Debates of Feb. 13th, 1998

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before the hon. member for Quebec responds I remind members to address each other through the Chair.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are going to confuse him. He cannot look at two people at the same time.

I fully agree that the taxation system must be reviewed, but there must also be a sensitivity toward the working poor, those whose earnings keep them below the poverty level. What the Bloc Quebecois is calling for is a review of the taxation system. We are, therefore, most anxious to see the Minister of Finance bring down his budget, so that we can implement real solutions to the problems people are facing, the least advantaged of our society in particular.

Job creation is the real solution to poverty, full time and well paying work. We know, for instance, that earning the minimum wage will not get a person above the poverty line. That is where the problem lies. Often people do have jobs, but these do not pay enough to provide them with a certain quality of life. The Liberal government should review its taxation system, not overtax low wage earners, and tie its taxation system to the cost of living.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member for Quebec's comments. She talked about many things.

I want to remind the member and members of this House that when it was time to get our house in order, when it was time to make sure we could get the deficit down to zero, and hopefully we will see that soon, measures were taken. For example, we introduced a new tax treatment of child support.

[An hon. member]

Thirty-eight tax raises.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I did not interrupt you when you were speaking.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Quebec.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since it has been in power, the Liberal Party has done nothing but add to the poverty in Canada, and the figures prove it.

When we refer to band-aid solutions, we are thinking for example of the Liberals' promise of $1.7 billion for children. The Liberals have got off to a slow start on this. They tell us that, this spring, they are going to put $850 million in, but there is already a deficit because there was a promise of $250 million relating to the child tax credit.

This is far lower than the amount required; at this time, the amount they would need to invest in the child tax credit is $1.2 billion.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Qu'Appelle which states:

That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy where a gap between the superrich and ordinary Canadian families is widening, risking the future of our youth, and strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new prosperity.

Of course the timing of the resolution is very good when in a few days, February 24, the Minister of Finance will table the first budget in nearly 25 years, 16 of which the Liberal Party held power, in which the country's debt will not increase. That is a very compelling statement, that the Liberals have been in power 16 years of the last 25.

The Progressive Conservative Party is urging this government to take immediate action to address a number of social and economic factors now facing Canadians. We are asking the government to reverse the pattern of governing by reactionary measures, crisis management and economic tinkering that has become the norm for this government.

It has been said before but I think it is worth repeating that Liberal governments do not plan to fail, they just fail to plan.

This year's budget will be another example of what has become a Liberal tradition, no doubt. They will promise the voters the world and then not too long after we will see flip-flop after flip-flop after the positive media coverage has ended.

Examples of Liberal flip-flops include scrapping the GST. Now the Liberals claim that tax. The Prime Minister now claims the GST was his tax and is his tax. They flip-flopped on renegotiating the NAFTA treaty. They are now so keen on NAFTA that they want to expand and increase trade throughout the world. Of course we all remember the flip-flop of scrapping the Pearson airport redevelopment project. Most recently, Canadians have been reminded about the flip-flop the Prime Minister has done on writing a cheque for zero helicopters.

We all remember the Prime Minister saying how he was going to write zero to helicopters, zero helicopters. We know now the bill for Canadians. We know now how big the cheque Canadians must write is for zero helicopters.

Meanwhile Canadians have the highest personal income taxes among the G-7 nations. Canadians have actually become poorer while the Liberals have been in office. Disposable income among Canadians has decline by 1.3% since 1993 when this Liberal government came to power.

By the way, I have another interesting statistic. The average American is now 25% richer than the average Canadian. The average American manufacturing worker is paid $1 more than his or her Canadian counterpart. These are interesting facts and these things have taken place since 1993.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are preparing to announce the details of the new millennium scholarship fund next Tuesday afternoon, I am told. We are going to get details from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance next Tuesday afternoon on the new millennium scholarship fund. Of course the government is hoping that this program will initiate the formation of the Prime Minister's legacy as the education Prime Minister.

