Dick Harris

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments. For the most part I appreciate what she had to say.

I do have a concern in one area. It is when the hon. member talks about pay equity for jobs of equal value. The government is embarking on a formidable task. As I understand the proposal the government is intending to defy decades upon decades of experience where the marketplace has established the level of wages to be paid in any particular occupation.

To give an example of this, my wife works part time in a ladies fashion store in my home town of Prince George. She works very hard and puts in long hours. In my opinion she gets paid about one-third of what she is worth. Nevertheless she likes the work so she does it. I believe she works every bit as hard as an electrician for example who earns $25 an hour plus benefits.

The question is: Could that retail store afford to pay her $25 an hour if my opinion stands that she works as hard as an electrician? The answer of course is no.

This idea of trying to equate the wages a tradesperson makes with the wages of someone in a totally different job category where the wages have been determined by years of market experience is almost an impossible task. One cannot say a secretary should make the same as a painter because they are two different occupations and the level of the painter's wages has been set by the market.

Another interesting point is it seems to me when all these commissions come up with their findings they never ever say the wages in a particular category are too high and should be lowered. It is always the other way around. It is remarkable there has never been an instance in my understanding where the pay scale has been overvalued in a job and that pay scale should have been brought down to match a job of equal value. It is always the other way around and wages are raised.

I am not saying people should not earn as much as they possibly can. As a matter of fact because of our tremendous deficit and debt which has been incurred with the help of this government and the previous government people have to earn more money. The taxation levels are so darn high that the disposable income is now hardly enough to get by.

It is not a question of high wages. We are talking about job valuation. I believe the government is attempting to defy years upon years of market driven levels. It is embarking on a formidable task. I believe that it is going to be almost impossible to come up with a plausible conclusion to this study.

I would like to ask the hon. member if her government intends to try to defy all this history and come up with this new formula, reinventing the wheel, so to speak.

[Supply, March 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of comments.

First, as a member of the Reform Party caucus I am proud to serve in Parliament alongside the women members of the Reform Party, women who were elected as MPs to serve in Parliament not because they are women but because of their ability, determination and ambition. I feel very proud to say that I regard the women members of the Reform caucus first as members of Parliament and second as women. I appreciate them very much.

In listening to the hon. member's comments I heard phrases about employment equity, equality, et cetera. Really what I heard was quotas. I heard affirmative action. I heard about concessions.

I suggest that quotas have nothing to do with equality and everything to do with political correctness. If the government were serious about equality it would concentrate more on breaking down the barriers wherever they exist and inviting people of both genders, visible minorities, aboriginals and the disabled, to apply for jobs based on their ability, merits and qualifications for the job rather than talk about providing specific training for members of these four groups the hon. member mentioned so that they can be encouraged to fill some sort of quota that the government may have in mind for the public service.

I submit and suggest to the hon. member that the government would be far better off to look solely at the abilities of people when it comes to filling public service jobs rather than the gender or cultural heritage or whether or not they are disabled. That is what Canadians are all about, the equality of all, which is understood to be a given. The thing that has been most destructive in our country has been the separation into different groups by governments past and caused dissension amount the Canadian people.

I suggest that embarking on a path such as the hon. member has suggested is a path that leads to affirmative action and quotas in hiring. If we take a lesson from the United States we can see what kind of social problems that has caused. I hope it does not happen in our country.

[Official Opposition, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Official Opposition sits in this House of Commons with a stated objective of separatism for the province of Quebec.

This travesty of our system was heightened in the past week by the visit to Washington of the Leader of the Official Opposi-

tion to further his party's quest for independence, a trip unwittingly supported by the Canadian taxpayer and with the tacit approval of the Government of Canada under the guise of amenities traditionally extended to the Official Opposition.

This government has the obligation legally and morally to represent all Canadians. Quebecers are very much a part of Canada and I am sure they share the deep concern of other Canadians at this unprecedented occurrence.

Canadians are not living in traditional times. I call on the Prime Minister to exercise strong leadership in government and perhaps even withdraw some of the traditional amenities extended to the Official Opposition.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can agree about 85 per cent with my colleague from Calgary Centre.

First, I agree with him most emphatically that the law enforcement the government has talked about simply has not happened. I draw a comparison between what would happen in a neighbourhood in most communities in Canada if there were a suspicion for example that there was an illegal marijuana garden in the basement of a house.

I can assure members that from seeing the results of such activities in the papers over many years the RCMP is over that residence like a swarm of bees. I suggest that growing marijuana is breaking the law the same as smuggling cigarettes. I have not seen the RCMP forces over the known areas of smuggling like a swarm of bees like we would see in other communities. I suggest that although law enforcement has been spoken about by the government it has not been happening.

I also agree that a combination of law enforcement and tax changes regarding cigarettes is necessary to solve this problem. However I suggest a different formula.

I suggest that rather than reducing the taxes on cigarettes in Canada we should have doubled the export tax that we presently have to $16 a carton. With the extra $8 a carton we could use that money to pay for increased law enforcement to cut down on the smuggling. We could cover the areas where the smuggling is taking place with a larger and more effective police force, one that was being paid for by the export tax that should have been added to the cigarettes.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about realities. I would like to talk about realities as well.

Reality number one is that, yes, smuggling is against the law. Reality number two is that when people break the law, law enforcement should ensure that they are caught and punished. Reality number three is that in recent months it has been clearly identified that 70 per cent of the cigarette smuggling was occurring on the Mohawk reserves. Reality number four is that the previous government failed to act on this smuggling. Reality number five is that the current government has failed to enforce the law that would curtail this smuggling as well.

The reality is that for whatever reason the government has tied the hands of our law enforcement agencies, for political correctness perhaps, maybe for other hidden political agendas. The fact is that the RCMP has not been allowed to enforce the law, which is what it is supposed to do.

Another sad reality is that the government has failed to do the right thing: enforce the laws of the country. It has chosen instead to do something totally opposite, to disregard the fact that there are law breakers that have to be stopped. It has chosen to lower the price of cigarettes. That is a far cry from enforcing the law.

In reality I can imagine criminals on seeing a precedent set like this, saying: "Okay, let's look for the next one and see if we can get them to move away from law enforcement".

[Kemano Project, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has acknowledged that the Alcan deal was put together behind closed doors. Will the Prime Minister begin to listen to the very people who will be impacted by this project and commit to the House that a full judicial and environmental review of this project will be taken by his government?

[Kemano Project, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the Kemano completion project.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has told the House that the government was not going to prejudge the outcome of the current B.C. Utilities Commission hearings. He has also said in the press that the project cannot be stopped. Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue told the press that cancelling the Kemano completion project is within the realm of possibility.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House who speaks officially for the government on the Kemano completion project?

[Indian Affairs, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the efforts of the Prime Minister in his search for the meaning of aboriginal self-government.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if at this time his government defines aboriginal self-government as an order of government that would exist outside federal and provincial jurisdiction or as a level of government that would exist within and under federal or provincial jurisdiction?

[Indian Affairs, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question has been inspired by Dave and Brenda Fountain of Burns Lake, B.C. who are currently being challenged on a piece of duly deeded private property they own.

My question is for the Prime Minister. In the throne speech, his government committed to the forging of a new partnership with aboriginal people, specifically in respect to the implementation of their inherent right to self-government.

Will the Prime Minister commit to all Canadians that his government's definition of aboriginal self-government does not mean a self-government that would exist outside the federal and provincial laws that all Canadians are currently obliged to abide by?