Keith Martin

[Points Of Order, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg North Centre said during her member's statement that in the course of a health care debate yesterday Reform does not care about health care. She quoted me incorrectly.

That is absolutely not true. I would like the member to withdraw that statement.

[Liberal Party, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, membership truly has its rewards and the following Liberals are being rewarded by the taxpayers of Canada for being a member of the Liberal family: a Liberal campaign crony from Richmond, B.C.; a former special assistant for Ontario to the Prime Minister; a defeated Liberal candidate from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve; the multicultural minister's campaign manager in Vancouver Centre; a failed 1993 Liberal candidate in Calgary and a former EA to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Also, the former Liberal president of Madawaska—Victoria riding; a former president of the Liberal revenue subcommittee; a Nova Scotia member of the Liberal Party permanent appeals committee; a defeated Liberal candidate for Louis-Hébert; the defeated Liberal candidate in Winnipeg Transcona; a friend of the Prime Minister's chief of staff; the Manitoba leader's assistant on executive committee; a defeated Liberal MP from Kings—Hants; the failed candidate for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga West.

The list goes on and on.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3 put forth by the NDP member is something we do not agree on. I am not going to support it. As my colleagues mentioned before very eloquently, it speaks to a larger involvement in the federal government in an issue, according to our Constitution, that is a provincial issue.

I would like to get to the heart of this problem on health care. It is something that has been used for decades as a political football in this country. If you defend the status quo you are looked on as being a white knight, a hero. This government and other governments have done that. They have said they champion the Canada Health Act, that we have the best health care system in the world and anyone who disagrees with that is bad, an enemy of the poor, an enemy of health care and wants a U.S. style health care system.

That is absolute and utter nonsense. The cold hard reality in our country today is that health care is not being provided to Canadians at a time when they need it. In our country from coast to coast, from emergency departments to operating theatres, from old age homes to chronic care facilities, to out-patient departments, Canadians are not getting their health care when they need it. The reality is there simply is not enough money in the system.

Certainly cuts have had to be made. They were made wisely and they were made judiciously. Cuts are continuing to be made today. They are not cutting the fat out of the system, they are cutting into the muscle and bone of a system that Canadians rely on in their time of greatest need.

When you are sick and realize that our health care system is not there for you, you do not have time to politically lobby because you are fighting for your life. This government and previous governments have stayed with the status quo in spite of the fact that Canadians are not getting their health care system when they need it.

People who are old and in need of a new hip and are in severe pain wait a year and a half for that new hip. People who need a simple 20 minute surgery on their wrist wait nine months to get that surgery. People who are elderly and need new knees will wait nine months to a year. People who need bypass surgery can wait six months. People are waiting two days to get into the intensive care unit while they sit in emergency departments or, worse, they sit waiting for a bed in a cold, dark hallway in a hospital. By any stretch of anyone's imagination that is not health care when a person medically needs it.

There is a myth put forward that we have enough resources in the system that people are getting their health care when they need it and the Canada Health Act and its five principles are being upheld. That is completely untrue.

Canadians are not getting their health care in a timely fashion. Furthermore, if you have the bucks, you get the health care. Twenty-five per cent of the money that is spent today in health care comes right out of the pockets of people. It is money that is paid by them to get health care. If you do not have the money, you do not get the service. These involve surcharges for physiotherapy and they involve extra charges for a wide variety of services.

This is the most graphic example of the multi-tier system we already have. If a person is injured and on workers compensation, the government will take their money. The workers compensation board will pay to have that person put at the head of the line in a public system to get his or her surgery done ahead of somebody else who is not injured in a WCB case. In other words, preferential treatment is given to those on WCB.

The system we have today favours the rich and compromises the poor. The examples I gave demonstrate very clearly that Canadians are not getting their essential services when they need them, which demonstrates again that the Canada Health Act principles are being violated in a most egregious fashion. In the rich country we have today we do not have to accept that. There are solutions and ways to make a better Canada Health Act system, a made in Canada health act system that enables Canadians to get their health care when they medically need it.

We do need more resources in the system. Critics from the other side say there is enough money in the system right now. When pressed for answers, they can only say that we need to put more efficiencies into the system. No other specifics are forthcoming.

We have to face the facts that not enough resources are in the Canada Health Act today to provide for the services Canadians need. When we look into the future, when we see a population that is getting older as demographics change, when we see how few people will be in the workforce, we recognize there will be fewer resources available.