In reality it is another Liberal gimmick. They have inadequately addressed a major social and economic issue but have given the appearance that action has been taken. They will not address the real issue here.

The expected $3 billion scholarship fund represents just a small portion of what the Liberal government has cut from the cash portion of CHST payments to the provinces. The Liberals have cut $17.3 billion from the cash portion of the CHST over the past five years. Now they are going to invest $3 billion back into the system for a scholarship fund and they expect Canadians to congratulate them. I am one who will not be congratulating the government on its reinvestment. I am sure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be congratulating it either. They have watched the Minister of Finance cut our cash portion of the CHST from $419 million in 1993 down to $275 million in 1998.

The students in Newfoundland and Labrador have felt these cuts as well. A recent study by the maritime provinces higher education commission found the effects of the cuts to be devastating on Atlantic students. In 1993 there were eight students in the Atlantic region with a student debtload of $30,000. Today, thanks to the Liberal cutbacks which have forced universities to raise tuition fees and driven education costs higher, there are 904 students with a debtload greater than $30,000. This administration should be proud of that, especially the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. What a statistic of failure.

The millennium scholarship fund as currently proposed will not solve the structural problem of student debt levels that are too high. It will do nothing for students already in the Canada student loans system who are carrying huge debtloads. So let us hope the Minister of Finance has some options and answers in his budget that will come down on the 24th.

We should forget about making the millennium scholarship wholly contingent on marks and performance. Eligibility for part of the scholarship should be based on financial need. No one can argue that excellence is great but with the debt situation facing Canadian students today, access is better.

Canada continues to have a youth unemployment rate of 15.9%. The Liberal policy to maintain high payroll taxes and high income taxes runs counter to the most basic of free market logic. By reducing EI premiums to offset the CPP tax hike and lowering income taxes, this government could spur job creation. Our party has called on the government to increase the basic income tax credit from $6,459 to $10,000 a year. This would allow lower income families to have more disposable income which they could spend as they saw fit.

If the Minister of Finance is so worried about poor children and poor families he need look no further than his own tax system for the answer. As the gentleman behind me said, if you tax people less, they won't be so poor. That is something this Minister of Finance, this Prime Minister and this Liberal government have somehow forgotten.

To further strengthen the economic situation of Canadians, the Liberal government should re-evaluate its plan to overhaul the seniors benefit program, an issue that will soon be a very hot topic throughout this country. The Liberals' current proposal is to abolish old age security, the pension income tax credit, the age credit and the guaranteed income supplement and replace them all with the new seniors benefit.

This benefit will have a 20% clawback on incomes above $26,000. When combined with the existing marginal tax rates, this will result in a marginal tax rate of between 60% and 70% for middle income seniors. This will destroy any incentive to save for retirement and seriously discourage seniors from working even part time after retirement.

A senior remaining in the labour force past 65 years of age could be working for as little as 30 cents on the dollar. That is what the new seniors benefit will do.

Very few seniors have any knowledge of these changes and what impact they will have. Before long it will become perfectly clear what the impact will be. I expect there will be tremendous pressure on the government to shelve the new seniors benefit package.

The major initiatives we have talked about, tax relief, protection of seniors benefits and student debt relief, will certainly foster economic growth and give the economic tools to all Canadians to prosper in the 21st century.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If a number of members wish to ask questions and comments, I ask them to stand so that the Chair will have some idea of the number of members who want to rise on questions and comments.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member from Newfoundland on his very progressive speech. I want to ask him a question about tax reform and trying to decrease the inequalities.

Back in October the revenue critic for the Reform Party said in the House that he thought millionaires were overtaxed, specifically that Conrad Black was overtaxed.

Does he agree with his cousins in the Reform Party that millionaires are overtaxed, that Conrad Black pays too much in taxes? Does he agree with his cousins in the Reform Party that they are overtaxed?

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for his question but I have to correct him.

I am not that familiar with millionaires and the amount of tax they pay. I must correct him on referring to members to my immediate left as cousins. I assure him that I cannot speak for all the Conservative caucus but I can certainly speak for one. They are not cousins of mine.

