is also a committed separatist, addressed this august or not so august body, and once again a standing ovation occurred. I could not understand how this could happen.

For the last couple of weeks I travelled throughout the west on a task force meeting with folks from Richmond, Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg. There are no separatists out there. They are all true, red blooded Canadians. They believe in this land and the sea to sea to sea motto in spite of the fact that the political poobahs of the Reform Party ran those disgusting adds during the last election campaign. People in western Canada want Quebec to stay in Canada. Of course there are some who do not but the vast majority in their hearts want to keep this land strong and united.

It was quite remarkable to sit at this united alternative conference, which I must admit was only attended by two members of the Conservative caucus who were there more as spies than as any kind of supporter. They were not very happy and a little confused. I am sure they have been whipped into shape now and are back in line.

A number of the Conservative riding associations fired any of the delegates who attended. They kicked them right out of the party. That is called inclusiveness. It was quite interesting. In a certain way I do not blame the Conservatives. Why would they want to do that? They just went through a process where they elected an old leader to come back and help lead them to the promised land. Even though the leader of the Reform Party is throwing his entire party into the waste bin, at least the Conservative Party had the common sense not to do that.

We all agree in this place, even the Bloc members, their main goal or reason for being here is to lead their province out of Confederation. They want to enter into negotiations to have a pan-American monetary policy. The question has been put as to whether it would be the American dollar. Would the Americans just sit down and say that it does not matter, that they will cash in their chips and start a new dollar of some kind?

If that happened, would that be the thin edge of the wedge that would eventually lead Canada to no longer having a currency, an identity or a position on the international monetary scene? We would be seen as just sort of a hick-up on the side of some new pan-American dollar. That might lead to the break-up.

We would have a Canada divided along monetary lines. Its characteristics and its strengths would be totally destroyed and Quebec would see itself as being on its own. Who would Quebec have to deal with in that event? It would have to deal with the Yankees.

I want to know how many here think the Americans would tolerate separatism for more than a hick-up. Not a chance. In no circumstances would separatists be able to go into the hallowed halls of congress and debate that they should be allowed to separate from that body. It just would not be accepted or tolerated.

One Bloc member made the comment that living beside an elephant can be quite expensive. It is a heck of a lot better than sleeping with one in case it rolls over. That could be a little more than expensive. In essence that is where this would lead us if we were to follow it.

What a terrible waste of time, effort and money in this place and in our committee system when we should be talking to Canadians about what we will do for our youth, how we will help our young people. I am chairing a task force on youth entrepreneurship. I am honoured to do so, to be able to travel the country to meet with young people, to listen to their hopes and their dreams, to listen to what government should be doing to assist them in creating a future for themselves.

The reality is that young people realize economic times have changed. They may not simply be able to rely on a job from a large company any more. They might have to be more creative. It is amazing how creative our young people are. I met with eight young entrepreneurs in Regina at a round table. They told me their stories of how they had opened their businesses, how they were proud to be Canadians, and how they were proud to be young, working and succeeding.

There is such a positive story to tell but all we hear is the doomsayers, the negatives, the Reformers, the sky is falling. I have news for them. The sky is not falling; the sky is the limit in this great country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, should we laugh or cry? It would appear some people are suffering from microcephaly.

First, my colleague across the way suggested sovereignist members from the Bloc were lucky to receive a salary. Quebec contributes 24% of the funds in the federal coffers. Year after year my riding alone sends around $400 million to Ottawa, and my paycheck is paid by my constituents, like every member of this House.

It is insidious on the part of my colleague opposite to suggest that because we are sovereignists we are lesser democrats, we do not do our job as well as others and we are less deserving of our salary. This is unacceptable, and I hope my colleague opposite will withdraw what he said.

Second, the motion introduced in this House by the Bloc is aimed at striking a committee to review extremely important matters regarding trade within the Americas. This issue deserves to be reviewed. It is extremely timely, which is being raised not only here, but also in Argentina and in the United States.

I point out that for years Panama's currency has been at par with the US dollar. Of course, its trade situation is very special because of the Panama Canal. In my previous life as a computer consultant, I visited Panama and realized that using the American dollar made trade a lot simpler.

Would it be the same here if we had the tools to prevent exchange rates from fluctuating? These are questions we have. They are important.

In conclusion, the Liberal member, and all his Liberal colleagues who took part in the debate today, would be well advised, instead of showing their ignorance of facts, to let such a committee do what it takes to inform us.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, with a pan-American monetary agreement, Canada would no doubt have to adopt the American currency or a new currency, a new, completely new dollar system, which would be dominated by the American political interests.

Under that new system, Canada would give up its national monetary policy, which is an integral part of its sovereignty.

This is about giving up sovereignty. This is about destroying the country. I do not care if the member is happy with his paycheque. I am not happy that he is getting paid to sit here and destroy Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is a very solemn moment for me. I have been sitting here in silence for some 20 minutes while the member illustrated to me, to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada why there is a separatist party and why there is a Reform Party. I did not create it.

We in the west, the people of Quebec and the people of Atlantic Canada have tolerated for too many years being denigrated, being minimized and being insulted. It went all the way from Trudeau and his famous one finger salute to his denigrating statements against farmers. It continued with Mulroney and his arrogance and his father knows best attitude over the whole country, and it continues. I humbly want to say that illustrates why the Reform is here.

It would be good advice for Liberal members to watch the speech on television again, to review it and ask themselves the heart rending question: “Do you win friends by ripping into them the way the member did?”

We had a speaker at the united alternative who told us about the concerns of Quebec. He saw in our group some hope for solving the problem and staying in the country. We gave him a proud standing ovation and I would do it again. This member who was present has it all wrong.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was fumbling around looking for some Kleenex and I am sorry I could not find any. Are members aware of what the separatist said at the united alternative conference? He closed his remarks with these words: “My language, my country”, and the member across gave him a standing ovation.

As a Canadian it is my view that no one who believes in the country should give a standing ovation to an avowed separatist who came before a group legitimately trying to start a new party because the old one is dead. I understand that. Obviously they have to do something. For them to give a standing ovation is nothing more than an embarrassment to the people they represent.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the quiet, shy, unassuming, modest, very low key, low profile member from Toronto.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Mississauga.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK

Mississauga. I want to know whether the member will maintain his position of being against the common currency for the next few weeks or months because Liberals tend to speak one way and then suddenly change their minds.

I think of the promise against wage and price controls in 1974 when Trudeau said “Zap, you are frozen”. What did he do? He brought them in. I think of the GST. The member for York South—Weston is here. He campaigned against the GST. The GST is still here. I think of the free trade debate and all of the sanctimonious speeches made on this side of the House when they were here, and the free trade accord is still with us.

How long will it be before the member changes his mind?