Jay Hill

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

For those people out in TV land, I would like to clarify what the hon. member is saying. We had a process which unfortunately came a bit unravelled a while ago on Bill C-71, the tobacco bill. In fact it was not the Reform Party that shut down debate. We put forward a motion to allow the question to be put and the Speaker was the one who shut down debate, not the Reform Party. I would like that clarification on the record.

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that if the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls is going to quote from Reform members that he do it accurately.

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, everyone is well aware of what it says in the red book. As I understood it, the question that was put to the hon. member was not what the red book said on page whatever it is, but what the Liberal candidates were saying during the last election.

That is far different than what it says in the red book. They can deny that until they are blue in the face. Reality has caught up with them. They know quite well what was said by a number of them, what was said by their leader about the GST and they certainly were not talking about harmonizing. They were talking, as the hon. member from the Bloc has said, about getting rid of it. They were talking about abolishing it. They were talking about killing the GST. That is what they talked about during the election campaign and Canadians know that. They will remind these candidates of it I am sure in the next election.

What I found particularly interesting about the hon. member's intervention was his stating that somehow he feels Canadians want a hidden tax. When Canadians go to the supermarket or to the department store and are looking at a price tag on some item, they want that to be the total price. That is what I understand he said in his remarks.

I have not found those Canadians. I have found that Canadians are so incensed with the GST, they want to know how much GST they are paying. When they go to the till they want to know that the item costs X and there is so much PST and GST attached to it. They

want to know how much they are contributing to the provincial or the federal government.

I would like the hon. member to reiterate, if possible, if he honestly believes that the majority of Canadians want a hidden tax. That is not my understanding.

I have spoken to a lot of Canadians about this issue. They want to know how much tax they are contributing to the two levels of government.

[Propane Prices, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, rural Canadians dependent on propane to heat their homes and dry their grain have seen prices double since August. In the red book the Liberals promised lower input costs for farmers. Clearly this promise is another broken promise.

Many seniors on fixed incomes also rely on propane to heat their homes. Now those seniors are facing a long cold winter, unable to absorb massive increases in their heating bill.

My question is for the Minister of Industry. Given the doubling of propane prices in the last few months, has the minister asked his industry competition bureau to investigate this matter to assure Canadians that there is no price fixing?

[Krever Commission, December 3rd, 1996]

More feeble excuses, Mr. Speaker.

Why do we care about these documents? A patient of mine, Judy B., went to her dentist, had a tooth pulled out and had to have a transfusion because she bled and was infected with hepatitis C in 1985. She is waiting for Krever's report. She needs Krever's report. It is because of Judy B. that we need these documents.

Will the cabinet release the documents to Judge Krever, not for my sake but for the sake of Judy B.?

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is necessary to make the point right now to the hon. member that the Reform Party, as much as it should be, is not the Government of Canada. Therefore it is not up to us to put forward options for this particular tax. Certainly during the election campaign we will be putting forward options on a whole range of issues so that Canadians can choose between the various parties and their platforms.

In this particular case, given that the hon. member and his party campaigned during the 1993 election campaign on scrapping, abolishing, doing away with the GST, how can he reconcile that with the present plan to harmonize it? How can he reconcile harmonization with the promises that were made by him and his party during the 1993 election campaign?

He states what is fair. What is fair to the Canadian people is for the government to live up to its election promises.

[Energy Pricing, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my office has been flooded with calls because the price of propane has more than doubled since August. Desperate seniors have contacted me to ask how they will afford to pay for heat with their fixed incomes. Some northern farmers are still struggling to dry whatever damp grain they manage to harvest. Those who depend on propane are now spending $100 per week to heat their homes, with further increases predicted.

People believe these hikes represent the gouging of a captive market by the big gas companies. Propane is a byproduct of natural gas production, yet we have not seen a similar doubling of natural gas prices.

Producers say there is a shortage because of a fire in one plant in Mexico. Is this credible? With no adequate explanation or justification from the industry, consumers view these increases as extortion. Reform believes in the operation of a free market but it is free only when there is no price fixing and when anti-combines legislation is effectively enforced.

[Canadian Census, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to add my words to this debate in support of the motion by my hon. colleague from Beaver River.

The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should return the word "Canadian" among questions of ethnic origin on the Canadian Census.

