Jack Ramsay

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be as straightforward and frank in answering questions as possible. I will try not to duck them or dodge them.

I would like the hon. member to make specific reference to the reports and surveys that have been done. I spent 14 years as a law enforcement officer and we looked at all sorts of plans and programs in the area of prevention. I support any program that will successfully provide results in the area of prevention.

I know that the Young Offenders Act was designed to do that. I know that some of these other measures were designed to do that. However, I would advise the hon. member that mercy does not rob justice. When very serious acts are committed against individuals which denies them freedom to move and takes their lives in many cases, then there must be an appropriate penalty. If through our desire and feelings for mercy we create a justice system that is not going to hold an individual accountable for his or her acts, then do not expect the system to prevent crimes of that nature as a result of the sentence that is imposed. That simply will not work.

If we do not to enforce the law in areas where there is law, if we do not amend those areas that do not hold people accountable for their actions such as in the area of the Young Offenders Act and I refer specifically to 10 year-olds, all the preventive programs in the world are going to fail. We have tried many of them.

I hope my answer satisfies the hon. member.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is a very strong motion. It is strongly worded in that it condemns the present system. Condemn is a strong word, but the people of Canada are in fact doing that.

Certainly in my area of the country they are condemning various aspects and portions of the criminal justice system that turns murderers and rapists out on the street to commit those offences again, that cannot even hold 10-year-olds accountable for criminal conduct. These are some of the things that I will be touching on in my speech.

I am sure the Young Offenders Act was not a knee-jerk reaction. It was well thought out and planned by the previous Liberal government. We see the fruits that are being borne by that ill-conceived piece of legislation, at least in parts of it where now it has to be reformed. I ask, as I asked before in this House, where was the leadership and where was the vision.

Past and present governments inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, which is of course the topic of today's opposition motion, is of particular concern to me.

I rise today to speak about a section of the Criminal Code which I believe is a blatant example of the growing disregard for the rights of victims versus the rights of criminals.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code, which gives convicted murderers access to the courts to seek a reduction in the number of years they must serve in prison before being eligible for release on parole, is a prime example of this disregard and makes a mockery of the term life imprisonment.

I would like to briefly provide members of this House with a history of this section of the Criminal Code. Murder was first classified as capital or non-capital in 1961. Before then only one punishment was prescribed for murder which was the death penalty. After 1961 only capital murder was punishable by death. This was the murder that was planned and delivered for the murder of a police officer or a prison guard. This was further reduced and only the killing of a police officer was punishable by death.

Persons convicted of non-capital murder were sentenced to life but were eligible for parole after seven years. However, this too changed and after 1967 all those serving a life sentence for murder could not be recommended for parole before serving at least 10 years.

In 1974 amendments were made to the Criminal Code which allowed the sentencing judge to increase the parole eligibility period to a maximum of 20 years. On February 24, 1976 Bill C-84 was introduced to abolish the death penalty and to create two new categories of murder, first and second degree murder, both of which carry the minimum sentence of life imprisonment.

Those convicted of first degree murder would serve 25 years before being eligible for parole, while second degree murderers would serve between 10 and 25 years prior to parole eligibility.

Apparently the 25 year minimum penalty was the trade-off for achieving the abolition of the death penalty. Instead of the death penalty, society was to be protected by incarcerating murderers for a minimum period of 25 years. Prior to Bill C-84, death sentences commuted to life imprisonment had resulted in an average of only 13.2 years served prior to release on parole.

Contained within Bill C-84 was a clause which created section 745 of the Criminal Code. Although first and second degree murderers are not eligible for parole for 25 years, under section 745 after 15 years murderers can apply for a parole review which effectively decrease their sentence.

Section 745.(1) of the Criminal Code reads:

Where a person has served at least fifteen years of his sentence-he may apply to the appropriate Chief Justice in the province in which the conviction took place for a reduction in his number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.

In my opinion section 745 makes a complete mockery of the so-called life sentence. It provides what one parliamentarian said: "A glimmer of hope, if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals". This former parliamentarian obviously had no consideration whatsoever for the victims of murder or their families.

What murderer in this country has ever given his victim or his victim's family a glimmer of hope? When a murderer takes an innocent life it cannot be returned. The victim cannot be brought back to life, and likewise when a murderer is given life imprisonment it should mean exactly that, life, with no glimmer of hope nor any incentive to ease the burden or the severity of the punishment for this awful crime.

