Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on the motion which is not meant in anyway to be pejorative of the member in question, a person whom I respect greatly.
The government motion basically asks that the member for Kingston and the Islands be made a deputy speaker of the House. As I said before, while I have a lot of respect for the individual we oppose it on the grounds that it is a breach of promise the government made to the House and Canadians.
It is even more hypocritical because one member who put forth a document when in opposition recommended that two junior chair officers be from the opposition. That was a recommendation made by four prominent government members, one of whom is the hon. member nominated as the deputy chair.
(1830)
We feel that in order to honour the intentions of the promise made by the government when it was in opposition, it should fulfil its obligation and make an opposition member a deputy chair. That would ensure that the Chair is non-partisan. It would increase the democracy which the government promised. That is one of the many promises which the government has failed to fulfil.
We have put forward the name of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam to fill the position. We strongly suggest that the government take that nomination into consideration and make this well qualified individual the deputy chair and thereby live up to its promise.
That is only one of many promises on which the government has failed to deliver. I will address a number of those promises in my speech today.
This weekend I was pleased to attend the Liberal convention in Ottawa as an observer for the Reform Party. The government made repeated claims to its members and to the Canadian public that it had lived up to 78 per cent of its red book promises. That is completely untrue. The government has kept 62 of 198 of its promises. It has failed to keep 136 of its promises. I would like to cite a few of the promises as examples because I do not believe the people know that the wool has been pulled over their eyes on a wide range of issues which deeply affect them.
The first promise I would like to speak about is the GST. The government promised that it would abolish the GST. When we go to the stores what do we pay? GST. The government has had three years to do something about it, but it has done nothing.
Second, it wanted to co-ordinate tax policies between the provinces and the federal government. That was a very worthwhile initiative. It is one from which all Canadians would benefit, whether in the private sector or in the public sector. Has there been any co-ordination? No.
In three years there has not been any simplification of the tax system. The Reform Party has given to the government the elements of a flat tax proposal which would greatly simplify the system. Numerous suggestions have been made by Reform's finance people to simplify the tax system. Has the government adopted any of these measures? No.
Then there was the promise to remove interprovincial trade barriers. I find it ironic that there are more trade barriers between Quebec and Ontario or any two provinces within Canada than between Canada and the United States. There is freer trade between Canada and the United States than between the provinces. That is deplorable. How can businesses become aggressive exporters, aggressive in their areas of endeavour, when the government has created trade barriers?
Trade barriers dampen productivity, increase the costs of doing business within Canada, increase the unemployment rate and generally put a damper on the economy. What a great initiative it would have been if the government had taken the bull by the horns
and brought down interprovincial trade barriers. Unfortunately that has not happened.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought that this evening's debate was to deal with the qualifications, the worthiness and the appropriateness of an eight-year veteran of the House of Commons who is being considered for a deputy chair position.
I have listened carefully in the last six or seven minutes. I believe that the litany of all the things which we have or have not done as a Liberal government is not relevant to the issue of this debate.
(1835)
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, could we call quorum, please?
The Deputy Speaker: Can we do one thing first. I think I will rule on the question of order before I do the quorum call. The House belongs to the members. The standing orders reflect, at least in theory, the views of the members. The Chair is not at liberty to say if the member is off the subject.
Accordingly, when the issue is raised as it was by a member, the Chair is entitled to ask that the member speaking, whoever it might be, and I have great respect for the member who is speaking, might please bear in mind the subject matter that we are discussing.
I am sure the member from Esquimalt will quickly be getting to the point that relates to the motion that is actually before the House.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, for the attention of the-
An hon. member: On a point of order. Quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. Yes, in fact there are not 20 members in the House. I would ask that the bells be rung.
And the bells having rung:
[Translation]
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: We now have a quorum. There are more than 20 members in the House.
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, the point I was getting to by raising this subject was to show that while the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is a very competent individual and one for whom we have very great respect, this issue comes from a much larger issue. The issue here is a breach of promise. It has to do with credibility of the government. That is intimately associated with the issue.
The government promised when in opposition that when it became the government, it would democratize the House. One initiative was to ensure that at least two junior members of the Chair would be members of the opposition. That is not what is being done here. Every member of the Chair right now is from the ruling party. There is a vacancy now. The proposal in the House today is to ensure that the vacancy does not go to a member of the opposition but to a member of the government. That is a breach of promise, a breach of a contract and it belies the much larger issue which is that this government is not living up to its promises. These are just a couple of examples.
I want to get to the member's question by raising a couple of other issues which are very much related to the Chair and have to do with democratizing Parliament.
When the government was in opposition it wanted to democratize the House. The Liberals wanted to make sure that committees would be empowered to truly bring the wishes of the public to the House and empower individual MPs and committees to bring forward solid solutions to the problems that affect us all. That does not happen because committees are an utter sham. I do not think the public recognize that. Committees are repeatedly asked to deal with subjects which have very little relevance to the problems that affect the country.
When they deal with relevant matters and work very hard, long hours writing a document, using the expertise and time of members of the House, research staff, witnesses as well as thousands of taxpayers' dollars, what happens to the document? It gets about a day of play in the media then it is tossed on a shelf to be ignored. It has no relevance, no meaning, no input into legislation.
(1840)
What a waste of time, money and effort. What a waste of the potential and expertise of members in this House. I do not think that the public understands that the committee structures in this Parliament are very much a sham. It is in no way a reflection on the good, hard working members of Parliament, the research and ancillary staff that work very hard to try to make a difference. The structure prevents them from doing that. It is a real shame.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands with his colleagues had proposed initiatives to democratize the House and the structures under which we labour. However, absolutely nothing has happened.
Today I introduced a private member's bill. Eight came to this House to determine votability. Out of those eight, only one private member's bill has a chance of being votable and therefore becoming law. Why do we have private members' bills that are not going to be made votable, and therefore can never become law? The whole issue becomes a sham and completely misrepresents to the public the fact that their individual MPs have the power to
introduce legislation that can become votable, can become law so that it can have an effect.
It cannot happen because the structure does not allow it to happen. The government has had ample opportunity to make those changes. One of the changes is to make all private members' bills votable. That would empower the members to actually make an honest effort, make an impact on the welfare of Canadians.
MPs also labour under a culture of fear. Because of the whip structure, if they do not do what the higher ups say in their respective parties, individual members of Parliament have their fists put down on them, as the government has repeatedly done. Their privileges to speak are removed. They cannot get on the committees that they want. They are removed from them. They become superfluous to the issues that affect them.
Where are all the big decisions made in this House? The big decisions are made in the Prime Minister's Office by a few selected members of cabinet and by some of the captains of industry. These are the people who make the decisions. It is not this House that makes the major significant decisions that can truly have an impact on the country. It gives democracy in Canada a bad name to see this happening. We do not live in a democracy because this House and this Parliament are not a democracy.
The government has had an opportunity to make changes that would empower individual MPs, would empower committees to actually make a change, to actually give people the power to speak through their MPs and affect the legislation that comes to this House. Unfortunately that does not happen.
The public would be appalled if they truly knew what happens in this place and how powerless most of their MPs are to make changes within our fine country. What great opportunity do we have to do this?
Perhaps the greatest disappointment I have had concerns health care. The government had a great opportunity. Its members said when they were running for office that health care was going to be a priority for them, that they were going to ensure that Canadians were going to get their health care when they medically needed it. They recognized that today Canadians from coast to coast are not receiving their health care when they need it. Instead, the government is adhering to the status quo. Why? Purely for political reasons.
The Liberals want to look like the white knight that is going to defend the principles of the Canada Health Act, defend the status quo and defend the declining state of the health care system within Canada.
The public does not realize that because most Canadians are healthy. However, some are not. It is sad that the sick people are the ones who truly understand the state of affairs of our health care system today.
(1845)
One of the wives of a member in the House is quite sick. She has been diagnosed with a serious illness. The member's wife will not receive treatment for over 30 days, which is not unusual.
If someone is in British Columbia and requires treatment for breast cancer, the wait is over 40 days. If treatment is required for prostate cancer, the wait is over 40 days. If a new knee or hip is required by an elderly person who is in severe pain, the wait is over seven months. That is not access to timely health care. In fact, it is a transgression of one of the basic pillars of the Canadian health system: accessibility for all Canadians.
We cannot defend the current system as it stands. We can and we must build a better system. Not an American system; that can stay south of the border. We do not want an American style health care system in Canada, period, end of story. What we can do is build a better, made in Canada health care system that will provide timely access for all people regardless of their income and ensure that their essential health care services are going to be met when it is medically needed, not when the bottom line allows it.
Adhering to the current principles as they stand is fallacious. Right now portability does not exist. Quebec and the other nine provinces do not have an agreement. Therefore, somebody in Quebec would not necessarily get their services in other parts of the country.
I have dealt with the accessibility issue. There is no universality. If somebody in British Columbia or any other province chooses not to pay their medical premiums, they do not have coverage. They do not have to be treated. There is a significant pool of individuals who do not have coverage because they choose not to. These people are not covered under the health plans as they exist and they put themselves forward as wards of the state. This is only because they choose not to be covered. Comprehensive coverage also does not exist because coverage varies from province to province.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy I see in this issue is that there is a great opportunity. We have to put aside the rhetoric. The rhetoric the government is putting forth on health care is only going to do a huge disservice to Canadians.
Giving people a choice, for example by allowing for private health care clinics where only private moneys are exchanged and no tax dollars are spent, enables people to come off existing waiting lists if they choose to go to the private sector. This would provide more money for and better access to the public system. The private system would be subsidizing the public system; the rich would be subsidizing the poor. It would provide better access for everybody.
In closing, we disagree with this motion because it transgresses a basic promise the government made. We hope the government does not break this promise as it has broken so many others in its
red book. We hope the government will listen to the ideas put forth by the member for Kingston and the Islands and three other distinguished members from the Liberal government to democratize this House and allow a member from the opposition to sit in the Chair as one of the deputy speakers. We suggest that the member be one from the Reform Party.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to speak to this motion. I have gone through the report, which I am sure all of us have puzzled over, which looks at reviving parliamentary democracy. The member for Kingston and the Islands was one of the people who put the report forward. It is rather shocking, after this report which says that two opposition members should also share in the role of Speaker, that the member now finds himself in conflict in this situation.
(1850)
I would like to demonstrate the true meanspirited nature of the Liberal government, the true spirit of the spin doctors and manipulators and the whole despicable performance that has been created within this Parliament and this country. We have had years of this sort of government and Canadians are sick and tired of it. Canadians are sick and tired of the old Canada which is withering and full of these problems.
The Prime Minister is really yesterday's man and is leading us backward into the past. There was the situation today where an individual was telling us, totally incorrectly, that because Reformers would dare to visit Washington and talk to all the politicians there, including Mr. Newt Gingrich, that it somehow makes us part of the extremist right. The point to make clear is that the Reformers were probably as surprised as anyone else at just how different we really are, just how much difference there is between a Canadian and an American. Whether we are looking at our political system, social system, hospital system or other systems, the differences are obvious.
Yes, we are annoyed. We are more than annoyed when we get this kind of treatment from that sort of an individual in our country. We Reformers are annoyed when we see posters of an evolutionary chart and we are at the bottom and the Liberals have the arrogance to put themselves at the top. It is that kind of arrogance that would cause a motion to appoint all speakers from the one party, even though there is a promise to democratize this place; a promise to open it up and to make it more transparent, to enter the 21st century with some kind of a vision rather than the meanspirited dictatorship which we are now subject to in this place.
As we examine this motion we can see the deception that has gone on. We can go through the list and talk about some of the promises. There is the member of Parliament pension plan. The Liberals said they were going to reform and fix it. Sure, just a little dust over and now it is fine. Canadians are not going to accept that sort of deception. Who opted out? The members across know who did and we Reformers are proud of it. Reform is showing a vision for the next century.
The Liberals said: ``Yes we will get rid of the GST, we will scrap it, we will get rid of it. We promise we will. Elect us and we will do it''. Who are the ones who are making politicians the low lives of this country? Who is doing that? It is not Reformers who are doing it. It is the party opposite that is just adding more and more fuel to the fire by the sorts of things that we have seen it do this week.
The GST harmonization: another billion dollar grab from the other provinces. It is not even acceptable in the provinces that have agreed to it but it is better than nothing.
What about health care? Again we have heard the deception, that we are the ones who will burn and scrap this system, that there will be a two tier system. Our health care system is in disarray. Look at it in this province, or look at it in my home province. There are waiting lists. People are waiting 30 days, six months and seven months. My wife has a serious problem and she has to wait three months to see a specialist.
That is the sort of quality we have in our health care system. That is what makes this government say: ``Those people across the way, they are destroying the system''. It is the $3 billion cut from the feds. It is not just the provinces. Canadians are going to see that and then they will understand what the government is like.
(1855)
Canadians will then understand why it is going against the recommendation of the member himself, that there should be a person from the opposition put in the Chair. That was a recommendation from the member for Kingston and the Islands and now the government is going against that. It is deception of the worst kind in this place.
The list goes on and on. In 1969 the debt was zero; in 1972 it was $17 billion. Would it not be nice to be back there? Then we really got into it and by 1984, when we were all totally disgusted with the Liberal government, we were up to $180 billion in debt and we said that we could not let it go any further. But it did go further and the day we all got elected it was $489 billion.
Now the Liberals are saying that they have it under control. Canadians are asking: ``Do they really have it under control? Do they really? What are they going to tell us in 1997?'' They are going to say $610 billion or $620 billion. Under control? Again the whole picture before us is one of total misrepresentation and it goes on and on.
We are told that the unemployment problem has been solved and infrastructure programs are taking place. Boy, that is fixing everything. Tell that to the 1.4 million people who are unemployed, the two million to three million who are underemployed, the one in four people who are worried they will lose their jobs. Tell them it is under control.
Again this deception, this smoke and mirrors, saying one thing and doing something else, saying there will be a more open Parliament, a speaker which will represent all parties. No offence to the position, Mr. Speaker. It is one that all of us in this place honour, but here is a chance to reform this place. Here is a little way of doing it. However, we see closure, shutting down the debate. Again, we add to the nails in the coffin of the people who say what they think about this place.
We can talk about the criminal justice system and how it is doing. Talk to the victims. Yesterday I spoke to a constituent of mine who was victimized by a 10-year old. We are not solving these social problems. We are going down the middle saying that if we close our eyes, we will not have to see them. People are watching and they are seeing what is happening here. When the government does have an opportunity to fix a situation, it does not. It just does not make any attempt to try to change the perceptions people have.
What do Canadians think about the other place? Just ask anyone what they think about it. I do not care what political party they belong to. Ask them if they think the other place needs to be changed. On the kind of change we might have differences of opinion but just ask the people if it should be changed. They will say without a doubt, probably in the 90 per cent range, that the other place needs to changed.
The government has a chance to make some changes here tonight, but it is not going to because it is status quo. The government believes in the old line of thinking. We can look at how things work in the House, how the committees work, free votes and private members' bills. All of those things present an opportunity to make a change.
I cannot help but think back to a couple of years ago on an access to information bill. I was more naive three years ago. I said: ``What do you think of this?'' I got it from the access commissioner. He recommended this change. It came out of his report. The Liberals endorsed it back in 1990. They said it was a great idea. However, it did not pass the House. The reason it did not pass was two and a half years ago everybody got up and said: ``Yes, it is a very good motion, but there will be amendments made to the Access to Information Act. The justice minister will put them forward in the next year or two. Do not worry about it. That is why we voted against your motion''. We are still waiting for those changes.
(1900)
I have put forward another private member's bill which deals with peacekeeping. Should we vote in the House for peacekeeping?
Should we have all the facts before we vote? Should there be atree vote?
That seems very straightforward. Certainly that is what Canadians want. However, it will be defeated in the House because we have to keep the status quo and we have to let a few guys at the top make the decisions.
We have a centralized, sluggish organization that wants to keep the status quo. It could be made much better.
I feel very fortunate to be involved in the foreign affairs area. In that area, if in no other, we should be able to work together on things. We try to work together on issues which are good for Canadians.
Parliament could be much more constructive if we could work together for the betterment of Canadians. Somehow we have to change the system to do that. As long as attendance is like this, and as long as there is so little chance to make a difference we will not make any changes. We will just carry on until finally the Canadian people will say ``enough''. It should not have to go that far. The country should not have to be hurt that much. Can the country survive if we do not act?
We are now celebrating what happened a year ago. A year ago the vote was 50.5 per cent to 49.5 per cent. That well could have spelled the end of this country. That is how close we are to Canadians losing faith in their Parliament.
What can we do to bring back the faith? Certainly one little tiny thing would be to elect an opposition member to be the junior speaker. I have heard some say that it cannot be a Reform member. Why does someone not amend it to make it a Bloc member? Make it one of those other guys. Make it whomever, but make it an opposition member. At least start the process of change, change that is so necessary for this House.
We might say that it really will not make a difference anyway because of the Liberal majority and the way majorities work. If we started making changes we might be surprised at how they might catch on. We might be surprised at how that might lead to a better place. It would be a better place for the country, for the members and for all those associated with this place. We would all benefit from that.
I am sure that all of us are asking ourselves if we are going to run in the next election. We are asking ourselves what else we could do. We are asking ourselves if we have made a difference. The thing which makes it most rewarding for all of us is when we go home and we have our town hall meetings and people say: ``Thank you for representing us. It must be a tough job''.
If I did not hear that a lot I might say ``enough is enough''.
