House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was general.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments and to other comments in the House this morning on the motion by the Bloc Quebecois to appoint a special committee that would carry out an exhaustive and expeditious review of all public spending by the federal government.

I do not think hon. members opposite understood the Bloc's motion. I think they are acting irresponsibly by rejecting out of hand a very responsible request, a request made repeatedly by the Bloc Quebecois since the morning of October 26, and I think the people who elected the members opposite are starting to regret their decision.

We do not want the special committee to look at everything through the magnifying glass of the Public Accounts Committee, consider every spending item and make a summary analysis. The Auditor General pointed out in his second report that year after year, the Public Accounts Committee's report was limited and fragmented in scope, because Parliament did not receive all the information it needed from the departments. That is what the Auditor General said in his report.

In fact there has never been a special committee to conduct an exhaustive study of the overlap between federal and provincial activities.

What we want is for a special committee to take an in-depth and responsible look at the very structure of public spending. If the Public Accounts Committee had been so good at streamlining and restructuring public spending, we would not be where we are today, with a cumulative debt of $507 billion and a deficit that may reach $46 billion this year.

Yesterday, I put the same request to the Minister of Finance in the finance committee, when I asked for an exhaustive review of the Canadian tax system. Incidentally, the minister answered that their priority was to examine the problems connected with the GST and the alternatives to the GST. The committee was looking at a specific and current problem-whether or not to replace the GST-instead of conducting an exhaustive review of the Canadian tax system, something we want the committee to do in addition to having a special committee on public spending.

We must realize that the public accounts committee is not able to carry out this kind of exhaustive review, especially with respect to program overlap, as the Auditor General pointed out. Take our request seriously and stop dismissing it as if this were a very prosperous and efficiently run country that did not need thorough structural change. If it was a private company, it would have gone broke long ago.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, if members on this side of the House do not understand the motion, perhaps members on the other side of the House failed to explain it properly, but it is quite clear when you read it.

The mandate the motion wants to give this new committee happens to be the mandate of the public accounts committee. In fact, the committee can do exactly what the motion requests. If the committee needs more resources, that is an issue the new chairperson, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, will be able to discuss with committee members.

And I am sure that committee members are listening carefully to the proceedings in the House today. I understand perfectly what the hon. member means. There is a need for a thorough review of our present systems for providing information to members and for evaluating our programs. In fact, in line with the mandate of the President of the Treasury Board, new efforts are being made in this respect, and the same minister is responsible for the Privy Council Office.

I am sure the public accounts committee will be delighted with this opportunity to consider its agenda for the coming months. I may add that the committee is the master of its own affairs, decides what it wants to consider and reports to Parliament when it wishes to do so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. She gave us a impressive image of the training within public service, she listed all the services, and let me use her own word, the affordable services she can offer to the population with this new technology.

But the hon. member never said a word about the Bloc's motion proposing the review of an existing committee or the creation of a new one to examine public expenditures. In answer to my colleague's question, the hon. member finally addressed the motion for the first time a while ago but she spoke about everything else but that.

This morning, I took part in a preliminary meeting, the first meeting of the transport committee. Let us look at the committees' expenditures. There are 20 House committees and out of total expenditures of approximately $2 million, about $592,000 are spent on public consultations of experts, friends of the government, et cetera. The committee we want to create would prevent such useless spending.

Are we not, as members of this House, the most suitable and accessible group if committees want to consult anyone? That makes all the difference. As for the public accounts committee, its actual mandate is simply to check on certain elements. It does not analyze thoroughly the Auditor General's report or recommendations. We would only have to determine the exact difference between that committee and the new one which would look especially at expenditures. I would like to know the member's opinion on the motion of the Bloc Quebecois.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to make a comment.

I hope the member opposite recognizes that the motion deals directly with the importance of information, efficiency and effectiveness. The information I provided this House today in my speech deals exactly with those issues. The government is already implementing measures to improve information, efficiency and effectiveness so that the very point of the motion is taken care of and so that we may improve the ability of this House, its members and committees to make better decisions in the best interests of the public, the financial situation and the future of this country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

Mr. Speaker, as you know, as a political Party, the Bloc Quebecois, has committed itself to defend the interests of Quebec and, as the Official Opposition, it has committed itself to responsibly and effectively assume this role.

In this context, I want you to be assured, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to make constant, accurate and regular efforts to see that this government abides by the commitments made in its famous red book.