The glimmer of hope advocates have made a farce of our penal system by extending to murderers a right they denied to their victim. Section 745 had not been reviewed until 1991 and 1992 when two private members' bills were introduced in the last Parliament challenging the existence of section 745.

This morning the hon. member from York South-Weston introduced a private member's bill to get rid of this law which gives convicted killers a chance for early parole. I would like to tell the hon. member that he has a great deal of support from our party for that bill. I am confident he will also have the support of many Canadians, including the Potts family of Hamilton, Ontario, whose daughter was murdered 15 years ago by Norman Joseph Clairmount.

In 1978 Clairmount was handed the statutory life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years for the brutal and savage murder of the innocent 19-year old Potts girl.

On February 8, 1993 an Ontario jury deliberated less than three hours before deciding to reduce the number of years. This murderer is eligible for parole in 18 years instead of 25 years. Because of section 745 and the jury's finding in favour of Clairmont, he was immediately eligible to apply to the National Parole Board for unescorted, temporary absences. He is now eligible to apply for full parole in 1995 instead of the year 2002.

This is not an isolated case. A number of convicted murderers have been successful with their section 745 applications.

Brian John Boyko of B.C., convicted in 1974 of capital murder, won a reduction in the period of parole ineligibility to 16 years from 20 after a 1990 hearing.

At a 1990 review hearing in Winnipeg, Larry Sheldon, convicted in 1974 of non-capital murder in the rape-murder of a nine-year old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 20 years won a reduction to 17 years.

Convicted of first degree murder in the shooting of a Calgary policeman during a credit union hold-up and hostage taking in 1976, William John Nicols won a reduction of his parole ineligibility period to 20 years at an Alberta hearing.

Jean-Louis Rodrigue, convicted of second degree murder in the killing of a Montreal peace officer, Charles Simard who murdered two teenagers and convicted killer Gilles Levine, all of Quebec, won reductions in their parole ineligibility period to 15 years.

Also in Quebec, Real Chartrand, sentenced to hang in 1972 for killing a police officer after an armed robbery, obtained full parole after serving 17 years of his sentence because of section 745.

There have been numerous applications made under section 745 of the Criminal Code. Some murderers have been successful and some have not but those who have not can make application again and again, all at a tremendous cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

Under section 745(1) the convicted person must apply to the chief justice of the province in which the conviction took place. The jury review must take place in the same province which means the inmate must be transported to the appropriate jurisdiction.

The Canadian Police Association believes this is only the beginning. It says that approximately 655 murderers over the next 15 years and as many as 180 in the next four will apply for early parole under section 745. This, it contends, will effectively reduce a life sentence by about 40 per cent. In other words, killers could serve just over half of their 25 year sentences. This raises two important concerns.

The first is with regard to the financial aspects and the second involves the integrity of the criminal justice system. Repealing section 745 will result in an enormous reduction in the costs associated with holding jury reviews and in transporting inmates to the province in which they were convicted.

The greater issue at the heart of this matter and the purpose of today's opposition motion is that the criminal justice system is allowing the rights of the criminal to supersede those of the victim.

Section 745 is a prime example of this fact. It gives a convicted killer the right to apply for a reduction in his sentence in which a jury reviews only selected evidence-

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech. I found it an affront that this member would suggest we are asking for a quick fix.

I have a newspaper clipping here that tells about an injustice that occurred to Mr. Howard Gowan from the Swift Current area of Saskatchewan where 27 years ago he was picked up by the RCMP and taken from his farm and interned in the Weyburn Psychiatric Centre where he underwent a month of electroshock and drug therapy. After that month was up he was released.

The commissioner of the RCMP then sent him a letter expressing his sincere regrets, trusting he had not been inconvenienced and acknowledging that the RCMP member strictly speaking acted outside the authority provided by the Saskatchewan Mental Health Act. This man and his family have been striving for some degree of reconciliation with the justice system for 27 years without avail. I am sure that this man would find the comments of the hon. member quite hard to understand and accept.

The weaknesses of the Young Offenders Act have been emerging over the last number of years and are clear to all who want to examine it. We have been waiting and waiting for some kind of action that would show up the weaknesses of that act. We are still waiting.

I suggest that we have a cottage industry built around consultation in the justice system which simply results in delay and more delay. It was this government that produced the Young Offenders Act and the Conservative government that implemented it. Where was the leadership at that time when it came to enacting new laws? Where was the foresight and the vision that produced that kind of a flawed legislation?

