Ray Speaker

[Official Opposition, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has catered to the separatists in the House. His government supports them as the official opposition. His government has elected them as committee chairmen and his government has changed the agenda of the House for the separatists. The separatists in the House have been granted special preferential treatment.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is this happening and when is it going to stop?

[National Unity, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after 128 years of nationhood we find ourselves on the brink of massive change. Today millions of Quebecers will be asked to decide whether they want to stay and build Canada or to leave and construct a nation of their own.

Regardless of the outcome of this vote, regardless of whether Quebecers choose to stay or to go, one thing is clear: This country will never be the same again. If nothing else, the referendum has demonstrated the bankruptcy of the status quo.

A narrow victory for the no will not change the fact that millions of Quebecers have voted for fundamental change. Whether to stay or to go is for Quebecers to decide, but on behalf of my Reform colleagues I send the following message to Quebec: If you choose to remain Canadian, you will not be alone. There are millions of reform minded people like you in every province of this country. Join with us. Together we can build a renewed federation which addresses our concerns. Vote no for sovereignty and yes to the new Canada.

[Reform Party Of Canada, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago today, on October 25, 1993, the people of Canada sent 52 Reform MPs to Ottawa. They did so because we as a party promised to put their interests as constituents first. Today my Reform colleagues and I thank our constituents for helping us to keep that promise.

A special thanks goes out to the people of Lethbridge constituency for participating in the first leg of my annual fall tour. In places like Diamond City, Picture Butte, Nobleford and Milk River they talked about issues that were important to them, things like jobs, pensions, agriculture and certainly the referendum.

They told me about their hopes and their fears. They reminded me what it meant to be their representative in Ottawa. The main streets and the coffee shops of southern Alberta are a long way from Parliament Hill.

Many of my constituents will never have the opportunity to visit the nation's capital, but the Reform Party believes that by effectively representing their interests in this House of Commons we will be able to bridge that distance.

[Points Of Order, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to ask for clarification of a ruling by the Chair? Can a member ask a question for clarification purposes only with regard to a ruling and not on the basis of challenging the Speaker? I certainly understand that rule in Beauchesne, but for clarification cannot a point of order be raised?

[Points Of Order, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the question put by my hon. colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia. I raise it under citation 485 of Beauchesne. I ask whether you ruled his question out of order on the basis of-

[Business Of The House, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the hon. member, the House leader for the government, what kinds of bills were in the works and what would be proposed in less than 10 days now.

I have not had a response to that or on whether there will be any legislation that will perhaps be delayed until the end of November or December when we would go into a format of closure. I would appreciate a response from the House leader, if possible.

The other question I have is with regard to procedure, how the government is handling procedure in the committees and the direction that is being given by the House leader and the whip of government.

Yesterday in the public accounts committee, while debate was going on with regard to the chairmanship, the government whip commanded the Liberal members and the Bloc members to vacate the committee after 25 minutes so that there was not a quorum for a discussion to proceed with regard to the chairmanship.

It looks like a very unacceptable precedent has been set. I would like to ask the House leader whether that is the kind of procedure that will continue in the House on other occasions as well.

[Business Of The House, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question is also with regard to procedure.

[Points Of Order, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under sections 485 and 486 of Beauchesne's with regard to unparliamentary language and also language that reflects on members in this assembly.

I heard very clearly comments of the member for Willowdale that called the member for Calgary Southeast a slimeball not only once but twice and I think even a third time across the floor of the House.

There was a lot of concern in this House by the hon. member for Burlington concerning reflections on whether a person is a male or female. This type of comment to a male would have one type of inference but to a female, it certainly has another kind of inference which I will not accept. I ask that it be withdrawn and that that member be dealt with.

[Privilege, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this matter of privilege I bring your attention to the question, the operative part of my hon. colleague's presentation to the House.

It was very clear in the question that the member for Calgary Southeast asked a deliberate question of whether there was a relationship between two actions. That was not inferred nor did it reflect on the minister. Before making a final decision on this, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you take this into consideration.

[United States Sugar Import Restrictions Retaliation Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-311.

I support the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal which were very appropriate, very accurate, very non-partisan and certainly appreciated by this side of the House. The Bloc Quebecois member and member of the sugar caucus, the hon. member for Verchères, also made very appropriate remarks. I totally endorse his remarks as well since they were a very positive and constructive contribution to the debate and to the support of the principle of the bill before us.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Peace River as the Reform caucus trade critic for his support of the sugar industry whether in the area of production of sugar beet sugar or the import of sugar cane, which is refined in our country, and for supporting the industries that use Canadian sugar in a variety of products that are exported not only to the United States but to many other places in the world.

