Jim Abbott

[Justice, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, blatant Liberal pork barrel patronage by the revenue minister rewarding Liberal law firms on Vancouver Island is going on and on and on, in spite of six months of feeble assurances to the House by the justice

minister. Yet again on Wednesday of this week, when a drug trafficking case was called in Victoria no federal crown prosecuting lawyer even turned up for the case.

How many more drug cases will be fumbled, lost or dropped before the justice minister exhibits some competence in getting the revenue minister's cronies in line?

[Bank Act, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the expressions of the Bloc member are an absolute classic example to the House and to all Canadians that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition fundamentally represents or thinks that it represents 25 per cent of the people resident in Canada.

I took particular note of the fact that the prairie provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces somehow were completely apart from any concern of the so-called official opposition. I find that exceptionally unfortunate.

For the duration of this Parliament the Reform Party has been the national opposition. I will be responding to the bill in light of our concern on behalf of all Canadians no matter where they live, including in the province of Quebec.

I should like to put on the record the Reform Party understanding of the bill. It brings amendments to the Bank Act, Co-Operative Credit Associations Act, Insurance Act and Trust and Loan Companies Act dealing with first, the disclosure of information; second, the elimination of appeals in relation to certain matters; third, the disqualification of persons from becoming officeholders in an institution; fourth, the taking of control of an institution by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions; and, fifth, changes to the duties of the superintendent.

There are also amendments to the Winding-up Act respecting, first, the circumstances and procedures for winding up an institution and, second, a revised part III dealing with the restructuring of insurance companies. There are also amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. It is this area that I will be addressing in the balance of my speech.

Continuing with our observations, the amendments to CDIC concern, first, the business affairs of the corporation; second, the restructuring of institutions by means of vesting of shares and the corporation becoming a receiver; third, the assessment and collection of deposit insurance premiums; and, fourth, the enforcement of the act.

As I mentioned, the amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act is the primary concern of the Reform Party. The bill is as a result of the government's review of the safety of financial institutions. It follows upon failures of a number of financial institutions and is the government's response to concerns regarding financial institutions. We also note that the bill is a prelude to the Bank Act review scheduled for 1997 that promises to be much wider in scope.

I have been approached in my office by a number of people with respect to the Bank Act review. There is much concern on the part of businesses with respect to the encroachment or the potential further encroachment of the chartered banks into the insurance business. I look forward to the review in 1997.

As I noted at the start of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois is being irresponsible in its position as official opposition in that it is very myopic in taking a look at the concerns of only 25 per cent of Canada's citizens, but I would be remiss if I did not make some comments about the government.

The bill we are speaking to today is important. It concerns the fundamentals of controlling money or at least the affairs surrounding money. Money as the medium of exchange whether it be in Canada or around the world must have government control. We respect that the act is of some value. However, in the context of all other legislation or non-legislation the government has been bringing forward and the way it keeps taking us as parliamentarians through a void of any meaningful legislation, the act although important to Canadians is yet another way of getting around the fact that we should be getting on with other affairs that are important to Canadians rather than simply wasting time on housekeeping issues.

I do not suggest that the act is a waste of time. I am just saying that it falls into the context of avoiding any review of UI, for example. There are all sorts of leaks to the press about what will be happening with UI and about items promised by the government over the last two years about which nothing has happened.

Speaking specifically to the bill, there is a very little difference between the thought processes of the Liberals and the Conservatives. Liberal, Tory, same old story. The same kind of thought processes would come from the either of the old line parties. The Liberals are trying to engineer results of the gain. With the act, particularly as it relates to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, they are continuing to attempt to interfere in the natural process in the marketplace. Liberals, as was the case with the Conservatives, want to engineer the results of the gain. They want to make the rules of the game such that they can ensure what the results will be.

Basically this imposes external and extraneous pressure on an international commodity such as the trading medium of money. It brings values into the marketplace that would not be there if it were not for blatant government interference, as is shown in its proposals relative to the CDIC.

