Ian McClelland

[Labour, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly hope that Mr. Hope's report does bring hope to the situation.

In 1950, 1966, 1973 and 1987 the federal government introduced back to work legislation within days of a railway strike and had to appoint an arbitrator. Last year a grain handler strike went through the same process.

Recognizing the devastation and the consequences of another strike to industry in Canada, now that the minister expects to receive this-

[Labour, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Last April the minister appointed Paul Fraser to report on current labour issues in the rail sector affecting CN, CP and Via Rail. This report has been pushed back a number of times now.

Where is the report and why has it not been able to prevent what appears to be an inevitable strike?

[Financial Administration Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the member opposite representing the government and the member representing the Bloc who just finished speaking to the bill.

The intent of the private member's bill is to bring more financial accountability to crown corporations. These are not public corporations; they are crown corporations. It is kind of a hybrid. It is not as though they are using their own money; they are using our money.

How is it that a member of Parliament representing the people of the country, especially the member for Kingston and the Islands, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, could possibly say that he cannot support the bill as it is written? What would it take for the government to support the bill?

Perhaps the answer is not to support the bill. Perhaps it would be to privatize it. Mr. Speaker, if this were your money or my money, or the money involved was not public money but personal money out of the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, would we be looking at our responsibilities as members of Parliament a bit differently?

A crown corporation has the benefit of being supported by public funds. Yet it does not have the downside of having to worry about whether it is going to get funds to manage its daily affairs from the product of its work. When things go wrong in these crown corporations, when they are not efficiently managed, when they do not have a business plan, do they go to their shareholders who are individuals that put up the money? No. They come running to the Government of Canada with their hands out and say: "Top it up".

The problem is that our country is going into the hole at the rate of $110 million a day. What do we have to do to get it to sink into the heads of members opposite that they should start by doing the little things right and eventually, if they do enough of the little things right, the big things will turn out right? A little thing is to support the bill which calls for more accountability in a mere five crown corporations.

In order to get some unanimity in the House, the mover of the bill deliberately left out some of the more contentious crown corporations such as the CBC. If we in the House were to reduce the budget of the CBC by about 50 per cent tomorrow, which would mean that we could spend lots of money on cancer research, lots of money on AIDS research or not borrow money to put more of our children to work, I guarantee it would focus the attention of the CBC on what it really should be doing, what we can afford and what we cannot afford. However the mover of the motion did not include that because it is a very contentious issue.

What do we have here? We have the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, the International Development Research Centre, the Canadian Wheat Board and the National Arts Centre.

What, the National Arts Centre? How did the National Arts Centre creep into this? How on earth did that become a crown corporation? Could it be that it is located in Ottawa and it is one more thing for the people of Canada to subsidize?

It would be an interesting exercise to go to the rest of the arts centres in the country to find out whether they are crown corporations and whether they have their arms in the pockets of Canadians from coast to coast. Somehow I doubt it.

What is it about being in Ottawa that gives people the thought that money is something that sort of grows on trees or that if it is public money it is not accountable for?

Anybody who has been in business knows that the discipline of an audit is not a negative thing or a bad thing. The discipline of an audit will make any company work better. That is why these crown corporations should be saying: "Wait a minute. We want to be overseen. We recognize the fact that we are dealing with public money".

Why should they not want to be involved? Is it because they are not efficient? Is it because they can run like little fiefdoms and do whatever they want any way they want to? Is it because the Canadian Wheat Board is not perhaps so much a wheat board but a co-op? Is it because the Canada Council is a collection of people who are self-interested, get public money and dole public money out to whoever they think should have it?

I am not suggesting for a moment that the Canada Council and the people involved in the Canada Council are doing so somehow maliciously. I am sure they are doing everything that they are doing with their hearts in the right place. However it is not their money; it is our money. Why should we not oversee every nickel they spend?

