Murray Calder

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the member's speech. He asked how we can stop the human suffering. He made the point that he felt we should get back to the negotiating table to solve the problems. He wanted a diplomatic approach. Then he also said that he wants no further action by NATO.

We already know that unless Milosevic is confronted with force, he will not go back to that table. He has already proven that. The actions by the NATO forces right now have basically stopped the fuel supply to his army so his tanks cannot move. We have taken out bridges so they cannot cross rivers. Does the member really think if NATO withdrew at this point in time that Milosevic would go back to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith? Does the member think that?

[Trade, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

It is my understanding that last week some Reform MPs met with their political brethren in the United States to discuss border trade problems. Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food believe that this kind of initiative will affect the trading relationship we enjoy with the United States?

[Windsor—St. Clair, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, recently Statistics Canada announced that the unemployment rate across Canada has fallen from 8% to 7.8%, its lowest rate in eight years. Canadians are happy about this trend.

The results of yesterday's Windsor—St. Clair byelection revealed that support for both the Conservative and the Reform Party has fallen to just over 6%. That is a drop for both parties. Canadians are also happy about this trend.

Apparently the fine voters of Windsor are less than impressed with newly recycled Conservative Party. They are even less impressed with the united alternative, since they demoted Reform to fourth in yesterday's byelection.

I predict that we will continue to see steady decreases in both unemployment and the political fortunes of both the Reform and Conservative parties.

[The Reform Party, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Reform Party called upon francophone Canadians to cross political and linguistic lines to join the united alternative.

It is clear that most Reform members are too hard-headed to ever drop their anti-French stance.

Last week Reform members said that Canada is not a bilingual country. This is news to me and I suspect it is news to most Canadians across the country.

Now Reformers are complaining, as quoted in the Globe and Mail today, “The country is being run by francophones. You sigh and you whine and you snivel, and you get the money... and if you say anything about it, you're a bigot”. That is what the member for Yellowhead said. That is just rubbish.

Reformers should realize the benefits of being a member of both the Commonwealth and la francophonie. Canada's diversity is its strength, not something that should be wiped out as most Reform members seem to think.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the member across the way. He said that he wanted to hear something that would convince him, that he is not sure.

Two weeks ago, the standing committee on agriculture went to Washington. We met with Congress and the Senate. We discussed with them what we perceive Canada's position is going to be with the WTO.

The member opposite says that he wants to be convinced. I want him to think this way. Right now with the Americans running advertisements through split-run magazines, what they are doing is testing the waters before we go to these trade negotiations. What we are doing right now with Bill C-55 is showing the Americans that Canada is not a pushover. That would be a good reason.

[International Trade, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

The opposition has repeatedly said it costs more to do business in Canada than in any other G-7 country. I understand that a study has just been released on this very subject.

I would like the minister to tell the House how Canada compares with our international competitors.

[The United Alternative, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Reform Party tried to disguise a party the voters have rejected in the last three elections. Despite the United Alternative's best efforts to appear more moderate, from what I saw the convention reeked of the same old rubbish.

Delegates voted to support refugees and immigrants only where they were a positive source of economic growth.

They voted down resolutions calling for national standards in health and education.

They threw out resolutions calling for government to play an effective role in job training and retraining.

They rejected a role for government fostering an economic climate that recognizes the need of Canadian youth.

A pollster who made Mike Harris blush asked if they would vote for a Jew.

It is the same leader, the same discredited policies, the same extremists. I predict that Canadians will reject—

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep it concise.

I listened to both of the members' speeches and found them quite humourous.

The hon. member is quoting newspaper articles and I want to quote one. I have heard him mention how well this individual does his job. It is a quote by the premier of Alberta. The premier of Alberta says that the Minister of Finance's Liberal budget is a blueprint for the type of policies Tories and Reformers should embrace if they merge into a new party. He also said that the Minister of Finance would deliver good government to Canadians if he became prime minister. He also said that he was “very happy with the Liberals' decision in Tuesday's federal budget to pump $11.5 billion into provincial health care coffers”.

I would like to hear what the hon. member across the way has to say about Ralph Klein's comments. Is he wrong?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

He is a Liberal and he is a very smart MP. I can understand why he clicks into that so quickly.

If a provincial government's total revenue raising ability exceeds the standard, it obviously does not receive the equalization. There we have that nice flat line where the ones that are making more, like Ontario, the industrial heartland of Canada, to the provinces that are experiencing problems, like Newfoundland, each one of those governments can come up with good solid government within their province and put forward good solid programs like all the 10 provinces in Canada do.

Another question is how do we produce new estimates of equalization and when do receiving provinces receive payments. I do not have enough time to go into that so I will have to leave that to the next time we speak on this.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

That is the way it is, and the member for Peterborough understands it now.