Jim Silye

[Canadian Airlines, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recent announcements that Canadian Airlines is having financial trouble should be of concern to all of us.

At a time when the Liberal job creation strategy has failed and unemployment is hovering close to the 10 per cent mark, we certainly do not want to see 16,000 airline jobs disappear.

Certain steps now need to be taken by Canadian Airlines. It is acting very responsibly in taking those steps. Once the steps have been taken we can then look at what other action is required.

A government bailout does not appear to be a viable solution. It has been done before and obviously did not provide a real remedy. What is needed this time is an effective plan that will work over the longer term.

The Reform Party is meeting with officials from Canadian, Air Canada and American Airlines to discuss possible solutions and to work toward protecting Canadian jobs, Canadian investment and the Canadian travelling public.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech of the hon. member where he talked about the advantages of lower interest rates. There is no question that low interest rates mean significant savings for consumers and businesses. It puts more money into the marketplace.

However, to only zero in on that aspect and to only point out its benefits, is wrong. That is only one sector of the population, only the borrowers of the nation. It is only people who can borrow money, qualify for loans or who already have loans in place. It is not all Canadians. It is not all good news for all Canadians. It is good news for those who have debts. It is also good news for this government because it is lowering the cost of its huge debt which does help all Canadians.

However, because it only benefits the borrowers, what message is the government giving to those who do not have loans and who do not borrow? What are in the policies of the Liberal Party for the pensioners who have had been reduced and have lost their senior age exemption? What about the students who do not have loans and cannot borrow money? What is the government-

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member from the Bloc for a very constructive critique of the government's throne speech. I would like to dwell on one item that was in that throne speech which is of particular importance to his party and his party's objectives.

There was a vague promise made by the Prime Minister months ago when the speech was given and I cannot remember the exact details, that all Canadians would have a say in the next referendum on separation. It is an issue that is very important and I would like to have the member enlighten me and clarify a few things because I am confused about two or three things that happened in the last referendum.

The hon. member indicated in his speech that 49.5 per cent of Quebecers voted yes-it was very close-and that should send a signal to Ottawa. I agree with him. The government is not listening. It is not listening to westerners or to Quebecers and I agree.

I disagree on what the solution is. I do not think it is separation. I am concerned about that. I would like to see Quebec stay in Canada. I would like to see Quebecers and the Bloc Quebecois argue for Quebec in the best interests of Quebec like an opposition party can using those tools to help it.

I found the question in the last referendum to be ambiguous and convoluted. It was not a simple, straight, direct question of the citizens of the province of Quebec. I can verify that with the surveys, the information that came to me from the people who write stories in Le Devoir , which said that 39 per cent, or a high percentage of Quebecers did not really understand what they were

voting on. They thought Quebec could separate and still stay in Canada and have some sort of economic association.

I do not know why there has to be another referendum. Quebecers have voted twice on this issue and twice Quebecers have said to stay in Canada. Should the people of Quebec want another referendum and the member does get another referendum, would he agree that a straight, simple, direct question would be better and clearer for everybody? There would be fewer arguments, fewer flare ups. The question would be in French and English along the lines of: Do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no?

If the answer to that simple and direct question were to be yes-which I hope it would not be-would the member explain to me what the plan is of the Bloc Quebecois? How and when does it plan to negotiate the separation agreement and terms? If there is no mechanism in place, which there is not now and it is not legal now as nothing in the Constitution allows for a province to secede, when do the negotiations start? Who does the negotiations? How does the Bloc Quebecois propose to settle issues, for example the size of the debt, the type of currency, access for Canadians through the province to the east coast. Issues such as those are extremely important.

Those are the questions I would like to be enlightened upon by the hon. member.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin. We are having a lively debate on the throne speech which was presented nine months ago. The government must have pretty thin legislation to offer this up for debate today. It should be an embarrassment to the government.

The hon. member painted a rosy picture about all the great and wonderful things that are happening in this country. He tied them into trust. I would like to talk about trust a bit. I believe that looking at some of the truths is also important.

It is true that when the Liberals were in opposition they opposed the NAFTA and free trade itself. In fact they had a leader who ran on a platform against free trade. There was a red book promise that the NAFTA would not be approved until the dispute settlement mechanism was revisited. That would have avoided the unneces-

sary nasty deal that was recently negotiated on softwood lumber. That is not good news.

