Debates of Sept. 25th, 2012

Opposition Motion--Income Inequality

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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 Guelph, Government Programs; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Health.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleagues who spoke so eloquently about this motion. I will mainly focus on the unfair clawback of employment insurance benefits, which discourages many Canadians from working while they are receiving benefits.

On March 29, 2012, the federal government presented its first budget as a majority Conservative government. This budget includes a number of changes to the employment insurance system, which were set out in the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act. Since last spring we have discovered one thing after another in this omnibus bill, which is a real Trojan Horse. We now know that, aside from 50 or so pages of tax measures, hundreds of other pages were dedicated to repealing or amending 69 acts on a variety of subjects that should have necessitated a number of public consultations. This bill affects, for example, old age security, immigration, the environment and my file, employment insurance.

Under the announced changes, fewer people will be eligible for employment insurance benefits. More people will be forced to accept lower-paying jobs and many people will be redirected to provincial social programs. The announced measures target seasonal workers in particular, or those who have temporary jobs or whose work situation is unusual and who hold more than one job to make ends meet. In short, they target the poorest members of society.

In July, 508,000 out of 1,377,000 unemployed Canadians received regular employment insurance benefits, which means that 870,000 unemployed workers were left without unemployment insurance benefits. Fewer than four out of ten unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance. That is unprecedented.

An old pilot project enabled claimants who worked during their benefit period to earn up to $75 a week, or 40% of their weekly benefits. In August 2012, the government introduced a new calculation method. This method penalizes workers in the regions, seasonal workers, on-call workers and temporary workers. A vast majority of claimants are penalized by this measure.

That is the crux of the issue. Previously, claimants working part-time while receiving employment insurance had the opportunity to take home a larger portion of their earnings, but now they are at a disadvantage. I have an example. I found out about one of my constituents who is dealing with this problem. Her weekly income is $271 before deductions. Last week, she worked 14 hours, earning $148. Before August 5, 2012, she was allowed to earn $271 plus $108, minus the $148 she earned, which comes to $231. Under the new system, she still gets her $271 before deductions, plus 50% of the $148 she earns for working 14 hours, which is $74, minus $148, which comes to $197. That is $34 less than she was earning before the Conservatives reformed employment insurance. That is completely unfair to low-income families, who are the hardest hit by this change.

Compared to the previous program, the new pilot project that allows people to work while receiving employment insurance benefits will not provide an incentive to many employment insurance beneficiaries who can find work for just a few hours a week, for low wages or for a combination of the two. Unlike the previous program, the new system discourages workers from holding several jobs.

So the question is, are the Conservatives truly incompetent, or are they deliberately attacking more and more poor people?

As for premiums, which the Liberals mention in part (a) of their motion, we must not forget that the current $9 billion deficit in the employment insurance operating account would not exist had the Liberals and the Conservatives not plundered the fund for decades.

These governments diverted $57 billion—sometimes this amount is estimated at $58 billion—of the employment insurance fund or, in other words, worker and employer contributions. They used it to balance their own budgets. Had this money not been taken from the employment insurance fund, we would not be under pressure now and we would not be seeing increases in EI premiums.

In economic good times, the Liberals and the Conservatives used the employment insurance surplus to meet their own objectives. However, now that the program is running a deficit, they are making sure that workers and employers are the ones who will pay off the debt. Clearly there are two sets of rules. Everything depends on the cost effectiveness of the program.

What is important to remember is that people are caught between a rock and a hard place. I think I showed that today in question period.

People are being offered jobs located extremely far from where they live. As we saw today in question period, people sometimes have to travel 12 hours and pay to take the ferry if they live in the Magdalen Islands and have to get to Bonaventure.

What is being offered to claimants is unrealistic, but they have to accept these jobs and these regulations or their income will be cut by 70%. If there is no work because the season is over, people should be able to receive employment insurance benefits until the beginning of the next season.

Another problem is areas that are getting poorer where people will be unable to find work but will not agree to travel further than what has been deemed “reasonable” or accept so-called “suitable” employment.

Today, I spoke about a man from Carleton who could have taken a job at a fast food restaurant in Gaspé, which is a three-and-a-half-hour drive away from where he lives. People can turn down jobs but then they will not be entitled to receive employment insurance benefits.

The NDP certainly supports parts of this motion because it is the poorest people who are affected. In our society, there is a gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap must be reduced.

We really need to recover the money that unemployed workers are losing and not reinvest it in unrelated areas.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the employment insurance program, I understand there was an issue about general revenues versus a separate fund. My understanding was the federal Auditor General suggested it be put into the general fund.

