1155

We can ask questions, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence needs someone to ask question to, someone to answer them. We can ask all the questions we like, but if there is no one to answer them we look rather stupid.

That is what is happening in the finance committee. The bill was introduced on February 23. A few days later, as the representative of the Bloc, I personally tabled four motions with the finance committee.

The first motion called for the government ethics counsellor to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance. The Liberal majority supported this motion as did the opposition parties. But when I asked that the Minister of Finance appear before the Standing Committee on Finance to provide explanations, it did not work. The Liberal majority systematically refused and voted against my motion. I got the support of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the New Democratic Party, but I did not get the support of the Liberal majority.

The result was the same when I tabled my third motion, asking that the committee invite members of the board of Canada Steamship Lines, which has been wholly owned by the Minister of Finance since 1988. The Liberal majority voted against the motion. Liberal members were under so much pressure from the Prime Minister's office that if they could have voted three times against the motion, they would have done so.

When I tabled the other motion, in which I asked that the directors of Passage Holdings Inc.—that is the directors of Canada Trust—appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, even behind closed doors, it was the same thing. The Liberal majority said “No way, we do not want to have witnesses shed light on this bill”. But I did get the support of the three opposition parties.

In order to test the democratic sense of the Liberal majority and their desire to shed light on such an apparent conflict of interest, I even tabled a general motion asking that the Standing Committee on Finance invite any witness who could shed light on Bill C-28 and on clause 241.

I was not asking for specific individuals, but for any witness. It could have been a senior official from Revenue Canada, from the Department of Finance, or someone from outside the public service. We voted against it. I had the support of the three other opposition parties, but the government members decided no witnesses would be heard in an attempt to shed light on Bill C-28 and clause 241.

When the Prime Minister stands up in the House and says “The hon. member sometimes attends sittings of the Standing Committee on Finance. I suggest he uses that venue to ask whatever questions he may have”, he is laughing at us. He is laughing at the people. The fact of the matter is that he does not want witnesses to be called. He does not want to get to the bottom of this apparent or real conflict of interest involving his finance minister.

He has the nerve to stand up in the House and tell us to go and ask any question we may have to the finance committee. But they do not want us to call any witnesses to answer our questions.

That is not all. We—and by “we” I mean the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the New Democratic Party—have sent the chair of the finance committee a joint letter asking that a special committee be struck. This letter was sent more than a month ago, with certified copies to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister and everyone who is anyone in government. We are still waiting for an answer.

A week and a half ago, I sent another letter to the Prime Minister, a letter directly addressed to him, asking that, as suggested by him on February 19, a special committee or a subcommittee of the finance committee be put in charge of shedding light on this matter of conflict or apparent conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance, and that all the witnesses who could help clarify the matter be called. I am still waiting for an answer.

To me, it is pure hypocrisy to take such an approach, to object to our getting to the bottom of what I consider to be a very serious matter, which puts into question the finance minister's integrity and that of the Prime Minister as well.

Many aspects remain to be clarified in this whole matter. All sorts of contradictory statements were made after the Bloc Quebecois revealed the existence of a certain 14-line provision of Bill C-28 concerning international shipping companies, including the one owned by the Minister of Finance. Many conflicting statements were made by various people.

1200

There has also been much confusion in the reactions of government representatives. One thing is certain, and that is that we are not satisfied with the answers we have been given as to the process, content and real impact of clause 241 because they are completely illogical.

The Minister of Finance and the government have friends all over the place, and the government awards contracts to companies of tax experts. Has anyone heard a tax expert from outside the government—not Len Farber, the finance minister's hatchet man, but an outside expert—say that there is no real or potential problem with clause 241, which amends section 250 of the Income Tax Act regarding international shipping? Has anyone heard a single tax expert express such an opinion since this saga first started?

We have been talking about it since February 23. Not a single tax expert has dared to put his credibility on the line publicly and say that the Minister of Finance was not in apparent or outright conflict of interest and that the structure of his companies was not such as to provide him with undue advantages or tax savings related to clause 241. Not one. This creates even more doubts.

I was waiting to raise this point, but when the Prime Minister himself or the Deputy Prime Minister jump to the defence of the Minister of Finance, a well known member of the government, on a particular matter, it seems to me we might have expected a tax expert somewhere, a friend of the Liberal Party, to come forward and state publicly that there is no problem. Why has this not happened? Because there is indeed a problem.

And it is not the only problem. This bill does not just apply to international shipping. The Minister of Finance has managed to alienate many people in other sectors of activity who would like to be in the same boat as he is, but who are unable to take advantage of the tax savings available to him for his own companies.

That having been said, I would like to move the following amendment at third reading, seconded by my colleague, the member for Châteauguay. I move:  

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-28, Income Tax Amendments Act 1997, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 241.”

If the Prime Minister asks his members to vote against this amendment, he will be contradicting himself, because he told us in the House that the Standing Committee on Finance would be able to shed light on the issue and answer our questions. That is what he told us. His handling of this amendment will tell us what kind of Prime Minister he is and whether he is as full of integrity as he claims to be.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity today to speak on behalf of the NDP on third reading of Bill C-28. I will first comment on the format of the bill.

I am the NDP member on the human resources development committee. I recall that at one of the first meetings of the committee, a government representative attended and told us about the various provisions available on websites and government publications that were designed to make government more understandable to people.

1205

Certainly as a new member of the House trying to wade through various bills and motions and understand the complexity of the issues before us, I certainly concurred with the government representative. I saw it as a positive step that the various government departments were interested and intent on trying to make government more understandable to ordinary Canadians.

Then along comes Bill C-28. Looking at the volume of this bill, more than 400 pages to be precise, there is no question that this bill and how it has been drafted takes us in exactly the opposite direction to what the government states is its goal in terms of making legislation more understandable to Canadians.

In actual fact, Bill C-28 is very technical legislation. It deals with income tax measures from the February 1997 budget and many technical amendments to a whole variety of acts, including the Income Tax Act as originally outlined in Bill C-69.

This needs to be said before we get into the substance of the bill. It has already been debated by some members that because of the format in which this bill came forward, its complexity and the technicalities it contains, it is ridiculous to expect that Parliament would deal with such a complex bill. I would suggest that the language in the bill and the way it is presented would be incomprehensible even to the most highly paid tax experts. They would certainly have difficulty in deciphering this bill.

The bill is simply anti-democratic because of its format and its language, but most important because of its content. It is wrong for a government to present legislation that is steeped in such isolating language and expect not only parliamentarians but ordinary Canadians to understand and to be informed about what the government is doing.

I wanted to make that comment at the beginning because as a new member of the House it is something I am interested in. It was curious to me that we have been told efforts are being made to make the language more understandable but this bill certainly takes us in a different direction.

I would like to focus some of my comments on Bill C-28 in terms of what it proposes or purports to do in increasing the Canada health and social transfer.

In Bill C-28 we are told that the Canada health and social transfer will be “increased” from $11 billion to $12.5 billion. This is not something new. In fact we heard the announcement not only by government members during the federal election campaign in May 1997 but also in the budget which came before the House for the next fiscal year.

It is very interesting that we are told repeatedly that Canadians can expect to see an increase in the Canada health and social transfer. The government is putting forward the message in that way, that it is an increase. The reality is that this is not an increase at all.

It is simply the government making a decision because of enormous public pressure from opposition parties, from provincial governments and most of all from Canadians who have told the government that they are suffering from the impact of massive cutbacks in the Canada health and social transfer. What has the government decided to do? Rather than provide an increase, it simply is not continuing with another round of cuts that it had previously announced. That in reality is what the so-called increase to the Canada health and social transfer is all about.

It is regrettable there are not any government members present in the House today to hear that because this is something which sorely touches every Canadian. We can look at the polls. Concerns have been expressed about the cutbacks in health care, in social services, in social assistance and in education. It is a very critical point to look at the main mechanism by which the federal government uses revenues from Canadian taxpayers and transfers them to provinces to build and create social programs in our country.

1210

We in the NDP find it shocking and outrageous that the government would put forward this bill and include in it a supposed increase in the Canada health and social transfer when in actual fact it is not an increase at all. Indeed cash transfers to the provinces for health care, education and social assistance have not increased by one penny. That is the reality of what has happened.

I would like to continue on this point and refer to some material that has been prepared by the National Anti-Poverty Organization, NAPO. This group has done extensive research to assess and analyse the impact of the devastating cuts in the Canada health and social transfer, particularly on low income Canadians. This is very important, valuable work.

On one side of the House we hear from government members that we should not worry about what is going on, that in fact they are there to defend the interests of poor Canadians, that they are there to defend the interests of poor children. I can say that this organization, an independent anti-poverty advocacy organization, comes to a very different conclusion.

The organization released a report entitled “Government Expenditure Cuts to Health Care and Post-Secondary Education: Impacts on Low Income Canadians”. That report documents that cuts in government funding of social programs have not only led to increasing inequality in money income, but rapidly growing inequities in access to both health care and post-secondary education.

It is pointed out in the report that federal cash transfers to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance were cut. Here again is where we hear the real story. Not an increase as the government is telling us, but a cut from $18.2 billion to $12.5 billion over the past two fiscal years.

What is very interesting about the report is it goes on to analyse what this means in real per capita terms, that is taking into account the effects of population growth and inflation. If we look at it from that point of view, then the federal cash transfers for social programs fell by more than 40% between 1993 and 1997.

Initially this came about as a result of the freeze on spending under the Canada assistance plan and the established programs financing. Of course since 1996 that cut of more than 40% has come about because of the deep cuts that have been made to the Canada health and social transfer.

That is what has actually happened in this country. It is not what government members have told us and certainly is not what is contained in Bill C-28.

It is very important that we consider the real impact and consequences of these cuts. It has meant in Canada that there is growing inequality and there is increasing poverty. Since 1989 the tragic situation in Canada is that 538,000 more children now live in poverty. To read those statistics does not give a real sense of the tragedy involved in terms of young Canadians, poor Canadians and poor families. These people historically have relied upon federal programs, on the co-operation between federal and provincial governments on transfer payments, for example for social welfare. These things traditionally have had great meaning and value particularly for poor and low income Canadians.

Now that we are witnessing the deep cuts in the Canada health and social transfer, we can see that poverty in this country has actually grown. Indeed the number of low income persons in 1996 was 40% higher than it was in 1989. In 1996 is when the Canada health and social transfer began to kick in. These are real statistics and something that cannot be denied by the government.

1215

The other consequence that is very evident to local communities is high unemployment that has resulted from the massive cutbacks by the federal government. Again, this bill before us today, Bill C-28, will do absolutely nothing to reverse that, nor will the recent federal budget that came before this House. The reality is there is very high continuing unemployment in Canada that is simply a national tragedy.

Those of us in the NDP believe that it is the first priority of the federal government to attack and deal with this issue of high unemployment and to bring in real programs and targets to reduce unemployment. We have heard a lot from the finance minister about his targets to cut the deficit. But where have the targets been to reduce unemployment? Where have the targets been to reduce poverty in this country? They simply do not exist. I think that is a crying shame and the government should be ashamed of its record on that score.

In my riding of Vancouver East, probably the lowest income urban community in Canada, which includes the downtown east side, the impact of these policies and the impact of the measures that are contained in Bill C-28 is very visible already. In looking through this bill I had to ask myself is there anything in this bill that would improve the lives of people in my riding, in particular unemployed people and single parents who are struggling below the poverty line, who cannot find access to child care, who cannot find adequate housing.

Having looked at Bill C-28 and trying to make sense even of what it contains because the language is so difficult to deal with I and others in my party have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in this bill that will improve the lives of ordinary Canadians.

Will it improve housing or are there any tax measures that will improve the situation for low income Canadians to find affordable housing which is a very basic human need, the provision and security of shelter? There is nothing that will deal with that.

Will this bill improve access to health care? Regrettably the answer to that question as well is no.

Recently in my riding I organized a number of round table discussions with young people. Some of them were street people. Some of them were service providers working with young people who are unemployed and having difficulty finding work or having difficulty accessing post-secondary education. These round table discussions were very informative for me as the local member because they really brought home to me the stark reality that is faced by young people in this country. What these young people said to me is they know they have a very bleak and dismal future and the prospect for them to find long term secure employment that is not part time, that is not low wage, was increasingly diminishing.

When I look at the impact of this bill on my local riding and when I hear from my constituents, in particular young people who are unemployed, they tell me they are very fearful about their lack of access to post-secondary education. That is even in a province like British Columbia where we have been very fortunate to have a provincial government that has shown leadership and has frozen tuition fees three years in a row in order to ensure that there is some measure of accessibility.

B.C. has led the way in that regard, but even so it is very difficult for young poor Canadians to get into a university, a community college or a technical school simply because the tuition fees are so incredibly high. We have to ask ourselves why are those tuition fees so high. It is because of $2.1 billion which has been cut from education in the Canada health and social transfer that will not be reversed in this bill before us today, despite the claims from the federal government that it is increasing the Canada health and social transfer.

1220

My constituents who are trying to get into community college, university or technical school know what the reality is trying to go through the door, trying to get into those schools and realizing that tuition fees are too high. Even if they are successful in going through the entrance, what are they then faced with? The next barrier is a massive student debt.

The average student debt a few years ago was around $13,000. Today the average student debtload is $25,000. Why is that? We can relate it directly back to the federal government which has shirked its responsibility to provide adequate funding for post-secondary education.

In the last month we have heard a lot about the millennium fund and how this will answer all our problems and needs. As the millennium fund begins to unfold and as students, young people and Canadians begin to understand what the millennium fund is all about people will realize it will not even come close to compensating for the massive cuts we have faced in post-secondary education.

What the government chose to do was rather than increasing its support to public post-secondary education that could have been contained in Bill C-28, it provided a scholarship grant program through a private foundation that only begins in the year 2000. Students will still be facing very high tuition fees because universities and colleges are forced to raise tuition fees to compensate for the decreasing funds from the federal government.

The impact of the bill, the lack of funding and the cutbacks in the Canada health and social transfer are not just felt in my riding, they are felt right across the country. Even here in Ottawa there was a very interesting situation yesterday where students at Carleton University organized a vote on several key questions involving post-secondary education because they are so concerned with what is going on in their own educational environment.

To refer to the material they have distributed to students in that facility, they said that recent decisions by the provincial government give the board of governors and the management of Carleton University the power to raise tuition fees for undergraduate students up to 20% over the next two years and to deregulate tuition fees for graduate students.

The students say about the putting out of this material that they need to ask themselves who sets tuition rates and how. Ask the federal government which jettisoned national standards by ending direct funding for education in 1996 and it will say it is the provinces' responsibility. Ask provincial governments whose main response to decreased federal government was to make it easier for universities to raise tuition fees and they will refer you to the universities. Ask Carleton management and it blames both governments for cutting education funding. Who is telling the truth?

In a sense the responsibility for tuition fees has become offloaded to everybody and nobody. That is what students at Carleton University are facing as they put forward the questions in a vote that was held on the campus yesterday. The questions they posed to students at that facility are as follows. “Do you think the board of governors and the university management should freeze tuition for the next two academic years, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 at current levels, yes or no? Do you think Carleton should honour its obligations to tenured faculty and students when making decisions about closing programs, yes or no?”

The full results have not yet come out but I know from speaking to members at the university that they have had a very high vote and they expect a very high, resounding yes in answer to these questions.

In closing, this bill contains nothing of real measure to help Canadians.

1225

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, further to the remarks by my colleague from British Columbia, I note she has acknowledged that the millennium scholarships, among other things, will not, as she puts it, really serve the students in her province.

We in Quebec have noted the same thing. We are saying that education needs are not necessarily the ones targeted by the federal government and we think the Province of Quebec is in a better position to know what the real needs are, to establish its own priorities and to invest where the needs are the greatest.

I would like to ask my colleague from British Columbia if she does not think that education would be better served if it were administered provincially, if the Province of British Columbia had this money as compensation and could distribute it for educational purposes, invest it where it considered such investment a priority and where it would best serve students in need.

Does she consider the provinces are in a better position than the government to assess educational priorities? I would like her opinion on the matter.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the role of provincial governments in establishing educational priorities is critical and is a prime responsibility of the provincial governments whether in Quebec or British Columbia.

However, I and my party think it is very important for the federal government to be involved in establishing a national standard around accessibility for post-secondary education. We also believe that the federal government must provide adequate funding for post-secondary education, which I am sure the member would agree with.

The federal government should sit down at the table with provincial governments to ensure those funds are directed to support public facilities and support students in need through a national grants program. That is what we stand for and what we believe in. We believe the students in Quebec would benefit from that as well.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, once again the member opposite fails to mention the importance of the value of tax points for the provinces as part of the overall federal transfer payments.

What we have done in Bill C-28 is increased the cash floor now that our fiscal situation has allowed us to do that. I would hope that she would be applauding the government for actually increasing the amount of money in the cash floor.

The question I would ask the hon. member is whether the constituents of Vancouver East would benefit from the increase in the cash floor to the provinces. If the member is suggesting they will not and this money is being transferred to the province of British Columbia, then she is further suggesting that the government should go directly to Canadians, Vancouverites, the constituents of Vancouver East. Will not the improvement in the tax system for donations, which is part of Bill C-28, help those charitable organizations that are in her constituencies?

The changes in this tax system will allow for a more generous treatment of donations and a better write-off for donors to charitable organizations, which I am sure plays a very large role in the constituency of Vancouver East.

The member also discussed the millennium fund, as did the member for Joliette. The millennium fund is part of Bill C-36. I would only hope we would talk about the context of this bill.

However, I also want to remind the hon. member that it has always been a joint jurisdiction. I agree with the member for Vancouver East that the federal government needs to play a role in access to higher education. At least on that point we agree.