How do we provide the resources to provide the essential services Canadians need without raising taxes, because raising taxes is not an option? If we amend the Canada Health Act to allow private clinics and private services where only private moneys are exchanged, completely separate from the public system and where there is no interchange, then people would have an option. They would be able to access the public system when they chose to and access the private system when they wanted to. There would be no mixing.

That way two separate systems would be created and there would be more money on a per capita basis in the public system, as some people would take some of their services into the public system. In other words, there would be more money in health care in Canada without raising taxes. The people who chose to be in our public system would get better health care than we have today.

Is it unequal? Yes. I would argue that first of all we have an unequal system today. Is it not better to have an unequal system that provides for better health care access for all people than the system we have today that provides for unequal access, particularly for the poor?

The rich will always be able to get health care when they need it, for they go south. In fact, we spend over $1 billion a year south of the border for health care that should be given here.

If we were to amend the Canada Health Act, if we were to allow private clinics and private medical services in an entirely private setting where there is no mixing of the private and the public, not only would people have a choice, not only would all Canadians have better access to health care, but we would also bring patients from the United States to buy their services here at two-thirds the price of services in the United States. This would provide for employment, nurses, physicians and health care personnel. In other words, we would be able to drag a huge amount of capital from the United States and have it spent in Canada, which would dramatically create a lot of jobs.

We do not need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We do not want an American style health care system which is deplorable in many ways. We want to make sure that people in our country, particularly those who are poorest, will have access to health care when they need it.

Good health care is not waiting a year and a half to see an orthopaedic surgeon. Good health care is not waiting nine months to have a 20 minute operation so a person can go back to work. Good health care is not being turfed out of hospital 24 hours after having a baby. Good health care is ensuring that Canadians get the health care services they require in an affordable fashion and in a medically necessary and timely fashion.

That is what the Canada Health Act is all about. These are the principles that were wisely fought for decades ago. These are the things we stand for as Canadians. However, that is not what is happening out there today in our country.

For heaven's sake, I ask the government to please listen to alternative solutions in order to build a better, made in Canada health act.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Motion No. 2. The Bloc motion is one that we support. We think it is a good idea. We think the government should be put on notice, as you have put us on notice, Mr. Speaker, that conflict of interest is completely and utterly unacceptable.

The motion was put in an effort to make sure that all members of the House would not benefit from the position we have today. I think we would all agree. That is why the motion was put forward and the Reform Party strongly supports it.

Be that as it may, the issue strikes at the heart of what has been mentioned repeatedly in the debate today, the confidence of Canadian people in the government and this institution. Conflict of interest or even the perception of conflict of interest erodes public confidence in this institution. If it erodes the public confidence in this institution, we as an institution cannot carry out our duties. If the public does not have confidence in us the public will suffer, we will suffer and our nation will suffer.

The government has demonstrated that cracks are developing in its midst. Motion No. 2 not only speaks to the issue of conflict of interest but also the repeated efforts by the government to use patronage as a way of solidifying its political base, its tax and spend sentiment, and its way of doing business that was thrown out by countries around the world. As we can see from the Liberal convention last weekend they are now looking at doing it again.

When will the government see that tax and spend ways will not only compromise the country but its ability to stay in power, not that we mind that incidentally? Taxes have been increased. The government, though, stated that taxes had gone down. This goes back to the root of the confidence of people in the government. It cannot say on the one hand that it will decrease taxes and on the other hand increase them.

My colleague from Medicine Hat eloquently demonstrated in the House that the government has repeatedly increased taxes and through bracket creep has taken more and more money out of the pockets of Canadians and put it in its own pocket for uses it sees fit, not for uses the public sees fit.

The government has shown a disregard for Canadian people. It will pay a political cost as well as a social cost for doing so. The social cost will result in its erosion in the eyes of the public. It will erode our economy and our social programs. The government does not have to go back to its tax and spend ways.

Motion No. 2 illustrates in microcosm that the government repeatedly failed to earn the respect of Canadian people. The government failed to do a number of things in Bill C-28. It has nibbled around the edges of our tax system rather than actually deal with it in a substantive way.

A few things can be done. We should improve the skills of our workforce. We should enable the private sector to put enough money into its research and development and hiring practices. Then we would have an improved workforce which would allow the private sector to be competitive in the 21st century.