I do not believe millionaires are too heavily taxed. If there is anyone who can afford to pay more taxes it is millionaires. As I said, coming from the province I come from and particularly representing the riding of Burin—St. George's, which is devastated right now because of the downturn and collapse of our ground fishery, I do not have that worry about the taxes the millionaires of Burin—St. George's have to pay.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member opposite in the Conservative Party speak earlier. I understand the Mulroney years is something they want to put behind them.

I want to relate my questions directly to two points. Does the member opposite agree or disagree that when his party was in office it raised unemployment four times and that since this government has been in office it has been reduced three times?

In addition, if I remember correctly, in the fall of 1993 the member opposite's party was forecasting the deficit to be around $30 million and it really came in at $42 million. Does he agree that really happened and that over the four years we have been able to take that deficit close to zero and hopefully soon to zero?

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. member that the Mulroney government was not perfect. However, I have to remind him that neither is the present Liberal government close to perfect.

A Liberal member reminded me the other day how bad the Conservative government was. I said “Yes, in Canadians' wildest dreams they probably did not think they would see a government worse, but I am sorry to say they are seeing one right now sitting in the Chamber”.

As I said initially in the first paragraph of my speech, for 25 years the Liberals have been in power for 16 of the 25. For the first time the budget will not see an increase in the country's debt.

I look the hon. member straight in the face and say to him that he should say thank you for the Mulroney initiatives, the PC initiatives of GST and NAFTA. Without them this finance minister would not be bringing in the budget on February 24 that he will bring in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sure hon. members would thank each other through the Chair.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make. It really makes me sad to see two political parties blame each other, considering the current impact of poverty. I feel a little uncomfortable to have to address, here in this House, an issue as serious as poverty.

We hear about the negative impact of the deficit and the debt. Let me tell the House about the negative impact of poverty. We should ask ourselves some tough questions, considering that one Canadian child in five goes to school on an empty stomach. These children cannot do well in school, because they are hungry, and yet this in one of the richest countries in the world. There is a delayed impact, since these young people are not able to go to school and get a solid education. I wonder what kind of society we will have 20 years from now.

My time is up, but I will get back to this issue.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick response for the Bloc member. We are all very concerned about poverty. It is a big problem in the country, particularly for children from poor families.

I have just one comment to make. If his party gets its way, I do not think it will do much to resolve the poverty situation. My prediction is that it will be much worse in his province than in other areas of the country.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I too commend the hon. member for Burin—St. George's on his speech. I know he is not a cousin of the Reform Party. I come from the island of Cape Breton and he comes from the island of Newfoundland. I suppose we could refer to ourselves almost as cousins. I should also indicate that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Churchill.

I say to the last speaker that those of us on the east coast, in Newfoundland, in Cape Breton, in New Brunswick and on Prince Edward Island understand perhaps too clearly the growing disparities in the country. That is part of the reason we brought forward the motion we have today. I am proud to speak to the motion on behalf of my party.

The upcoming budget presents an opportunity for the government to address the very real economic challenge of how to stop the disparity, the growing inequality between the super rich whose incomes have increased and other Canadians.

I am not only saying the poor, although we know the poorest of the poor continue their decline in income and in services. Today we are seeing that even the middle class is shrinking. We are seeing the middle class, young families and young single people working at part time jobs and trying to make ends meet. We see young people who are at a point in their lives when they should be leaving home, getting apartments and setting up their own independence, and they cannot afford to do it. They are staying at home with their parents who are seeing their own incomes shrink and their costs increase.

What is happening is clearly the rich is getting richer and the vast majority of Canadians is getting poorer. I am pleased to speak to this motion which states:

That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy where the gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian families is widening, risking the future of our youth, strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new prosperity.

The premier of Nova Scotia who called an election yesterday sometimes refers to members of our party as the doom and gloom people in his election rhetoric. We are talking about the new prosperity in the country.