The Canadian Film Development Corporation has been the subject of some debate in the House in past months. There are people who think it is doing a good job and there are people who think it is not doing such a good job. There are people who say we have to support it because it is Canadian culture. I think most of us like to go to a movie every once in a while to see a movie that speaks about us, to see something familiar. There might be some granting to the Canadian Film Corporation that pays off; it might even make some money from time to time.

It would be interesting if they used their own money and had to compete in a world market on the quality of their product and rather than saying that we have this domestic market which has the tariff wall surrounding it, we are going to make movies that everybody in the world is going to clamour to see because of the quality of the story, the quality of the acting, the quality of the distribution?

That is what we should be looking for in our Canada. We can compete with the best in the world in anything, in business, in arts, in film development. If we are going to have crown corporations that have the purview of doling out public money for private purposes, certainly to oversee over these crown corporations is common sense.

I would like to conclude my few moments of discussing this bill, because it is a votable bill, by once again appealing to my hon. colleagues to reconsider the initial response not to support this bill.

The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt brought this bill to the House with the express intent of ensuring that it was innocuous enough that it could find support on the Liberal benches and with the Bloc as well as a testimony to the fact that on some things, albeit a minor start, the members of Parliament in this House assembled can come together for the right reasons and do the right thing.

It is a tragedy that every time a member gets up to speak, to move a motion or to do something in this House, it is always done on an adversarial position. It need not be that way. Common sense is common sense, whether it originates on the Liberal benches, on the Bloc benches or on the Reform benches.

When we have an opportunity in this House to come together in unity to do the right thing for the right reasons which could have the effect of using taxpayers' money more efficiently, we should seize the opportunity, seize the moment and do the right thing for the right reasons.

[Justice, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. This morning I had the pleasure of introducing a private member's bill to the House which would have the effect of amending the Criminal Code to make dangerous intoxication a criminal offence. This would prevent people from hiding behind the charter of rights and freedoms to get away from their own responsibility for offences committed while drunk.

Will the minister take this bill, make it a government bill and try to get all-party support for this very important consideration that all Canadians hold together? Most people in Canada cannot understand why this loophole exists.

[Criminal Code, February 16th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-303, an act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous intoxication).

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this bill. I know other members in the House were working on similar bills. The motivation behind the bill is to remove the ability of persons to hold themselves harmless from responsibility for self-induced intoxication.

As members know, recently the Supreme Court held that persons could be held harmless from the result of their own actions because of self-induced intoxication. This goes against the grain of all thinking Canadians and common sense.

This bill, which I would ask all members in the House to support, would create a separate offence. The offence of being criminally intoxicated would ensure that Canadians are held personally responsible for the results of their actions. They cannot hide behind the charter of rights and freedoms to escape responsibility for what they have done. This would prevent violence to others who are innocent.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague from the Bloc hit upon quite a salient point. We are facing yet again this question of how we are going to survive as a nation united with Quebec as a part of Canada.

The Bloc brings forward the notion that what is it about the federation of Canada financially, is this country so well managed that we could not manage on our own just as well? I guess it does that because of the mess we are in and that argument has some weight. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most Canadians, we would all be much worse off, Canada and Quebec, in the event of a separation. That very question is hurting us today in interest rates.

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is such a delight to respond to the hon. member opposite as he whips his rose coloured glasses from his nose.

You do not have to be a brain surgeon to figure that if you have been running up debts, you can live like a king if you are doing it on someone else's money. The problem is the bank is about to cut off our Visa card. Our Visa card, American Express, Mastercard and our bank line are as high as they will go. We opened up a home equity line of credit which we are using and still we cannot pay our bills. We are going further into the hole every day. That, sir, is the problem.

Step number one in solving a problem is that you must deal with things as they are, not as you would wish them to be. This Pollyanna wishing and saying that the United Nations says we are number three in the world, why are we not number two or number one in the world? We are borrowing it. We are going down the hole. Our grandchildren and our children will be paying off debts that our generation and the generation that preceded us ran up. And these people are saying: "Everything is fine in the world". It is insane.

