Derrek Konrad

[Justice, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as if the Howdle case was not enough to destroy all faith in the day parole system, another case came to light. In January Frank Laliberte raped a young woman while on day parole. Residents of Prince Albert were assured that Clifford Howdle was an isolated case and we now know that is not true.

What guarantees can the solicitor general give my constituents that there are not more unidentified day parole rapists in their midst?

[Justice, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week convicted sex offender Clifford Howdle went absent without leave while on day parole in my riding. For 36 hours he terrorized people in the area, committing 17 offences which included three rapes and a kidnapping. In spite of the fact that the police opposed day parole for Howdle because he posed a danger to society, he was released.

My question is for the solicitor general. Why was Clifford Howdle granted day parole?

[Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, Canada's 13th Prime Minister, who first took his seat in the House of Commons on this day in 1940.

The Chief, as he was known, served the constituents of my riding of Prince Albert for 39 years until his death in 1979. That strong association with Prince Albert, I have found, continues to this day.

John Diefenbaker is remembered for a number of accomplishments, including the appointment in 1957 of Ellen Fairclough as the first woman cabinet minister and the extension of the vote to all aboriginals in 1960. His most important contribution to Canada was the drafting of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which passed in 1958.

Diefenbaker was a leader who made Canadians feel good about themselves, beginning most of his public addresses with his distinctive “My fellow Canadians”.

It is fitting then that his riding should be represented now by a party that believes in the common sense of the common people and their right to be consulted on public policy matters.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-78, the public service pension plan act.

The hon. member for Oak Ridges talked about how the government had every angle covered when it wrote the bill and how nothing could ever go wrong. I point to the Canada pension plan and successive governments saying no problem, don't worry, be happy; nothing can go wrong with the Canada pension plan. Those were smooth assurances to soothe the fear of taxpayers, to soothe fears of actuaries and to convey hope.

Now we see the plan increasing the amount of pension contributions every year until it is up to almost 10%. That is hardly the kind of action which engenders a lot of confidence.

The Liberals have proudly characterized themselves as deficit slayers, but it takes real creativity to call themselves deficit slayers given the record of the Liberal government. In the context of this important debate on Bill C-78 it is time to set the record straight.

During the budget debates and in the many kind words the Liberals spoke about themselves thereafter, I happened to hear the Minister of Health on TV saying that two years from now we would have real money for health care in Canada. I wonder if anybody thought what two years from now would mean to the Liberal government. It means, of course, an election. It will need all kinds of money to put that health budget before Canadians.

We are not complaining about health spending. In fact we have called for increased spending, but to hold it off for two years so that it can raid this pension and end up with the money for it seems to be kind of cynical. If I am rather cynical about it, I think it is understandable.

Any deficit that the Liberals have eliminated has not been through genuine cost reduction but through direct tax increases on the backs of Canadians and the raiding of public funds. First the Liberals chose the Canada pension plan. It took a number of years to bring it practically to its knees. Goodness knows whether the planned increases in premiums will make enough of a difference.

Employment insurance premiums are held at far too high a level while people on employment insurance are struggling to make ends meet. This just does not seem to be the way a government that cares for its people, as the Liberal government says it does, does things. Now it is turning to the public service pension plan.

Despite all of this the debt is still far too high. Taxes are far too high. In light of this $30 billion take the finance minister still refuses to give Canadian taxpayers a tax break. All these raids on the backs of Canadians, combined with high marginal rates and bracket creep, give us the highest taxes of any country in the G-7.

What is next? The Liberals have established themselves as the most creative break and enter artists of our day. This audacious legislation is a good example. This is a break-in through the back door by way of legislation rather than through the front door by way of negotiation.

I want to talk about what the Liberals are proposing to do with the public service pension plan. In that regard Bill C-78 amounts to nothing more than another creative Liberal tax grab. They have been slowly liquidating the surplus in the pension plan over the past few years. That is just one of the ways they have been able to balance the books. It is not by cutting spending but by raiding surpluses and taxing Canadians higher and higher year after year.

Another claim the government makes is that it has been fiscally prudent, but the truth is that the finance minister is improving the health of the federal government's finances, among other things, by dipping into civil service pension piggybanks. Since 1996, I say rather cynically, $10.1 billion has been saved by not making interest payments on the actuarial surplus. On another point which has nothing to do with fiscal prudence the civil service is overlooked in the disposal of excess funds.

These types of actions by the Liberals are not only becoming more common but are more than ever being seen for what they are: morally reprehensible behaviour on the part of the Liberal government. Yet the government attempts to justify its actions in the name of deficit reduction. The great scandal in this regard is that it is not at all about deficit fighting, as the Liberals would have us believe. Rather, it is about their continuing quest for a stream of taxes on overburdened taxpayers.

Sadly taxpayers are the odd men out in this equation. Taxpayers own the surpluses in the public service pension plans. Taxpayers in the past have covered $13 billion worth of shortfalls in the public service pension plans. Taxpayers will be on the hook for future deficits. Therefore taxpayers must be protected.