We should lower taxes. The Reform Party has been fighting for lower taxes for a long time, and yet the government has failed to do it, even though other countries around the world have been doing it and demonstrating the fruits of this action.

The government says that by lowering taxes we are going to compromise the ability of social programs. It is the government's high taxes which are compromising the social programs that the have not people in this country have come to rely on. Therefore the government is compromising the very people it professes to want to help.

The government needs to lower taxes and decrease the rules and regulations that repeatedly strangle the private sector. The government needs to ensure that we have a pension plan which is privatized and effective. We need a health care system which will provide Canadians with the care they need when it is needed.

We do not have rationing on the basis of economics, we have rationing on the basis of the government choosing to withhold moneys and therefore services because it sees fit. Therefore Canadians from across the country who are poor are going to be compromised in their health care; not the rich because they can afford to go south.

This is another example of the erosion of public confidence in government. Motion No. 2, which we support, demonstrates very clearly that we need to have this motion if the public is going to have its confidence in government restored.

I have just returned from the United States. There are many things we can learn from the Americans and there are many things they can learn from us. They did not nibble around their tax situation. They took the bull by the horns and dealt with it in an effective way. As a result, their taxes are much lower. As a result, Canadians have been fleeing this country in droves.

The best of the best have left our country and gone south. As a result, they are pervasive everywhere from Wall Street to Hollywood. They are giving the United States the best of what we have trained them to do. Why has this occurred?

This has occurred because the government has failed to provide an environment in which the private sector can function in an effective way and by doing so enable Canadians to have jobs that are high paying, that are interesting and that contribute to our economy.

We need to lower our taxes. The government needs to regain the people's confidence by doing that. The government needs to take a lesson from other countries. It needs to see what they have done in order to buttress our economy. Lower the taxes. That would give the private sector money to invest in education, research and development, and that would put Canadians back to work.

Government members say that if we do that we will compromise health care. That is bunk. By taxing and spending, raising the amount of money the government spends on the basis of taxes, people are prevented from having money in their pockets to provide for themselves. The social fabric of the country is actually eroded and the very people the government professes to help are compromised.

Fiscal responsibility and having a social conscience are two halves of the same whole. One does not exist without the other.

The government should take a leaf out of the Reform Party's book. Our plan for fiscal responsibility is to spend within our means. That will enable us to have enough money to spend on social programs for those who need them. It will enable us to have enough money for health care. It will enable us to have a pension plan that works.

It does not take money out of Canadians' pockets to put into government coffers, thereby compromising the very people who keep the country strong, the private sector of our economy and the people who slave away day in and day out in the trenches of our country trying to make a living.

Instead of helping those people, as my colleague for Medicine Hat has said many times, the government has brought in over 39 tax increases and taken thousands of dollars out of their pockets.

We can have strong social programs, we can have fiscal responsibility, we can have a stronger economy, we can put people back to work and we can have lower taxes. The government needs to look at the plans we have put forward, look at plans that have been put forth around the world and, for heaven's sake, act. Do not nibble around the edges with measures such as Bill C-28, act.

The government's repeated failure to do this might make it look good, but what goes around comes around. I can tell hon. members this much. When more and more people die while they are on waiting lists in emergency departments, when more and more people fail to get needed heart surgery, when more and more pensioners fail to have enough money in their pockets when they retire, when more and more Canadians become unemployed and look south of the border where there is a 4.8% unemployment rate, when more and more Canadians get an education in this country and leave to go south to make a living, we will recognize once and for all that the policies the Liberals have put forward have been an abysmal failure.

[Racism, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if equality is the ultimate goal that a civil society aspires to, then racism is its implacable foe.

Canadians have struggled and fought hard against the vile enemy of social cohesion and although we have been enormously successful in integrating almost 200 different nationalities, we are far from perfect.

The ghettoization in large centres, the enormous difficulties aboriginal people face in integrating into Canadian society, the politically correct reverse discrimination that occurs still demonstrate that much needs to be done.

We must continue to enforce laws that penalize the purveyors of racism, ensure that racism labels are never falsely used, strengthen the level playing field where opportunities exist and the responsibility to take advantage of those opportunities rests with the individual, and that people are judged on their merit and not on the colour of their skin.

On this international day of elimination of racial discrimination I would like to thank Canada for the opportunity that Canada has given to me to be judged not on the colour of my skin but on my abilities.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-28.