We have talked, both in the House and privately with members, concerning the whole question of the mercy applications I have spoken about here and privately with the Minister of Justice where again there seems to be an inordinate amount of delay in the process of our justice system.

Look at the stories in the newspapers today with regard to over 30 charges, indictments against Alan Eagleson by the American justice system. My examination of that case indicates that the law enforcement agencies in this country did nothing for long periods of time, which included the RCMP, the Toronto Metro Police and the Law Society of Upper Canada which is the law society of this province. They did nothing with the complaint information and nothing was done until the information was being looked into by the justice department of the United States of America. Only then was something done here.

This motion is appropriate and I believe we are filling a proper role. We do not know what the justice department is doing at the present time. Understandably this is all done behind closed doors and it will be brought forward at a later date.

Perhaps our job in bringing forward this motion is to put the pressure on the government and hold it accountable as is the rightful role of members in the opposition. I believe this motion is proper at this time.

I would invite the hon. member's comments on anything that I have had to say in response to his speech.

[Violence, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, between January and November of last year 193 women and 278 children took refuge in the Camrose Women's Shelter in my riding and home town. The number of women and children coming through the doors of this shelter and many others throughout Canada has been increasing yearly.

Last year the former Tory government commissioned a report on violence against women. The report listed a number of recommendations, one of which is a zero tolerance policy, violence is not accepted in any case.

As this is the International Year of the Family we all need to put a stop to the senseless abuse of women and children. Awareness and thinking are a start. However only a positive, collaborative effort on behalf of all government agencies and individual Canadians will protect the most vulnerable people in our society and re-establish the family as the cornerstone and mainstay of this country.

I concur with my constituents that we need action now.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member.

He has made comments that I find very inspiring and uplifting. At lunch we have a meal served here and we do not pay for it as members of Parliament. At supper I understand there is a meal out there and we do not pay for it although we are being paid to work through these hours.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he would be willing to pay a small fee for the food we eat here and have that given to countries that are in need.

My second question to the hon. member is what does he feel will be the impact on our foreign aid program as a result of the addition of $100 billion to our national debt over the next three years?

[Criminal Code, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of private member's Bill C-214. My hon. colleague who just spoke may be accurate in that there are some deficiencies in this bill. At the same time we cannot amend the total Criminal Code and rectify the problems within the criminal justice system in one fell swoop.

I support the private member's bill. However I do so with a degree of regret. It saddens me to think that we would have to debate such an issue, whether or not we should amend the Criminal Code to stop the proliferation of what I consider to be obscene and immoral.

I would like to briefly describe what I know about the serial killer board game. It was invented by Tobias Allen of Seattle, Washington, and inspired by John Wayne Gacey, a serial killer on death row for the murder of I understand 33 children in the United States. The object of the game is to kill as many children as possible. The game comes in a body bag and the pawns to play the board are in the shape of dead babies.

In my mind there is no debate. The answer is a given. I believe from the volume of mail and petitions received by past and present members of this House that there is no debate in the minds of Canadians on this issue. We should stop the serial killer board game from reaching Canadian stores and the impressionable minds of our children.

I will never understand what kind of sick mind devises such a despicable and horrifying game, one that glorifies the killing of babies, the most vulnerable and precious treasure we have in this world, innocent victims of some of the most heinous crimes committed in this and other countries.

Are we not here to protect our children from the senseless hate and violence that exists throughout the world and which is increasing in our own country? How anyone finds entertainment in playing a game that depicts the slaughtering of babies is beyond me and everything I have ever held dear in my life. How anyone could condone the importation and sale of such an outrageously immoral game is beyond comprehension.

I stand here today to support an amendment that demonstrates to the U.S. originator and manufacturer of this game that there is no place for it in a country whose standards in regard to morality will not tolerate the exploitation of children and to reinforce the commitment I have made to my constituents to help put some sanity back in the justice system that no longer protects our most valuable possession, our children.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has tabled private member's Bill C-214 to amend the Criminal Code to include age which appears to be the only effective means to stop the importation of the serial killer board game as it would constitute importing hate propaganda.

Currently under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, children or seniors are not protected because they do not constitute an identifiable group. Within this section the application of the Criminal Code only applies to hate propaganda that advocates or promotes the physical destruction of persons distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

This serial killer board game which establishes the winner as the person who collects the most dead babies would not be permitted in Canada if the babies were of a particular race or colour. Obviously white Anglo-Saxon is not included in the definition of race under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code

and has an awful lot to say about the state of our Criminal Code. Otherwise Revenue Canada officials could have prohibited entry of this game into our country.

