Ed Harper

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre today.

The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.

Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that legislation cannot be misinterpreted.

[Liberal Party, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he has fulfilled 75 per cent of his red book promises which is not true. It is simply not true.

There are 157 promises in the red book and his government has only kept 37 of them. That is barely 25 per cent. It must have been some act of God, a huge tornado that swept away 75 per cent of the red book promises. The Prime Minister's signature in the red book is not worth the paper it is written on.

Does the government still intend to implement all the promises in the red book, those promises it made to get elected?

[Liberal Party, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the defence minister is rehearsing for when he becomes a member of the opposition again. It is the opposition that asks the questions. The government answers them.

The Prime Minister said that acts of God prevented him from keeping some of his promises. Was it an act of God that made the Prime Minister sign NAFTA? Was it an act of God that made the Prime Minister cut CBC funding? Was it an act of God that cut provincial transfer payments to social services and health care? Was it an act of God that cut old age security by 10 per cent?

The Prime Minister can blame God, floods, famine or locusts for his failure. He is the one who broke his promises. Will the Prime Minister simply admit that his promises are worthless?

[Liberal Party, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that politicians cannot be held to their election promises because acts of God can knock them off track. This is the same man who promised Canadians during the last election "there will not be a promise in the campaign that I will not keep". The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways.

I ask the government, which is it? Will the Prime Minister keep every commitment he made to Canadians during the last campaign, or will he admit that his government has broken election promises?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister can try to duck election promises all he wants, but

the government promised Canadians from one end of the country to the other he would abolish, scrap and kill the GST.

Page 22 of the red book was not good enough for the Prime Minister on the campaign trail and it was not good enough to keep Sheila Copps on the front benches.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept responsibility for the promises he made during the last election? How can he expect Canadians to believe that his promise to abolish the GST was different from the promise made by Sheila Copps?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a week ago it could have been described as courage. One week later it is convenience. It has nothing to do with courage.

On September 10 the Prime Minister stated quite clearly: "There will not be a promise in the campaign that I will not keep". That is the campaign, not the red book.

On the campaign trail the Prime Minister promised Canadians he would abolish the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister made the same promise and resigned because she did not keep it.

Will the Prime Minister now admit that he, like Sheila Copps, broke his campaign promise to the Canadian people on the GST?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Sheila Copps resigned because she broke an election promise to Canadians on the GST. The Prime Minister tried to tell us yesterday that Ms. Copps had to go because she overstepped the red book.

During the last election the Prime Minister promised Canadians time and time again that he would abolish the GST, kill the GST, scrap the GST.

What is the difference between Sheila Copps' promise to scrap the GST and the Prime Minister's promise to scrap the GST?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the government's third budget. In speaking against it I hope to ring the alarm bells across Canada that this is not the budget which is being portrayed by the government as a be happy, do not worry, go back to sleep budget, this is a budget that all Canadians should be alarmed at.

There were two major election promises made by this Liberal government which are not even mentioned in this third budget. The first is jobs, jobs, jobs which Canadians were so desperately looking for and the second of course is the GST. The words goods and services tax do not even appear in the budget. The only reference is to a federal sales tax. In this budget two major election promises that were broken are not addressed. All Canadians should be deeply concerned about that.

A third promise has been destroyed in this budget and has been magnified this week. It is the promise by this government to do something about the level of cynicism across the country today which has developed between the voters and the politicians. There was an opportunity for the government to do something about it.

As a matter of fact the Liberals alluded to it in their famous red book under the chapter "Governing with Integrity" on page 90. At the beginning of chapter 6 it states: "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of its citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored".

Instead of restoring it in this budget, what has happened in the House today has shattered it. What the government once described as sleaze by the Conservative Party is now depicted as an honest mistake: "We did not know what we were doing".

At least there is some disagreement here between the Prime Minister and the finance minister. The finance minister says it was an honest mistake but the Prime Minister does not agree. He still says it was not a mistake, that the government is living up to its word in the red book.

To suggest that government members do not know what they are doing, they are not new members of Parliament; most of the people in cabinet have been here for many years. To suggest that all of those years in opposition have been wasted and that they have taken over the reins of government and do not know what they are doing is an absurdity Canadian voters will not accept.