I also ask the hon. member if she can respond to some of these quotations like the following: “We are trying to get a balanced approach which involves debt management, the enhancement of programs and, when we can do it, tax reductions. We need to look at selective tax reductions in order to promote jobs and economic development. When we cut those taxes is when we can afford to cut those taxes. As long as I am premier, our fiscal integrity will never be compromised”. These are not my words or the words of any member of this government. These are the words of NDP Premier Roy Romanow. Would the hon. member comment? I do not understand whether she is in complete disagreement with what the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan is saying.

1230

Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the member's comments though I doubt I can respond to all of them.

I would like the member to show me the increase in the cash floor. Unfortunately the member was not present when I made my comments. I went to great lengths to point out that there was actually no increase in the Canada health and social transfer. Not one new dime is going to the provinces. Would the member dispute that? Is that not the case? The government is not going ahead with a previous cutback. No new money is going to the provinces.

In terms of the bill and its provisions for donations it is very nice that big corporations can get a bigger write-off for making donations. We need to ask ourselves why we are now in a situation where organizations and community programs are forced to rely on a very Victorian notion of charity from big corporations so that they can get a tax break to help some poor person in my riding in the downtown east side.

I do not call that equality. That is more inequality from the government. It is another benefit to big business under the guise of making donations to help low income Canadians. If the government were truly concerned about those people it would ensure a real increase in the cash floor of the Canada health and social transfer.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her comments.

The hon. member mentioned how the government had not put one additional cent back into the payments. The government cuts off one's leg and plans on cutting off the other one next year but then decides not to cut it off. This is supposed to make people feel good, that they are doing well and getting something back. If we want to make it obvious for the government, maybe it should look at it in that sense. To a lot of people that is what we are talking about. We are talking about their lives and their personal well-being.

The government says that it is doing things for education. There are RESPs where money can be invested. However I see the bottom line in my riding. For example, students employed by Inco, the major employer in the community, receive $1,500 in educational assistance from the employer if they have to continue their education outside the community.

In the past the students would claim the $1,500 as income or in some way, shape or form through the income tax process. In most cases students are not doing very. The government does not make a lot of money in tax dollars from students, so it decided that parents must claim the $1,500 of income instead of the students. It is trying to make a buck and bleed dry ordinary Canadians instead of addressing the real problem, the need for a total reform of the tax system.

Does the member have any comments about that? Does it identify what she has been saying?

Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments. The analogy that she used to describe the cutbacks in the Canada health and social transfer was very vivid and aptly described the situation before us as opposed to how the government tries to manage a shell game about the Canada health and social transfer.

The example provided about the change in tax laws reminded me of what the government did with bankruptcy laws. It changed the laws to make it more difficult for students to declare bankruptcy. Both examples serve to show that on the one hand the government is saying it is helping students but on the other hand it is actually making it more difficult.

1235

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-28 which offers a wide range of tax related measures, most of which have been discussed at great length in the House by myself and other members.

The bill demonstrates the Liberal philosophy to governing our country: government by knee jerk reaction, crisis management and economic tinkering. Liberal governments do not plan to fail but quite frequently they fail to plan.

Effective economic policy needs to be consistent and the vagaries of politics cannot interfere with the economic direction of the country. In the Liberal war of politics versus economics politics always wins. Unfortunately Canadians frequently lose. That goes back to 1974 with wage and price controls, the 18 cents per gallon tax, the budget of Joe Clark and the Liberals' flip flop on that, their flip flop on the Pearson airport deal, helicopters, GST and free trade.

However, I am pleased that at least they have maintained the policies of the previous government to the extent that those policies have been largely responsible for the government's ability to reduce the deficit. The types of policies I am speaking of are free trade, GST, deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. Those were the policies of the previous Conservative government which provided the government with an opportunity to make some choices for the future of Canadians. I say with great confidence that not a member on the government side of the House today would disagree that their previous policies are clearly failing ordinary Canadians.

In Bill C-28 the finance minister tinkered with several areas to provide minimal targeted tax relief. He complicated a tax code which is already far too complex. Canadians should not need tax accountants or even tax lawyers to deal with their governments. Even the Americans are moving toward streamlining their tax measures when the Canadian tax code is far more complicated.

The targeted education tax measures in terms of basic direction and intent are very strong. We suggested as part of our prebudget position that the government move toward providing better incentives for investments in RESPs and providing more flexibility for Canadians to invest in their futures and the education of their children.

However, this type of stop gap, one off, cobbled approach to education will not be effective without a holistic approach to economic public policy. Public policy should be designed to provide opportunities for young Canadians in Canada not only to obtain an education but also after their education.

The recent government budget announcement relative to RESP changes follows on the heels of the proposed changes in the bill. If we look at tomorrow's edition of Investor's Digest we see an article by Brenda Robertson which reads:

My problem with the RESPs is that they're already too complicated for investors. The new grants—will probably create more confusion.

This case in point is from the mouth of a tax accountant who probably prefers a complex tax code at some level. She is saying that it is actually getting too complicated for the ordinary Canadian to benefit from.

In the PC plan for growth we call for government to allow Canadians to have more flexibility with their RESP contributions and transfers from their RRSPs, but only as part of a holistic policy toward economic growth, one that combines tax relief, lower income taxes, lower payroll taxes, greater opportunities for jobs and growth in Canada that would keep young people here where they belong.

Let us look at what the government's policies have done to higher education in Canada. We can start with Nova Scotia, the cradle of higher education in Canada, and the immediate situation of the faculty strike at Dalhousie University. Dalhousie is my alma mater. Its students felt that their concerns were being overlooked in the recent election by the two levels of government, both the provincial Liberals and the federal Liberals. The Dalhousie students union spent $40,000 to buy television advertising to make sure Nova Scotia voters were reminded of the education crisis which was looming because of federal cuts to health and social transfers to the provinces.

1240

The student debt load has grown in recent years by 280%. The debt load at the completion of a four year degree now averages $25,000. In 1993 only eight students in the maritime provinces had debts exceeding $30,000 after their four year programs. In 1997 there were over 900. The number increased from 8 to 900 in that short period of time.

Why is student debt load ballooning out of control? It is partially because of the cuts to transfers but also because of the general unemployment situation. Tuition has only increased by 110% but student debt has increased by 280%. The disproportionate growth in student debt is due to the general unemployment situation. Students are competing with graduates for jobs that were previously within the exclusive domain of students.

It is ludicrous to address the issue of student debt load without addressing the issue of general unemployment. That is why we need to address the issues of reducing taxes, growing the economy and providing an economy that creates jobs and provides a better opportunity for young people to work, provide for themselves and supplement their incomes while going to university.

Acadia University is in my riding. Its students just went through a near crisis because of a strike that loomed for several months. Uncertainty was created. Many of those students who were having difficulties came to my office to seek advice. They were not finished their degrees. They were faced with a faculty strike and already had $30,000 in student debts. What a great way to start their careers.

The chain of events since 1993 on both the federal scene and the provincial scene in Nova Scotia has been unfortunate for the Liberal Party of Canada and its cousins in Nova Scotia. For the first time in Nova Scotia's history a governing party has failed to win its successive second term.

The legacy of Russell MacLellan, who called the federal budget an excellent budget for Canadians and for Nova Scotians, is that the Liberal Party lost 20 seats. The Liberals went from 39 to 19 seats in Nova Scotia. Russell MacLellan is kicking himself today for not speaking up when he was in Ottawa and for not speaking up in previous budget debates when the government was adamant that health care and education would be cut to the bone.

National leadership is required at all levels to ensure young Canadians receive the best education in the world to get the best jobs in the world. Leadership is not about federal or provincial jurisdiction. It is about federal and provincial co-operation. The struggle to raise the living standards of a nation is inextricably linked to the quality of its education system in a knowledge based society.

While we need a strong education policy we also need to address tax policy. We need tax relief to keep our best and brightest in Canada and to stop the brain drain that is sapping the lifeblood from Canada's future. Sherry Cooper from Nesbitt Burns stated that the government's changes or lack thereof to education and tax policy will turn Canada's brain drain into a brain train to the United States.

Once our students leave school the economic outlook for them in Canada is very bleak. Canada continues to have a youth unemployment rate of over 17%. Highly educated and motivated Canadians are being forced to leave the country in search of work. As an Atlantic Canadian, I have seen the brain drain issue for a number of years. For over 30 years families have watched their young people leaving Atlantic Canada and going to central Canada to seek opportunity. Unfortunately it is now an issue with which all of Canada is familiar. Across Canada young people are leaving and families are watching their children leave Canada to go to the U.S.

Every year 80% of Waterloo computer science graduates go to the U.S. The combination of higher income and lower taxes in the U.S. is too seductive to walk away from. Canadians need bold action from the Minister of Finance to reverse this exodus. Yet the Liberal policy is to maintain high payroll taxes and the highest income taxes in the G-7. These policies run counter to the most basic of free market logic.

Bill C-28 epitomizes this Liberal philosophy. Instead of making substantive changes to initiate growth in the economy the minister has nickelled and dimed the Canadian people by offering targeted tax cuts in politically palatable areas. If the PC Party plan for growth were implemented we would see the basic personal exemption increased to $10,000. That would take two million low income Canadians off the tax roles. Instead the Canadian government offered Canadians a stop gap solution, an increase of $500.

1245

In fact the tax relief for a Canadian making $10,000 per year in this budget works out to $80 per year. That is an insult. There is no member on the government side of the House here with me today who would disagree that it is an insult.

The fact is that $80 per year amounts to one cup of coffee per week at Tim Horton's, one cup of coffee per month at Starbucks.

It is unacceptable, frankly, that this government has balanced the budget on the backs of ordinary Canadians and now refuses to provide any benefits back to the ordinary Canadian taxpayer.

My Liberal colleagues told this House about the marvellous tax relief and what they have provided for Canadians, and clearly that is not the case. In fact, again, I urge members to pick up a copy of tomorrow's Investor's Digest. In terms of tax relief it states, “What's going to happen when we head into the next recession with nine per cent unemployment, crippling taxes, massive debt and a weak dollar? Presumably, having spent the fiscal dividend on education the Finance Minister will have little recourse but to run renewed deficits as income slows”.

Again, this government is making the wrong choices. It fails to deliver the opportunity to average Canadians to make their own choices as to what to do with their fiscal dividend. This government may have moved into the black, but Canadians are still running in the red. Personal debt is at an all time high in this country.

Bill C-28 makes 15 small and favourable changes, arguably, to the tax code for selective groups, but again this is not sound economic policy. It further complicates the tax code. Certainly we would prefer to see some tax breaks for some Canadians as opposed to no tax breaks at all. But what about really addressing the issue of the egregiously complicated and not user friendly Canadian tax code and making it easier for average Canadians to deal with their own government?

Canadians have not experienced a real after tax pay increase since the early 1980s. Personal disposable income has dropped by 6% since 1991. In Canada the Liberals have maintained high payroll taxes and they continue to believe that we can create a growth economy with a high tax economy. It is not possible and we are going to continue seeing a gap in the standard of living between Canadians and Americans.

If we look at Bill C-28 and the revisions to the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer, the CHST helps the provinces pay for health, education and welfare. In the Atlantic provinces where the local tax base is not as strong as it may be in some parts of the country to pick up the slack when these cuts are particularly draconian, the effects of changes and cuts to the CHST are dramatic and the impact is devastating.

The government talks about having established a cash floor for the CHST funding. The fact is that the cash floor is established on a national level. The fact is that seven of the ten provinces will continue to receive less money every year for the next four years, including provinces like Nova Scotia.

When the government talks about cash floors it should realize that health and education spending in many provinces is not a matter of having a floor. It is subterranean. It is not up to the national standards and the Liberal answer is to cut further the cash transfers to the provinces in those areas.

Our platform would call for a provincially reached cash floor level that would truly establish the long term stability of social investment in each province of Canada. We need a plan that ensures equity and equality of opportunity for all Canadians.

This Minister of Finance would like Canadians to believe him when he says in a press release that “Governing is about choices, priorities and values. Our choice is clear. Health care is a priority for this government”.

1250

Based on the Liberal convention of last weekend and the outcry of Liberal delegates from across Canada for this government to start investing more in health care and to start dealing more with the health care crisis of this country, obviously health care may be a priority for the Liberal Party at a grassroots level but it is not a priority of this government.

I said a few minutes ago that there was not one government member on this side of the House who would disagree with me when I say that the government's policies are clearly missing the mark. There may be one now.

We will continue to offer our positions and our beliefs which represent our unwaivering belief in the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system is the best system to provide all Canadians the opportunity to succeed and prosper in this country.

We also believe that the free enterprise system is only going to be successful and sustainable if all Canadians have access to the levers of the free enterprise system and to the levers of growth to bootstrap themselves and their families.

We need a government that is prepared to commit to sound strategic social investment in areas that will include the competitiveness of Canadians in a global environment as we enter the 21st century, as well as a government that will couple this investment with tax reduction and provide Canadians the types of opportunities they need and deserve right here in Canada.

Canadians need a plan for growth. That is what the PC party is offering Canadians. It is not offering a stopgap, one-off approach to economic policy but a holistic economic policy that will provide Canadians with a plan that will work and will put more Canadians back to work.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member said something along the lines that the government spent the fiscal dividend on education, that the economy is going to decline, that it will go into a downturn and then we will be back into deficit financing.

I am sure the hon. member was here when the budget was put forward. The finance minister said that we would balance the books this year, next year and the year after that for the first time in a very, very long time.

In fact, if we look back to 1993 we have not missed a target. We have always bettered the target. I am not sure whether the hon. member really has his facts right. He should probably clarify that.

On the other point, the hon. member talked about the transfers and the importance of transfers to the provinces. I agree with him that transfers are important to the provinces. However, I also want to remind the hon. member that during the 1997 election his party was promoting the fact that we should eliminate all cash transfers and just deal with tax points; in effect, eliminate the federal role in transfers to the provinces completely.

I am sure that is something members of the Bloc Quebecois would agree with, but I am not sure it is something that the hon. member wants to stand to defend, that being the elimination of the federal presence in transfer payments to the provinces.

I ask the hon. member, when he speaks about transfers, whether he would pay some attention to the tax points portion of the transfers and the fact that equalization payments to the provinces in Atlantic Canada were not in any way affected. Those provinces require assistance and this government did in fact make those changes in consultation with the provinces.

I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to stand to defend the fact that his party wants to eliminate the federal presence in transfers to the provinces.

Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. When he quoted me, in fact, I was quoting Brenda Robertson who writes for Investor's Digest. I urge the member to pick up a copy. It comes out tomorrow.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Do you agree with her?

Mr. Scott Brison: Yes, I do agree with her when she says that what is going to happen when we head into the next recession with 9% unemployment, crippling taxes, a massive debt and a weak dollar is that we are going to have to spend and, after having spent the fiscal dividend, we will have little recourse but to run renewed deficits as income slows. That is a basic argument of mathematics.

1255

The hon. member and his government are actually content with spending money without providing any meaningful tax relief to Canadians.

Let us hear what Sherry Cooper of Nesbitt Burns says. She says we are pouring all this money into education and scholarships and then the better and brighter will go straight to the U.S. where taxes are massively lower.

This member stands behind a millennium scholarship fund which does not kick in for two years. This fund will cost $2.5 billion and will help only 7% of students seeking higher education. It is appalling that he would be proud of it.

In 1984 when a Conservative government was elected the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 9%. We reduced that to 4% by 1993.

His government maintained our policies, including free trade and the GST. We deregulated the national energy program, which I hope my colleagues in the Reform Party have some appreciation for.

An hon. member: Two years too late.

Mr. Scott Brison: An hon. member opposite said it was two years too late. It was a heck of a lot faster than the previous government.

We deregulated financial services, energy and transportation. Those policies helped this government. They helped lay the groundwork for this government to continue to eliminate the deficit. In fact, we could say that this Liberal government is a government of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately its original ideas are not sound and its sound ideas are never original.

The hon. member talks about the CHST transfers and the fact that our party espoused a tax point solution to this issue. How can the member say that transferring greater authority to the provinces to determine the future of their health and social spending is a bad thing when he is part of a government that has reduced health and social spending by 35% over four years? How can he say that the federal government can be trusted with that responsibility when there are a lot of provincial governments out there which are fearful of further draconian cuts in the future from a federal government that is as heavy-handed as this one has been?

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, can this member explain to Canadians why his government, in the nine years that it was in power, did not get rid of the deficit when the economy was in a growth situation and would have allowed it to reduce the deficit? Can he explain to Canadians why the Conservative Government between 1984 and 1993 allowed the deficit to reach $42 billion and allowed the national debt to more than double?

Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member was not so disenchanted in 1988 with the Conservative government's policies that it prevented her from running as a candidate.

Obviously she felt quite comfortable in the Conservative Party's policies between—

Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, as a point of order, I should advise the House and Canadians that I did run in 1988 as a Reformer because I was terribly distressed with what the Tories were doing as a government.

Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I seem to have struck a chord.

In any case, the economic policies and the mess the government of Brian Mulroney inherited dictated that we had to reduce by 15% per year program spending growth. We reduced it to zero by the time we left office. Beyond that we were able to not only reduce program spending, which was out of control at that time, but we were also able to reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP.

We were also able to implement policies which have been absolutely essential in reducing the deficit, including the GST, which is a consumption tax that is a heck of a lot better than the manufacturers' sales tax which it replaced.

Then we implemented the free trade agreement.

1300

We were the party that supported free trade before the members on the government side had ever supported it. Those are the types of difficult innovative policy decisions which have provided to Canadians today a fiscal dividend. The fact is those were the right policies then and are the right policies now.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I just had one comment on the member's speech.

The European model puts a lot more emphasis on trades people. When people are educated in that way it tends to lead to the quicker creation of jobs. These people finish their courses within six months to two years as opposed to university classes which take two to six years. This gives them a chance to get something on their resume. They can always go back for further education.

Does the member see that type of program working for Canadians?

Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very good question. There is a tremendous amount of duplication of efforts between provincial and federal governments in Canada.

