Debates of Feb. 2nd, 1998

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997

[Some hon. members]

Shame, shame.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My friends across the way say shame, and so they should.

On the weekend I was walking up a street in Kamloops when a fellow ran out of a little Chinese restaurant and said “Mr. Riis, come and have a tea with my friend and I” I said I would be glad to. We went in and poured out some Chinese tea; it was just after Chinese new year.

He said “I want you to explain why the government has done what it has to me”. I said “What is that?” He told me his name was Russell and his friend's name was Gary. They were probably in their mid-forties. They had both lost their families through divorce and their kids were living with their mothers. They were living on their own and were both on disability pensions of some kind. They were former drivers of Greyhound buses before it was changed. They had lost their jobs, were on disability pensions and were both living on just under $800 a month.

They asked “How can a family live on $800 a month?” How could they as individuals live on $800 a month? They said “When you get back to Ottawa ask the Minister of Finance that question”. Rhetorically I am asking the Minister of Finance to explain to Canadians who are left with $800 a month to live on how he would recommend they do that.

It is impossible to live a life of dignity with an income of $800 a month. It is impossible to provide adequately for oneself or one's family on $800 month. Yet that is what these two individuals, as an example of tens of thousands of others, are forced to do these days.

When Reform Party members say that transfer payments should be cut back even more I wonder what planet these folks are living on. Do they actually mean we should be cutting more transfers to provincial governments for health care, education and social programs? Perhaps my friends will answer that later today.

Do they actually think we should cut more to the Medical Research Council? Basically 85% of the requests for funding for pure research are now simply rejected. Of the few funded, the funding accounts for less than 75% of the funds required to do the job.

What is happening is that we have a brain drain. Some of our best scientists in the medical field feel they have to go elsewhere if they want to continue their careers as scientists and researchers. This is pure science that will lead inevitably not only to better health and health opportunities for Canadians but to jobs in Canada. Pure science inevitably leads then to further research and development that results in jobs being created, businesses being struck and so on.

The government has drastically cut that area back and members of the Reform Party are saying that it should be cut even more. This scalpel knife approach to trying to do something for the people of Canada has to come to an end.

Then Reformers talk about needing more tax cuts. I listened carefully to what my friends in the Reform Party suggested. They said that people who made money by capital gains should get a better deal and should not be taxed as much on their capital gains. I guess they are really saying that we should tax working people but if someone makes money in the stock market or speculates on real estate they should get a tax break. It is an interesting view but I certainly do not share it.

If we are to give a tax break to Canadians, which I feel is overdue, let us give a tax break that will benefit everybody and not just the people who receive incomes from capital gains. For example, let us cut back on the GST. It was introduced because we had a deficit problem. Now that we do not have a deficit problem, presumably, we should start cutting back on the GST, which would put money into the pockets of Canadians the next day. If Canadians had extra money in their pockets they would go out and spend that money, which at the same time would assist the local neighbourhood economy, increase economic development and create jobs.

If we are to have a tax cut, let us have a tax cut that will actually result in some action as opposed to assisting people who speculate on the stock market or in land.

Today when we go into a bookstore the most popular books we see are those advising us on how to avoid paying taxes. Canadians know that our tax system is corrupt. It is blatantly unfair. It is unjust. It is biased. Some people do not pay any tax and other people pay more than they should. Big corporations are not paying what they should and small businesses are paying more than they should.

Let us get back to building integrity into our tax system rather than having 464 pages of legislation dealing with tax tinkering. Will that restore confidence in our tax system? No, it will not. It will make it more convoluted, more complex and more biased.

We have to reform our tax system. We have to sit down and look at every tax exemption on the books and ask one fundamental question: Is it in the best interests of Canada? Most tax exemptions and loopholes will not be viewed as beneficial to Canadians generally and therefore should be scrapped. Those which make sense should be kept.