When our current finance minister was in opposition he was very much opposed to harmonization of the GST; harmonizing the GST with the PST would entrench it forever and we would never be able to do anything about this hated tax. How the rhetoric changes when one moves from opposition to government. One wonders which statement to believe, the statement that was made in opposition or the statement being made by the government today.

This is the old style politics of saying one thing to win votes and doing whatever once elected. The promise to scrap, abolish, get rid of the GST was a cold and calculated vote grabber. It was made with every intention to win votes. When we consider that some of the ridings were won by as few as two, three and eleven votes, the promise that was made in less than good faith could very well have swung those seats to enable the government to win its mandate on a policy of deception and not one of being honest with the voters.

When the Deputy Prime Minister, a veteran politician and by no means a rookie to this House, said that she would resign if the GST were not abolished, it was done in a cold and calculated way. She is currently suggesting it was done in the heat of the moment but that is not a fact. The videos of past press conferences will prove that. It was said more than once. It was said repeatedly during the 1993 campaign.

Canadian voters will not miss the glaring contradiction this week in the Prime Minister's reaction to two members of this House.

There was his reaction to the member for York South-Weston who stood on principle and said: "This is not what we said to the Canadian people. This is not what I said to the people in my riding and in all conscience I must resign from this government. I must step aside. I cannot face my people on anything less than that".

The member for York South-Weston was reprimanded for being honest with the voters he represents in this place. I should not have said he resigned. The Prime Minister removed him from caucus on the basis that the member should not represent his voters and be honest to himself but that he must do as he is told.

Contrast that situation with the situation of the Deputy Prime Minister who said to the voters: "I will resign". The Prime Minister sees no problem there. She did not really mean it and she will remain as a member of this House.

That contradiction, that double standard has not been missed by the voters across Canada. The public has lost confidence in this place and in their politicians. On the basis of what has happened here, that loss of confidence is certainly with good reason.

I mentioned in question period that all of us will pay because of the lack of integrity displayed by the government in not living up to and honouring a promise that was made to the voters. Members on both sides of the House, federal, provincial, municipal, all politicians will be tarred by this brush that the voters cannot trust what politicians say when they are out seeking their votes. We will all pay very dearly for that, which is the tragedy of what has taken place here this week.

The Prime Minister referred to the red book and said: "There is not one promise I will not keep. Point to any page, any time and ask me". Let us take a moment to do that.

We have covered the GST. Compensation is now being offered to provinces to come onside at the expense of all of the provinces. Pressure is being put on Ontario. Ontario's finance minister has made it clear that the province of Ontario is not in the tax increasing business, it is in the business of decreasing taxes and giving some relief to taxpayers.

Concerning NAFTA, the government promised to renegotiate, although that promise was not kept.

MP pensions were not dealt with. There was some minor tinkering but the overhaul Canadians were looking for was not done. I am very proud to say that 51 out of 52 members of my party opted out of it where 97 per cent of government members stayed in. The government has lost all credibility in not dealing with that issue.

Freer votes were promised in the red book. I believe three private members' bills had free votes but not one government bill in two and a half years has been put to a free vote.

The Liberals promised that old age security would not be cut and yet 25 per cent of seniors are going to be cut by 10 per cent. Universality, as they had promised, is dead.

Let us go to the infrastructure program. Let us quote from page 60 exactly what was outlined in the red book on infrastructure.

The term "infrastructure" refers to undertakings for the common benefit, such as transportation and communications links, and water and sewage systems.

Nowhere is there talk about boccie courts. Nowhere is there talk about a canoe museum. Nowhere is there talk about trade centres or hockey arenas. It talked about benefiting all citizens.

That program was a $2 billion shell game that was played on the voters across Canada. What a great offer, a two for one. How could anyone resist it? The one taxpayer was being bribed with their own tax dollars?

Finally, the ethics counsellor. On page 95, getting right to the core of returning integrity to government, the red book says:

The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

That did not happen.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the age of consent laws.

The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I present two petitions today on behalf of constituents of Simcoe Centre.

The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the human rights act to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set. Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure legislation cannot be misinterpreted.