If we look at the education system and training in Canada, we see that part of the problem is that there are so many programs which are not tied together that we do need a more cohesive approach to training, education and more research into apprenticeship programs. I think there is a significant amount of potential, especially in the areas of tying education to the jobs of tomorrow.

I believe governments have to look ahead to see where the employment trends are going and then federal and provincial governments should be compelled to work together to ensure, either through apprenticeship programs or through a better secondary and post-secondary education system, that our young people are provided with the skills and tools they need to survive and prosper here in Canada.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary West.

As we debate this bill and some of the amendments this afternoon, I cannot shake the belief that the governments that introduce these massive omnibus bills can only have one of two motives in mind. The first motive, I would think, is that they are probably in a desperate hurry or, second, that they have something to hide.

Let us look at the first case scenario. Is this Liberal administration in any sort of a hurry? I cannot see why. The Prime Minister has spent this past weekend shortcutting democracy by laying claim to future mandates with his millennium scholarship fund and prebooking dollars for future programs.

Along with his lack of vision, I cannot see any reason why he would see a difference between 1968 or 1998 let alone the next millennium where he has already committed such a large chunk of our money.

Maybe we can find a sense of urgency in the office of the prime minister in waiting, formerly known as the finance minister. He is so eager to put his stamp on the economy that he has created this 464 page rubber stamp to enshrine Liberal tax policy in a never-never land of complexity, manipulation and government interference and intrusion into other government jurisdictions.

This Liberal government is asking Canadian taxpayers to think happy thoughts and fly straight on and never think of their income as their own, never believe one can make personal choices without first filtering the money through massive bureaucratic programs.

However, since this has been a feature of Liberal tax policy for the last three decades, we cannot see why anybody would be in a hurry. What can I conclude? This government has something to hide. What does it have to hide? We are told that this government is so open and transparent that it is now telling us what it is going to do with our tax dollars years from now.

Somehow taxpayers who are looking at another four years of diminishing net incomes and the next generations faced with paying off this massive debt we have accumulated, almost $600 billion, big government debt cannot find as much cause for celebration as members opposite would like us to believe.

Part of what the Liberals are trying to hide is the fact that they have completely ignored the wishes of the Canadian people, all those people who came to the finance committee last fall making presentations.

At this time of the year when millions of people are tied up trying to figure out their complex tax forms, this government offers nothing to simplify that process. On the finance committee we heard those witnesses last fall testifying that payroll tax cuts were essential to promote further prosperity and spin the economy in this country.

The finance minister offers us 10 cents off the EI premium while jacking CPP premiums through the roof. What is he up to with those excess premiums?

1305

As it turns out they look real good when placed on the asset side of the ledger. They go to pay down the deficit, not to provide the training or the employment benefits this country so badly needs.

It turns out that the public pension surpluses also serve to make the government look good. No one on the government side wants all this to be as open to the public as they claim they do. Perhaps it is not that the Liberals have something to hide but something they want to protect. From what this bill contains I would have to conclude that they want to protect their ability to intrude in and control every aspect of Canadian economics and governance. Taxing municipalities that are only trying to pay for the downloading of services that was begun by the present finance minister is ridiculous. Where do the Liberals believe these profits are going? We should be encouraging cities and towns to be more flexible, not less flexible.

As for the perceived conflict of interest by the finance minister on clause 241, much has already been said. I want to offer my support to my colleagues on this side of the House.

I will not support Motion No. 3 because it simply adds to the bureaucracy of administration and it does so in the area of the provincial jurisdiction. What we are looking for is simplicity in the tax code and a vision from this government that recognizes that money left in the hands of those who produce it is much more effective than all the tinkering with an outdated tax code that only gets more incomprehensible and complex to those of us who are forced to use it.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I challenge the member here to tell Canadian taxpayers, because he has talked about tax increase after tax increase, how many tax increases this Liberal government has introduced since it became government? That is the challenge I lay to him.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Madam Speaker, it is a very in-depth question and I am not sure anyone has a complete handle as to all the insidious tax bites that we have seen throughout the country. I believe the number is somewhere around 37.

Most people have no concept of where that tax bite is getting them other than when they look in their wallets at the end of the month. The month drags out to 30 or 31 days and their wallets are only good for about 20 or 21 days. We are seeing that shortfall in revenue, disposable income, taxes that show the average family of four paying out $21,000 for income tax and only having $17,000 of its incoming going to food, shelter and clothing. It is creating a generation of have nots in this country.

On top of that, these are the same people who are being asked to finance the increase in CPP. They are the same people who are being asked to finance the paying down of the debt that we have seen accumulate over the past 30 years. It is quite a challenge to most people out there to make both ends meet and still come up to the tax levels that have been created for them in this country.

As other speakers have indicated, it creates tremendous brain drains. We see people educated here who cannot afford to work here leave the country. That is revenue that is lost to this country for generations to come. It is a shame. We have to stem that tide. We look to this government to give us the leadership and the direction to slow that tide down, turn it around and get those people staying at home working where they should.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about laying claim to future governments. Then he criticizes the government with the millennium scholarship fund. I would offer to the member the explanation that what this government is doing is not laying claim, we are paying for programs rather than shifting the burden to future governments.

We are being criticized by the Reform Party for actually paying for something that has been announced and is quite transparent. He knows where the $2.5 billion is going. He keeps standing up in this House and telling people. That is fine.

I have a question about the comment he made about taxing municipalities. If he votes against Bill C-28 and wants to eliminate that provision he is referring to, has he talked to corporations and told them that the Reform Party is in favour of allowing municipalities to compete tax free with private corporations? Is that what the Reform Party is in favour of? If he votes against Bill C-28 and that provision is removed that is what he would be allowing.

1310

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question.

It is quite an in-depth study that needs to be done in all areas of the country. He asked me to say that municipalities would be in direct contradiction to private corporations in that they are tax free. The one program that pops to mind is the infrastructure program which hit municipalities using their own resources against private corporations in order to qualify for the infrastructure money. Towns and villages were doing their own sewer and water to make that program go further and not go to private contractors. There are several instances of that in my riding.

The member talked about corporations being in competition with government. Canada Post is a prime example. People in my riding are forced by law to charge three times the rate that Canada Post charges for the same service. That is a direct contradiction to what the member is trying to get across.

The member brings up the millennium scholarship, an intrusion into provincial jurisdictions. The members for the Bloc made that very clear. I hear that from home as well. We are booking money out for future generations to pay for. It does not kick in soon enough. It does not cover enough people. The representations on the finance committee from students from the Canadian Association of Students said they want that needs base. Let us have the money working for us today, not further down the road. It does not go far enough fast enough.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to boil this down for the taxpayers watching at home.

This is Bill C-28. See how thick it is. That is what the Liberals call a neutral tax or something that is a tax simplification or tax relief. That is what they call tax relief. It is a telephone book. A telephone book means that taxes are becoming more complex. It is not as though we were not complex already. Walter Robinson of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation sent a survey to all the members in the House of Commons and asked whether MPs do their own taxes. A large portion of MPs do not actually do their own taxes.

We are the people who pass the laws in this country. We are the ones who create taxes or change taxes. A Reform government would provide tax relief. Nonetheless, many of us as law makers do not do our own taxes because they have become so complex. Tax accountants and tax lawyers making their living doing taxes advocate that taxes should be made simpler and less complex. They as well as the taxpayers are crying out for help.

I see something as large as a telephone book. Members across the way in the Liberal government are the architects of the slash and burn in health care and the architects of tax increases. They tell us this is a good change to the taxes. Shame on them. How can they continue to justify Bill C-28 and its myriad of tax changes and tax increases as something that is good for the country?

There is no tax relief here. During the last election I do not believe the Liberals advocated increasing taxes when going door to door. Yet they have increased taxes twice since the last election and 36 times during the 35th Parliament. I bet any money that at any door they went to not a single taxpayer begged to have their taxes raised. Yet the Liberals have so willingly fulfilled that task and filled their pockets.

Disposable incomes have continued to decline since 1987. I know that the Tory across the way likes to quote from 1991 onward, but the fact is that real disposable incomes have continued to decline since 1987. Taxpayers need a break. They can only go so long. They can only suffer much.

There is no tax simplification by introducing something that looks like a telephone book. Nobody can pull the wool over my eyes and those of the taxpayers by telling us that there is tax simplification going on here. Indeed this bill is adding more regulation on top of regulation.

1315

Number three, there are new taxes on municipal utilities. One government is taxing another level of government. It is bad enough when the government taxes the citizenry, the businesses, the employees and employers, but when it starts taxing other levels of government, indeed the desperation is thick.

Number four, this bill returns nothing to the health and social transfer. There were promises made by the Liberals in the last two elections.

In the election for the 35th Parliament in 1993 the Liberals said “Make us the government and we will guarantee the funding for health care and education and guarantee the health and social transfers”. What actually happened? The Liberals cut $6 billion out of the health and social transfers.

What has that meant? That has meant that the federal government is responsible for the hospital closures in this country. That is what it means. It is the federal Liberals passing the buck on to their provincial counterparts which is closing hospitals across this land. Their broken promises in 1993 and their broken promises in 1997 are closing hospital beds in this country.

The Liberals have cut the heart out of health care and they have the audacity to stand in the House and have their minister say that they are the friends of health care, when indeed waiting lists have grown longer and doctors and nurses are leaving this country. The Liberals are the architects of the slash and burn policies in health care.

The Liberals say one thing in the election but then deliver a far harsher stroke when it comes to their cuts in these areas. They download on the provinces. Shame on them.

The tax bill in this country is going to go up by $6 billion this year. That is not tax relief. That is more money coming from the pockets and the wallets of the taxpayers and going into the government coffers. It is a tax increase. Six billion dollars more are being taken from taxpayers this year than last year.

What does it mean in terms of this whole debt situation? We have all heard about these huge numbers in the debt but I am going to boil it down. Six thousand dollars out of the average taxpayer's salary goes to paying just the interest on the debt. That is $6,000 that could be allocated to a whole host of other things. The average taxpaying family is spending $6,000 just to pay the interest on the debt which this government and its past incarnations helped to create.

What about the contingency funds the government talks about? It would take 200 years to pay down the national debt by using these $3 billion contingency funds. The real travesty is that the Liberals are not even moving along that track because the contingency funds are being used to fund new program spending. That is exactly what they are doing. That amounts to a $45 billion payment we have to make every year just to pay the interest on the debt. As I said, that $45 billion translates into $6,000 for every family in this country.

I have been attacking the government. I have been attacking the Liberals for what they have done on taxes, but I am going to speak to the poor suffering some of the Liberals have undergone.

I speak of the poor finance minister. Yes, he is a millionaire. Yes, he is involved and owns through various arm's length relationships the Canada Steamship Lines. The poor finance minister has had to take his money and shelter it. He has had to put his assets offshore because taxes are too high in this country and he does not want his companies to pay tax in this country.

Do you know what? I feel for him. The hearts and the minds of this country's taxpayers bleed for our finance minister because while he recognizes that taxes are too high and while he does not want his own companies paying those high taxes, he has raised taxes on the rest of Canadians 38 times since the government has been in power and since he has been finance minister. Yet he shelters his own money offshore.

I feel for him because he has to fly Bahamian flags and not those of his native Canada. I feel for him because he likes the Netherlands Antilles with a 15% withholding tax as opposed to a 25% withholding tax. It works very conveniently into his trusts and his arm's length relationships. Shame on him. He should be paying tax in this country. If he is raising taxes on Canadians, he should have the decency to pay taxes in this country while Canadians suffer those bills. I feel for the finance minister.

1320

High taxes have created a brain drain. Young professionals, people with a good university education, or any level of education, they do not even have to have a high school education, are leaving this country to go to other places with lower taxes.

I want to mention some of the 38 tax increases the Liberal government has brought in since it has been in power. It went ahead and changed the tax treatment of securities. It taxed dividends. It taxed insurance companies. It accelerated capital cost allowances. It increased excise taxes on gasoline and tobacco. It restricted the tax assistance of RRSPs and reduced the RRSP withdrawal age to 69. It increased EI premiums. CPP premiums will go from 5.2% to 5.4% to 5.6% to 6.0% to 6.4% during the government's term. Shame on the Liberal government for all its tax increases and the complications.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened and I am almost stunned at what I heard. The member went through a litany of points. It makes me wonder how Canadians feel when they hear information which is conflicting with fact. How do they feel when they know that information given in the House of Commons is just wrong? Do they wonder whether or not the member is somehow trying to make a point by hoping somebody would not understand that there are reasons for things and that representations are somehow relevant?

The member talked about personal income taxes and made some comments about how people do not do their own tax returns. This year taxpayers can actually file their income tax returns over the telephone with a touchtone phone. It takes less than 10 minutes because the vast majority of taxpayers have very straightforward tax returns and they can get quick returns.

The member went on to say that the Income Tax Act is the size of a telephone book. The member has implied somehow that the Income Tax Act which individuals have to deal with is as thick as a telephone book and they have to know everything that is in it. What the member did not say is that the Income Tax Act of Canada includes corporate income taxes which is the vast majority of the tax act. It also includes interpretation bulletins, information circulars and regulations which guide the Income Tax Act when people are interested in what is in it.

The member implied that the tax relationship with the Netherlands Antilles somehow had something to do with the current finance minister, that he was somehow getting around something. That is to suggest there is something wrong. We have tax treaties with countries around the world. We have those treaties so we can promote bilateral trade and cultural exchange. Those are good for Canadians because 40% of our GDP is export oriented.

The member has given information which is incorrect. He has given information which is not in keeping with the facts. I really am very sorry that Canadians have to bear some of this stuff, even when it gets down to that somehow the terrible government has restricted RRSPs.

The current RRSP limit for Canadian taxpayers is $13,500 per year. A person has to make $75,000 a year to be able to reach that maximum. That means 5% of Canadians cannot put in more because they have more income. He is talking about less than 5% of the income earners of Canada. The member is somehow suggesting to all Canadians that this is unfair.

1325

The issue is that the member has put a bunch of information on the table which he knows is incorrect. Canadians deserve an apology for the incorrect information which was suggested as the truth by the member.

Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, words spoken like only a tax and spend Liberal could speak them.

The fact is that in 1996 the average family paid $21,242 in taxes and spent $17,415 on food, shelter and clothing combined. According to the Fraser Institute the average family paid $27,000 in 1997. Under this Liberal regime, the gap continues to widen between what people pay in taxes and what they spend on food, clothing and shelter. That is a fact.

A Liberal bragging about how electronic filing is saving the government money in terms of getting people's taxpayer dollars to them more quickly and easily is like someone plucking feathers out of a goose and saying he can get the feathers out of the goose with the least amount of squawking. He can take money with the fewest complaints. How dare he? And he is defending the complexity of the tax code?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are now at the final stage of Bill C-28, a bill that has been widely talked about this past month.

While this bill is just hours from being passed, the persistent doubt the people of Quebec and Canada have concerning clause 241, which would place the current Minister of Finance in an apparent conflict of interest situation, has still not been dissipated.

In spite of the dozens of questions asked by the Bloc Quebecois and the other opposition parties, the Prime Minister and his Deputy Prime Minister have been passing the buck to each other in this House, systematically refusing to provide answers to the opposition, which wants this matter clarified once and for all.

Moreover, all the efforts made to have the Standing Committee on Finance hear witnesses on this issue have been vain, except for the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor, who appeared before the committee to say that there was an apparent conflict of interest.

In this respect, while the Liberals are doing their very best to protect their finance minister's image, I will take a moment today to quote exactly what the ethics counsellor said in his testimony before the finance committee; incidentally, he was one of the very few witnesses allowed to testify before the committee.

We will share with you what we have heard Harold Wilson himself say. On the subject of whether the Minister of Finance may receive information on his holdings placed in trust, he stated that all ministers “may receive is periodic information on the overall value but not the composition of their holdings, as well as data sufficient for the purposes of filing their taxes”.

He stated further “A blind trust agreement was not appropriate, however, in Mr. Martin's situation, since his holdings are not publicly traded. In this type of situation, my office requires the establishment and disclosure of a blind management agreement. This places in the hands of the supervisors or trustees the assets held by Mr. Martin in Passage Holdings. Mr. Martin is obviously completely aware of the nature of his private interests”.

No wonder the Minister of Finance is tempted to hide in Bill C-28 a clause which would benefit his little ships.

Mr. Wilson also argued that certain provisions of Bill C-28 were in fact dealt with by the secretary of state so that his boss, the finance minister, would not be put in an awkward position.

1330

Mr. Wilson was clear on this. He said “It is the secretary of state who made all the decisions. Therefore, there was no real conflict of interest. Still, Mr. Martin sponsored the bill and some members were of the opinion that this in itself is an apparent conflict of interest”.

Mr. Wilson added “If I had been informed ahead of time, before the bill was introduced, discussions would have taken place on how to best proceed to introduce the bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for all tax legislation”.

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister continue to deny these facts. Why? As we know, the Liberals were told to keep their mouths shut on this issue. It is clear. The gag order given by the Prime Minister to his caucus has been complied with ever since the whole thing came up in the House.

Since February 5, when the Bloc Quebecois showed what is really behind Bill C-28, the opposition has had to deal with a gag order co-ordinated by the Prime Minister's office. Why do the Prime Minister and his government stubbornly refuse to give answers to the opposition on this issue? Why? Because they are embarrassed. They are trying to hide the truth regarding this issue.

Let us not forget that the ethics counsellor clearly said in his testimony that the bill had not been drafted in according with the rules and that, if this had to be done again, some specific measures would have to be taken to avoid a repeat of this situation.

Mr. Wilson is the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor. He is not an independent counsellor, he is paid by the Prime Minister. A historic precedent took place when representatives of the four opposition parties held a joint press conference to ask the government to get to the bottom of the issue. Again, the Prime Minister said no. He did not want to comply with the opposition's request. The Liberals stubbornly refuse to shed light on this very suspicious matter.