It makes me think a lot of the way that the Liberals and their predecessors, the Tories, have gone about interfering in the marketplace in the area of regional development and regional development grants. There is an absolute parallel between regional development and the way they are looking at the CDIC amendments.

In regional development we see countless Canadian dollars going into marketplaces under western economic diversification, FORD-Q, ACOA or any other program. The Canadian taxpayers' money squandered through these programs basically ends up distorting the marketplace. Why? It is because most frequently they end up supporting non-competitive companies that cannot make it on their own. There is no natural cleansing process to the marketplace. The biggest problem that creates is distortion or disadvantage for the firms that are competitive.

It is tremendously ironic that the competitive, healthy firms are paying the taxes. Their taxes are being taken in by big government, by the Liberals, and in turn are being put into firms that are less competitive, thereby creating competition for the firms that are competitive. The bottom line is that it costs taxpayers lots and lots of money.

[Fisheries, November 22nd, 1995]

You are causing the division.

[Regional Development, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's fine words there is no real accounting in regional development. I point to his department. Over a quarter of the loans approved by his department did not even need government assistance in the first place, according to the auditor general's report. Those approvals amounted to $65 million for FORD-Q.

Will the minister commit today to stop this hemorrhaging of Canadians' hard earned tax dollars? In other words will he do his job?

[Regional Development, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago the Treasury Board approved a policy to make all government contributions to businesses repayable. In the finance minister's 1995 budget speech he confirmed that policy. Yet at FEDNOR only 92 per cent, at ACOA 83 per cent, and in his own FORD-Q only 76 per cent of the loans are being made repayable.

Why is the finance minister not enforcing his own guidelines within cabinet?

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would suspect that the member, along with many of the old line parties, sees the military as a make work project. We do not.

Second, I was not referring to surplus purchases. What I was referring to was that there was current active military equipment based in Quebec that under the Bloc Quebecois, under the separatists, would have ended up, as far as they were concerned, under

their control in the event the vote had gone the other way. I do not think Canadians see that as being rational or reasonable.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe I was asked a question.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I find that question to be very reasonable. There is a very significant difference between myself and the other member because I look at the aerospace sector and the procurement of any of these armaments, be they tanks or helicopters, as being dollars spent by Canadian taxpayers, whereas the procurement of an automobile is dollars spent by a consumer.

I also contest and simply do not accept the concept that Canadians directly invested dollars in General Motors or the Ford plant. These are multinational corporations that have their own investers and their own ability to borrow. While from time to time they have depended on ill-thought programs the various old line governments have come forward with, the reality is that the dollars that are being invested are not only being invested by the multinational corporations but are being raised by multinational corporations.

I have a very significant difference of opinion with the other member. To underline the major difference I just spoke about, the dollars being spent on the procurement of equipment for our armed forces are Canadian taxpayers' dollars. The dollars being spent for the procurement of an automobile are being spent by the consumer.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting that we meet here today to discuss a Bloc Quebecois supply motion which attempts to get even more Canadian dollars to spend in Montreal.

On the basis of the number of dollars that have been sent to the province of Quebec from the so-called have provinces, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, one would think there would already have been a recognition of the tremendous amount of support there has been on the part of all Canadian taxpayers to the idea of the old line parties of attempting to buy the loyalty of the people, and I think of them as being in the minority in the province of Quebec, who would see Quebec secede from Canada.

It is also interesting that on this particular day we also note that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has decided that he is going to continue in the House of Commons as Her Majesty's official loyal opposition, working his attempt to break up Canada, all the while waiting to become the premier of the province of Quebec.

I seriously doubt the sincerity of the motion being brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Indeed, in its own way it is rather mischievous.

