House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 55% of the vote.
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
He has not only flipped his hair, he has flipped his lid.
We are judged to be the country that has dealt with its deficit better than any other industrialized nation in the world today. They are frustrated because of the progress this government has made.
The Canadian people will never allow them to get into power, either the Reform or the Tories, to go ahead and ruin our medicare system as they promised and to pass our infrastructure over to the banks.
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Of course, we should not forget the head of that administration. I am allowed to say this because it is the administration. It is the Chrétien administration. I believe that is parliamentary, but I will not use it again, Mr. Speaker, if you object to that phrase. He is a great leader of the administration.
Which country is it that the United Nations in two out of the past three years has said is the best nation in the world in which to live? It is not Japan. It is not the United Kingdom. It is not France. It is not Germany. It is not the United States. It is Canada.
Members opposite would have the Canadian public believe that we have gone downhill from the days when we were not number one, when we were actually number six of the G-7. Those were the days of the Tory administration to which the Reform Party would love to return.
In analysing all of these promises and all of the promises of the Government of Canada, we should never forget and the Canadian public should never forget that we are dealing in this House with a difference in philosophy. It is a great difference in philosophy.
They would have the banks own our highways and our airports. They come out and say it in this document, which I will not show you, Mr. Speaker, because that is against the rules. On page 14 they say that given our current fiscal climate governments are ill equipped to spend money on infrastructure. And they say Canada should privatize airports and aviation. Privatize it, not pass it over to management boards. They say we should allow the private sector companies to build and maintain roads and bridges. Imagine. What a change of philosophy that is.
That carries through in practically every discussion we have had in this Chamber, including those on taxes. Which party was it in this Chamber that stood up and demanded greater tax cuts for American companies that were operating in Canada? It was the Reform Party of Canada. Somehow the Reform influenced the Tories and the Bloc because the Bloc did the same thing.
Bloc members claimed their excuse was that they had many friends living in the United States. That is what they said. The Bloc members stood in this Chamber, the official opposition of this House of Commons which is supposed to represent the commoners, the ordinary people of Canada, stood in this House and agreed with the Reform Party.
They demanded a 50 per cent cut on all taxes, on all the moneys that go back across the border into the United States, on all the interest made by foreign banks that goes back to the United States. They demanded that tax credits be given to people who have relatives in universities in the United States of America. Not only that, but they demanded that tax credits be given if per chance one happened to be subjected to the death tax in the United States, that we call the inheritance tax in Canada, and if a person owned over $600,000 of property in the United States.
The Reform Party and the Bloc members stood in this Chamber and demanded more. Why? Because it is a matter of philosophy with the Reform Party. It is a matter of philosophy with the Tories. And it is a matter that the Bloc said they have friends who have lots of money in the United States.
What we have here is this great difference in philosophy. On the one hand political figures are in favour of what? In favour of the very rich. That is why this party, the government leads the polls today because Canadians are asking: "What other choice is there? Where do we go? Why would we vote for a party that would want the banks to own our highways, our airports, our bridges and which would want to throw our medicare system down the stream?" Not only that, but they have the gall to put it in black and white in their policy statement for distribution to the people of Canada.
We can understand why they are all frustrated. They are trying to change their policies. Their leader now has a new policy statement-
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
There is only one country left in the G-7 and that is Canada.
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Is it the United States?
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Is it Germany?
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Is it the United Kingdom?
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Is it France?
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Is it Italy?
Committee Of The Whole October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say after listening to the hon. members opposite concerning promises.
It is a funny thing that the Reform and the Tories in this House do not talk about the promises they have made. Perhaps it is because if they talked about the promises they made in the budget they presented and in their policy statements, nobody would vote for them.
The hon. member a few moments ago was talking about infrastructure, about airports. They promised to pass all the airports in Canada to private enterprise. Imagine going into an airport anywhere in Canada and having a policy of the money bags, the multimillionaires in Canada owning all the airports. That is the policy of that opposition party.