Let us get away from simply tinkering year after year with a word, deleting a word or adding a phrase to an already complicated system. It is so complex it is beyond comprehension.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the issue we are now facing as a country is the fiscal dividend, the potential of a surplus. The PC Party takes great pride in this moment that our country has reached. The structural changes which were made in the Canadian economy by the Conservative government in the early 1990s have allowed Canada to seize the opportunity as we are poised to move into the 21st century of a fiscal surplus.

These structural changes included the deregulation of the financial services industry, deregulation of the transportation industry, free trade and the GST. Members opposite fought vociferously against free trade and the GST. They have now become free traders. The prime minister now claims to have invented the GST, which has enabled the government to reduce the deficit.

The Liberal Party now wants free trade with everybody. It will sign a deal one day with Chile and the next with Israel. However it is still reluctant to remove interprovincial trade barriers which continue to burden the Canadian economy. It denies the domestic economy the comparative advantage of free trade.

If we are to seize this opportunity Canadians need tax cuts now. They do not need tinkering. An hon. member referred to Bill C-28 as tinkering. That is a reasonable description of the bill.

If we are talking about a vehicle to get an individual from place to place, for instance a car, to a certain extent legislation offers that type of potential to a country. We have a very old car. The Canadian economy needs too much tinkering. Perhaps we need a new vehicle. I propose that vehicle would be the policies being brought forward by the PC Party.

Instead of fixing the Canadian tax code on an ad hoc basis, looking at individual issues and dealing with individual sectors, we should be looking at it from a holistic perspective. We need proposals to bring forward new and innovative tax policy and tax reduction for all Canadians. That will enable them to participate in the same economic growth enjoyed south of the border for some time. Canadians have had to deal with a 6% reduction in their standard of living over the past several years.

High taxes kill jobs. Our high debt to GDP ratio continues to hinder the Canadian economy and the ability of Canadians to participate in the global environment. We need to pay our debt and we need to reduce taxes now if we are to move forward into the 21st century.

In our background work we found the pervasive philosophy of Liberal government was obvious in Bill C-28. It is a philosophy of government by knee-jerk reaction, crisis management and economic tinkering. This is a government that does not plan to fail but it is clearly a government that fails to plan.

Look at the CHST issue. The same Liberals who cut indiscriminately after 1993 now propose to spend indiscriminately. I heard the analogy of the Reform Party as a party of surgeons with scalpels. I would use the same analogy potentially to describe the Liberal Party. The Liberals cut and the cuts they made after 1993 did not merely remove tumours. They cut bone and sinew. It was not fat that they cut. They cut bone and sinew in the health care and education systems at a time when we are in a global environment as we enter the 21st century, when our young people need all the advantages to compete internationally.

In a knowledge based economy our government has cut and has reduced its commitment to higher education to the extent that post-secondary students are now faced with an average debt of $25,000 after a four year program. Twenty years ago a student who graduated from high school would have about the same opportunities in the workforce as a student who now graduates from a four year university program. Twenty years ago that student did not have a $25,000 debt upon entering the workforce.

There is Liberal non-strategy in implementing some of the changes that were introduced first in budgets of 1994 and 1997. The country waits in anticipation to see what is going to happen in the 1998 budget. We are starting to get around to making the 1997 and the 1994 budgets law through this bill. One of the Liberal promises of 1993 from its brochure “Restoring Parliamentary Democracy” was to reduce the implementation time of tax policy changes promised in budgets.

This is another example of what has become a Liberal tradition, promise the voters one thing during an election and then flip-flop once elected. This tradition has been evident since 1974 when the Liberals flip-flopped on wage and price control. More recent examples would be their flip-flop in 1981 on the gas tax, and nobody has forgotten their promises to scrap the GST, to renegotiate the NAFTA treaty, to scrap the Pearson airport redevelopment, and of course they wrote a cheque for zero helicopters.

It is unfortunate that I was not surprised to find another example of a Liberal broken promise in this bill. As Tories we bear the heavy yoke of honest policy. Liberals are indeed fortunate to be able to glide through this parliamentary world and to operate without such political impedimenta.