Furthermore, after taking a look at the issue of whether there should be a Canadian content to our military procurements, it strikes me that it runs a very strong parallel to the attitude of this old line government, the Liberals, and their predecessors, the Conservatives, relative to regional economic development grants. It falls into exactly the same category.

There seems to be a will on the part of the old line parties to create a national level playing field. In a matter of about 25 minutes, the auditor general's report on regional development grants will be released. It will be very interesting to be able to focus on a dispassionate review of how these grants have worked and whether a national level playing field has been created.

With respect to the issue of taking military product off the shelf, there is an over-arching issue. The over-arching issue is that Canada, at the federal level, is not taking into account the non-funded liability of the Canada pension plan, which is already over half a trillion dollars in debt. It is approximately $550 billion to $560 billion in debt. Much to the amazement of people when they actually take the time to think about it, the government is borrowing about $100 million every day to pay the interest on the money which has been borrowed. Therefore, when talking about necessary military equipment procurement, if there is a greater value for Canada's tax dollars, that must be paramount in the decision making process.

The idea of being able to intervene in the Montreal economy, or for that matter to intervene in the Canadian economy, is appealing. It certainly has been shown to have a tremendous appeal to members of the old line political parties. The $100 million which is borrowed daily will destroy our ability to fund health care, post-secondary education and the Canada assistance plan. Even old age security is under threat as a direct result of the desire of the government and its bedfellows, the Conservatives, to intervene in the economy.

If an off the shelf policy for these procurements can be created and achieve the savings which Canadians are looking for, then the question is: What would that do to business in Canada?

As a proud Canadian I am constantly impressed with our ability to compete. In the world there is no nation of people who are better able to adapt and compete. Canadians do not need this kind of over-arching government intervention to help competitiveness.

It also drives home the issue with which we were faced during the latter days of the referendum. I recall being told that the majority of Canada's CF-18s were at Bagotville, Quebec. I also recall being told that the vast majority of armaments, that is, the munitions for the Canadian Armed Forces, are in the east end of Montreal. When the Bloc defence critic, on the letterhead of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, advised people in the Canadian army to desert and join the new Quebec army, I really have to wonder about the sincerity and the depth of thought which has been given to this issue by the Bloc Quebecois. Why in the world would we permit ourselves to fall into the situation in which there is even more investment in that field in Montreal when the people who are proposing this legislation are talking about separating Quebec from Canada?

The defence critic, I presume, is shepherding this motion through the Chamber on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. His comments, in my judgment, were nothing short of sedition. You cannot be telling people in the Canadian army to desert. That is absolutely and totally unacceptable. I understand that a legal action has been commenced. I rather hope it has some success.

It is just about time to call a spade a spade. If the Bloc Quebecois was serious about this motion, if it really wanted to see Canadian procurement and if it is talking about taking Quebec out of Canada, how in the world can it not be seen as being totally contradictory? As a matter of fact, the two things are absolutely diametrically

opposed to each other. They simply do not fit. In all good conscience, how could any Canadian go along with this motion?

To get back to the smaller issue of procurement, because truly the larger issue is that of the Bloc attempting to smash Canada, Canadians, because of the size of the debt, must demand value for their tax dollar. This motion simply would not achieve that.

[The Senate, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal government took office two years ago, the Prime Minister has made 12 patronage appointments to the Senate. This is complicity in the degrading politics of an undemocratic, unaccountable institution.

The other place consumes over $40 million a year from hard pressed, taxpaying Canadians. Does it actually serve a purpose or is it just a rubber stamp for bad legislation?

In the last few days the justice minister has stated that he will not accept any amendments to Bill C-68 which might be proposed by the Senate. A few weeks ago he also said that Senators should get on with their function and pass the legislation. The government cannot have it both ways.

Either the gun control amendments will be coming back from a powerful, unelected body of partisan failures, flatterers and pleaders for special interests or it is a legitimate part of Canada's legislative process.

I ask again: Does the Senate serve a purpose or just act as a rubber stamp for bad legislation?