We live in a prosperous country. We live in a country that is the envy in many ways of the world. That is why it is so inexcusable to have this growing gap between the rich and the poor. If the country were not as wealthy as it is, we could perhaps say our hands are tied and there is not much we can do. However, we live in a country with tremendous resources.

The Canada I grew up in was one that guaranteed quality universal health care. It was one that guaranteed quality affordable education to everyone. Had it not been for that, I am not sure many of us could be in the House today. Many of us are the products of those very good social programs.

It provided every citizen with an opportunity to earn a decent living, which is what Canadians want. Most Canadians are happy to have a good job and a good paycheque. They are not seeking to be millionaires. They are seeking to provide for their families, to be able to send their children to university, and to ensure that what we give to the next generation is at least as good as what was given to us.

My parents' generation grew up in a country where they could make a good and decent living. Each generation gave to the next hope and prosperity. That prosperity and that hope are no longer shared by all Canadians.

The hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned some statistics. I will briefly refer to them because they are compelling statistics in this country of plenty. Today in Canada over half a million children live in poverty. The number of food banks in Canada has tripled and the proportion of the population relying on them has doubled.

I remember the first food bank in my community. It was a small little church hall called Loaves & Fishes. It was supposed to be a temporary measure to get us through a recession of a couple of years. It began as churches were concerned about what they saw then, the growing number of poor. They were ahead of their time. The growing number of poor has increased to the point now where in this country of plenty food banks are institutionalized.

The hon. member indicated that our caucus met with representatives of the food banks. It is shocking to me that we now need a national organization representing people who run food banks. It is reminiscent of the dirty thirties.

In Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, where I come from, unemployment continues to be double the national average. This widening gap between the rich and the poor not only separates the population into classes. It is beginning to divide the country along regional lines. I indicated that those of us in Newfoundland and the east do not share in the prosperity of this new Canada which the government proclaims. In my community that has meant a decrease in the population of young people. In the last five years over 2,700 young people have left my community and will not come back.

What does that mean for the growing gap between the rich and the poor? It means that we have an older population and we do not have that youth and vitality creating new business, entering the workforce, purchasing, and creating jobs. This is because of policies of the government that encourage a migrant workforce. Young people would hop the train in Cape Breton if we still had it, but we do not any more. They rely on their thumb to get to somewhere else in the country where they might get a minimum wage job.

The Reform Party talks about Alberta and how it has done some wonderful things following a policy of lower taxes and supporting the very wealthy. Many of the young people who leave my island end up in Calgary in a minimum wage job without a bed to sleep in, if it were not for shelters, because they cannot afford the housing costs.

There are answers. One of them would be to change the GST the government adopted. The premier of Nova Scotia came to the government in November, although he supported the GST when he was on the Liberal benches. He asked the Minister of Finance to take it off heating oil and electricity. He failed in his request. That is one measure where we could have some progressive taxation policies by the government.

In terms of education, the comments from the member for Burin—St. George's echo the fact that more and more Atlantic Canadian students are simply not going to university. When the government says that education is a great leveller it is not happening for many students in the country.

For the young people of this nation, I ask for support of our motion.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of our motion.

The cuts that helped balance the budget have been harmful to Canadians and will have longstanding negative effects. We have seen the deconstruction of much of our social system in the fight against the deficit. Billions of dollars were withdrawn from the social envelope before and after the introduction of the Canada health and social transfer in 1995.

Equally serious was the loss of the Canada assistance plan. The war on the deficit was won largely on the backs of social programs. As a result, low and even middle income Canadians have borne the brunt of continued cuts to federal transfers.

By offloading part of its responsibility for social expenditures on to the provinces, for example, forcing unemployed Canadians to turn to welfare, the government might have spent less but poverty problems remain the same.

The government by its drastic cuts is ahead of schedule in its quest to balance the budget. It has cut too deep, yet still not deep enough for the Reform Party.

Reform has in its ongoing fanatical statements called New Democrats communists because we believe that government should reinvest in social programs, called New Democrats communists, why? Because we want a caring, just society.

