Werner Schmidt

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. secretary for raising the question. I think it emphasizes the point I was just making before I proceeded to refer to the case.

I suggested to him and to all members opposite, in particular those in the government, that we must consider public funds, the taxpayer dollars that we collect, as a trust that we manage on their behalf. We ought to do so with integrity, with the best judgment and intentions so it meets the needs of our people in Canada. That is what we ought to do.

What I am suggesting with this particular example is that this does not demonstrate careful analysis. It does not demonstrate acting in the best interests of Canadians. It does not demonstrate either that it is helping this woman. What do we do about this lady who is in the grave? What is she going to do with $125? She cannot even cash the cheque. That is the point I am trying to make. I think we really have to register these kinds of concerns.

We also need to look at exactly what the bill would do. The bill would remove the $10 billion ceiling on the 1999 equalization payments and would add about $800 million worth of funding for the seven provinces that qualify for transfers: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

That equalization program has already indicated that it is designed so that these provinces can offer roughly the same level of public services in health and education, for example, as other wealthier provinces without imposing excessively high rates. The bill was designed in accordance with the agreement that was made last fall between the Prime Minister and the first ministers of the various provinces.

I also want to recognize that in the equalization formula we want to be careful that it is not manipulated in such a way that it benefits some provinces at the expense of other provinces. That can happen. We need to be very careful about that. We would strongly support a re-examination of that equalization formula itself.

In particular, we want to recognize that we need to address the bigger, long term problems that were promised. Promises seem to be such a vacuous thing for the government. It seems almost as if it can promise one thing and do another, or totally ignore the problem or, in some cases, even deny the problem and vote opposite to it.

In fact the government did that with the appointment of an ethics counsellor. It said an ethics counsellor would be appointed by parliament, report to parliament and would advise on the ethics of ministers and the Prime Minister in particular. What happened? We took the government at its word.

We proposed a motion in the House and said that the ethics counsellor should be appointed by parliament. In fact we took the exact words out of the promise book. Guess what? Every Liberal in the House voted against that motion. It makes one wonder about the integrity.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to enter this debate. I hope that in the discourse of the debate the hon. parliamentary secretary will take back certain messages to the Minister of Finance, because I do want to introduce certain things in the debate that I think he would be very well advised to take to the Minister of Finance.

As my hon. colleague who just spoke emphasized, the Canadian Alliance is not opposed to equalization payments. These payments are absolutely fundamental because we have provinces with varying economic development. Some are very wealthy and others are not as wealthy and there is a way in which we can equalize that. We certainly agree that provinces should not be penalized because their economies are in trouble or because they do not have some of the natural resource bases and so on. They should still be able to provide programs and services that are roughly comparable to those of other provinces. We agree with that principle.

The issue is not so much that. I want to deal with the way in which the legislation has been introduced. The first problem is that the legislation is actually retroactive legislation. I think that is really bad.

The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have committed the expenditure of funds without the parliamentary authority to do so. That is an insult to the hon. members on this side of the House and to colleagues on the other side of the House. We are here to look after the finances of our country and to find the best possible way to disburse funds across the various provinces.

I also would like to take issue with the way in which the hon. parliamentary secretary almost blew up his chest in a bragging sort of way as to what a wonderful thing the government had done by increasing the CHST transfers, as if the government given to the provinces something that was new and additional to what they had before. The problem with what he said, and with what the Minister of Finance said before him, is that somehow this does not even replace what was taken away. What kind of situation is it when the government asks people if they are not happy to be given $21 billion and then says, guess what, though, $22 billion has been taken away? It is absolutely reverse logic.

Some of us are parents and give a child an allowance of $5. Let us say that one year when things are not so good we take away $2, giving the child an allowance of $3. The next year we tell him we are going to restore the allowance. What is the first thing the child thinks? The child thinks he is going to get $5, but we only give him $4 and call it a restoration of his allowance. It is not. That is what has happened here.

I think we have to be very careful about the way in which we create the message. Let us tell the truth in the way it ought to be said.

The hon. parliamentary secretary said some very interesting things about the equalization formula. That was very good. Our listeners need to know how the equalization formula works. Unfortunately we do not have the time to go into the details of the formula to see exactly how it works.

There are some very interesting quirks within the formula itself. It does not always produce the same results even though one would think that putting the same numbers into it would produce similar results. The bases that are used in the formula for various provinces depend to a large degree on what the end result is on the equalization payments. That is why we have some disparities within the formula itself.