(1905)
Because they say that, we come back down here. I often tell them that it is sort of like getting thrown out of the ring, going back home, getting picked up, sorted out and thrown back into the ring. We get on a plane and come back down here and try again.
When we go through something like this, we say: ``Is it worth it? Am I making a difference? Are they going to just slam stuff through whether it is good or bad? Is status quo the only thing we think of in this place?''
I plead with the members across as we vote on something like this to think about it, make an amendment, make any kind of amendment to improve this. Show Canadians, show parliamentarians, show the people who are watching that we care about this country.
Obviously the Prime Minister has said enough times in this House: ``The only reason there are people who want to leave this country is that they have given up on it''. The best way to defeat separatism in any part of Canada obviously is to make it better, make it some place that people can respect and feel part of.
I am saying that this motion that is before us tonight is just one step that might help put us that one more step.
When we hear parliamentarians, as we did this past weekend, rating themselves as A+, as the very best, Canadians are saying: ``Boy, let's look at the list on taxation. Are we better off? No. It is $23 billion, We are paying more taxes than we were before''.
On the whole social policy, are we better off? No, the line-ups are longer. There are more social programs today than ever before. On labour policies, are we better off? No, not at all. Look at The problems we have in that whole area.
Cultural policies, the unity issue and the report card could go on and on. Canadians out there have that report card. They are keeping score. Again I say to this House that this is a chance to make one little change and show that at least this House is prepared to look at some kind of reform of this place to make it better.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You might want to check the blues or the hon. member might want to confirm it, but I think I heard him a few minutes ago use the word meanspirited in referring to this side of the House.
If he indeed used that word, I would ask that he withdraw it. I base that request on a ruling that you made in this House a couple of years ago.
The Speaker: My colleague, I did hear the word meanspirited. It is the age old story of what is parliamentary today may be unparliamentary tomorrow and vice versa. Sometimes the word is not used in the same context as the other. In this case I found that in the context that it was used it was not unparliamentary. I thank you for bringing it to my attention. It shows that we are all in this debate. I would say at least at this point from what I heard it would not be a point of order.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying it is really sad on an evening like this when we will be voting to ask someone to be the deputy chair of the House that we have not had more time discussing the background and the qualities that the member for Kingston and the Islands has exhibited in this House over the last eight years.
With respect to many of the members of the Reform Party, had they been here when we were in opposition when the Conservative government was operating this place they would have witnessed a man who showed a tremendous amount of love for this Chamber. He practically lived in here for his first term.
He developed a keen sense of understanding about the technical aspects of the House. He committed himself to becoming a master of the House, understanding the rules and making sure that there was fair play and accountability on the government side of the House.
(1910)
I think the members of the Reform Party are at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to assessing the member for Kingston and the Islands because they did not witness that experience. He has served a tremendous apprenticeship which suits him to take over this assignment.
It is too bad that tonight, what should be a total acclamation of a great member of Parliament, is being stained and clouded by a diversionary tactic of the opposition to prevent this member who has such merit from being appointed.
For the last little while I have listened to the members of the Reform Party. I want to go back to the very first time that the leader of the Reform Party stood in this House. He said the members of the Reform Party over this term would only stand and criticize the government if they had constructive alternatives to the government pathway and that they would do it in a way that was not like the traditional jousting and bickering that tends to go on during question period.
We can see that after three or four months in this Chamber Reform Party members have fallen into the traditional partisan habits of opposition parties. I find that sad because there were many good thoughts put on the table tonight and many good observations about what really does happen in this House of Commons and in committees. Many of their observations are about the fact that effectiveness of the utilization of committee recommendations is not really high. There is a lot of good talent and good ideas which go on in those committees which really never see the light of day. I thought that some of the Reform members who brought that point up made a good observation.
However, we know that the real root of the problem for this Chamber is not what goes on in the committees and in debate here on bills as they come through the House. The real root evolves from question period. The members of the Reform Party over the last three years had a chance to do something different.
I do not think many Canadians realize how question period operates in this country. I do not think many Canadians realize that most of it is sort of a rigged deal. In other words, every morning we all know that the tacticians from both sides of the House meet in their offices and the opposition members sit there and say ``okay, let us see what the media is saying about issues all across the country and let us see how we can sort of find one or two things to embarrass the government''. These are not ideas coming from the members from their own committee experiences. By and large they tend to design their questions from what they see in the media.
Lo and behold, on the other side of the House we have tacticians sitting there for the government almost having a contest as to what questions opposition members are going to ask today. They wonder how many questions they can anticipate are going to be asked and how accurate are they going to be. What do we have here? We have a phony joust every day in question period. There is not a member of Parliament in this House who will say that this is anything other than an almost predictable exercise every day.
This is what Canadians are fed up with. They are not fed up with what goes on in committee because they see very little of committee. The members are right, that is where a lot of good work goes on. However, what is the face that we put to Canadians in this Chamber? It is the face of that 30 second little joust clip that goes on in question period. In the last three and a half years Reform members had a chance to try to change that and make question period a more meaningful exercise. That is what the leader of the Reform Party said he would do the first time he spoke in the House.
(1915)
I want to be specific. I am not criticizing the Reform Party just to criticize. I am trying to convey the genuineness they are trying to show with regard to making the Chamber more meaningful. I say question period could be different. Reform members or the members of the opposition should not govern themselves or design their questions based on the media. They should base them on their own committee experience and what they personally believe is the issue of the day. They should control the agenda rather than letting the media control it.
That is one of the sicknesses around here. By and large the media controls the agenda of most members of Parliament, and it should be the reverse. Members of Parliament should be controlling the agenda.
I give a specific example. Members have stood in the past few hours to talk about the flawed health care system as it is evolving and about some of the shortcomings of government.
I could make the case the Reform Party has caused most of the flaws. I should not say flaws. If the Liberal government has been a little less liberal than what it has been traditionally, it is primarily because of the Reform Party which has an obsession with deficit and debt. How can it be so obsessed with deficit and debt and expect the health care system to be anything other than what it is?
We have a pathway of deficit and debt reduction around here that is crazy. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. We are destroying national institutions because of the deep cuts that are going on.
The Reform Party has taken some credit for the heavy duty focus on deficit and debt. We in the Chamber are supposed to be here not for the advantaged but to speak for the disadvantaged. Traditionally the opposition party is supposed to make sure government is accountable and there is some balance.
I humbly say those members of Parliament have not been a factor in ensuring a balance as we go through reconstruction or modernization. They have been too extreme and that extremism does not help the quality of life. It exacerbates the breakdown of some institutions going through a very difficult period.
I have a great respect for the Chamber. I continue to enjoy my experience in the House of Commons. I have a deep understanding and respect for where the Reform Party is coming from. However, if Reformers want to make this work, they have to carve out a new pathway or a different approach which should start at question period. Until we clean up the House at question period to make it real and not a gimmick, nothing will change. It will go on.
There is not a kid or a serious person in Canada who will tell us to our face that they love what goes on in question period, that they think what goes on there is great, that they admire what happens there. I have never found the person, anyway. If the Reform Party were serious about making the House more meaningful it would focus on the root problem.
(1920)
I end by saying that I came to the House of Commons with the member for Kingston and the Islands who is a fabulous Chamber member. He loves the Chamber. He has worked his buns off to ensure that fair play is part of the rules and the different sorts of things that go on here. It is part of his being.
If the members of the Reform Party believe in change, they should not stain an evening like tonight when such a fine member will be appointed in any event. We should all get behind him and
put trust that he and the Speaker over the next few months can perhaps make a few changes.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise tonight to participate in the debate.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood has joined us. As usual he was very eloquent in making his point, but he missed the point of the debate that is taking place tonight and indeed earlier today. The debate is not about the qualifications of the member for Kingston and the Islands. Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has made that point and I will make it. I think he is very well qualified for the position. I have been a great admirer of his but that is not what it is about.
The debate tonight is about his appointment being another Liberal broken promise. It is not about the member. It is about the fact that promises made to Canadians to get elected have not been kept. I will focus my remarks on the severity or the impact of those broken promises on Canadians. This is a small one by comparison to some that have been made.
Last weekend there was a great deal of accounting: ``78 per cent of our promises kept''. Numbers were kicked around. I have done my own tabulation and I have rated the impact of the promises that were made. The Liberal government made two promises to get elected that I would put in the 90 per cent category: job creation and the GST. Those two promises rated with the Canadian people somewhere about 90 per cent. The others were nickel and dime stuff compared to those two promises. Very few Canadians went beyond the third or fourth promise, but those two broken promises had a great impact on Canadians and played a great role in getting the government elected.
I focus on the jobs promised at election time and the GST. In 1993 during that election campaign Canadians wanted to believe the government would be able to create the jobs they so desperately needed. Some 1.4 million Canadians were out of work. They wanted to believe the Liberal government and voted for the Liberal government on that promise.
They wanted to get rid of the GST. They voted for that Liberal government because it was to abolish it. It was to scrap it. They hated it and I think the member for Broadview-Greenwood would agree. He knows the impact of the GST promise in his riding and many ridings across Canada.
Those two major promises were not kept. They got the Liberals elected but once elected they were soon forgotten. I am not referring to the member for Broadview-Greenwood who did the honourable thing.
Let us talk about the broken promise on jobs for a minute. Three years down the road we still have 1.4 million unemployed Canadians; 18 per cent of our youth and several million Canadians with jobs are worried sick about how much longer they will have them. They just do not know if they will be employed a year from now. That is the reality of the broken promise. It has turned out to be a cruel hoax. Unemployed people were looking for that promise, looking for those jobs which in fact did not materialize.
The Liberal government has yet to make the connection between the high tax burden and the lack of job creation. There is a relationship there and it still has not made it.
(1925)
That was evidenced a little over a week ago when the Prime Minister said: ``No, if we get a few extra bucks there won't be any tax relief; we will put those extra dollars into social programs''. There was arrogance in that statement. For hard working overtaxed Canadians there was no hope for tax relief. The indication is that if there are extra dollars they will go into social programs. That is not what Canadians wanted to hear. It is further proof there was misplaced trust in the government when it was elected in 1993.
To find out about creating jobs why not go to the people who create jobs and find out how it is done? The Chamber of Commerce is the organization that represents the job creators.
I quote from a letter sent to all members of Parliament and the Senate in December 1994 from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which represents 170,000 entrepreneurs, hard working small business people that create the jobs: ``The next federal budget will be crucial to the future of our country. Tough choices will be necessary. Despite the overwhelming consensus that the deficit must be cut we fear that the cuts will not be deep enough. The finance minister's promise to meet his target of a deficit that is 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 is simply not good enough. The deficit must be reduced to zero by 1997-98. The consequences of the government not following through on this is unthinkable''.
Those are the people who create the jobs. That was the result of a survey of 6,000 of their members. Perhaps it was not what the government wanted to hear. The government ignored it because it still had not made the connection on how to create jobs by reducing the tax burden of Canadians.
I think back to when we were first elected. We in Reform ran on the deficit and the debt. The member for Broadview-Greenwood thinks we are fixated on the deficit and the debt. It is not the deficit and the debt. It is what the government is doing to job creation, taxes and our social programs. That is what Reform is concerned about. That is the impact or the connection the government has not been made yet. That is what is killing jobs. That is why our taxes
are so high. That is why medicare is in trouble. It is the deficit and the debt. Until the government gets that message it just will not happen.
Reform campaigned on it. When we were running on that platform in 1993 the Liberals were saying: ``It is not a problem. What are you worried about? You are fearmongering''. Because of that the first budget brought down by our finance minister did absolutely nothing to deal with the deficit and the debt. Actually it was worse than nothing because part of that first budget gave in to the smugglers and gave away $300 million to $400 million in tobacco taxes. It was unbelievable in the position we were in that they threw away tax dollars so desperately needed.
The first budget from the finance minister ignores the most serious problem we have today. I have heard members say: ``We just got here. We didn't know anything about it. We didn't know it was that serious. We were just elected''. That might hold for some of the backbenchers but most in the front row, most of the cabinet ministers in government, had been in opposition. They were not rookies. They knew the state of the economy. They knew the state of the tax burden. In fact when they were in opposition they opposed most attempts by the Conservative government to do something about it.
In the second budget the finance minister all of a sudden started to talk about the serious problem with the deficit and debt. It was killing jobs. It took two budgets. He found out in the second budget that we had a problem, but even in the second budget he failed to do anything about it.
The finance minister did nothing about it even with a warning shot from Moody's, the bond rating people. They told the finance minister there was a serious problem: ``The people who buy your bonds come to us for advice. Unless you do a couple of things we will not be advising them to buy your bonds or if they are going to buy them we will advise them to look for an extra point''. Moody's said: ``Your 3 per cent target of GDP is too low. You could fall over that. That is not a target. We want a date for when you are going to get to zero. Don't give me rolling two-year targets somewhere down the road''. When I heard that from the finance minister I saw myself in business going to my bank manager with my overdraft which I had for many years and the bank manager says: ``When are you going to have it paid off?'' I would say to him: ``I'm not going to tell you-somewhere down the road''. I would be out the door, I would be gone and my note would be called.
(1930)
However, we play that game on the Canadian taxpayers. They are not buying it. That advice of Moody's was ignored and we were downgraded, unfortunately. However, by the third budget he was really starting to get the message. He realized that yes, we have to make some cuts. We did not get cuts. We got scrapes. We did not get the cuts that we needed; too little, too late.
Here we are, three years from when the government took office. We were just under $500 billion in debt. It will have added over $100 billion to the debt. We are approaching $600 billion of debt.
The finance minister stands up and brags about 3 per cent of GDP. He does not talk about the $400 billion, $500 billion, $600 billion of debt that he has put this country in. Of course the real cruncher is $50 billion in interest payments to service that debt. The 68 cent government is what the Canadian people have now. One-third of tax dollars goes to pay the debt, just the interest on our debt. The interest on our debt now is equivalent to our social program spending. It is growing faster than any item in the budget.
What do we get from the finance minister? Interest rates are the answer. We get reduced interest rates. It is not interest rates. It is taxes. Canadians want lower taxes, not lower interest rates. We need to leave more dollars in the pockets of the people who are going to buy the goods and get the economy moving.
I have to quote the Prime Minister because I think this is at the mind block that is there on this deficit and debt. This is a statement the Prime Minister made during a town hall meeting and it was reported in the Ottawa Sun: ``PM downplays massive serving cost. The debt load is no problem. Of course we have a debt but we can pay off our interest. We have no problem at all. Fifty billion of interest payments is not a problem''. We just tax the people and get more taxes from those compassionate, caring people.
What about health care? We are not creating jobs, but not a problem, $50 billion is not a problem. This is the leader of the party. If that kind of thinking is what is coming down from cabinet we are never going to get tax relief because we do not have a problem. Tell that to the 1.5 million unemployed who say: ``What is the problem? Why can't I get a job?'' Those unemployed people are not interested in interest rates. They are interested in doing something about getting their taxes reduced and there is absolutely no hope.
The other big broken promise of course was NAFTA. They were going to rewrite NAFTA, scrap NAFTA. Thank God it did not happen. The only jobs we have in this country are because of free trade and NAFTA. That is a broken promise.
Right now it is not Canadians who are spending money. It is our exports that are keeping us going. Of course free trade was opposed by the Liberals when they were in opposition. It is interesting now to hear them stand up in the House and rant and rave about the 600,000 jobs. Those jobs have been created by free trade and NAFTA and they opposed it. They do not know how to create jobs. That is the sad truth of the situation today.
Let us talk for a moment about the GST. I know that is very near and dear to the heart of the member for Broadview-Greenwood. He did the right thing on that. He knew that he was elected by a large number of people in his riding on the basis of that being scrapped and when the government did not deal with it he did the right thing. I applaud him for it.
That won a lot of votes. That was the most hated tax by Canadians and may still be because of the way it was put through. Not that it is a bad tax; I happen to think that the GST is a very fair tax. It replaced the old manufacturers' sales tax. I think it was brought in at a higher level than it needed to be but it was sure a lot fairer tax than the one it replaced.
Nevertheless, Canadians hated it. It still comes up at meetings and I am asked, as I am sure the hon. member across the aisle is, ``When are you going to get rid of it? Why isn't it paying off the debt?'' A lot of Canadians thought it was a brand new tax, the receipts from which were going to do something about the deficit and the debt. They did not understand the difference.
Those were two major promises, scrap, abolish, get rid of. Never mind the fine print in the red book, those were the words that were used and of course the words that were used by the Deputy Prime Minister ended up costing her job. She had to resign because she did not honour the promise that was made to the people. It was unfortunate that it took as long as it did for that promise to be honoured. This was the government that was elected on another promise of restoring integrity in government and faith in the process, yet we had the Deputy Prime Minister not honouring her word.
(1935)
All members of this House, indeed all politicians, were being hurt by the fact that her word was not being kept. It was so typical of politicians who will say one thing to get elected and do whatever once elected. Then we get this excuse: ``I was only running for office. What are you getting so worked up about? It was just a little white lie. Not to worry''.
I want to talk about Ontario because I am from Ontario. I am the only Reformer from Ontario. Ontario is not being looked after by this government. Ontario is suffering badly even though 98 of 99 in '93.
I am going to talk about Pearson airport, the jewel of Canadian infrastructure. In my view, and I think the member for Broadview-Greenwood would agree, there is not a more important piece of infrastucture in Canada. The government was elected on an infrastructure program with $6 billion of borrowed money and it completely ignored this major piece of infrastructure right in Toronto. It was not just the jobs that were going to be created in overhauling terminals I and II. Four or five thousand jobs could have been created immediately. That airport impacts on jobs all across Canada. That is where industries fly in and out of when they are looking to expand or locate their plants.