I quote from the Saturday Star : “Canadian church leaders have launched a prebudget letter writing campaign to urge the finance minister to live up to his word and make Canada a caring society. The letters plead with the minister to use the expected tax dividend from a budget surplus to combat poverty. The needy are now being marginalized and even abandoned by callous provincial governments such as Ontario's which are obsessed with pushing through big income tax breaks for high income Canadians”.

The Ottawa Citizen states: “Canadian religious leaders have launched an unprecedented challenge to the finance minister to live up to his own promise and make Canada a caring society. For the first time ever the Canadian Council of Churches, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Reform Council of Judaism are together urging the Liberal government to launch a campaign against poverty in its February budget”.

I wonder if these church leaders know that the Reform Party considers them communists.

Let me quote the Caledon Institute of Social Policy: “Ottawa now has a wonderful opportunity to reinvest and rebuild not the social system of the past but the better and new system of the future, geared to the economy and society facing us in the next century. It is time to reinvest in making Canada a better place to live for all Canadians in a fair chance for all Canadian children, in healthier, safer communities and in reducing the growing inequality that threatens to turn our country into two nations, the invidious two nations of affluent and poor. It is time to reinvest the peace dividend from the war against the deficit and build the social base of our country”.

My colleagues from the NDP and I share this belief that it is time to reinvest in social programs. The coming budget should introduce measures to ensure every Canadian the opportunity to share in a new prosperity through renewed investment in health care, education and other vital programs.

The gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian families is widening. Since 1989 that gap has grown. Average family incomes have fallen by roughly 5%. The number of poor children grew by 47%. The number of Canadians filing for personal bankruptcy has tripled.

When I was in my early teens I read an article in which Mother Teresa was being interviewed. The journalist asked Mother Teresa what she would do about poverty. Her response was that government should look after poverty and she would look after the poor. Mother Teresa will always be with us through her efforts in spirit and there will be those who continue to look after the poor, but this government appears to have given up on the war on poverty.

Young Canadians do not have much to look forward to. Youth unemployment is high at 16.5% last month. That is a lot of young persons whose first experience in the job market is no job. The reward for young graduates of university or college is not a decent job. It is a debt of $25,000 to $30,000. Affordability should be a national standard for education. Young people deserve the opportunity to learn, to develop skills, to build a future. We cannot afford to risk their future or ours by wasting their talents or by creating more financial barriers to education.

Youth unemployment deeply affects my riding in Manitoba. The average age of the aboriginal population is 10 years younger than the general population.

We welcome the government's statement of reconciliation, but this is only the first step. Young people in my riding and elsewhere in Canada deserve a better future. We are hoping that with the coming budget we will see concrete actions to improve the lives of young Canadians.

It is unacceptable that most aboriginal people are at or below the poverty line. In major western cities four times as many aboriginals as other citizens are below the poverty line. Unemployment does not only affect young people. It affected 8.9% of Canadians last month. But the official unemployment rate is just the tip of the iceberg of Canada's job crisis. Hundreds and thousands of Canadians have simply given up looking for work. When people give up looking, they are no longer included in the workforce. As far as Statistics Canada is concerned, they disappear from the labour market.

It is ironic that with so many unemployed people in Canada, the lucky ones who have jobs are working overtime. Statistics Canada published a document entitled “Hours of Work”. It documents the extent of total overtime work including unpaid overtime.

In any given week in the first three months of 1997, almost one in five, 18.6% of employees, worked overtime defined as time worked in excess of scheduled hours. On average, these workers put in almost nine additional hours, the equivalent of more than an extra day per week. The worst in this is that more overtime was unpaid than was paid. In any given week, 10.7% of employees worked unpaid overtime while 8.4% worked paid overtime and how interesting to find out that the unpaid overtime is particularly prevalent in the public services.