I would like to point out that similarly women would not be protected under this section of the Criminal Code as gender does not fall within the confines defining what constitutes hate propaganda.

Therefore if the dead bodies were that of white Canadian women the game would also be acceptable to pass through our borders under subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code. How have we regressed to the point where we have no equality before the law? It is no wonder this country cannot eradicate the problem of violence against women and children when sections of the Criminal Code such as 318(4) provide no protection for them.

I understand that under tariff code 9956 of schedule 7 to the Customs Tariff, Revenue Canada can prohibit the importation of certain material into Canada. Material suspected of being treasonable, seditious, obscene or hate propaganda is inspected by Revenue Canada officials and if it is determined to come within the terms of tariff code 9956, its importation is prohibited.

According to the Minister of National Revenue, his officials have reviewed a version of the serial killer board game and determined it did not fall within the confines of tariff code 9956 which has necessitated private member's Bill C-214.

I do not know what obscene means to revenue officials but to me and as is defined in the dictionary it means highly offensive. If the game depicting the murder of babies is not highly offensive, I do not know what is. Anything that glorifies killing and depicts serial murders as victorious is very offensive to me and the people I represent. I really do not understand what is happening in our country, what is happening to the sense of decency and morality that was once so indicative of a country whose values were second to none.

What kind of a message are we sending people when we allow a game of this nature to enter our country? It is the same message we send when we allow a murderer serving a life sentence to be eligible for parole after 15 years, when we give a convict a day pass to rape and kill again, when we pay a serial killer handsomely to provide law authorities with information regarding the location of his victim's bodies or when we permit a person in prison who was a partner of one of the most horrific sexual slayings in this country to own a microwave, a television set, take university courses and to decorate her cell with whimsical cartoon characters when law-abiding Canadians struggle to obtain similar assets.

Another major area of concern, of course, is the Young Offenders Act which is currently ineffective in stopping the growing number of youth engaged in criminal and violent activities. There has been considerable discussion regarding this area of law and private member's Bill C-217 is currently before the House. The purpose of this bill is threefold. To lower the age limits that define who is a young person for purposes of the Young Offenders Act, to allow the publication of the name of a young offender who has been convicted of an indictable offence on two previous occasions and to increase the maximum penalty in the Young Offenders Act for first and second degree murder to 10 years.

I commend the hon. member for York South-Weston for his initiative in this area. I cannot say at this time that I agree 100 per cent with the suggested amendments, however I do believe they warrant discussion and analysis.

Stopping the importation of material such as the serial killer board game or serial killer cards is a necessary component in providing the proper environment for our children to grow up in. How can we expect them to adhere to a prescribed set of rules and moral conduct if we have games or literature that are contradictory? How will they ever understand wrong from right if we say one thing and our store shelves are filled with games or literature that defies what we have told them?

We know a world of corruption lies beyond our front doors. Every day in this country Canadians are warned of the unspeakable things that can happen to their children and they are urged to make their children street smart.

Allowing the serial killer board game into this country goes against the moral conscience of Canadians and everything we as parents are trying to do to raise our children to be morally correct human beings.

Our job as legislators is to provide leadership and direction through our laws. If we do not amend the Criminal Code we will be telling our children that we believe killing babies, killing innocent and defenceless members of society, is all right even if it is only in a game.

In conclusion, when we do this we are allowing violent and immoral behaviour to further proliferate in this country. I stand in support of this bill.

[Canadian Athletes, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian citizen I was extremely proud of the effort and showing of our athletes in Lillehammer during the Winter Olympics.

Young Canadians from coast to coast demonstrated to the world the talent and sportsmanlike conduct developed in a country that prides itself on being one of the best places in the world to live.

Whether in victory or defeat each of our athletes set an example of excellence for the next generation of athletes to follow that can only be achieved through years of hard work and dedication to become the best they can be.

I commend our gold, silver and bronze medalists. I commend all our athletes with whom we share a strong sense of achievement and patriotism.

I commend Mr. Glen Rupertus of Camrose, Alberta. This small town boy from western Canada accomplished what so many young people only dream of. He made his aspirations come true, he made it to the Olympics.