Maybe the member could correct me if that is not the case. If it is the case, would she support the fact that we should listen to the federal Auditor General?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of stakeholders have spoken about this famous general fund. Some social groups say they are in favour of the fund, which would be completely autonomous and would be used only for employment insurance.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did a good job expressing the reality of some regions across Canada.

I just put the question to our Conservative colleagues, but they seemed to avoid the subject. I really have the impression that they are unaware of the reality of our rural regions or that they are writing off certain regions.

The seasonal industry is an industry that benefits the economy of the entire country, and there are places where it is all they have left.

I would like my colleague to make a few comments about that.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

The reality of people in the regions is very different from that of people in urban centres. Distances are vast and job offers are few. When the tourist season is over, it is over for these people. They cannot choose to do something else, because there is nothing else.

So, either we favour—and I hope this is not what the Conservatives want to do—a total exodus and empty the regions, or we agree to introduce measures to help the unemployed.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her excellent speech. She spoke at length about employment insurance. I know that she is very close to people, a woman who is well aware of the consequences that legislation can have on our lifestyle and quality of life.

The motion moved by our Liberal colleagues includes a rather interesting tax credit, one that would make the family caregiver tax credit refundable so that low-income Canadians are not excluded.

Since we know that many Canadians are unfortunately living in poverty, does the hon. member not feel that it would be a good initiative to help people who are trying to help their parents or other family members have a better quality of life?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the refundable tax credit would indeed be an excellent move, especially when we are talking about tax credits that are deductible from income.

We are hearing more and more that Canadians are becoming poorer. Take the case of an employment insurance claimant who gets 55% of his original salary. His income is therefore reduced. What tax credits can he claim? If your income is low, you cannot claim any.

So instead of deducting from one's income a tax credit for looking after the elderly, the sick or children in need of care, a refundable tax credit would be provided that could be used, for example, to subsidize the children's recreational activities.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing a motion that asks the government to introduce a series of measures aimed at correcting the growing income inequality in Canada.

Among those measures, we have this one specifically:

(d) making the Registered Disability Savings Plan available to sufferers of chronic diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis;

Naturally, this is the initiative I am going to focus on.

I support a measure like this without question since it deals with one of the problems with the registered disability savings plan. Although the plan clearly has other problems, I will focus on the one addressed by this initiative. At the moment, the registered disability savings plan is available only to those who are eligible for the disability tax credit.

To be eligible for that tax credit, a person must have a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions for at least 12 months. This condition is difficult to fulfill for people suffering from chronic or recurrent conditions like multiple sclerosis or chronic fatigue syndrome.

They have a different kind of impairment. For example, people suffering from these impairments may be able to carry out daily activities and even to work for a certain amount of time. Then, suddenly, it becomes impossible for them to do anything. Unfortunately, because of the cyclical nature of these illnesses, those individuals are very exposed in terms of most programs for those with functional impairments.

In fact, most of these programs are designed with the idea that the disability is permanent and does not change significantly. So it is high time to change this program, whose injustices are just going to get worse over time. We know for a fact that the number of Canadians with episodic impairment is on the rise.

The government must include those Canadians in this income support program. We know that 55,000 people suffer from multiple sclerosis, that 63,000 have HIV and that 330,000 people have chronic fatigue syndrome. If the program works well for those who are eligible for it, but too many people are excluded, then it is not very effective.

It goes without saying that it is worthwhile enhancing and extending this plan. Yes, the registered disability savings plan could be considered as an innovative tool for reducing poverty in the long term because it targets low- to modest-income workers living with a disability. However, as I said earlier, the eligibility criteria for the registered disability savings plan is much too restrictive.

By applying the same eligibility criteria as for the disability tax credit, hundreds of thousands of people with functional limitations are ineligible for the plan. This is very worrisome, especially for people suffering from multiple sclerosis, given that their condition fluctuates. These fluctuations can last months, even years.

Despite the undeniable benefits of the plan for the people who are eligible, the government's account of its record leads us to believe that it is spouting this rhetoric in order to divert attention away from the valid criticisms of its response to the income security challenges faced by Canadians living with functional limitations.

As we know, it is not in the Conservatives' nature to tackle income inequality. Their vision of equal opportunity is vastly different than that of the NDP. However, they should give serious consideration to the most recent report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission released this summer.

