Dick Harris

[Supply, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member from the separatist Bloc party. His speech contained many interesting comments.

However, we have to get the debate back to the original intent of the motion put forward by the member for Medicine Hat to force the Liberal government to live up to the promises it made during the campaign prior to the writ period.

We want to address the very deceptive campaigning promises the government made prior to the election. Its members went around door to door, meeting to meeting, rally to rally and unabashedly told Canadians that if they were elected they would abolish, kill, remove, place six feet under, get rid of the much hated GST which they railed against in the House when the Tory government brought it in. I do not know how those members can sit here with such righteous indignation at our request that they simply live up to the promises they made.

There is one thing about Liberals that we all must know by now. If they say something verbally, we had better get them to write it down. They never used the words "replace", "harmonize" or "change" during their campaign, the verbal part of their campaign.

We have a couple of extremists in the Liberal Party, particularly the hon. member for York South-Weston. He remembers the campaign promise the Liberals verbally made to the people of Canada that if the Liberal government did not live up to its promise to abolish, kill, get rid of the GST he would vote against the budget. We support that member. It is too bad the government will not support its members who heard the promises with the true intent they were made.

The motion of the hon. member for Medicine Hat calls on the government to live up to the promise it made to the Canadian people before the red book was written and the words magically changed. We are asking the Liberals to live up to their promise, do the honourable thing and scrap, kill, abolish, get rid of, bury the GST like the Canadian people were led to believe they would do before the infamous red book came out and magically changed it.

[Immigration, March 20th, 1996]

What about the GST?

[Impaired Driving, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last night during debate on my private member's Bill C-201 which deals with impaired driving causing death, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice cited in his remarks a letter from a member of MADD Canada which stated six reasons not to support my bill.

Jim Wideman, the executive director of MADD Canada wrote me this morning to set the record straight. He wrote:

On behalf of the board of directors of MADD Canada, I would like to reaffirm our support of the private member's Bill C-201. I am aware that other correspondence has been sent to Mr. Rock's office. Let me reiterate that the National Board of MADD Canada, our chapters and members wholeheartedly support Bill C-201.

Once again I would like to support MADD Canada, all its chapters and members who are in support of my bill. I urge members of this House to support it as well.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code (operation while impaired) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to lead off debate on my private member's Bill C-201. This bill deals with a very serious and tragic issue, impaired driving. There are people who choose to drink and drive and as a result kill people in this country. This is senseless tragedy that occurs every day far too often.

The bill deals with sentencing and punishment for those who choose to drink and drive and as a result of their choices kill. The bill will amend section 255(3) of the Criminal Code and will impose a seven-year minimum sentence on those convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Bill C-201 has its origins in my home city of Prince George, B.C. In September 1995 David Kevin Johnson chose to drink to the point of utter intoxication and then chose to drive despite his condition. He chose to get into his vehicle and drive. The result was that he recklessly sped through a red light causing a devastating collision in an intersection only blocks from my own home.

The collision killed three members of the Ciccone family, residents of Prince George. Jim Ciccone, his son Rylan and his daughter Emma lost their lives in September because of the completely irresponsible actions of a man who was driving a truck after he had made the choice to drink.

Mr. Johnson was arrested and charged with three counts of impaired driving causing death plus one count of leaving the scene of an accident. Mr. Johnson knew what he did. He knew the tragedy he caused. He fled the scene of the accident.

I witnessed the aftermath of that accident. I witnessed the tragedy and I followed the case as it went through the courts, through the media and other sources. I waited expectantly for Mr. Johnson's sentence with the belief that justice would be done and with the belief that the seriousness of this crime would be reflected in the sentence handed to David Kevin Johnson.

I waited, but these expectations were dashed on December 22, 1995. On that day David Kevin Johnson, who chose to drink, who chose to get into his automobile and as a result killed three members of a family, was given a three and a half year sentence because the judge said he was bound by precedents which resulted because over time cases had been heard in which defence lawyers had continually chipped away at what was once an appropriate sentence for this crime.

I was outraged that evening when I heard the sentence on the news. Citizens in my community of Prince George were outraged as well, and rightly so.