With regard to this debate on the creation of a special committee with a mandate to evaluate the various programs, I would like to highlight some deficiencies of the Canadian federal system which are at the root of the poor management of this country and of its financial crisis. I refer in particular to the shortcomings of the evaluation process as applied to government programs.

Given the weakness of this mecanism which allows to systematically verify in each department the efficiency and the viability of government programs-the legacy of the Trudeau and the Mulroney eras-the Bloc Quebecois wants to proceed to a detailed evaluation of the government spending programs.

In our view, program evaluation must meet three basic needs of any administration which has self-respect and knows how to efficiently defend itself. First, the information collected through such evaluation measures is used for clarifying the decision making process regarding the allocation of ressources, making it more efficient. Second, these measures help Quebecers and Canadians to decide on the return from tax revenues. Finally, such measures make civil servants responsible not only for the implementation of the procedures, but also for the results achieved.

At present, the Treasury Board policy on evaluation consists of two elements. A self-evaluation made by the departments and a process directed by a central authority which has the mandate to establish priorities, provide technical assistance and monitor the evaluations made by departments. Therefore, evaluations are already being made by some departments but the monitoring part is far from brilliant.

There are two main problems related to program evaluation in Canada. First, the resources allotted to a department to make such evaluations and thus increase the return on public investments are clearly insufficient.

Let me give some examples which speak for themselves. Between 1989-90 and 1991-92, the expenditures related to program evaluations went down 28 per cent which, as a result, has led to a reduction in the number of program evaluations since 1987-88. Indeed, 99 program evaluation reports were produced in 1987-88 compared to only 80 in 1991-92. Most importantly, during the latter period, government expenditures for 16 programs totalled $124.5 billion. Only two of those programs were examined thoroughly. By the way, the Trudeau and Mulroney administrations never gave any special attention to major programs. Evaluations do not focus on programs with the greatest expenditures. It is estimated that programs with expenditures of less than $250 million were evaluated twice as much compared to those spending more than that amount.

I must underline that according to 1991-92 figures, evaluations done on a seven-year period focused on 24 per cent of program spending. If we take into account the cost of debt service, evaluations were on only 18 per cent of expenditures over a seven-year period. Also, starting with 1991-92 figures, evaluations done over that period focused on only 24 per cent of program spending.

A second problem with governmental program evaluation has to do with the quality of controls regarding the evolution of those programs. By placing evaluation services within departments, we have given the immediate needs of managers precedence over those of the government and the public. How? They neglect the basic role of program evaluation which is to ascertain program effectiveness and question them if necessary, for the sole purpose of allowing for optimal allocation of resources.

In fact, the evaluations cover operational aspects only and in no way determine the programs' relevance or cost-effectiveness. The Canadian public service, as well as any Western bureaucracy, is rather self-sufficient and very resistant political interference in its methods of operation. There is no systematic evaluation of programs involving more than one department. The House of Commons could establish a system to that effect as a symbol of the involvement of the population in the political

life of the state of Quebec and of Canada, at least if one believes in democratic representation.

With such a huge deficit and a rather anemic economic recovery, it is essential that the existing resources be allocated and used as efficiently as possible. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that in such a context, program evaluation becomes essential. Without effective program evaluation, the government is just not able to best allocate its resources. In fact, parliamentarians are asked to work in the dark, and to allocate resources without knowing what the situation really is.

The Auditor General said in his report that "In the 1990s, program evaluation should be seen as crucial to the management of government expenditures, because it can help to arrive at informed decisions aimed at controlling growth of the public debt". Therein lies our problem.

By comparison, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States have adopted an external evaluation system for government programs. For example, in the United States all evaluation reports are made public and they are often presented directly to Congress. In addition, Congress can request evaluation reports on programs that it wishes to review. Which means that the legislature has control over the evaluation process.

Again in the United States the general accounting office handles requests for and submits evaluation reports to Congress.

In the United Kingdom managers are responsible for meeting performance objectives, while in Australia, evaluations are used in the budget-making process.

In 1978 the public accounts committee recommended that evaluation results be tabled in the House within 60 days after the evaluations were completed. In 1983-listen to this, Mr. Speaker-only one single study was tabled.

Is this the mark of a conscientious, efficient government administration? Is it not, rather, the trademark of the Liberal Party of Canada? Will the newly announced national infrastructure program, which is being touted as the saviour of the Canadian economy, be subject to an evaluation? Will it be based on effective management criteria? I doubt it. The Auditor General's report has already been forgotten and evaluation criteria will be defined later, or so we are told.

