Andrew Telegdi

[Research In Motion, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association 1995 Award of Distinction being awarded to Research in Motion of Waterloo.

The CATA award for outstanding product achievement was presented to RIM in recognition of its exceptional contribution to the growth and competitiveness of Canada's advanced technology industry. The award was presented to RIM at the Global Connections Conference on May 3 to May 5, 1995 in Calgary.

Research in Motion represents the best that Canada has to offer in the new economy. RIM is a 100 per cent Canadian owned, export oriented, high technology company operating in the wireless data communications sector.

RIM's CATA award is the second award given to a Waterloo company in as many years. Mortice Kerns Systems won the 1994 award for its Internet anywhere software which eases access to the Internet.

The federal riding of Waterloo is in the heart of Canada's technology triangle and is a critical mass for technological innovation. Research in Motion is to be congratulated for its achievements as a leading edge Canadian company competing in a global stadium and bringing home the gold.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing 54 signatures from the campaign for equal families and religious faiths. It calls for an end to discrimination of gay and lesbian people with the inclusion of protection in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing 38 signatures against assisted suicide.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a number of petitions to present on the issue of sexual orientation and Bill C-41.

One petition is signed by 69 people proposing the inclusion of sexual orientation. Two other petitions with 88 signatures and 379 signatures respectively request the deletion of section 718(2) from Bill C-41.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Examine the record. When we look at Reformers for the most part they vote as a block. It is borne out by examining the records of the House.

I point that out to the members. I think they are being hypocritical and they do not examine the record. They try to say they represent something they do not.

I applaud two members of the Reform Party who actually did what they said they would do which was represent their constituents' wishes in terms of legislation. It relates to gun control. I applaud the actions of the member for Edmonton Southwest as well as a member from Calgary who stood up and represented the wishes of their constituents.

How can the Reform Party, whose central campaign was representing the wishes of its constituents, do such a flip-flop and ignore the wishes of its constituents when it comes to the gun legislation or legislation supported by law enforcement officers, by chiefs of police, and something that is needed for law and order? Not only do its members not support that, they are preaching civil disobedience against it.

Could the member inform me why they do not follow the wishes of their constituents on the gun legislation?

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested that he went back to Edmund Burke. He would have Parliament reduced to nothing more than having us be voting machines. We could have a questionnaire every night, push a button and there would be no need for the House to exist. There will be no need to study in detail various bills.

When I look at the motion the inference is members of the Liberal Party are not given more freedom. I remind the member that if he were to examine the record in the House he would notice there is a lot more divergence in voting among the members of the Liberal Party, the government side, than there is among members of the Reform Party.

[Lincoln Heights School Production, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the students and teachers of Lincoln Heights school presented "We Canada, Oui", a variety show production in celebration of Canada, on May 3 and 4, 1995. Two hundred and fifty students from kindergarten to grade eight and their teachers recognized the Canadian arts and history by sharing their talents through acting, dancing, singing, and gymnastic displays.

With the Quebec referendum expected sometime this year, teachers Pat Wilson, Nancy Tanguay, and Sue Thorne-McCaffrey, coordinators of the show, proposed a theme celebrating Canada for a school-wide production as a way of supporting a united Canada and feeling good about our country. "We Canada, Oui" evolved into a total school effort as teachers and students from all grades at the school worked together and shared in the excitement of creating a performance that blended their efforts and originality with Canadian content and tradition.

The teachers and students of Lincoln Heights school, Waterloo, Ontario, are to be congratulated. The commitment to a united Canada, our youth, and our future are strengthened through efforts such as "We Canada, Oui".

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

This deals with the hypocrisy of the Reform Party position, if the member must know. Doing politics differently certainly has not been their long suit, except to take us down a few notches in the public perception. Is it working? I suggest it is not.

It is not working because the Canadian public sees through it. The Canadian public sees through that opportunism. When the leader of the third party talks about a code of conduct and talks against expense allowances and turns around and collects $31,000, then the hypocrisy is clearly pointed out.

In terms of being up front and straightforward with the electorate, we had a campaign. The reforms were spelled out during the campaign. This government has gone further than it said it would in its red book. I can best characterize members of the Reform Party in the House as chicken littles running around saying the sky is falling.

Reformers would do the same thing with some of the major issues facing this country, which can cause our economy a great deal of damage. Instead of dealing with the issues that are of great importance and impact on the daily lives of Canadians, Reformers choose to sidetrack. The Reform Party, instead of doing sincerely what is best for Canadians and the House, has reduced itself to rhetoric, from reasoned argument to basic, simplistic political games. It is not working. Hypocrisy day after day becomes very obvious and it shows.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I expect the Reformers to keep interrupting. Of course they would because they do not like to deal with the shortcomings of their position and the hypocrisy surrounding it.

Reformers promised to come to the House and do politics differently. They have not done that. I am saddened by it.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to speak over the howls coming from the would-be preachers down to the left.

Let us talk about double dipping. The champion double dipper sits on the Reform side. Does any Reform Party member stand up to denounce it? Does any Reform Party member stand up and say: "No, this is wrong. We will not do it because there is only one taxpayer's pocket"? They do not.

He served in the provincial legislature and gets a $60,000 a year pension and he sits in the House and collects a member of Parliament's salary. Surely even Reform Party members can understand the hypocrisy of their position.

The fact is we had a red book and we made promises in the red book. Have we lived up to those promises? My answer is yes. Not only did we live up to them, we have gone beyond them. We even had some grudging commendation on that from members of the Reform Party, including the Reform Party whip.

Let me say for myself and my colleagues in the House, and we have to say this often, Liberal members of Parliament do not believe that a member of Parliament should be paid $150,000 a year, unlike the suggestions by the Reform Party whip.

The hypocrisy goes beyond just the pension issue. It goes back to the early days of this House when members of the Reform Party stood up and said they wanted to do politics differently. Having watched the House before, they are not doing politics differently. They are taking politics to a new low. Talk about political opportunism. They would misrepresent the workings of this House for pure, selfish, political gain.