Public demonstration followed. Later that week there was a demonstration in front of the provincial courthouse. Over 300 people turned out to express their rage, their sense of bewilderment with the failure of the justice system to appropriately deal with this serious crime. People were enraged that such a light sentence could even be considered for such a devastating crime.

The citizens of Prince George were concerned and bewildered about the state of our justice system. Specifically they were concerned about sentencing procedures and practices. Many wondered what could be done to prevent another lenient sentence such as this in the future.

They came to me with their concerns and I heard them. In their view David Kevin Johnson was sentenced to one year for every life he took; one year. To them and to the majority of Canadians, and I sincerely hope to the members of the House, this is simply unacceptable punishment.

Accordingly I looked at the Criminal Code to determine exactly what I could do to change this. What could I do to enhance deterrence and ensure the penalty for this terrible crime would be suitable? My efforts led to the presentation of Bill C-201.

We did a lot of research into alcohol related fatalities and the fact was disclosed that sentencing is extremely lenient when it comes to impaired driving causing death. It is tragically lenient. Statistics show that the average sentence is in the one to four-year range even though the latitude a judge has is from zero to fourteen years. At one time sentences were in the higher range of that latitude. Now because of the system and the way defence lawyers have chipped away at appropriate sentencing, it sits in the very low range of that latitude.

The precendents in law today in no way reflect the seriousness, the tragedy of someone who chooses to drink and drive and who kills a family member, a friend, a neighbour, a Canadian on our highways. Surely life is more valuable.

Sentences handed down today in the courts for this crime, sentences for taking a human life, are not adequate. Drivers are given sentences that are equivalent to those for defamatory libel, possessing a forged passport or dealing in counterfeit money. Surely we must place a greater emphasis on human life. Surely we must do whatever we can to deter people from driving while impaired and killing people. Surely that is the least we can do. That is the purpose of Bill C-201.

I sincerely hope all members of the House share with me the tragedy of this crime. The bill seeks to place a higher standard on life. It places impaired drivers on notice that if they take a life because of the choice they have made, they will be subject to serious jail terms.

The lenient sentences that are given out today by the courts of Canada appear to remove the responsibility from the impaired driver who kills. It is as though being impaired allows the individual off the hook, should he or she drive while drunk and kill someone. I argue that this is wrong.

No one forces an individual to become impaired. No one can successfully argue that by any circumstance they are then forced to drive. We are talking about choices. Bill C-201 will hold impaired drivers who kill others responsible for their actions. I remind the House these irresponsible acts are going on all the time. They must stop.

There are some statistics which hon. members will find shocking. In 1994, 87,878 people were charged with the impaired operation of a car, a boat or a plane. It is important to remember this number represents only the people who were caught and arrested. It is estimated that it takes between 200 and 2,000 repetitions of impaired driving to make a single arrest. That means we have no idea of the number of people who are out there today behind the wheel of an automobile while impaired. They can kill.

The true number of impaired drivers will always remain unknown. If the true number were known, I believe there would be a massive outcry, far more than what we are witnessing today, from the people of Canada. If we knew the number of impaired drivers that were out on the streets as we speak, there might be a cry for prohibition, it is so massive. While prohibition is not in the cards, deterrence certainly is.

From the time we woke up this morning until the time we go to bed tonight, four families in Canada will be visited by police officers to be told that a member of their family has been killed by an impaired driver. Think about it. It happened yesterday. It is happening today. It will happen tomorrow and every day. That is the tragedy of impaired driving.

We never stop to think about it until it affects us, until we witness an accident, until a family member, a friend or a neighbour is touched by impaired driving. Who in the House has not been touched in some way? Who in this House has not had a family member, a neighbour, a friend or an associate touched by impaired driving? I would hazard to say there are very few in this House today.

There has been a 40 per cent reduction in impaired driving charges over the last 10 years which can be directly attributed to the harsher way we have been dealing with impaired drivers. Deterrence does work when it comes to impaired driving.