To stop this waste of public funds, the Bloc Quebecois is calling for strong action. It wants the House to press the government to strike a special parliamentary committee made up of all official parties. The committee would have a mandate to review federal government expenditures in light of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, as well as overlap between provincial and federal programs.

The opposition is making this proposal in a spirit of transparency and openness, as it would provide for the public scrutiny of official matters. The committee would have the power to call witnesses if it felt their testimony would be useful.

We are proposing that this committee, which could be called the standing committee on program evaluation, report before June 23, 1994, and that the government undertake to give a formal response to this report by tabling its response to the committee's recommendations on the first sitting day of the 1994 fall session of this House.

The Official Opposition is presenting a constructive proposal aimed at achieving the objectives put forward by the Liberal government in its red book, namely ensuring transparency, restoring the image of politicians and allowing for greater involvement of members of Parliament in the affairs of government and of the House.

This proposal constitutes a formal invitation from the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, to the Liberal government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would have a question for the hon. member. I greatly appreciated his remarks and his idea of setting up another House committee.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Another one.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I think we have all the committees we need. We have the public accounts committee, the chairperson of which will be appointed by the Official Opposition. It could examine all these matters the hon. member raised, matters which are really important to all Canadians. This committee is responsible for dealing with the Report of the Auditor General. I wonder why the hon. member could not start examining that report as well as the programs he mentioned in his speech when this committee is convened.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

Mr. Speaker, in response to this question, considering the long experience of the hon. member, I will say this: we must improve transparency. The Auditor General himself indicated in his report that he had been unable to obtain some information. So, what we are proposing is not "committeeitis" so to speak, but one committee with the power to obtain all the information. That is what our proposal is about. If you want transparency, set up a committee that will have access to all the information.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Dianne Brushett Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member's passion with which he speaks in this debate this morning. He refers to the infrastructure program and is highly critical of the fact that we will not be monitoring and watching it as carefully as we might.

Does the hon. member not have confidence that the municipalities in the province of Quebec can administer these programs and deliver what is best for the citizens of Quebec?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment and question. We have every confidence that the municipalities in the province of Quebec will administer their share of the third of this program.

If, as the hon. member pointed out, there is so much passion in my speech, it is because we are dealing with initiatives that eat up billions of dollars and must be examined against the background of an enormous deficit and the absence of any real audit and evaluation programs. A mere 25 per cent of expenditures have been submitted to program evaluation in seven years. This is an indication that we must act and set up a special committee which will be able to examine all expenditures.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House sit until 1:05 p.m. so that hon. members can ask me questions after my speech.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The House has heard the request of the hon. member for Jonquière. Is there unanimous consent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Official Opposition calls for the creation of a special parliamentary committee with a mandate to examine public expenditures by the federal government. These are the expenditures related to the various programs implemented by departments and Crown corporations with billions of taxpayers' dollars.

It is the responsibility of Parliament to determine whether taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois argued that a review of public spending was urgently needed. The idea of a special parliamentary committee responsible for this task was extremely well received in my constituency. People want to know. They see around them examples of misspent public funds. They read in the newspapers horror stories on public spending.

Like other Canadians and Quebecers, the people in my constituency are aware that the government does not have much leeway in financial matters and they know that we must contemplate drastic cuts in spending.

While taxpayers want the federal government to cut spending, they are opposed to hasty, systematic, arbitrary cuts that may have disastrous consequences, especially for the poorest in our society.

Parliament, being responsible for the public purse, must screen public expenditures. Some are essential, others necessary, many undoubtedly useful, but some are unnecessary in today's context and must be eliminated.

The proposed committee could be responsible for this analysis of expenditures and report to Parliament, who would then be able to set objectives to reduce spending and justify these objectives to the people affected by the cuts.

This is an emergency measure because the situation requires it. The present procedures and control methods have been shown to be ineffective. Those who claim that this duplicates the Public Accounts Committee are mistaken. The mandate of the proposed committee is broader and, given the situation, it is almost a public salvation committee which could force managers to open their books and even go so far as to suggest a restructuring of public spending in Canada.

The mandate of the committee which we propose would be to review all spending related to government programs. The Auditor General's latest report gives us many examples of programs that could be examined.