With the notable exception of bank tax exemption, most of the tax measures introduced in this bill are either revenue neutral or simply give targeted tax relief to specific groups. Keep in mind that targeted tax relief simply serves to complicate the Canadian tax code.

I served as an associate member of the finance committee that listened to Canadians who came forward to express their views on the economy and what we should do now that we have a fiscal surplus. I did not hear one Canadian say that our tax code needs to be made more complex. Many Canadians came forth, especially small business people, the area I come from. They said that our tax code is much too complex. Yet this government's answer to economic policy is to come forward with measures like Bill C-28 that will complicate the tax code.

We should not be surprised that our finance minister/leadership candidate has targeted the banks as the only tax increase in the bill. Canadians should expect more boldfaced opportunism in the months to come as Merger Martin becomes Populist Paul.

For all intents and purposes, the capital's tax surplus on banks which is extended in this bill has become a permanent tax. Now, in Bill C-28, the minister continues to tinker with the economy and punish one sector over another.

If we look at the four targeted education tax measures, the first one talks about the education tax credit. Students will now be able to claim a tax credit of $150 per month in 1997, $200 per month this year up from $100 per month in 1996.

Again this is a stop-gap, band-aid approach to a huge problem. We are talking $100 here in a situation where students are graduating with $25,000 worth of debt. I would be curious to know what type of student debt the friends of the pages in this House are going to have to endure when they graduate or if indeed they are going to be faced with this egregious level of burden as they enter the workforce.

It is not fair to young Canadians and it is not fair to all Canadians who need a competitive group of young Canadians going forward and capitalizing on the global economy.

Again, when this government talks about education reform, it is talking about these types of stop-gap adjustments to the RESP, the changes in the allowable deductions for students. It is a cobbled-up approach and it is not acceptable.

National leadership is required at all levels to ensure that young Canadians receive the best education in the world, such that they are able to compete and get the best jobs in the world right here in Canada.

The Minister of Finance has now begun talking about education. We all wait with bated breath for budget night to see what will actually be done relative to education. We expect more rhetoric. We do not really expect a lot of action.

The fact is we cannot deal with this situation effectively. We cannot deal with education as an individual issue unless we are willing to deal with tax relief. What good is it to provide an excellent education to our young people who, upon graduation, are forced by better paying jobs and a lower tax burden to go to the U.S.?

The student demonstrations last week typify the drastic situation that exists among students in this country. Once these students graduate and once our brightest and best have left Canada and have gone elsewhere where they will be paying less in taxes and essentially making more money, that is when we see that the financial inaction of this government to address the pressing issues of the Canadian economy are sapping the lifeblood out of the future of this country.

I went through Bill C-28. I felt that some of the changes deserve far less hoopla than I heard from the member opposite today. We are dealing with a situation where we have youth unemployment rates of over 17% in Canada, realistically significantly higher.

Highly educated and motivated Canadians are being forced to leave this country. The recent report from Industry Canada, keeping up with the Jones, describes this trend and the issue that is before Canadians now.

When a highly skilled American labourer earns $10,000 a year more than his or her Canadian counterpart, clearly Canadian wage earners deserve to make as much as their counterparts south of the border. The answer is not in terms of how much they make but what they take home. The fact is that the government is taking far too much from them and providing far too little in services going back to them.

We need bold action from the Minister of Finance to reverse this exodus. The Liberal policy of maintaining high payroll taxes well in excess of what they need to be continues to punish Canadian workers and deny Canadian entrepreneurs the ability to hire more workers. The fact is international payroll taxes have been demonstrated unequivocally as being deterrents to job creation.

Further to this bill, I look at all these selected groups that are targeted with specific tax reductions and the further complexity of the Canadian tax code. I think of the state of the union address last week in the U.S. under President Clinton and Trent Lott's response. The U.S. tax code is actually far simpler than our tax code. There is a ground swell of support in the U.S. for changes to the tax code such that people do not have to hire a lawyer or an accountant to deal with their own governments. In Canada the situation is more dire. Here we cannot basically deal with our own government without professional representation. This is clearly wrong.