Early in the week, in order to solve this impasse, which is totally the doing of the Prime Minister, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a reasonable solution: to take clause 241 out of the bill. Again, the Liberals said no. When the vote was taken last evening in this very House, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were all conspicuously absent. Pure coincidence? No, rather part of the Prime Minister's day-to-day plan to continue to protect the image of the Minister of Finance in this case.

A few minutes ago, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot introduced another amendment to refer Bill C-28 back to the Standing Committee on Finance. That would enable us to question witnesses so as to clarify the situation for once and for all. I therefore wish to state that I fully endorse the amendment proposed by my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which in my opinion reflects the numerous opposition interventions over the past month or more.

Moreover, it is in the same vein as the proposal made in this House by the Prime Minister. When he was being questioned about Bill C-28, he said: “If you are not satisfied with the answers, use the Standing Committee on Finance to ask all the questions you want to ask”.

That is what we are calling for today. We are asking the Prime Minister to move the debate back to the Standing Committee on Finance. We will see then who is right.

1335

Allow me to add that, if the Prime Minister and his government refuse this new request from our party as well, they will have to face negative public opinion.

I hardly need point out that the position of Minister of Finance in a Parliament like ours is a vital one, and its incumbent cannot draw even a hint of suspicion. He must have the full confidence of the public, particularly since we are well aware that this particular finance minister aspires to be Prime Minister some day. He would have no problem following in the footsteps of our present Prime Minister, mind you, since the PM contradicts himself continually in his statements in this House, except in the case of Bill C-28. That is another matter. He is protecting his Minister of Finance.

The Prime Minister has an opportunity to rebuild his credibility in the matter. He must accede to our latest request, otherwise we will continue our research. And so long as we have not obtained what we are after on behalf of the people, we will keep digging.

I would also like to raise other important points in this bill, including the points concerning transfer payments to the provinces. This government is stubbornly maintaining its planned cuts to the provinces. What the Prime Minister is trying to get us to swallow is twisted.

In fact, the Prime Minister is saying simply that the planned cuts of approximately $48 billion have been reduced to $42 billion. That means that the provinces and the people will have to face $30 billion in cuts, $12 billion of which will be in Quebec alone.

The additional billion and a half dollars announced by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance represents nothing more than a purely vote getting move. Who is going to pay the social costs of the budget policies of the present Liberal government? The sick, the unemployed and society's most disadvantaged. These are the people who are the true artisans of the balanced budget delivered last month by the Minister of Finance, not the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. The people are doing the work.

This new social injustice is unacceptable, and the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-28. We already know the Liberal reaction: the opposition will vote against a budget that gives more than planned to the provinces. We are familiar with it, the demagoguery of the current Prime Minister.

The truth is that this government refuses to admit to its responsibility for the state of health care services. When a government like the Liberal one cannot even acknowledge a poor choice in its latest budget, when we see the federal Liberals encouraging the government to debate a matter of provincial jurisdiction, we begin to understand why this government and its disastrous Prime Minister are trying to hide the truth in the Minister of Finance's apparent conflict of interest in Bill C-28.

In closing, if the Prime Minister really wants to show his good faith in this matter, he should return Bill C-28 to the Standing Committee on Finance, enabling this Parliament and the people to see the situation in its entirety.

[English]

Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a comment but I do not think there is anything I want to actually ask the member about. I want to clarify some comments the hon. member made which were not correct. I would like to ensure that the record shows the correct information.

The hon. member made reference to the ethics counsellor, that the ethics counsellor found the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of the Minister of Finance. Both the member and I were at the meeting and the answer the ethics counsellor provided was that there was no conflict of interest and no appearance of a conflict of interest.

1340

To go further, the member stated there was some doubt as to whether the Minister of Finance acted properly. In fact the minister quite rightly did not act at all. All decisions and discussions were held by the secretary of state.

The Bloc Quebecois keeps moving on this issue. It started by hurling accusations that the FAPI rules were in jeopardy. Then the Bloc members said that the clause would benefit the minister. Now the assertion is that there is an apparent conflict of interest.

In fact the answer given to the members of the Bloc, the members of this House, was that there is no apparent conflict of interest. There is no conflict of interest. The Minister of Finance will not in any way benefit from this bill. It has been said over and over again but those members continue on this track. Those who make this charge knowing full well that it is false demean this institution and demean public life. Pure and simple they are engaging in the most cynical kind of politics. It is something Canadians will not stand for.

I would hope the hon. member has the courage, if he feels so strongly about this, to go outside and make those accusations. But he knows that what he is saying is false and is pure politics. There is no room in this House for that kind of politics.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Madam Speaker, I have here Mr. Wilson's statement. On page 7, he says “Nonetheless, Mr. Martin sponsored this bill and certain members—”

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the hon. member that he may not identify a minister by name, but must use his title.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Madam Speaker, I was reading from a text. That is why I departed from the rule. “Nonetheless, the Minister of Finance sponsored this bill and certain members have expressed the view that this constitutes an apparent conflict of interest”.

The hon. member opposite is not reading the same documents we read on February 17, 1998. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is so certain that the minister is not in conflict of interest, why, when we asked the Standing Committee on Finance to hear witnesses on this state of affairs, was our request to hear from the ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson, the only one granted, but all our other requests turned down?

This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition parties are once again raising the issue, because we feel that the word has gone out across the way not to shed light on this matter. A finance minister in a situation such as this must tell the truth.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned in his remarks the fact that the federal cutbacks to provinces lead to social injustices. I would like to underscore that comment. I agree 100% that is the case.

As we talk about taxes, we cannot help but be drawn to the serious problems of the health care system, unemployment and the economic opportunities within our small communities.

I think in particular of some small communities in Nova Scotia where small businesses are finding it very difficult to operate because of a business occupancy tax that is being levied upon them by the municipality. It is so serious that many of these small businesses are reaching the point of closing out due to this unfair tax system.

I would like to underscore that it is very important as we deal with taxation, whether it be income tax or other types of taxes, we always keep in mind the citizens who are going to be affected by the changes we make.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Madam Speaker, the problems mentioned by the NDP member from Nova Scotia are quite similar to the ones we have in Quebec. My riding is also very regional; we have small and medium size businesses and we also have social problems. The government is not making any effort to reduce the tax burden of individuals and of small and medium size businesses, with the result that these people and businesses have a hard time being competitive.

In the context of globalization and free trade, the federal government should be more receptive to ordinary people, but I doubt it will be.

1345

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, before the last referendum the Parti Quebecois commissioned a study on the economic impact of separation on the people of Quebec. It was done by somebody in the Parti Quebecois and was tossed under the carpet.

I would like ask my hon. friend from the Bloc Quebecois two questions. First, why was the report, which was a damning report on the economic impact on Quebec if Quebec were to separate, tossed under the carpet? Second, in the event of separation, would the manufacturers of Quebec be doing their business with the Americans in French or in English?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Madam Speaker, I heard about this document but, unfortunately, I did not have time to find out what happened to it.

However, I want to reassure the Reform Party member that, regardless of the language we speak, we are in a global market. We are in the process of signing all sorts of agreements with various countries, and I cannot see why Canada would refuse a business partnership with a sovereign Quebec.

All this is academic, but one thing is sure: when we have all the necessary levers, we will be able to negotiate on behalf of a sovereign Quebec, and the rest of Canada will also benefit from this new Quebec-Canada structure.

[English]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to express in very clear terms the opposition of the New Democratic Party to Bill C-28. The reasons for our opposition are many, but there is one overriding concern that must be dealt with very clearly in this debate.

In the process of expressing our opposition to the bill, let me say how concerned we are to find once again the government of the day wielding the heavy hand of time allocation and bringing in closure on a very important debate before us and the Canadian people.

The most critical, the most controversial aspect of Bill C-28 is the section that applies to health care financing and specifically amends the financing arrangements for health care under the Canada health and social transfer. We are dealing with, as we have done on many occasions, a government that is prepared to delve into illusory politics, to act like the great pretender and to imply that it is doing some great service for health care when all along it is a misrepresentation.

We have heard time and time again from the government that it is investing new money in health care. That is a galling statement when we consider the fact that we are not dealing with any new moneys for health care. We are dealing simply with a cancelled cut and the legislation before us verifies the fact that is all the government is prepared to do at a time when health care is in crisis.

This is also an opportunity to talk about our visions for health care. We are all asking what is the vision of the Liberal government when it comes to medicare. We have not heard any plan from the government. We are still waiting to see when the millennium health care budget will happen. We are still waiting to get details from the government on how it will deal with the health care crisis.

At the same time we are dealing with a very serious situation, pronouncements from the Reform Party about the kind of health care system it would like to see. That in itself should speak to the Liberal government and remind it of the urgency. I certainly hope the Liberal government is vehemently opposed to the kind of proposal being advanced by the Reform Party.

1350

I remind members of the vision of the Reform Party on health care. Within the past two weeks the member for North Vancouver suggested to the House that we needed more competition in our health care system. He said that he received better health care in Florida than he has received under socialized medicine in Canada. We have not heard such regressive, reactionary comments in the last 30 years. All of a sudden they are appearing at a time when we need leadership and not reactionary statements like that one.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca told us over the past few days about his vision and Reform's vision for health care. On behalf of the Reform Party he advanced a parallel system of health care: one for the rich and one for the poor. That is the antithesis of everything that has shaped the country including the medicare we have today. It is absolute Americanization and privatization of our health care system, the absolute opposite of what Canadians want to see from this place and from their government. That is why this debate is so critical.

With one voice we need to tell the government to preserve medicare. Canadians want medicare preserved. That means a genuine reinvestment to make up for the tremendous amount of money that has been chopped out of this system over the last number of years, in particular during the time the federal Liberal government has been in power.

I will put the chronology of events on record to point out the seriousness of the situation. We need not forget that the whole erosion of medicare began under the Mulroney Conservative government with several pieces of legislation that changed a funding formula that made sense and that ensured federal cash transfers to the provinces would grow as the economy and the population grew. The Mulroney government changed that formula over several years to ensure that growth in health care transfer payments would end. We realized at that point that under that formula cash transfer payments to the provinces would dwindle to zero in short order if that were allowed to continue.

An hon. member: Who stopped it? We did.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The question is who stopped it. The Liberals would like to pretend they stopped it. I will put the facts on the record. The Liberals came into office in 1993 with the promise to address this critical situation, to restore funds for health care and to restore confidence in medicare.

What did they do in 1995? They introduced the Canada health and social transfer, the most regressive social policy in the country. In one fell swoop they took $6.8 billion out of programs for health, education and social assistance. They eliminated the requirement that provinces live up to expenditures in those specific areas. They completely abdicated responsibility in terms of ensuring a viable health care system, quality public education and any semblance of a Canada assistance plan.

In taking that huge chunk out of transfer payments to the provinces, the Liberal government put medicare on very weak ground. As a result of the failure to maintain its commitment, to keep its promise to Canadians, we are dealing with the health care crisis we have today.

We have gone from the days when funding for health care was done on a 50:50 basis to where today the federal government at the very best is responsible for 20%. We have gone from 50:50 to 80:20. That is even stretching it. If we look only at the cash portion of the transfer payment the federal contribution is down to 10% or 13%. With that kind of loss in federal support, with that kind of abdication of responsibility, with a total lack of federal leadership, we have a very serious situation.

We now have a government that is prepared to pretend its cancelled cut will save the day, but it fails to tell Canadians that it is still a $6.8 billion cut. We have a government that does not have the wherewithal to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act.

1355

We have a government that has basically thrown up its hands and said “Let whatever happens happen. We are not responsible”. That is contrary to the traditions of the country. It is contrary to the vision of the pioneers of medicare. It is contrary to the intentions of the Canadian people.

Let me remind the Liberal government and the Reform members that Canadians have a very clear idea of what they want in terms of health care. They want a single payer, universally accessible, publicly administered health care system. They do not want the two tier health system being proposed by the Reform. They do not want the federal government to abdicate from its responsibility. They want a partnership, which is all we are talking about in our opposition to the bill.

We presented an amendment to the bill that would have allowed the government at least to show some good faith and report back to parliament about the adequacy of cash transfers to the health care system to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act.

Did the government accept that amendment? Did the Reform Party accept that amendment? No. They would not even agree to a simple official process for accounting back to parliament and to the Canadian people. Where is their support for medicare? Where is their vision for the country? It was a small gesture to be made and they could not even go that far.

We know there are difficulties surrounding this issue on the Liberal benches. We know that there is clearly a battle going on between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health. We know there is a battle going on between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Industry.

Why else would we end up with the most unusual situation of the Minister of Health going on national radio and saying what he said? He said:

But on that point, let me say that, you know, in Ottawa now, as you mentioned at the top, we just balanced the budget. We're entering sort of a new and unprecedented area where we're going to have a debate like we haven't had in memory about what to do with the surplus. And people are going to be arguing, for example, that the surplus should be used for tax cuts; others will argue that it should be for other programming. Health is going to be contending with other priorities for the available dollars. So if, as you said, Canadians support increased investment in health care, then I think that we should make it clear that those who want to see surpluses go to health should let their voices be heard.

I have not seen anything this unusual in the whole time that I have been in politics. It is absolutely incredible to have a minister of health stand publicly, dissociate himself with the government policies of the day and ask for Canadians to support him in his efforts to advocate for health care. I think that says it all and why we need—

The Speaker: It is almost two o'clock. The member still has 10 minutes left in her time and will be the first speaker when we resume debate.

---

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[English]

ASIA PACIFIC HALL

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is Canada's gateway to the Asia Pacific, home to about half of the world's total population, production and total consumption.

In the words of the Prime Minister “Canada knows that Asia Pacific is the future”. Hence Canada launched the Year of Asia Pacific on January 8, 1997 in Vancouver.

The year succeeded in firmly establishing Canada's credentials as a Pacific nation, forging stronger and more numerous human and economic links between Canada and its partners in the region.

To sustain this legacy, the Prime Minister announced last November Canada's contribution of $4 million toward the establishment of the Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University. This state of the art conference facility, the first of its kind in North America, shall be named Asia Pacific Hall.

Indeed British Columbia can take pride in providing the home for this enduring legacy of Canada's Year of Asia Pacific.

*  *  *

THE SENATE

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, There is a place where members are appointed
You'd think that they had been annoited
As citizens toil, these members sleep
They rake in the benefits while taxpayers weep

It does not have to be that way
They should work hard to receive pay
We could choose them by election
Not by the Prime Minister's selection

Account to the people on promises kept
Duties and responsibilities met
Vacations more like normal folk
Then that place would not be a joke

Is this a dream, could it be real?
Ottawa in touch with what citizens feel?
The only way that we will know
Give the Senate election a go!

Let the people decide for in the end
They don't want the Prime Minister's friends
Then the senator's guiding path
Will not be the public's wrath!

*  *  *

1400

[Translation]

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with this House an excellent government initiative to promote the growth of the small business sector in eastern Quebec and on the North Shore.

Indeed, on March 3, the hon. secretary of state responsible for Canada Economic Development announced a $529,500 contribution to the corporation providing support for technological development. This assistance is designed mainly to support small businesses in eastern Quebec and on the North Shore, which hire science and engineering students from Université du Québec in Rimouski.

This is phase II of a project to promote the development of innovation and technology in the small business sector by facilitating the integration of future graduates into small and medium size businesses in these two regions.

Our government is especially proud of having been associated with this initiative from the start. This is a promising project, which is focused on youth and will have a positive effect on the growth of small and medium size businesses in eastern Quebec and the North Shore for the benefit of all of Canada.

*  *  *

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is persecuting Quebec farmers, particularly those in eastern Quebec.

Each time family farm operators hire a son, daughter, spouse or relative, they are harassed by Revenue or Employment Canada officials.

They are practically treated like criminals. Officials almost automatically suspect them of trying to defraud the system. If a farming operation is recognized by Revenue Canada, why do HRDC officials hound its owner?

I find this attitude unacceptable and ask that the minister give the necessary instructions to put an immediate stop to this demoralizing practice.

*  *  *

[English]

REFORM PARTY OF CANADA

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it must be tough to be a B.C. Reform member these days. It has been a long cold winter in Ottawa and I have heard that being shut in behind the walls of Stornoway without bingo makes one a little crazy.

While British Columbians expect their MPs to debate the budget, Reformers take flag waving joy rides around Parliament Hill. While this government works for lower taxes, a reduced debt and improved health care, Reformers devote their time in question period to mud slinging at the Prime Minister. While this government is acting on recommendations put forward by the national forum on health, Reformers dance to a mariachi band outside the other place.

It is clear that Reform has lost touch with the people of B.C. and that is why constituents of B.C. are turning to Liberals like Lou Sekora in Port Moody—Coquitlam for leadership. Lou knows that tax relief, debt reduction, more and better jobs and preserving key social programs are what people are really concerned about. Reform is out of touch with British Columbians—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.

*  *  *

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, along the same line there has been plenty of rhetoric from the Reform Party about B.C. Let us look at some of the facts.

In 1998-99 transfers to British Columbia by the federal government will exceed $3.3 billion. This will account for 16% of B.C.'s estimated revenues. That works out to $825 per person.

The lowest interest rates in years means that B.C. has saved $340 million over the last three years. By increasing the cash floor component to the Canada health and social transfer, B.C. will get an additional $920 million over six years. On the infrastructure program, $277 million for B.C.

British Columbia needs more Liberal MPs, people who understand local issues, people—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton East.

*  *  *

1405

HONG KONG VETERANS

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker: Shells rained down and brave men died,
Canadians stood their ground.
Their ranks finally broke,
From the weight of superior force.

Interned in cells of true hell,
Rotting flesh, disease and death abound.
Convention was not a word Japan understood.
Slavery for Hong Kong war prisoners was.

Four long years,
Our soldiers were forced,
To endure unspeakable horrors,
And to slave at unbelievable tasks.

Sixty years hence nothing has changed.
Japan and Canada have failed in their part,
To compensate our brave Hong Kong veterans.

Questioned in this House November last,
Committee resolve of December past,
Both should have caused result
Bud did not.

