Paul Devillers

[United Alternative, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform leader's grand dream of a united alternative continues to implode. Not only is it proving to be incapable of uniting the right, but it seems to be tearing apart the old Reform Party.

Twelve Reform MPs, or 20% of the caucus, have publicly stated that they want nothing to do with the Reform leader's latest scheme and other Reform MPs have announced they do not plan to run with the party in the next election. The only Reformers who seem to like the united alternative are the ones who see it as a means to get rid of their current leader. They are the sensible ones.

As Susan Riley so succinctly wrote in the Ottawa Citizen last Friday:

If the right keeps uniting this way, they're going to have to print longer ballots on election day to accommodate all of the emerging splinter groups, rival factions and breakaway rumps.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member lamented the inclusion in section 37 of the term “the least restrictive sentence possible”. Put in the context of the legislation, he should go on to say the least restrictive possible to accomplish the goals of rehabilitation, restitution and all the proper components of sentencing.

Why is it that the member finds that objectionable? If the courts are able to come up with a sentence that accomplishes the proper goals of sentencing, why we would want something more than the least restrictive? What is it the member is seeking? Is it appeasement of the popular opinion, the misconception that Canada is soft on crime? Is it revenge? Precisely what is it that the member is looking for?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we can always count on the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for a lively speech. Unfortunately, we heard nothing new, just the usual sovereignist claims.

He cited all sorts of information and figures in his speech, but I heard no mention of the figures in this budget for the equalization payments. I wonder whether the member could speak to us about that a bit.

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I want to take the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. He named me specifically as a member of the justice committee and he used the term these criminal acts, which he has now withdrawn, in reference to the activities of the committee yesterday.

I will point out a couple of inaccuracies where he implied that all members of the justice committee on the Liberal side who voted not to approve the bill had voted in the House to send it for second reading. I would like to correct that, in that I did not vote for that bill. The implication that the bill was disposed of in five seconds is not accurate. There were many witnesses—

[United Alternative, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, desperately hoping that Canadians would see their convention as something fresh and new, the Reform strategists behind the Reform dominated convention decided to call it the united alternative.

They want to fool Canadians into believing that a brand new political movement is arising by making superficial changes. They can give Reform another name, another logo and another contrived public image, but it will be the same old Reform Party with the same old name, same old logo and another contrived public image.

The Tory leader is weary of the united alternative for good reason. The opposition leader and the Reform Party are incapable of providing an acceptable alternative because they are intolerant of values and views that do not fit their neo-conservative ideology. Instead of trying to accommodate Canadian voters, Reform strategists are conspiring to eliminate other choices so Canadians will have to vote for them whether they want to or not.

It is a dumb strategy that serves only to highlight Reform's desperation. The only Tories at this convention will be reformatories and that dog won't hunt.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, first, we pointed out three or four years ago that the social transfer formula was not fair and that changes were needed.

First, we notified all the provincial governments. As for the issue of federal government jurisdiction in health care, it was clear in the health agreement signed by the first ministers two or three weeks ago. It was made clear that the government was prepared to invest in this area and to transfer the money to the provinces with no strings attached and without interfering in provincial jurisdictions.

As for research, this is a federal-provincial jurisdiction.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that was a question. I would say it was a smart—no, I would not say that.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the budget brought down this week. It is the Liberal government's sixth budget since it was first elected to office in 1993. We have not seen two balanced budgets in a row since the 1950s.

Let us go back to the 1997 election campaign for a look at the Liberal Party's election platform. We set out to do what we are doing today and what we will continue to do in future budgets during our term of office.

As for the surpluses, we said that 50% would go towards social and economic programs; 25% towards tax relief; and 25% towards paying down the national debt. That is what we have done in the last two budgets and that is what we will go on doing.

Who is not happy with our budgets? The opposition parties who, unfortunately, will never be satisfied with what the government does. This is perhaps a weakness in our system. The opposition parties always have to be unhappy. They can never say they are satisfied with the government's achievements.

I do not wish to be too critical of the opposition parties, for that is the nature of our system, but there are also special interest groups that are dissatisfied with the budget. There is the accountants' association, which says we should put more money into paying down the debt. Bay Street says there should be more tax relief. Doctors' associations in Ontario say we should have put more money into health care.