The simple fact is that the surplus in the plan should be left alone. The Liberals should just take their hands off it. The government should not be using it for any other purpose than to ensure the plan remains solvent now and in the future. The bottom line is that any surplus in a pension plan should not be available to any employer, government or private. It should remain in the plan for the benefit of current and future retirees and act as a cushion against future deficits.

I will turn now to a discussion of some of the amendments dealing with the issue of conjugal relationships. These amendments are in response to lower court decisions which see certain benefits such as pension survivor benefits currently afforded to married and common law couples being extended to same sex relationships.

The central issue surrounds the definition of spouse. The government has rightly affirmed the traditional definitions of spouse and marriage. It is important that we begin with the proper definitions. According to the Oxford English Dictionary , a conjugal relationship is one of marriage or the relationship between husband and wife and conjugal rights are those rights, especially in reference to sexual relations, regarded as exercisable in law by each partner in a marriage.

Spouse and marriage have been given special status in Canadian law because of their distinctive characteristics and unique contribution to Canadian society. It is important therefore that the current definition of spouse be retained and that an appropriate range of benefits and obligations be afforded the marital relationship, really the marital home. However the criteria proposed in Bill C-78 for extended survivor benefits are unacceptably vague.

The bill defines a survivor as either one who is married to the contributor or one who can establish that he or she was cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with the contributor for at least one year immediately before the death of the contributor.

Conjugality is one of several criteria which establish that benefits and obligations for heterosexual conjugal relationships are among all forms of domestic partnerships unique in their capacity to procreate children. It is this kind of relationship that routinely involves the caring for and nurturing of children. As the House knows there is a cost incurred through child rearing. Benefits have been extended to the spousal relationship to enhance the stability of the family relationship, as well to recognize the long term commitment and interdependence of the relationship.

Within Bill C-78 is the intent to extend benefits to same sex couples. When considering benefits for domestic relationships other than a spousal relationship, is sexual activity an appropriate criterion on which to extend benefits? What about other long term relationships of financial or emotional interdependency which do not involve sexual activity?

The new definition in Bill C-78 could include roommates who are sexually intimate once in the course of a year long cohabitation, yet exclude an unmarried adult brother and sister or two adult sisters who have lived together in a household for many years and are dependent one on another.

If the federal government plans to extend benefits beyond spousal or marital relationships to other types of relationships, it should consider the original rationale for giving the benefit to determine the basis on which non-spousal relationships should qualify. Furthermore, broad public debate should take place first before changes are made in a piecemeal fashion, the way the Liberals are doing with the bill.

We see again the government blindly going ahead with a policy that is not only questionable but completely unjustified since no debate has yet taken place with respect to altering the definitions of spouse and marriage as they are held within the law.

Before the government expands or changes the definition of spouse or marriage there must first be a proper debate in parliament and among all Canadians on such an important issue. We know that a strong majority of Canadians uphold and affirm the traditional definition and concept of marriage. The government's attempt to define conjugal relationships and explain who constitutes a survivor is a mess and impossible to determine from the wording in the bill.

In closing I find it interesting that the Liberals have recently begun a survey to understand why there is such low morale in the public service and why in the west people feel alienated from them. They are schizophrenic. What the Liberals are doing in the bill is only typical behaviour for them and offers the answer to their own question. Is it any wonder Canadians are increasingly skeptical of the government?

[Competition Act, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act with respect to the prohibition of negative option billing.

I would like to recognize the work of my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton on this issue. I know that he has worked tirelessly in the interests of consumers. I respect any member of the House who is prepared to champion an issue despite pressure coming from within his own caucus to be a quiet and dutiful backbencher.

This bill is designed to prohibit the practice of implied consent billing by federally regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies. It would restore the traditional buyer-seller relationship that relies on the consumer's explicit consent before they can be billed for a product or service that will prohibit default billing of consumers who do not expressly decline a product or service. In other words, it would put an end to what has been called negative option billing.

Before making a decision about supporting this legislation, I considered the views of many Canadians about this billing practice. It is clear that this bill has broad support among consumers who are frustrated by negative option billing.

In particular, there is frustration with cable providers that bill for new programs automatically unless the consumer expressly rejects the service. Consumer groups have cited senior citizens as an example of a group who are often unaware that they have the choice of opting out of the new service and are consequently billed for a program they do not want and cannot afford. This is a source of frustration not simply because of the financial costs, but because it is deemed to be a violation of an age old relationship between buyers and sellers.

It is clear that consumers are looking for protection from negative option billing. The question is simply how do we provide that protection? Should it come in the form of Bill C-393 or can this be achieved through market based reforms? I think a balance must be struck.

Bill C-393 had its origins as Bill C-288 which would have amended the Broadcasting Act to restrict negative option billing by cable companies. These companies can currently act with relative impunity as they are federally regulated regional monopolies which are free from the normal constraints of the competitive market. This new version of the bill is broader and instead amends competition laws that apply to all federally regulated industries.

The decision by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton to use the Competition Act as a means by which to prohibit negative option billing instead of making changes to the legislation which deals directly with the perpetrators of this practice is troubling. Competition laws can profoundly restrict economic freedom and market efficiency and a general move toward strengthening these laws should be approached with caution.