We are in an environment where disposable income has dropped by almost 6% since 1990. The minister speaks of lower interest rates and other positive economic indicators. However, this minister has about as much to do with the low interest rate situation we find ourselves in in Canada as he does with the fact that the sun rose this morning. To take credit for structural changes that occurred in the early 1990s under this government is indicative of the lack of depth these individuals have about economic issues.

Canada's GDP slipped by .3% in November. This was its third slip this year. Meanwhile the U.S. GDP has risen by 4% in the last quarter.

Some people may be asking what is the U.S. doing that we are not doing in Canada. That is not the right question. The question that should be asked is what is it not doing. Americans are not taxing their people to death in the U.S. They are not creating barriers to employment with a tax policy that is archaic. The cumulative effect of all this negative tax policy is an increasing gap in the standard of living between Canadians and Americans.

The film industry is dealt with in this bill. Coming from Nova Scotia where we have a fledgling and growing film industry, I am pleased to see that there are some positive incentives for investment in the film industry. I do however maintain that the best tax policy to benefit all sectors is one that puts more money in the pockets of Canadians and allows them to make their own decisions as to where they invest and where they invest in the future of Canada. It may be in the film industry or in another area but the fact is this government, by taking from Canadians through general taxes and income taxes and then providing these loopholes is further complicating the issue.

This government has cut the CHST by 35% since 1993. At the same time, it reduced program spending by only around 13%. Now it is making great hay about establishing a cash floor of $12.5 billion. In fact, it introduced it in Nova Scotia during the election. Nova Scotians are a fairly shrewd bunch of people. When they looked at this they recognized that it was another shell game or magic show of smoke and mirrors from the Liberal Party and did not buy into it. On election day they flushed the Liberal MPs out like the tide running out of the Minas Basin. That exodus was certainly not a brain drain.

Bill C-28 proposes that the cash floor be raised to $12.5 billion. This simply means that the cuts are going to stop. The Liberals are going to stop offloading the fiscal responsibility from Canada off to the provinces. This formula continues to move toward a per capita calculation. Nobody has touched on this yet but there are seven provinces that will receive less money year after year due to these changes. These seven provinces, including Nova Scotia, will lose a further $384 million by the year 2002 due to these changes.

Our platform called for a provincial cash floor level which would truly establish long term stability for social investment in Canada instead of the Liberal plan which pits the interest of some provinces against those of another. We need a plan that ensures equity for all Canadians. This plan for the CHST is clearly not that plan.

The initial round of cuts has already had a dramatic effect on my own riding of Kings—Hants. Three major hospitals have either closed or have drastically reduced services, including closures at the East Kings memorial hospital, the West Kings memorial hospital and the reduction to 32 beds in my home community hospital, the Hants community hospital.

When one considers the impact on health care in provinces like Nova Scotia, we do not have the tax base at the local level to pick up the slack when these types of draconian cuts are made by a federal government.

The impact on the future of young Nova Scotians and on the elderly population of Nova Scotia who need a quality health care system is it has created irrevocable damage. The Minister of Finance would like Canadians to believe as he said in a press release recently that the government is about choices, priorities and values. Our choice is clear.

Health care should be a priority for this government. We do not need to hear more rhetoric about this. We need to stop the rhetoric and start stabilizing health care funding and not with a CHST with a national floor. We need provincially based floors to ensure that all Canadians are treated equitably through the CHST funding.

We need to invest in medical sciences, research and development. We need to explore new health care alternatives and vehicles such as palliative care for Canadians.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the federal government must play a leadership role in redefining the role of government and not simply the size of government that is discussed by the Reform Party. We need to redefine the role of government. We need to evaluate what investments and roles are appropriate for government. What is government doing now that it should not be doing? What is it not doing that perhaps it should be? How can we best unburden Canadians to allow them to make the decisions that can propel them successfully into the 21st century.