This goes to show that this is really a balanced budget. When we are criticized from all sides by special interest groups, I think it means that we in the government have done a good job.

Another group that is not pleased with the budget is the separatist government in Quebec. They have misgivings about the changes made to the method used to calculate the Canada social transfer. However, what they fail to mention is that, in the next three weeks, Quebec will be receiving $1.4 billion in equalization payments. With social transfer and equalization payments combined, Quebec, which accounts for 24% of the Canadian population, will be receiving 29% of all federal transfers. Some injustice. Some humiliation.

As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday in Montreal and again today in the House, this $1,4 billion payment will enable the PQ government to balance its budget. But then again, that too will be blamed on the federal government.

But I have to confess that I am biased. I believe the government is doing a terrific job. So rather than hearing it from a biased individual, I will quote from today's editorial in the Orillia Packet and Times in my riding, a Hollinger owned newspaper, not necessarily given to being friendly to the Liberal Party:

Balance.

That's the most striking element in Tuesday's budget announcement.

Paul Martin's second straight balanced budget—something not seen by Canadians since the early 1950s—seems to be a hybrid of political thought. It could even be used to demonstrate that, despite its flaws, Canada's political system is working.

This budget has the distinction of being balanced at the centre of the political spectrum. Its influences are obvious: the frugality and fiscal responsibility preached by Conservatives and Reform are balanced with strong social conscience represented in significant increases in health care funding.

The right is represented again in the small tax relief presented to Canadians. It acknowledges that Canadians are struggling under a heavy tax load, but it does so with a trickle, rather than a gusher.

We believe this is a responsible, moderate budget.

It will not solve every pressing issue on the spot. But that is the stuff of political fiction. Problems as complex as those faced by the federal government will not be solved overnight. But they can be solved.

There is hope sewn into the lining of this budget.

That speaks volumes on how this budget was conceived and how it is perceived in the community.

Another issue I will touch on is the question of the reaction of the provincial government in Ontario. The Harris reformatories will be saying because of the funds being put back into health care in this budget, it is an admission by the federal government that the difficulties in the health care system were caused by cuts in transfer payments.

I believe the Ontario electorate will not be fooled by that rhetoric. I believe the Ontario electorate will be able to understand the figures. They will know that for the next year the cuts in transfers prior to this budget from the federal government to the province of Ontario were in the order of $831 million. They will also know that the Harris reformatory tax cuts amounted to $4.8 billion. If we divide the responsibility for any difficulties that may be being experienced in Ontario health care, the apportionment can be easily struck at one-seventh responsibility for the federal government cuts and six-sevenths responsibility for the Harris tax cuts. Those are the priorities of the Harris reformatory government and that is how it chose to use the resources.

I do not believe that the electorate will be deceived. Nor do I believe that the electorate will pay any attention to Premier Harris when he makes comments like what I read in the newspaper today. He was referring to the Harris-Martin tax cuts.

There is no comparison between the way this government under our finance minister dealt with the issue of tax cuts with the deficit and the havoc that the Harris government, the reformatory government, has imposed on Ontario by allowing the massive tax cuts before it was in a position to balance its budget. There is no question that this will be taken into account by the Ontario electorate in the upcoming provincial election.

In summary, it appears evident to me that this budget will be widely accepted by Canadians and so far it has been widely accepted by Canadians. I congratulate the government for once again bringing in a balanced budget with a significant surplus and properly applying that surplus in a balanced fashion.

[Petitions, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 of the House I present a petition on behalf of 47 constituents.

The petition requests that parliament enact legislation to define its statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single man and a single female.

[Child Pornography, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in connection with the Bloc Quebecois' position, which is surprising to say the least, concerning child pornography and the role of Parliament in the judiciary process. The position of the Bloc Quebecois on this matter is incongruous and hard to explain.

How can this party and its members support such a motion, given their past positions on various justice issues? I personally see this as an attempt to hijack this debate in order to justify recourse to the notwithstanding clause of the charter.

Let them try to defend future recourse to that clause, fine, but I believe that the public will be able to figure out for itself that Bloc members are using the debate on child pornography and the judiciary process for purely political purposes.