The memory of his journey, the friendships he found and the honour bestowed on him by all Canadians who witnessed his performance in the biathlon will last a lifetime.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to give my maiden speech in this House I would like to extend my personal congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I would like to express my feeling of respect and honour for the career that you have had in politics. It is truly an honour for me to be making my maiden speech in this House with you, a fellow Albertan, in the chair.

I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to thank the people of Crowfoot, my constituents, for giving me the privilege of representing them in Ottawa. The Crowfoot riding is comprised primarily of farmers, ranchers and people in the service industry who are hard working, honest and frank.

I have pledged to represent their views in the same open manner in which they conduct their lives. I live in Camrose, the largest urban centre of Crowfoot, with my wife, Glenna, and our four children Anne-Marie, Jackie, Spencer and Sterling. I would like to put it on record that I love them very much and I miss them very much. I appreciate the position of all hon. members who are separated from their families for long periods of time and the position of their families as well.

I am proud to represent this riding which is named after the great Blackfoot chief, Crowfoot. Although the Blackfoot band is no longer in my riding, its present chief, Striker Crowfoot, is a direct descendant of Chief Crowfoot. We met with him some time ago as a caucus committee and it was wonderful to sit in his presence and listen to his wisdom.

Given that my riding is larger than the province of Nova Scotia, it is a real task to travel to each part of my riding to consult with my constituents but I am committed to listening to the numerous opinions and concerns of the people of Crowfoot and to making their voices heard in the nation's capital.

During the election I encountered a great deal of anger, frustration and a feeling of betrayal from the voters that stem from a belief that the politicians and government had violated the faith and trust that people had placed in them, that members of Parliament had exceeded the parameters of fair play and common sense and that they had been irresponsible in the manner in which they had conducted the affairs of this country.

The people of Canada know that the stability of every organization, whether it is the family business, church or community organization, is governed by the fundamental law of economics which simply states that one cannot continually spend more than one brings in. If one does, one's organization will cease to exist.

For more than 20 years the people of Canada have seen their government violate this fundamental law of economics. By doing so, the government has left the impression it is beyond the law and immune to the consequences of non-adherence to the economic principles that govern the private sector.

The federal government has not balanced its budget in 20 years. It has simply refused to live within its means. This government's budget has shown that it is no different than the past Tory and Liberal governments that have brought us to the brink of financial despair.

It has ignored the enormous danger that overspending and over taxation poses to the economic well-being of our people and our nation, and by doing so has displayed contempt for the principles of economics that govern the private sector and that ultimately hold such dire consequences for every citizen of this country.

The greatest threat to the economic stability of the individual and the family is the unrestrained power of government to tax away our wealth. The federal government has increased taxes more than 35 times in the last 10 years, adding a tax burden of close to $1,900 to the average Canadian family.

The Fraser Institute claims that over 50 per cent of all we earn now goes to the three levels of government in the form of taxation. In spite of the enormous amount of wealth the federal government has taken from the people each year, we find ourselves in a debt hole of over half a trillion dollars and plunging another $40 billion into debt this year.

This represents a colossal mismanagement of Canada's fiscal and monetary affairs and a degree of irresponsibility unheard of in the private sector. While the politicians have been plunging us into debt the people of this country have watched as the same politicians gave themselves pensions so extravagant and outrageous that Mr. Clark, for example, will receive over $3 million in benefits by age 75 and Perrin Beatty will receive close to $5 million.

These politicians take home a pension cheque each month greater than the paycheque of the average Canadian worker. This is unfair and unacceptable.

The perception that politicians ignore proper practices and procedures has been reinforced in the past five years by the almost daily violation of the rule of law that governs the procedure of the House of Commons by members of Parliament.

On almost any day during the previous Parliament, Canadians could have tuned in and witnessed a violation of Standing Order 16 when hon. members interrupted procedures by shouting, hollering and hurling insults at each other. Canadians watched the complete disregard for the rule of law that governs the procedure of the very institution that creates the laws of this nation.

When hon. members show contempt for the rule of law in this House, why should we be surprised when those outside this House show a similar contempt for the law?

If we as members of Parliament cannot govern our own feelings and emotions, why should the people trust us to govern the affairs of this nation?

No wonder people have lost faith in their government and no wonder politicians are held in such contempt across the country. The faith and trust of Canadians have been violated and they feel betrayed.

What has been the result of this feeling of betrayal on the part of Canadians? The reaction has been two-fold. The political reaction of Canadians has been the complete destruction of the Tory government, the decimation of the NDP caucus and the election of 52 Reform MPs who campaigned on a platform of fiscal restraint, tax relief and parliamentary reform.