I have talked to many people who previously used to drink and drive who now take taxis or ask friends who have not been drinking to drive them home. I asked them why they changed their habits. Their answer was not that they did not feel capable of driving home but that they were afraid of being stopped by the police and charged. That is clear evidence that deterrence is a factor in reducing impaired driving and in dealing with drivers who drink.

More than ever, drivers are aware of society's contempt for impaired driving and they are aware of how an impaired driving conviction can ruin their chances of ever driving a car again. Nevertheless, as I noted earlier, there remains an untold number of people who continue to drink and drive.

Bill C-201 is targeted at those individuals. By imposing a minimum sentence, this bill will send an extremely strong message that the possible lethal consequences of impaired driving will not be tolerated in this country. The best thing we can do in Canada through this House is to make our impaired driving laws the toughest laws in the entire world. I know it may never get done but by God I will try.

I also put through Motion No. 78 which would see the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code strengthened with respect to impaired driving. This bill and the companion motion will provide a deterrent to keep impaired drivers off our streets, off our highways and out of our neighbourhoods.

There is no question that deterrence is needed. Impaired driving is the most frequent offence dealt with in the courts today. When we consider that impaired driving charges are dismissed or reduced in 40 per cent of the cases, we know that deterrence works and must begin to play a much larger role.

In Ontario impaired charges rose 40 per cent between December 1994 and January 1995. In 1993 in that same province, 565 of 1,315 auto fatalities were alcohol related. In 1994 a total of 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving in Canada. This number is three times higher than the number of people murdered in the entire country in 1994 but the result is the same as murder. Yet impaired drivers who have chosen to get into a vehicle are simply given a slap on the wrist and the result could be that someone is dead as a result of their actions.

I have not talked about the significant financial costs of impaired driving. This is something we have to consider as well. The Ontario Medical Association estimates that it costs $100 million annually to deal with impaired driving injuries. Our courts spend the

majority of their time on impaired driving cases. We all know the cost of our court system today. We can quote precise figures when we speak of financial costs. That is easy. We have statistics. However, there is no way of measuring the real human cost when it comes to fatalities as a result of this action.

Of course there is the victim but there are also the victim's family and friends. They are left behind to wonder what they could have done to prevent the tragedy: "Should I have told my friend, my daughter, my husband or my wife to come home earlier, to not go out that night?" Tragically, it is the human cost.

This bill has the support of many organizations including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Ontario Students Against Drunk Driving, Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, Young Drivers of Canada, Families and Friends Against Drunk Driving and Margaret Rywak, chair of the Nepean Committee Against Impaired Driving.

This is an issue which concerns all Canadians. I believe Bill C-201 will act as a deterrent and will more properly reflect the seriousness of the crime of impaired driving causing death. I ask all members of the House to understand the seriousness of the tragedy we are talking about and to support this bill.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the fiscal policies of the Mike Harris government in Ontario were supported by a vast majority of people living in Ontario.

If we multiplied the crowd which is causing the problems at Queen's Park one hundred times, it would not even make a dent in the number of people who elected the Mike Harris government because of its fiscally conservative policies. It is because of the policies which that government took right out of the Reform blue book that the majority of the people of Ontario voted for it. If we multiplied the crowd which is demonstrating outside Queen's Park one thousand times, we would still not make a dent in the number of people who voted for that government and its fiscal conservative policies. Those same policies have been in our blue book for a number of years.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion put forward by the separatist Bloc Party. This is a very peculiar motion. I wonder if the Bloc has a hidden agenda. After all we know its purpose in this House is not to support policies and positions that Canada may take for the good of Canada as a whole.

As I read the Bloc's motion today, I became suspicious about what exactly is behind it. It appears that Bloc members are asking the House to form a joint committee of business experts and members of Parliament, which would include the separatist Bloc members, to come up with a plan on how to address corporate taxes and the regulations that corporations live by in doing business inside and outside of Canada.

However, it is almost hypocrisy that the Bloc Party would want to have members on this committee, which would be looking for ways to benefit the whole of Canada, when its agenda is simply to break up Canada. This motion by the Bloc is very hypocritical and, I suspect, has a hidden agenda.