The irony there is a government elected on an infrastructure program completely ignores Ontario's and Canada's most important piece of infrastructure. We are getting into Pearson and the hypocrisy of the Liberals. When they were campaigning they said they would examine that complex deal.
They had Mr. Nixon do a 30 day review of that contract. That review raised a lot of questions and a lot of suspicion but contained no hard facts to suggest this was a bad deal, not one hard fact.
The government introduced a bill on the basis of that report which had no concrete evidence that the deal should be cancelled, yet the government cancelled it. Again, it was the government's right to do, but it introduced a bill that would deny Canadian citizens their day in court. Those developers would not have the opportunity to defend their good names. There are some Canadians whose names have been dragged through the mud because of the Liberal government and this bill would deny them their day in court.
The bill was defeated in other place and now it has been defeated in a court of law. The Liberals have failed to prove that was a bad deal. In a court of law it has been established that it was not a bad deal after all. When the government appealed the decision, it even lost the appeal.
It has gone through the process and it has been proven that the original deal would have been a good deal for Canadians. Both those terminals would be functioning more efficiently now. We would have created those jobs and many more jobs right across the country.
Now the only thing that is being debated in court is the compensation which the developers are entitled to because it was a good deal. Now what is the government arguing in court? It is now arguing that it did the developers a favour in cancelling it because they were going to lose their shirts. I cannot believe the hypocrisy of that position, that the government would have the nerve to do that. It will end up costing us $400 million or $500 million before that is through. It was unbelievable to see the Liberals denying citizens their day in court.
The other issue is Toronto as an international banking centre. I would like to quote the former mayor of Toronto. When the decision was made to bypass Toronto and give it to Montreal and Vancouver, the former mayor called the decision crass politics at its worst: ``All this adds up to is bad news for Toronto because we have been openly discriminated against by the federal government''.
(1940)
It just so happens that former mayor of Toronto is now a member of the Liberal cabinet. He is a cabinet minister. He had 98 members
from Ontario to do something about crass politics, to do something about the fact that Toronto was bypassed, the capital of Ontario.
In three years with the former mayor now sitting as a cabinet minister nothing has happened. Toronto still has not been given the distinction that it so rightly deserves.
As a matter of fact, there was a lawsuit. The lawsuit originated by this former mayor of Toronto. It is still coming forward. This government is going to be sued for bypassing Toronto and not giving it the status it should have received three or four years ago.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring out some of these broken promises. Really that is what we are focusing on tonight.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is interesting that it is the appointment of a replacement for one of your deputies that has sparked this very interesting debate in the House.
I am pleased to speak regarding the appointment of my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands to the position of Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.
I have the honour of knowing the member. I worked with him on the procedure and House affairs committee when I was first elected and served as Reform's House leader. As a parliamentarian, of course, I have no objection whatsoever to the hon. member's holding the position of the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. I would hope that the hon. member is following the debate. I am sure he is watching this debate with great interest.
In a report released in January 1993 regarding the independence of the Chair, the authors firmly stated that the assistant deputy speaker should be alternated between government and opposition parties, citing the Westminster model as an example. By using this model, they said that their authority would be greatly enhanced and the non-partisan nature of the Chair would be greatly augmented.
Most ironically but not surprisingly, the report is titled: ``The Liberal Plan for the House of Commons''. The authors are the current Minister of Health, the labour minister, formerly the government whip and the opposition whip before the last election, the Minister of International Co-operation, the former government whip who was recently appointed to cabinet, and even the hon. member who is being considered for the appointment, the member for Kingston and the Islands.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood paid quite a tribute to the hon. member and suggested that somehow Reform was going beneath the dignity of the House to even have a debate on his appointment to the Chair.
He talked about the wonderful qualities of the MP for Kingston and the Islands and what a great parliamentarian he is. I do not quibble with those observations.
Then he went on to somehow suggest that we should not review the hon. member's statement here, his paper, about opposition members being appointed as deputy chair.
He got into the whole issue of question period and my leader's statement that we wanted to make this House work better, that we want to be a constructive opposition. We are still a very constructive opposition.
I want to talk about the early days, because I remember them very well. I remember coming into the House and at times even giving the minister opposite previous notice of what the question would be, in good faith, in an honourable way. We would ask a minister of the crown a question and the minister would get up in shock and dismay and ridicule the questioner. He would be very undignified about it.
I suddenly realized it takes two to be honourable and to function in a very dignified manner in the House. We found it did not matter how we asked the questions, what our decorum was. The Liberal respondents, ministers of the crown, were lacking in respect and dignity when they answered our questions; very seldom did they answer our questions.
(1945)
Then he talked about the tacticians. He said question period is run by a bunch of tacticians. Opposition people sit in their little rooms planning their questions and then unfortunately the government has to respond with its tacticians. It just so happens that one of those tacticians was the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands when he was parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I knew he was because we would talk about it. He would tell me they were in their rooms cooking all this up.
This is same hon. member who the hon. member from Broadview-Greenwood said is above all of this and here he had been involved. The picture that the member for Broadview-Greenwood painted was not an accurate picture whatsoever.
I hope that the member for Kingston and the Islands is paying close attention to this debate. He has been very aggressive in debates in the House and we have had a good time debating many issues. Every once in a while he will take the opportunity to quote from the New Testament. He did it very recently.
I would like to remind the hon. member-because I am sure he is listening-about a story where a father had two sons and he asked the two sons to go out and work for him. One son said sure he would go do it. That son went out, forgot about obeying his father and did not do the job he was told to do. The other son said he was not going to do it but then he thought carefully about his decision
and he said, yes, he would obey his father and carry out the task he was given.
I hope the member for Kingston and the Islands reads the report he authored some time ago that said opposition members should have two of the four chair positions. I hope he is the son who said he would go sit in the chair. I do not care about promises made in the past. I hope he will reconsider. I hope he will do the honourable thing tonight as he thinks about his commitment to democracy in this place and he will say that he will not accept that. It is not the right thing to do until the Liberals have kept their promise to make sure that two opposition members are appointed as deputy speakers sitting in the Chair. I trust he will do the right thing.
If the hon. member does not he is open to criticism. I guess we cannot use the h word in the House but we can certainly talk about the h word outside the House. That is what the member for Kingston and the Islands will be if he accepts the position that has been offered to him by the government.
An hon. member: What is the h word?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, the word is hypocrite.
This demonstrates to Canadians that the Liberals say one thing during election campaigns in opposition and then they slap us in the face and do exactly the opposite. This is not only apparent with protocol and House affairs but in all sectors.
I must speak about agriculture because I am the agriculture critic for the Reform caucus. I love agriculture and I am dismayed with the broken promises of this Liberal government with regard to agriculture.
The Liberals have been patting themselves on the back over this past weekend saying they have been keeping promises. Reform looked at their promises with regard to their agriculture platform document prior to the last election and they made 28 promises.
An hon. member: They have kept them all.
Mr. Hermanson: The hon. member says they have kept them all. I will bet that the hon. member does not even know what one of those promises are.
The Liberals made 28 promises with regard to agriculture but have kept only 7. That means they have failed with only a 25 per cent mark. No matter how you look at it, that is pretty dismal.
I will mention a couple to put them on the record. Liberals promised that they would provide a greater commitment to research and development, both applied and basic. The opposite is true. They cut funding for research in agriculture by 16 per cent.
The fresh start proposal that the Reform is taking to Canadians in the next election calls for an increase in spending for agriculture research. We would find the savings by streamlining the department in other areas.
A Liberal red book promise says that they would use GATT negotiations to aggressively defend and clarify article XI to maintain supply management. The Liberals were barely in office when they scrapped article XI. Everybody knew that was a promise they could not keep but they made it anyway. That is disgraceful. They should not be allowed to get away with that.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hermanson: The hon. member opposite is saying hear, hear. He thinks article XI is still there. He thinks a different government signed it away. It was his own government that signed article XI of GATT away after it promised Canadian farmers it would defend that article to the death. Not one of them died or even lost a night's sleep over the loss of article XI.
(1950)
The Liberals broke their promise when it came to standing up for Canadians in their trade relations with the United States. I happen to be a durum grower and I know they put a cap on durum exports to the United States. They did not have to. We have a trade agreement that says that we do not have to put a quota or a cap on our exports of durum into the United States. It does not matter.
The Americans put a little pressure on and said: ``You be good boys up there in Canada, you Liberals, you co-operate with us. We do not want any more of your durum for a while''. The agriculture minister said: ``Okay. We'll just close off the flow of our high quality durum that is bringing a good return to Canadian farmers. We'll oblige you. To heck with these trading arrangements we made. We'll punish our own farmers just to help you poor Americans out''. That was the response of the Liberal government.
The Liberals made promises about agriculture stabilization that they did not keep. They promised a whole farm NISA for all of Canada. They failed to deliver. There were two provinces that were not interested and they forgot to ask the provinces whether they would go along with their proposals for agriculture stabilization.
They promised a spring cash advance. They just reneged on that one the other day.
They did keep seven promises. One of them was to establish an Agri-Food Development Council to improve Canada's competitive position in the agri-food industry. I expect they kept it because it is a council. They had some Liberals who needed a job and they want to create jobs. So they said: ``We'll create a council and we'll put some Liberals on this council. In that way we have kept our
promise and have also dished out some patronage at the same time''. That is agriculture.
The Liberal government made a whole lot of other promises. That is what this debate is about, keeping your word, keeping your promise. If you say you are going to appoint deputy speakers from both sides of the House, you had better do it, Mr. Speaker. Canadians are not going to take being lied to any longer.
The red book is full of promises that have not been kept. The success rate is just about as dismal as it was with their agriculture promises. Let us go to promise number one: ``We will restore Canadians' faith in themselves and their government''. They failed dismally. In stark contrast Reform has offered in its fresh start proposals a guarantee that we will listen or we can be recalled.
Promise No. 2: ``We will work with the provinces to redesign the current social assistance programs so sorely tested in recent years to help people on social assistance who are able to work to move from dependence to full participation in the economic and social life of this country''. Nothing has been a more dismal failure than this promise.
They go on to say in promise No. 4: ``We will exercise unwavering discipline in controlling federal spending''. What a laugh. The recent contracts offered by the former and disgraced minister of defence are a testimony to the failure of promise number four. That is in stark contrast to the fresh start promise of things like balanced budget legislation that would prevent the foolish spending that we have seen from the Liberals.
Promise No. 10: ``A Liberal government will replace the GST''. My colleagues have talked about that, so enough has been said.
Promise No. 12: ``A Liberal government will work closely with provincial governments to achieve the maximum possible co-ordination of tax policies''. That one was a blow-out too. Only three provinces agreed to any kind of co-ordination of tax policies. For those three provinces to agree they took a $1 billion pay-off. That is a broken promise and again is in stark contrast to Reform's fresh start proposals that take seriously-
Mr. Easter: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member from Kindersley earlier said that the public is not going to take being lied to any more. I believe that is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the hon. member that has just raised this matter should understand when one is not imputing any kind of motives or not speaking of the motives of any one individual in this House that the word that was used as my hon. colleague has used it, is acceptable. There are no grounds at all for this point of order.
(1955)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)): I have listened to both comments and the context. I understand the member for Lethbridge. I would ask the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster to continue.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, you should come and join the opposition benches. Maybe you could get appointed to the Chair.
I was at promise No. 12 where there was a billion dollar pay-off to get three provinces to co-operate on a co-ordination of tax policies between the federal and provincial governments.
I could go on, there are a lot of promises here. There is promise No. 19 which deals with NAFTA. We do not need to talk about it because that has already happened.
I want to talk about promise No. 26 which states: ``We will better prepare for the transition from school to the workplace, provide a constructive outlet for the skills and talents of younger Canadians, the innocent victims of Canada's prolonged recession, enhance the opportunity for job training and improve literacy and numeracy skills of Canadian workers and improve access to employment for women and single parents by making quality child care more available''. There are so many broken promises in that one promise alone that I do not know where to start.
Let us talk about youth unemployment. Conservative estimates have the unemployment rate for young Canadians at 18 per cent. One of my colleagues mentioned that there are 1.4 million Canadians unemployed at the current time. The member for Broadview-Greenwood indicated that two million Canadians are currently unemployed.
Then we could talk about all the day care spaces that were promised by the Liberal government. The Liberals had no hope of ever fulfilling that promise yet they made it to young single mothers and others who needed help with child care. What an irresponsible thing to do. How can Liberal MPs look their constituents in the face when they make promises they do not have a hope of keeping?
That is in contrast to our fresh start proposal which recognizes child care whether it is in the form of day care or care in the home or care by other trusted caregivers. There is no discrimination based on the type of child care. That would create far more child care than the broken Liberal promises could ever have hoped to accomplish even if they had been able to keep their promises.
There are pages of broken promises here. There is No. 41: ``A Liberal government, if it can obtain the agreement of the provinces, will be committed to expanding existing child care in Canada by 50,000 new quality child care spaces each year that follows a year
of 3 per cent economic growth up to a total of 150,000 new spaces''. A broken promise again.
Here is a kept promise, No. 56. Every once in a while we come across a promise that the Liberals kept and it is quite notable when we do hit one: ``The Liberal government will enhance the role of the trade commissioner service by adding to its staff qualified technology and science attachés who can gather information for diffusion back in Canada and identify opportunities for Canadian exports abroad''. Here again the Liberals were able to add some positions and increase the spending of government. We are not sure how effective it has been but they were able to keep that promise.
I must mention promise No. 71: ``A Liberal government will work with the provinces and the territories to provide Canada's natural resource industries with greater certainty by co-ordinating a specific system of land access, settling aboriginal land claims and resolving delays and uncertainties in current regulatory processes''.
At the Liberal convention last weekend, aboriginal people were outside burning the red book because the Liberal government failed to keep its promises to aboriginal people. The aboriginals were pulling the red book apart page by page, using it to light a bonfire. That again is in stark contrast to Reform's fresh start proposals based on our aboriginal policy task force, which consulted with aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike to put forward some very solid proposals.
There are a hundred and some promises here. I am trying to get to the last one. ``A Liberal government will also expand the rights of Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces, the rights of Canadians to regular and serious consultation on foreign policy issues''.
(2000)
We all know that the take note debates happened after the decision was made. It was another slap in the face of Parliament just like we have been slapped around by not having the Liberals fulfil their promise of appointing two deputy speakers from the opposition benches. This has to change. The Liberals are not going to change it. The alternative is to start with a fresh start, a new opportunity for Canadians, one that is offered by Reform.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say after listening to the hon. members opposite concerning promises.
It is a funny thing that the Reform and the Tories in this House do not talk about the promises they have made. Perhaps it is because if they talked about the promises they made in the budget they presented and in their policy statements, nobody would vote for them.
The hon. member a few moments ago was talking about infrastructure, about airports. They promised to pass all the airports in Canada to private enterprise. Imagine going into an airport anywhere in Canada and having a policy of the money bags, the multimillionaires in Canada owning all the airports. That is the policy of that opposition party.
Not only that, but they make a very big point of it in their promises. It is all there in black and white. The hon. member obviously has not read it lately. If he wants to hear the exact words, I can read it for him.
If someone picked up the policy papers of the Reform Party and the Tories, what would they see as far as infrastructure and highways are concerned? They would see that party is suggesting that the Trans-Labrador Highway be built by private individuals. Then in order to get their money back, toll gates would be placed on those highways. How else could they get their money back?
Imagine people driving along a highway, the Alaska highway or the new highway going up to Labrador, and having to pay for the highway and the bridges and then a profit over and above that for all time due to multi-multi-multimillionaires and the big banks in this country. That is the promise being made by the Reform Party of Canada and the Tories.
Even worse than that, let us get to the real promise they have made as far as ordinary Canadians are concerned. It involves medicare. Let us read the promise. They have been talking about promises of the government, this great administration. Now let us read from their budget.
It should not take me very long to find it. It is on page 24: ``The public may in time agree that although access to a broad range of basic health care should be guaranteed to everyone, the original medicare model in which everyone received everything health care professionals wished to deliver is not only intolerably expensive, it is undesirable for other reasons''. Awful. Just imagine.
(2005 )
What about that promise? It would mean one health care system for the rich in Canada and another health care system for the poor in Canada. They do not even hide it. They even put it in their policy book. The Tories have done the same thing.
I know the Speaker would rule me out of order if I used a prop. I am not supposed to do that. Anyway, it is called the taxpayers budget. It is the Reform Party's plan to balance the federal budget.
Let us understand this completely as far as the promises are concerned. Let us understand the Liberal promises versus the promises of the Tories and the Reform Party of Canada. It is no
wonder they are so low in the polls. It is no wonder the government remains so high in the polls.
Hon. members opposite keep referring to our great deficit problem. What country are they talking about? The recent analyses have not been done in Canada by the chambers of commerce or by any Canadian economists. Look at the great analyses on the economic performance of the Government of Canada in the past three years. What do they say?
The OECD is made up of 28 nations. Its head office in Paris, France. Its job is to analyse the economies of the countries of the world. What does the OECD say about the great G-7? Which country is it that leads the G-7? Is it Japan?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it Italy?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it France?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it the United Kingdom?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it Germany?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: Is it the United States?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Baker: There is only one country left in the G-7 and that is Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Baker: Of course, we should not forget the head of that administration. I am allowed to say this because it is the administration. It is the Chrétien administration. I believe that is parliamentary, but I will not use it again, Mr. Speaker, if you object to that phrase. He is a great leader of the administration.