Let me read from The Wall Street Journal about this number one nation in the world. I am quoting Mr. Alan Reynolds in The Wall Street Journal of Friday, October 14:

The drop in the Canadian dollar, 20 per cent since 1991, is largely caused by the uncompetitive tax climate for both labour and capital. World investors do not like to invest in countries with rising tax rates.

The article goes on:

The weak currency means Canadians, and the Canadian government, have less buying power in the world. When the Canadian dollar falls, the government needs more Canadian dollars to make the interest payments on its large foreign debt. The increased tax rates after 1989 have thus increased the spending side of the government's budget by sinking the currency and raising interest rates, as well as shrinking real revenues.

Now this is not the party opposite. This is a world renowned, respected economist from the Hudson Institute.

These are the kinds of comments, the kinds of articles that affect our interest rate on the 30 per cent of the foreign debt owned by other countries. Every time we make an interest payment on that foreign debt we are putting German, Japanese, and American people to work.

Why do you think our interest rates are five points higher than the American interest rates? Is it because we are such great money managers? Why do you think our unemployment rate is 3 or 4 per cent higher than the American unemployment rate, yet our economies have matched each other for 40 years? Is it because such masterful people have been running our economy, the Liberals, the Conservatives, and again the Liberals?

In 1984 the Conservatives were elected with a mandate to get our country's finances under control. They did not. They blew it. There are two Conservatives in this House today. Count them. The Liberals have the same opportunity today to address the number one problem. If they do not do it there will be two of them left after the next election, maybe. Canadians are sick and tired of this Pollyanna attitude to what is really hurting our country.

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, for the benefit of those watching on television I would like to read the Bloc motion once again. It is non-votable and it reads as follows:

That this House call upon the government in its next budget to avoid any tax increases targeting low and middle income taxpayers and to consider instead trimming the fat from the government, eliminating tax expenditures which primarily benefit large corporations and wealthy Canadians and collecting on unpaid tax debts owed to the federal government.

How do we go about disagreeing with that? We cannot. It is like motherhood and apple pie. Furthermore, it makes sense. Why should we not be doing the things that the Bloc suggests? As a matter of fact, we are doing most of them now.

Our party agrees 100 per cent with the notion that we should avoid any tax increases targeting low and middle income taxpayers. We are very adamant in saying that we should not have any new taxes on anybody for any reason, period; not on people, not on businesses, not on anyone for any reason, not direct and not indirect. The reason for this is we have to establish the political will to do what has to be done.

Earlier in questions and comments I asked the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to tell me what in his opinion was the most important single thing that needed to be done, what was the factor above all other factors that would ensure success in eliminating the deficit and getting our country's finances in order. For those watching and for those in the House it is no surprise that we did not get an answer to that question. I asked the question specifically because I wanted to know whether the member opposite really had a sense of what had to be done. We did not get an answer to the question. I assumed that the member opposite did not know what that ingredient was.

I am going to give him the answer. I am going to let him and other members opposite know what the single ingredient is which must be there. Without that ingredient there will not be success. It cannot happen. That single ingredient is political will. Members opposite control the purse strings. They have their feet on the pedals and their hands on the wheel that steers our nation. We in opposition can influence but we do not make the final decision. It is the government opposite that makes the final decision. Unless the government opposite has the political will to do what has to be done it simply will not be achieved.

How does it go about getting this political will? What does it take? That is why it is so important that the government not look for tax fairness at this time. Tax fairness is not the issue. Spending is the issue.

If we allow ourselves as a Parliament to wriggle off the hook instead of saying to ourselves our problem is that spending is out of control, instead of being absolutely committed and convinced of this and start burrowing around looking for little ways that we can pick up a few bucks here and a few bucks there, we will very quickly lose the political will to do what has to be done, reduce spending.

Programs have to go. If we do not do it we absolutely will not achieve the goal that has to be achieved. Our nation is quickly getting behind the power curve financially.

For those present who do not understand what the power curve means, getting behind the power curve is an aviation term. What that means is that if a person is flying along and there is a mountain ahead and that person pulls the nose of the aircraft up, they will have to increase power so that they can climb up over that mountain. If there is not enough power in that aircraft to keep the nose up and to keep flying, they will very quickly lose speed, lose control, spin, crash and burn.