This bill should not be seen as a mechanism by which to restrict attempts by companies wishing to expand their market share. We must not allow our competition laws to grow steadily more intrusive. We must act vigilantly to create competition through deregulation of our industries in the interest of every Canadian consumer.

The original purpose of this draft legislation in the form of Bill C-288 was to amend the Broadcasting Act. This dealt much more directly with the source of the problem and would be the preferable course by which to protect consumers against negative option billing.

Negative option billing is a practice common to federally regulated industries because they enjoy market protection such that they restrict or limit the consumer's ability to seek out alternate providers of a product or a service. Therefore the deregulation of federally legislated industries should be the first step to eliminating negative option billing and other practices that do not properly serve consumers.

I would have been much more supportive of an initiative that worked to limit government and increase consumer choice rather than an initiative which extends the scope of government further into the private sector.

The Reform Party supports limited government and free enterprise but recognizes the important role of government in creating an economic environment with fair and transparent rules which protect both consumers and businesses. However we differ from the governing party in that we believe that markets serve consumers well as long as competition is permitted.

Bill C-393 is a band-aid solution made necessary by the Liberals' resolve to maintain protectionist policies and regional monopolies in federally regulated industries such as cable, telecommunications and banking despite the fact that these policies hurt consumers. But sometimes a band-aid is needed until a disinfectant can be found.

Before I conclude I want to provide an example that illustrates the power of competition to end negative option billing in case my colleagues across the way have their doubts. I am sure we are all familiar with Columbia House Records. This is a company that makes its money through negative option billing. After signing up with the bulk music distributor, consumers are sent cassettes and CDs on a monthly basis. If they do not send the selections back to the company, they are billed for the merchandise.

This is not a pure example of negative option billing because the consumer agreed to these billing terms by signing up with the company. However the point that is relevant is that consumers were so hostile to this form of billing that Columbia House sales began to decline. Soon a competitor entered the market and advertised that it would not engage in negative option billing at all. When faced with this competition, Columbia House very quickly reversed its negative option billing practices.

In other words, the drive for profits in a competitive and deregulated industry will give more power to consumers to seek favourable terms. It is the invisible hand of capitalism at work.

To conclude, it is clear that the Liberal mismanagement of federally regulated industries has created an economic environment in which consumers suffer the ill effects of limited competition. While this bill regrettably increases the power and scope of the Competition Act and restricts private sector decision making, it should receive the qualified support of the Reform caucus until such time as these industries can be deregulated. After this deregulation, competition itself will ferret out those businesses that conduct their affairs in a manner inconsistent with consumer interests.

[National Housing Act, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on third and final reading of Bill C-66 with many concerns.

The government made claim to a bill that was to level the playing field between CMHC and the private sector and to make the mortgage insurance industry more competitive. The government promoted this bill as legislation which would strengthen Canada's housing agency, CMHC, and thereby strengthen its ability to carry out its mandate of administering to Canadians' housing needs. I feel it has done neither and that this exercise has been all the more regrettable because the government had ample input and opportunity to make a better piece of legislation.

The Reform Party opposes Bill C-66 for the following reasons. The bill does not accomplish what it sets out to do, namely, create a more level playing field with the private sector. Reform policy states that where the private sector demonstrates an ability, the government should not compete with the private sector.

The testimony of private sector witnesses before the standing committee was not acted upon and thereby rendered the legislative process ineffective. Further, the private sector's valid suggestions and proposed amendments on ways to improve the bill were systematically ignored by the minister and therefore the government which rendered the democratic process itself ineffective.

Finally, while the bill partially recognizes that housing policy would be carried out more effectively by the provinces, it does not go far enough. As a result of being vague about responsibility, a clear and concise national housing policy continues to be lacking and therefore puts Canada's housing policy, particularly on social housing, in jeopardy.

I will now turn to private sector competition or the lack of it. The purpose of Bill C-66 as put forward by the government is to modernize CMHC by enabling it to respond in a more flexible manner to changes in the workplace. The government also claims that Bill C-66 will put CMHC and its private sector competitors on a more equal footing thereby levelling the playing field in the market of mortgage insurance.

The business of mortgage insurance has been in the hands of government for so long that it currently is responsible for 88% of the market share. At this time many consumers rely on the stability of the CMHC mortgage insurance fund. Without question Canadians have benefited from this program. Many who would not otherwise be able to own their own homes now do as a result of CMHC's mortgage insurance activity.

To say at this time that CMHC should get out of the mortgage insurance business would be premature. However Reform believes that we are witnessing a demonstration by the private sector of its capability in the area of mortgage insurance. This is an indication to Reform that its policy that governments should not compete with the private sector where the private sector can do the job is on track.

However given CMHC's long history in this area of activity and the necessity to protect the stability of the mortgage insurance market, Reform would argue in favour of levelling the playing field so that the private sector can continue to demonstrate its ability to handle mortgage insurance activities effectively and competitively. In this way Canada will begin to create a stable mortgage insurance environment within the private sector.