Which country is it that the United Nations in two out of the past three years has said is the best nation in the world in which to live? It is not Japan. It is not the United Kingdom. It is not France. It is not Germany. It is not the United States. It is Canada.
Members opposite would have the Canadian public believe that we have gone downhill from the days when we were not number one, when we were actually number six of the G-7. Those were the days of the Tory administration to which the Reform Party would love to return.
In analysing all of these promises and all of the promises of the Government of Canada, we should never forget and the Canadian public should never forget that we are dealing in this House with a difference in philosophy. It is a great difference in philosophy.
They would have the banks own our highways and our airports. They come out and say it in this document, which I will not show you, Mr. Speaker, because that is against the rules. On page 14 they say that given our current fiscal climate governments are ill equipped to spend money on infrastructure. And they say Canada should privatize airports and aviation. Privatize it, not pass it over to management boards. They say we should allow the private sector companies to build and maintain roads and bridges. Imagine. What a change of philosophy that is.
(2010)
That carries through in practically every discussion we have had in this Chamber, including those on taxes. Which party was it in this Chamber that stood up and demanded greater tax cuts for American companies that were operating in Canada? It was the Reform Party of Canada. Somehow the Reform influenced the Tories and the Bloc because the Bloc did the same thing.
Bloc members claimed their excuse was that they had many friends living in the United States. That is what they said. The Bloc members stood in this Chamber, the official opposition of this House of Commons which is supposed to represent the commoners, the ordinary people of Canada, stood in this House and agreed with the Reform Party.
They demanded a 50 per cent cut on all taxes, on all the moneys that go back across the border into the United States, on all the interest made by foreign banks that goes back to the United States. They demanded that tax credits be given to people who have relatives in universities in the United States of America. Not only that, but they demanded that tax credits be given if per chance one happened to be subjected to the death tax in the United States, that we call the inheritance tax in Canada, and if a person owned over $600,000 of property in the United States.
The Reform Party and the Bloc members stood in this Chamber and demanded more. Why? Because it is a matter of philosophy with the Reform Party. It is a matter of philosophy with the Tories. And it is a matter that the Bloc said they have friends who have lots of money in the United States.
What we have here is this great difference in philosophy. On the one hand political figures are in favour of what? In favour of the very rich. That is why this party, the government leads the polls today because Canadians are asking: ``What other choice is there? Where do we go? Why would we vote for a party that would want the banks to own our highways, our airports, our bridges and which would want to throw our medicare system down the stream?'' Not only that, but they have the gall to put it in black and white in their policy statement for distribution to the people of Canada.
We can understand why they are all frustrated. They are trying to change their policies. Their leader now has a new policy statement-
An hon. member: And a new haircut too.
Mr. Baker: He has not only flipped his hair, he has flipped his lid.
We are judged to be the country that has dealt with its deficit better than any other industrialized nation in the world today. They are frustrated because of the progress this government has made.
The Canadian people will never allow them to get into power, either the Reform or the Tories, to go ahead and ruin our medicare system as they promised and to pass our infrastructure over to the banks.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a tough act to follow, at least in terms of theatrics.
I came here as a new parliamentarian in 1993 to debate issues. I came here to talk about the different ways my party thinks things ought to be done, to talk about the way the finances of the country ought to be run, to talk about what we can do to maintain a good, healthy education program for our young people, and a health system that is satisfactory to Canadians, old and young alike. I came here to talk about true parliamentary democracy and true representation. What I have found is considerable frustration in that process.
(2015)
I would like to begin by saying that it is a false assumption, as was made by the previous speaker, that unless the government does it, it is not done right. He has been talking about the privatization of airports. He says it is terrible and awful. I fly quite frequently in and out of airports which have been turned over to regional governing authorities in Edmonton. The improvements in that airport since that was done are immense. The cost to the taxpayers is little or nothing.
Whereas, when the governments run these things we always find an infrastructure so large and so cumbersome that we get much less for our money. I also think of the Pearson airport. If we would not have had the interference of the Conservative government followed by this Liberal government, who knows what condition the Toronto airport would now be in. Instead it is now languishing. Nothing is happening there, while we are fighting and spending $600 in how to get out of doing anything at all and trying to cancel the contracts.
The member opposite just asked what was wrong with it. It is adequate.
An hon. member: When were you last in the airport?
Mr. Epp: I was there about 48 hours ago. It needs to a lot of improvements made to it. That is generally accepted. It was established and it is time it proceeds.
I would, however, like to say a little about the motion that is before us today which has to do with the election of the chairman of committee of the whole of this House. The standing orders state that this position is elected by the House. This of course brings me immediately to one of the first commitments that I made as a member of Parliament to the people who elected me. I made this commitment during the campaign and am doing my best to keep that commitment.
However, it is interesting that the Liberal candidate in my riding made exactly the same commitment; at least the people thought there was no difference between us on that particular issue. The issue was on votes. When we actually come to the vote on this particular motion, and if I were a betting man I would put up to a nickel on this one, I would predict that every Liberal member will vote for the motion. This of course will elect the person nominated, the member for Kingston and the Islands, to the position, which is fine. I do not mind that.
However, the problem I have with this is that each member who ran under the Liberal ticket with the red book in hand promised, as did the Liberal candidate in Elk Island, that if they were elected they would assure more free votes in the House of Commons.
I really do not expect that the vote on this is going to have the appearance of being a free vote at all. I do not know whether it is going to be whipped, as they say-probably not, but it is going to certainly look that way. The incredible thing is that in so voting the Liberal members will actually be breaching another one of the commitments they made in that same campaign, which was in one of the ancillary documents to the red book, that opposition members would also have a role to play in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committees.
I have to confess that my disappointment in the process and in the results of that process is very great. I am very disappointed in the fact that in this House we cannot have a free and open vote on an issue such as this. Some members, particularly those in my party, have said that they have nothing personally against the member for Kingston and the Islands gaining this position. That may be true for most of the members here. I would suspect, and this has come from both sides of the House, that most people here believe he has an adequate command of parliamentary procedure, that he would certainly be well qualified in that regard. He is a man of experience. I think that one of the qualifications of the person in the chair of this House at whatever stage of the debate we are in has to be a very high level of impartiality. I say as carefully as I can that we need to assure in this House that we have people who are guiding our deliberations who will be impartial, who will not display disdain or contempt for any member of this House regard-
less of which side of the House that member is on. I believe that is a very important qualification.
(2020)
Let us talk about the particular member who has been nominated at this stage and who is the object of this motion. When I think of some of the antics that he has used during his parts of the debate, speaking about the Reform Party, he is going to have to have a real change of attitude.
I would expect that to happen, but it will have to happen if he is elected. Very often he hauled out his infamous green book, full of short quotations taken out of context, distorting the message of Reform. He is going to have to, if he is elected to that position, put all that behind him and prove to us his impartiality.
Beyond that I want to talk to the members on the government side who will drive this vote to its conclusion, and again I accept that process. I accept that in a democracy majority should rule. All 295 members in this House will have the opportunity to stand in favour or in opposition of this motion. I challenge the members of the governing party to individually think, as the Deputy Prime Minister did, what the meaning of a promise is.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that this had to do with the great goods and services tax which everybody in the country hated. The member running in the riding that I ran in said under the Liberal handbook: ``We will abolish the GST''. The Deputy Prime Minister, recognizing the depth of the commitment that she made on that, came to the point where she admitted she could no longer look people in the eye. She felt so bad about not keeping that promise, she actually resigned from this place and sought the reapproval of the people in her riding. It is significant to note that the support level for her because of that experience dropped by about one-third.
It is very important for every member in this House to think about the commitment they made when they were running. They ran with the red book in hand. Included in that red book and in the attached documents, the appendices, was this article that said: ``We intend if we are elected to make Parliament work better, to give more responsibility and more freedom to our members of Parliament, to make committees work better''. Included in that was a commitment that the deputy chair be shared by members of the opposition.
If those words during the campaign did not mean what they said, then they should not have been said. If they did mean what they said, then how should there now be this debate wondering as to whether we should elect a Liberal member to this position?
This is now an opportunity to fulfil, to put into practice the words that were said during the campaign. I am challenging the Liberal members. I am challenging them one on one to exercise here an act of conscience, to ask whether when this election is over, when this vote is over later on tonight, they will be able to stand beside their bank machine and look at the person beside them and say yes, to the best of their ability they kept the promises they made. That is a very critical point.
(2025 )
Something else that is very closely related to this is the appointment of deputy chairs of committees. It is the same principle. I know there have been some heavy politics involved in this. I know the Liberals are languishing under the burden of ensuring they do not in any way offend the opposition. Of course the separatists who sit beside us got every deputy chair position in committees. It must be frustrating.
I cannot accept intellectually or emotionally that every one of the Reformers who could have been eligible for one of those positions was inferior in ability, inferior in leadership qualities, inferior in the ability to conduct a meeting if called on. I cannot believe that Reformers were inferior to act in that role to every member of the Bloc. I just do not accept that.
I know enough about statistics that by the law of averages, as we have about the same number of people, we would have expected about half and half. Half the time it would have been one of them, half the time it would have been one of us. Did that happen? No.
Did MPs get more independence as promised in the red book? No, they did not. They were told, orchestrated from the Liberal hierarchy: ``When you get into those committees, you will elect a member of the Bloc''. For the life of me I cannot understand that quite aside from the fact that these are members whose primary goal is to take their wonderful province right out of our country.
It totally escapes me why this arbitrary decision was made to take away the independence of members of Parliament who are serving in committees. It is a severe flaw in the system. I bring this up because it is the same principle. I am talking about the principles of parliamentary democracy, one of the issues I was elected on and which I believe in very strongly.
I believe that the majority in a democracy should prevail. I believe that in this House of Commons that is the only way it can be, but I do not accept that every one of us in representing our constituencies has to be shackled and not permitted to represent our constituents because of some party hierarchy and party discipline. That is not acceptable in a democracy and that is one thing I am committed to change if my people in Elk Island will re-elect me next time and if we in the Reform Party can form the government of this wonderful country. It is one thing that we will change because it is one of the founding principles. It is one of the key things that attracted me to the Reform Party.
We need to have what was actually promised in the red book. We need to have a greater freedom of members of Parliament to represent their constituents. Some will say that has its dangers; now the government will not be able to fulfil its programs. I do not accept that either. That is not a fair assumption or a fair conclusion.
Whether it is the Liberals or the Reformers or the Bloc or maybe some other party in the future that may come to sit in this place as a party, there may be a motion to introduce a bill or to amend a bill, a really good bill that would carry the support of the majority of Canadians under a free vote system. Members will be representing each of their constituents. If that carries the day, if that carries the judgment of the people across this country, then we will have good laws passed but we will also finally have a mechanism to defeat bills that are bad or at least to pass amendments to them if needed. That is a crying need in this country. It is a need in this Parliament. It is one of the deepest most frustrating flaws I have experienced.
(2030)
Members in this House probably without exception have come here with high ideals. I know. I have spoken to members, not only those in my own party but also to others. Some in all of the different parties that I have spoken to have expressed similar frustrations.
I remember talking to one person. I will not identify the party but it was a person from another party. I asked why he voted the way he did in committee. He looked at me and said: ``I really did not have a choice''. That is a sad commentary. The red book promised more freedom, more accountability. It promised more independence for individual MPs. I would like to see that exercised in the vote that is coming up later tonight.
I would like to see every member of Parliament, particularly people like the member for Broadview-Greenwood who gave such an eloquent speech earlier, once again exercise their power of independent thinking, do what they believe is right. It is not going to cause a big failure in the system. It will enhance the system.
I want to talk just a little bit in response to a previous speech here this evening. It was mentioned at some length. I have finished the comments I wanted to make here, so I am going to use my remaining few minutes to talk about question period.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood talked at length about question period. I too am very frustrated with question period and the direction in which it has gone for a very simple reason. In debates in this House, whether on a bill or motion such as the one we are conducting now, or in question period, what we ought to be doing is dealing with issues that affect the public. We should be debating those issues.
I do not appreciate the fact that a campaign has begun to discredit members of my party and myself with statements that are not true. The subject in question period today was a great distress to me. It was not particularly what happened in question period although that bothered me too, but more so it was what generated it.
Can we, as parliamentarians, not say to our people: ``Here is what we believe, what we stand for''. Let the other parties say: ``This is what we stand for, what we believe in''. Then the people would have their options. They could choose and cast their votes. If we cannot do it on that basis, then how will this country be governed correctly and efficiently?
What is happening instead is that a campaign has already begun with statements which, if repeated often enough, come to be believed even though they are not accurate. That is a tremendous disservice. When we react in question period as we did today, it is as a direct response to the fact that we are not satisfied with that kind of campaign, that kind of tactic.
One of my goals is to openly and honestly debate issues, to talk about what affects Canadians, to offer alternatives and options. Frankly, if the constituents of Elk Island believe that the model of democracy, the model of a health care system, the model of a tax system, the model of all these other aspects which affect us, are best represented by a Liberal rather than a Reformer, they have the right to choose. But let us give them the facts. Let us let them choose. Let us stop all the vindictiveness.
(2035 )
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really puzzled by the antics of the Reform Party members in this debate. I find it puzzling and absolutely amazing that they would object to the appointment of the member for Kingston and the Islands to the position of deputy chairman.
The member for Kingston and the Islands is eminently qualified, immensely qualified to carry out the duties for which he has been nominated. I feel absolutely confident that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will do an outstanding job. For the Reform Party in a very straightforward way or obliquely to criticize this appointment is amazing to me. I must say again that I am puzzled.
I will say one more thing about the appointment. The hon. member for Elk Island said that the member for Kingston and the Islands would have to, and these are my words but I think he was suggesting that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would have to suppress his partisan Liberal feelings. I can assure members that I know the member for Kingston and the Islands. I have been in the House with him for eight years and if there is one man who can suppress his partisan feelings when sitting in that
Chair, it is the member for Kingston and the Islands. There is absolutely no question about it.
Why are we puzzled by the antics and performance of the Reform Party members in this debate? The member for Elk Island said he was frustrated. I think he is frustrated, but it is not for the reasons he would like to have us believe. He is frustrated because he knows that his party is going absolutely nowhere in this country. The party across the way has been totally rejected by the Canadian people. That is why the member for Elk Island is frustrated. That is why all the Reform members are frustrated. It is because they know they are not going anywhere.
They are not even halfway up the polls to where they were in the 1993 election. That party elected over 50 members in the 1993 election and they cannot even sustain themselves in the Canadian public opinion polls. What does that say about that party? It certainly says a lot about their frustrations.
The Reform Party likes to go on about the red book. Reform members like to go on about the government and they love to talk about our promises. I will tell the House why they are frustrated. It is because they do not like the fact that we are doing as well as we are.
The Prime Minister, the cabinet, the entire government came out with a record of achievement based on the commitments made in the red book. What does the record show? It shows that we have kept 78 per cent of our commitments. It is not 100 per cent, not 95 per cent, it is not even 90 per cent. It is 78 per cent.
By any standard put forward, it is a very good mark. Whether it is a public institution or a private institution, if it hits 78 per cent achievement, it is not doing a bad job. Remember, it is not only the keeping of 78 per cent of our commitments, but another 10 or 12 per cent of those commitments are in progress. We have not finished the job yet. We still have a year or two to go in our mandate. We still have some time to make the mark even better than 78 per cent.
That is why those members over there are frustrated. They do not like the job we are doing because we are doing it too well. They know that if we do our job as well as we have been that the Canadian people will support us strongly. Canadians want good government and that is exactly what they are getting under this Prime Minister.
(2040 )
Let us talk about promises specifically.
In the red book we talked about deficit reduction. We talked about deficit reduction in a credible manner. We did not say: ``Elect us and we will eliminate the deficit in 12 months''. We knew the Canadian people would not buy that. We knew they realized it was a huge task. We said to the Canadian people in the 1993 election campaign and in the red book that we would deal with the deficit in an incremental way. We would do it slowly and gradually, but we would do it with credibility.
The first target that we set was to reach 3 per cent of GNP. We promised that we would clean up the fiscal mess and our first target was to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GNP. Did we do that? You betcha. Not only that, we have surpassed our goal. The finance minister has done the job so well that he has revised his target. It is no longer a 3 per cent target; it is a 2 per cent target and is well on the way to 1 per cent.
Our finance minister has done the job so well that in a couple of years we will not have to borrow any more money. That is how well the job is being done. It will not be long after that before the deficit is zero. It will be gone. It will be eliminated. That is why those members are frustrated. They do not want that kind of success. They do not want the government to succeed. They would rather we fail. But we are not going to fail. We are keeping our promises.
What does it mean when we clear up the fiscal mess? What does it mean when we bring down the deficit? It means lower interest rates. How low are our interest rates today? I wonder if the Reform Party is spreading the good news. I doubt it very much. I do not hear Reformers talking much about the deficit these days. They are mute on that issue. When it comes to the deficit, not only have we surpassed our targets, it has led to the lowest interest rates in 40 years, in four decades. What does that mean for the average Canadian?
Reformers talk about tax cuts. There are different ways to assist Canadian workers, borrowers and consumers. With the interest rates we have today, if a person holds a $100,000 mortgage, what does that mean in terms of cash in their pocket? It means an additional $3,000 in their pocket. That $3,000 is after taxes. If a person buys a car and they pay the modest sum of $15,000, what kind of saving is it? It is a saving of $500 a year.