The committee proposed by the government is a good idea. It is going to bring together business leaders and experts to examine the tax laws in Canada dealing with corporations. When the committee has reports from time to time, it will turn them over to the finance committee which is comprised of members from the government, the separatist Bloc and the Reform Party, the unofficial opposition party in this House. Members will discuss it openly in committee and all will have a chance to have input into the reports. Therefore, there is a decent amount of transparency and openness which the Bloc says there will not be in this committee.

I cannot really see, considering that MPs will have the last say on any report or recommendation in the committee and in the House, how the Bloc members can say there is not enough participation by members of Parliament in the process. I do not think there is any reason to be concerned about the lack of input from experts in this field should this joint committee that the Bloc is proposing not be established.

These are only some minor points that I raise relating to the wording of the Bloc motion.

The Bloc has really missed the target and has wasted a supply day that would enable its members to talk about taxation in general. It wasted that day by preferring to attack the membership of a committee on corporate tax reform.

This was an ideal opportunity for Bloc members to tell the House and Canadians about the unconscionable taxes that are being charged to working men and women.

Canadians in every province are crying out for tax relief whether they live in Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario or any of the western provinces. The average Canadian is overburdened with taxes. Taxes have increased to the point where both parents working in a household has become commonplace. Because of tax levels, disposable income has continued to shrink while the cost of living has gone up.

This whole spiral of taxation increases was started by the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau and carried on to the government we have today.

The Bloc has failed Canadians by not putting forward a motion that deals with taxation levels in general. As members know, since Reformers came to this House, we have stood up over and over, day after day, crying out for tax relief for overtaxed Canadians. The reason why jobs are not being created by the private sector and the corporations is because taxation levels and the cost of business are too high.

The Canadian Business Council and every business organization in the country have told the government about the high levels of taxation that corporations are facing. They have said that if you want us to create jobs, then give us some tax relief. We will create them.

The finance minister in 1994 even talked about how many jobs a decrease in the payroll tax would create. What have they done about it? Nothing. Since the government has come to power it has increased taxes from all sectors by a total of some $11 billion. These are tax increases in all forms. Canadian business, Canadian corporations, average working Canadians were not excluded. They are paying the bills.

The Reform Party released a taxpayers' budget which called for balancing the budget in three years and getting rid of the deficit. This would lead to the tax relief that is needed and that will create jobs.

Reformers have criticized the government for its continued use of taxation measures to deal with the out of control deficit. We have argued in favour of a reduction in expenditures since the government has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. There is enough money coming in. It is just that the government is spending too much.

Today, on the supply day of the separatist Bloc party, not a peep is heard from its members with respect to the taxation levels on average Canadians. There is not one word about the taxation levels of average Canadian working men and women inside and outside Quebec.

They have wasted this supply day dealing with some objection to the formation of a committee. In the whole grand scale of things, when one considers the whole tax problem and how important it is, how could they feel that a motion dealing with that committee is of such magnitude that they are going to waste a supply day?

They have not come close to such a statement in this motion. It fails miserably, which is too bad since it leaves only Reformers in the House to stand up on behalf of Canadian taxpayers and point out the devastating situation that Canadians find themselves in.

As I pointed out, since the Liberals were elected taxes have risen by $11.4 billion. This country does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. If we assume there are 13.5 million taxpayers, that represents an average tax hike to Canadians of $840.

As the official opposition-and there is some question as to the reality of that-those members should be standing up for the 13.5 million Canadians, using their position to attack the government's taxation policies. Did they? No. They want to deal with a committee process. I say shame on them. They have wasted a supply day.

Bloc members have demonstrated a disdain for corporate profits. They are prepared to bite the very hand that creates jobs in the country, that creates jobs in Quebec. The corporations are creating the jobs. Do they think the government will continue to try to create jobs? What happens when the money runs out, as it does with any government program? Yet Bloc members are standing today to say that the nasty corporations are ripping everyone off.

Any average citizen knows who creates the jobs. The Liberals would have us think differently. The Bloc would have us think differently. However, the average Canadian knows it is the private sector that creates real, long term, good paying, reliable jobs.