We do not have the time now to get into those details, but the hon. member will know that this is in fact the case and that he should go back to the Department of Finance and work through some of those details so that the bases used in calculating the amount of equalization payments are comparable, fair and equal across the provinces, that it is adjusted in the way it should be. There is an adjustment mechanism in there, but I do not think it is adequate at this time.

The other point we want to register at this stage is that we need to recognize that this is the lifting of a ceiling for one year. That is the assurance we are given. I do not know how many of us here in the House have ever experienced a situation like this.

When a ceiling is lifted what is the expectation for next year? The expectation seems to be that we would reach that ceiling again. What appears to have been a ceiling becomes a minimum or an expectation. I am very fearful that is exactly what will happen in this case. The ceiling this year will be increased by about $800 million then next year the pressure will be on to do it again.

Let me go back to the CHST transfers that have taken place. This is a government program that transfers money for health and social services to the provinces. It is very clearly designated as a special plan and usually deals with welfare, education and health. These are the three big areas.

These transfers are designed to do a particular job. The government now has an equalization formula, and the argument is made that it will help some of the provinces. When the agreement was made with the premiers, they said they wanted the equalization formula to be such that the ceiling would rise so they could subsidize the transfers of the CHST. That is the practical impact of this.

Therefore, the government is paying twice for the same thing under two different titles. That is wrong because it misleads Canadians into thinking the CHST transfers are adequate and that the equalization payments are there for everything else when in fact that is not what happens. We have to be careful that we tell the truth in these and other matters. The government needs to recognize these particular issues.

The other point I want to make is that the government needs to be a trustee of public funds. When this amount of money is given away, it makes us question whether the role of the government is to simply see how much money it can extricate from taxpayers and then give it away when asked for more. Is that the role of government? I do not think so. The government should treat public funds as a trust which it is managing on behalf of its citizens.

It is in this connection that I will refer to something I would like the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to take to the minister. It has to do with a letter that I received from one of my constituents, which said:

Mr. Schmidt: I am returning a cheque for $125 made out to my mother. I am sure you must be receiving many such cheques. I am sure you must agree it is ridiculous the way the Federal Government has distributed these funds.

My mother died in October 2000 and prior to that lived in an extended care nursing facility for the preceding 10 years. I cannot even imagine how much of the taxpayers dollars have been needlessly wasted.

Members may ask what is the point of this. The lady died in October 2000. On January 31, 2001, she received a cheque representing the relief for heating expenses which was a fully funded initiative of the federal government. It was a special one time tax repayment to low and modest income individuals and families to ease the burden of high heating expenses. This lady had not paid heating expenses for at least 10 years and she died in October 2000. Four months later she received a cheque.

The cheque stub said:

We have determined that you are eligible to receive an amount of $125 to provide relief for heating expenses.

On what basis was this determination made? It clearly was not made on the basis that she was alive. Was it made on the basis that she was dead? Was it made on the basis that she was in a home care facility for 10 years? Was it made on the basis of her son or daughter? On what basis was it made?

[Competition Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a beautiful morning and we have a beautiful piece of legislation to start the day off. I commend the parliamentary secretary opposite. This piece of legislation, although far from perfect, is a piece of legislation that we have to look at with some favour.

As the parliamentary secretary declared, the competition bureau has served Canadians well. Although many Canadians who have made appeals and requests of the competition bureau have not always received the redress they desired, or they were not dealt with as speedily as they should have been, it has served Canadians relatively well.

There were some deficiencies in the act which are being addressed this morning. I commend the government for bringing the bill forward.

For the benefit of our viewers this morning I should like to review some of the things the bill will actually do. First, it would facilitate the co-operation between Canadian and foreign competition authorities regarding evidence gathering or civil competition matters.

This is pretty significant. We are getting into a global economy. Industries are operating in other countries. Certain countries are becoming highly specialized in some areas and other countries in others. There is need for international trade. There is need to recognize our respective strengths and weaknesses and to co-operate in developing how we might do it best.

There is a greed element that comes into society every once in a while. Some people want to sort of dominate, take a dominant position in industry, and make everybody kowtow to their particular desires. We need to recognize that we need protection domestically. We also need protection internationally so that there is a fair and reciprocal exchange of information and that the rules of gathering information are comparable.

It would prohibit deceptive notices of a prize aimed at the general public and sent through the mail or Internet. I am sure all members of the House are aware that there are certain unscrupulous promoters out there who provide prizes. They make people think they are getting something. They receive phone calls congratulating them and telling them that we have won a $50 prize, only to discover that to collect the prize they have to send in $5, $10 or some other amount. Then they are thanked for the $10 and they discover that the prize is not really worth $50. It is a scam. It is amazing how many people have been fooled by so-called prizes. They are not prizes at all.