These savings as a result of low interest rates are not only realized by individuals and families; they are also realized by the provinces. I was looking at some statistics today. Ontario is the province with the largest population in the country. As a result of the low interest rates, the Government of Ontario is realizing a saving of over $300,000 a year. I do not think that is bad.
That is why those members are frustrated. Because we are doing the job too well for them.
(2045 )
However, we on this side are not satisfied. We think we can do even better. We have committed ourselves to doing better. We are not going to be smug. We are not going to be complacent. As the Prime Minister has said over and over again, there is still lots of work to do.
What else? What about trade? The Reform Party I think has mentioned, in a rather oblique way, that we have done quite well on the trade front. Well, you betcha we have done very well. How well? The Team Canada effort; the Prime Minister led Team Canada three times overseas, a couple of times to Asia. He came back with contracts worth $20 billion. That is a lot of money, a lot of investment and lot of work for Canadians. How much is it for Canadians?
I do not think a lot of Canadians realize, and why I want to mention it, that every billion dollars in trade-listen to this closely and especially the Reform Party members-translates into 11,000 jobs for Canadians. Does anyone know how much our trade has gone up since we came to office in 1993? It is over 30 per cent. Thousands and thousands of Canadians have been employed because of our trade initiatives and the Team Canada effort.
The Reform Party talks about the fact that we did not keep our promise on jobs. Oh no, we really slipped in that department. I and the government are not as happy as we would like to be. The unemployment rate has come down since the government came to office about 2 percentage points or a little more. I think it was about 11.6 per cent when we came to power and now it is about 9.4 per cent.
Let us look at the job numbers. Despite all the transitions in the economy, despite the transformation of the economy and despite all the difficulties in the economy as a result of globalization and so on, how many jobs have we created? We have created well over 600,000 jobs at the very time when governments at all levels are downsizing.
When we take a look at it from that point of view and take into account that the private sector has had to create jobs at a time when the public sector is getting its house in order, we still have well over 600,000 new jobs. I do not think that is bad. It is not the greatest and we are going to do better.
I think it was the previous speaker from Newfoundland who referred to figures given out by the OECD. If everything goes according to Hoyle, if things pan out as well as they might or as they should, Canada is going to have the best record when it comes to GNP growth in 1997. That is the best record of all the G-7 countries. I do not think that is bad. That is why Canadians support this government. Canadians realize that we have the right policies. Canadians realize that we are on the right track and that is why they support us. That is why the Reform Party is so frustrated.
It talks about frustrations but it likes to give some other reasons. Reform members would like us to believe that their frustrations have to do with something else. It has nothing to do with something else. It has to do with our performance.
Remember in the red book back in 1993 when we talked about how important our children and youth were in this country, especially when it comes to the economy? We talked about a youth internship program. What have we done? As of the last few weeks I have noticed a figure: 37,000 young Canadians are now involved in youth apprenticeship programs. I would like it to be 137,000 but it is a lot better than what it was. It is a lot better than what it was under the previous administration. I suspect, God forbid it, that it would be a lot better than if the Reform Party were ever in power. There are 37,000 young apprentices getting the necessary experience and exposure to the workplace. It is a start and it is going to get better, but I think 37,000 is not bad.
(2050)
When we are talking about promises, the Reform Party never talks about these promises. In the campaign of 1993 the Prime Minister to be said: ``If I become Prime Minister, if I become the head of the government, the former prime minister's VIP airplane will be gone. There will be no more of that style of a king belonging to the Prime Minister''. He kept his promise.
The Prime Minister to be said: ``No more of that bullet proof limousine''. What did he do? No more. No Cadillacs. None of that big long limousine stuff.
He also talked about trimming the government at the very top. He was not talking about just trimming the bureaucracy, which we have done. If you are going to trim the bureaucracy then trim the ministerial offices. Has he done it? You had better believe he has, to the tune of saving about $10 million.
While we are talking about promises, what did the Liberals say about the Canada Health Act? We said we would uphold the five basic principles of the Canada Health Act and we have done exactly that. We have not wavered not one bit.
The premier of Alberta thought we will take them on. We will not stick to the principles of the Canada Health Act. We will allow some eye clinics to be established and we will levy so-called facility fees which is a disguise for a user fee. Do not worry, the Liberals back in Ottawa will not uphold the principles of the Canada Health Act. The government will cave in when the going gets tough. Did this government cave in?
Who blinked when it came to a showdown over those facility fees at an eye clinic in Calgary? Was it the Prime Minister? Was it the federal Minister of Health or was it the premier of Alberta? I think every Canadian knows the answer to that question. It was the premier of Alberta. He realized we were going to stick to those principles and that if he did not cave in it was going to cost his taxpayers a lot of money. When the Prime Minister talked about upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act he did exactly that.
I want to conclude by reiterating what I said at the beginning. The Liberals have kept most of our promises. Seventy-eight per cent is not bad compared to most standards if not all standards. We would like to do better and we are still working on our commitments and I think we can get that above 78 per cent before the next election. We are doing too well for the Reform Party members. They do not like us doing that well because they cannot find an issue. That is why the Reformers are frustrated.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a part of this debate this evening.
When I sought the nomination to run for the Reform Party in Cariboo-Chilcotin I was reminded by some people who had been a part of the political scene there that I would get used to Cariboo-Chilcotin's not being a high profile constituency.
(2055)
Cariboo-Chilcotin has not been a terribly high profile part of the country. Most of them have gone to that part of the country because it is that way. It is a place where people can go. We are used to sending a lot of our money to the city. We are used to politicians coming and telling us how things should be.
People have become very independent there. I can tell an interesting little story. There is a place there called Rudy's Bridge, put up by an entrepreneur. It crosses the Fraser River, just north of Williams Lake.
There is a need for a bridge there but there has not always been a bridge there. The people of Cariboo-Chilcotin petitioned the government for a long time for a bridge there. What we were told it is impossible to do it. The ground is not right. The location is not right.
One of our people, Rudy Johnson, went and looked it over. He needed a bridge there and therefore he scouted the country and found a bridge. He bought it, he hauled it there, built the approaches and he put the bridge across.
He said: ``If you have a commercial vehicle, it will cost you $5 to cross, but everybody else can use it for free''. Today, of course, it is possible to have a bridge there. Rudy was glad, finally, to turn that over to the government which maintains it. It is not improved it but it is maintained.
I can tell another story about what is impossible. At the coast is a community called Bella Coola. For years the people in the Bella Coola valley were told they are so far away, so far below the high country of the Chilcotin that they cannot have a bridge there and will have to depend on boats and aircraft.
Quite a few years ago two people said they thought they could put a road in there. One started at the bottom of the hill with a bulldozer and another started at the top with a bulldozer. What the government could not do because it was impossible to build a road there this community did by itself.
We are used to having to do things ourselves. We are used to the government telling us what is impossible and what we must do as well.
We may be used to it but we do not very much like it. The biggest difficulty I had as a budding politician was dealing with the cynicism people hold in their hearts and their minds toward government. It is a cynicism out of years of excuses why things cannot be done, years of why it costs so much for the government to do what it does, years of government now more and more being in the face of people without really providing the services people need and years of government simply not performing as politicians have said it would when they come to seek people's votes.
I got into politics because I perceive a great need for reform, for change of direction of politics in our political system, the way we do our business. We need to have a system of politics in which we talk about the issues, in which we do not hammer each other because of the colour we are, the way we talk. If we like their policies and we like the proposals that they have, we want to vote for them.
In dealing with this cynicism, what I often had to do was look the person in the eye and say: ``Look, I have been as cynical as you have been. I know what governments have done to us but I see what they are doing to our children, to our young people. Unless we face them and look them in the eye and stare them down, we are not going to change the system''. Are you going to revel in your cynicism about the way politicians do their business or are you going to try to change the system? Will you help me to do that? Will you join me in trying to do that?'' That is what I am about in this Reform Party, trying to bring a political system into being that will serve people's needs.
The cynicism is still there, alive and well. A couple of weeks ago I was at a meeting at 100 Mile House. The whole question period after the speech on government spending was to do with politicians and the way they do not keep their promises. Canadians are terribly frustrated and are sick and tired of politicians that make promises and then do not keep them. A great deal of their frustration is now directed toward the Liberal government. The Liberals have broken so many promises we can hardly count them. If there is one thing that is said to me with regularity as I leave the Cariboo-Chilcotin to come to Ottawa, it is: ``Phil, give them hell. They deserve it''.
(2100)
The track record of broken Liberal promises is the topic of this entire debate today. As members of Parliament we want Canadians
to have faith in their leaders, to feel confident that politicians will do what they say they will do and will do it fairly and honestly.
As legislators we have a role in establishing this positive reputation for ourselves. The Liberal government has an opportunity to begin to repair its tarnished record today by appointing an opposition member as deputy chair, which is no more than keeping a promise it made during the election campaign of 1993. If that was done that action would begin to instil some small measure of confidence in its sagging reputation.
The debate today is not about the member for Kingston and the Islands and his ability. I hope that the member for Broadview-Greenwood understands that. In fact, the member for Kingston and the Islands very likely would be a very good deputy chair. His abilities to do this are sound, so I am told. The member for Calgary Centre attested to this yesterday. We all agree he has the qualifications.
However, that is not the issue. The issue is the integrity of the government and its willingness to not simply seek more and more power, but to do what it says and to have as its first priority serving the people of the nation, the welfare of the nation. The issue today is about politicians doing what they say they will do. It is about honesty and principle.
As we all know, in 1993 the Liberals came out with their list of campaign promises, the Liberal red book, which might also be called Creative Opportunism, I suppose. Others refer to it as the Liberal dead book. In the book, listed in appendix B at the back entitled Platform Papers is a document; ``Reviving Parliamentary Democracy-The Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform''. On page 9 of the document can be found something very interesting which relates to the debate today.
``In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party, two of the junior Chair officers should be from the opposition so that the four presiding officer positions are shared equally by government and by opposition''.
This document was co-authored by none other than the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is the member for Kingston and the Islands the Liberals want to appoint to the deputy chair position, not an opposition member as the document states would be the best idea.
The Liberal decision to appoint the member for Kingston and the Islands violates the integrity of the government because the document I just quoted from is part of their red book, the list of promises. The Liberal decision also violates the integrity of the member for Kingston and the Islands. How can a person say one thing at one time and then turn around and do the opposite at another time and still keep his or her integrity? That is exactly what the people of Canada object to. That is exactly what their cynicism is rooted in.
(2105)
I say to the member for Kingston and the Islands that he has an important decision to make. He has the opportunity to do something that his colleagues are not used to doing. He could begin to clean up his party's tarnished image on integrity. Most importantly, he could preserve his own integrity. I know he is a person of integrity.
I urge the member for Kingston and the Islands to do what he said he would do in 1993 and show real leadership. I urge him to help his party keep at least one of its promises which it made in the red book. I urge him to encourage his party to appoint a member from the opposition benches to the position of deputy chair.
If he made this bold move he would take an important step for the people of Canada. He would show Canadians that the Liberals can be trusted to keep their word at least once.
I know his colleagues want to discourage him from taking the high road. They do not think their record is tarnished. They boasted at the Liberal love-in last weekend that they kept 78 per cent of the red book's promises. We heard that repeated here a minute ago. The Prime Minister even boasted that any student would be happy with this score. I suppose any student would be happy to keep a score of his own test results, too, like the Liberals do.
The reality is that the Liberal record is tarnished. Liberals made all kinds of promises during the last election campaign and, according to a very honest and accurate analysis, the Liberals only kept about 30 per cent of the pledges they made to the Canadian people. It is no wonder Canadians are cynical about their government.
That is why the motion which we are debating today is so important. It is why we are not prepared to sit down and let the government roll over this matter. The Liberals and the member for Kingston and the Islands could take this opportunity to be different than their record of the past. They could show Canadians that they are a party of their word, that they can be trusted, that their promises mean something and are not imaginary. Such a step would go a long way in instilling public confidence and trust in our political institutions.
Let me give the House a little more detail on the Liberal record of broken promises.
The Liberals could add to this list today or they could start down a new road, a fresh path toward integrity and honesty by appointing a member from the opposition benches to the position of deputy chair.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister promised Canadians jobs, jobs, job. On October 15 the Prime Minister said
that Canadians did not have to read his lips, that they could read their record. Let us read that record today.
First, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed. Second, two million to three million Canadians are under employed. Third, four million workers are worried about losing their jobs. Fourth, this is the longest stretch of unemployment above 9 per cent since the great depression of the 1930s. That is the record. Where are the jobs, jobs, jobs? What we have, sir, is another Liberal broken promise.
The Liberals would want us to believe that they are still working on fulfilling this promise, that they have a plan to create jobs. We have not seen it. The finance minister's message to Canadians is that low interest rates are the best medicine for the economy. Despite the lowest interest rates in many years, unemployment increased last month from 9.4 per cent to 9.9 per cent. That is half a percentage point.
It is quite clear that the economy cannot be pushed uphill with interest rates. There has to be growth. There has to be job growth. To create jobs in the country the government must reduce taxes. Reduced taxes will mean more money in the pockets of consumers, small business people and investors. Consumers who spend more money will create permanent, well-paying jobs that the Liberals promised and that Canadians desperately need. What consumers need is a tax cut, not another interest rate cut.
On top of going back on their word and giving Canadians high unemployment, the Liberals have dished out more pain for Canadians through social program cuts. The Liberal red book states: ``It is essential to provide financial certainty and predictability for our health care planning''. The Liberals have not done this at all.
(2110)
What they have done is cut transfers to the provinces by 40 per cent. They have cut health care payments by $3 billion a year. They are dismantling social programs to pay the interest on the ballooning $600 billion federal debt.
All Canadians have received from the Liberals is pain, pain, pain. In many communities if people knew the truth about Liberal slashing of health care transfers there would a sign in front of many closed hospitals saying: ``This hospital closed by the Liberal Party of Canada'' and I quote my leader on that.
To repair this gaping hole in the social safety net a Reform government will commit $4 billion a year to increasing federal transfers to the provinces for health and education. These funds will come from the savings generated by our refocusing and downsizing of the federal government and not from increased taxes.
I urge the Liberals to keep their commitment to sustain health care. I urge them today to begin to rebuild their tarnished reputation. They can begin by keeping their promise to appoint an opposition member as deputy chair.
There are so many Liberal broken promises that I could mention. I could take all night listing them. What about the GST? The Liberals promised Canadians they would scrap, kill and abolish the GST but the tax is still here, blamed on acts of God and loose lips and a $1 billion bribe paid to the Atlantic provinces to shore up the government's image after harmonizing the GST and the PST, hiding the taxes in the sticker price. Where is the integrity? Where is the promise kept?
No wonder Canadians feel cynical toward the government. The Liberals promised stable multi-year financing of the CBC, but when they became the government the Liberals slashed more than $400 million from the national broadcaster. The Liberals promised to renegotiate the American free trade agreement to obtain codes on subsidies and dumping and a more effective dispute resolution mechanism. But when they came to power the Liberal signed NAFTA without renegotiation. The list goes on and on and on.
Just to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of how blatant the Liberals have been breaking their word, let me read a bit more of their patronage record: 18 partisan appointments to the Senate; Richard Campbell, former campaign manager for Lawrence MacAulay appointed director of Marine Atlantic; Richard Cashin, long standing member of the Liberal Party and MP from 1962-65 appointed member of the Canadian Transport Harvesting Adjusting Board; Dorothy Davey, wife of former Liberal Keith Davey appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board; Fred Drummie, executive assistant to minister Doug Young, appointed to the International Park Commission Board; Raymond Guay, Liberal member from 1963-68 appointed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
The list goes on and on and on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Szabo): I would remind hon. members not to refer to members of Parliament by their names during debate.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not help but speak after listening to the Reform Party attacking a colleague whom I have known for the past eight years since I came to this House, a colleague for whom I have a lot of respect, a colleague who probably knows the ins and outs of this House like the back of his hand.
None of the people in the opposition have had time to talk to the individual or to come to know him as some of us on this side of the House have.
Personal attacks by the Reform Party are constantly being made against the member for Kingston and the Islands. I heard with great interest the speaker before me saying that one of their members attested to the knowledge of the member for Kingston
and the Islands. This is not something they want for the opposition party. They did not say a member from the Bloc. They want their member.
Reform members who were elected in 1993 and came here said they were going to make changes. There are no changes. They are politicians just like the rest of us. They just speak differently. We see the whip get up and say ``or anybody who wants to vote differently''. Nobody stands up and wants to vote differently. They all sing the same tune. They were going to do things different; anybody else who wishes otherwise. If they wish to do otherwise here comes the leader and they are out of here. They will be kicked right out.
(2115)
An hon. member: They whip them and cane them.
Mr. Karygiannis: They cane them, as my colleague says.
The Liberals presented their platform which was called the red book. We had enough guts after three years to come and say this is our accounting and what we have done, 78 per cent. By any accounting, we presented 78 per cent. I do not see what the Reform Party promised. I do not see the Reform Party accounting for what it promised and what it is doing.
I challenge the Reform Party to bring its accounting. Not only can it not do its accounting, it forgot about the leader pointing graphs up and down. There is no accounting here.
An hon. member: They crossed the road.
Mr. Karygiannis: They crossed the road, as my colleague says.