Would the Bloc not do better to discuss measures which would reduce the level of taxes on Canadians and Canadian business on its supply day? Certainly these are matters which the Bloc should bring forward to the government on behalf of Canadian taxpayers. But why should we expect that when clearly the Bloc does not have the interests of all Canadians at heart?

It is the Reform Party that continues to bring these important fiscal matters to the attention of the government on behalf of the taxpayers. We are proud to do it.

I do not support this motion. It is a waste of a supply day.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not support the Bloc's motion today, I am somewhat surprised at the Liberal opposition. I know the hon. member for Willowdale has considerable business experience.

I am surprised, given the track record of Liberals and taxation, and looking for ways to wring more money out of the Canadian taxpayer and Canadian business, they are not writing down all the suggestions that the Bloc is putting forward as new ways to get taxes from Canadians and from Canadian business.

The member for Willowdale talked about the underground economy and how the Liberals are dealing with it. That brings me to the reason for the underground economy, the dreaded and hated GST.

Does the hon. member recognize that the GST is the single greatest contributing factor to the underground economy and does he recognize that the underground economy is not going to be conquered until this Liberal government lives up to its promises to abolish the GST?

[Justice, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week people in my home town of Prince George, B.C. were warned that convicted pedophile, Robert Oatway, had been released on parole and was headed for our city.

He was given parole despite the fact that even corrections officials knew he would reoffend. This is a situation which we see all too often in Canada: dangerous offenders released into society to commit more crimes.

Fortunately, concerned citizens in Prince George, led by Miriam Switzer, posted pictures of Mr. Oatway around the city that warned of his arrival. Their courageous action prevented Mr. Oatway from going to Prince George but unfortunately he has moved on to another city.

The justice system is failing Canadians. It is left to the citizens themselves to protect their communities. It is time to get tough with sexual offenders, including stiffer sentences, no parole and mandatory treatment while they are incarcerated.

Canadians are waiting for safe homes, safe communities and safe playgrounds. What is the Liberal government waiting for?

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member.

In talking about small and medium size business, it seems the whole focus from the government's eyes, the banks' eyes and form those who provide capital is very narrow to the extent that they seem to be most concerned with small and medium size business in technology, research and the development of new the technology sector of business.

However, one of the big problems is what we would call the bread and butter basic business, retail business, wholesale business, people buying things and reselling them. There are hundreds of thousands of these businesses across Canada.

It is truly that sector, those types of business that have the most problems securing capital to either start up, expand or improve their businesses. They are generally looked at by the banks as second and third class citizens when they come to the banks for a loan. They generally need to have $3 in their pocket for every $1 they want to borrow.

What does the government have in mind to tell the banking institutions that would encourage them to start paying attention to these more basic types of business of which there are hundreds of thousands in this country?

[Business Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to address government Motion No. 1.

As we are well aware, Motion No. 1 would reinstate bills which died on the Order Paper at the exact same stage they were at prior to prorogation. According to Précis of Procedure, 4th edition, prorogation means that the pending legislation would be abolished. The government seeks to overturn that practice through motion 1.

Motion No. 1 would see bills resurrected as though prorogation had never really occurred. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 235 states:

In recent years it has become common, by consent, to reinstate certain bills on the Order Paper of a new session at the same stage that they had reached before prorogation.

This practice was started by the previous Tory government. As we have noticed over this 35th Parliament, there does not seem to be much difference between the policies of the old Tory government, which Canadians came to hate so much and which the Liberals when in opposition railed so much against, and the practices of the Liberals now that they are in government.

Coming back to citation 235, we should pay particular attention to the phrase "by consent". As members know, particularly members of the Liberal Party, many of whom have been here for quite some time, unfortunately, anything is possible in the House by the means of unanimous consent. However, did the Liberals seek any consent from Reformers with respect to the resurrection of the bills for the second session? The answer to that is they did not. We discovered the Liberals' true intentions in an article in the Hill Times one day. In the article the government House leader discussed the possibility of introducing such a motion. At no time did the government contact the other parties in the House to discuss the possible reinstatement of the bills.