The recently submitted Bloc Quebecois amendment would add behind the word Canadian: Quebecois, English Canadian, French Canadian, Acadian and I am not sure what else.

It is interesting that the Bloc Quebecois, the separatists in the House and in this country, are endeavouring this evening to explain to Canadians what Canadian means. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

As well, I listened with great interest to the member who just spoke. I am pleased that he is so proud of his heritage. A lot of immigrants who come to this country are proud of their individual heritages. They come to Canada from countries around the world. But there are also Canadians who are proud to be Canadian. We would like to be known as Canadians and be registered as Canadian.

For the hon. member to say in his remarks that the motion is an insult to common sense is complete and utter rubbish. The motion is common sense. I only wish I could do as good a job as the hon. member for Beaver River did during her remarks to this motion this evening.

The motion seeks to bring some logic to the issue of racism and equality. On the one hand, Canadians are striving to eliminate discrimination based on ethnic origin or skin colour, to say first and foremost that we are all Canadians and are equally deserving of the rights, privileges and pleasures that come with being Canadian.

On the other hand, the federal government demands that individuals distinguish themselves by their skin colour, ethnic or geographic origin, to stand up and be counted as different.

In the 1996 census, respondents are not even given the opportunity to identify themselves as Canadian. Census question 19, in fact the entire long form of the 1996 census, stirred up a great deal of controversy in my constituency of Prince George-Peace River and across the country. The member for Beaver River referred quite eloquently to the problems that this question and the whole issue stirred up. People are simply furious about this and they are demanding change. However, we cannot expect common sense from the government.

I cannot help thinking whenever I address this issue of how the writings of George Orwell apply to the 1996 census. For the one in five Canadians who were required by law to complete the long form it must have seemed as though big brother was indeed watching over them.

I recall that in the year 1984, many social analysts celebrated the fact that the oppressed society predicted in Orwell's book 1984 had little resemblance to real life. Ha. However, I cannot ignore how millions of Canadians felt about the invasive questions asked of them by their big brothers in the federal government this past spring. With their privacy seriously jeopardized by questions that ranged from income, all types of household expenses, race, colour, et cetera, these Canadians faced fines or jail if they did not answer the questions.

In addition, as my colleague from Beaver River mentioned in her remarks, the specific application of the book Animal Farm by George Orwell to the 1996 census is even more frightening. She cited the quote that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. It would appear that the federal government's discriminatory practice of conferring special status means that all Canadians are equal, it is just that some Canadians are more equal than others.

I suggest that some hon. members take the opportunity to refresh their schoolday memories and pick up copies of these two books. We are always searching for quick examples to give our children when they complain that their math lessons and required English readings have little relevance to real life. Ironically, I did not expect that we would be able to tell them that Animal Farm and 1984 are books that bear such similarities to life in 1996.

While census data may appear to some as simply statistics and record keeping, keep in mind that these data are used by all sorts of different groups and individuals for all kinds of purposes, including employment equity legislation, funding programs and tax benefits, to name but a few.

One of the reasons "Canadian" was eliminated as a category in the 1996 census was that 3 per cent of respondents to the 1991 census reported themselves as being Canadian. Apparently this caused a great deal of difficulty for Stats Canada in interpreting the results because it was under pressure to produce these statistics for use in employment equity programs and other initiatives. So the federal government's answer was to simply eliminate the option of identifying oneself as Canadian.

What happened to the 3 per cent of people who identified themselves as Canadian? Statistics Canada's difficulty in interpreting the results makes me wonder how accurately census data reflect our society. The fact that Stats Canada has also admitted that 10 per cent of the aboriginal population in this country was not enumerated in the 1991 census shakes my confidence in its results even further.

When we consider this information will be used to determine employment equity figures until the year 2003, it is a wonder how anyone either for or against employment equity can trust these data to be used for that purpose.

The very idea that the federal government encourages hiring on anything other than the basis of merit is preposterous. But of course we have all become quite accustomed to hearing special interest groups and Liberal MPs extolling the virtues of these so-called equal opportunity initiatives. Employment equity creates resentment in the workplace and widens the gap of understanding

between races and ethnic groups. It accomplishes not harmony but discord.

