André Harvey

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to a motion which, I think, manages to tie two issues of great concern to Canadians, namely the numerous scandals at Human Resources Development Canada and health care.

Regarding HRDC, in our ridings, everyone is talking about the dozens of RCMP investigations which are under way. This issue is about arbitrary political interference, about numbered companies that received grants without ever delivering the goods and about a government that, once again, is poised to give, not $1,5 million, but $1,5 billion to the same department.

This happens at a time when hospitals across the country—and our regional hospital in particular—are overloaded. People have to go outside the country for surgery. Who would have thought that, seven years ago, when the Liberals took office?

It is strange to see what happened at the convention last week-end. That convention was almost as popular in Quebec as “La petite vie”, which is a very popular television program. It was pitiful to see the Prime Minister calling on his friend Paul to reply to questions such as those on the increase in budgets at HRDC, where it is scandal after scandal.

It is not just Liberal MPs from Ontario who are in trouble. They are perhaps quicker than others to take in what is going on with the Prime Minister of Canada, with the Minister of Finance, on major issues. It is not possible for these people to ignore the fundamental needs of Canadians.

In its stupidity, the federal government prefers to create more programs, rather than meet the needs of provinces. It is going to stick its oar in with the millennium scholarships, but it is common knowledge that the provinces are able to run these sectors.

It is even going to interfere in health care, when there are long waiting lists for operations. Cancer patients face delays of two, four, five, six or eight months, which is terrible for families and for the patients themselves.

All the government can think to do is to keep the caucus on a short leash and make no bones about it. How does one go about getting rid of a Prime Minister who, not just in the case of Human Resources Development Canada, but in the case of the budget, is determined to interfere in all sectors of provincial jurisdiction?

For his part, the Minister of Finance is irresponsible for signing off on a budget that does not meet the real needs of Canadians. The Prime Minister says to the Minister of Finance “Paul, my friend, put so many millions in this sector, $1.5 billion for Human Resources Development Canada, so that we can continue our political meddling, and arrange for $2 million for one, and $1 million for another, and then we will collect during the next election campaign”.

All Canadians, including those who are English speaking, are beginning to see what this has produced, after 30 years of provocation by former Prime Minister Trudeau and the current Prime Minister. It has produced a country on the brink of dissension.

The figures prove it: 15% in the 1970 referendum; 49.4% in the last referendum. If there were referendums in Alberta and British Columbia, I am not sure it would not be higher still.

The provocation must end. The Minister of Finance has to stand up for himself and stop saying “yes” to the Prime Minister all the time, preparing budgets according to the political wishes and partisan desires of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance cannot go on through the coming months like the Prime Minister, because Canadians are beginning to understand all that the government has done, in addition to not having any timetable.

When we rise as Progressive Conservative members we are immediately met with “You left the country with a deficit”. That is a quick summary of the country's financial state. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau arrived, there was no debt. It grew to $18 billion in 1974 and to $284 billion later on. What counts in economics is the multiplier. He multiplied it by 11. We multiplied it by two. But we had a timetable.

We passed the free trade agreement. They all voted against it. They almost defeated us on it.

The GST, which will bring in $24 billion in revenues this year, not to mention the free trade agreement, which is very lucrative for the country, was not enough for the Minister of Finance. What he likes to do is pocket the money, Canadians' money, which he has arbitrarily decided to manage on our behalf. This is what the Minister of Finance has done.

He has to stop hiding behind the Prime Minister and launch his race for the leadership intimating that he performed miracles for Canada. He did not perform miracles, the previous government did by passing lucrative measures for the current government. But that was not enough for them.

Employment insurance yileds an annual surplus of $7 billion paid for by the workers. What Canadians want and what hopefully all opposition parties will propose in the next elections, is to give people their money back instead of creating new programs whose only objective is to give visibility to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance, both of whom spent the week-end grandstanding here in Ottawa.

People want money in their pockets. It is the only way to fight poverty. Right now, the government is not fighting poverty, it is fighting the poor. Canadians have had more than enough of a government that spends most of its time quarrelling with the provinces.

