Elwin Hermanson

[Job Creation, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the point we are trying to get across is that a little cutting of regional development grants is not the answer. We need to scrap the whole concept because it is not working.

Let me illustrate with another example. This is out west and not in Quebec. A perfect example is the almost $4 million loaned to Myrias Research Corporation by Western Diversification to an Edmonton group in 1990. The final loan of more than $500,000 was made just two weeks before the company went into receivership, creating no jobs. Has the minister learned from the past administration that regional development is a huge waste of tax dollars and will he take steps to eliminate all federal regional development spending from our unbalanced budget?

[Job Creation, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister recognizes some of these cancers but one cancer he did not mention was funding for regional development.

Last week Hyundai announced that its assembly plant in Bromont, Quebec, would remain closed indefinitely. This is a perfect example of a regional development project gone bad.

Does the minister agree that the most effective and efficient way his government can create jobs is to stop influencing business decisions with short term public subsidies and instead encourage the private sector to get Canada back to work by getting public sector spending under control?

[Job Creation, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who again today reiterated his government's first priority is job creation. It is becoming increasingly clear to Canadians that the government does not have any coherent strategy for the creation of sustainable jobs.

Past experience proves that government financed projects usually fail on two accounts. First, they do not create sustainable jobs and, second, they rob millions of tax dollars that could be used to prepare workers wishing to enter the new economy or could be used to assist the most vulnerable members of our society.

When will the Prime Minister abandon his contradictory approach to job creation to increase spending on one hand and decrease spending on the other? When will he commit his government to reduce overall public spending so that taxes can be cut and the private sector can create real jobs for 1.6 million Canadians?

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the time is short and I will not be able to give the entire load that I intended to deliver to the House on this occasion in speaking in support of our motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

I had intended to relate to this House the effect that I felt the federal government's budget would have on the agricultural industry. Perhaps when another day provides the opportunity I will be able to give this presentation in a little bit more detail.

I would like to make a few points in the short time that I have available, especially in light of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is in the House. It would have been a great pleasure and a privilege to discuss agriculture at quite some length because agriculture has been an issue that has strangely been on the back burner. It has received very little attention in the House from the government side.

I know that my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster and Canadians in rural areas are quite concerned that the government does not have a handle on federal spending. Federal agriculture programs are not only in jeopardy but our very standard of living is in jeopardy and will affect all communities in this country as well as agriculture.

By not taking the necessary steps to deal with the deficit now the government is sacrificing the future of government services to all Canadians, including people in the agricultural field. Rather than taking these essential steps the government has decided to create more spending programs.

We would encourage the government to place a moratorium on new spending, including the new spending requirements announced in the budget namely, and we have talked about them today, the youth service corps, the court challenges program and the engineer's program but particularly the infrastructure program.

I was quite saddened to hear comments made by the Minister of Public Works mocking Reform's position that Canadians are not as excited about the infrastructure program as the government would have us believe.

The minister challenged members on this side of the House to have their constituencies refuse infrastructure funding. It seemed like a very unfair request to make in that constituents who are represented by Reform MPs are being raped and pillaged by high taxes and then are expected to give up the morsels that the government would offer by way of inadequate infrastructure programs.

More seriously, what is really the heart of the matter is that instead of having a few new programs, what is really going to happen is that we are not going to have security for the programs that Canadians rely upon including federal support for health care for those seniors that the government side seems to be so concerned about, if they have a few programs that have nice frills around the edges. However we lose the core of our health care program. What good are these programs?

If we have a youth corps program but we do not have quality education for our young people in this country, of what value is a youth corps program? Finally, if our seniors lose their old age security pensions and low income assistance, of what value are some of these frills that the government would put forward in the way of new programs?

Reformers have been talking about priorities. We have been talking about what is really important to keep this great country of ours together with a high standard of living that we can all be proud of. Whether we are people in the private sector who are small business people, farmers, whether we are seniors who have committed a great deal of effort and energy into making this a great country, or whether we are the youth of this country who would like to think they have a bright future where they can contribute to a great land and to a society that they can make better, I and many Canadians are concerned that this will not be the case in light of the fact that the government has not been able to control its spending. In fact, this debt may be a ticking time bomb that will explode on future generations and deny them the standard of living and the lifestyle that we have enjoyed as Canadians who have lived beyond our means. They will not have that same opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the short time you have allowed me to speak. As I mentioned, perhaps I will be able to unload the entire load at some future occasion.

[Points Of Order, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Prime Minister in answering a question made mention of the fact that a member was not present in the House. I wonder if he would retract and apologize for that statement.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 9th, 1994]

As I was saying, the worst NHL players get fired, traded or even sent to the minors. The worst MPs get a gold-plated pension plan with no threat of being recalled.

When will the government act to let Canadians demote ineffective members of their national team through a recall mechanism?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister cannot distinguish between pensions and salaries.

However I have a supplementary question. The worst NHL players get fired, traded or sent to the minors. The worst MPs get a gold-plated pension plan with no threat of being recalled.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who likes to compare members of Parliament with NHL hockey players.

Former players like Gordie Howe and Bernie "Boom Boom" Geoffrion, who are among the best players the league has ever seen, receive pensions less than half that received by the worst MPs, including many Tory and NDP members who were removed from the last Parliament.

When will the Prime Minister stop high-sticking Canadian taxpayers and change the MP pension plan?

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member opposite. I was interested in her comments regarding the involvement of more women in the House and the feeling of our population, especially the female side, that they could effectively operate within the atmosphere of this House.

I was involved with my party in the nomination process and in the election process perhaps more than some others. I am happy to report that the Reform Party was more successful in electing their women candidates than they were their men candidates, if one looks at the proportion nominated and the proportion elected.

I was also involved with the recruitment of candidates. We certainly encouraged women to seek a nomination in our party.

I found that one of the factors that made women most hesitant in seeking nominations for election to Parliament was the dignity and decorum of the House itself. The member alluded to the fact that perhaps the atmosphere was unladylike but that one could be womanly in the House.

I found that many outstanding women candidates were very reluctant to place themselves in a position where they would be heckled, cat-called and the like in this Chamber. They felt that they would rather assist and work for their country in other avenues.

I wonder what the hon. member opposite would give me by way of suggestion as to how we could improve the decorum of the House so that we could reduce the number of cat calls. I understand it is much better in this Parliament than it was the last Parliament.

I know sitting on the opposition side we have been subjected on occasions to a lot of hoots and hollering that even as a man I find objectionable. I have heard from many women who also find that atmosphere to be very objectionable. It has been a hindrance to their involvement in politics.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the Constitution has to do with the national energy program so I will pass on that one.

We mentioned three areas where we believe that debate of petitions would be relevant in this House. The first one was based on the serial killer cards. In my short tenure in this House there have been a dozen or perhaps two dozen petitions relating to that issue certainly from all across Canada. That is definitely an important issue to Canadians because it is coming from both sides of the House and a number of fairly large petitions are being presented.

The other petition we mentioned was the one which I believe had 2.5 million signatures and speaks to the importance Canadians place on it.

The third petition we mentioned was the one tabled in the House today on recall. There were 30,000 signatures directly dealing with matters in this House and in fact with a member who sits in our midst.

These are three very good examples I would give to the hon. member as the types of petitions that may deserve some special consideration by this House at least once during a session or once a year.

I do not perceive that as being mischievous at all. I believe it is in the spirit of reform and goodwill and in consultation in respect of Canadians.