Dick Harris

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the hon. member of the Bloc. He talked about ways to create permanent jobs.

I have a question for him. He mentioned three particular projects: the TGV high speed rail line, the Quebec to Windsor corridor and the exporting of Bombardier technology to different parts of the world.

As I am sure most economists and the Bloc will acknowledge, real permanent jobs must come from the private sector. Although the current government disagrees with the Reform position on how to create real jobs and pushes ahead with credit card infrastructure programs to create temporary jobs, does the Bloc agree that the source of real permanent jobs is from the private sector? If so, is the hon. member talking about total private sector investment in the three particular megaprojects he has suggested? Or, is this another request for more government subsidies and more government money to be poured into the province of Quebec?

I find absolutely incredible that day after day we come to the House and hear the Bloc party talking about wanting to leave our country, wanting to separate. Yet day after day the Bloc sits in the House and continually asks for more money. Indeed this is a contrast in thought.

I want to ask the hon. member about these three projects. Is he simply looking for more government money to be poured into Quebec? I noticed this morning the Liberal government authorized some $575,000 going to the Montreal Symphony Orchestra and the Quebec Ballet going on a European tour. Earlier I talked about not having any food in the cupboard and buying a television set. This is just another case of money going into the province of Quebec that we just do not have.

Would the hon. member advise me whether he is talking about total private sector investment in the three projects, or is he simply looking for another handout?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sort of struggling with a comment made by the chairman of the CBC on a panel show I watched a few weeks ago.

He made a statement which I believe was just incredible. He said that the CBC should not concern itself with economic viability but rather with delivering a Canadian culture to the Canadian people.

While that may be barely acceptable in traditional economic good times, I hardly think that this is a traditional economic atmosphere that we are enjoying right now. It may be tradition given the history over the last 15 years. It is all very nice to have an outlet or a means of conveying Canadian culture but when the government is borrowing well over $100 million a day to stay in business, I would ask the minister whether she thinks this is the time to separate our wants from our needs. To have this expensive albatross around our necks at this time is sort of like going downtown to buy a new television set when one does not have any food in the cupboard.

What does the government have in mind in trying to get the CBC on an economically viable basis rather than just a black hole in which to throw money?

[Kemano Project, March 23rd, 1994]

On behalf of all concerned members of my riding, is the parliamentary secretary now telling us, the House and all other concerned people that the government will consider intervener funding for non-native groups?

[Kemano Project, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am far happier with the hon. member's response with regard to intervener funding than the minister's. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans clearly said in a memo that only native groups would be considered for intervener funding.

Today the parliamentary secretary says that-

[Kemano Project, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

On March 11 I questioned the minister with regard to intervener funding for participation in the Kemano completion hearings and the equality of access for concerned groups to that funding.

Unfortunately the minister did not respond to my inquiry concerning equal access but chose instead to remind the House of how there was not a bottomless pit of money and that the federal government was going to act responsibly in respect to federal spending.

If this is the case, will the minister confirm if his government has hired Farris and company, one of the most expensive law firms in Canada, to represent the government at the BCUC hearings instead of using Department of Justice lawyers who most assuredly are more familiar with the issue and most assuredly less expensive than Farris and company?

[Forum For Young Canadians, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to give tribute to the Forum for Young Canadians.

As hon. members know, participants in the Forum for Young Canadians are in Ottawa this week to learn more about the process of government at the federal level. I know all members will join me in praising the organizers, the sponsors and the many volunteers who have made this forum a reality.

I wish to give special tribute to each of the participants, our future leaders, and in particular to a young constituent of mine, Jennifer Robinson of Prince George, B.C.

Welcome to Ottawa and best wishes for a most successful session.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the secretary of state outline the plan of yet another program.

No one can deny that there is a serious problem in the country with youth unemployment. Certainly I am aware of it. The secretary of state talked about the government getting its priorities straight. I think the government does not have its priorities straight.

In the period leading up to the election members of the Liberal Party did their homework. They did polling to find out the cause of the lack of jobs in the country. The message came back from the very people who create jobs, the majority of whom are small and medium sized business people, that the cost of doing business was simply too high. The government's prior and current neglect of the fiscal problems has caused high taxation. It has driven up prices and the cost of doing business.

Jobs do not come from more government programs. There is a direct correlation between the deficit and the financial problems of the country and unemployment. If the government wants reassurance of that it should go back and ask the people who create jobs and will create jobs, the small and medium sized business people.

The answer to youth unemployment and to unemployment in general is not to put more programs into effect. There are no jobs in the country. Small and medium sized businesses have so much uncertainty about taxation levels and the cost of doing business in the future that they are simply not expanding. Investors are not investing because they do not know what the taxation levels will be. Consumers are not spending because there is so much uncertainty about the government getting its fiscal house in order. We have university students with diplomas clutched in their hands applying for jobs at McDonald's. There are trained people out there but there are no jobs.

I would suggest the government should re-examine its priorities and start to show some light at the end of the tax tunnel to encourage small and medium sized businesses to start creating jobs.

More social programs are not the answer. That is the philosophy of the government that started 30 years ago, a time when there was no deficit, a time when the debt was manageable. It has instilled in youth an attitude of entitlement, a "don't worry, don't take responsibility for yourself" attitude because the government will look after them with social programs. The generosity of social programs has created this attitude among our youth. Why would they work when the government will look after them?

The government should look at where jobs come from, the small and medium sized businesses, start to attack the problems people are telling it about, and the jobs will be created.

[Kemano Project, March 11th, 1994]

I appreciate the minister's comments.

I would like to ask this of the minister: If no group is more important than any other in the eyes of the government, will the minister then commit to this House and to the thousands of people living in British Columbia who are concerned about this project a process through which all interested parties may proceed in order to receive federal intervener funding?

[Kemano Project, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who as previously demonstrated speaks officially for the government on the Kemano completion project.

In a letter to Chief Marvin Charlie of the Cheslatta band dated February 22, 1994, the minister clearly stated that only native groups would be considered eligible to receive federal intervener funding required to participate effectively in the Kemano completion project.

Is it the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and indeed the decision of this government, that native concerns carry far more legitimacy than non-native concerns in regard to Kemano and therefore natives should be the only groups entitled to federal intervener funding?

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the hon. member.

It appears perhaps that a little earlier he missed the point of some of the things that some members of the Reform Party were saying. So that the point is clear, I would like to state again that the Reform Party members have continually today applauded the achievements of not only the women MPs in this House, but the achievements of women throughout history, not because of the fact that they are women but because of their achievement in the same ways that we would applaud the achievements of men.

I want to make that very clear. We do not distinguish by gender the magnitude of the achievement but rather the achievement itself.

I would like to go back to some comments that the member made earlier in regard to some of the names we give to people in the workplace, such as policemen. He made a comment on that. He indicated that he found that term objectionable. I would like to ask him and maybe he could reply if he finds the term policewoman objectionable as well or should we be calling the person a policeperson. We could get carried away with this in the same way there is a suggestion that we begin to call manhole covers personhole covers. Where does it end?

Even in this House we differentiate between the terms Mr. Speaker and Madam Speaker. Does the member find these terms objectionable?

I talked about quotas earlier and certainly the government has not made mention of quotas. Let me say that the affirmative action groups in the U.S. began in the same manner. They did not mention quotas. They used terms like pay equity and job equity. In fact they were talking about quotas. That was their hidden agenda. That agenda would not fly in the early days so they chose to use softer, gentler terms.