I believe that one large misconception on the part of some members in this House is that minority groups are in favour of this type of government action. However, many individuals are reluctant to identify themselves as a member of a minority group. The 1992-93 report on employment equity in the public services states that the number of visible minority employees may be under identified by one and a half times. Many individuals do not wish to identify themselves as members of a particular race or ethnic group either because they wish to be considered on the basis of merit alone or because they do not wish preferential treatment over their colleagues.

Furthermore, in my home province of British Columbia just 11 per cent of those asked in a December 1993 Gallup poll supported employment equity initiatives. As we are all well aware, British Columbia is fortunate to be home to a cosmopolitan society that is enriched by a skilled population that represents a broad range of visible and cultural minorities. Based on this poll it is obvious that many of the individuals in those groups themselves do not feel there is a need for employment equity.

Employment equity legislation and any other program or initiative that gives preferential treatment to a group or individual based on physical, social or cultural characteristics is discrimination.

That is the definition of the type of discrimination we are talking about today, giving one individual preferential treatment over another on the basis of skin colour or country of birth.

Another obvious practice by the federal government that confers special status and preferential treatment is an archaic act of Parliament that grants one group of Canadians special tax exemptions based on their race and place of residence. I am of course referring to the Indian Act.

I would like to go on and on about the need for the reform of the Indian Act and other archaic pieces of legislation that exist in this country and need to be overhauled but I simply do not have the time.

It is not simply question 19 of the 1996 census that is the problem. It is the socially divisive initiatives that will be driven by the responses to this question. If Canadian were to be included as a category it would be a good first step in breaking down the walls of racism and discrimination.

This motion is an opportunity to make real headway in the war against racism and discrimination. It is action that is based on reality. When we are done with the debate today on this motion and because it is votable, as the hon. member for Beaver River has indicated, I certainly encourage all hon. members from both sides of the House to support this motion and return the option of registering oneself as truly Canadian to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. whip of the government. I need a couple of further points of clarification if he might provide them.

Earlier today I asked another member of the government why there appears to be a contradiction. On the one hand the government claims that there is genuine universal support for this legislation, for these changes to the elections act. Yet what we find are quite a number of amendments coming from all directions to this particular piece of legislation.

It would seem to me that if there is support, and if this has been well thought out, indeed if it has reached the point where the government in its infinite wisdom has decided to fast track this and bring forward time allocation to hurry this through the House with very limited debate, it is a piece of legislation that is all encompassing and that certainly is going to do the job with no need for amendment.

That is the first question I have for the hon. whip. There certainly appears to be a contradiction in this piece of legislation.

The second point is he talked long and grand about the confidentiality of the electoral lists once in place. I wish I could say I share his confidence in that this list will be kept confidential. It certainly makes one wonder when a few weeks ago it was revealed that a filing cabinet showed up at some place in Ontario with seven or eight Revenue Canada files belonging to individual Canadians. This is the way the government treats the confidentiality of information.

Given that it is well known that computer software can be hacked into on a regular basis nowadays, I simply do not share the confidence of the hon. member and his government that this particular list will be secure and will be used, as he stated, only for electoral purposes. I wonder if the hon. member could clarify further how he intends to keep the list truly confidential.

If so, why is there a need to identify voters by gender? Could he perhaps touch on that issue as well. There is a real fear among female voters that their addresses and their places of residence will become known and become public knowledge. The gender associated with that obviously is a concern for security purposes.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Now the rhetoric is really increasing. They are trying to drown out my intervention.

Anytime members opposite attack the Reform Party's fresh start program, we know they must be in trouble with it. Otherwise they would not give all that time in the House of Commons to draw it to the attention of the Canadian people.

The government is saying this bill is going to save taxpayers a lot of money in having a permanent electors list. If the government is really interested in saving taxpayers money as it says it is, why then would it not have put into this bill a repeal of the election rebates that are granted to all parties and candidates who run in elections?

If the government wants to save money, it should quit rebating the election expenses. This would be one way the government could save millions upon millions of dollars and yet it does not want to do it. Why? Certainly this has been part of the Reform Party's platform since the party was formed some nine years ago. If Reform were the government that is one of the changes we would make. If the government is interested in saving money, why would it not do that?

Also, if this is such a terrific piece of legislation, why is the government afraid to debate it? Why did it have to bring in time allocation and force this legislation through in a very short period of time? If it is a good piece of legislation and if it was so clearly though out as previous speakers have said, why are so many amendments being brought forward?