Ian McClelland

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments by the hon. member from the Bloc about a potential trade relationship between Canada and Quebec as a result of a Quebec separation.

The hon. member has the perfect right to ask these questions even in a hypothetical situation in this Parliament. It is part of the longstanding plan to make what is unacceptable acceptable. If they talk about it long enough they will just wear us down and we will accept it as fact.

However, I would like to pose to my colleague the following scenario. Other Bloc speakers have addressed the importance of supply managed industries, particularly the dairy industry, to Quebec. As a matter of fact, with 25 per cent of the population Quebec industrial milk supplies almost 50 per cent of Canada's total needs.

In a sovereign Quebec competing on a worldwide basis for these fundamental products, what does my colleague think would happen to that quota in the rest of Canada? Does my hon. colleague think for one moment that consumers in the rest of the country would continue to pay a premium price for supply managed or priced fixed products?

Supply management is a euphemism depending upon whether you benefit from it or pay a premium for it. If you benefit from supply management it is great. If you happen to be a consumer it is price fixing. Supply management and price fixing depend upon which side of the equation you are on.

Sooner or later Quebec will not have the benefit of supply managed or price protected industries. Quebec will have to compete on a worldwide basis. Would the hon. member please respond to the core question. With a sovereign and separate Quebec does he think that the rest of the country will continue to buy Quebec products at a premium price?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

Then it becomes experience. We put it behind us and we go on from there. That is the very least we in this Parliament and Canadians in general should expect from a minister of the crown.

I would like to speak to the issue of multiculturalism and the department of heritage. Much has been said in recent times about the value of multiculturalism in Canada. We are a much stronger, much finer, much more varied and rich nation because of our multicultural heritage, because by and large people get along with each other. We respect each other for our differences.

Let me give a personal indication of what is so wonderful about our country. Perhaps it is just serendipitous that this happened to me this morning. I was walking to the House and I stopped at the Apollo Restaurant on Bank Street for breakfast. I sat down. I did not know a soul there. I was reading the paper and having breakfast. The people next to me were speaking to each other in Greek and in English. There would be four or five words in Greek, four or five words in English, a sentence in Greek and then a sentence in English. I was sitting there thinking it was marvellous that they could go back and forth in these two languages. This is part of our common culture.

I started chatting with them and it came out in conversation that the reason these two people were speaking in English and Greek was because they noticed that when I ordered I spoke in English and they assumed that I could not speak Greek. They did not want me to feel out of place or that they were saying something I should not know or whatever. They were trying to make me feel comfortable in the fact that I could not speak Greek.

Here we were having breakfast and talking about how wonderful it is that we have this multilingual heritage in our country and that we have it because we want it. We have it because it springs indigenously from the hearts of the people to whom it belongs. It is not something that is force fed or cultivated by the government.

As this debate unfolds, we need to draw a distinction between multiculturalism that springs naturally from the fact that our nation is built up of people all over the world and government multiculturalism that is force fed to us in order to curry favour with multi-ethnic groups. It is a very important distinction.

Therefore I would like to move:

That we add after the words Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:

"and the standing committee report back to the House no later than June 23, 1995".

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

The thing that concerns me most is that our country has suffered under nine years of almost visceral dislike and hate for the Tories who were displaced by most here in the Chamber today. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. They were dumped by the electorate and we were elected because the Canadian people lost their trust in the people who were governing them. They felt that the people who were in power were more interested in protecting their friends, hubris, getting rich, looking after their own interests than they were in looking after the interests of the ordinary people, the people who pay the freight $10 at a time.

The consequence is that we were elected to the House. We have a profound responsibility. Our country is going into a time of distemper never before seen in this land. We have in the loyal opposition a party dedicated to breaking up the country. We have a third party, all but one of whom are absolute rookies. We have the Liberal Party in power, the vast majority of whom are absolute rookies. We have to use the opportunity and not squander it. We have to use it to make some very fundamental changes in the way our country is governed and the way we inter-relate one with another and the way we get things done.

Everything ministers do is based on a foundation of trust. If that foundation of trust between the electorate, the Canadian citizenry, and Parliament, those elected to lead, is broken then we lose our reason to be here. We have lost the moral authority to provide leadership to a country desperately in need of leadership.