We believe the private sector must be given an equal opportunity to capture more of the market share in the mortgage insurance business. This will create true competition, better prices and service to consumers and will encourage other private sector companies or competitors to enter the market. Is that not what it is about, better prices, better service to the consumer?

Bill C-66 does not accomplish the goal of levelling the playing field and continues to promote advantages in favour of CMHC over the private sector. It does so in several ways.

CMHC holds a 100% guarantee by the government on its mortgage insurance holdings. GE Capital, CMHC's private sector competitor, has only a 90% guarantee. Bill C-66 does not change this important inequity. Clearly the banks favour the 100% guarantee and therefore, despite good service from GE Capital, they favour mortgage insurance through CMHC. This is not a level playing field. This does not promote a competitive environment as the bill stated as a goal.

GE Capital cannot successfully introduce any new products into the marketplace because it does not have a 90% guarantee on such products, as is the case with CMHC. This means that the introduction of innovative products and services is prevented from entering the marketplace unless they are established by CMHC. This again does not create a level playing field for the private sector, nor a competitive environment for consumers.

Under Bill C-66 CMHC will now fund additional policy reserves and commence payment to the government based on capital and additional policy reserves. CMHC claims that it will do so because the private sector must do so under OSFI regulations. While the intent seems to be correct, the fee will not be calculated using the same formula that is used for private insurers and is therefore less than the fee private insurers must pay. This also does not level the playing field.

CMHC and GE Capital are governed by different legislation. GE Capital is regulated by OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, as a private insurance company whereas CMHC is not.

CMHC's corporate summary states that it wants to level the playing field where it says “CMHC needs to ensure that the basis for public private competition is fair, i.e., that CMHC has no unfair advantages”.

Clearly, Bill C-66 fails to accomplish that level playing field and therefore continues to promote an inequity to the advantage of CMHC. The failure of Bill C-66 to level the playing field between the public and private sector is a clear indication that a crown corporation cannot compete fairly with the private sector, a private sector that has clearly demonstrated it can carry out this kind of activity.

Although the government initially filled a void through CMHC's mortgage insurance fund, it is clear that there is room now for the private sector to assume more of this activity. It is both ready and willing.

What is the value of gradually devolving the government's involvement in such activity? It is that the private sector can grow, that the risk to government and the taxpayer is reduced, that the costs of government are reduced and that the marketplace is thriving on true competition. This does not mean that suddenly the marketplace is free to do as it pleases and that consumers are at risk. There are bodies such as OSFI in place to regulate such activity and to protect consumers.

The natural progression must be that government gets out of the business of the private sector where the private sector can show that it is capable. How can Canadians realize these benefits if the private sector is never given a truly fair opportunity to compete on the same level playing field and the government continues to prevent it from doing so?

I would suggest to the House that clearly the logical path toward the objective of levelling the playing field is not to continue to broaden the powers of CMHC and to make it more commercial. The logical path is to change our tack, to look at the private sector's abilities and in the long term to make the market more secure by allowing the private sector to be as strong as it can be.

In the interim we must ensure the market's stability by looking at CMHC and the private sector as partners rather than competitors. In this way through the pursuit of public-private partnership, governments can benefit from the knowledge of the private sector and the private sector can benefit from the work that the government has put in place. Government should not be competing with its own private sector. The government's ultimate objective should be to improve the economy by strengthening the private sector. Canadians can only benefit from this kind of approach.

I reiterate two reasons why Reform opposes this bill. The testimony of private sector witnesses before the standing committee was not acted upon and thereby rendered the legislative process ineffective. The private sector's valid suggestions and proposed amendments on ways to improve the bill were systematically ignored by the minister and therefore the government, which rendered the democratic process ineffective.

The government is very good at commenting on CMHC's willingness to work in partnership with the private sector, with non-profit organizations and non-government organizations but this was not demonstrated in the passage of this bill through the House.

Partnership relies on a willingness to co-operate. The actions of this government regarding Bill C-66 do not indicate a willingness to co-operate. The standing committee and members of the House outside of committee met with the private sector and non-governmental agencies that have a vested interest in ensuring that CMHC's mandate is sound and works to the benefit of all Canadians.

These groups came forward with many concrete ways in which to improve this bill and they were systematically ignored by the government. This was clearly demonstrated in committee when the suggestions for improvement by GE Capital, the Appraisal Institute of Canada and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada were ignored. Amendments put forward by opposition members were also ignored. When opposition members requested more time to deal with the bill, they too were ignored.

For the record, I wish to summarize some of the important suggestions and concerns put forward by these organizations.

The Co-operative Housing Federation asked the committee to consider the following questions: Will Bill C-66 impede the federal government from acting now or in the future to alleviate Canada's housing needs?

I would also like to point out that some of the considerations recently by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerned the shortage of housing in Nunavik and in the territory of Nunavut which are areas we have so far visited and about which we have heard many representations concerning the shortage there. I would add my concern to that concern.

Second, is it intended to allow the provincial governments to alter existing statutory requirements retroactively? If not, why does the bill empower CMHC to waive existing National Housing Act provisions for existing programs and to allow provinces in turn to waive them? These are serious questions which did not receive serious consideration. Yet, today we find ourselves at third reading and none of these concerns were acknowledged.