I remember one case mentioned before the industry committee involving the winning of a prize that was worth roughly $50,000. In order to collect the prize the person had to invest $10,000 and the prize was not forthcoming. This is a very significant amendment to the legislation.

Third, it would streamline the competition tribunal processes by providing the tribunal with a power to award costs, to make summary dispositions and to determine references.

We need to look at three points in this area. Sometimes people feel that some other group is unfairly competing with them when the competition is quite fair. They submit frivolous requests to the tribunal which wastes a lot of time and is not productive. These frivolous requests are added to a long list of other legitimate requests. The provision to avoid frivolous applications to the competition bureau is a reasonable one.

We should also look at the scope under which the competition bureau may issue temporary orders. That scope has now been broadened. I cannot emphasize that enough, because there are times when the competition bureau could deal with something that it is currently not empowered to deal with, simply because it is so restricted as to what it may deal with. Let me read a couple of things that can now happen.

At the present time an interim order can be issued by the competition tribunal only after litigation has begun. This lengthy period of time may elapse before the protective action is taken, with the consequence that the target of anti-competitive behaviour may already have taken place and have driven some people out of business.

That is difficult. I cannot help but refer to a particular case that happened in my constituency. I was able to assist a small company that had annual sales of roughly $3 million to $6 million. The source of material which it distributed was being stopped. It could not be supplied with material any longer because the suppliers wanted it themselves. They did not indicate the last part. They simply said they would not provide the material anymore, which meant they could not do business any longer. There was literally a domination in the marketplace. I think it was three companies that had 85% or 90% of the market. They said they could have the rest of the market, putting them into a monopoly situation.

On principle I object to any kind of monopoly. This particular case went to the competition bureau. The bureau had some difficulty dealing with this case but over time gradually saw the merits of the case and dealt with it. The case went to court and an injunction was issued. The companies that had taken advantage of their dominant position had to supply the material. These individuals are now in business and going forward.

Had the tribunal not been able to act in this case, the company would have been broke today. Had there not been a recognition by the tribunal that some serious injustices were taking place, these poor people would be bankrupt, having sunk a lot of money into their business. They still have not finished. They now have to recognize and claim for damages experienced as a result of the anti-competitive behaviour by these people. It looks like that is going forward. I cannot speak about it any further because it is before the courts. I hope it is resolved in favour of this small company and that it recovers its costs.

Some major changes were made to the Competition Act in 1999. I distinctly remember the debate which took place with regard to fraudulent telemarketing and the business of tied selling. This is when a company puts a condition on a price for a particular article. In other words, to get that price one must buy something else. For example, banks, and sometimes other institutions, say that if one buys a particular insurance policy, it will give it to the individual for a special rate, but to get that rate the individual also has to take a mortgage with the bank.

Also, there is the bundling of services to get a better price. For example, to get a lower price from the bank, a customer would have to take the whole package, such as a savings account, a current account, a chequing account and perhaps insurance. There is nothing wrong with that except when it becomes a condition. It really becomes a judgment call as to when one is a condition on the other.

Tied selling is one of those things that the Competition Act says should not ever be done. I agree with this. The question now becomes one of interpretation or one of judgment as to when it happens.

In my final minute I want to suggest the need for government to recognize that not only should the Competition Act be amended as suggested, it should to go beyond that. There are a couple of other proposals that would improve the Competition Act even further. That has to do with the distinction between criminal and civil cases.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising that question. It is a wise question and a very insightful one. I commend him for that. I wish all members on his side of the House would share the same feelings he has just implied in his question. I congratulate him on that.

There are three approaches that I think we need to think about. The first one is that there is global competition and a competitive market exists. When one country subsidizes and another one does not it places the producers of one country at a severe disadvantage. There needs to be competition now at that level.

The unfortunate part of it is that our rural producers are in exactly the position where governments are now in competition and there is a ratcheting effect. They subsidize at this level one year and we try to beat them next year by going a little higher. The war happens at the subsidy level. We need to recognize that is wrong.

What should we do about it? The ideal would be for all countries to say that they will open their doors to competition, be as efficient as possible and eliminate all existing subsidies. Everyone would have to do that in order for it to work. It would be significant to do that.