As an illustration, see what the auditor concluded after examining the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy program, for which the government has spent not less than $900 million since 1989. I am interested in this program because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

This program was run by three departments: Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Employment and Immigration, and Industry, Science and Technology. The overall purpose of the program was to reduce economic disparities between native people and other Canadians and Quebecers, a laudable goal which no one can criticize. The aim was to help native communities become economically self-sufficient. If you know the social and economic situation of native people, you will agree that it is urgent. We must act so that there are no more Davis Inlets in Canada.

Was this highly laudable goal reached? No one can say, according to the Auditor General. The three departments could not show that the funding methods used and the amounts allocated were appropriate. The departments concerned could not prove that they met the goals of the strategy.

In short, after spending $900 million, Parliament does not know if the employment rate and income have increased among native people, if a reasonable number of new businesses were started, if the native people are less dependent on welfare. Nor does Parliament know if native communities are better able to

manage their affairs. In other words, we spent $900 million and we have to say, "Let us hope that it was effective". But in practice we cannot say that it was.

Let us be clear on this. The program may have been a great success, but Parliament, Canadians and Quebecers have no idea that it was. Should we eliminate programs of this kind in the native community? We do not know; we are not in a position to make a decision. Or, on the contrary, should we increase the amounts allocated to reach the goal of economic equality among native people, Canadians and Quebecers? No one knows.

Much more important, were the native people sufficiently involved in the process? No one knows because in the days when Parliament could be satisfied just to send money to the reserves and say that we did what we had to do are long gone. The government announced that native self-government would take effect in the coming months. Thus, we must ensure that the people who will have self-government can look after themselves, by giving them training, experience and programs to help them prepare for it.

A special committee like the one we propose could help Parliament answer all the questions for which I just said we had no answer.

Parliament must be informed, it is only just. Just for the taxpayers whom we represent, and just for the program recipients whom we also represent.

The people for whom these programs were designed do not have to suffer the shame of being accused of illegally receiving the taxpayers' money. We often blame the recipient, the welfare recipient, the unemployed, the health care consumer for abusing the system.

As usual, someone is being made the scapegoat. We see the horrifying practice whereby victims even start feeling guilty. Blaming recipients for spending public funds is easy, whereas the onus is in fact on Parliament and managers to act so that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely.

Those who were in charge of ensuring that public funds were well spent in Canada did not do their job. The result of their carelessness is a catastrophic public debt and stronger biases against government program recipients, for example, health care consumers and welfare recipients and unemployed Canadians.

In closing, I would like to say that, to continue performing their duty, taxpayers must be sure that their money is well spent. They must be convinced that public funds are not being wasted, that cuts will be made where they should be. A committee such as the one proposed must be able to do the proper analysis, thereby allowing Parliament to implement the necessary budget measures, to put the public finances in order and to restore the confidence of Canadians in their representatives.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais Liberal Madawaska—Victoria, NB

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for several hours to the members of the Official Opposition, and I do not understand what is going on. I will explain what I mean and then I would like to get some answers from the hon. member for Jonquière.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes the setting up of a new special committee to address issues which are already being looked at by standing committees of the House. Is this an indication that, even though the existing standing committees of the House have not yet started their work, the members of the Official Opposition do not trust them?

I also want to refer to a motion tabled in the House earlier this week by the Minister of Human Resources Development, which said: "That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development be directed to consult broadly, to analyse, and to make recommendations regarding the modernization and restructuring of Canada's social security system-"

This motion to modernize programs was approved by 216 members, while 52 were against it. Who objected to a comprehensive review of social programs which are just as necessary to Quebecers as they are to the rest of Canada? I look forward to the answers of the hon. member for Jonquière.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will provide two examples of issues which this committee could examine and which are not currently being looked at. There is the matter of overlapping, for instance. As someone involved in the movement for Quebec's sovereignty for more than 20 years, I have seen every day examples of overlapping of federal and provincial services. I have yet to see a comprehensive study, whether by the public accounts committee or another committee of the federal government, on this issue. I have never seen any such study.

There is also another type of issue which this special committee could look at. As you know, Quebec and Ontario have their own police force, while the other provinces rely on the RCMP. To what extent do Ontario and Quebec taxpayers subsidize the police force elsewhere in the country? We would like an answer to that question and to the fact that some expenditures paid by certain segments of the population do not directly benefit them.