I want to speak about my constituents who were unemployed three years ago and who now have jobs. I want to speak about the bank rates going down and stimulating growth and potential. I want to speak about the industries in my riding that do not have to go to the banks and borrow at 12 per cent to 15 per cent as they did in the previous administration. Now they can borrow at 5 per cent.
I hear my colleagues across the way. They do not like the words 5 per cent interest at the bank. Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not like it, tough. My constituents like the 5 per cent. My constitutes enjoy not having to carry 10 per cent and 15 per cent on rates that they have to borrow. That stimulates the economy.
I as an individual have a mortgage. I wanted to renegotiate my mortgage. It dropped down.
An hon. member: Now we know why these rates came down.
Mr. Karygiannis: You have mortgages.
An hon. member: They do not have any mortgages.
Mr. Karygiannis: No, they do not have any mortgages.
The Speaker: I hate to bother the hon. member, but you must address your remarks to me in the Chair rather than to your colleagues across the floor. I hope you get back in full flight.
Mr. Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I guess sometimes the blood flows very heavily and when you do not hear the truth and you hear things in remarks that sort of make the blood boil in your head you sort of forget the procedure. This is why colleagues like the member for Kingston and the Islands are people we need.
In Toronto we were just named number one of all the cities. That is something that the Reform Party does not like because it does not have any members elected in the vicinity of Toronto. It has one, just north. In the next election I promise we will work hard to make sure it does not have any.
We have kept 78 per cent of the promises. More than any other previous administrations or any other party we have had the guts to stand up and say: ``These were our promises, these are what we kept and this is what we are''. By all accounting we have the guts to account and put the numbers down.
Some of my colleagues across the way do not like those numbers because they know what they are showing in the polls is the same as the interest rate, 5 per cent and it is going down.
In closing, I hope the interest rate goes down and along with the interest rate going down so does the performance of the Reform Party.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a well established fact that most governments are not defeated but in fact defeat themselves. Let us just think back to the Trudeau government. The Canadian people finally got tired of this arrogant, spend thrift government after 15 years and booted it out in 1984. When the people threw it out they turned to the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. They said they would give that government a chance: ``We are tired of the amount of overspending this government does, the fact that it does not consider the best interests of the Canadian people, and we are going to give the Progressive Conservative Party an opportunity''.
(2120)
The people gave the Conservatives a huge majority in 1984. They told the Mulroney government to clean up the mess. Mr. Mulroney and his government were only in power a short while before it became obvious that they were not going to do things much differently from the Liberal government before them. If anything, they were worse, if that is possible.
The result of nine years of the Mulroney government was that in 1993 the Canadian people were so absolutely fed up with the
Conservatives that they decided to get rid of it. And this government across the way, the Liberal Party, did not win that election; rather, the Conservative Party lost it. These people are sitting in government now almost by default. In getting to government, the Liberals offered Canadians a booklet of promises they refer to as the red book.
I knew a fellow in my riding who passed away some time ago. I knew him for a long time. I was in the construction business before I became a member of Parliament. I remember this fellow by the way he did business. He used to say: ``I really like to do business with people I can shake hands with, look in the eye and feel that the commitments we make to one another are going to be respected and honoured without going to a lawyer and getting a seven page legal document drawn up so I can go back to court and enforce it. I like to do things on a handshake. I like to do things on the strength of people's words. Their word is their bond''.
I always had a great deal of respect for that gentleman because I knew that I could go to him on a construction project, on a business deal, we could sit down and negotiate a deal. We could shake hands on it, without ever going to a lawyer, without ever having to rely on the systems in place to enforce agreements. I could sleep at night knowing that he would respect the agreement we had between us.
I wonder how my friend would view the Liberal Party on the strength of the book of promises it gave the Canadian people and on its performance.
Let us examine some of the promises that have been made. My colleagues in their earlier interventions highlighted a number of them, but I will talk about some of the promises in depth. This government campaigned-it started before the campaign-that it would scrap and abolish the GST. It did not say that it would try to deal with it, that it would try to find a replacement tax, that it would try to find a way to soften the blow for Canadians. The Liberals were unequivocal in their statements and in their promises: ``We are going to scrap and abolish the GST. We are going to get rid of it''.
That was a very ill advised promise to make, and I think many of them knew that at the time. Evidence that has come to light in the last few months reveals that there were advisers within the Liberal Party who said they should not make that promise, it was a dumb promise to make. I agree that it was a dumb promise to make but they went ahead and made it anyway and now they have to live with it.
What did the Liberals do? They came back three years later and said: ``Sorry. First, we did not really mean we were going to scrap and abolish it. We just meant we were going to replace it. Maybe we did say that we were going to scrap and abolish it but we are sorry about that. We can't meet that promise. Canadians understand''. Frankly, I do not think Canadians understand.
(2125)
They understand that getting rid of the GST, put in place by Brian Mulroney and his government, is a very difficult thing to do. What they do not understand is why a political party made this a major plank in its election platform, in its bid to win Canadians' votes in the 1993 election then turned around and said ``shucks folks, we made a mistake''.
The Liberal government in its red book campaigned on a promise to reform MP pensions. Canadians from one end of this country to the other were livid when they came to understand the terms of the MP pension plan. Canadians were absolutely beside themselves. How is it that the richest pension plan in the private sector pays benefits on a scale of 2:1 and yet parliamentarians, politicians, can go to Ottawa for six years and collect a benefit package on a ratio of 7:1?
This government made a solemn promise to the Canadian people in its red book to reform the pension plan. It left no doubt in the voters' minds that the government did not mean it was going to tinker with it a little bit, that it was going to reduce it a little bit. It was made very plain that what it intended to do, what it was promising to do, was to get the MP pension in line with private sector pensions. Three years later we see that the government tinkered around a little and left it at that.
My colleagues, 51 Reform MPs, looked at the pension plan and said when they had an opportunity they were going to opt out. As a result, Mr. Speaker, all the MPs you see here tonight are not going to get an MP pension regardless of how long they serve in this Parliament.
With regard to the member for Beaver River, she had already qualified and was fully vested in the pension plan. If she had resigned and left office she would be collecting her pension the next day. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that. Her pension was worth approximately $1.4 million.
It would have been easy to say: ``We disagree with the MP pension plan but under the circumstances until we can form a government and actually change it ourselves we are all stuck going along with it. I do not agree with this but until we have an opportunity to change the system there is really not much we can do about it''. No, she took the high road.
I ask every Canadian watching tonight to think about the integrity, the ethics, for somebody to turn around and walk away from $1.4 million simply because they know it is not right. This government could learn a lot from this lady from Beaver River. Obviously it has not.
This government campaigned and attacked the Reform Party: ``The Reform Party is going to kill medicare. The Reform Party is out to gut medicare. Do not vote for Reform, they are bad people, they have no scruples when it comes to budget cutting, no scruples
when it comes to spending cuts. Reform is going to cut you out of medicare''. Three years later the reality is the Liberal Party has done far more cutting in the area of medicare and education than the Reform Party ever proposed in its campaign in 1993.
When it comes to ethics the Liberal Party in the red book said: ``We are going to restore Canadians faith in their government and their politicians. We are going to make Canadians feel good about politicians, about Ottawa and the federal government. We are going to restore integrity''. Let us look at the record there.
Without tender, Liberal cabinet ministers hired consultants at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that ethical? It might be technically legal, but is it ethical?
(2130)
Liberal junior cabinet ministers are flying around the world with a government credit card, on holidays purchasing clothes. Is that ethical? Then they say: ``Oh, I am sorry. I am going to pay it back. It is okay because I meant to pay it back''. It may be technically legal, although I question whether it is even technically legal. But it is a big stretch for anybody in this country to believe that it is ethical by anybody's standards. Yet this is the record of the government.
Let us examine the $87 million no interest loan to Bombardier. I cannot suggest that the fact that Bombardier made a $170,000 donation to the Liberal Party over the last three years was the reason it got the $87 million loan. What I will suggest is that there is a longstanding cosy relationship between Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin and the Liberal Party. It goes back many, many years. We know that. We also know that the Liberal Party defends this no interest loan by saying it is doing it in the interests of providing research and development.
In the same week that the government went to Montreal and announced the $87 million loan to Bombardier, it announced a $7 million slash in the coast guard budget in British Columbia and $30 million across the country. It announced that it did not have enough money to fund fish hatcheries in British Columbia. It announced that it would have to destaff light stations in British Columbia. Let us examine the cost of those three items alone.
Light stations in British Columbia cost $5 million a year. Destaffing them does not mean there is no cost. It means that the cost will be reduced by about $3 million. So it is saving about $3 million by destaffing light stations, maybe.
The cuts to the coast guard are about $7 million a year. I assure the House that the coast guard presence in British Columbia was razor thin prior to the cuts being made. The search and rescue capability of the coast guard on the north coast is virtually non-existent. I do not know how many fishermen I talked to who fish out of Masset, Prince Rupert and Port Simpson, who tell me that they are sure happy that the American coast guard is not far away because that is who they rely on to pick them out of the water if their boats ever go down. It is not the Canadian coast guard. There is no presence capable of doing that for Canadians. And what is the government doing? It is cutting more.
The government has destaffed light stations and has cut money from the budget of the Canadian coast guard, $7 million, in the same week it announced the $87 million loan to Bombardier.
The Liberals said they had to cut back on the funding of fish hatcheries in British Columbia. In the fall last year they announced they were going to cut $4 million out of the budget. Thankfully, there was a huge amount of pressure from elected representatives and from the people of British Columbia in the face of the fisheries minister saying they had to downsize the fleet in British Columbia because there were too many boats chasing too few fish, the Mifflin plan. Then in the same breath he said that by the way, at the same time they were going to cut back the funding to hatcheries.
In the case of the community of Kitimat where I live, there is a world class fish hatchery which is extremely productive. It costs the Canadian taxpayers about $850,000 a year to own and run that hatchery. But no, the government had to cut that. Maybe not specifically that hatchery. We do not know which hatcheries because they were never announced. The Liberals did not go ahead with the cutback in 1996 but we are now told it is back on the books for 1997.
(2135 )
The people of British Columbia are losing valuable and in some cases essential services as a result of government cutbacks. Let us not forget that British Columbia is a net contributor to this federation and it has been for a long time. It puts more money in than it takes out every year. Then the government turns around and punishes the people of British Columbia and at the same time gives an $87 million interest free loan to Bombardier. Bombardier is a company that has accepted $1.2 billion in corporate welfare over the last 15 years.
That kind of announcement does not play too badly in Ottawa or in Montreal, but if we talk to the men and women on the street in British Columbia we will find that their blood is boiling. The people of British Columbia have suffered government cutbacks. They have seen the government make a loan to a company which has made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit in the last several years. It is one of the wealthiest corporations in Canada. It has billions of dollars in fixed assets. The people of British Columbia have lost their faith in the government's commitment to restore ethics and integrity.
The government also promised in the red book to appoint deputy speakers from the opposition benches. It is another promise that is going by the wayside.
The premier of British Columbia set up a forest renewal fund two years ago. He promised the people of British Columbia that he would under no circumstances touch the fund. It was going to be there for silviculture, for the restoration of B.C. forests and for no other purpose. They are now dipping into that fund because there is a big budget shortfall.
I was interviewed recently by an announcer in northern B.C. who said: ``I suppose this is probably good news for you''. He was thinking cynically that anything which tarnishes the NDP will help me in my bid to be re-elected. I said: ``On the surface it appears that way. Yes, it may as a result tarnish the NDP and make my re-election a little easier, but in the long run it hurts me''. It hurts anybody who runs for public office in Canada because it is yet again a politician who is not keeping his promise, who is not ethical and who is not prepared to act with integrity. That is what we have with this government.
I started out by saying that governments usually are not defeated, that they defeat themselves. This government and this Prime Minister are so afraid right now that they have to put out memos to their supporters across the country trying to counsel their friends on how to slander and libel the Reform Party of Canada. That is how concerned they are about the position they are in. I know that their polling numbers do not look very bad right now, but I believe their support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If it is an inch deep, we are bailing out right now and it will not be an inch deep by the time the next election rolls around.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion which deals with the Deputy Chairman position. From all of the debate which took place yesterday and today it is clear-
(2140 )
The Speaker: It was probably someone from the gallery. I heard some words coming from some place.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the debate that has been taking place has been very helpful and useful to all members of Parliament in expressing some views on what has happened within the House over the past three years. The debate has actually changed to a debate on what is the record of achievement of the government and what is the reaction of the opposition parties to that.
The national political party, the Liberal Party, presented its detailed election platform in a red book. I recall during the election campaign that the Prime Minister was grilled on that book, on each and every point, particularly on page 111, the page where the financial specifics were included regarding the cost of the various programs and the commitments that the government was going to make.
I will never forget that the Prime Minister said to all openly and publicly that during the mandate we would be able to go through the red book page by page by page, point by point, dollar by dollar to see where we were in terms of the commitments that we made and the record of achievement that we have made.
At this point, the government has indeed put forward a report on its level of achievement on its campaign commitments. If members would look carefully, they would find within that book several sections that indicate areas where the government has gone beyond those platform undertakings, and other areas that were not specifically committed to but on which the government has made significant progress in the first three years of its mandate.
The primary areas of the platform had to do with the creation or stimulation of an environment to promote job creation and economic growth. Our approach to restoring the health of that has been measured, deliberate and responsible. The approach has been balanced: carefully reducing spending, restructuring government and strengthening the economy. Using rolling two-year targets is the right way to reach our ultimate goal of eliminating the deficit. It keeps the government's feet to the fire.
The deficit for 1995-96 was $28.6 billion, $4.1 billion below our target. This is the second year in a row that we have beaten our targets. We are on a clear path to fiscal health. We are also on a track to meet or better our deficit target of $24.3 billion in 1996-97 and to meet our deficit target of $17 billion in 1997-98. Our deficit target for the following year, 1998-99, is $9 billion or 1 per cent of GDP.
This is down from $42 billion or 6 per cent of GDP when we took office. We have reduced the deficit by $33 billion or nearly 80 per cent in those five years. It will mean that in 1998-99 the federal government will no longer have to go to the financial markets for new borrowing requirements. That is the way most G-7 countries, including the U.S. and the U.K., measure their deficits.
We have used spending cuts, not tax increases to reduce the deficit. Spending cuts in the last three budgets account for almost 90 per cent of actions taken to bring down the deficit. By 1998-99, program spending will be 14 per cent lower than the peak level of the 1992-93 year. Program spending will then represent only 12 per cent of GDP, its lowest level since 1949-50. Between 1993-94 and 1996-97, the percentage decrease in federal program spending will be three times larger than the percentage decrease in overall provincial program spending.
Reducing the deficit is essential for job creation and growth. Our strategy is beginning to pay off. The government's number one priority has been and continues to be job creation. Getting interest
rates down is the most effective way for the government to help create jobs. There is no more effective way to get interest rates down than to get government finances under control. The strategy is already beginning to pay off. Short term rates are down by more than 4.5 percentage points since early 1995. They were 2.5 percentage points above the U.S. rate in early 1995 and they are a full 1.5 percentage below.
(2145)
Canadians interest rates are below the U.S. rates for maturities up to five years. Except for five weeks in early 1994 the bank rate has not been at its current level of some 4 per cent or a little lower now, down to 3, since October 1964.
Lower interest rates produce real savings for Canadians. That is an important point. Earlier this day one of the members said: ``We don't need lower interest rates. We just need tax cuts''. Lower interest rates to Canadians are effectively a tax cut because they put real dollars after tax in the pockets of all Canadians. In fact, consumers are saving almost $500 annually on a $15,000 new car loan over a four year term. To someone renewing a $100,000 mortgage this means saving over $3,000 annually.
A new report by the Royal Bank says that owning a home is the most affordable it has been in 10 years. Payments on a five year $100,000 mortgage now costs $765 a month.
In 1990 the same mortgage would have cost more than $12,000 and according to the report that is equivalent to getting an $8,000 raise. Clearly the economy is improving.
Two hundred and twenty thousand jobs have been created in the private sector since last November, housing starts and resales are up sharply, business investment intentions are improved, GDP was up by .5 per cent in July, and for the first time in 12 years Canada has had a surplus in its current account.
The private sector forecasters are expecting the economy to strengthen during the rest of 1996-97 and the International Monetary Fund in its latest world economic outlook predicts that the Canadian economy will grow faster than any other economy of the G-7 countries.
I know there are many other members who would like to get up and share some of the great successes that this government has achieved in the first three years of its mandate. I would urge all members to stand up and let Canadians know, let their constituents know, let the Reform Party know, let the Bloc know, let the NDP and the Tories know that the Liberal government is doing a very good job for the people of Canada.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I rise this evening to speak to this bill, I listened to the rhetoric of the member across the way. I hear in that rhetoric a hollowness that does not reflect the loss of hope of many Canadians who are looking at no job. They are looking at the potential of no position that matches the training for which they have invested their time. They are looking at the possibility of losing the job they presently have.
For all the numbers and all the rhetoric Canadians do not feel secure today. That is compliments of the activity of this Liberal government.
Tonight as I rise I address the issue that is at the very heart of this discussion. That issue is at the heart of the disillusionment of Canadians. It is at the heart of the national distress, the national feeling of insecurity for the future. That is not helped by the rhetoric that we hear tonight.
It is the history of politics of Canada, the history of promises, promises, promises that lead to taxes, taxes, taxes. We have seen that in the last three years. It is a history of governments bent on serving their own interests.