It does not only affect rural producers, by the way. This is not only in agriculture. It also exists in the manufacturing sector and in certain other sectors of our economy. The ideal position is to eliminate all subsidies.

The next position and probably the one that is realistic is to get to the point where we agree we will not get into a war between each other, gradually eliminate them or get involved in a process like that.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am going to make two points. The first one is with regard to hijacking civil society. I suspect that will come to an end very quickly in British Columbia as the NDP is bound to be defeated in the election.

The second point I would like to make in response to the member's question is simply to suggest that no one can say he or she represents everyone in an area. We do the best we can. To say that I totally represent the hon. member to my right and the hon. member to my left is probably wrong. They are individuals in their own right.

We need to recognize that we come together in a value system where we believe in democracy and we believe in the representation of people in the decision making bodies of the country.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I find this is a rather important debate.

The only thing that concerns me at this point is that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Minister for International Trade on the Liberal side of the House. I find myself in agreement with my colleagues, of course, and with my Conservative colleagues. The only people with whom I am in disagreement are members of the NDP group over on the other side.

I notice that there are some interesting points being made by the NDP members. The hon. members are entirely welcome for any gratuitous remarks made in their direction because there are so few of them.

We are dealing with the single most significant element in the Canadian economy, trading with other nations. The NDP has given us an opportunity to express our position on this particular issue, which is foundation to the economy of our country.

Members who are opposite on this issue need to recognize much of the support that has made the country what it is today, the democratic institution that exists, the various political parties that exist, the freedom of speech that exists and the opportunities for individuals to develop their businesses, is as direct result of free trade among Canada and other countries.

Also I point out that free trade is not just in agriculture. I come from a constituency in British Columbia. We call it paradise because it is beautiful in Kelowna. I want to thank my constituents who elected me for the third time. I am humbled with the responsibility they gave me. It is an honour to represent them in the House.

In my constituency there are a number of fruit growers, as well as other agricultural producers. The fruit growers depend to a large degree on their income from the trade that takes place. The Okanagan Valley is now developing some of the finest wines in the world. These wines compete internationally and are winning awards. The wineries also depend to a large degree on international trade.

We need to recognize how dependent agriculture is on trade. We should also recognize the significance of manufacturing and how it depends on international trade.

All we need look at is the automobile assembly plants that exist in the southern part of British Columbia. Industries have sprung up around those assembly plants. Magna International is extremely successful. It has become a major auto parts manufacturing firm. The members should recognize that some of the mutual funds in which they have invested have stocks in Magna International, so they are direct beneficiaries of that particular company. Some of their friends probably work for either Ford, Chrysler or GM in the assembly of automobiles, trucks and various SUVs. All these jobs are directly dependent on international trade.

We need to recognize that trade is not only in the areas of agriculture and manufacturing but also in the area of our natural resources. Where would the economy of the country be if there was not a good arrangement for trading natural gas, oil, coal and lumber?

Let us not forget lumber which is a significant part of our Canadian economy. Lumber is an $18 billion contributor to our gross national product in British Columbia. It is a major issue. Trade with the United States is very well developed and needs to be done properly. That is what we are talking about today.

To suggest that chapter 11 somehow is an anathema to developing strong free trade is simply misleading everything. Why is that the case? I suggest that the first and most important provision of chapter 11 is to protect investors.

There is not a single person in the House who does not want their invested capital to be preserved, protected and to grow. That is what our party wants.

We want Canadians to have the same kind of protection for their investments in another country as we give foreigners investing in Canada. If there is no reciprocal guarantee for the protection of capital then why would anyone want to invest.

I cannot help but take a little shot here at the parliamentary secretary and his minister. I would suggest to them that Canadians investing abroad is not so much a reflection of the strength of the Canadian economy but rather an expectation that they can do better with their investments outside of Canada, particularly with respect to the huge tax burden placed on corporations and individuals in Canada.

We need to recognize that Canada has a negative balance today in terms of direct foreign investment in Canada and Canadian investment elsewhere. Canadians are investing more elsewhere than others are investing in Canada. We have a negative balance and it would be good if it were the other way around.

I recognize that in the past there was a point where Canada had more foreign investment coming into Canada than going elsewhere. One of the reasons for that was the fact that these foreigners needed access to our resources.

Knowing something about Alberta, which is where I grew up, oil, gas and natural gas were major contributors to the success of that province. If oil and gas had not been sold to the American market the province would not have grown in the way that it has. Alberta received that investment from foreign investors not Canadian investors. Today Canadians are realizing how important it was to invest in those natural resources, and it is going along very well. However it first took risk capital from outside Canada to see the vision and develop that particular sector of our economy.