So I ask now
When will government do honour to the task
As the sands of time slip from our Hong Kong veterans' lives?

*  *  *

IMMIGRATION

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify the position of this government once again with regard to the recommendations made to the honourable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The minister has stated on several occasions, as I have in this House, that the recommendations made by the review committee are simply recommendations. They were not made by the government and are not carved in stone. The minister took these recommendations straight to Canadians herself to get a firsthand account of their concerns and views.

I remind this House this is the first time a minister has conducted her own consultations and involved the public to such a degree. After consulting with Canadians the minister reiterated that we are not bound by any of the 172 recommendations, that language requirement is too excessive and we will not go that route.

I have spoken with constituents in my twin riding of North Vancouver and they have clearly stated that although our system of immigration does need changes, installing the suggested language recommendation is not one of them. I do not believe we can be any clearer on this issue.

*  *  *

REFORM PARTY OF CANADA

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is out of touch with the real concerns of the people of British Columbia. This party came to Ottawa promising to be constructive and to do politics differently. Instead, it has engaged in negative, divisive antics that have nothing to do with helping average Canadians. Canadians in British Columbia and elsewhere are concerned with maintaining and improving our health care system while Reformers worry about whether or not they can have a flag on their desk.

While this government sets the course for lower taxes, reduced debt and improved social programs, Reformers spend their time in Ottawa trying to start fist fights in the Chamber and slinging mud at the Prime Minister during their time in question period.

British Columbians want more than pandering to cheap politics from their representatives. They want someone who will bring jobs to their communities and someone who reflects their daily concerns. Subsequently I urge British Columbians to remember this when they cast their ballot next week—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

*  *  *

TAXATION

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all Canadian families need tax relief. However, the government's tax credits discriminate against some families. The government will only give certain tax credits to families with both parents working outside the home. Is this fair?

I represent a rural riding where a third of the farms have both husband and wife running the operation. Statistics Canada says 42% of women provide their own child care. Interestingly enough, a recent poll said 77% of parents would prefer to have provided parental care instead of day care if they could do it all over again.

The Reform Party's family friendly budget would increase family wealth and it would allow parents the freedom to raise their family the way they chose.

*  *  *

REFORM PARTY OF CANADA

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, who speaks for British Columbia? Not the 24 B.C. Reform members. They would rather spend their time in this Chamber making accusations about the Prime Minister that they dare not repeat outside the Chamber and riding around in a car that is painted like a flag in the middle of winter pretending to be more Canadian than anyone else.

Yet again the task of speaking out for the real interests of British Columbians falls to the province's Liberal members. Together they worked for measures in this last budget that directly benefited the provinces such as tax relief that will benefit over 92% of all B.C. taxpayers.

1410

The millennium scholarship fund will give money directly to students. We are providing an annual grant of up to $400 to parents who are saving for their children's education through RESPs. That is what politics is all about.

*  *  *

MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, later in the day Jean Charest, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, will announce he is going to be a—

The Speaker: We should not use each other's names in the House as long as we are here.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, later in the day the leader of the Conservative Party will announce he will be a candidate for the leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party and the leader of the federalist force in the province of Quebec. We wish him well in his endeavours.

The response of the Reform Party has been a partisan call to unite the right in this country. Instead of a call to unite the right it should be a call to unite federalist parties and unite this country around common goals that all Canadians can feel at home in Canada. That should be the goal.

I call on all our colleagues to work toward that common ground for all Canadian people.

[Translation]

At the provincial level, there is already a process under way to ensure Canadian unity that led to the Calgary declaration. Public hearings were held and they were well attended.

It is high time Parliament took its responsibility. The time has come to act.

*  *  *

WORLD POVERTY

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1998, 1.3 billion people in the developing countries, or one-third of their population, are barely surviving, on less than a dollar a day. Every day, 34,000 children die of malnutrition and disease.

In light of these statistics, and in order to eradicate poverty, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, in conjunction with some 100 organizations working in this area, has launched a campaign under the theme “In common”. The goal of the campaign is to enhance the political and public desire to eradicate poverty in the world.

When will the Minister of International Co-operation take some notice of this human distress? Instead of cutting funding for international aid, as was done in the latest budget, the government ought to be following the example of the CCIC and its partners.

Our congratulations to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and its partners for this fine, and constructive, initiative.

*  *  *

OLD AGE SECURITY

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the bill transforming the present old age pension into the seniors benefit will bring about a drop in available income for most retired persons and a loss of ground for women. What is more, 40% of workers have only public pension plans when they retire.

The AFEAS has been stoutly defending women seniors so as to ensure them of a decent retirement and to enable them to retain what they have acquired after many a long struggle. The public pension plans are essential if the majority of women are to enjoy a decent retirement.

The AFEAS is calling for the principle of individuality to be respected, for there to be a universal basic benefit and tax measures to enhance available income for the least well-off and to provide a tax break for the middle class, which has been crushed by the present government's taxation policies.

The AFEAS is therefore calling upon the Minister of Finance to reflect its recommendations in this new bill.

*  *  *

[English]

REFORM PARTY OF CANADA

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems that Reform MPs from B.C. have been so star struck by the paparazzi and glamour surrounding the visit of Prince Charles and his sons to B.C. that the usual political hyperbole has risen to new hysterical heights.

Yesterday in his statement in the House the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said the government uses health care as a political football to look good instead of putting patients first and giving politics a back seat.

The fact is the first reinvestment we made when our books were in reasonable order was in health care, raising the cash floor on transfers by $1.5 billion. As well, this last budget made real commitments in the areas of home care and medical research. That is what leadership is all about.

To date the people of British Columbia await one concrete suggestion from B.C. Reformers that would actually help them in terms of the health care system.

I have one thing to say. Go, Lou, go.

---

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

1415

[English]

HEALTH

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the issue of compensation for hepatitis C victims, I would like to quote what the Minister of Health said. “I do not think victims' claims should be bogged down for 10, 12 or 15 years before the courts.” That is exactly what the Liberal compensation plan is going to do.

I would like one of the Liberal members who is proud of this record to stand and tell me why Liberals are going to let half the victims go through the courts for fair justice.

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no arrangement has been announced as yet for compensation of hepatitis C victims. An announcement will be made very soon.

What will be announced I understand will be in co-operation and through an agreement with the provinces. I am sure that what will be announced is intended to be fair and reasonable. I ask my hon. friend to wait until the announcement is made. Then he will have something to talk about. Right now he is just blowing smoke.

[Translation]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Neylan Dallie, of Pointe-Claire, Quebec, received a transfusion of contaminated blood in 1981 during childbirth. This made her so ill that she underwent a liver transplant in 1994. Since then, the public system has abandoned her.

Why is the government now abandoning her as well, without compensation?

[English]

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is abandoning no one. As the Deputy Prime Minister has just indicated, there is communication between the Minister of Health and his counterparts at the provincial level in order to come together with a package that will address all of the issues associated with hepatitis C and the contamination, the unfortunate incidents that happened in the last decade.

We are very serious about the way we are approaching this matter. We are very concerned about all of the factors that are part of it. I urge the member to wait until tomorrow when the announcement—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just prior to 1986 Ron Smith of Calgary was involved in a major car accident. He had multiple transfusions. He is so ill today that he cannot even play with his four children. Ill not from his car accident but from contaminated blood and hepatitis C.

Why has the Prime Minister not forced the uncaring health minister to provide compensation for every single victim?

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as recently as a year ago this matter, regrettable as it is, was not even on the table. The Minister of Health made it his personal objective to ensure that the issue of hepatitis C contamination was brought on the table with his counterparts at the provincial level. They are working together on a package that deals with the issues on the medical side as well as all other issues.

I do not think it is fair for any member of the House to play on the emotions of people who have suffered this terrible tragedy. We are engaging in a resolution that we hope will solve all the problems.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the treatment of victims in Canada's blood scandal by the government has been unequalled. All hepatitis C sufferers in this tragedy deserve equal treatment with the HIV or AIDS victims who suffered the same fate.

Why is the minister discriminating against those who contracted hepatitis C before 1986? Why will he not agree to compensate them too?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is expected that as early as tomorrow there will be a package for hepatitis C victims announced on behalf of the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

I suggest that the hon. member wait until tomorrow. Then he can raise questions based on the actual program. Right now he is taking up the time of the House on matters we are not in a position to talk about.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people who sent letters to me about this issue will accept the minister's response at all. This could be a scandal as great as the tainted blood scandal itself.

I have received numerous letters from people who are in this situation. Why are they to be denied compensation, a chance for a better life from this government which refuses to abide by the very recommendations of its own report?

1420

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the risk of sounding repetitive, the negotiations are still ongoing. The announcement has not been made.

I think it is pretty shoddy politics to try to pit one group of sufferers against another. The government is trying to resolve an issue that has been longstanding. I urge the member to be patient and to address the issues to the House tomorrow. As they come up with specific questions, they will get specific answers.

*  *  *

[Translation]

MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a number of the provisions of the multilateral agreement on investment, more commonly known as the MAI, impact directly on provincial jurisdictions.

I am thinking of the clauses on social matters, labour standards, the environmental clauses and the cultural exemption, all of which are areas of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, or in some cases shared jurisdiction at most.

Under the circumstances, will the Prime Minister make a formal commitment to call a conference of the premiers as soon as possible, before he proceeds any further?

[English]

Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the negotiators are constantly in touch with every province apprising them each time a set of negotiations takes place. The province of Quebec has equal access to all the information, as does every other province in Canada.

I understand that a statement was made in Quebec today. We are not yet in possession of the text. When we are, we will be able to comment on it more fully.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nothing my hon. colleague has said prevents a first ministers' conference from being held, and in my opinion the situation demands it.

During the NAFTA debate, the Liberals, in opposition at the time, demanded a major debate in this House in order to discuss all matters relating to that agreement. I am not speaking of an opposition day, but rather a debate on the government's position if there is such a thing.

Could the Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary commit to a real debate in this House on all the implications of the MAI?

[English]

Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far back as February 19, the federal and provincial trade ministers met for a third discussion of Canada's objectives and the bottom lines for the MAI. The positions advanced by Canada in the MAI negotiations reflect the discussions that took place at that time.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

International concern over the MAI is growing.

In this context, will the Minister for International Trade not recognize that this agreement concocted by the OECD, the club for rich countries, is very likely to penalize the poorest countries and that it would be better therefore to start negotiations afresh under the auspices of the World Trade Organization?

[English]

Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an ancient Chinese saying which says that the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

We began with international investment agreements through NAFTA and we have that in existence at the present time. Right now we are trying to get 29 countries to sing out of the same hymn book. Once we do that, we will take it to the WTO where over 100 countries will be able to participate in the same agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the agreement provides that a sector will automatically be covered, unless it is expressly excluded.

Does the minister not think a provision like this should not be in an agreement of such importance?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement. Canada has signed no agreement on this matter. Negotiations are continuing, and if there is no agreement that represents our interests, there will be no signature by the Government of Canada.

*  *  *

[English]

NATIONAL UNITY

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, federalists cannot simply wish the Conservative leader well in his mission and then set aside the Canadian unity file, nor should Canadians be sidetracked by unite the right hoopla. What is really needed is leadership, leadership to unite the country.

1425

Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking to this House today to urge the Prime Minister to convene a meeting bringing federalist leaders together in this House to build a common agenda for a united Canada?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been giving leadership in maintaining the unity of this country. I am confident he will continue to do so with great success.

[Translation]

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, national unity needs leadership.

The Conservative leader is demonstrating his leadership by making the leap to provincial politics. The Prime Minister should also demonstrate his leadership for Canada.

What does the Prime Minister intend to do to get the federalist parties in this House to work together to build this country's future?

[English]

Will he urge the Prime Minister to convene such a meeting among federalist leaders before the Easter recess?

[Translation]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian unity is progressing nicely. Support for it is increasing, while support for the Bloc is in free fall. Things are going well.

We now have the opportunity to have a leader in Quebec who is popular for various reasons, including the fact that he can be both a Quebecker and a Canadian. My door is always open to the leader of the NDP. All suggestions on national unity are welcome.

*  *  *

[English]

HEALTH

Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, Justice Krever recommended that all victims of tainted blood be compensated. Now we in this House know that the government will exclude the victims outside the timeframe of 1986 to 1990.

I ask the government, does the Deputy Prime Minister support a compensation package that will exclude 40,000 Canadians, innocent Canadians of a tainted—

The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member probably heard me respond earlier to a question that was similar in nature.

The member's question is based on reports in the press today, reports that are not substantiated by the meetings that are currently being held by the Minister of Health and his counterparts. I might add that all of these men and women are at the table in an effort to resolve an outstanding issue of a tragic period in Canadian blood agency history.

Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am going to hold the government to its very words in this House today in regard to this issue. Previous members on this side of the House have asked the same question and have had the same nonsense from the government. It knows today what is in that package.

I ask the minister, will the government stand true to its words today in this House and if that package does not include those innocent victims, will the government make sure that that happens?

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite might gain some comfort in the knowledge that all the people he thinks he speaks for are the ones that are being dealt with today by the Minister of Health and his counterparts at the provincial level.

Under no circumstances would we engage in the kind of politics we are seeing today, which is pitting the emotions of one group of victims against another. It is shameful.

*  *  *

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our whole nation is grieving over the deaths of Connie and Ty Jacobs on the Tsuu T'ina reserve in Alberta.

Alberta has called for a public inquiry into that tragic shooting which might shed some light on how to improve the RCMP conditions there. That inquiry only looks into the shooting itself. Grassroots aboriginals know that this was just a symptom of much larger, more serious problems.

Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appoint a judge to look into the economic, social and democratic problems on the Tsuu T'ina reserve?

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said all along that the lives of aboriginal people in this country are dramatically different from the lives many of us have. They are not as good.

1430

Over the last five years the largest public inquiry into the very root causes of the issues that the hon. member makes reference to, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, has been completed. On January 7 this government provided a significant and historic response to that piece of research and focused on building plans—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the royal commission is not solving the problems there, right now today, which they are facing. There are terrible inequities on that reserve. As we saw on TV last night, there are haves and have-nots on that reserve. That is exactly the issue that Bruce Starlight, from that very same reserve, brought forward to the minister's attention and the very chief who got that information back and is now suing him.

This is not being solved and I am going to ask the minister one more time: Will she appoint a judge to look into the economic, social and democratic disasters that are happening on the Tsuu T'ina Reserve today?

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would point out that the work of the royal commission encouraged us and advised us to look at these very issues.

If the hon. member would take time to look at the response of this government to those very issues she will see that we are committed to building a strong relationship with the aboriginal peoples from coast to coast to coast, to building and supporting transparent and accountable First Nations government and Inuit government.

Members will see that we are committed to building modern fiscal relationships, all with the intention of ensuring that we build healthy, secure—

*  *  *

[Translation]

MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Part III of the finance minister's estimates confirms an additional cut of $430 million in transfers to the provinces. The government has managed, however, to find $2.5 billion for its millennium “flub”.

How can the minister explain to the public that he does not have the money for transfers to the provinces that are used for hospitals and universities, but that his cup overflows when it comes to new programs carrying the mark of the maple leaf?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the same time as we had to cut some of the transfer payments, the value of tax points went up by $700 million, there was an increase in equalization payments, and the drop in interest rates produced big savings for the Province of Quebec.

It should also be pointed out that, while our cuts were in the order of 2.5%, the Quebec government imposed cuts that were twice as high on its municipalities.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The government says to the provinces “We have no money. We are therefore cutting $430 million from your payments”. It then turns around and tells the public “We could care less about the problems our cuts are causing in the health sector. We prefer to create millennium scholarships. They are much more visible”.

Does the minister not realize that, in the meantime, there are real people suffering, while the federal government wages its war of visibility against the provinces?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the hon. member and his party are against a good education for the young people of Quebec and the rest of the country.

*  *  *

[English]

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister says if you want to unload oil in Cornwall, Ontario, it is going to cost you $1.85 a tonne in taxes. But 60 miles down the river in Montreal it is only 44 cents. It is the same oil, four times the tax.

Two years ago the minister's own independent inquiry of experts told him that this practice was discriminatory. They said that the tax should be the same everywhere.

Why is the fisheries minister ignoring his own experts and continuing this discrimination against Ontario businesses and consumers?

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday we have a series of regional response organizations in Canada. These are private sector organizations which make contracts with the various shippers of oil. We insist upon having this system so we have the maximum protection of the environment.

What I hear from the official opposition time after time is that they do not care about that protection and they do not care about the private sector relationship.

1435

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is not listening to his own experts and is kowtowing to different oil companies simply because he does not have the courage to stand up to them.

In a February 12 letter to the minister, the Liberal member for Scarborough—Rouge River said “it is economically and politically unwise to maintain a fee in Ontario which is four times higher than that of fees established in Quebec. This creates an economic disadvantage for Ontario industry”.

If the minister will not listen to the experts will he listen to his backbenchers? Why is the minister taxing Ontario at four times the rate of Quebec?

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, time after time I have to point out to this hon. member that a private contract between companies is not a tax of the Government of Canada. He tends to suggest that we in the government should take over private relationships, smother the system that we have in place and of course substitute our decision.

What I will tell him is that we have in place a regionalized system. The differences in price are related to the different volumes that are carried and the different requirements for the response equipment that is necessary to have on hand. It is an insurance policy. To get the insurance one has to buy in.

*  *  *

[Translation]

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the budget confirms that the accumulated surplus in the employment insurance fund will be close to $20 billion next year.

The only argument used by the government to justify this outrageous surplus is that it must save money for the next recession, again at the expense of the unemployed.

With so much money available, how can the government refuse to shore up the transitional job creation fund and provide a decent income to the unemployed?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we came to office, employment insurance contributions stood at $3.07 and were going up to $3.30. We have already reduced these contributions five times, and they now stand at $2.70.

Thanks to our initiatives, Canadians have saved $7.1 billion since we took office.

