Dennis Mills

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the Reform Party did not acknowledge any of the facts I put on the record in my previous comments.

I would like to show that we are prepared to debate the tough issues openly. As the Minister of Human Resources Development said quite clearly on many occasions, his document is not a fait accompli. It is a discussion paper. It is a debating tool. It is an instrument to get people involved as we restructure the government's social service programs.

Quite frankly that is the way to go. I know Reform Party members really think that is the way to go. They are known for their 1-800 numbers and their fax machines where they get their questions for question period. The point I am trying to make is that Reformers should go back to the way they started where they were going to be a bit more constructive about debate.

I want to acknowledge one area. It is an area in which I have a personal interest and it is the whole issue of tax reform. I was absolutely amazed at the opening speech today. The Reform Party campaigned vigorously on a single tax system to reform the tax system. All of us believe that the tax system of Canada needs reform. I would like it to show on the record that the opening speaker today never once talked about the single tax system or as they call it, the flat tax system.

In the whole year Reformers have been in the House of Commons they have done very little to honour the campaign pledge which they made that they were going to work diligently to reform the tax act of Canada. I hope the member today is not symbolic of the whole spirit of the Reform Party, that it has deserted its campaign on comprehensive tax reform.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I looked forward to this opposition motion today because it gives the Government of Canada a chance to put on the record in a factual way not only the vision this government has in terms of putting people back to work and getting this economy going, but some of the specific initiatives that have been passed in the last eight months since we have taken power. It is important that we focus on the deficit and debt of this balance sheet for Canada and we are doing that. The Financial Post , which no one would ever claim to be a paper sympathetic to the Liberal Party, in the Saturday edition had a masthead saying we are heading in the right direction. The Reform Party should take note of that.

I want to be very specific. We need growth in the economy. As a government we have said pre the red book, during the red book, in the last eight months that small business represents the greatest hope of putting Canadians back to work.

I am not going to use this report from the industry committee called "Taking Care of Small Business" as a display, but I do want to say that the Reform Party, which worked on and supported the report, has to acknowledge that already the banks are acting on some of the recommendations we have put in the report.

At the same time I do not know how the member who was the lead speaker for the Reform Party could stand in his place and not acknowledge that our exports have been up four months in a row, our manufacturing sector is on the rebound. All the statistics and all the numbers show that. Our tourism deficit is coming down.

By the way, I am not standing here claiming victory. That is not the point. The point is that we have created an environment not only with specific actions but a psychological environment which is important in any economic equation. We cannot go around here cut, cut, cut without using our creative ability to cause growth specifically in the small business sector.

I hope the remaining speeches put forward by the opposition parties today will be a little more balanced. Confidence in the economy is an important factor in the equation. Reformers have to acknowledge, if they are going to be looking at all of the facts, that there are many good signals in the economy today. I believe that the government has assisted in creating those positive facts.

I would like the member of the opposition to stand in his place and acknowledge that manufacturing is up. Exports are up. The tourism deficit is coming down. House starts have been up the last four months in a row. It is a fact that 300,000 new jobs have been created in the last nine months. If he would just acknowledge those things, we could begin having a truly constructive debate here today.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Stand by. A simple tax is coming.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that approximately 17,000 Canadian women will develop breast cancer in 1994. Consequently the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation was established in Toronto in 1986, spearheaded by Nancy Paul.

With the incidence of breast cancer rising by 15 per cent each year, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation has devoted its energies to fund raising for more research, treatment and education.

This week they are holding the third annual Honda Events "Run for the Cure" in seven major cities across Canada. These events will take place in Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa on Sunday, October 23. We wish them well and encourage all Canadians to support them in this endeavour.

[Tobacco Taxes, October 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very surprised but not unhappy that the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke keeps giving us the opportunity to explain how far from reality the member's proposals are.

Let us talk about his October 7 letter to the Minister of Transport. In his opening paragraph, he states that all Canadians will be stripped of their rights to due process by this statute.

The Ministers of Transport and Justice have been scrupulous in ensuring that this legislation is specific to one particular deal, the Pearson international deal.

It has only been one year since the people of the Toronto region expressed their opinion on this deal quite vocally and ultimately quite democratically. They do not want to be tied to this deal. I believe they know very well that their rights are being protected by the government.

While we are truly looking to limit access to the courts by the developers, in case the member has not noticed the consortium is now in court. Even the majority in the other place agreed that members of the consortium could go to court after passage of Bill C-22 if they refused to believe we have the constitutional right to take back Pearson airport in the public interest of Canadians.

I cannot let the hon. member get away with saying they are not asking for any money in their present court case. They are asking for third party indemnity. That means they want to be covered for a lot of money. It is that simple.

The Minister of Transport has most ably presented the costs that the members of the consortium want by way of compensation. They have already submitted claims for lost profits for over $400 million. Those were the claims they submitted when we only asked them to provide their actual expenses. I cannot wait to see what they submit when they want to present their final bills.

I am absolutely amazed that the Reform Party member continues to persist in making this his issue when he knows that the people of Canada support the government on it.

[Pierre Elliott Trudeau, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the birthday of a very important political scientist in our country's history. Today is the birthday of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a man who served this country and served this House of Commons for many years, a man who believed in strong national programs. From strong national programs we created a great national will.

I think it is incumbent on all of us in this House today to recognize the great work that he has done on behalf of Canada.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that the Reform Party member could find nothing positive in this piece of legislation. He did not comment on the fact that it was a major effort in streamlining a department of government.

The Reform Party is always talking about making sure we eliminate duplication and making sure we eliminate waste. The reorganization of the department of industry goes a long way toward meeting those objectives.

There is absolutely no infighting going on. In fact most people in the department of industry are very excited about the ongoing reorganization. We are especially excited that through the department of industry we will be giving the Federal Business Development Bank added support over the next while, which is something most Reform members support. We have also given the tourism section of the department an added boost.

The member is not being balanced in his remarks when he claims that the reorganization is not meeting any of the objectives. However I am sure in time the member will see that we are on the right path.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member was suggesting that more resources were needed in Alberta to augment the bilingualism line-ups. Is that what she meant?

One of the greatest issues in western Canada which the western members especially those in the Reform Party talk about is eliminating the grants, program funding and all of those other things that help us develop as a nation. But very rarely do we hear members, especially those from Alberta telling us to cut the oil tax grants that are buried in the tax act of Canada. I cannot wait for the day when the hon. member says: "Cut those oil and tax grants". That is the day I am waiting for.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to get the member upset.

The member stated that Canada has no place in Quebec. If I understood the member correctly, she implied that the rest of Canadians have not done that much to contribute to the development of Quebec within the context of Canada. It is sad the member believes that because we are all doing our best to make this work. Today several members on this side of the House have stated that the system is not perfect but it has been getting better. By refusing to work at building the country the member will only make the situation worse because the facts will eventually be communicated to Quebecers.

We are entering a very tough period where not only Quebecers are doing the substantial in depth analysis of government programs and services and fiscal transfers. We are talking about programs and transfers of all the things related to our heritage not only in the province of Quebec but right across the country.

When all of those analyses are done, as the Bloc so often likes to do line by line, Quebecers will see that Canada is a much better deal than most of them ever realized. Certainly when every member in the Bloc goes through the line by line exercise in relation to the whole, they are going to see that Canada is the place to be.