From the GE Capital Mortgage Insurance Company we heard requests made to provide the same level of guarantee to both public and private insurance; to extend the guarantee to new private insurance products, allowing private insurers to introduce products not offered by CMHC; to require CMHC to calculate payments to the government using a model comparable to that employed by other Canadian financial institutions; and to work to ensure that CMHC is answerable to the same restrictions and regulations as the private sector. These were legitimate concerns and workable requests that would have improved the bill but they were ignored.

From the Appraisal Institute of Canada we heard the following concern, that CMHC's growing emphasis on speedy approval for its lender clients to reflect a more commercial orientation has the potential to undermine public policy responsibilities by putting the high ratio mortgage insurance at risk. In particular, the Appraisal Institute had concerns about the lack of appraisals done by CMHC; their reliance on a computer system that does not incorporate actual appraisals by appraisers; and the fact that CMHC will now have the ability to vary the price of premiums according to the risk, thereby abandoning the policy that all Canadians should pay the same price and should not be discriminated against depending on where they choose to live. Again, these were valid concerns affecting us all that were not addressed.

These groups, every single one of them, had constructive ideas as to how we might improve the bill, but none of them were acted upon. What it shows us is that while the government is willing to promote partnership, it does not always act accordingly. If it did, it would have worked with these groups to make Bill C-66 a better bill. Instead, it has been intent only on the bill's passage so as to broaden the powers of an already powerful agency.

I would also like to state what our final main objection is to this bill. While the bill partially recognizes that housing policy would be carried out more effectively by the provinces, it does not go far enough. As a result of being vague about responsibility, a clear and concise national housing policy continues to be lacking and therefore puts Canada's housing policy, particularly social housing, in jeopardy.

First, let us be clear that CMHC plays a dual role and has dual functions. As well as its commercial activities, such as mortgage insurance, CMHC has the responsibility of carrying out the government's national housing policy by ensuring that all Canadians have access to affordable housing. Due to the latter, CMHC is heavily involved in aspects of social public housing, low income housing, residential rehabilitation, aboriginal housing, co-op housing and non-profit housing vehicles.

Here, too, the workings of CMHC would find a balance in a public-private partnership arrangement as there are many worthwhile organizations in Canada who work within and understand the social housing needs of Canadians. In order to facilitate this, however, in the most optimal, effective and cost-efficient manner, we must first be clear about which level of government is best suited to be responsible for housing in Canada. Where social housing is concerned we have seen the Liberal government pulling away from supporting social housing.

Since 1993, no new funding has been put aside for social housing needs and, as we have seen, the decline in Canada's housing stock through aging and other factors is causing a social housing shortage and challenging CMHC's mandate to provide not only affordable but quality housing to Canadians.

Despite evidence to the contrary, the government will not relinquish control of social housing to the levels of government that are most directly involved and active in meeting Canadians' housing needs. By way of example of the capability of the provinces and their municipal partners, I point to the recent reports that have been produced to address the growing housing concerns across the country, particularly the issue of homelessness.

I bring members' attention to Toronto's task force on the homeless and the British Columbia government's response to housing needs. In both cases these reports demonstrate an ability to recognize what is required and the ability to take action. In British Columbia, for instance, a 1992 amendment to its municipal act required that all municipalities include housing policies in their official community plan.

At those levels of government we see action on housing issues, not more talk. Despite the work that has been done, the federal government responded in its usual fashion according to the CMHC's five-year corporate plan:

CMHC plans to conduct a forum on best practices for addressing homelessness. This forum will bring together experts on the homeless, representatives of service providers and various levels of government to share information.

It is a cumbersome and long term approach to a problem that requires immediate action. Surely Toronto's task force does not need more time to talk. It has made its recommendations but it is a fact of life with government at the federal level. The federal government does not have the flexibility or the agility to act in a timely fashion and respond as well as levels of government that are closer to the people.

Canadians recognize this as well. That is why Reform's policy, supported by the grassroots of this country, states that housing should be the full responsibility of the provinces. The federal government is surely making a move in this direction by transferring the management of its social programs to the provinces but it is doing so very slowly.

Bill C-66 could have made great strides in this regard. However, it did not go far enough in moving housing responsibilities to the provinces and in fact confuses the issue by downloading some of its social housing responsibilities to the provinces while keeping others. The effect is a gap in social housing policy responsibility and a void where a solid national housing strategy should be.

Ultimately, the issues and requirements of social housing are not being met and Canada's social housing stock is in decline at a time when rejuvenation is needed. Reform would argue that it is time the federal government was clear about its role in administering a national housing policy and that ultimately one level of government should be responsible for it to ensure the needs of Canadians are being met.

The provinces, with support from their municipalities, have demonstrated a better understanding of the social housing needs of Canadians and are in the best position to ensure that Canadian needs are being met. It is time they were given the ability to move forward in this regard. Clearly they have demonstrated their ability.