We need the government and the Liberal Party to become more visionary, to innovatively lead Canadians toward a brighter and more productive future. What we do not need is more legislation like Bill C-28 which creates a stop-gap, one-off approach to fiscal policy which clearly does not serve the long interests of Canadians.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions that perhaps the hon. member might address.

We experienced in the province of Ontario the results of a Tory promised tax cut in 1995 when Mr. Harris was elected based on a 30% cut in provincial income tax. Mr. Harris and some of his colleagues would say that they have had to reduce spending in health care, education and a few other areas due to reductions in the federal transfers.

Our question would be, and it is quite obvious, would it not be more appropriate to say that the decisions made by the Harris government in Ontario clearly are a result of its need to live up to its promise to give a 30% tax cut? Would the member not agree that giving an across the board percentage tax cut simply benefits those people earning higher incomes dramatically more than the people who actually need help? Now that the tax cut is at about 22.5% in the province of Ontario and some folks, notably those wealthier Ontarians, are looking forward to the last 7.5% coming down in the next cut, people are wondering if they made the right decision in Ontario.

Teachers would certainly question whether or not that government's commitment to funding education is appropriate given the tax cut. Doctors, nurses, municipal leaders, municipal taxpayers who are seeing downloading, clearly many people in Ontario are saying “I think we made a mistake by buying into this simple so-called percentage tax cut”.

That is the hon. member's party, the Conservative Party's position, that a 10% cut across the board will somehow magically restore an ability to fund the research grants the member talks about, to put more money back into health care, to somehow mysteriously put more money back into education. We on this side of the House know that the Conservative Party's strategy is to dangle some kind of a percentage tax cut so people might think in the end it will put more money in their pockets when in fact it will take money out of their pockets and take services away from the people who need them.

I wonder if the member might have a response to those comments.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for what I assume must have been his maiden speech because he certainly went on for a long time and said very little. We talk about debt to GDP ratio, but if we were to talk about substance to rhetoric ratios, he would certainly have a very low ratio in that case.

He speaks about the provincial situation in Ontario, about tax cuts in Ontario, about what he feels are clearly the fault of the provincial government and about the impact of Ontario policy on people in Ontario. What about the impact of federal government cuts across the board? What about the 35% decrease in CHST since 1993 and its impact on provinces like Nova Scotia? This is the same government.

He talks about cuts to health care. Three hospitals were virtually closed in my riding because of this federal government, a government of which he was a member. It is absolutely unconscionable for him to speak about what a provincial government is doing when they have not addressed the issue, when he was part of the party that made draconian cuts in transfers to the provinces, when they allowed the type of health care destruction that occurred in provinces across Canada.

The hon. member should realize that leadership is one thing that cannot be off loaded to the provinces. That is exactly what has been done. He cannot pass the buck in this House to what has been done in the provincial house in Queen's Park. The burden lies with the hon. member and with the members of his caucus who have allowed this to occur, who have allowed these cuts to occur and who have allowed ordinary Canadians to be hurt by these cuts. The fact is that with tax relief ordinary Canadians can make decisions for themselves that will be far better than the decisions made by the members opposite.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points of clarification for the hon. member.

The member said that this government had no impact on interest rates. When the member's party was in office and we had a $42 billion deficit, a climbing debt and all the rest of it, interest rates were way up. The fact that we have our fiscal house in order is the reason interest rates are on a downward track and not on an upward track. But I know it takes some convincing since they do not quite understand the concept.

They talk about the tinkering in this bill. If I recall correctly that was the party that talked about eliminating the cash component of the CHST and going with tax points. They talked about eliminating the role of the federal government with respect to transfers. They said that the federal government has no role in transfers to the provinces.

We put the cash floor in place to ensure there is a federal presence in the transfers to the provinces, to ensure that we can enforce the Canada Health Act. Those are Canadian priorities which is something that party is completely out of sync with.

He talked about a by province floor. I point to the fact that when we talk about transfers to provinces we have to talk about total entitlements. Total entitlements are made up of a cash component and a tax point component. Total entitlements to the provinces are increasing because of the changes that are going on that this government has made. It will continue to increase so that provinces can continue to provide for their own constituents.