In opposition the Liberals complained incessantly about the philosophy of the governor of the Bank of Canada, Crow, and his anti-inflation policy. When the Liberals were in opposition they were against that. Now they are taking the credit. It was that policy of the Bank of Canada which toed the tough line when it was necessary and it was the right thing to do. Canadians knew it, but the Liberals did not know it in opposition. They were against it.

Now they are taking credit for low interest rates. Now they are taking credit for the expansion of exports. That is what is expanding the economy. Domestic growth is nil. When interest rates are really low, that is a sign of failure. That means that the economy has stalled. They should not be patting themselves on their backs.

The banks and all lenders want to lower their rates to induce people to borrow. Why? Because they are not borrowing. We should talk about the other side of the story.

The Liberals are saying that in two years from now, when our deficit is only $9 billion, there will be no new borrowing. We will have a balanced budget because of the way in which the countries which belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development measure their deficits.

Consider this logic. We will have a $9 billion deficit. The hon. member said that when we hit that single digit level we will have a balanced budget. There will be no new borrowing. Where are they going to get $9 billion? They are going to borrow it from the civil service pension fund. That is a loan. That is a debt. They should not be telling Canadians that there will no longer be deficit financing or borrowing. That is a distortion of the truth. I am embarrassed that the finance minister is talking that way and letting the Prime Minister get away with things like that. It is cooking the books. It is saying that they broke the back of the deficit when they are not coming clean with the Canadian public.

Let us do that. Let us say that we have a $9 billion deficit. We are going to borrow it from the civil service pension fund, but we will have a balanced budget. That is not true.

This government brags about the steps it took and the spending cuts it made. It will be sad when the member goes back to his riding to seek re-election. I am going to submit that it is his government which is responsible for the nurses who are losing their jobs and for the teachers who are losing their jobs. Who reduced spending for education and health care by $7 billion? The government. Who has to live with it? The provincial governments, and these guys are patting themselves on the back and blaming the provinces for doing a poor job. Excuse me. That is a sorry way to run a country. It is a poor excuse for taking responsibility and telling the truth to Canadians.

Spending to the provinces by this government has been reduced by 42 per cent. Spending on its own federal administrative costs is only about 1.3 per cent. Tell me how all these spending reductions were made. On the backs of the provinces and the government is bragging about it.

I just wanted to comment for about five minutes. I will allow an equal five minutes for the hon. member to comment. But that is the other side of the story. It is the complete picture. That is what we have to look at here: both sides of the story. The hon. member can comment.

[National Revenue, November 4th, 1996]

On the file, right Mr. Speaker?

The issue is accountability and competence as the finance minister has mentioned. We even have a hard time finding out the secret ethics guidelines from the government that would be helping cabinet ministers and would be telling the Canadian public how they have to deal with cabinet ministers. The Prime Minister will not even make them available. He keeps them a secret.

These files could have ended up in the hands of some unscrupulous individuals. In this case they did not. Those files were sent to me. They are in a sealed envelope and I will send them to Revenue Canada.

When the finance minister finds out what did happen, will he inform the House what steps were taken to remedy the situation and what kind of discipline was meted out? The Liberals brag about efficiency and effectiveness. Will they report back to us?

[National Revenue, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a couple of weeks ago somebody in Mississauga, Ontario walked into a government surplus store and purchased a filing cabinet. Lo and behold when the individual opened the filing cabinet six or seven files of individual Canadian taxpayers that should never have been there were found. The filing cabinet should have been looked at before it got out. This is scary stuff. Who is responsible for this incompetence?

[Bombardier Inc., October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when we start to use a little innuendo like the government members do they find it offensive. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so either you take it or you don't.

On the issue of research and development the criteria that were used in this instance are still very suspect. The Minister of Industry picks the one company that is already number six, with $6.6 billion in assets, with cash in the bank of $200 million, with profits of $100 million. That company has enough money to do a lot of its own R and D. Were there matching funds by Bombardier for R and D and if so, how much? And is this just the first part of a three-part instalment?

[Bombardier Inc., October 29th, 1996]

Given these facts, will the Minister of Industry or the Prime Minister explain to us what technical advancement is being developed at Bombardier for $87 million?