This issue goes to the heart of the situation in the country today, the heart of our economical and societal problems that we have been having for a long time but that the government has now failed to address.

The government again had an enormous opportunity to deal with the tax structure in a way that would provide the greatest stability and greatest infusion, stimulation to our economy that we have had in decades. It has done what usually happens, it has nibbled around the edges rather than getting to the heart of the issue, taking the bull by the horns and dealing with it.

The solutions are out there. I wish the government had given as much zest and gusto to this bill as it has over the last five years in providing the tax increases for the Canadian public. We are reaping what we have sown and that is manifest quite clearly in the 9.8% unemployment rate that Canadians suffer from, the actual rate being much higher, and the nearly 20% unemployment rate our students labour under. This is completely unacceptable, particularly when we look south of the border and see that the U.S. has an unemployment rate of about 4.5% whereas just north it is 9.8%. Why is that so?

The bottom line is we have to look at what we really want to do. We want to provide for an economy that is going to enable Canadians to have the best social and economic situation that they can possibly have. We also want to have social programs that provide for those who cannot take care of themselves and provide the social programs that we rely on that set us apart from other countries that do not have them such as our health care program.

However, we need to do that in the context of being able to do this within our means. In other words, we spend not more than what we make. Can we do this? Indeed we can. We do not have to adopt what went on south of the border where there are huge discrepancies between those who have and those who have not, but there are leafs to take from that book. In fact, there are leafs to take from our own history.

The Conservative government around 1992 under Mulroney lowered taxes. What happened? Government revenues went up. As a result, the government went on a wild taxing spree and government revenues went down. The lesson in this, as it is south of the border, is when taxes are lowered government revenues can go up which would enable us to provide more money for our social programs such as health care which is suffering dramatically and also ensure that people will have enough money to provide food for their children, a place to stay, a roof over their heads, education and opportunities. The government has failed to do this. Instead it has nibbled around the edges with Bill C-28.

There are other examples from around the world that we can look at. Look at what is happening in England. It has taken charge of the situation. It has not nibbled around the edges and it has implemented some sensible programs.

What can we do? For years the Reform Party has told the government to ensure that the debt goes down. If we bring the debt down then interest payments will decrease and there would be more money for the social programs that we want to pay for. Looking at the American or the British situation, people will have more money in their pockets to be able to provide for themselves.

The government likes to tout its much lauded economic statistics and say it has done so well. It has done well on paper but it has not done well at the dinner table of Canadians. People have less disposable income today.

Let us go through a few more solutions that the government can adopt apart from what my colleagues in the Reform Party have eloquently stated today. We have to eliminate the waste of tax dollars and business subsidies to businesses that do not need them and develop a right to work legislation. When the right to work legislation was put forward in the United States over 75% of new manufacturing jobs went into those states.

Right to work legislation enables those companies to be much more aggressive on the international market. For the individual person that right to work legislation provided $2,800 more in their pockets. That is what we are trying to, put more money in the coffers so we can ensure we will stabilize our eroding social programs which are eroding because the government has increased taxes, has failed to deal with the economic situation in this country and in doing so has failed to provide the stable funding required for health care, education and other programs.

Payroll taxes need to be decreased. Right now we are sitting on a $13 billion employment insurance surplus. Why are we doing that? So the government can go in an scoop out a bit of money, put it in its pocket and use it when it needs to. The best thing that the government can do is lower EI premiums, particularly in view of the fact that it has just doubled the CPP premium for companies. Canadians had a rude awakening on January 1, in particular those who are providing the bulk of the jobs, those who are self-employed. Why do we continually try to compromise the private sector in this country, the private sector that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said is the primary engine of growth in Canada? Why are we preventing Canadians from getting the jobs they deserve?

England has put forth a new deal for students. It has created, for example, a university of industry. In this university students will learn the skills which will be required in the future that will enable them to have high paying jobs. Also, it has provided a new deal for students by giving the private sector tax incentives to hire new students.

One of the biggest complaints any of us will hear from private employers in our ridings is that the taxes are too high and therefore they cannot hire new people. They cannot invest in their companies. They cannot invest in research. They cannot invest in apprenticeships. They cannot invest in creating new jobs. When we have a situation like that we erode the ability of our economy to be able to provide for people.

This is not one or the other. It is not jobs or social programs. It is not affluence for the rich and be damned for the poor. We can take care of both. In fact it is beneficial in ensuring that we have a strong economy to have strong social programs.