*  *  *

FISHERIES

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of playing an old tape, I will ask a brand new question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Given the $20 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, what is the minister waiting for to implement a true groundfish strategy and provide tools to the 22,000 fishers and plant workers who are waiting? There are $20 billion in the fund, but the minister is still waiting.

[English]

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the response assistance for displaced fisheries will be put forward, as has been said many times in this House, in due course once decisions are made by the government.

The issue that we are facing is that the plan will expire in August. We are trying to put in place other measures which we believe will be helpful, first, by removing people from the industry so we do not continually have this problem, but also of course to assist them in the interim.

*  *  *

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has been promising for months to amend the young offenders legislation. Many of the provinces have already indicated exasperation over the delay.

Last June the minister informed Canadians that young offender legislation was her top priority. Eight months. Some priority.

When can we expect the long overdue fulfilment of her promise? The minister often uses the word “timely”. Canadians deserve and expect better than that.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said in this House, and if hon. members on the other side of the House will wait, she will be bringing back her response in legislation. Be patient, it will come.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the justice minister, I do not have a team of lawyers and bureaucrats, yet six months ago I tabled a very complex bill to amend the Young Offenders Act in this House.

Who is causing the delay over there on the justice minister's side? Is it her team or is it her bleeding heart caucus which still feels that coddling violent young offenders is the way to go? Who is causing the delay over there?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member heard me. I just said that the minister will be, if he will be patient, tabling our response to the committee's report.

*  *  *

1440

[Translation]

MILLENNIUM BUG

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The more experts look at the so-called millennium bug, the more they realize the magnitude of the problem, the uncertainty of the results and, consequently, the urgency to act.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that he just wrote to all his ministers to tell them that the year 2000 computer bug is now the government's top priority and that it takes precedence over everything else?

[English]

Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that a number of reports on the year 2000 problem have been submitted to the industry committee. She knows that the industry minister started the research program with Jean Monty as chair to alert people about the year 2000 problem.

The government has a program in place. This has been reported to the industry committee. The next report on the government's progress with respect to the year 2000 problem will be coming in September.

We really need everyone in the House to publicize the importance of the year 2000 problem to everyone in their—

*  *  *

STATUS OF WOMEN

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women. I campaigned in Port Moody, B.C., over the past few weekends. I heard from many women who are concerned about poverty, education and their children's futures. What measures does the government have to help women and children?

Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has hit it right on the head. There are women living in poverty in many of the ridings we represent in Vancouver. There are single women who need education. A $3,000 a year grant will be given to women in financial hardship who have dependants so they can go to school and upgrade their training. This will be very important for some of the women in Vancouver East, in my riding, in the riding of the hon. member and in the riding she is talking about.

We are also talking about money for women entrepreneurs—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

*  *  *

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, unsettled native land claims and the supreme court's Delgamuutw decision are making land tenure in B.C. extremely uncertain. Mining and forestry jobs are disappearing for both natives and non-natives. How many more thousands of jobs must B.C. lose before the federal government addresses this burning issue?

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are there in partnership with the province, First Nations and third parties to deal with a long outstanding issue.

For the sake of the House, members may not understand that in the province of British Columbia we do not have treaties with our First Nations.

I applaud the people of British Columbia for understanding the importance of negotiating treaties with the First Nations in that province. It will bring certainty not only to the third parties referred to by the hon. member but to First Nations as well.

*  *  *

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament endangered species legislation died on the Order Paper because Canadians could not accept it. There was no public consultation and no respect for individual property rights. The environment minister has indicated that this heavy-handed legislation is about to reappear. Will the environment minister tell Canadians what steps she will take to protect individual property rights while endangered species are being protected?

Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has made a commitment to re-table our endangered species protection legislation and we will do so. Before doing so, I am in the process of consulting with the different sectors that may be implicated or impacted by this legislation. I believe we are coming to a consensus about a good piece of legislation to protect endangered species.

*  *  *

[Translation]

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, according to the estimates tabled yesterday, the employment insurance surplus will be $19.6 billion next year.

1445

The President of the Treasury Board thinks a huge surplus is essential in case we fall upon more difficult economic times in the future. But Canadian workers, from Kamloops to Caraquet to St. John's, Newfoundland, are already going through tough times as a result of the changes to employment insurance.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Instead of letting people suffer, is the government prepared to immediately use the surplus in the employment insurance fund to help all the unemployed from coast to coast?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the amount of the surplus from contributions is set on a yearly basis by the commission. We must ensure that there will be enough for the economic cycle.

An hon. member: My eye. Liar.

Hon. Jim Peterson: We have already cut employment insurance premiums by more than $7 billion based on past economic conditions.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when will this government start working for the people of this country and deal with issues of concern to all Canadians, such as job creation and a health system that meets everyone's needs? Does this government think that having 1.4 million unemployed people in Canada is acceptable?

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the government keep its promise to Canadian voters to create jobs? Is it prepared to implement a full employment strategy and to set job creation targets?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year, the Canadian economy generated 372,000 jobs. Since we have been in office, the economy has generated more than 1 million jobs.

It is not enough, but we will carry on with our economic policies to ensure that the progress made so far continues to generate numerous jobs.

*  *  *

[English]

HEPATITIS C

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, reports published today indicate that the Minister of Health has put together a compensation package which offers a one time payment of $22,000 to $30,000 to victims of tainted blood who contracted hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990.

Could the minister confirm this? Does he feel that this is just compensation for hepatitis C victims?

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is what I said earlier. The issue is on the table. It is being discussed as we speak with our colleagues at the provincial level.

When the compensation package is revealed in its entirety tomorrow we will know the specifics. At that time he will be able to judge better whether or not this is proper.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, there are provinces that disagree with the federal government on the matter of compensation.

Justice Krever, who was appointed by the federal government to conduct the inquiry, also seems to disagree. In his final report, he indicated that, in his opinion, providing compensation to some victims but not to others would be unjustifiable.

Is the Minister of Health prepared to defend the federal government's position, which neither the provinces nor Justice Krever support?

[English]

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that when Judge Krever submitted his interim report the federal government acted swiftly, immediately, to implement all the recommendations that applied to the Government of Canada and to Health Canada.

The Minister of Health has moved with the same alacrity to ensure that this issue is dealt with honourably and justly so that all affected could be dealt with in the appropriate manner.

I ask him to be patient and to wait until the announcement comes tomorrow so that we can deal with the specifics of the matter.

*  *  *

WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification.

Contrary to what the opposition believes, British Columbia has many friends on this side of the House. There is always room for one or many more.

The central ingredient for economic prosperity being participation in emerging technologies, will the minister tell the House what the government has done and is doing to help support high technology in B.C.?

Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, high technology investments in British Columbia have been significant. I want to give two examples.

The Canadian Space Agency announced a contract to MacDonald Dettwiler of $225 million for an earth observation system securing 300 jobs.

1450

Besides that, Technology Partnerships Canada has invested roughly $58 million for the creation of 4,800 jobs in British Columbia. Ballard Power Systems has received $29.3 million for the creation of 2,200 jobs and Western Star Trucks, $8.9 million for over 1,000 jobs.

*  *  *

IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hate to break from the theme of today, but I think we will have to do that.

Today there was a recent IRB appointee, Anna Terrana, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to be asked about her competence and qualifications. When asked about her appointment she said that others had applied for the position who had equal, if not better, qualifications.

Will the minister admit that the factor that tipped the scales in Anna Terrana's favour was the fact that she is—

The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member admit that when Jack Frazer, a former Reform member, was appointed to the Veterans' Appeal and Review Board it was on the basis of competence? That is the case with the former Liberal member who the hon. member unworthily attempted to slur.

*  *  *

[Translation]

DREDGING OF ST. LAWRENCE

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The federal government is preparing to give its approval, without public hearings, for the St. Lawrence River to be dredged in order to meet Port of Montreal requirements.

Before giving the go-ahead, does the federal government intend to follow up on the request from the Government of Quebec and environmental groups that public hearings be held on this proposal in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[English]

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the dredging of the St. Lawrence to which the hon. member makes reference was proposed. An exhaustive environmental hearing took place in which the provincial government of the province of Quebec took part.

Recently it sent a communication which appears to be in some respects not entirely on all fours with its previous position. I will look at that closely and we will re-examine this question in the light of their presentation.

*  *  *

HEPATITIS C

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health should understand that it is precisely because we do not want to pit one group of hepatitis C victims against another that we are asking these questions.

Could the parliamentary secretary assure Canadians that the government will show leadership and compassion to all those affected with hepatitis C, will adopt Justice Krever's recommendations and will implement a compensation package that includes everyone who contracted hepatitis C through the blood system?

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question is no different from any other. I am glad the hon. member opposite recognizes that the initiatives of the Minister of Health and the Government of Canada, in trying to come up with a compensation package, demonstrate precisely the type of concern and compassion she attributes to all members of the House but in particular in this instance, if I might say so, to the Government of Canada.

*  *  *

MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FUND

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance said that if the auditor general would like to have access to the millennium fund books it would be arranged. Yet the Budget Implementation Act does not give the auditor general any right of access to the books of the foundation. In fact the legislation calls for the millennium fund to have its own auditor.

Based on the minister's commitment yesterday, will he amend the legislation to ensure access for the auditor general and eliminate the provision for a separate auditor?

Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have created a foundation that will be independent and at arm's length from government. As such it will have its own auditor but its books will be deposited before parliament. They will be open to public scrutiny including the scrutiny of the auditor general.

I suggest that we cannot have it both ways. Either we have a foundation which is independent and at arm's length from government or we have one that is run like government is with all the regulations, et cetera. That is not what we have chosen to do.

*  *  *

1455

IMMIGRATION

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

If recent reports are any indication there appears to be a crackdown on Canadians entering the United States. In British Columbia we have a very important gateway between Canada and the U.S., one that is very important to the B.C. economy.

What efforts are being made to ensure that Canadians continue to enjoy a friendly reception at the U.S. border?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: I think many of us are having difficulty hearing the questions and the answers. I appeal to members to listen to the questions and answers.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is seeking an amendment to section 110 of the U.S. Immigration Act. We are asking for a complete exemption of Canadians from the proposed draconian border controls.

I personally have been in touch with all the U.S. senators and congressmen from Washington and Oregon states and asked for their co-operation. The chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Immigration, Senator Abraham, has assured us of his full support. A bill to that effect will be debated by the U.S. Congress in the next few weeks.

*  *  *

FISHERIES

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since the government has been in power, west coast salmon species have become extinct, west coast communities have become extinct, DFO scientific research has been swept under the carpet and scientists gagged. What has been the minister's response? “Let us study the situation”.

British Columbians want to know what this minister will do to prevent an east coast disaster on the west coast.

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, we have to start with accurate information. The member states that the west coast salmon species are extinct. This is not so. Last year was a better than average year for the commercial fishing fleet in British Columbia in terms of the number of fish.

We have some serious problems with coho, steelhead and chinook stocks. These are stocks we are doing our very best to protect, but the first thing to do is to get accurate information so we can make decisions thereafter to protect them. The approach that will not work—

*  *  *

[Translation]

POSTAL OUTLETS

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation.

The vicious policy of closing post offices ended with the moratorium. Rural municipalities who lost their post office, however, are gradually seeing their retail postal outlets shut down. By capping the guaranteed revenue at $4,200, Canada Post Corporation may well end up closing them all.

Will the minister responsible for Canada Post intercede with the corporation in order to prevent the closing of these postal outlets?

Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, which will give me an opportunity to say in the House to all Canadians that, in 1994, the government decided not to shut down any rural post offices. Naturally, we are also going to keep retail postal outlets open.

I know that some villages are having problems, but discussions are now under way with local authorities in order to find ways of keeping postal outlets open. A way must also be found to increase revenue. We are holding discussions now. I know that colleagues are aware of this, because we have a particular case in—

The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The hon. member for Churchill.

*  *  *

[English]

EDUCATION

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, despite Canada's high unemployment rate we are experiencing shortages of qualified computer professionals and medical personnel. We have a shortage of experienced truck drivers. We do not have enough qualified marine inspectors to meet our present and future needs. We turn to other countries to fill these jobs.

The government is failing Canadians by not providing affordable access to education and training. When will the government provide better training opportunities for Canadians so companies are not forced to recruit from abroad?

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to remind the hon. member that just this last year and a half we have signed 11 labour market agreements with the provinces of Canada.

1500

In those agreements provinces were given the flexibility, because they are closer to the people, to put in training and education programs that will meet the needs of their regions.

I suggest very strongly that the member talk to the Manitoba government and make sure that it puts in the kind of training that she would like.

*  *  *

PRESENCE IN GALLERY

The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Lorne Taylor, Minister of Science, Research and Information Technology for the Government of Alberta.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

*  *  *

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is not often that a minister from Alberta likes to come and listen to all this across the way.

My questions for Thursday is to the government House leader. We would like to know the nature of the business for the remainder of this week and for all of next week leading up to the break in the House of Commons.

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister from Alberta must have been tired of listening to the heckling from across.

Today we will hopefully complete the CHST bill, Bill C-28, to increase the transfers to the provinces. The backup items are Bill S-4, the marine liabilities legislation; Bill C-12, the RCMP superannuation amendments; and Bill S-3, the pension benefit standards bill.

Tomorrow we shall consider second reading of Bill C-26, the Canadian grain legislation.

On Monday we hope to complete second reading of Bill C-25, the defence legislation. This would be followed by Bill C-37, the Judges Act amendment.

On Tuesday we will complete second reading of Bill C-36, the budget implementation bill. Next Wednesday we shall call legislation not completed previously, to which I have just referred, followed by Bill C-31, the surveyors legislation, Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq education legislation, and other bills that may be reported from committee.

In order to assist members interested, I wish now to designate Monday, April 20 as a day for consideration of the standing orders as provided in Standing Order 51. That is the debate on amending the standing orders of the House of Commons. I thought I would give an opportunity for all parties to prepare for that debate.

*  *  *

[Translation]

POINTS OF ORDER

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know very well that the committees are the masters of their rules, but this freedom in Parliament does not permit committees to circumvent the rules of the House and all precedents, all past forms of parliamentary usage.

This is what I wish to bring to your attention for a ruling from the Chair.

Today I attended the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is examining the cases of members who spoke against the Chair before a ruling was made in the flag matter. The committee chair, without any sort of a motion, and in contravention of Standing Order 116 and Standing Order 1, decided to limit the appearances of witnesses to 20 minutes—5 minutes for a statement by the witness and 15 minutes for questions.

1505

There was no motion before the committee at that time. That is the first thing that happened.

Second, the allotted time, unilaterally decreed by the Chair, picked up later by the government party in a motion, is 15 minutes. Before deciding to set a time for a mandate as exceptional and specific in nature as this, where the statements of persons who have, according to some “offended” or “pressured” the Chair, it seems to me that it would have to be the judgment of a good parliamentarian to establish a sufficiently long period of time for questions and discussion. All parties were accorded a total of 15 minutes for questions, which means that our party will have about 5 minutes to question the witness who will appear.

The only precedent we have from the previous Parliament is the Jacob case, where one of our MPs appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to respond to accusations made by another MP. I have checked this out. In the Jacob case, the committee, quite by chance, in its great wisdom and with the support of the Bloc moreover, agreed that Mr. Jacob, the former member for Charlesbourg, would have five to six hours to answer questions from House members. We felt this would be sufficient to clarify his behaviour.

The committee worked on the case for three months. During that period, it questioned a large number of people regarding the issue, and our former Bloc Quebecois colleague spent five to six hours answering respectfully the questions asked by his fellow parliamentarians.

Today, how could we justify, based on any precedent, limiting the questioning to 15 minutes in the case of the Liberal and Reform Party members who are before the committee to be judged?

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you whether the committee chairman grossly overstepped his mandate by deciding on his own, without any motion, that these members would appear for 20 minutes. I am asking you whether the committee had the right, given what is at stake, to overlook in such cavalier fashion the existing precedent, and to go from an appearance of five hours in the case of a Bloc Quebecois member, to five minutes in the case of a Liberal or Reform Party member. I am asking you whether the committee, in acting like this, respects the spirit of the mandate it was given by us, which is to review the very serious matter of a member whose comments may have offended, threatened or pressured the Chair.

With five minutes for questioning, is our party—which condemned the situation and wants to get to the bottom of the matter—in a position to even begin the work that it was asked to do by the House? I call upon your judgment and your sense of fairness in comparing the treatment of a Bloc Quebecois member, who answered the questions of his peers for five to six hours, and the treatment of the Liberal and Reform Party members, who will spend five minutes answering questions from the Bloc Quebecois.

The issue is not any less serious. On the contrary, these are people who may have threatened the Chair. Had we accepted the decision made, which unquestionably defies any logic, it would have meant that, in the future, anyone in this House—including me—could have threatened the Chair and made statements such as “If the Speaker does not rule this way, the Bloc Quebecois will do this or that”.

1510

The result of all this is that one would have five, six or perhaps ten minutes to answer questions from the other parties and yet be able to evade questions or to stall for time, knowing that the ordeal will be over after ten minutes.

This is not right. For the sake of justice and considering the mandate given by the House to the committee, for the sake of parliamentary intelligence and given the only existing precedent in the recent past, I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling, to review the issue and tell us whether Bloc Quebecois members are being unreasonable by demanding that these members spend more than five minutes before the committee.

Considering that the former member for Charlesbourg, Mr. Jacob, spent five or six hours, is it too much to ask that 30, 35 or even 60 minutes be provided for questioning the members involved in this matter?

Again, I call upon your good judgment. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the issue with all the wisdom that parliamentary law gives you under such circumstances.

[English]

Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I think it might be useful if I described the process the committee is undertaking because the inquiry is still ongoing.

We received the reference by motion from the House of Commons. As soon as possible thereafter we convened a meeting where we heard and were able to question an expert on general matters concerning privilege and contempt in the House of Commons. Based on that meeting our steering committee met and decided that first of all we should invite in our colleagues who were cited in the article which was part of the reference to us from the House of Commons.