In Quebec, we have been putting up with that for 30 years from the former Prime Minister and the current one. All those quarrels lead nowhere. Quebecers, like Albertans and all the others, from the maritimes and elsewhere, want peace and quiet and want to see the money back in their pockets when the government does not need it. This year, revenue from the GST will be $24 billion, the surplus the EI fund will be $7 billion and there will be further tax hikes, the 50th tax increase in seven years.

The government claims that it has been a good government, that it has honourably replaced the last Progressive Conservative government. I am ready to take all the Liberals on, based on our performance after nine years in power compared to theirs after seven years. We will look at the numbers and see which government was the best one, which one made the best choices. Give me any item on the government's agenda.

At a time when Quebecers wanted constitutional peace, as did all Canadians, the wondrous Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, with his obsession for the constitution—nothing else but that interests him—found a means for getting a bill passed for the sole purpose of disgusting everybody in Quebec and showing the rest of the country “Here we are teaching the Quebecers a lesson, here we are putting them in their place”.

I have some news for them. Fortunately, the government is going to change, maybe even this fall, because if it does not I can promise there will be a referendum in a few years. And the key argument of a very strong majority of Quebecers will be that bill of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Bill C-20, which does not even respect international standards as far as democracy is concerned. They will get a referendum and then some.

They are the ones responsible for the change in the outcome from 20% to 49.4%. They will be responsible for raising it from the 49.4% of 1995 to perhaps 65% in 2003 or 2004.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 15th, 2000]

The other place that has been forgotten.

[Human Resources Development, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the minister would want to pause for a moment before answering me. Does she realize that she said no to a project that was profitable to the government, which was recovering its investment through the creation of tens of jobs?

Does the minister agree with the principle of work sharing in plants throughout the country, particularly in outlying regions?

[Human Resources Development, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is not for the RCMP but for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In 1995, there was an agreement between Alcan, its labour unions, and the provincial and federal governments. In recent months, the federal government has decided to withdraw from the program, while we are well aware that hundreds of jobs have been created and the government is getting its money back in taxes.

I am asking the minister why, since this is a worthwhile investment, she has pulled out of the partnership program with Alcan and its unionized workers.

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, to allow the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to come out of his constitutional obsession and see that, outside Parliament Hill, there are realities our citizens are asking us to confront, I ask for the unanimous consent to table a document that will greatly inspire him about the real problems. It is the most recent book of Michel Chartrand and Michel Bernard on the concept of guaranteed minimum wage for all citizens.

I challenge him to deal with this issue, and then we will have the opportunity to co-operate together.

[Municipal Grants Act, February 23rd, 2000]

The GST and employment insurance brought in $50 billion.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will continue with the quotation. “When the current government boasts about the economic results, which are starting to look good, it does so as the heir to the Conservatives, as the manager of strategic decisions that were made by its predecessor”. This is what Alain Dubuc, a very well known editorial writer in Canada, wrote in La Presse .

Whenever one of my colleagues rises, whether they are members of the official opposition or of the government—they agree on that—they start talking about the results of the Progressive Conservative Party. After dozens of motions for closure on the part of this government, I am not afraid to say that, at the time, we were not afraid of what this government is now afraid of doing concerning the Canada Elections Act, concerning Bill C-20, which seeks to provide a framework for future referendums in the country.

The Liberals absolutely do not want to consult the public to find out what it thinks of this measure. After decades of Liberal governments, I think, and I do not want to engage in rhetoric—I am well aware of the best way to emphasize a reality—that arrogance, contempt and indifference toward the House of Commons and toward all Canadians are now part of a behaviour that is beginning to spread throughout this government.

The government is ramming Bill C-2 through with mere technical amendments and without an in depth review. It is not true that Canadians, including people in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, have nothing to say on the reform of the Canada Elections Act. It is not true that Canadians do not know what is going on in this country. It is not true that this exercise was useless.

At the time, I was sitting on the committee considering free trade, which held hearings across the country, with the current Prime Minister. It is not true that we learned nothing from listening to Canadians on this issue, which was just as vital.