Another sad trend in the job market is multiple job holdings. A lot of Canadians need to work more than one job to afford the necessities of life. Five per cent of our labour force holds more than one job. A labour force survey shows that multiple job holders average more than 46 hours per week, this while the CEOs of some companies are bringing home enormous pay raises while their employees are struggling to make ends meet.

The richer are getting richer and ordinary Canadians are getting poorer. This is the Liberal legacy into the new millennium. There is no question that history should show the reign of the Liberals as the decline of a just and caring society.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from the NDP. Canadians know that maintaining a strong economy and providing opportunities is really critical for social success and for the success of so many of the issues she brought to the fore.

She did give us a whole list of grievances and things that are wrong in Canadian society and in the economy, but she did not give us any suggestions as to how we can deal with those issues.

It is so very easy to give us a long list of what is wrong or what she thinks is wrong. I wonder if she could tell us what is the NPD's position in the whole series of things that would help the economy, like NDP policy on trade promotion, NDP policy on access for small business enterprises, technology partnerships. Can she tell us the NDP's suggestions to the government as to what we can do to ensure that we give the economy the kind of energy it needs in order to respond to the whole list of issues she has outlined?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the NDP has ever shirked from coming up with an alternative approach. Number one in our position has always been that the tax system in Canada is unfair. We do not believe we need to totally tax the horribly rich and everybody else does not want to pay their fair share.

Canadians want to pay their fair share for education, for health, for transportation, for social programs. What they do not want to pay for are things like an unfair tax system when one of Canada's supposedly finest, an Order of Canada recipient, transferred to relatives or turned over his assets into cash. The process involved more than just houses, cottages, mortgages, small commercial investments and condominium lots. Eagleson has also been selling furniture for many years. He collected valuable antiques for his office, depreciating them by 20% each year and then, when they were no longer deemed worth anything on paper, moving them into his homes. The Eaglesons furnished their Rosedale houses from 1976 to 1997. They have owned three pieces of English Gregorian mahogany furniture which were described by one of the experts as being high quality for Toronto.

What we are asking for is a fair system. All Canadians should pay fairly.

In Thompson recently the new tax changes on a $1,500 bursary—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

On questions and comments, the hon. member for Elk Island and, if there is time, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there probably will be time because I intend to be brief.

First I would like to set the record straight for me and, I am sure, on behalf of my party. I can put some distance between me and the name calling which the hon. member claimed. It is false and I disagree with her.

I have many good friends who have an NDP philosophy. We have many good discussions. In fact some of them have more respect for me than I deserve. That is wonderful.

One of them said he voted for me because he thought I was worthy of the vote. I was very honoured by that. There were many NDP people in my riding who voted for Reform because they believed that our way of dealing compassionately with people in need is the better long term solution, and that is to give people personal integrity, more ability to help themselves and to help others by having smaller government and reducing taxes.

I challenge the member to try to put rhetoric aside and answer this question. It is a very serious question. The fact is when we have so much debt we are really taking all the taxpayers' money and one-third of the money that we take from them we transfer to the rich, namely the banks, the investment houses and so on, in terms of the interest payments on the amount we owe.

Surely she, as an NDP member, must be opposed to that transfer to the rich. I would like her response to that question.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the hon. member has just stated my point. The tax system has traditionally been unfair. It allows the very wealthy, through numerous loopholes, to not pay their fair share. As a result the rest of us ordinary Canadians are going to work and, without any grudge whatsoever, are willing to pay for education and health care. We are giving our dollars to the government and we expect it to deal with our dollars fairly.

That does not mean we want to give up education, health care and social programs. It means that we want this government to be held accountable. It does not mean we do not want those programs.

How on earth would Reform expect a country to survive if nobody but nobody paid for anything whatsoever to help each other?

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed there was a bit of a contrast between the previous two speakers. One member of the NDP talked about prosperity and how Canada is an enviable country, and then we heard the doom and gloom.

I want to ask the member a question on a specific item. I do not want her to go all over the place with her answer.

I am not clear on her comments with respect to overtime. Is it her position that there should be no overtime?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the parliamentary secretary is on debate.