We decided at that meeting that they would be invited to a meeting today, that they would be asked to make a statement of up to five minutes and that would be followed by a question and answer period.

At the meeting today there was a discussion on the nature of the questioning. It has been agreed the members would appear one at a time. There was a general agreement in the committee that for the first round we would confine the questioning and the statement to a total of about 20 minutes. It was made clear at the beginning and the end of each witness presentation that he might be invited back either later in today's meeting or at future meetings of the committee.

The intent of this approximate time period the committee provided and for which there was a formal agreement which the record will show was not to cut off questioning. The intent was to show fairness and equality to each of our colleagues who would be appearing before us.

It was made clear that this was not some sort of gag, gag order that is. The purpose of it was so that each member as the hearings unfolded would be faced at first with the same period of time for questioning.

On the matter of the motion and the unilateralness of the decisions as chair, I believe I was following the clearly expressed wishes of the committee. The 20 minutes was not a time limit in the sense of questions. Questions can be put at later hearings, no doubt. It was intended to show fairness to the members concerned.

This plan was developed properly through the steering committee at which all members were represented. As in other meetings, as chair I have two purposes. The first is to show fairness to our colleagues. I think that is very important. The second is to deal with the reference that the House of Commons has given to us and keep to that discussion.

Mr. Speaker will find that the record will show all parties had equal time. All members where they asked to speak had equal time within the limits set by the committee. I stress the guiding principle of our meeting was fairness to our witnesses.

1515

As I have mentioned, this is not a question of pressure on any party or individual on the committee. The next meeting of the committee is next Tuesday when we will continue these hearings. Thereafter, once we have considered the evidence we have received, we may well call members back or proceed in some other fashion.

This is an ongoing set of hearings. There was absolutely no intent to limit questioning of one party compared with the questioning by another.

The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate on this because I think that what we are trying to deal with here in the House is a matter that should be dealt with in the committee. It is up to the committee to decide if its president was within parliamentary practices. In any case, it has been the longstanding practice of the House not to intervene until we have a report from the committee.

I would prefer that this matter be dealt with in committee. From what I am getting from the interventions so far there may have been an idea that there was to be a limit of time. I am just repeating what I seem to have heard here. If that is the case, perhaps it can be worked out.

I do not want to get into a debate but I am prepared to listen to a few more interventions providing that we give pertinent information on this specific point of order.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with your analysis that committees have consistently been the masters of their own destiny and I think that is the way this place has always run.

There are a couple of things you may want to know about what happened today in committee. Eventually the members of the Bloc Quebecois stormed out of the meeting and things ran much smoother after that. But before that you should know that there was an agreement among the parties, an informal agreement as has been mentioned. I thought it was all agreed to. As usually happens in a committee where members take turns going from the government side back and forth and so on, I stood up on my first intervention and said we may want to have these witnesses back if we are not satisfied with the conclusions we reached today and so on.

The Bloc Quebecois House leader came in about three-quarters of the way through the meeting, not having taken part in the earlier discussions whatsoever. He decided he did not like the rules of the game and decided he wanted to change them.

The committee then moved to formalize and sustain the ruling of the chair. There was a motion, do we sustain the ruling of the chair. That motion passed easily, of course. The Bloc stormed out and so on.

Perhaps it was a Freudian slip earlier that this was not a gag order on the Bloc, this whole thing is a gag.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am an associate member of the committee that is considering the matter. I was also on the committee looking into the Jean-Marc Jacob question. I can tell you the committee works in black and white.

I do not want to repeat the remarks of the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I think he put his case very responsibly and fairly. I would like to add, however, that you have made a prima facie ruling. The matter appeared serious enough to warrant being referred to committee, so the members of the committee could consider it seriously.

We have heard from an expert, Joseph Maingot. He stated before the committee that the matter raised by the referral to committee was very important and that the context needed to be analyzed.

1520

You are a reasonable man, Mr. Speaker, a man of parliamentary experience. You will understand that we parliamentarians cannot do responsible and consistent work if we are cut off by the chair, if he fails to recognize us or if he intervenes in the question we have asked.

If points of order are continually raised on all sorts of things, because the members of the Bloc Quebecois raise a matter that does not suit the Liberal or Reform Party witness, you will understand that we cannot do our parliamentary duty.

Furthermore, as you will understand, when someone comes to testify before the committee, we cannot limit ourselves to 20 minutes to question the witness and we cannot say “It does not matter, they will be back”.

If we are going to get to the bottom of things and show the member contradicted his own words, because Mr. Maingot the government expert said to consider the context the statement was made in, we cannot limit ourselves to a single newspaper article from March 8. All that has to be checked, which cannot be done in 20 minutes.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, when this crisis was raised in the House, we felt as a party that it must not be treated lightly. After several days of watching what you have had to go through, we felt it was important that a motion be proposed in the House to refer a case as serious as this to the committee on procedure.

I know that, generally, the chair of the committee is a reasonable man. The important point to be raised is that they want to restrict us to very specific statements. I believe we must take advantage of this debate to try to broaden the scope and to draw conclusions from these actions. The Reform Party and the government party both tend to want to treat this reference to the committee as something superficial.

I believe we must take advantage of this opportunity to draw constructive conclusions for the benefit of our country's future. Certain behaviour must be stopped. We know that there have been provocations for the past 25 years throughout the country, and this has contributed to a growing discontent that threatens to break this country apart.

Conclusions must be drawn from these events. I therefore wanted to speak this morning in order to ask some of the witnesses whether they considered attitudes like theirs—flags in the House—and statements like those they made to be of such a nature as to bring Canadians closer together. Unfortunately, the Chair rose, interrupting me, and stated that this was not part of the reference.

If something positive is to come out of these events, all of our colleagues responsible for these actions and words should realize what they have done. This is serious, as we have been saying for the past 25 years.

[English]

The Speaker: I have heard the interventions of four or five members on this point of order. My view is that when we set up a committee of this House, it is set up by the House to carry out the orders of the House. My predecessors have ruled time and time again that unless there is a report before the House, the Chair does not intervene.

If this is a misunderstanding of some kind, it should be worked out in the committee with the committee members. I hope it can be worked out.

I will leave this point of order where it is. I suggest that whatever points of order are brought up here in terms of extra time or whatever is needed can be brought up in the committee. They should be dealt with there. I will leave this right here, right now.

---

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

1525

[English]

INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue addressing very serious matters relating to Bill C-28, particularly the implications that this bill has for the future of our health care system in Canada.

It is very important for all of us in this House to send a clear message to Canadians that we are working and using all our energies and all our resources to preserve medicare.

As I indicated earlier, this bill, with its pretence of reinvesting new money into health care, does a great disservice to Canadians and to our beloved national program, medicare.

This bill creates a pretence of allocating new money to medicare while in fact it does nothing but maintain the present floor of cash transfer payments for health care. It was $12.5 billion before this bill and it is $12.5 billion now.

This creates very serious ramifications for health care. It means that this government has not shown any commitment to start to reinvest in health care now that it has a surplus, to deal responsibly with the health care crisis we are facing in every single part of this country and to show true co-operative spirit in dealing with the provinces around this very serious issue.

This is not only a question about the false pretence of reinvesting in health care. This debate is also about the fact that actual dollars for health care on a per capita basis continue to drop.

It is a situation very much parallel to the dilemma, to the problems, to the situation caused by the former Conservative government.

It is meaningless to suggest that we have a floor, a bottom that will always be there and will not fall below that floor, if our population grows, if the needs of our population grow and if the economy grows. If all those factors are taken into account, in reality cash transfer payments to the provinces will continue to fall on a per capita basis.

That puts more and more pressure on our health care system, more of a squeeze on the provinces and more difficulties for all of us to work together toward ensuring medicare is preserved and we are able to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act.

This bill is in effect a misrepresentation of the facts. It neither puts new money into health care nor ensures that we will continue to allow health care dollars to meet the needs of the population as they grow, as they become more intense and more serious.

What does that mean? It opens the door even further to privatization and Americanization of our system. We often hear from the Liberal government that it is totally opposed to a two tier system of health care.

The bad news is we are already there in many ways because of the underfunding by the federal government, because of the lack of national leadership, because this government refuses to work co-operatively with the provincial governments to meaningfully reform our health care system from the current institutional, illness based models to a community based, preventive, holistic wellness model of health care.

Let me cite the serious situation we are already in and why we are so concerned about the Reform Party policies to actually move even further more quickly to a parallel system of health care?

The facts are as follows. The ratio of public-private health costs in Canada has changed significantly over the past 20 years with public expenditures shrinking and private spending increasing both through group or individual health insurance plans and direct out of pocket payments.

1530

In 1975 the spending ratio was 76.4% public and 23.6% private. By 1986 it was 73.3% public and 26.7% private. By 1995 it was 68% public and 32% private. By the year 2000 the ratio is projected to be 60% public and 40% private.

Let me raise another important fact. The cumulative loss to the provinces of federal revenue for health care between 1985-86 and 1995-96 was $30 billion. Imagine what it would be if we rolled into that the dollars taken out of the health care system by this federal government since 1995. The federal share of total health care spending has actually shrunk from 30.8% in 1985 to over 25% today.

Contrary to the claims of many, especially those critics of medicare, that Canada's health care system is among the most expensive in the world, it should be noted, and this fact is often distorted and misrepresented, that Canada actually ranked 16th among 24 OECD countries in 1994 in terms of public financing as a percentage of overall health expenditures. However, we know the situation has actually deteriorated since that time. Canada has fallen further and further behind other countries in terms of leadership.

The great pride we once held because we had such a model to offer the world has been dashed. Our hopes for holding on to medicare and showing it to be a shining light for all the world has been dashed because of the failure of federal leadership.

I suggest to all those present that the solution is not an agenda of negligence as we see from the federal Liberals. It is not an agenda of privatization and Americanization as we have seen from the Reform Party. What is required is a commitment to medicare, a commitment to the five principles of the Canada Health Act and a determination to begin to reinvest dollars taken out of the health care system into a single payer, universally accessible, publicly administered health care system.

Canadians have indicated loudly and clearly that if there was going to be a surplus, which did happen, that the first priority for them was to have money reinvested in health care and money reinvested in the cash transfer payments to the provinces. As I have said in previous debates, that shows an amazing understanding and sophistication among Canadians about how this complicated system around health care works.

Our job in this place is to respond to that belief, to that set of values and to show leadership. This bill does not do that.

An amendment was proposed that would have at least made it possible to have a better system to monitor funding for health care, to involve Canadians and to involve members of Parliament in monitoring the system and in providing a medicare watchdog, a medicare alert system for this country. That amendment was defeated. It was with great regret that we were not able to at least accomplish that tiny step forward through this Chamber.

The Liberals spoke loudly and clearly to their own government. They clearly stated in resolution after resolution that the present system of health care is underfunded. They begged the government to make increased funding for a modern and sustainable health care system its highest priority. They presented a resolution that was identical to our amendment to Bill C-28 in demanding that the federal government develop a process to continuously measure and ensure the quality of health care in Canada.

The Liberals sent this message to the government. Canadians have said with one voice that this is their priority. All provincial governments have said that the first matter of business for this government should be to begin restoring transfer payments so that it can ensure quality, publicly administered, universal programs in areas of vital importance to Canadians.

1535

Canadians have been let down. The spirit of co-operation has been hurt deeply by this government's actions. It has not been enhanced nor helped by the proposals of the Reform Party. I would urge all members to rethink their positions and to support our efforts to convince the federal government that reinvestment makes sense. It is feasible. It is the only way we can guarantee medicare continues as a model for all the world to see.

This is a question about moving to a more cost effective health care system. We know it is through leadership and co-operation both federally and provincially that we can actually start to shift our expensive institutional based health care system to one that is community based, that provides home care, that addresses continuing care needs and that ensures a balanced drug pricing policy. All of that will lead to a much more cost effective policy in the long term.

I conclude by saying this is a question about our values. It is about the faith we have in human life and about ensuring that the best health care is available for everyone. That is a matter of being a member of a civil society.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on expressing her concerns in the area of health.

She is from Manitoba, and I realize her comments must be based on the cuts that had to be made in her province as a result of the federal government cutting transfer payments. I know it had a major impact in her region.

Before putting my question to her, I would like to remind the House that, in Quebec, cuts in transfer payments for health forced the Quebec government to cut back radically, to rationalize and move toward ambulatory care, which caused major problems to regional health boards and health institutions.

People do not always understand why that is. In Quebec, it is obvious to people that managing hospitals and CLSCs is the responsibility of the provincial government, and that of health minister Rochon in particular. People tend to criticize him. But Minister Rochon is really doing his best with what is left after transfer payments to the provinces have been cut.

I would like to ask the hon. member, who looked into this, to be more specific about the situation in her province, Manitoba. All the provinces are affected. Yesterday, I saw reports on RDI concerning the Atlantic provinces. Clearly, federal cuts have had an adverse effect on the management of health institutions in every province in Canada.

But I would like her to focus on the impact in her province, on what she has noticed, and to give us some figures if she can. I realize she is not a member of the Manitoba government but I am convinced she could give us a good idea so that the Quebeckers who are listening can see that the true reason for the provincial cuts is the cuts imposed by this insensitive federal government.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the Bloc Quebecois for his question. This is a very important question and I will answer it in English because of the complexity of the issue.

[English]

The member is right in addressing this whole question of provincial government responsibility vis-à-vis the federal government in this area. The problem we have seen over the last while is that the federal government has been able to get away with blaming the provinces for all of the crises and all of the problems we face in our health care system. The federal government has been abdicating responsibility for the developments at that level.

It is the federal government that has taken such a big bite out of the funding for health care. It has put every provincial government in a very difficult position. In most cases provincial governments are working very hard to try to make up for the sudden loss of federal dollars. They are shifting their health care systems almost overnight to make up for the dollars lost and to prevent a huge burden on their health care systems.

1540

Some provincial governments, and I think specifically of Manitoba, seem to be interested in playing the same game as the federal government. One example is that the Manitoba Conservative government in its last budget promised to put $100 million into health care. It turned out that this again was smoke and mirrors. In actual fact it was $1.4 million, in real dollars.

Many times there is almost a collusion between the federal government and some provincial governments for offloading, for privatizing, for getting out of the field of health care and letting the markets dictate how consumers will be covered under health care. This is something which would happen if the Reform Party policies were actually implemented.

The main concern we have is that the federal government has been able to throw up its hands and say “it is not our problem”, when it has cut so much money out of the system. Our job today through this bill and through every measure at our fingertips is to ensure that the federal government is held responsible for the actions it has taken, and to require a return to federal leadership, a reinvestment of funds and a true co-operative spirit in dealing with the health care crisis in the country.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the hon. member go without making some comments.

She is an NDP member. She lambasted the Reform Party throughout her speech. There is nobody in this House, not a person who does not want to save our publicly funded health care system, even the NDP.

I want to draw attention to her close colleagues with whom she works, the British Columbia New Democratic Party. The B.C. NDP has engaged in what I would call the economic and social program destruction syndrome. The B.C. NDP has foisted it upon British Columbia.

In that province, they who profess, like the hon. member does, to uphold the Canada Health Act, willfully acknowledge, aid and abet certain people, if they have the money, to queue jump within the publicly funded health care system. They allow Workers' Compensation Board patients to queue jump within the publicly funded health care system. If someone gets sick on WCB, more money is paid and the person goes to the head of the line. If the person is not, too bad, they go to the end.

The NDP government, her colleagues, has given British Columbia the worst economic performance in the last two years in this country. This is a direct result of NDP economics, voodoo economics, destructive economics.

Where does the hon. member propose to get the money to pay for the health care needs which she described we have to come up with? Contrary to her NDP doctrine, money does not grow on trees. Where is the money going to come from? Who will pay for it? Do we have to raise taxes? Money does not grow on trees. Where will the member find the money to pay for the health care needs we want, given that we have the situation of a balanced budget and no extra resources?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, some of the comments by the hon. member do not warrant a response but I will certainly attempt to answer the broad question he is posing today. In effect it is a question that should be turned back to that member and all members of the Reform Party. That party wants to talk out of both sides of its mouth.

Members will recall that the Reform Party, notwithstanding the remarks of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the member for Winnipeg North, has called for a reinvestment in health care to the tune of $4 billion. That is fairly consistent with the kind of recommendation we have been making in this party.

We know that about $4 billion has been cut out of the system for health care since 1995. We have suggested that the government begin to reinstate that money. We have not said that it be done overnight. We know we have a surplus situation. It is possible, if health care is a number one priority, for the government to actually put money back into health care, into the cash transfer payment system.

1545

The Reform Party made that a major recommendation in the last election and in response to the budget. It is clearly on record. The difficulty for us is that on the one hand it talks about putting $4 billion back into health transfer payments but then it wants to take $4 billion out of equalization, so they will cancel each other out.

More problematic for us is trying to rationalize the commitment of the Reform Party with the more recent statements of the member who has just spoken to actually set up a parallel, private, two tier Americanized system in this country. We totally reject that approach. We believe we have the wealth and a commitment from the people of this country. We have a history and a tradition that allows us to make health care our number one priority and we will actually be able to reinvest money in health care because of the balanced budget.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act, the CPP, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act—the works. It is quite a comprehensive bill, as other members have mentioned.

This bill nibbles around the edges. There was a great opportunity within this bill to provide Canadians with the economic ability to be as good as they can be, to save our social programs and to ensure that the Canadian economy, the health and welfare and the standard of living of Canadians could be much better than they are today.

Our high unemployment rate has been referred to many times in this House. It is the highest unemployment rate among the G-7 nations. There is no reason for this. If we look south of the border, the United States has a 4.8% unemployment rate. We have the situation where large numbers of our skilled people—economists, nurses, physicians and artists—have left Canada and gone to the United States.

From Wall Street to Los Angeles, from Hollywood to Atlanta, Canadians have gone to the United States and have dramatically improved the health, welfare and economy of Americans.

