Jack Ramsay

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a similar question. I have asked this question to two of the member's colleagues in the past and did not get an answer. I have often watched the hon. minister on television during the last four or

five years and I am always impressed by his intelligence and his wit. Therefore, I would like him to concentrate that wit on this question and I hope to get an answer.

How will the addition of $100 billion to the federal debt over the next three years affect the plan to rebuild the fishing industry on the east coast as well as a new tech industry that he speaks about emerging now in that area?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question of great importance to me, to my colleagues and particularly to the members of the Slave Lake bands.

The hon. member chose to blatantly ignore the question which showed disrespect to me and to the grand chiefs and chiefs who brought this issue to our attention.

I did not simply ask the question of my own accord. We had contacted members who were present at the meeting between the minister and the Slave Lake bands. I was told that they felt the minister's conduct at the meeting was insulting and shocking. They said his comments, as they pertained to the Reform Party, were indeed racist.

My colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, who was upset by the lack of response by the minister to my question, was prompted to pose the same one later in the question period.

The minister, when asked to provide a direct, clear answer, once again avoided the question. He said: "I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Reform Party does not hate Indians", but he did not deny or admit saying to a group of aboriginal people that the Reform Party hates Indians and they want to be seen as the defender of the white man. I believe the hon. member has a duty and responsibility as a minister of the crown to answer this question.

I and other members of the Reform Party have established close ties with many First Nations people and leaders over the years. This kind of comment, if made by the minister, amounts to a racist and slanderous attack on members of the Reform Party by a minister of the crown and defames us in the eyes of the aboriginal people and all Canadians. Nothing short of an honest and straightforward answer will suffice in a matter of this importance.

I was present in the House today when the question was posed in almost identical words to the minister for the third time. I also have the "blues" that indicate his answer. Again he does not clearly indicate whether he had made this statement. He only deals with a portion of the statement that has to do with the hate of the Reform Party for Indian people and does not cover the other part of the question, that we want to represent the white man, in effect against the Indian people.

Although it appeared to me that the minister had come a certain way in resolving this issue, it has not been resolved in my mind nor in the minds of my colleagues within the Reform Party.

We have also received a joint affidavit from people who were present at that meeting when this incident occurred. Eight of the leaders have signed a document and sworn before a notary public what actually happened at that meeting. I am prepared to table a copy of that here today.

I feel the minister should resolve this matter so that we can get on with our business and he can get on with the affairs of his ministry.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for not only his speech but the demure way in which he gave it. I appreciated that very much. His presence would be welcome in my office or in my presence at any time as a result of that.

I would like to ask the member a question having to do with the debt. We have been told by economists that we may be beyond the line of any return on the debt. What impact does the member feel the addition of $100 billion to the federal debt over the next three years will have upon job creation and employment in Canada?

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I would like to ask him a question about the budget.

Does the hon. member have an opinion as to the consequences this nation will face if we add another $100 billion to the federal debt in the next three years? There is no indication within the budget speech or the budget itself of any such consequences.

Would the hon. member care to comment on it?

[Max McLean, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and congratulate Mr. Max McLean of Camrose, Alberta. Mr. McLean was recently named "Moose Citizen of the Year" by the local chamber of commerce.

This award is presented each year to a person who has made outstanding contributions to the community. As a full time volunteer, Max has devoted his energy and enthusiasm to canvassing for the Canadian Cancer Society, selling journals for the Canadian Diabetic Association and helping to raise money for Ronald McDonald House.

Max's extensive involvement in the community spans almost 50 years of dedicated service to his community. May Max McLean, who believes volunteers play an important role in making Camrose a better place to live, be a model for all Canadians.

[Indian Affairs, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Edmonton Sun reported that during the same meeting the minister stated: ``The Reform Party hates Indians and they want to be seen as the defender of the white man''.

I ask the minister, did he make that statement?

[Indian Affairs, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Devel-

opment told members of the Slave Lake bands at their recent meeting that he was going to abolish the Indian Act.

Would the minister tell the House what he intends to replace it with?

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not have to ask the hon. member any questions because I know where he stands. That is pretty well for the status quo.

I would like to make a couple of comments that he might want to respond to. He took exception to our member from Calgary when she indicated that she felt the representation has been minuscule. The member's former leader, Mr. Trudeau, made the statement that when backbenchers get 50 feet from the House of Commons they are nobodies.

Perhaps he could take that into consideration and perhaps he could take into consideration what the people think about that kind of representation where a small group of people within a party and within a government decides the direction that the government is going to take on important issues that impact upon individuals so severely.

I have had people say that those who oppose these populace principles of referendum, recall, citizens' initiative, the reform of the Senate, a triple-E senate, are afraid of their own people. They do not trust them. They are saying to them at election time: "Trust us with the authority you will invest in us by way of sending us to Ottawa, but we do not want to have to trust you to hold us accountable for the way that we conduct your affairs on a daily basis".

The hon. member mentioned this whole huge mistake that the former government made with regard to the GST. Look at the damage that was done and has been done and will continue to be done. We are saying that if we had a mechanism in place through which the people could have stopped that damage, that ill-conceived piece of legislation would not have been passed into legislation; and the enormous economic damage that has been done and that has been recognized by the Liberal government would not have been done. This is what we are saying. The people need these checks and balances. This is to what the member for Calgary was alluding.

We are not saying we want to run government by push buttons, as the hon. member stated. We want to place reasonable checks and balances in place whereby when the people are aroused over an issue they have some means of stopping ill-conceived legislation from coming forward that will have such a detrimental impact on their lives and the lives of their children.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon member has made a very eloquent attack upon the reforms of government that the Reform Party has put forward through this motion. I find that what he had to say is quite different from when he spoke to the Reform Party caucus at the time he was presenting himself as we approached the election of the Speaker. I see the difference between what he indicated to us at that time with regard to the reform of this place and some of the reforms that we are advocating.

Some of the things he said in his speech were very interesting to me. He quoted Mr. Burke as stating it was the duty of the member to take into consideration all facets and represent the national good. During the referendum of 1992 we saw all members of this place follow the party line set by their leadership. We saw that of most of them, the vast majority of them. They were not listening to the people.

Therefore, the national good, if it was a national good that was decided in that referendum, was not decided by the elected members of this country. It was decided by the people through a free vote offered by the referendum of that time.

The member has indicated that the system has served us well for 125 years and that all is going smoothly. He has failed to mention the national energy program that was foisted upon the west and decimated the oil industry, the energy industry in that part of the country, and our focus upon the need to reform the Senate, the upper House of Parliament, that could have stopped that unfair legislation at the time, unless he supports the national energy program.

I ask him a general question of whether he sees no merit at all in the attempts that the people of Canada have made through the election of not only reformers but many new members in this House to bring about a more democratic change within this place.

[Justice, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have an unexpected question for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the mercy applications under section 690 of the Criminal Code which pertains to applications for new trials by convicted Canadians.

As the minister knows, it has taken as long as four years for his department to process and decide on such applications. In view of this would the minister consider a review of the process within his department in order to expedite these applications? Would the minister give consideration to adopting the recommendations made by the royal commission of inquiry into the Donald Marshall case?