Monte Solberg

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I am presenting concerns changes to the Young Offenders Act. Several hundred constituents of mine are extraordinarily concerned that the Young Offenders Act does not adequately deal with the problem of youth crime.

The petitioners call for tougher sentencing. They also call for the minimum age in the act to be reduced to 10 years of age, for the maximum penalty for first degree murder to be pushed up to 15 years and for more parental responsibility in the justice system.

I am happy to present this petition on behalf of my constituents.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, also there are several hundred people who have signed petitions in my riding calling for an elected Senate. These petitions come from people from all over southern Alberta. Of course, that is a big issue in Alberta right now.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present three petitions.

The first petition is from several hundred constituents of Medicine Hat who are repulsed by Bill C-68 and who would like to see the money that is going into Bill C-68 directed toward suicide prevention centres, crime prevention programs, women's crisis centres, anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for fighting organized crime and street gangs.

I am happy to present this petition.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the infatuation with Diane Francis but I suggest that he might want to give her a call sometime and talk to her. I can assure the hon. member that he would probably get an education.

My friend across the way suggests that a strong, big, bloated, fat central government somehow will serve Canadians much better than a decentralized government that is better able to respond to the needs of constituents.

I want to point out to my friend that it was the federal Liberal government that broke the contract it made with Canadians with respect to how much money it would put into health care and higher education. In the 1993 election this big, bloated, fat central government and the Prime Minister said “Oh, no. We are going to continue to spend the same amount of money on health care and higher education. In fact, we will probably increase it”. The Liberals blatantly broke that promise, cutting transfers to the provinces by $6 billion. That is an unbelievably abrogation of a contract.

I would suggest to my friend across the way that history does not bear out his rosy view of federalism. In fact, if federalism worked so well, then why do we have a separatist movement in this country today that is threatening to rip the country right apart? It is because of their vision of federalism that tries to suck all the power into the middle. That is why the separatists in Quebec want to leave.

I suggest to my friend, instead of worrying about the provinces becoming another state, I am concerned about him becoming a ward of the state after that nonsensical speech he gave. I say to him the provinces were the ones that led when it came to balancing budgets. The provinces are the ones who lead when it comes to social responsibility.

When is my friend going to wake up over there and understand that all the power in the country does not belong just in Ottawa? People at the local level know how to make their own decisions and they do not need the nanny state in Ottawa deciding those things for them.

[British Columbia, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is what you get when you unite the tripe, I guess.

The supreme court's Delgamuukw decision opens the way for huge financial settlements for natives in B.C. Experts are saying the Delgamuukw decision could cost up to $50 billion in B.C., but unfortunately the finance minister has not seen fit to set aside anything in the main estimates in the form of contingent liabilities for this huge draw upon the federal treasury.

Why not? Why has the finance minister not put anything on the books? Where is this money to come from? Is it to come from increases in taxes or is he to cut social programs again?

[Division No. 210, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Chairman, could the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that the bill is in its usual form?

[Division No. 209, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Chairman, could the President of the Treasury Board please confirm that the bill is in its usual form?

[Employment Insurance, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when there is no deficit the money should go into its own account.

Let me speak further to the minister's confusion. Six months ago he said that cutting premiums would create jobs. Last week he said that cutting premiums would not create jobs. Next he will be telling us that cutting premiums will somehow kill jobs.

What are the voices in the minister's head telling him today? When are we going to get a straight answer from the minister?

[Employment Insurance, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government said that EI premiums have been going into consolidated revenues, which is a fancy way of saying that it has spent it. In other words there is no surplus in the EI fund. The government spent the entire $15 billion on things that had absolutely nothing to do with workers' benefits.

When is the minister going to admit that the EI surplus does not exist at all, except in his own confused mind?

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is cold comfort for people who thought it was going to be set aside for a rainy day.

As the minister knows, the EI fund is imaginary like leprechauns and unicorns, like the Bre-X gold fields and like the Prime Minister's homeless friend.

When will the finance minister break the bad news to all Canadians? When will he tell them the job safety net that was supposed to be set aside is spent and gone? What does he have to show for the $15 billion that Canadians put in there other than an IOU?