We need to keep our trained and skilled people in Canada. As my colleagues in the Reform Party have mentioned, there are ways of doing this. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to look at other countries such as the United States which has managed to drop its tax rate, which has resulted in an extraordinarily low unemployment rate and an economy that is booming.

Let us look at the measures that have been employed in the United Kingdom and New Zealand to ensure that people have the best opportunities. I will get into these opportunities in a little more specific way in a moment.

I first want to deal with one specific area. The member from the NDP, who spoke at length, castigated us for our views on health care. We have a situation in this country that is causing a lot of pain and suffering. The health care issue is being bantered around like a football between politicians for political gain, and all the while sick patients, who cannot defend themselves, are being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

We need a sensible debate on the issue of health care. Making utterly false statements, such as somebody wanting an American style health care system, is absolute nonsense. These kinds of comments polarize and poison the debate so the Canadian people do not have an opportunity to hear the intelligent arguments of both sides.

The situation is that we have limited resources, an aging population and more expensive technologies. Because of this governments have been forced to ration. What is happening right now is that the poor are being compromised. The rich always have a choice. They can go down to the United States, where they spend over $1 billion a year to obtain their health care needs. One of my colleagues in this party did that and it saved his life, contrary to what the NDP member said. It is a tragedy that any Canadian has to go south of the border to get the essential health care services they require to save their life. We cannot keep sticking our heads in the sand.

1550

How do we solve this problem of limited resources and an increasing demand? Do we continue to uphold the myth that we are upholding a Canada Health Act which was a good act when it was devised in the 1960s, or do we face the facts and realize that the Canada Health Act is being violated in virtually every one of its five tenets?

I gave the example in British Columbia that if a person is injured and comes under the workers' compensation board the Government of British Columbia will ensure that person gets to the top of the line over somebody who does not come under the WCB. That is absolutely unfair. On the other hand, that government says it believes in a Canada Health Act and a system that is equal and single tiered.

Is it accessible health care for an elderly person who is in severe pain to wait 16 months to get a new hip? Is it accessible health care for somebody who needs coronary artery bypass grafting to wait six months? Is it fair for someone who needs a 20 minute operation on their wrist to wait nine months for that operation? Whichever way you slice it that is not accessible health care.

There are numerous examples in health care in this country today which demonstrate that we have a multi-tiered health care system. No one in this House, and particularly the Reform Party, wants a health care system that is like an American style health care system where under certain circumstances people need to sell their house. The purpose of having a separate, privately funded, tiered system where only private moneys are exchanged and not a dime of public money is used is to ensure that some people in the public system who choose to will get some of their services in a private setting which is separate and completely different from the public system. That is unlike what happened in the United Kingdom and unlike what happens in the United States.

In that system some people who are rich will get their services from the private sector. Then there will be more money on a per capita basis for the public sector. Therefore the people who do not have the wherewithal would have better access and better health care than what they have today. The only purpose in proposing this is to ensure that people who are on our publicly funded system will have better access. Is it unequal? Yes, it is.

I would argue two things. We have an unequal system now, but is it not better to have an unequal system that provides better access for all Canadians than the declining system that we have today which compromises the poor and not the rich? If a separate, completely independent and privately funded health care system is available, the rich will subsidize the poor. In this way resources can go toward the health care system without raising taxes.

Ms. Val Meredith: Right now we are subsidizing the Americans.

Mr. Keith Martin: Exactly. Right now we are subsidizing the Americans by spending over $1 billion down south. Why do we not have private services in private settings and get American patients to come to Canada? They would only have to pay two-thirds of the price for their treatment. They would create employment for health care professionals across the board, from our techs to our nurses, physicians, cleaning personnel, accountants and all the people who are involved in the health care system. This is not only doable, it is pragmatic. Above all, it would save our publicly funded health care system.

Our system is very distinct and different from the system in the United States. We unequivocally state that we do not want and would fight against that system to ensure Canadians get health care services when they are medically needed and to ensure those services are not dependent on the amount of money in their pockets.

1555

We have to get away from the silly, senseless, absurd, poisonous, vile rhetoric that the NDP has been putting forward and have a sensible, constructive debate for the Canadians out there who are on waiting lists and suffering. We have to ensure that all Canadians, particularly those who cannot afford it, get health care when they medically need it. We must not leave them waiting, and in some cases dying, as is happening now in emergency rooms across the country.

In the Prince George Regional Hospital, where I work from time to time, it takes 14 months to get an orthopaedic consultation. It takes another six months to a year to get the service. It is not because the surgeons do not want to work, it is because the hospital does not have enough money to open up more hospital beds and more operating rooms, so surgeons cannot operate.

Imagine being a physician whose patients come in saying “I have torn the ligaments in my knee. I need a new hip. I cannot use my hand”, and having to reply “I am sorry. As we speak my waiting list just increased from 12 to 14 months because the hospital cannot open up the operating rooms, cannot open up beds and does not have the nurses to take care of you”.

It is a big myth that Canada has the best health care system in the world. It is bunk. But we could have the best health care system in the world. We need to have a sensible debate. We need to put all of the minds in this room together. We need to get the best ideas from the public. We need to look at what has been done well around the world. We need to reject what has been done poorly and make the best system in the world.

We should not take what the Americans have done. We should not emulate the system in the United Kingdom. We should not emulate the system in European countries. What we should do is take the best from all of those countries and make the best health care system to ensure that those people who need it will get it. I will end on that particular point.

With respect to the economy there are numerous things the government could do for labour market renewal. The right to work legislation that has been employed in certain countries has increased the amount of money in people's pockets by over $2,000. It has dramatically increased the amount of companies fleeing to areas that have right to work legislation. The government could work with its provincial counterparts to ensure this happens.

The government could also remove the egregious surtaxes that crush the living daylights out of our private sector.

The government could take the opportunity to streamline the GST.

The government could take the opportunity to work with the provinces to build national standards in education so that a child who moves from Newfoundland to British Columbia or from Ontario to Prince Edward Island will be able to integrate into that system and get the best education possible.

The government could work with industry and the provinces to ensure that the educational system knows what the needs of the private sector will be in the future. There is an enormous gap in certain areas that could provide high paying, interesting jobs for Canadians, but they are not filled because the education system has not been able to provide the skilled people necessary for those jobs.

My colleague from Medicine Hat and others have repeatedly mentioned the need for lower taxes.

During the era of Brian Mulroney one thing that was done well was that his government briefly lowered taxes. What happened? The economy was stimulated and government revenues increased. What did it do? It started to tax wildly. Government revenues went down and the economy had a clamp put on it.

The United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and certain European countries have lowered their tax rates and removed surtaxes. They have ensured that people have more money in their pockets by streamlining their tax systems. They have removed the egregious rules and regulations that put a clamp on the private sector. Those were removed, their economy improved, the social and economic situation of their people improved and their governments had more money to pay for social programs.

1600

There are references to making amendments to the old age security system and the CPP in the bill. Instead of taking the Reform suggestion of ensuring people have a super RRSP and enjoy a greater rate of return, the government has stayed with the status quo and tried to buttress a system which economists who originally devised it said would fail. This system is like a pyramid scheme and will be an abysmal failure.

The CPP system today ensures that Canadians have about the lowest rate of return they can have. It does not ensure that young people will have that pension when they retire.

That is not a legacy any government wants to have. That is not a legacy we can be proud of. Why do we continually try to uphold sacred cows that compromise the very health and welfare of Canadians? Why do we not take these sacred cows, these social programs which in their very essence are good for Canada, and ensure that they are sustainable, that Canadians get the best rate of return, and that Canadians have the best social programs available to them within the context, confines and economic restrictions in our country?

The NDP put forth a budgetary plan during the last election campaign that ensured a $40 billion deficit. Money does not grow on trees. We have to face facts. We have to do what we can do within the context of our economic situation today. Instead of nibbling around the edges, the government could have taken constructive suggestions from around the world on taxes, rules and regulations, educational systems and social program renewal and truly built a better future for Canadians.

Except for trying to ensure that the government will look good in the eyes of Canadians, I do not understand why it continually tries to support sacred cows which compromise Canadians instead of help them. There are solutions out there. We must have the courage to have a sensible, intelligent, constructive debate in the House.

We have spoken at length about other things. Today my colleague raised the issue of the Delgamuukw case in British Columbia, the aboriginal treaty situation. If there is one social group in the country that suffers more than any other, it is the aboriginal community. Again, governments have again used it as a sacred cow: it is okay to keep paying billions of dollars into the system, closing our eyes and saying that we have done our duty while aboriginal people in the trenches are suffering from the highest rates of abuse, violence and social degradation suffered by any group.

It is an abrogation of the responsibility of any government to merely pay money without accountability. Under certain circumstances and in some areas those moneys are not going where they should be going. The best we can do for aboriginal people in Canada is to work with them to ensure their culture and their language will become viable and integrated parts of Canada. They should have the power and ability to stand on their own two feet and provide for themselves, their families and their children. We must ensure they have the ability to teach us about their fascinating culture and legacy that are as integral parts of the country as we can imagine.

Instead an institutionalized welfare state has been created which has ripped the heart and soul out of aboriginal communities. Some have managed to dig themselves out. They have become self-financing, self-sustaining and self-respecting.

1605

One of the saddest legacies that we have given is that we have abrogated our responsibility in the House by ensuring that the institutionalized welfare state we have foisted upon aboriginal people continues. We have to work with them to ensure that they have the tools to stand on their own two feet, provide for themselves and ensure that their language and culture continue.

In closing, Bill C-28 had a lot of opportunity but sadly it was opportunity lost. The government failed to seize the day and it failed to do what it could have done to truly make the country as good as it could be.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party likes to talk about tax relief for ordinary Canadians. However, when we take a careful look at their proposals we see that the Reform Party actually wants to give much bigger tax breaks to the very wealthy than to the average taxpayer.

For example, its election campaign proposal to have the taxes owing on capital gains would give the stockbrokers working out of Bay Street and earning $250,000 a tax break of over $85,000.

Does the member agree with his party's platform that it is a priority to give someone earning $250,000 a tax refund of $85,000? Is he not afraid that as his party tries to win seats in Toronto it will be catering to Bay Street rather than paying attention to the grassroots in its own communities?

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the New Democratic Party, we listen to our grassroots. We are not the party that has a top down structure.

I do not know where the hon. member is getting his figures from, but I would generously call them a flight of fancy. We as a party have repeatedly put forth constructive, economic solutions to get a balanced budget and to produce a surplus.

The reasons are simple. If we spend more than what we take in, like the NDP party said during the last election, we create an increased debt and increased interest payments and chew away at the ability to pay for social programs.

The New Democratic Party must understand this important rule. If we are fiscally irresponsible we are also financially irresponsible. We in the Reform Party live within our means. We created a plan that I am happy the government and the finance minister have adopted to produce a balanced budget. In so doing, we manage to ensure that there is even more money within the pie that can be spent on programs such as health and education.

I hope the New Democratic Party member will come over, see the light and try to help us ensure the government continues to have a balanced budget and a surplus budget. We could work together to ensure that there is enough money to provide health, education, pensions and other social programs to those Canadians who are most dependent on them and to ensure they will not be suffering.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, who is a health professional. I was truly surprised to hear a health professional speak that way because, if there is one area in which all people should be equal, it is surely health. We cannot have two systems, one for the rich and one for the poor.

I remember a time when some people could not even go for treatment because it cost too much. The rich could go, but others did not and stayed home.

1610

In Quebec, Mr. Rochon has, as it were, been forced to restructure the entire health system. Some people find this hard, and it is, but it had to be done. Even the former minister, Marc-Yvan Côté, congratulated Mr. Rochon on his courage.

I say that it is wonderful to invest in health. Cuts have to be made somewhere, as the money obviously does not come out of thin air. If anything has to be cut, let it be the Senate, the limousines, duplication, but there should not be cuts in transfers to the provinces. This has caused terrible harm.

Very often, people wonder why Mr. Rochon took a particular course of action. He did so because the federal government cut billions of dollars, leaving very little with which to manage.

I am going to ask my colleague a question. Can he tell us, in concrete terms, how the two systems he is proposing, a private one and a public one, could work?

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, many Quebeckers go to Ontario for medical treatment.

[English]

The reason for this is that the health care system in Quebec is falling apart in a dramatic, tragic and sad fashion. I feel very sorry for the people of Quebec and their health care system. No one in that system from the health care professionals to the people and I am sure the politicians want that.

The big myth that politicians and intellectuals like to push for political gain is that we have a single tier health care system. That is an utter and complete myth. I would like to use the l word but I will not.

Premier Bourassa of Quebec went to the United States to get health care for a malignant melanoma, a terribly malignant cancer. What a tragedy. If the health care system is so great why did Mr. Bourassa leave the province of Quebec to get his health care in the United States? At least he had an option. Most people in Chicoutimi and la ville de Quebec do not have this option. Neither do people in the rest of the country. They cannot afford it.

There is no single tier; there are multiple tiers in this country. There is an obstruction to getting essential health care services when they are needed because the government has to ration those services for the poor who do not have enough money to pay for them.

This is how it would work. If we had a separate private system where only private services are received, where only private moneys are put in, where there is no overlap or mixing of the private or the public system, we would be able to get more resources into health care without raising taxes. By relieving pressure on the public system and having some people going to this private system for some of their services because those people would access both, we would ensure that there is more money on a per capita basis for the public system. Therefore people would get their health care services when they need them, particularly those who are impoverished and those who cannot go to the United States for health care. That is the beauty of it.

It is not an abolishment of the Canada Health Act. It is a new made in Canada health act that will ensure all Canadians get health care services when they medically need them. That is the bottom line in health care.

1615

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can make this brief. I am really disappointed. I had probably given the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca far more credit than he deserves.

As someone from the medical profession, I felt he would know in his heart and soul that nobody in Canada except the Reform Party wants to see a two tier system unless they can afford to get that other system. The bottom line is when you put public dollars into a system, the money is spread and goes a lot further. When you start to divide it a certain amount still goes to the private sector because it will claim it is unfair that it is not getting those public dollars, the same thing that happens with independent schools.

I am very disappointed that he would even suggest that. I will continue at some other point.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is to ensure Canadians get their health care when they need it. I am a physician. I did not take any pleasure in telling elderly people who are in severe pain that they will have to wait 16 months before they can get a new hip.

The day that member or any other member chooses to go into a hospital and see what is going on for real is the day they will see we have a multi-tier system. We have a system where Canadians are not getting their health care in many cases when they need it. We see people suffering left, right and centre. The member should open up her eyes and understand we have a multi-tier system. The Canada Health Act is violated left, right and centre. It is the poor who are compromised.

We are trying to create a stronger publicly funded health care system so all Canadians can get health care when they need it, and not before.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill—search and rescue; the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond—fisheries; the hon. member for South Shore—northern development; the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill—pensions; the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre—public buildings.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-28, sponsored by the Minister of Finance. Its short title is “Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997”. It was important to have a short title for this bill, because the full title of the French version is 23 lines long.

As for the bill itself, it is a document of 464 pages written in an obscure jargon that only tax experts or accountants can understand. I strongly suspect that, like me, a large number of members of this House did not manage to clearly understand the measures included in this legislation.

I am extremely concerned that legislators like us, most of whom have a good education, cannot understand the documents on which they have to vote. The Canadian Income Tax Act has so many thousands of pages that, by comparison, telephone books look like flyers. Moreover, these thousands of pages are written in a language that is just as obscure as that of Bill C-28.

The principle of tax equality now only exists in theory, because it is impossible for ordinary citizens to understand the act. The individuals and corporations that can afford to hire administrators, lawyers and tax experts are the only ones who can benefit from the multitude of clauses that provide tax breaks.

There is a reason why the Minister of Finance is presenting us with an omnibus bill that includes so many complex tax changes. The minister is quietly trying to make us pass provisions that will benefit the shipping companies he owns. He is even trying to cloud the issue.

My comments will primarily take into account the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, which reads as follows:

That Bill C-28, Income Tax Amendments Act 1997, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 241.

In this omnibus bill of 464 pages, clause 241 includes two paragraphs dealing exclusively with shipping.

1620

Clause 241 of Bill C-28 improves the tax treatment of offshore shipping companies held by Canadian companies.

As it happens, the Minister of Finance, who sponsored this bill, is the sole owner of Canada Steamship Lines Incorporated, an international shipping company with subsidiaries in Great Britain, Bermuda, Barbados and Liberia. The finance minister's company might benefit from tax advantages if this bill were passed at it stands.

In politics, this kind of coincidence constitutes an apparent conflict of interest, which violates the government's code of conduct. That is why we demand an explanation and a serious investigation of this matter.

In fact, the code clearly states that, on appointment to office, and thereafter, public office holders must arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising. The code has obviously not been adhered to, and we believe the Minister of Finance is at fault.

The government's own ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson, who works for the Prime Minister, finds this matter fishy. In his testimony before the finance committee on February 1998, he stated, and I quote “Mr. Martin sponsored this bill and questions have been raised by some members that this constitutes an apparent conflict of interest. Had I been informed in advance, before this bill was tabled, there would have been a discussion on how best to handle the tabling of the bill under the name of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for all tax legislation. However, this prior consideration of our options did not take place as it should have”.

Mr. Wilson also suggests that the Minister of Finance was unaware of the contents of Bill C-28 before the Bloc Quebecois raised these issues in the House a few weeks ago. Could the minister responsible for the Income Tax Act so easily have shirked his responsibilities in connection with a bill he was sponsoring? And how does the public view a Minister of Finance who did not know what was in his own legislation? Is ministerial accountability not a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system?

For several weeks, the government has been denying that the Minister of Finance's companies can take advantage of this measure but Department of Finance officials, as well as the government's ethics advisor, have admitted that Canada Steamship Lines could do so in future.

Howard Wilson, the government's ethics advisor, stated that same day, February 5, 1998, on the CBC that:

The company—