The Reform Party regrets that the bill is not all it could be and that the government, intent on pushing it through, did so at the expense of input from many organizations in which support a better national housing policy for Canadians and a more vibrant marketplace for homebuyers. Like them, the Reform Party believes that housing is an extremely important and urgent issue, that more and more it calls for partnerships and the benefits of collective thinking between the public and private sectors. Bill C-66 did not promote this.

Canadians believe strongly in this country's ability to provide affordable and decent housing to everyone and it is a shame this government missed an ideal opportunity to create avenues that would strengthen housing policy in the country. It is time that a housing strategy, both clear and concise in its intent and its objectives, existed in Canada, that responsibilities are defined, accepted and acted upon, and that both public and private sectors are given the means to work together to ensure we reach our objectives.

The belief that making CMHC more commercial is the answer to the housing challenges we face in Canada is shortsighted and ultimately inadequate. Pinning all our hopes on one agency will not suffice. We need to recognize the abilities of Canada's private sector. We need to recognize there is a private sector out there willing to participate in the housing market. Its very involvement strengthens the economy. However, by competing with a crown corporation its chances of growing stronger are impeded, and so too then is the economy. Is it this government's intention to impede the growth of the economy?

We also need to recognize the value of partnership. We need to recognize that our national housing policy under the federal government has not been effective for some time. We need to recognize that there are other levels of government and organizations within the private sector willing to strengthen our national housing policy. We need to see that a national housing policy will thrive under the benefits of partnership and clear the roadblocks preventing those partnerships from working effectively.

Surely, if we have learned any one thing from debt and deficit woes it is that the federal government can no longer resolve our most important issues simply by opening the federal purse. The housing challenges that face us need much more than money. Solutions will require the participation of organizations and other levels of government which have the knowledge and capabilities of addressing Canadian housing needs. Yes, the needs of Canadians will be better served if those closest to the problems are in the driver's seat.

If we are to ensure that the housing needs of Canadians, particularly our social housing needs, are met then it is time to let Canadians build a better national housing policy. To do so will require much more courageous vision and much greater action than Bill C-66 provides.

The government made the claim that Bill C-66 would level the playing field between CMHC and the private sector and make the mortgage insurance industry more competitive, that it would strengthen Canada's housing agency CMHC and thereby strengthen its ability to carry out its mandate of administering to Canadians' housing needs. It has done neither.

Most regrettable of all, by failing to work with the organizations that came to the committee during the review of the bill and failing to recognize their knowledge, capabilities and expertise, the federal government has missed an ideal opportunity to improve housing policy in Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make some remarks on Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. Throughout the debate so far, and this includes what I have heard in my riding, one clear theme has emerged: if we want tax reform, vote Reform. That is the first message.

I will take a few minutes to talk about the government's no relief tax policies as shown in Bill C-71 and the effects they are having on Canadians. I want to talk about Canadians who live in the Prince Albert riding, not Canadians in general.

We are having difficulty retaining our youth and our talent. I recognize that they are not always the same, that talent is talent at every age but youth is confined to youth. This phenomenon affects our ability to engage in entrepreneurship and takes away our young people with talent, older people who have been trained in the university system, in the arts and technologies, and our business people.

These people are leaving Canada. Patriotism and pride are not enough to keep them. Patriotism and pride do not feed them or their children. They do not pay the mortgage. They do not make the car payments. They do not pay for fuel and they do not pay the taxes. People are voting with their feet and with their moving vans. That is what is happening in the country under the Liberal government and its high tax policies.

A person may well ask who are the beneficiaries of the high policy. It is the foreign recruiters and moving companies. Very few other people, if any, are benefiting from high taxes aside from possibly tax collectors.

I also want to talk about the negative effect high taxes are having on the protection and maintenance of health care and social services not only in Canada but in Saskatchewan in particular. In that regard I have a letter that I wrote to my constituents which has been copied by another hon. member of the House. It shows the effect of high taxes on Canadians.

What are the Liberals calling this budget? They are calling it the health reinvestment budget or the health budget, but as usual their numbers do not add up. We can just take a look at what the Liberal government's so-called reinvestment in health care amounts to in this budget as evidenced in the details.

In 1993 when the Liberals took power the Canada health and social transfer was $1,453 per taxpayer. When we take into account the latest budget the amount will be $1,005. That is quite a decrease, $448 to be exact or a 31% drop compared with 1993. In 1993 it was $18.8 billion in total. This restores it to $14.5 billion, which is still $4.3 billion less than when the Liberals came into power.

To put this into further context, we should not forget the six years of bracket creep when people had inflationary raises. Also inflation reduces the power of those who have not even managed to get a so-called inflationary increase in their wages. We begin to see the effects this is having on individual Canadians.

The Liberals will be putting back $11.5 billion over the next five years. Big deal. They are taking three dollars from the system for every dollar they put back in. The hon. member for Macleod illustrated this very effectively with a blood bag and a syringe to show how much less is in that blood bank after the Liberal budget of this spring.