Fortunately, because the government respected Canadians, it consulted them. They made us aware of the importance of better structuring marketing, coming up with a free trade agreement that would enable the country to increase its exports to the U.S. market by 150%. The government felt it important to do that.

This was also the case for the tax reform that led to the GST. This tax is bringing in $24 billion this year. The purpose at the time of creating it was not to scrap it eventually, but to scrap taxes. That did not happen.

It is not true that consulting the public and, for a committee, going to hear what people have to say, is time wasted. I am convinced that, be it Bill C-2 or Bill C-20, which concerns a constitutional matter, it is not a waste of time.

I will mention, as an example, the 1995 referendum? What did the present government say to Canadians? It said “Do not get upset, we will assume leadership, we will take it in hand, you may rest in peace”. Things rested in peace until the great rally in Montreal. They rested so peacefully with the opium of the present government that the yes side ended up with 49.4% of the vote.

I say to my anglophone colleagues “Do not sleep too heavily with a government that is afraid to consult the people”.

This bill is extremely important. It will result in some purely technical considerations. Why not have agreed to examine this issue in greater depth?

With respect to appointments, I put a question to the chief electoral officer. Some of my colleagues were in committee at the time. I asked him whether he felt that his recommendation that there be an objective process for appointing returning officers was essential.

I can tell the House what he said. I cannot say that he is a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He is one of the most respected public servants in the country. He replied “Yes, it is essential for all sorts of reasons. Political appointments as returning officers have incredible repercussions on the daily management of election campaigns. If politically you appoint people without the qualifications, without the necessary potential to do a good job, the result is problems with day-to-day management”. This is what the chief electoral officer told the committee.

Unfortunately, we are headed nowhere with this. I managed to get a few technical amendments approved, but the rest amounts to nothing.

On the issue of funding, members of other parties were open to a study that might one day lead to increased funding from the government so that elections could be conducted in full objectivity.

The Bloc Quebecois has its own view on this issue, which was very well explained by its whip. The same is true for the other political parties. Unfortunately, on the issue of funding, we are no further ahead.

I hope that one day the committee will be able to examine the issue of the funding of the country's national political parties. I think that this puts democracy in this country in serious jeopardy.

There are numerous other aspects. One of the most detrimental aspects of this bill is the control of the activities of third parties during election campaigns. The people who promote political involvement, third parties, are not millionaires. These people will be so mired in administrative procedures that are difficult to understand and impossible to manage without professional resources that the government will be better able to control the next election campaign.

I would have said much more, but I see that my allotted time is up.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, when one is quoting, it sometimes—

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-2.

Right at the start, I would like to point out that we Progressive Conservatives are constantly being forced to defend our track record. According to the government and the official opposition, we are responsible for all the ills of this country. According to what my Reform Party colleague said earlier, one would conclude that the Progressive Conservatives have not done one positive thing.

I would like people to judge our reputation, not on what one politician says in a speech, but on what our government accomplished in the nine years it was in power. There is no shame in rising in this House as a Progressive Conservative. In the last century we were in power for only very short periods, but these were always productive periods that made a contribution to restructuring the country as a whole.

I will read the following excerpt. I know that my Reform colleagues are not interested, but hon. members ought to listen carefully to what one of the best editorial writers in the country has to say about the record of the Progressive Conservative government and of Mr. Mulroney. Hon. members will see that this rises above prejudices and purely partisan declarations.

I am doing this strictly in order to illustrate that what was accomplished during those two mandates bore fruit, and will continue to, in a progression that is more than merely geometric. I am sure that my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic has caught my drift, being a mathematician par excellence.

To quote the editorial “When the Chrétien government boasts of the economic results, which are starting to look good, it does so—”

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Without any partisanship, Mr. Speaker, I bet this bill will barely live long enough for the committee to complete its consideration of it.

In its advisory opinion, the supreme court stated that all political actors in Canada should be involved in the process: the Senate, provincial legislatures, the national assembly naturally, and aboriginal peoples.

Since all these partners in the Canadian federation should be asked for their views both on the question and on the majority, how are we going to reconcile potential diverging views? The bill does not say a word on the way diverging views should be reconciled. We are left in the dark, because there is nothing in the bill on this.