This report points out the significant gaps in equality of opportunity for people with disabilities. In other words, it reports on how disabilities affect equality of opportunity in daily life and the barriers that deny people living with a functional limitation the full opportunity to make for themselves the lives they wish to have. This includes graduating from university, having a full-time job, and having an annual salary, although it is often lower of course.

This is the case for people affected by mental illness and episodic illnesses, who are more likely to participate sporadically in the labour force, which is the reason for their significantly smaller income. People with disabilities were negatively affected in all categories examined.

Persons with disabilities are the poorest in Canada and they represent the highest number of unemployed workers.

According to Statistics Canada's last Participation and Activity Limitation Survey in 2006, 14.3% of the Canadian population, or 4.4 million people, had a form of activity limitation. That rate has been going up since 2001. This trend will only increase with time, since that rate increases with age. The problem related to the openness of the system, and to eligibility for tax credits for persons with disabilities, must be dealt with head on.

This is the biggest obstacle to opening a registered disability savings plan, and it undermines the long-term effectiveness of the program at the same time. We quickly realize, through many examples, that the definition used as an eligibility criterion is much too strict, very poorly understood, and not applied consistently. Furthermore, we also discovered problems regarding the criteria and the assessment method, the development of the formula and the qualification process by a qualified practitioner.

Access to the tax credit is extremely problematic. Some people with serious functional limitations cannot take advantage of this opportunity. The worst part is that many are those whose applications were rejected and who do not want to appeal the decision because they do not want to waste their time, energy and resources on what they see as a losing battle against government bureaucracy.

Others simply decided not to apply because they did not think they were eligible based on the criteria, in spite of their condition. Others were told by a doctor, without assessment or objective explanation, that they were not eligible. People with certain types of mental health issues are also often excluded from the tax credit. That is the case for people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

There is obviously a serious problem with respect to assessments for eligibility for the tax credit. A good assessment tool is needed to determine eligibility, and at the end of the day Canadians are paying the price.

This issue is not new. In March 2002, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented a report recommending that the definition be changed to include people who have a serious impairment that is recurrent, but not necessarily lasting for a continuous period of 12 months.

The committee recognized that many Canadians with episodic disabilities were unable to access the tax credit despite their condition and the costs associated with it. However, the government at the time did not provide a direct response to the committee's recommendation and merely reiterated that the criteria were key in determining eligibility. I need not remind you that this was a Liberal government.

Unfortunately, after all these years, the problem still exists. The application is still too complex. The terminology and definitions used in the disability tax credit certificate are too restrictive, which ultimately leads to inconsistency and discrimination.

It is time to assess whether the disability tax credit is truly effective in terms of the support it provides to the registered disability savings plan. The tax credit must not be an obstacle to these savings plan. We must therefore relax the eligibility criteria for the tax credit and make the definition much more inclusive. If not, the registered disability savings plan is simply not fulfilling its purpose properly.

The NDP wants a Canada that is truly accessible and inclusive with a federal government that takes its responsibilities seriously, demonstrates leadership and works to combat poverty among people with functional limitations. In order to achieve this goal, there is an imminent need to reform existing income support programs. That is what we want, and that is what we are going to do.

Business of the House

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations on the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Thursday, November 8, 2012,

(a) the House shall meet at 10 a.m. and proceed to Government Orders;

(b) Members may make statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 at 11 a.m.;

(c) oral questions shall be taken up not later than 11:15 a.m.;

(d) the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business at 12 noon, followed by Government Orders;

(e) Private Members' Business shall be taken up at 1:30 p.m; and

(f) the House shall, at 2:30 p.m., stand adjourned until Monday, November 19, 2012, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, November 9, 2012.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Does the hon. chief Government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Income Inequality

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before moving to questions and comments, I would first like to thank my colleague who brings a completely different take to the current debate on the Liberal motion moved in this House today. The part of the debate where people with a disability were not necessarily considered really interested me. I thank her for that intervention.

I want to come back to what was presented with regard to disabilities. In fact, I want to the link it with what I have been saying in this House today, and that is tax credits for family caregivers that would be converted into refundable tax credits. Everyone knows just how difficult it can be sometimes for family caregivers taking care of a family member with a lot of problems. It is very difficult for them to have these dependents, to juggle caring for a family member in need of help and caring for their own family at the same time.