Essentially, what we want is not a technical or technocratic committee but, rather, a political committee which, on behalf of the public, would examine government spending and say to a minister that his department spent so many dollars on such and such a program, then ask him to justify that spending. And if the spending is justified we, politicians, will tell the public that it was indeed justified. However, if managers cannot justify some expenditures, we will say, on behalf of the public that this

spending is unjustified and ask that appropriate action be taken so that it is not incurred again by the federal government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It being 1.05 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).

(The House recessed at 1.05 p.m.)

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Chinese New YearStatements By Members

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Anna Terrana Liberal Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Chinese New Year, a time to ensure good fortune for the future.

The year of the dog corresponds to year 4692 of the ancient Chinese lunar calendar which counts back to the first Emperor Huang. The year of the dog will be a prosperous year, provided harmony is maintained and conflict is avoided.

On his deathbed Buddha summoned all animals to visit him. Only 12 animals answered his plea. The dog was the 11th animal to visit, thus becoming one of the 12 animals to which Buddha assigned a year in which to rule as a reward.

My constituency of Vancouver East has a high percentage of people of Chinese origin. These people came as immigrants and have contributed significantly to the growth of this country. Through multiculturalism they have been able to retain their traditions and culture and to share them with all of us.

These days in Vancouver the Chinese community is celebrating in style. I would like to wish all of the Canadians of Chinese origin and all Chinese people a very happy New Year.

I am sure my colleagues want to join me in wishing all of them gung hey fat choy or sen nin fye lock.

Pavillon D'Éducation CommunautaireStatements By Members

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a community organization in my constituency, known as the Pavillon d'éducation communautaire.

The PEC, whose members and users are now present in the gallery, has been in existence for 20 years.

From the very beginning, this organization has focused its action on public education.

Public education is that great instrument by which we teach people that they themselves can bring the changes needed to create a more equitable and compassionate society.

The PEC is the place where several hundreds of my fellow citizens learned about commitment and fulfilment.

I want all volunteers, the board of directors and the management of the PEC to know that their daily efforts and sustained commitment to Hochelaga-Maisonneuve have helped to make their community a dynamic place to live. On behalf of my fellow citizens, I want to tell them today how very grateful we are for their excellent work.

Cigarette TaxesStatements By Members

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to inform hon. members my constituents are furious that the Prime Minister would ignore the pleadings of eight provincial premiers not to reduce taxes on cigarettes and would allow Canadian taxpayers to be held hostage.

The one-half billion dollars lost by this tax reduction could be better spent on health care, education and retraining for the unemployed.

Furthermore, Manitoba residents are totally outraged that the border crossings where smuggling is a problem will now be lit up 24 hours a day. This is sending a clear message to smugglers to avoid those border crossings.

I challenge the 12 Liberal MPs from Manitoba to publicly acknowledge in the House of Commons that they have offered no resistance to this government initiative that puts the health of Manitobans at risk.

Manitobans have made it abundantly clear to me they are prepared to take action to prevent this country from going up in smoke.

Osteoporosis Menopause Education ProjectStatements By Members

February 10th, 1994 / 1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of the launching of a nation-wide osteoporosis menopause education project by the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. The project is organized through a partnership with the private and voluntary sectors and is directed primarily at Canadian women 35 to 55 years of age.

Census data for 1991 show that nearly seven million Canadian women are over 50 years of age. It is estimated that about 25 per cent of post-menopausal women are at risk for osteoporosis fractures. Costs to the health care system in treating these injuries are considerable.

The objective of this initiative is to promote prevention and treatment strategies which will result in a better quality of life for women. It has been designed so as to encourage local grassroots activities. Planned activities will include forums throughout the country on menopause and osteoporosis.

Home Buyers PlanStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have received letters from many of my constituents who work in the real estate and residential construction industry. These constituents have impressed upon me the need for government to extend the home buyers plan which is to expire at the end of this month.

The home buyers plan is a federal program which allows individuals to withdraw funds interest free from their RRSPs to purchase a home. Today over 148,000 Canadians have invested $1.4 billion of their RRSP funds to purchase homes. This program has provided a much needed boost to several industries important to our national economic growth.

While the home buyers plan improves access to home ownership and creates jobs, the best thing of all is that the program does not place a burden on Canadian taxpayers.

The idea of creating this home buyers plan originated in the Liberal caucus over two years ago. It was then adopted by our predecessor-

Home Buyers PlanStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I regret the hon. member's time has expired.