Not only that, but they make a very big point of it in their promises. It is all there in black and white. The hon. member obviously has not read it lately. If he wants to hear the exact words, I can read it for him.
If someone picked up the policy papers of the Reform Party and the Tories, what would they see as far as infrastructure and highways are concerned? They would see that party is suggesting that the Trans-Labrador Highway be built by private individuals. Then in order to get their money back, toll gates would be placed on those highways. How else could they get their money back?
Imagine people driving along a highway, the Alaska highway or the new highway going up to Labrador, and having to pay for the highway and the bridges and then a profit over and above that for all time due to multi-multi-multimillionaires and the big banks in this country. That is the promise being made by the Reform Party of Canada and the Tories.
Even worse than that, let us get to the real promise they have made as far as ordinary Canadians are concerned. It involves medicare. Let us read the promise. They have been talking about promises of the government, this great administration. Now let us read from their budget.
It should not take me very long to find it. It is on page 24: "The public may in time agree that although access to a broad range of basic health care should be guaranteed to everyone, the original medicare model in which everyone received everything health care professionals wished to deliver is not only intolerably expensive, it is undesirable for other reasons". Awful. Just imagine.
What about that promise? It would mean one health care system for the rich in Canada and another health care system for the poor in Canada. They do not even hide it. They even put it in their policy book. The Tories have done the same thing.
I know the Speaker would rule me out of order if I used a prop. I am not supposed to do that. Anyway, it is called the taxpayers budget. It is the Reform Party's plan to balance the federal budget.
Let us understand this completely as far as the promises are concerned. Let us understand the Liberal promises versus the promises of the Tories and the Reform Party of Canada. It is no
wonder they are so low in the polls. It is no wonder the government remains so high in the polls.
Hon. members opposite keep referring to our great deficit problem. What country are they talking about? The recent analyses have not been done in Canada by the chambers of commerce or by any Canadian economists. Look at the great analyses on the economic performance of the Government of Canada in the past three years. What do they say?
The OECD is made up of 28 nations. Its head office in Paris, France. Its job is to analyse the economies of the countries of the world. What does the OECD say about the great G-7? Which country is it that leads the G-7? Is it Japan?
The Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act October 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary, the member of Parliament for Don Valley West, and the former parliamentary secretary, the MP for Parkdale-High Park.
I suppose the Reform Party does not really understand exactly what the hon. member was talking about. I wanted to point out that the hon. member for Don Valley West was referring to the great business relationships that many Canadians have with Cuba.
I want to put on the record that when Canada was trying to manage its ocean resources through the United Nations, an organization called the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization was
formed. It was Cuba that joined with Canada. Cuba joined and the United States refused.
Canada had a crisis in its fishery on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, which we all know about. An organization was formed made up of Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the European Community, every nation, but the United States refused to participate.
Cuba joined when Canada wanted to meet its responsibilities for conservation and each one of these times business relationships were struck up. When Canada wanted the scientific information from the oceans, the United States of America refused. Cuba is the only country on this side of the Atlantic where we have observers aboard all of its vessels. Just imagine, in international waters. Cuba volunteered and said it would put up the money for that scientific evaluation. The list goes on.
With the United Nations today there is a requirement that Canada must form an organization of all of the nations which exploit the ocean resources off the east coast of Canada in order to manage the resource. There are meetings every year in Halifax, Nova Scotia. What happened? The United States refused to belong. Cuba said yes and sends its representatives.
That is what the hon. member is talking about. It is all of these relationships that have been built up between companies, businesses and the scientific community. All of a sudden in my riding Cubana lands at Gander airport. Everybody who has developed a relationship with Cuba-which the Reform Party does not understand anything about-is now under the gun under the Helms-Burton legislation. That is what the hon. member is talking about. Perhaps he could further refer to his opinions regarding this matter.