That is the reason I asked to speak in the debate. It is not that I have an axe to grind with the hon. minister opposite. I do not in any respect. In my view this was an honest mistake made by a rookie, just as I am a rookie. When one makes a mistake it is an opportunity to learn. Rather than stonewalling, rather than saying: "Hey, I did all right. I did the right thing. You have it all wrong". He should have the courage to come to the table and say: "Look, I made a mistake. I have learned from it and it will not happen again". It should be a caution to all of us.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

My hon. colleague tells me I am no longer a humble backbencher. I am a humble frontbencher in a third party very close to the door.

The difference is that a minister of the crown has a very different fiduciary responsibility than a humble backbencher of any party. This is the gist of the problem we have facing us today.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when I was asked if I would like to say a few words I was of two minds. This being a debate on heritage it does bring in the minister of heritage. That brings in the letter in the press today in which the minister of heritage, I think quite innocently, used his office or wrote a letter in support of a constituent asking for the support of a constituent in an application before the CRTC.

As I say, I was of two minds just how I would approach the matter because a minister of the government is still a member representing constituents. Therefore how do you balance your responsibilities as a member of Parliament representing your constituents and as a minister of the crown? What would be the fiduciary responsibilities implied in both?

My concern was further complicated because I was asked just after the election when we were all rookies, including the minister opposite, to write a letter in support of an application for a television station licence in my constituency. I did. I wrote a letter to the CRTC and asked that it look favourably upon an application. I thought about it for a while and I sent another letter in rescinding the first letter because I recognized that I did not have knowledge on either side of the issue. We hire people at the CRTC to make these decisions. These decisions should be made by the people who are being paid and who have the ability to make the decision based on fact.

Additionally other people have asked for my support in establishing or getting a licence for radio broadcasting. I wrote in support of that because in my capacity as a member of Parliament I should have the obligation to support members of my constituency and Canadians in general who come to me for help. I use my wisdom and I use my office after deciding the merits of that case.

The difference of course is that I am a humble backbencher in the third party. The minister-

[Bankruptcy Act, October 25th, 1994]

Are you talking about somebody working on a loading dock?

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the dissertation of my colleague from Edmonton East. It was interesting in so far as it gave us a somewhat biased appraisal of the accomplishments of the Liberal Party, probably since the beginning of time, but we will suggest it was perhaps from the beginning of this Parliament. However it had absolutely nothing to do with the premise being debated today.

What is the government doing? When is it going to balance the budget? That is the essence of the question. When will the Liberal government get at it? The Liberal government was in opposition for nine years. It has been in government now for one year. Certainly it is important to get at solving the real problems. The time to do it is at hand.

I have a question for the member. One suggestion that has been brought forward in the House on numerous occasions to make our tax system fairer, more equitable and far more responsive to the needs of Canadian business and individuals is the notion of a flat tax.

Would the member opposite give the House the benefit of her impression of the values or the negative aspects of a flat tax and what it would do to help move the government along to where it should be going?

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to comment on the dissertation of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood this afternoon. I want to acknowledge the fact that this hon. member does have a very real interest in the debate today. It is not just a matter of his having to be here to speak about it. I am sure the hon. member is here because he wants to be here and he is doing what is in his heart to do.

During his dissertation the hon. member mentioned that when a company takes over a business it had better take its time to find out what is going on before doing anything. It is a good idea, if you can afford it. However it would seem to me in my experience that before a business decides to take over another business, those taking over the business have a pretty good idea of why they are doing it and what they intend to do.

The analogy of course is that this government in getting ready to accept power had nine years in the wilderness. It has had one year in power and what has it accomplished? I would suggest precious little. I am afraid I have to chalk up one more member of the Liberal olympic low hurdle team. If you make the hurdle low enough, anyone can stumble over it.

I ask the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood should all social programs in Canada be based on want or need?

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Liberals have one more member of their olympic low hurdles team thinking that 3 per cent is just fine.

I listened with great interest to most of the dissertation of the hon. member for St. Paul's. A good deal of what he said about what the legitimate role of government should really be would find favour on all sides of the House as we are searching around now with yet another study to find out what the legitimate role of government should really be.

The reality was however that it was 10 minutes of platitudes disavowing 35 years of Liberal history. That is the route. That is the reality. It was 10 minutes of platitudes disavowing 35 years of Liberal mismanagement of the economy that got us into this mess.

My question to the hon. member for St. Paul's is this. After nine years in opposition, one year in government, is it not time that the government came out with specific responses to specific problems rather than yet another consultation? Does the hon. member opposite consider it the legitimate role of government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace? This is a very simple question. Is it the legitimate role of government to pick winners and losers?

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Liberal road kill.