Does the hon. member not think that the Conservatives are engaging in a tiny bit of demagoguery by voting against this motion, when low-income individuals need this type of refundable tax credit?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I think it is a little strange that some members do not understand this inequality. Naturally, the problem is that the program is really unfair in its current format. It does not adequately and fully meet the needs of disabled individuals since being eligible for the tax credit is necessary in order to be entitled to the registered disability savings plan.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members may recall that both Conservative and Liberal governments have, in the past, taken money out of the employment insurance fund and spent it in ways that did not benefit workers even though that money belongs to workers. Members may also recall certain tax credits.

On paper, the motion looks fine, but can we really trust the Liberals to put words into action?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can we trust the Liberals? I have no idea. As I said earlier, when they did that in 2006, nothing changed. I imagine the outcome would be the same this time around.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a good speech. I will be brief.

I do not know whether she has talked to the Conservatives. I know that there are many of them here and that it can be difficult for them to understand Liberal motions.

I think this question has come up, and I know our leader asked it several times. Does my colleague know of any reason why the Conservatives would not want tax credits, regardless of what they are for, to be refundable?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Naturally, I would be very pleased to know the reason. I cannot fathom why a person would not be eligible for a tax credit or for the registered disability savings plan. That keeps even more disabled people in poverty. What should we in the House do about it? We should help these people get into the job market, and socially, we should help them to live more normal lives.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour but a disappointment in a way that we have to stand in the House to debate this motion that our hon. leader has presented.

I do not know the time that is permitted, but if there is extra time beyond my 10 minutes, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

I would like to start with a news item that was on CBC Newsworld this morning. It was stating what wonderful shape Canada is in, compared to all the other countries. We are number two as far as standard of living goes or the happiest people in the world. We are only number two. Number one is Denmark, so it is a pretty good standing.

When we look at other rich countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, we are way above them. One might ask why we are so far ahead as far as standard of living goes. Of course there is health, education, the cost of our food and many reasons. However, one of the biggest reasons, similar to some of the Scandinavian countries that are in the same league as us, is how we take care of each other. We have an economy that prospers; we have all the tools to keep a good economic engine. Also we have good social programs that take care of the people who are in need, who may be going through stages in their lives that are disruptive.

We often talk about the individuals, and that is key. However, we also have to look at the bigger picture, how some of these changes help the local economies and local small businesses. Some news articles are saying that in Canada the gap between the rich and poor is growing. Canadian families have watched their incomes stagnate and decline even though their cost of living has been driven up, the cost of everyday goods like groceries, education and pharmacare.

Over the past year, the Conference Board of Canada; the dean of the Rotman School of Management, Roger Martin; and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, have all warned us that income inequality could limit Canada's growth and threaten a sustainable prosperity.

As was mentioned by the late President Kennedy, the tide has to bring everybody up. If we start separating those different gaps, we will slip back in time. I remember a time in Cape Breton when the people who ran the coal mines were the rich people in the community and the people who were working in the coal mines could barely make ends meet. I hope we are not, as a society and as a country, slipping back to that era where we are going to have that gap. The OECD noted that the average income for the top 10% of Canadian earners in 2008 was $130,000, 10 times more than the bottom 10%. That gap is widening.

One would question what the Conservative agenda is. Is it to increase that gap? According to the June 2012 Statistics Canada report, the median family income did not increase in 2010 and it has been falling from 2008 and 2009. This was the first drop of the median family income since the 1990s. We are a prosperous country and we are letting people fall through the cracks. We are not taking care of them. I could give examples in my riding.

There are things we have established over the years, not just the Liberal Party, but all parties. We talked about education and health, but take even our agriculture system, with supply management, for example when we had the Wheat Board. Those were things that made farmers prosperous. Take the policies that the fishermen have in my community alone, with small fleet owner-operators. They own the fishing licences. They have the resources of themselves to reap the profits, and the EI system helps fill the gaps.

Even in the United States, how well are the fishermen in Maine doing? They are doing very poorly with their system, because the government allows a free-for-all. The same is true for agriculture. Dairy farms in Vermont and across the U.S. border are not doing as well as our farmers.

Therefore, when we look at different segments of our society and compare them with other countries, even south of the border, there is a reason why we are number two. It is that we have good social programs and good economic drivers.

Getting back to my riding and some of these changes in EI, for instance, my riding is an urban and rural split. Most of my rural area is over a mountain range, away from the urban area. We have a county called Victoria County. That is where I get the Sydney—Victoria name, because I have the Sydney area and Victoria County.

Victoria County has a lot of fishing and tourism. Communities like Neils Harbour and Ingonish rely on fisheries and Parks Canada, but in the wintertime these industries are shut down. People might get a job at the Legion, sweeping up, or help somebody down the road make traps, or get a day here and there doing something else just to make ends meet. If they are lucky, they might get one day a week.