Some of the things I am going to say have been said before by some of my colleagues in this debate but they were so profound I think they bear repeating. The Liberals gave a tough time to the Tory government over this same thing in the last Parliament. When the Tories bowed to these tactics in 1991 there were howls of outrage from the Liberals when they sat in opposition. They complained of anti-democratic measures and the destruction of parliamentary traditions. Perhaps it would do them some good tonight to reflect on some of their own protestations and arguments against the use of these tactics.

I am happy to see that the member for Kingston and the Islands is present tonight. He played a huge part in this. He always gets a real charge out of hearing his words reflected once again in Parliament. We will attempt to do that again tonight.

The member for Kingston and the Islands has been known for his bombastic outrage and outpourings and his pious reflections. In May 1991 he said to the Tories: "It is still morally wicked of the government to proceed with this motion and particularly when it applies closure to the motion".

As a Reformer, I agree with that 100 per cent. I am happy that in 1991 the member for Kingston and the Islands had the integrity and the fortitude to stand up and demand that democracy be done, to talk about how morally wicked and wrong it was. I congratulate the member for saying that. He went on to say: "I suggest it is perhaps one of the worst outrages that has been perpetuated in this House in many years". Again, I congratulate him for those profound utterances.

The member for Kingston and the Islands did not stop there. He went on and it got even better. The lamentations of the member for Kingston and the Islands climbed to even higher levels. He said that the Tory motion represented a national disgrace and that the Canadian Parliament would become the laughing stock around the world because of the outrageous conduct of the government in introducing the motion. That was a wonderful oratory he gave in 1991. I am so impressed.

I would like to summarize the arguments put forward by the member for Kingston and the Islands. Motions of this nature are atrocious, unethical and unparliamentary. They make the Canadian government look disgraceful both here and at home. I wish I could claim originality to those words but unfortunately I cannot. I borrowed them from the member for Kingston and the Islands. He spoke them so eloquently here in 1991 as he railed against the outrageous, the morally wicked and the morally wrong practices of the Tory government. I could not agree with him more. I can think of no better.

Let us bring it to the present using that member's very own words when he sat in opposition to the despicable Tories who had control of the country back then. I can think of no better words to use to describe the government and its behaviour over the course of the entire 34th Parliament. But he was not alone in his criticism of the former government's actions. He had a lot of help from other Liberals when they sat here. The member for Halifax stated that the Tory government should "hang its head in shame for daring to introduce such a motion". I love that one.

I am sure some of the great defenders of democracy who have left this earth and gone on to the great Parliament in the sky are hanging their heads in shame right now, particularly if they happened to be Liberals when they were in this place. They must be hanging their heads in shame when they see the undemocratic policies of the government.

I am getting to the best part. I have to quote the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who is my very favourite Liberal. In 1991 when he talked about the Tory motion, he wondered out loud: "If this precedent is allowed to proceed, then what on earth is next?" What could follow? Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell exactly what is next. Next is the Liberal government saying and doing exactly what it denounced five years ago. This is déjà vu all over again.

Considering the comments from the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Halifax and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I have reason to believe, and it has been confirmed, that fried crow was served for lunch in the government lobby today. Considering the behaviour of the government, one truly must believe that the Liberals are getting accustomed to eating crow.

It is funny how when sitting on this side of the House the Liberals had a monopoly on political morality. They had a monopoly on democracy. They had a monopoly on talking about integrity, honesty and doing things right. It was so easy to talk about it when they sat over here. Once transferred to the other side of the House however their democracy became bankrupt, their integrity became bankrupt and as a government they have become morally bankrupt.

Turning back to the issue of Motion No. 1, the government will argue that it is necessary to save time since all these previous bills will not have to be reintroduced again. However the government has done nothing but waste time during its entire term in this Parliament.

Proroguing the House removed the entire month of February when we could have been dealing with government business. The fall 1995 session was filled with take note debates and inconsequential bills. In fact, the government has done nothing of any value since becoming the government. We have done nothing but house cleaning since the government took office. Canadians want more than that. Important issues have been left on the back burner and Canadians have been left with no sense of direction from the government.