The government will raise the income threshold at which the Canada child tax benefit begins to be phased out by $9,590 from its current level of $25,921. When it was announced in the 1998 budget and implemented in July, replacing it with the working implement supplement, the new Canada child tax benefit began clawing back benefits at lower levels of income than the existing system. When it was announced in 1998 the clawback began when a family's after tax income exceeded $25,921.

What effects are Liberal high tax policies having on Canadians with no tax relief in sight? Let me give one example that happened to me recently. I had a request from a family who wanted to see me in my office. In came a young father, his wife and their little child. What did they say? The man was completely mad; he was really upset. The wife was near tears and the child was just plain cute and did not know what she was growing up into.

They are both working trying to put their lives together and to maintain a lifestyle that is suitable for a married family. It turns out with two incomes they are unable to make ends meet. They are looking at possibly losing their car. If he loses his car, he loses his job.

What was he complaining about? He was not complaining about the gross amount of his salary. He was complaining about high taxes, high Canada pension plan premiums and high employment insurance premiums.

The employment insurance surplus was $19.1 billion at the end of 1998. The public accounts indicate that the surplus is considerably larger. We know there is nothing less than that in the account. The premiums were reduced all the way from $2.70 per $100 of insurable earnings to $2.55 per $100 of insurable earnings. These are nickels and dimes. These people are going under and they are crying out for relief from those kinds of things.

The Canada pension plan contribution rate increased to 7% from 6.4% in January 1999, which is an annual increase of $1.4 billion taken out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, whether they are business owners and their businesses are having to pay their portion or people who are actually on the frontline doing the work. The Canada pension plan rate has increased every year during the Liberal tenure. It started at 5% in 1993. By the end of 2003 it will rise to 9.9%, which is a 98% increase.

Personal income tax increased through bracket creep. It was never eliminated and it was not mitigated in this budget. We will see another $900 million taken out of the pockets of Canadians through bracket creep.

The tax pain is causing the brain drain. What good is it for the government to promise good health care when the effect that high taxes have over time is to actually diminish the tax base required to support the health care and social services Canadians desire?

I want to turn to how high taxes contribute to an overall depleting effect on our tax base. It does this by driving away our youth and our talent. That is a sad reality. John Roth, chief executive officer at Nortel, stated just last week:

Taxation is testing the allegiance of some of Canada's best and brightest.

That results in a reduced tax base. Peter Foster in yesterday's Financial Post wrote:

Taxes must come down if we want long term revenues generated by economic activity to increase.

Does the Prime Minister not know this? Surely he must. Maybe he just does not care. We wonder what his answer would be. He seems to think that high taxes are part of the Canadian way of life. If he really thinks that, he is living in a dream and it is not the Canadian dream. The rest of them are living in a nightmare.

The Prime Minister might think that high taxes are just part of the Canadian way of life, but he knows they cannot keep increasing. The tolerance threshold has been reached and surpassed this year. The government continues to ignore the actual effects of high taxes on society as we began to see in the past few years. We are watching our youth and our talent go elsewhere.

Those of us who travel back and forth to western Canada or other parts of Canada talk to young people who have been recruited by foreign firms. They are going to find out what improvements are available to them in other tax regimes and they are not looking back. They are not only going south. They are going in other directions. I want to paraphrase a letter that was written to my constituents, and borrowed by another member. The so-called brain drain phenomenon is created by high taxes and is a growing cross-generational problem. Many Canadians think of the brain drain primarily in terms of the younger generation who are heading south to more favourable tax and employment conditions. However, events taking place in northeast Saskatchewan this month highlight a new reality. The brain drain is not limited to youth. It is a serious problem that crosses generational boundaries.

Consider first the recent commentary from influential Canadian entrepreneurs Paul Desmarais and Jim Pattison concerning the insidious effects the high taxation policies of successive Liberal governments, including the Mulroney Conservatives, are starting to have on our country.

Montreal's Paul Desmarais calls Canadian taxes exorbitant and a drain of potential income for Canada. “When the government is too greedy”, he says, “people find other solutions”.

Jim Pattison, also a self-made billionaire from Vancouver, calls high taxes the number one issue for every senior executive in the country. Although he remains in Canada out of a sense of loyalty, he says he does not blame those who leave in favour of lower taxes and a stronger dollar.

One could argue that the opinions of wealthy businessmen are irrelevant to the debate over taxation of the broad Canadian population. However, it is not only boomer billionaires are who are speaking out, people at all income levels are raising their voices in protest, including those whom we assume are the meat and potato beneficiaries of our current tax system, our professionals.

This fact was reinforced to me as I prepared to sponsor a forum on health care in my riding involving my colleague, the member for Macleod, who is the Reform Party's health critic.

In the course of conversations with physicians, other health care professionals and concerned constituents, I was surprised at the interest shown in discussing, not health care, but the havoc the Liberal government tax policy is wreaking on our society.

In a letter and subsequent telephone conversation, one doctor, whose name is being withheld at his request, was invited to discuss health care. He said:

As a physician working in this country for 24 years, I now discover that I have no alternative but to leave this country...over the past five years I have seen friends and colleagues leave this country in disgust due to the brutal levels of personal income taxes...I now pay 54% in taxes and contributions to government...and could not afford to ever retire if I remain in this country...it is obvious that the governments of the day have no interest in meaningfully reducing personal income taxes.

