Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in today's debate. Every time I have the opportunity to participate in debate and represent those constituents who live in Fundy—Royal I am pleased to do so.
The problem is that the debate we are engaging in today is essentially the abdication of government. It is a lack of planning by the Liberal government particularly in two sectors, fisheries and agriculture, and with respect to all the difficult decisions which governments have to undertake.
I would like to begin my speech by quoting Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail on October 28, 1998. The Liberals have no compass, no direction and no idea of where to take the country. This intellectually lifeless government believes all politics is administration, whereas it should be about policies, ideas and values.
That is the debate we are engaging in today. The government uses a 911 style of management, “We have a crisis, now we have to deal with it”.
My father Murray Herron is a fine man. My father said the best way to deal with a crisis was to avoid it in the first place by having a plan to address it. I want to talk about the systematic abdication and lack of planning of the Liberal government.
Almost two years ago to the day there were debates in the House with respect to the Kyoto climate change conference. Two years ago to the day this House admitted that we were not prepared with a pan-Canadian position on targets, timelines and an implementation strategy to address the serious issue of climate change and how Canada would make its contribution. We went to Kyoto with no plan. We came back with no plan. Two years later in 1999, we still have not seen any sort of implementation strategy from the Liberal government.
The Alberta government of Ralph Klein is one government that has actually shown some leadership in getting the process to address the issue of climate change going. It has taken some initiatives.
Why do we not see some aggressive tax incentives to address climate change? Why do we not see research and development dollars for renewable sources of energy, or tax incentives for energy efficiency initiatives? Those are things we could be doing today so that industry could start delivering some early action on that issue. The government has done nothing for two years in that regard.
We also saw a systematic abdication of leadership in planning with respect to the Marshall decision. We saw this two times, first in February and later on in June when first nations from Atlantic Canada approached officials in Ottawa to negotiate a systematic and peaceful integration into the fishery as opposed to going to the supreme court. The government loves to govern by courts, not by parliament and not by letting elected officials make the decisions. It would rather abdicate its role and let the courts decide. Sometimes the courts decide things that make it very difficult for us to manage.
On first nations issues in particular, there are three ways some individuals might consider when dealing with treaty rights and the rightful role first nations have in our society. First, some individuals on the very extreme edge would advocate violence on both sides. I am proud to say our society has advanced beyond that stage. The second method is to let the courts decide things. Sometimes we do not like the way the courts solve things. The third way and the best way is to do it by peaceful negotiation. The government had an opportunity to do this twice, in February and in June when Mr. Christmas came to Ottawa for a peaceful integration into the fishery, but again the Liberals ducked it. They always duck hard issues.
Long gone are the days when we actually took on the hard and difficult issues in order to build this nation. Long gone are the days of leadership that brought forth initiatives like free trade which took our trade ratio with the Americans from $90 billion in 1988 to well over $260 billion today. That was the result of leadership. Long gone are the days when we had initiatives in terms of privatization, deregulation and free trade. Now we have abdication and government by the courts.
We have also seen probably the most catastrophic incident in terms of the federal government not having a plan on serious issues. I am sure everyone remembers October 30, 1995, the date of the referendum in the province of Quebec. Leading up to that referendum the Prime Minister said “We have no problem. Everything is under control. Don't worry, be happy”. We almost lost our country. If it had not been for the positive initiative of our former leader, the Hon. Jean J. Charest and his contribution in that debate, we might have had a more serious result.
When it comes to planning, the Prime Minister said that he would take the initiative to recognize that Quebec was in fact a distinct society, that we needed to recognize something that we cherish which is two centuries old with respect to the language, culture and civil code of the six million francophones who live in the province of Quebec. That promise was made that night on television. Since then the Liberals' plan for unifying our country has been to take this issue to court, to make it a legal issue as opposed to a political issue.
When our founding fathers built this country, they built it because they knew we would be stronger together. A country is built through common will and not through a legal decision about whether or not we should exist. Do we have the right to break up? The best thing the government could have done would be to have had some very direct leadership in that regard.
We saw it in the currency crisis last year. When the commodity crash took place primarily along the Pacific Rim, there were negative implications for our country. The reaction of the Prime Minister and the finance minister in terms of the currency crisis was that it was not their fault, that things happen in the world.
I know my friends in the Reform Party, especially the member for Lethbridge, very much agree with me that we could have sent some very positive signals. Instead of saying that we would have a surplus and put 50% on new spending and 50% on tax and debt reduction, we could have made a very serious and deliberate plan to reduce our debt to GDP ratio. We could have paid down the debt in a very serious way which would have added ongoing value to our currency and we could have been far more competitive in that regard.
There is a trend happening. The Liberals were not ready for the climate change initiative. They almost lost our country with respect to the referendum. They were not prepared for the Marshall decision. There was the currency crisis. Recently it has been 911 management. We are heading into an election.
My friends on the Liberal side who are primarily from Atlantic Canada came out with a report entitled “Catching the Wave: How to Build a Better Atlantic Canada”. After they have been defeated on an issue with respect to abandoning the tolls on a toll highway which this federal government collaborated on, they are saying that maybe tolls are not such a good idea. Again, they make it up as they go.
We need a government of leadership, a government that actually plans. We do not need initiatives that deal with issues as they come up as crises. We need to deal with the very hard issues that face this country. Let us pay down the debt. Let us lower taxes. Let us grow this economy so we can compete in the next millennium.