Repeated government overspending by Liberal and Conservative governments has, contrary to popular belief, been the primary destroyer of our social programs. If we spend more and increase our debt, we pay more interest which means we have less money to provide for programs such as health care. As a result, we have people dying in our hospitals. People are waiting for two days in the emergency department to get into an intensive care unit bed. A senior person in severe pain has to wait 14 months for a new hip. That is not a health care system which is providing good care for Canadians.

We can do it. We can provide the strong social programs and we can provide a strong economy. We can do both. We do not have to reinvent the wheel in doing that.

There are other solutions. We can eliminate the personal income tax surcharges. Why do we continue to pile more taxes on people? The government thinks it knows best how to spend Canadians' money. Let the people decide what they want to do. Let the government take what it needs to provide for social programs and give the rest to the public to ensure that they have enough money to provide for themselves.

We underestimate the ability of people to provide for themselves. Let us give them that opportunity, while not forgetting that we have an enormous responsibility and a duty to provide for those people who cannot take care of themselves. That is the hallmark of having a kind, considerate, caring society from which we all derive an enormous amount of benefit.

In closing, the government should decrease taxes, ensure that the money it spends is spent wisely on social programs that we need, and also ensure that it pays down the debt. For heaven's sake, it should take a leaf out of the books of other countries which have used innovative measures, tax incentives and research and development to strengthen the education system and to link the education system to the future needs of industry. If we do all of that, instead of nibbling around the edges with Bill C-28, we will have a strong economy, we will have strong social programs and we will have a stronger nation.

[Reserve Force Act, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla not only for bringing this private member's bill forward but also on his recent marriage. Congratulations to him.

My friend and colleague has done a tremendous amount of work for the military for quite some time. As our previous defence critic he did an enormous amount of work bringing the plight of the members in the armed forces to the forefront.

Bill C-232 which my friend from Okanagan—Coquihalla has brought to the House is an effort to try to augment the ability of our armed forces to continue to do the great job it does in increasingly difficult times. As we in this House know, the armed forces has had a very difficult time with cuts. As such the number of people in our armed forces to carry out its duties has diminished dramatically.

How do we deal with this? How do we ensure that we are going to have enough people to carry out our duties and our international obligations as a member of NATO and so many other groups?

Bill C-232 enables us to buttress up the number of people in our armed forces through reserve members. The bill calls for a number of people to be taken from the public sector up to two months every year to carry out their training, their duties and their activities as part of a Canadian reserve force that would be integrated into our existing standing forces.

The bill challenges the government to show leadership. The defence committee's 1994 white paper said very clearly to the government that reservists are needed to buttress up the armed forces. A way to do that is to provide opportunities for members of the public to become reservists.

So far the government has again failed to act on its promise. We have roughly 25,000 members in the reserve force today. The government has stated that it needs 30,000. Bill C-232 paves the way for the government to do this. The bill allows people in the public sector to take up to two months from their jobs to become part of a regular standing unit as reservists.

This bill clearly allows the government to fulfil its duties and obligations as part of the 1994 white paper. The bill tries to stimulate the government into helping our beleaguered armed forces personnel and units to have enough manpower to carry out their duties.

Our armed forces personnel have had very difficult times over the last few years. In my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca they have had extraordinarily difficult times with cuts that have been made willingly and in the context of fiscal responsibility. However, what the government is doing now is cutting even further into the muscle and bone of our armed forces.

In the depot area of my riding which has been a model for downsizing and streamlining, the government is going to put these people's jobs up for tender. That is okay as long as the people who have those jobs right now are able to compete for those jobs in a fair and equitable fashion. The government is not giving them that option.

The situation is awful. Many of these people have been working in the armed forces for decades and for a wage that is below welfare rates and they are actually being forced to leave their jobs. These people who have been working below welfare rates are working because they support the military, they support the armed forces, they love their jobs and they love our country.

After all the downsizing which has taken place within their groups and which has been done willingly and effectively, the ministry of defence has now said it is going to take away their opportunity to bid for their jobs. It is going to give the jobs out to the private sector. This serious problem not only is happening in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca but is happening all across this country.

We are asking that the members in the armed forces today be allowed to bid for their jobs in a fair and equitable fashion. The minister should not throw the baby out with the bath water. These people should not lose their jobs. We are going to lose jobs and effectiveness in the military if these jobs are tendered out to the private sector.