The reason the investors came to Canada and invested was that their investment was protected. We should be forever thankful to them for having done that. I know I certainly am. If we intend to invest elsewhere we would want that kind of protection as well. Chapter 11 does that and that is why it is good.

It is not just the protection of capital in that sense. We want to make sure that it is safe in the sense that it competes fairly with other industries that are investing in the same area. We want to make sure that the competition that exists in those countries is such that it is not mitigating against the successful development of a particular country.

We need to recognize that this investment allows us to benefit from technological development. It takes money and very often takes a considerable risk in order to develop these technologies. This is what happens when good investment and risk capital comes into this country or goes elsewhere.

I will now move on to the second reason that chapter 11 is not all that bad and why the motion before the House should be defeated. It is the negative effects of tariffs.

Some countries have taken the view that they have to protect their industries and development to the point where they impose tariffs on any product competing either directly or indirectly with their local industries which are imported from another country. In many cases this mitigates against the best interests of the consumers who buy those particular imported products. This does not encourage competition in the local economy. It does not allow, encourage or provide an incentive for manufacturing or other industries to be innovative, competitive or efficient, nor does it encourage them to seek innovation or apply new technologies.

We have seen this in the lumber industry. We have in Canada some of the most modern, efficient, technologically aware and developed sawmills and processing plants of lumber of anywhere in the world. People are coming here to have a look at the way in which we do these things.

If we send lumber to other places in the world and they have inefficient plants where they cannot on a per capita basis or on a per worker basis produce the same kind of lumber or they do so with more waste, they would not be competitive. So they place a barrier and then say that they will put a tariff on Canadian lumber which goes into the particular country. The people of that country then have to pay a premium for the lumber which is produced locally because it is inefficient and they have to pay a premium on the lumber which is imported even though they could be saving dollars to do so.

Tariffs work against efficiency. They work against good competition and they very often work against good relations between nations as a consequence.

There is a need to have a level playing field. That is another reason chapter 11 needs to be protected. If people establish a business in another country they want to be sure that their business competes with another business that may be in the same area or may provide the same kind of service or product. They want the same rules that exist in that country to apply to them.

A car manufacturer goes into the United States and builds cars. It could also want to build cars in Canada. We want to make sure that all companies are operating under exactly the same rules and that the playing field is as level as it can possibly be.

That is what we need to be sure about. That is what chapter 11 would do. It would make sure that the advantages given to our industries would also exist for a company that comes here and vice versa. We need to be sure that all protections are provided.

There is one thing that I wish to emphasize at this point. No agreement that has ever been put together by human beings is perfect, and neither is chapter 11. The North American Free Trade Agreement is not perfect. The agreement with the Americas on trade will not be perfect either. It is totally false for anyone to stand in the House and imply that if the government would do this one thing the agreement would be perfect. We will always find ways in which we can improve something.

The hon. member opposite spoke earlier about buying a house. If on the day we turn the key in the door and enter and discover something we did not expect, we immediately want to change it. I doubt whether there is a person in the House who has not renovated a house to some degree somewhere along the line. I doubt there is a single person in the House who is living in a house today which is as it was when it was purchased.

We need to evolve and we need to develop. Later on today we will be talking about democratic reform, reforming this institution. Why is that? It is not because this place has not been working for 125 years or that we have made no changes. It is because we believe we can improve this place and we will.

There is another point that needs to be made. It is the philosophic base from which the motion emanates. This is where I find myself very much away from the party that presented the motion. It is almost as if to have private capital and profit is somehow bad.

Private individuals do a better job of running a business than government ever did, no matter how smart the bureaucrats are who back up the legislation and the policy development of government.

Individuals applying their capital, having a personal interest in what is developing and in what is happening with that capital, would do a better job of managing that money. It is significant that tax dollars left in the hands of individuals always produces a better economy than if the government takes it away from them, thinking that it could spend it more effectively.

We could go through all kinds of countries in the world. We could go to Ireland, the United States, Great Britain and New Zealand. We could go anywhere in the world where governments have cut taxes to see the result. The result has been an improvement in the economic welfare of everyone. People have said over and over again that when taxes are reduced revenues are reduced, and in almost every case, if not in every case, the total revenues of the government have increased and not decreased.

The net result is that it is false economy to raise taxes. The government should cut taxes if it wants more money and it should stop interfering in the lives of individuals.