I assume that prorogation provided the government with an opportunity to deliver another throne speech in order to provide some sense of direction, but Canadians will take little comfort from the contents of the throne speech we heard the other day. The government had a lot of time to prepare for this but the throne speech only differed slightly from the one delivered on January 8, 1994. The Liberals' record on delivering on the promises made in the first throne speech quite frankly does not inspire much confidence in their ability to deliver on the promises made in the second throne speech.

The first throne speech stated that the highest priority was job creation and economic growth. We found out in the second throne speech how the Liberals really felt about that. We found out what they intend to do. They intend to take their failed job creation program and pass it on to the backs of the private sector. That is typical for a tax and spend government. If the government cannot deliver through its own ingenuity, creativity and programs, then pass it on to those it can wrest a buck from.

Since the Liberals took office the Canadian debtload has increased about $70 billion. During the campaign I told the electors of Prince George-Bulkley Valley that in the term of office of the Liberal government, according to the Liberals' red book and using their very own figures, the national debt would increase by $100 billion and the interest payment on that debt would increase by $10 billion. Many people said it could not be true because the Liberals

said they were going to get the economy in shape. I told them to get a calculator and do a little figuring.

This government has made what I say come true in spades. I can go back to the people in my riding and tell them that we are only a little under three years into this Parliament and already we are up to $70 billion.

The Liberals have raised taxes. Here is a government that agreed with Canadians before the election that taxes were too high. They listened to Canadians. They heard the cries of the Canadian middle class worker who is paying most of the bills in this country. They heard the cries about the high taxes and they said they were going to do something about it. They did. Since the government has taken office, it has raised taxes by $11.4 billion and unemployment hovers around 10 per cent.

The Tories brought in the much hated GST. Go back in Hansard and there are volumes of what the Liberals said about the GST. Many members in this House spoke most eloquently about this disgusting extra tax that the Tories were bringing in.

During the pre-election campaign the Liberals were saying: "We are going to abolish the GST. We are going to scrap it. We are going to do away with it. We are going to send it to that happy hunting tax heaven in the sky". However, when the Liberals got to writing that down, when they got to having to put it down on paper and in a red book, all of a sudden the words abolish, scrap, do away with, end, cease, desist got magically replaced by the word replaced. They were going to replace it. They used the word harmonize. They used words that meant something totally different from scrap, abolish.

The Deputy Prime Minister said in her election promises that if the government did not get rid of the GST in the first year of its term in office, she was going to resign. Reformers and many Canadians are still waiting and she is still very much here in the human form. We wonder if they do not understand the words, abolish, scrap and do away with. Obviously they cannot understand the word resign.

The best the Liberals have come up with is the word harmonization. They are going to take that tax and put into some other tax. But a tax is a tax is a tax. It does not matter what it is called or where it is put. As long as the Canadian people still have to pay it, it is still a tax. Replacing it or harmonizing it or changing the name really does not accomplish anything. It certainly does not give any credibility to the words the Liberals spoke: abolish, do away with or scrap.

The first throne speech also talked about the need to bring down interprovincial trade barriers, something Reformers have been talking about for years. Interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians about $5 billion within our country.

The 1982 Constitution mentions having a process to do away with interprovincial trade barriers. That is 14 years ago. The Liberals wrote the Constitution and they have spent some time in government since they wrote it.

We have a party here that says one thing and does another. It is a typical Liberal government that sits on the fence and is afraid to make any firm commitments that can be counted on by Canadians.

Again I remind the House of the words of the member for Kingston and the Islands in 1991 when he said: "It is still morally wicked of the government to proceed with this motion and then to apply closure to the motion and thereby curtail debate on it". Profound words then. But this is now. When the Liberals resort to these kinds of tactics somehow it is no longer morally wicked.

In conclusion, I believe that Canadians are getting tired of this hypocrisy. They want a government that not only promises to govern with integrity but does govern with integrity. They want a government that not only makes promises but keeps them. They want a government that not only talks about democracy but also practices it.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said in 1991 of the Tory government: "I must say that I am getting rather tired of having to deal with closure and its effects and the way that this government mistreats the precedents and the practices of this House". With the government's behaviour would anyone expect Reformers to say anything less?