Our armed forces personnel are having a terrible time in terms of their finances. Some are living below the poverty level. There are some things the government can do immediately to buttress up the situation in our armed forces.

First a solution could be to make the accommodation assistance allowance non-taxable and payable to all people within our armed forces. We should also enable the local commanders to have greater flexibility in how to handle the resources on their base. They are restricted right now by the Treasury Board. They could become much more nimble and fiscally responsible and have more money to help their people and would not be a burden on the taxpayer if they were able to have more flexibility.

The government has also raised rents dramatically on members' quarters while they have had a pay freeze for the last seven years. One cannot on the one hand go to our military personnel who are already being paid substandard wages and freeze their wages, and on the other hand jack up their rents by as much as 10% to 12% a year.

What kind of message does that give to our armed forces? It tells them that we do not care about them. That should never happen to these hardworking men and women who put their lives on the line to keep our country safe and to fulfil our international obligations.

This bill and other suggestions need to be dealt with as soon as possible.

Our military personnel have not had the hearing they require from this government. This government has failed our military personnel repeatedly in the past. It has not given them the tools to do their job. It has not given them the money to live on. And this is in the face of men and women, Canadians, who are giving their lives and working because they believe in the institution of our Canadian military. Many come from generations of military personnel and it is part of their heritage as it is part of our heritage to have a fine fighting force.

The government needs to tell these people what their obligations and duties are and where they fit in to the foreign policy picture. Do not leave them hanging out in left field. Support them. Give them the confidence and respect they have given this country for decades and we will have an armed forces that will be as good as it can be.

My colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla, a former member of the armed forces, a man who knows what he is talking about, has put forth Bill C-232. It is a good and sensible bill, a pragmatic bill that is congruent with the government's obligation. In 1994 the government promised to build a strong reserve force that would complement a shrinking armed forces personnel base. That reserve force would enable us to fulfil our international obligations in a way which is consistent with our objectives as a country.

I ask that every member in this House, in particular government members as they are are the linchpins in this, to look at the armed forces and to think about supporting its members, many of whom live in their ridings. Support Bill C-232 not only for our armed forces personnel but also for Canada.

[Point Of Order, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents, the Canadians of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I was elected to serve this House. The last time I checked, every member in this House was elected by Canadians for Canadians to work in this House, the House of Commons of Canada.

This is not the House of Commons of another country. The flag is the central emblem of this House of Commons for our country. If there is one place where we can sing the national anthem of our country, to wave the flag of our country, it is in the heart and soul of this country, which is the House of Commons.

If there is any member in this House who does not believe that they cannot be a part of Canada or for Canadians or they feel uncomfortable with our national anthem or holding our national flag in their hand, then they should not be in this House of Commons.

Last time I checked, the majority of people in Quebec had decided to remain within Canada.

I ask on behalf of the constituents of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, on behalf of all Canadians, that we make a statement here today that the national anthem of Canada and the flag of Canada always be welcome in this House of Commons.

[Grammy Awards, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada came out a winner last night at the Grammy awards in New York. We can all be proud of the outstanding achievements of our talented artists.

British Columbia's Sarah McLachlan came away with two awards. Bryan Adams was nominated for best male duet. Ottawa's Alanis Morrisette won best long term video. Montreal's Céline Dion was nominated for best duet. Daniel Lanois won for best album in contemporary folk.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Our nation has literally thousands of talented artists: the Tragically Hip from Kingston, the wonderful fiddler Natalie McMaster from Nova Scotia, Leahy from Ontario, Terri Clark and Paul Brandt from Alberta, the Buicks from Calgary, the Great Big Sea, Lorena McKinnet and her beautiful voice, as well as the wonderful Susan Aglukark.

On behalf of all of us in the House and on behalf of the Reform Party we congratulate the winners of last night and the winners to be from our great pool of talented artists in Canada.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member wanted to know what world we are on.

I wish to tell him that our world is a federalist one, a world in favour of national unity.

I would also hope the member would like to join us as a fellow Canadian in trying to decrease the EI premiums. That is what the government should be doing and is something the Reform Party has been pushing for for a long time.

If the government decreased EI premiums, it could be one of the greatest gifts the government could give to the private sector. The finance minister recognized this as being the primary motivating force in the country in creating jobs and giving it the ability to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians to get gainful employment.