Our nation is in an aircraft and there is a mountain of debt ahead of us. That mountain of debt is growing rapidly through the magic of compound interest which is people's greatest enemy when they owe money and their greatest friend when they do not owe money.

Here we are hurdling along in the sky. This mountain of debt is in front of us and we have to keep pulling our nose up. As we pull our nose up, which is increased taxes, we are losing power.

There is the point when our economy has lost so much power because we have to keep increasing the taxes so that we can get over the mountain we simply will not be able to do it. That is why the political will to get our spending under control is of critical importance.

That is not to say that there are not elements of our taxation policy which should not be corrected. That is not to say that my colleague and friend from St. Hyacinth-Bagot is not absolutely correct in saying that in our tax life you have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to fill in your tax form.

Have members ever tried to make money in this country? People pay taxes on making money. People pay taxes on spending money. Every time we turn around there is a disincentive to be productive in our economy. There is an incentive to be non-productive.

We have to get those changed. We have to simplify our tax regime in this country. As a matter of fact our hon. colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has been working diligently for years to introduce the single tax in Canada.

Our party is 100 per cent supportive of that but we have to set priorities. Right now our nation and all Canadians are in a lifeboat. We have already hit the iceberg. The Titanic is going down and we are in this lifeboat. There are holes in the lifeboat and what are we doing? We are talking about who should be the captain and what colour we should paint it.

We better get some priorities together. We better be plugging the holes in the lifeboat and bailing because if we do not, we are going down, and we are going down together.

It does not matter if one is bankrupt in French or English. One is bankrupt. It does not matter if one is bankrupt and cannot afford to buy a gun. Does it matter if one has to register it? Does it matter if one is gay or straight? One is bankrupt.

Our priority is to get our nation's finances in order. That is what we have to do. Once we have done that, this Parliament should rightly put its interests in all the other thousands of things that drag us away from where we should have our noses focused, one of which is on government spending.

We need as a Parliament to get our noses on the ground, to get our butts in the air and work on priority number one, that which is most important above all other things, to get the political will so that we can make the tough decisions. We can look our fellow Canadians in the eyes and say we have made the first sacrifice ourselves. We have done away with this outrageous pension plan that acts like a magnet for all the ire of everybody in the country.

When they look at that and say: "How can these people who are elected to lead us write laws that protect them from the very mismanagement they have put on to our country in the first place? How is it that people can spend 20 years here and get a pension that allows them to live so they do not ever have to worry about the consequences of their mismanagement of our economy?"

We have to restore the bonds of trust between the elected and the electors. We have to put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals. Above all, we must get our nation's finances in order and we must have the political will to make the very tough decisions necessary.

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I wish I was as confident about anything as the hon. member opposite seems to be about everything, especially since it was the party opposite that was the father, the parents and the grandparents of the present dilemma our country faces today.

The member opposite is very quick to criticize opposition parties. However it does not seem to sink into members opposite that there is a good deal of distrust in the nation of the Liberal government, the parents of the dilemma that our country is in today, the very people who got us into this mess. A lot of people perhaps mistrust the fact that the Liberals present themselves as the people who have seen the error of their ways and are now going to be the ones who will lead us out of this dilemma and into the promised land. A lot of people in Canada have a healthy degree of scepticism about the ability of the Liberals to come through and do what they acknowledge must be done.

I have a question for the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine whom I know to be earnest and hardworking. I honestly believe he speaks with conviction. What in his opinion is the single most important ingredient in getting our nation's finances back on track? What is the single ingredient on which everything else hinges?

[Gun Control, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in absolute fidelity to the best wishes of my constituents.

I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. It is a most serious question because we are facing a most serious debt crisis in the country.

Will the minister, before universal registration of long guns is implemented, bring before the House the quantitative information that will attest to the veracity of his decision to register all long guns before it is implemented?