Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member for Essex are shameful. She admitted that there was a flaw in the bill which her party voted for.
The Liberals were asked whether this would increase taxes on U.S. social security recipients. I am sure that before the 1997 election they were asked about it. The deputy prime minister said no, that it would be revenue neutral. He misled those people. The government said it would not increase taxes and it did. She asked where we were in 1986. We were right here believing the government when it told us there would not be a tax increase, just as her constituents were.
Why are we opposing this measure today? Precisely because the hon. member for Essex and the other members from Windsor will not represent their constituents. I have a file full of letters from her constituents, letters to the papers in her riding, opposing this bill and this tax grab.
Let me get one thing perfectly clear. The member suggests that we are somehow trying to raise taxes on the lowest income people and trying to drag out debate on this issue to prevent them from getting their cheques. Let me say to her what I said to the hon. member for Durham. We will agree to vote for this bill and pass it right now if the government would agree to our amendment, which we will be proposing, which would treat all social security recipients equally in what they receive in terms of the inclusion rate in the United States.
The proposal we made in the election was to take the bottom one million taxpayers off the tax rolls altogether.
Why will the member not allow those cheques which are now being withheld to be sent out to the low income people while at the same time reduce the inclusion rate to what it was in 1995?
Does she deny that Bill C-10 will increase federal revenues?
Why is it falling on me to represent her constituents? Shame on her. Shame on the government.