The economic reaction of Canadians to this betrayal of trust is much more ominous. An underground economy has developed in this country which some estimate at $100 billion per year. People are opting out of a tax system which they consider to be unfair and threatening to their personal and family survival. Canadians living near the U.S. border are shopping in the states to avoid the GST and other taxes. The number of normally law-abiding citizens willing to risk prosecution to purchase bootlegged cigarettes and other products to avoid high taxes is growing. These people are rejecting our tax system because they consider it unfair and a threat to their economic survival.

They see government over-spending and they see the waste of taxpayer's dollars on every side and they feel betrayed. They see a justice system run amok; a parole system that releases violent criminals onto the streets who continue to rape and murder; a Young Offender's Act that cannot hold 10-year olds accountable for their criminal conduct. They see legislation that is impotent and unable to protect society against criminal acts; legislation

such as the ill-conceived gun control bill which is wrongly aimed at law-abiding citizens and not at the criminal use of firearms.

Canadians have seen wave after wave of political patronage which has such a demeaning and destructive effect upon the integrity of politicians and government in the minds of Canadians. Now they hear the Prime Minister telling them it is disgusting and revolting to allow them the right to have a say in deciding important issues, moral issues like mercy killing.

The Prime Minister repeatedly reminds this House that Canadians knew what was best at election time. It was not disgusting and revolting for them to participate in the election of their representatives. However, as soon as he became Prime Minister he suddenly knew what is best.

From this I know best attitude, the hallmark of the Trudeau and the Mulroney administrations and now continued by the present Prime Minister, we have a nation beset with high taxes, enormous debt and a justice system that cannot protect the property and lives of Canadians.

In spite of all the budget consultations throughout the country, the I know best attitude is still evident. Canadians did not ask for or want another $100 billion added to the debt and yet that is exactly what the Liberal government is doing with this budget.

The government did not inform Canadians of this planned addition to the debt and it has omitted mentioning the dangers of adding $100 billion to the existing debt of half a trillion dollars.

Why does this budget not say a word about the consequences this will have upon our nation and our people? What will it do to our social programs, to our economic stability, to our international credit rating and to the one million children reported to be living in poverty? What will the addition of another $100 billion to the debt do to further enhance the sense of betrayal felt by a growing number of Canadians throughout this country?

This budget shows a lack of concern with the debt. This government is spending $3 billion more this year than last. It is taking more money from Canadians and out of the economy than it did last year. This budget shows no concern for the dangers to Canadians posed by the ever-rising debt.

Past governments, including Liberals, showed no concern about the dangers of debt. The Liberals left us with a $200 billion debt in 1984. The Tories could not handle that debt and simply added another $300 billion to it.

Now this government is promising to add $100 billion to the federal debt in the next three years with no mention of the devastating consequences this debt poses for our nation and our people.

This irresponsible action by the governments of the old line parties which is contained in this budget is absolutely unacceptable to me and to Canadians. These governments through the force of law have imposed a tyranny of debt and taxation upon the people of this nation. The mismanagement of our fiscal and monetary affairs by this and past governments is destroying the economy of this nation.

The life of this nation depends upon the economy and it depends upon the spirit of the people who constitute the nation. The feelings of anger, frustration and betrayal run deep in this country and are taking their toll upon the spirit of Canadians.

Nothing will change those feelings until Canadians are able to place their trust in the people whom they have chosen to govern them. This budget could have been a start. This budget could have helped heal the broken economy and sparked the spirit and hope of our people. It has not done this.

In closing, I would like to address the good that is in this budget and there is good in this budget. It has been spoken of by members on both sides of the House. From my particular viewpoint, I view the good in this budget like adding a needed piece of furniture to a house that is burning down.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I heard most of the comments of the hon. member and I appreciate them. Certainly when he speaks about reform and that we must change the way we do business in the country it is a welcomed statement on this side of the House. We join him in that.

I have asked a question of his colleagues and it is a tough question. I have not received an answer. The budget speaks of the addition of $100 billion to the federal debt over the next

three years. It does not say a word about the consequences to a number of issues, the consequences to the job creation program, the consequences to social programs, the consequences to the one million children reported to be living in poverty in this country.

I wonder if the minister has any ideas or thoughts that would debilitate the government's ability to function adequately and at the level the budget suggests in the light of $100 billion to the debt over the next three years.

What is the danger, if any, of the debt?

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Answer the question.