Eugène Bellemare

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

My remarks are about the budget and I am just giving my impressions of our discussions on the subject.

The Reform Party is not being any more objective about the bill. You heard the last speaker from the Reform Party say that our youth program was a waste of money and that instead we should ask our young people not to accept jobs but rather to become politically active by writing to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Finance and others, which I find totally ludicrous.

I think that our bill is a very sound piece of legislation. We have a good budget that addresses two major problems. First, it addresses the national debt and deficit issues. The Reform Party would like us to shut down the government and take what little bit of money we have left to pay off the debt.

If we did that, we would not be able to provide services and no one could pay a lot of taxes. The role of a government is to provide services to the community; it is not a private industry. Therefore, it has to address the debt problem and cut some activities, some programs. It must also create jobs, and we can see that the Liberal government is creating an atmosphere that gives hope to everybody across the country. What was lacking these last couple of years was hope; people were totally desperate. Young people, students, university graduates had become totally desperate for they had lost every hope of finding a job.

We are now changing this attitude, changing this climate in Canada, so that graduates and even drop-outs can find a job. The youth program is in the works. I find that very encouraging and very positive. There is something positive after all. There are some budget items that I personally oppose. The budget is not 100 per cent perfect. I would give it a mark of 99 per cent, perhaps, or of 98 per cent, at times, when I get up in the morning.

I deplore the fact that the government has put a wage freeze on public servants, that the same wages that have been frozen for three years will be frozen for two more years. I truly deplore it. I also deplore the fact that employees will not be able to get pay increments. I told the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that I deplored the fact that public servants would get no wage increases for two more years.

I appreciated the fact that both ministers promised me that if senior management could find a way to further reduce government expenditures, this two-year period could be brought down to only one year perhaps, or even less. I truly hope so.

Although there is certainly no such thing as a perfect budget or a perfect piece of legislation, contrary to what the members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Reform Party suggest, we are not going backwards. We are not taking two steps back, two steps forward, one step to the side and then one more step back. We are trying to solve problems, the problem with the economy of the whole country. Jobs have to be created. Temporary jobs, yes, and permanent jobs too, but for that we have to create a positive climate where people in the private sector can have confidence in the economy, take risks and further develop their businesses.

It is not with the solution suggested by the Reform Party, that is closing down government, stopping all operations and making everybody jobless, that we will create a suitable climate for developing this country. And we will surely not do it by following the example of the Bloc Quebecois, with their strange

way of twisting everything towards their own goal, to destroy this country. That, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept.

I will be pleased to vote for this legislation. It is not perfect, but I would surely give it a mark of at least 98 per cent.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the privilege of speaking on the implementation of the budget that was presented for 1994.

First I would like to comment on the speech made by the last speaker from the Bloc Quebecois, whose specialty is the Shawinigan Waltz. I do not know if the hon. member is an expert dancer, but I can tell you, from watching him and his colleagues from the Bloc and from the Reform Party, that all opposition members are pretty light on their feet.

The member from the Bloc accused members of the government of being fascists and of creating mass injustice. He also said that all Liberal members should be ashamed. Let me tell him that the members who should be ashamed are those who refuse to pledge allegiance to Canada and who are willing to accept a salary to come to Ottawa with the intention of tearing our country apart. I am telling you, members of the Bloc, that you should be ashamed.

We are talking about finances, about money, but all you want to do is laugh at the Bank of Montreal or at credit unions.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I found absolutely dreadful the speech of the Reform Party member attacking one of our great institutions, the CBC, Radio-Canada in French. Being unilingual, he only mentioned the CBC and not Radio-Canada, but I imagine he meant both. I have a question for him.

Does the member sincerely agree that we must have a united Canada, coast to coast, from North to South and East to West, a bilingual Canada with two official languages, a united country where the Canadian culture can progress and where we can create jobs or does he believe the only important thing for the CBC and Radio-Canada is the bottom line? Does he not see in the CBC and Radio-Canada a human asset, a window on the Canadian nation?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Since the microphone used by the hon. member for Lévis was turned off, we missed part of his speech. I wonder whether he could repeat the missing part.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North has made an interesting speech based on the principle of public representation, arguing that the people should be able to make representations on how the new federal ridings would be redistributed.

I think this is an excellent point and it would be great if all the various communities within a riding were homogenous instead of having totally divergent interests as is often the case at present.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary North the following question. You can see the size of this chamber. A few years ago, ten, fifty, a hundred years ago, there certainly were not 295 members sitting here. Not so long ago, there were about 250. There used to be 200 and, before that, perhaps 150. Today, we are 295 and we are about to add another six, at a cost of approximately $9 million, $10 million or $12 million.

So, I can see two problems. One is that, at this rate, there will come a point, in 2050 or 2090, where this chamber will no longer be large enough to hold all the new members. Walls will have to be moved back to make room for the extra seats that will have to be made. If you look to the south, in the United States, they have only 100 senators for a total population of about 250 million.

My riding is huge. It is currently the fourth largest of all urban and rural ridings in Canada, and I am not complaining. I am rather proud of it. I think that there is a way, when you how, to represent your riding well and not lose touch with the community.

I am sure that the hon. member has noticed that in Prince Edward Island, they have ridings-and I do not mean any disrespect; I am merely stating a fact-which are no larger than certain neighbourhoods in cities like Calgary or here, in the Ottawa area. They have four members of Parliament representing 135,000 people, and I do mean people as opposed to voters. There are probably no more than 20,000 to 25,000 voters in some of these ridings, and even that is generous. Now, there is a problem there, but the province and its right to be represented have to be respected. This is a case where we would have to refer to the Constitution.

For those of us from other parts of the country where there are no such guarantees, is this room not getting a little crowded? And have our national debt and public debt not grown so much that we should act to curb the growth of the number of elected members?

[Party Fundraising, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I can see that some of my colleagues believe that my words were unacceptable and, after due consideration, I think that some hon. members may have found what I said to be insulting. Therefore, I want to withdraw the words "traitor", "treason" and "betrayal", and I do so unequivocally.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, could the Chair perhaps take the dictionary and read out the definition of betrayal, and then-

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting that the member of the Bloc Quebecois has the right to say that the members of the Liberal Party have betrayed Canadian society, but that I, on the other hand, do not have the right to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that anyone who spies, for example-

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois on his reading the report of the Auditor General, particularly as regards the ministers' expenses. I sat for five years on the Committee of Public Accounts, and I know what he is talking about. But I am not sure he does. I think he forgot to mention that the Prime Minister and the Auditor General have undertaken a study on travel by ministers.

The Bloc Quebecois member referred in jest to the Challenger. Does the hon. member know where the Challengers are made? Should we stop manufacturing Challengers? What other means of transportation should the ministers use?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted something to this effect: "Some people-I do not know exactly to whom he was referring-said that the Liberal government betrayed them". I found such a comment rather strange, coming from the Bloc Quebecois, which, as a separatist party, is a traitor to this country, in my opinion.

[Oath Of Allegiance, March 18th, 1994]

Last Monday, I presented my bill requiring all members elected to the House of Commons to swear allegiance to Canada and the Constitution.

All Bloc Quebecois members refused the unanimous consent needed to hold a vote.

What are Bloc Quebecois members afraid of? What are they doing in the Parliament of Canada if they refuse to swear to look after the interests of all, repeat all, Canadian citizens?