He went on to say that he and at least two of his colleagues were planning to move within the next few months.

This poses a further, more immediate problem. Who will practice medicine in Saskatchewan? How can Saskatchewan, already facing a shortage of rural doctors, ensure a quality health care system when its doctors say they are being taxed out of the country?

The brain drain is neither a phenomenon of youth nor a minor issue. It is a symptom of stress and the predictable result of a bad tax system. We must take it seriously by providing sustainable tax relief or suffer the crippling long term effects into the new millennium.

What I see from this is that the doctor was not even looking for more money. He was not looking for better working conditions or a new place to go. He was not asking for a new hospital, a new office or new operating equipment. He wanted to live a life commensurate with his actual income which is taxed to the point where it is not the income he thought he would have and not enough for him to retire on without being required to work the rest of his life to try to turn his practice over to someone else.

Social science has identified at least one fundamental characteristic of human motivation and that is that humans are motivated to avoid pain. If one is to be motivated to avoid pain then one moves away from it. If the Canadian tax system is causing taxpayers pain they will move away from the tax system, and that is to other countries where the tax regime is not so onerous.

It is easy to understand why our youth and talent are leaving Canada for the U.S. and, I might add, for other places. It is to avoid the pain of paying high taxes here.

Neither loyalty to Canada, nor our good lifestyle, nor the natural beauty of our country is enough to keep them if they cannot make a living. That is a base need of all people.

I also want to mention that we are paying a lot more but getting a lot less. It is the impact that taxes are having on services. We see this dismal aspect in the budget every time we think about the services that Canadians are getting for the taxes that they are paying.

As I pointed out, despite the increase to the health and social transfer, which was not very much, we should remember it was the Liberals who gutted and savaged these things. We have to question their priorities.

I want to talk about an issue that arose in my riding as a result of what the government would call tax cuts or tax savings, which I think is poor spending. The government will open a joint office with the Saskatchewan government, ostensibly to save money. This office will serve a very large rural area with a lot of aboriginal people who use that as their service base.

We will no longer have a federal presence in the town I come from, which has a population of around 5,000 people. To go from there to the next town where there is an employment insurance office takes one hour each way.

These people come into town to use the services, to buy their groceries, to visit the doctor, to visit the dentist, to visit the lawyer, to do their dry cleaner and maybe even their laundry. Whatever services they needed they could get in that town. All of a sudden, those who most need employment insurance services will be forced to drive at least another hour one way to access those services. That means those Canadians who may now be off the government's tax roll, thank goodness, are all of a sudden having to pay their own way.

I have to wonder what the net benefit will be of this. Businesses in my home town will be losing business because these people will drive right by. There is another negative effect of the system, but do they get their tax dollars back? Nothing doing.

How does the government find creative ways to spend the money it says it is saving? We will now have two people driving out a couple of times a week to sit in an office. They will both probably need to have laptops because desktop computers no longer do the job. We all know laptops are more expensive.

They will probably need a vehicle to drive. I have heard a rumour, but I would not doubt it, that they will be driving a Jeep Cherokee to get there. They will be paid overtime for travel. As the weather in northeast Saskatchewan is notoriously unpredictable, more often than not, they will have to stay overnight, in which case they will probably be paid right through the night. They will be on overtime for the rest of the week. They will have their hotel and meals bills paid. What kind of a saving is that going to be?

Consequently, I think we are definitely paying more. We keep on paying more and we keep on getting less under this regime. It is so frustrating for the people in my riding. I had to say these things on their behalf because they have had it.

The young family that came into my office to express their despair at the situation in which they find themselves, both working, paying for child care, paying high taxes, paying high employment insurance premiums and paying high Canada pension plan premiums, where do they find themselves? They are going to lose everything because this Liberal government is simply continuing to collect taxes and Canadians are getting fewer and fewer services for the money they are putting in.

The last two things they asked me was how they could get politically involved and how they could fight the system. I gave them a name and it sure was not the name of the Liberal organizer in my riding. I do not think they would have wanted it even if I had given it to them. They agree with what I said when I started at the top of my speech if Canadians want tax reform, vote Reform.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly should take the Canadians who elected us to parliament seriously.

Let me give an example of how the Nisga'a treaty hands out rights and privileges based on race. If you are a non-Nisga'a you do not have a right to practice a profession on Nisga'a land; no lawyers, doctors, mechanics, shopkeepers without getting special racial permission.

Why does the Prime Minister want to entrench race based employment in the Constitution?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister warned Canadians that they should beware of political leaders who believe countries should be populated by people of the same blood. That is exactly what is happening with the Nisga'a deal. The government just signed on to a deal that will entrench government by race, government based on bloodlines.

Why does the Prime Minister point fingers at other leaders when he himself is guilty of entrenching government based on race?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, whether we have the United Nations or a united nation, I believe that a vote in this House would mean that we would be speaking with one voice. We would be a united nation, uniting behind our troops for their morale and our allies for support. It would be more than just the largest party in this House—