Chapter 11 would protect the investment of individuals of private capital into production and services so that an incentive would be there, a profit could be made and more people could be employed. The end result is that the economy grows, things get better and we are all happier.

We need to look at the various agreements. We have had the agreement with the United States. We have had the North American Free Trade Agreement which expanded that considerably. Now we are talking about an even broader agreement.

It is interesting because we have had people saying today that somehow the summit in Quebec City two weekends ago was undemocratic. I would like to ask what is democratic. If that summit was not democratic, this institution cannot be democratic because the people who met in Quebec City were also representatives. There were 33 different duly elected heads of state representing their countries and the best interest of those nations. Is that undemocratic?

There are 301 MPs in this institution, elected to represent respective constituents. We are here to make decisions and laws. Is it undemocratic because we represent those people? It is anything but undemocratic.

It is the essence of democracy to be able to vote in the House, representing the best interest and working in the best interest of our constituents. That is what we are all about. That is democracy. At least that is how I understand democracy. If that is not the way some hon. members understand democracy, I wish they would tell us what it is. I would suggest that they would probably be defeated with their definition.

Another question is who signed the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was not signed by an RCMP officer or by a farmer. It was not signed by a president of a college, by a president of a university or by a president of a particular corporation. It was signed by heads of state who were in agreement. It was signed by them, each of whom was duly elected on a democratic basis to represent his or her country. What could be more democratic than that?

Was the process totally open and transparent? No, it was not. I take extreme exception to that. The process should be as open as possible. Has it been as open as possible? No, it has not. We need to concentrate on making these processes open so that democracy is not only done but appears to be done.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. minister for the depth of his understanding of the problem. The only scary part of it is that I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said.

There is one point I do want to raise. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he would clarify for us whether indeed it is true that perhaps some of the fiscal policy of the government has indeed resulted in a net increase over and above the investment that foreigners direct into Canada. Has foreign direct investment to Canada been exceeded by the direct investment in other countries by Canadian firms? There has been a shift and there is a negative balance there.

It is all very well to speak about how wonderful it is that people have invested in Canada. I think he made the statement that this reflects the maturity of the Canadian economy. I would like to suggest to the minister that he should clarify that, indeed, it is not the maturity of the Canadian economy here that has caused this negative balance. In fact, the reason that people are investing more money outside of Canada than in Canada is due to the fiscal policy of the government.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his comments and the hon. member opposite for the comment about the countries that have adopted open and transparent free trade and how it has created wealth in those countries.

I think it is really significant that we recognize the differences in philosophy between the two approaches to the creation of wealth. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he could somehow explain more about why that works. It seems to me that if businesses want to invest millions of dollars into another country or anywhere, they want stability. They want to be able to predict what the rules will be as they invest their money and they want a return on that money.

That applies to governments too. They do not want to simply spend money and then not get anything for it, although I sometimes wonder whether the Liberal government really cares about that part of it, as it just seems to throw money away.

However, the real question for my colleague is this: would he expand the stabilization aspect of a rules based trading system?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I found the last set of comments rather interesting. I have known the hon. member for quite some time and I am very surprised at the nature of his comments, because it seems to me that the Prime Minister at one time made the statement here in the House that he was just an ordinary MP doing what an ordinary MP would do to help his constituents.

Yes, an MP is to look after the interests of his constituents and to make representations, but the Prime Minister claimed that he was just an ordinary MP. The Prime Minister is anything but an ordinary MP. The Prime Minister is the chief official of the country and of the government, who has power and authority over the hon. member and can tell the hon. member whether he can stay in caucus or not. He can tell the hon. member whether he is going to continue to be a member of the Liberal Party. He can tell the hon. member how to vote in the House. Yet the Prime Minister himself says that he is just an ordinary MP.

The hon. member is an ordinary MP but not the Prime Minister, so I ask the hon. member, how big does a lie have to be to be a lie?

[Russel Goodman, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of the House the achievements of Mr. Russel Goodman of Kelowna, who was honoured yesterday by the Governor General and became a recipient of the Governor General's Award in Visual and Media Arts.

Russel Goodman is responsible for the stained glass panels that grace the House of Commons. Amidst the daily mayhem of parliamentary business, these works of art enable us to momentarily pause and contemplate the beauty of the country. Within these panes of glass, I believe, the heart of the Canadian spirit resides.

This award deservedly makes Russel Goodman one of a very prestigious group of Canadians honoured for their life's work in the arts. I am sure members of parliament will join me in thanking him for his generous contribution to the House, to parliament and to Canada.