The changes to the EI system that the Conservatives are doing tells them to get another job. Where are they going to get another job? How are they going to travel in the snowy winter conditions over the mountain? These policies are just driving people right out of these rural areas and they are a detriment to the businesses.

These are seasonal workers I am talking about. It has been brought up many times today that not only will seasonal workers in forestry, fishing, farming or tourism be affected, but substitute teachers will be affected as well. Some of them travel a long distance just to do one day in school. They are going to be penalized.

We are also looking at health care workers who might have been laid off. They sometimes fill in on the weekend when there is a shortage of nurses. They will come all the way in for what? They will have to get a babysitter. They will need to have a car available and pay for gas. Clawing people's EI back by half will be a real cut.

Probably 30% to 40% of many regions in Atlantic Canada rely on the resource industries out west. The NDP has taken a shot at that, calling it the Dutch disease. Resource industries are key to the economy of Cape Breton and Atlantic Canada. However, a lot of those industries have shutdowns because it could be too muddy to put a pipeline in or it could be too cold.

Therefore, sometimes many of my fellow Cape Bretoners have to take time off, and they are going to be penalized by the government for doing just that. The Conservatives think people should be able to work 52 weeks a year. If the work is not there, where are they going to work? Mines could be shut down. Commodity prices sometimes go down in nickel or gold, resulting in layoffs. All of these people will be penalized, and my riding of Sydney—Victoria is going to feel the Conservative government's hits. More than 150 people have already been fired from the federal job bank.

These changes are even more stringent.

I have a letter from Sandra McPherson. It takes quite a bit to write a letter and put one's name out there. She received the famous notification letter from Service Canada on the pending changes to new EI recipients. She says the letter was extremely misleading. When one starts to look at the numbers and ratchet it down to what was going to happen, it might be true under the comparison they used. The comparison that the department used involved three or four days a week. If someone gets to work three or four days a week, they consider that like being back to full-time work. That is not the case. Most people are lucky to get one day of work a week.

Ms. McPherson is a mother with dependent children. She works an eight-hour shift for $10.50 an hour, thereby earning $84. With the EI clawback $42 will come right off of that. She has to pay for a child care provider, which is at least $25, leaving her $17 for that one day of employment. Ms. McPherson made a comment that is so true. She said some of the Conservatives buy orange juice for $17 a glass. That is not going to help this lady.

The Conservatives have an attitude. They can spend money on their buddies in corporations, yet look at what they are going to do with the fishery. They are going to sell the fishery to big corporations, yet they turn around and pick on the little guy.

Ms. McPherson is a taxpayer. She went on to say that, while she is certainly in favour of saving federal coffers, this pilot project takes from the poor and gives to the rich. If people are called in for one day of work a week, they will suffer financially. If someone is called in for four days a week, that individual considers it a full-time job. That does not happen.

We get many cases.

Another lady did seasonal work for the same employer for 25 years. She always had the opportunity to pick up a few hours a week in the off-season. This made her life a little easier while trying to survive on EI. Now it will cost her. She will lose $112 every two weeks.

Another lady has been working 40 years in an office. She works six months full-time as a bookkeeper around income tax time, and the other six months she works part-time helping some people with books, during which she has collected EI. With the new changes, she is going to lose $400 a month.

I have more examples here, but my time has run out.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about the fact that I spent part of my summer visiting Port Mouton, Nova Scotia, Cape Sable Island and a number of places with fisheries or one industry towns. I talked about their concerns with the changes to EI. One of the changes to EI is that if over a certain period of time people do not find a job, then they start looking for one at 80% of what they used to make.

We are concerned that if this year people are hired at 80% and have the misfortune of being off again, they are hired at 80% of that and so on. Is this not an incentive for employers to start squeezing people in the market and make it another way of depressing wages on the east coast?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement is true. It is a slippery slope. The Conservatives refer to repeat offenders of crime. Now for EI, they call those people repeat offenders. The employees and employers pay into that fund. We have a country that relies on natural resources. If they are going to call these people repeat offenders and they are going to start ratcheting down, technically they are starving them out of these regions.

If businesses starve workers out of these regions and force them to go out west, there will be no one to work in the fish plants or for the landscaping companies. When these people are starved out and are driven out west, these industries will collapse.

On the Toronto Stock Exchange, there are many companies relying on resource-based industries from rural Canada. The hon. member made a good point. It is a starving out of rural areas and the people there and it will eventually kill the businesses on the way through.