[Bombardier Inc., October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today's Globe and Mail headline reads: ``Liberals turn sights on Manning: PMO issues attack memo suggesting Reform Party be linked to U.S. extreme right wing''. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Liberals for targeting Reform. I take it as a compliment that they feel we are a threat to this government and that our policies and platforms have something to offer.

Let us check on innuendo. It is a fact that Bombardier has donated $170,000 to the Liberals since 1993. It is a fact that Bombardier has done its research on those planes. It is a fact that the Minister of Industry yesterday did not answer my question on criteria fully. It is a fact that the son-in-law of the Prime Minister is on the board.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Prince George-Peace River, for the question. The answer to his question is that this is not a waste of time. This is very important. It is an issue that tackles the very essence of government and of politicians.

We are talking about integrity. We are talking about trust. We are talking about believability. When you knock on doors and ask people to vote for you, you stand for something. You have pride, you have principles, you have goals and you have objectives. You tell people that you stand for these things. You tell them that you

would do these things if you were government. What frustrates me is that once they get elected, once they get here, they do not deliver on what they promised. They will not do what they said they are going to do.

This is what frustrates the Canadian voter. This is what frustrated me when I just voted and did not participate in the system. Government is really controlled by a very few people. Very few people participate in our political system, therefore there is a lot of opportunity and chances for people to get here without much effort. When they do get here, the system lends itself toward a democratic dictatorship. We freely elect a dictator every four to five years.

We need some protection and control against that. This House is the place where that is done. This House is where the government is held accountable and responsible. Members are questioned on their competence and integrity. Therefore, accountability, integrity and competence are things for which we look and make sure they are adhering to them.

The Prime Minister makes all these patronage appointments. We call it patronage because there are 3,000-plus positions to which the Prime Minister can appoint people without review. Yes, we can object to them when the names are put forward. It appears that every leader who is the head of a government appoints those people who either have made the biggest contributions or who have worked the hardest on somebody's campaign or who have had long term, outstanding commitments to that party or who was a candidate and did not get elected.

What is hypocritical about the current Prime Minister is this. If that is the system and that is the way the game is played, fine. Incompetence will surface and that person will eventually be fired.

When you are in opposition and you are the leader of the opposition like he was for so many years, when he says on this side of the House that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is making patronage appointments, that he is only appointing his hacks, his supporters, his contributors. Stop. When you get to that side, you should not be doing the same thing. He did not change it. This is part of politics as well. It is an opportunity for the member for Kingston and the Islands and this government to have one member from the opposition side as a deputy chair. We could have another election on it. This shows that Reform is committed to systemic change.

The member for Waterloo brought up the question of intellectual honesty. The standing orders say that we are supposed to be given 48 hours' notice for a motion to be presented. We were not. They say that we are wasting taxpayers' dollars. They are dictating to us who goes where, what happens and when. Therefore the who, what, why, where and when should not just be at the whim of the government. It should be subjected to opposition commentary.

That is why there are rules in the standing orders that we should get notice of what is going on. This government has invoked closure more times than the previous government that it criticized for doing it five times. This government has done it 19 times already. We still have a year to go. According to the member for Fundy-Royal, there are two more years to go before we have another election. They have all that time to keep all these promises. I am practising the finance minister's style. I need that pen.

He goes: "Another thing, Madam Chair, I want to tell you about this government. I want to tell you about the policies I made. I didn't raise taxes. I know the tax base has gone up. I know I have reduced exemptions. I know I raised excise taxes. They are up. I have not raised taxes. We have done this through sound government. We have done this through good government. The members on that side don't know what they are talking about". Then they all clap and cheer.

The issue is about patronage. The issue is about partisan politics. This is an opportunity to take partisan politics outside of it. We have to be partisan. We have to fight for those goals and ideas that we each believe in, even if we disagree.

That chair, the position that you are sitting in, Madam Speaker, is a very important one. We have not questioned anybody who has been in that chair so far. They have applied the standing rules to the best of their ability. What we are saying is that here is a chance to improve the system a little more.

I know the member for Kingston and the Islands would make a good chairperson. I saw him work in the committee on procedure and House affairs. That is not the issue. The issue is this. He said that he believes that the junior chair should be held by a member from the opposition. Therefore, here is his opportunity to help us implement his plan and guarantee the independence of the Chair, not only talk the talk but walk the walk or do the thing that they should do which is right for Canadians.