(2150)
The members across the way try to say that taxes have not gone up. Twenty-six billion dollars more is coming into the federal coffers every year from the Canadian taxpayers than there were three years ago.
Governments are bent on serving their own interests, not the interests of the Canadian public. Canadians now look to an insecure future. They look to the future of their children as being unknown, without jobs and possibly without the means for an education or a means to use that education.
Tonight we are specifically talking about the appointment of the member for Kingston and the Islands. This member I believe is an honourable and concerned individual, as many members are, and he certainly qualifies for the position to which he is going to be appointed.
It is interesting that this member was the driving force behind a report referenced in the red book during the last election. In that reference this member co-authored a report entitled ``Reviving Parliamentary Democracy'', something that perhaps many of us came to this House for. However, this was the Liberal plan for the House of Commons and electoral reform. That very member, when he co-authored this report, made a recommendation that two of the junior Chair positions in this House be occupied by members from the opposition members. That is two of the four positions. That was in the red book and part of the Liberal promises during the last election.
In the last while the Liberals in this term have a record of patronage appointments in different areas. Recently they have had a resignation of a senior minister, a minister of the crown. I remind the public and this House that it was certainly under questionable circumstances. Now they have had to shuffle ministers and mix people from bench to bench without notice to this House. Our party made mention of that.
This same individual, who was appointed without notice to answer the needs of shuffling patronage appointments and the resignation of a minister for a real cause that perhaps was not identified in his resignation, is the same person who, in his own words, said that he should not be the one to fill the position but someone from the opposition. He will be four of four Liberal members occupying the Chair of this House and he will be occupying it as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.
Where is the integrity of those who would ask him or where is the integrity to accept that appoint? I challenge that member to own up to his own words and to deny that appointment. This, may I mention, is one day after a convention when these same Liberals, who are nattering at me at this moment, said that they have kept their promises or will keep them. We have a promise they made in their book and one day later they are blatantly against what is in that book. Where is the honesty and commitment to serve the people?
We wonder why there is cynicism and disillusionment that grows in the public minds. Each person in this House pays the price for promises broken. I take exception to that because for many of us that is the reason why we came to this place. It was because of that very cynicism that we felt three years ago. Perhaps the choice three years ago of the majority of this House was not as wise as it could have been.
This same party gave itself a rating of 78 per cent in keeping its promises at a recent convention. I wonder if any mention was made of this issue as part of that percentage and I wonder how many students in a classroom would grade their own papers and come up with such a poor mark.
(2155)
If we listen to radio shows or if we take our own poll of those same promises we get results of 30 per cent, 20 per cent, 10 per cent. Seventy-eight per cent is a construction of the very party whose behaviour we are considering.
We hear that the Liberals have reached their target of 3 per cent of GDP. They have a target the size of a barn door. In the last three years the debt of this country has gone up by $111 billion. We have a deficit of $27 billion. It does not make sense that a government could be proud of that.
We have promises broken. I want to go on but I must discuss the promises of NAFTA to look at the subsidies, to look at the resolution mechanisms, to take a closer look at that legislation. That has not been done.
There were promises for day care spaces which have not been answered. The GST fiasco has been blamed on everything, as my colleague mentioned, from acts of God to loose lips. Nothing has been done to make that real. There has certainly been a sellout of the Canadian people in a $1 billion plan for a partial program that will probably cost the taxpayers across Canada, including the very places concerned, more in the long run.
The aboriginals have completely rejected government progress in terms of their priorities. Where are we with interprovincial trade barriers? Nowhere. Health care? We have line-ups growing. Seniors, people from coast to coast do not feel secure with our health care system. CBC funding, stable? Let us take another look at it.
Youth unemployment is at 18 per cent. Overall unemployment is at almost 10 per cent. As I mentioned, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed and 2 million to 3 million are underemployed. What is wrong? What is wrong with what the government seems to feel is just fine, thank you? I suggest it is the basic philosophy of this government, as with governments before. The questioning of that philosophy is what brought many of us as Reformers to this place.
That philosophy is one of government knows best, government will solve all the problems of this country. Government will create jobs. Government will sustain Canadians. Government will sustain aboriginals. That is rejected by them. Government will sustain and protect children. I believe government cannot do all things and that individual Canadians should be trusted and empowered to do those very things that this government and pervious governments have felt they can do in a better way. With the basic philosophy that government knows best, we have bigger government, more intrusive government.
Taxes have grown by $26 billion in the last three years. We have a less responsive, less accountable, more arrogant government as it takes the reins and control of the lives of Canadians. This is in stark contrast to the Reform approach.
In our fresh start program we feel that government can be less. Government can be less expensive, less intrusive, $15 billion less, from $109 billion to $94 billion in government expenditures. With this philosophy we will balance the budget by March 31, 1999. With that we will provide Canadians with the ability to create the employment they need, to create the freedom from government that they need. By increasing the basic deduction for every taxpayer in Canada and matching the spousal deduction to the basic deduction to $7,900 we would level the playing field for one and two income families. That would give Canadians a choice and more money in
their jeans, more money to use in the economy, more money to create the jobs that are needed.
(2200)
The Liberals are afraid of the new and fresh approach they see from Reform. Maybe it boggles their minds to think perhaps things could be done differently. I saw in this morning's paper: ``Liberals turn sights on Manning''. They have labelled us with things which simply display their own arrogance and their discomfort with something which may be different and that might work.
One thing the Liberals have said is that Reform does not understand the modern family. I find that very interesting. What is Liberal definition of a modern family? I would like to tell the House what I see their definition of a modern family to be. I would like to ask Canadians if it is their definition.
The Liberal definition of the modern family is two wage earners by decree having to pay exorbitant taxes on what they earn. If they have a job they are afraid of losing that job. They are unsure of their children's future. They are unsure their pension plans. They are earning less and less after tax income each year as the government strips more and more money away to fund programs that it invents. That is the Liberal definition of a modern family. That is the way they would like every family to be. I question if that is what Canadians want.
We have a government which gave $87 million to Bombardier and in the meantime families pay higher taxes. In my province the coast guard has been cut by $7 million, the fish hatcheries which create a livelihood for many people in my riding have been cut back. They have cut back the staffing of light stations which many people depend on for their security. This is a choice which certainly does not serve the families in my area.
There is a $23 million flag program. We are not sure which budget it comes out of but it certainly comes out of the pockets of taxpayers. In the meantime health care has been reduced by $6 billion in the last three years. People are worrying about what will happen if they need care in a short time.
Our plan would give tax relief of $2,000 to the average family by the year 2000. We would create job opportunities through a capital gains tax cut of one-half of what is now being paid, down to 37.5 per cent. We would reduce job killing payroll taxes by reducing the employer's contribution to UI by 28 per cent. We would remove the surtax and move toward a simplified flat tax.
What do Canadian families care about? They care about the best possible care for their children. That, as opposed to the Liberal view is choice, not coercion in day care. Canadians would like to have the choice of how and who takes care of their children, including being able to take care of their own children.
Presently the day care deduction is only for receiptable day care. Reform would change that to a deduction for every child below the age of 13 years. Families could choose to take care of their own children or they could have grandmother or Aunt Bessie or Uncle Jim. Right now that choice is not theirs. It has been stripped by the Liberal vision of the Canadian family, and a wonderful vision it is.
(2205)
Reform values choice. Reform values parenting. Reform values the safety and security of Canadian families in their homes. Reform wants to address the issues of family violence, child prostitution and child pornography. Reform wants to look at the issue of victims' rights and address them. Reform wants to eliminate the parole of violent offenders. We want them to serve their full sentences. Reform wants to take a look at the Young Offenders Act, eliminate it and make young offenders more accountable in the process.
In terms of the social safety net what do we want to do? We want to give priority in education and health. Those are the priorities of Canadian families.
In the last four years the Liberals have worked hard to destroy the health care system. They talk about supporting it but in fact they have taken $6 billion away from health and education through their CHST changes. Reform would like to restore the UI program to something that works, something that is restored to its original purpose.
Reformers would like Canadians to have security by having control over their own pensions. Certainly it would like the security for existing plans. Our fresh approach to national unity just boggles the mind of a Liberal. We want that plan to speak for all Canadians. We want it based on the equality of all Canadians in all provinces.
Reform wants greater control given to provinces and to municipalities and we want the federal government to focus on what it does best.
Much of tonight's discussion has been about promises. Reform will give money back promises in the form of our democratic reforms in recall where we can fire a liar if necessary. We will give those tools to Canadians and that will be a cure for a political trend that we have seen for too long and too often. We look for real democracy, legislation that can be brought through citizen's initiative, decisions by the people through national binding referendums and free votes in this place. MPs must represent their constituents' wishes if those are known.
Not too long ago an MP on the other side asked about accountability. Reform does what it says. One promise the Liberals made that they did not keep was to reform pension plans. The pension plan held by most Liberals is still five times greater than any other Canadian can get. Reform was presented with that same decision and Reform rejected the gold plated pension. One member probably lost $3 million when she signed her name on that line that said
what she could accept. The integrity of the member for Beaver River made her say: ``This is not good enough. This is not what Canadians want. I lead by example''.
Members on the far side of this House will not lead by example. In fact their leadership is something that Canadians must and will challenge in the next election.
Integrity is on this side. Reformers do what they say they will do. We walk the walk. Fresh start is the option to old politics. Instead of promises and big government and old politics we believe Canadians deserve better. There is a choice for change. The cruel reality is that Canadians made the wrong choice last time. They will be able to change-
That the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel west to Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto, and east to Montreal, Fredericton, St. John's, Halifax and Charlottetown during the week of November 4, 1996 to hold a pre-budget consultation and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.(2210)
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor on the motion on the appointment of a deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House.
The position of deputy chairman is sufficiently important that we should appoint someone worthy of the honour, such as the individual the government recommended. The government has recommended the member for Kingston and the Islands. He is a well balanced individual, well educated, who weighs things carefully and has many merits, and who, above all, is familiar with procedure.
The members of the Reform Party are objecting to this appointment. They would like to see someone from the opposition appointed. What sort of people do we have in the opposition right now?
There are the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who do not want to abide by the Constitution. This morning I proposed to a committee on procedure that a swearing in, in addition to an oath of allegiance to the Queen, should include an oath of allegiance to the country known as Canada and to the Constitution. The Constitution means a great deal. One of the things it means is respecting the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Should we appoint a member of the Bloc Quebecois as deputy chairman? I think not, given that members of that party do not respect the Constitution, nor do they support my proposal that allegiance be sworn to the Queen, the country and the Constitution.
As for the members of the Reform Party, how can we appoint we appoint someone from such a grumpy, ill tempered bunch, who have forgotten how to smile? And when they do, it is because they are about to pounce on someone they disagree with. They make fun of people, so when they are smiling, watch out.
You know, the members of the Reform Party put me in mind of old westerns. They form a sort of posse. These fellows in the Reform Party-and a few women, a very few, because the Reform Party is mostly for macho types-would like to see anyone accused of a crime, any crime at all, immediately strung up.
This describes our friends in the Reform Party, a sort of cowboy posse. They are a gang of cowboys. What they would like, if a child is accused of wrongdoing, is to see him beaten, whipped, kicked, taught a proper lesson.
If someone is accused of a violent crime, well my goodness, why wait for the judge? Why waste a jury's time. Who has a rope? Let us lynch him.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellemare: You see, now, what a show the Reform Party is putting on. They are losing it completely.
Can you see one of those guys as Deputy Chairman? The Deputy Chairman must be someone who weighs things, who must be reserved and knowledgable. Not a gang of yahoos like this bunch of cowboys-and I say this with the greatest respect for real cowboys. I am comparing them to the Hollywood type cowboy. Those guys from the other side of the House, those Reformers, who subscribe to the principle that those who yell the loudest get the most. That is their attitude, their philosophy.
(2215)
[English]
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to bring the member back to some relevance. I do not appreciate the huge disinformation he is giving about us. I want him to be relevant.
The Speaker: It is my great wish that all members this evening will be relevant. I know we are going to get there. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I would dearly love to have the Reform Party's definition of the word ``relevant'' in English. I am sure that they could not give me one in French, indeed would not give me one in French since, in my opinion, they hate francophones, having brought out a resolution last year to abolish the commission on bilingualism. What is their definition of bilingualism?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellemare: You hear the applause for abolition of the commission on bilingualism?
[English]
Mr. Epp: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I respect when you rise on a point of order and I do hope we are not taking advantage of one another. I am going to listen to the hon. member's point of order.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that you check whether we have a quorum in this House. I do not believe we do.
And the count having been taken:
The Speaker: By all counts, my dear colleague, we do have a quorum. I am going to give the floor to the member for Carleton-Gloucester.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor again. I am glad to be able to tell my constituents that I upset the members of the Reform Party, those Hollywood cowboys who all want to gang up on people who are more sensitive than most. I think I know how sensitive they are.
These are people who believe that all francophones should go to Quebec and all anglophones should live outside Quebec. They have great respect for Quebec's anglophones and they have great respect for francophones. They have great respect for the history of our country.
I bet you that if we had a history test, if we had a high school history teacher, but no, that would be getting our sights too high. I was too demanding. If we had a grade school teacher, maybe a second grade teacher who would ask them elementary questions about the history of Canada, how Canada was formed, I am sure they would score a big fat zero, because that is what they are on the other side, just a gang of zeros.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellemare: Listen to those Hollywood cowboys shout. They are talking about the Plains of Abraham again. They want me to go back to the Plains of Abraham. These people forget what francophones did for Canada. They forget that the reason we are not the fifty-first state of the United States is that the francophones joined up with the British, who conquered this country and entered into a relationship that was to form a new country.
I know it is a very sore point and that these complainers like to play rough and tough. That is their whole attitude. You see, their friends are very rich, so one of their priorities here in the House is to cut taxes. In fact, what they would like to do is close the whole government down. They could not care less about immigration or citizenship or the poor. They could not care less about families or the poor worker.
(2220)
I almost forgot to remind the House that when health care is on the agenda, they would like their friends to take advantage of our health care system and make our hospital and health care system more like the one in the United States. Down there, private companies take the money and prevent people from getting the medication and the kind of hospital care they need, but everything is based on systems à la Ross Perrot or Newt Gingrich. These people have no interest in the common good.
The members of the Reform Party, those Hollywood cowboys who, as they say, want to lynch anything that moves, believe only in the rich and protecting the rich. They do not believe in the middle class and especially not the poor, except when they feel like giving some money to help people who are in need, to make their consciences feel better.
As you can hear, during my speech, the Reform Party members just keep shouting. Can you imagine one of this gang of tough guys sitting in your seat as Deputy Chairman? They would just spend their time shouting at us. They would not spend their time saying that we have to improve the circumstances of the average citizen. They will not recognize what the Liberal government has done since 1993. They do not believe in all this. They believe in the law of the jungle. They want to see the deficit completely eliminated within a very short time. They would like to take us back to the time of the depression and cut everywhere.
This afternoon in committee, we were talking about government cuts in public service spending. I really felt uncomfortable, because a lot of public servants have lost their jobs. Reform Party members told me that if they formed the government, public servants would really get the short end of the stick, because they want to close the whole government down. They want to cut everything. They would like to fire all public servants, then turn around and give all these
jobs to their friends so they can make a buck at the expense of Canadians.
The worst scenario we could have during this session would be to have a member of the Bloc-but at least Bloc members are often reasonable-but Reform Party members are never reasonable. Can you imagine a member of the Reform Party as Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House? Do you want to work with someone from the Reform Party? Absolutely not, no one could work with them.
They would sit over there with their whips-and we must not forget the rope too, since someone needs to be hanged from time to time. As for those accused of something, not someone found guilty, they deserve a royal thrashing.
I would be greatly disappointed if the government were to decide to have a Reformer as Deputy Chairman. Theirs is an anti-people party, a party for the strongest, one which believes that he who yells the loudest get the most. For anyone who is sick or poor, theirs would be the last party in the world to vote for.
Mr. Lee Morrison: What do you know about poverty?
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak and for giving me far more attention than I got from those yahoos on the other side, with all their uncontrolled bellowing, and with absolutely no qualifications or qualities to be the Deputy Chairman of the whole House.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to speak to this motion.
(2225 )
I first want to say that the remarks I am about to make should not be construed as being remarks that are negative toward the hon. member who is pursuing the position of deputy chairman. As everyone knows, the hon. member has done a good job in the House in terms of being able to understand the rules and certainly he is up on the rules. Nobody would quarrel with that.
I think the quarrel that the people in the Reform Party have and anybody who has read the red book has is that this is completely contrary to what the government promised it would do. The great irony is that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who is pursuing the position is the one who wrote the policy for the red book. There is a great inconsistency here.
We do not need to hammer too much on that broken promise. I think it has been done fairly sufficiently this evening. It is pretty obvious for anybody who wants to have a good look at it. The fact is the hon. member himself wrote the red book promise and is breaking it himself. People can judge for themselves whether that is integrity. I would say it is not.
I want to follow up on some of the comments I have heard tonight and perhaps talk a little bit about the two fundamental visions we are hearing about in the House. One of course is the Liberal-Tory vision and the other is our vision.
Before I do that I feel compelled to follow up on the smear campaign that we are hearing. Certainly the member for Carleton-Gloucester was going on calling us all kinds of names. That is fine. I do not think that carries much weight with ordinary Canadians.