I am at odds to understand where this member is coming from.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary in his duties should take some time to read a little of what the international economists are saying about the Canadian economy. It is not simply what

The Economist said a few months ago. They quote selectively from what some publications say. If they read the 1998 preview of The Economist

, it said that the current fiscal situation in Canada is largely due to the structural changes made by a Conservative government in the early 1990s.

That was free trade, the GST and deregulation of the financial services and transportation industries. I and other Canadians know where his party stood on those issues. They were opposed to free trade. They were opposed to the GST. Now they say they invented it.

It takes years for sound economic policy to have an impact. It takes a visionary government to implement this type of policy. Unfortunately sometimes the next government can take advantage of that sound policy. That is exactly what has happened. The Conservatives made the tough decisions. They made the visionary changes and the Liberals have taken advantage of it.

We will continue on this side of the House to bring forward innovative policy, much to the chagrin of members opposite. In four years we will have the opportunity implement it.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend's response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. The question I would put to my hon. friend is, was it the Conservative government which actually introduced cuts to the transfer payments which had they continued as planned would have meant that eventually there would be no cash transfers to the provinces for health care?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of transfers to the provinces and the transition to tax points was addressed in our recent platform. The fact that decisions should be made at the provincial level and that the provinces should have the ability to chart their own course on some of these issues as long as national standards are met is very clear. There have to be national standards but the provinces should have control over the funding.

What we tried to establish in the platform is that the CHST level needs to be established at a provincial and not a national floor level because many provinces will continue to be bludgeoned by the changes in Bill C-28.

In fact, they are talking about establishing a cash floor in my province of Nova Scotia. We are well below the floor. We are down in the basement. We are subterranean because of the cuts. Nova Scotia and other have not provinces have been bludgeoned by this type of change. It should be reversed now and this bill does not reverse it.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, it is 2 o'clock and we are ready for Statements by Members. I am well aware that the hon. member for Mississauga West is going to be the next speaker. He will be recognized after question period.

Ice Storm

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a time like this when I am especially proud of being a Canadian from Hamilton, Ontario. In the aftermath of the worst ice storm in history, Hamiltonians did not hesitate to offer speedy assistance to those in need.

Today I recognize the important contribution of Hamilton radio station CHML and manager Don Luzzi, hometown radio at its best. I salute CHML Talkline host Roy Green for leading the offensive in sensitizing Hamiltonians to the severity of the disaster and for requesting and co-ordinating donations toward the relief effort.

With the help and generosity of Fluke Transport president Ron Foxcroft, these necessities were loaded into five tractor trailers and dispatched to the hard hit areas of eastern Ontario.

The people of eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes will not soon forget the caring and generosity of the federal government, the Canadian Armed Forces and in particular the young men and women from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders from Hamilton, Hamilton hydro workers and Hamiltonians who helped their fellow Canadians get their lives back together after the ice storm of 1998.

Justice

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the householders which I send to my constituents in Surrey Central include a survey of the political issues of the day. My constituents take this opportunity to share their views with me. Quite often I receive detailed opinions on the Liberal government's mismanagement and lack of accountability.

One of my constituents said that all Members of Parliament should be spending more time and energy on issues that are of importance to their constituencies, such as crime, safety, health, education, tax relief and the deplorable justice system. In fact the most unified response shows that we should be getting tougher with criminals. They tell me that violent criminals aged 14 to 15 should be tried in adult court. Reform the parole system so that violent offenders serve their full sentence.

The Liberals are not listening to grassroots Canadians and the government's agenda does not respond to what Canadians want. Why will the Liberals not focus on the issues that concern our constituents?