I give those compliments on the grounds that it shows this issue can be dealt with in a non-partisan way. It is a basic issue to the country. It is a basic area where Canadians can compete in the world market, can make a contribution not only economically but also in an indirect sense can provide many social benefits to the Canadian fabric.

I support the comments made with regard to the Helms-Burton bill. I am pleased like other members here that Congress and the

Senate are seeing fit to make some changes that will be of benefit to the sugar industry of Canada.

The point I wanted to make is one of the reasons beyond supporting the concepts already before the House. It is with regard to the attitude I gathered of the American Sugar Alliance. The alliance is an executive group which represents not only the producers but also the refiners, the sugar beet producers, the cane producers and the refiners of those two respective products. I want to talk about that group's attitude with regard to the situation and the advice they gave us as a committee when we visited Washington.

I would have to say very bluntly that we were stonewalled in our presentation. I raised a question with the alliance. I said to the alliance: "I believe we have set before you the current Canadian circumstances. We are going to have limited exports. The exports will be reduced in terms of refined sugar from some 43,000 tonnes down to 22,000 tonnes. Of that 22,000 tonnes we in Canada have no idea. We may get some. We may get half. We may get a little more than that, but we could end up not receiving any portion of that 22,000 tonnes of export opportunity into the U.S. market". We could be shut out completely if the Americans wanted to do that.

I also said: "Between our two countries we have the concept of free trade. My sugar beet producers back home support free trade. The refiners support free trade. We are open to that concept. We feel that could work very well between our two nations".

I asked how we could work together, how we could improve the circumstances we face in Canada and what they were prepared to do as an alliance. Their remarks were very clear and forthright: "Why do you not go home and do what we have done in the United States? Why not do the same thing?" What does that really mean?

It means we would put on import quotas with regard to some products. Maybe we would have to use other products as leverage, but we would put a quota on the import of sugar and products containing sugar into Canada. We would be reversing a trend that is the essence of free trade. That was the first thing they asked us to do, to go home and do the same thing they were doing with regard to imports.

I asked about pricing. They said to go home and establish a pricing system so there is a floor price for sugar in Canada, which there is not today, and our sugar producers are not asking for that. "Go home and do the same thing". They said to go home and put on import quotas, go home and put a floor price on sugar.

That is totally in contrast and is a negative interface into the way we want our North American economy and our economy relative even to Mexico to evolve. We want free trade and an open system by which we can work together, compete together, but also profit together. It is totally in contrast and I was very disappointed in that.

I raise that issue because underlying that attitude are political forces which exist in the United States. Congressmen who represent sugar beet areas, sugar producing areas or sugar cane areas, or refiners in their respective constituencies are faced with that dilemma. They are lobbied by the sugar alliance to work against opening the borders to Canadian exports so that we could again maybe export 43,000 tonnes of refined sugar.

A major portion of that sugar was sugar beet sugar from southern Alberta. We can clearly understand the effect that has on my constituency of Lethbridge and the constituency of Medicine Hat which is adjacent to mine where there is a major industry. The sugar beet industry has been one of the solid foundations of the economy of southern Alberta. Losing it would be a drastic disaster to the cities of Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, the rural areas and Alberta as a whole.

We are fighting against that kind of attitude and that kind of politics in these negotiations. I ask that when the government is in negotiations it understand that force is out there. Part of our strategy as Canadians and as a sugar caucus is that we must deal with it knowing there is this kind of anti-force when working toward free trade, a free exchange of ideas and free competition between our two nations.

I certainly support the concept of the bill. It may be a lever to try and open up the discussions and to relax some of those political attitudes which now exist in the mill and which we have to deal with to come to the conclusion we think should be arrived at.

I appreciate the work the chairman of the sugar caucus has done. I appreciate that the government has made representations on the issue but I urge it to work quickly. It was indicated to us that around September 15 the U.S. department of agriculture would be making a recommendation on what portion of the 22,000 tonnes we would get as Canadians. I hope the government and the ministers of agriculture and trade are making a strong recommendation.

We should have at least two-thirds of that 22,000 tonnes for Canadian exports. If that were there at least we would be able to have some assurance that our sugar beet industry and cane industry in terms of refining would be stabilized and we would be able to continue in the year or two ahead.