I do want to make reference to his point where he said that he thought the Bloc Quebecois members were very rational thinkers. He seemed to agree with them a lot. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I am surprised at his comments. I would be surprised if the people in Carleton-Gloucester really agreed with him. We are talking about the people who are proposing to break up the country. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester seems to be supporting them. That is quite shocking. In a sense, when we consider how close the government came to losing the last referendum campaign, within 50,000 votes, perhaps it is not so surprising after all.
I do want to talk for a moment about the two fundamental differences which really relate to this whole issue. This whole issue is a microcosm of the two fundamental differences in visions of the country between the Liberal-Tory regime and the Reform Party regime. The best way to explain the differences is to look at the history.
An hon. member back here is continuing the smear campaign that was started earlier in the day. Hopefully they will find out that it is futile.
Let us look at the record. With the Liberals and Tories in power, going back to the early seventies the debt has gone from about $13 billion to about $600 billion. I will do for my Liberal friends across the way what I often do for high school students. I will point out to them how much money that is. If I had a stack of hundred dollar bills about two metres high, that would be a million dollars. If we stacked our debt in one hundred dollar bills, it would be 1,200 kilometres high. That is an astounding amount of money.
Only a few weeks ago the finance minister made a presentation to the finance committee. It was a sort of state of the nation address with respect to the economy. I was quite surprised when, knowing that we had this huge debt problem, the finance minister came in and announced that the deficit for last year was only $28.6 billion. Only $28.6 billion. And what happened? The Liberal members began to clap. They said: ``Is that not wonderful. It is only $28.6 billion''.
As my leader pointed out, only in the never never land of Ottawa would $28.6 billion in the hole be applauded. There they were lined up like crows on a telephone wire applauding away as if this were some great accomplishment. However, I can assure the people across the way that back home in the real world there was no applauding because the people back home know the only place that money comes from to pay for these deficits is out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians.
(2230 )
I think this is a fundamental difference between the Liberal-Tory vision and the Reform vision. The Liberals and the Tories have for years and years piled up the debt, ran up taxes. Hon. members across the way have probably heard over the last few days, because we have mentioned it once or twice, that in the three years they have been in power the average Canadian family has seen its purchasing power go down by $3,000 per family per year; a national pay cut courtesy of the Liberal government.
The Liberal member across the way is laughing. But I can say that the people who do not have incomes of $64,300 plus all the expense money that MPs have are not laughing because they have to pay for that out of their savings.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, it is getting a little late. I am having a tough time hearing the hon. member. I know you want to hear him, so I wonder if we could just keep it down a bit.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy. I am sure I can expect it from hon. members across the way as well.
Taxes are not the only thing that separates the Liberal-Tory vision from the Reform vision. Their belief in big government, high taxes and bloated bureaucracies breeds something perhaps even more insidious. There is no question that it does. I am talking about the record high levels of unemployment in this country.
There is no coincidence that as the debt started to grow in the early 1970s so did the unemployment rate in the country. When Pierre Trudeau took power in 1972 somewhere in the range of 535,000 people were unemployed. By the time he left office in 1984 it was up to 1.45 million people.
The Tories continued that trend and again there was record high unemployment. What kind of unemployment do we have today? There are 1.4 million unemployed.
It would be bad enough if it were only the 1.4 million unemployed, but that does not take into account the 500,000 to 1 million people who have completely given up looking for work because the Liberal vision of bloated government has not worked for them. There are 2 million to 3 million people who are underemployed. By that I mean people who have an education but who cannot find a job that suits their skills. One in four Canadians is very concerned about losing their job.
Canadians have no confidence in the economy. Too many people have been laid off, too many tax cuts have come down the pike to ever be assured they will have a job for very long.
This is also a key difference between the Liberal-Tory vision where they seem to tolerate high levels of unemployment and can offer up nothing creative, nothing new to give people some hope.
A great concern I have and which I gather has been shared lately by the Prime Minister and the finance minister is their dependence on these make work programs like infrastructure. The Prime Minister and certainly the finance minister in the past have said that these programs simply do not create long term, permanent jobs. But what do they do? They keep coming back to the same old ideas because they cannot bring themselves to face the fact that big government and bloated bureaucracies cannot do it all. The government cannot have its fingers in everybody's business all the time because it kills jobs. Surely by now, after 25 years of social engineering, big government in everybody's face, we have to arrive at the conclusion that big government does not work. It does not create jobs, it kills jobs. The facts speak for themselves.
It is not only about taxes and unemployment but also the tremendous strain this puts on families by both parents having to work, one to simply pay the taxes for the government.
(2235)
The other issue that we run into when there is a government that spends $600 billion over 25 years, more than it takes in, a deficit last year of $28.6 billion, is that we have interest payments on that debt that this year will be about $49 billion.
The hon. member across the way thinks that is funny. I should point out to the hon. member that the finance minister writes cheques to bankers in Japan, Germany and the United States for amounts that are much larger than he writes to the provinces for things like health care, old age security and unemployment insurance. That is $49 billion.
I do not think that is a laughing matter. I would argue that it is deadly serious. It is deadly serious because of the impact it has on social programs.
My friends across the way have cloaked themselves in the flag of medicare. They have run around telling Canadians how they are going to save it.
The last election campaign I remember extremely well. I am sure my colleagues on this side do as well. I remember how members
over there were engaging in a smear campaign at that time and said that Reformers were out to get health care.
As it turned out, it looks like the Liberals were wolves in sheep's clothing. Not only were they not telling the absolute truth about the Reform Party, they went out and cut $3 billion plus out of health care themselves.
They have closed more hospitals, have put more health workers out of work than any provincial government in this country. The provincial governments combined have not taken a whack out of health care like the federal government has. That is a fact.
It is about time that the Liberals started to face some of the scrutiny falling on the provinces which are taking a lot of the heat for health care cuts.
I would dearly love to see Canadians get on planes, get in their cars and get on trains to come to Ottawa to protest on the lawn of the Parliament Buildings over the cuts to health care. That is where the cutting started. The federal government cut $3 billion and left the provinces no choice.
By the way, I am going to say how the Reform Party would remedy that. Forty-nine billion dollars a year in interest payments has also pinched the federal government with respect to payments to old age security.
I remember in the last election campaign the Liberals went after us hammer and tong: ``You guys are going to cut benefits to seniors''. I remember it very well.
I hope I run against the same guy I ran against last time. I can hardly wait to confront him with the fact that it was the Liberals who cut seniors' pensions more than any government in the history of the country.
Who was it? It was the Liberals. That is the difference between the Reform vision and the Liberal-Tory vision. We have always been straight with Canadians. We have told people the truth.
I do not know what the members opposite were saying in the last election campaign about social programs. I expect a lot of people are going to be examining those documents as we get closer to the next election campaign.
There is another important way that we differ from the Liberal-Tory vision.
An hon. member: We are sane.
Mr. Solberg: We are sane, as my friend says.
The Liberal-Tory vision is one that is full of broken promises. We talked a minute ago about the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who has broken a promise himself, in effect, even though he is pursuing the position of deputy speaker.
He has written, basically, the red book promise to allow deputy speakers to be chosen from the opposition benches but he, himself, is allowing his name to stand, rather unbelievably. That is just a microcosm of the overall bigger problem.
We have broken promises on the GST. I hope my hon. friends across the way have not forgotten that the Deputy Prime Minister was finally hung by her own words last spring and had to run for re-election. It was a national embarrassment.
I could not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister had to take a poll in her own riding to determine whether it was safe for her to finally hand in her resignation after she had been shamed into it by not only this party but Canadians from around the country. Absolutely shameful. That is only one of the broken promises. There are a lot of them.
(2240)
I could not believe the spectacle, again involving the Deputy Prime Minister, on the weekend. She was running around telling people that it was not her fault the CBC was being cut. She said that it was the finance minister's fault. I believe she is the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe she sits around the cabinet table. I believe there was a red book promise to provide stable funding.
Stable funding does not mean funding enough to run a stable. It means that the funding will be there in the same amounts as it was in the beginning.
That is only another of many promises. I remember during the NAFTA debate how hon. members across the way railed against free trade: ``Free trade is going to kill Canada. It is going to be horrible. It is going to be something that steals our sovereignty''. We heard it from every single member across the way, and what did they do? As soon as they got in they signed the agreement. They broke both legs to sign the agreement. Again, we see that their actions cannot meet their words and they should be ashamed.
On the issue of day care the Liberals said that when there was growth in the economy of over 3 per cent, or whatever it was, they would create 150,000 day care spaces. That has still not happened. What is going on here? That was a promise that undoubtedly got the Liberals a lot of votes. They told people they wanted to ensure working parents would have some support.
I personally do not agree with their promise but they used it to lever themselves into power, which is absolutely ridiculous. They should be ashamed of that.
I do not want to tie up the whole time talking about the Liberals' poor record. That is too depressing. People need some hope. Let me talk about Reform's fresh start. Let me talk about the new way to do things.
Reformers want to give Canadians a government they can afford, a smaller government, a government with lower taxes, a government that will leave more money in the pockets of taxpayers and the job creators so they can make these decisions, so they do not have big government in their faces at every step, so they do not
have a government in their faces that tells them how they have to raise their children, what they have to do at every turn.
For crying out loud, ordinary Canadians are asked to raised their families. They are expected to fill out their income tax forms. Surely they can decide what to do with their own money. We do not need big government in our faces at every step. No way.
We are going to do more. We are going to provide lower taxes for the people who create the jobs. I cannot think of an economist in the country who has not spoken of the need to lower unemployment insurance premiums. Reform is offering a 28 per cent cut. That would be an immediate surge of energy to the job creators in the economy and we would see a tremendous amount of job creation.
I ask members across the way to compare that to the government approach to job creation. Recently Atlantic Canadian provinces signed the GST harmonization deal with the help of $1 billion to make it a little easier for the premiers to go along with it. But now housing prices in Atlantic Canada are going to go up by $3,000 to $4,000.
An hon. member: That is not true.
Mr. Solberg: The hon. member across the way says that it is not true, but I ask him to check with the Canadian Real Estate Association. Those are not my numbers. They come from the Canadian Real Estate Association, which is very concerned. It will kill hundreds of jobs in Atlantic Canada. It will cost people thousands of dollars. That is the Liberal vision.
Our vision is to give people lower taxes, not different taxes, not higher taxes, lower taxes. Reformers will give more incentives to job creators through lowering the inclusion rate on capital gains. That will bring all kinds of investment into the country. That way people like the finance minister will not have to send his assets outside of the country. We would like to have those assets inside the country. I am sure it would create a lot of jobs if we could have them all here. The Reform Party speaks for ordinary Canadians. It speaks for people who have been beaten up by Liberal and Conservative governments over the last 25 years. Canadians have had a $3,000 national pay cut since the Liberals came to power. People cannot take it any more.
(2245)
I urge my friends not to be quite so partisan about it and please come on board and sign up with the Reform fresh start program.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity. I like what the member had to say in his last remark about representing ordinary Canadians. I have not seen any aboriginal people, blacks-
Mr. Abbott: You weren't at our conference in Vancouver or you would have seen them.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, the truth must hurt. The truth seems to hurt the member for Kootenay East. He seems to have a bit of a sore spot about aboriginal people or blacks or ordinary Canadians that this party on this side of the House represents.
All day the members across have voiced their great outrage at being singled out by the Prime Minister by being called extremists. They have a problem with that extremist label.
This is the same party that had problems with the member for Calgary Centre. They ousted the member for Calgary Southwest. These are very ordinary members but they had a problem with them. I guess those two members are not extremist enough, along with the member for Calgary West who is not running again. That party is now advertising so that they can get somebody to run in that riding in Calgary, because I think that particular member is not extremist enough.
This is the same party that has members like the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan who if he had his way would have me in the back of the room because I might be losing business for him. This is the same party that has the member for Capilano-Howe Sound who thinks that we belong on some far off island wearing shades and shorts so that we can get a tan. He thinks that is all we do.
This is the party that objects to being called extremist but has no tolerance for people other than the people who are around that particular area. This is the same party that when it was politically convenient thought that Newt Gingrich was the best thing since sliced bread. Now because New Gingrich is not so popular, all of a sudden they are sort of backing off from having any association with him.
(2250 )
This is the same party in which the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia says: ``I am a red neck and I am proud to be one''. That is the same party that espouses the kind of attitudes and policies which are detrimental to other people.
All of a sudden the Reform Party seems to be the champion of the needy. Reformers are the champions of the poor. It is now politically convenient to defend the poor. The government defends the poor whether it is politically convenient or not. Liberals have always defended the poor.
Let me talk about the constituency which I represent as envisioned by the hon. member for Kootenay East. That member has a problem with Nunavut, a new territory which will be incorporated when the division of the Northwest Territories occurs on April 1, 1999. The member for Kootenay East calls it the illegal new province of Nunavut. What is illegal about it? It is a very big area. It has three time zones. It is larger than the area which he represents. He has a problem with it. The population is only about 20,000, but those 20,000 people-
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know you will understand what I am saying. The time will soon run out and this member is so far away from the topic that I know you would want him to be relevant.
The Speaker: Yes, and I know that all of the members this evening have been relevant and I know that member is relevant also. He is going to be relevant right now.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, this same member thinks that Nunavut is an illegal province. Admittedly, there are about 20,000 people in Nunavut. However, those 20,000 people can record their history back thousands of years. They have occupied that land for at least 4,000 years. I would be careful if I was the hon. member for Kootenay East when calling it an illegal province.
Eighty-five per cent of the population is Inuit. However, in negotiations with the Government of Canada we have managed to convince it that we should divide the Northwest Territories in 1999. We should be celebrating. I know the Prime Minister will be with us when we celebrate the new territory of Nunavut in 1999.
The hon. member has a problem because so few people inhabit Nunavut. If the member had his way he would probably move them into apartment buildings in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. The difference between that member and me is that I love the north. I love the land. It is my home. There is no way that any member is going to force me to move down here or force the people of the north to move down here just because they do not agree that we have a right to our self-determination within the country of Canada.
(2255 )
It seems that all of a sudden the Reform Party is now the champion of the poor.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Where did you buy a house?
Miss Grey: Where do you live, Jack? Here in Ottawa? Where are your kids?.
Mr. Anawak: For the record I live in Rankin Inlet and my family is in Rankin Inlet. As a matter of fact I was talking to my children in Rankin Inlet earlier tonight before I came to the House. They are in school in Rankin Inlet.
All of a sudden Reformers are champions of the poor because it happens to be politically convenient. With help like that we do not need any enemies. As far as that party is concerned aboriginal people should not have recognition.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): A party? We are not even enjoying ourselves.
Mr. Anawak: Some aboriginal people have been in Canada for 36,000 years. The Inuit are relative newcomers. We have only been here for 4,000 years.
I do not know if my other colleagues, the aboriginal leaders across the country, welcome the support of the Reform Party when it is convenient for the Reform Party to support the aboriginal people. I do not know how my other colleagues feel.
Mr. Hanger: Turn around ask them. They are right behind you.
Mr. Anawak: I will depend on the people who have always championed the rights of the poor, of the aboriginal people, of minorities such as our present Prime Minister of Canada. They talk about the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister ought to have kept her promise to resign. She had the courage to resign and run again and win. She won big by the way.
To paraphrase what the Reform is doing there must be something that is bothering the Reform Party.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Yes, it is you. It is called Liberals.
Mr. Anawak: They seem to be protesting a little too much. I do not know how to say it but it is along the lines of ``thou doth protest too much''. English being my second language sometimes I am not quite sure of the proper pronunciation. Yes, it is Shakespeare: ``Thou doth protest too much''.
It is an honour for me to speak in this Chamber and be able to say the kind of things I say to the Reform Party. They are protesting what I am saying but that is politics or debate. At the same time, the Reform Party has problems with the rights that were gained rightfully through treaties and they start doing certain things.
A Reform member from British Columbia was arrested for illegal fishing. What if it had been an aboriginal person doing the same thing? I did not see the Reform Party protesting the law. This is a party that considers itself a law and order party but it is condoning breaking the law. Are they protesting the fact that this member broke the law? I did not hear any of that, Mr. Speaker, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
(2300 )
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Speaker: We have run out of time. I will hear the member's point of order.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my point of order is very short.
The hon. member has made an absolute statement saying that one of my colleagues is guilty of an offence under the law. Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable to make that comment. The hon. member in question has not been before the courts of this country to determine that one way or the other. I think it is unfair that a member in this House makes an accusation that is absolutely untrue and unfounded.
The Speaker: I do not remember all of the words that the member said. I do not know that he said them. I will be happy to review the blues. The hon. member is here and he knows what he said. My colleague, did you say that?
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I was just reading the news that a member was arrested by officers of the law. Usually one gets arrested when one breaks the law.
The Speaker: Colleagues, if you will just leave me a little bit of time, I will review the blues. If it is necessary, I will come back to the House.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
Speaker
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-27
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-170
(2330)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will vote against this motion with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, we vote no on this matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-130
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-67
PAIRED MEMBERS
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Ménard.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was defeated on the following division.)
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ringma
Rocheleau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Williams-63
NAYS
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Zed-135
(2340)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
[English]
The next question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, the House would give its unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members being recorded as voting nay.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will support this motion with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: The NDP will vote no this matter.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion.
Mr. Mayfield: No, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 147.]
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion.
(2345)
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger): Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, the House would give its unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members being recorded as voting nay.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will oppose this motion with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote no on this matter.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I did not bother to vote on those silly amendments, but I do vote with our hon. whip on this one.
Mr. Bhaduria: I will be voting against this motion, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Morrison
Murray
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Zed -159
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.