Ice Storm

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were many heroes during the ice storm of 1998. Our Canadian military and the hydro crews were simply unbelievable in their dedication and professionalism. But perhaps the real heroes were ordinary Canadians like Nancy Webb and Lucy Lecuyer of Petawawa. These women took charge and initiated a relief effort that benefited not only Renfrew County but also municipalities throughout eastern Ontario and western Quebec. This valiant pair worked non stop for over six days co-ordinating the relief effort. They were ably assisted by Colonel Kevin McLeod of CFB Petawawa.

As the Member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I say to Nancy Webb, Lucy Lecuyer and all volunteers thank you for caring and thank you for being there when you were needed.

Example is an eloquent orator. These acts of kindness speak volumes about our Canadian spirit.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec will long remember the start of 1998 when they poured all their energies into battling this terrible freezing rain storm. Everyone gave everything they could to help the disaster victims.

I would like to congratulate and to thank all the people of Quebec warmly for their solidarity and community spirit in such difficult circumstances.

However, there can only be criticism for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who kept people in a state of total confusion over their entitlement to employment insurance. Many were outraged to discover that they were not entitled to any compensation from the plan to which they had so long contributed.

I strongly urge this government to keep its promise to not further penalize those workers victimized by this terrible storm, who have already suffered enough as a result of it.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to thank all of the residents of my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for their courage, generosity, patience, good humour and, in particular, their true commitment to our community during the 1998 ice storm.

I am truly proud to represent NDG—Lachine. I would also like to personally thank the mayors of Lachine, St-Pierre, Montreal West and City Councillor Michael Applebaum, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, hydro workers, our magnificent Canadian Armed Forces, the NDG Community Council, Ville St-Pierre's Club Optimist and the many wonderful municipal and volunteer workers who tirelessly worked throughout the storm to ensure that each and every resident of NDG—Lachine was kept warm, fed and safe.

Finally, let me publicly thank the Chinese community of Vancouver and Mr. Hansom Lau for raising $18,000 and GE Canada for its $50,000 donation to the Red Cross relief fund.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to recognize those who responded to the January ice storm, people who assured the safety of the storm's victims with compassionate and caring hearts.

As member of Parliament for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington and as chair of the eastern Ontario caucus, I want to recognize the community volunteers, firefighters, snowmobile club members and others who responded quickly and efficiently. They ensured that roads were cleared, isolated residents were visited and those who wished to go to shelters were assisted. Others such as municipal employees worked well beyond the call of duty to implement emergency response actions.

The women and men of the military have earned special recognition for their efforts right across the storm area. I also want to acknowledge the hydro and phone workers who risked their lives to restore service.

Many Canadians in eastern Ontario and Quebec have moved past the crisis. Unfortunately others remain without hydro today.

Please join me in saying thank you to the volunteers and workers who have given so much and especially to those who continue to meet the challenges in the wake of the storm.

Olympic Winter Games

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr Speaker, on behalf of all Members of Parliament and each of my constituents I would like to be the first to extend my best wishes to all Canadian athletes arriving in Nagano, Japan this week.

Each of these athletes embodies all that is good about Canada. It is with great pride that we will watch the largest contingent of Canadian winter Olympians compete in this, the last winter games of this century. I take particular pride in the athletes from Wild Rose and wish them the best of luck in their individual sports.

The winter Olympics epitomize the Canadian ideal that glory is found not solely in winning but in the journey of sacrifice and hard work that characterizes the athlete's life. Although the majority of Canadians will experience the Olympics only from their living rooms, we want our athletes to know that the nation is behind them every step of the way.

We know you will not fail us as Canadian ambassadors abroad and as role models to our youth. Good luck to one and all. You have already made us proud.

Ice Storm

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a representative of one of the areas hit hard by the recent ice storm, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts of emergency services personnel, the firefighters who in Leeds—Grenville are largely volunteer, police, hospital staff, the Brockville Rifles, the local coast guard, municipal personnel and politicians, service clubs, local church congregations, CFJR radio station, local businesses, industries and government agencies, as well as countless volunteers and their families throughout Leeds—Grenville.

Although it is true we went without electricity, we were not however without power, the power of generosity, kindness, compassion, honesty, courage and community spirit. In Leeds—Grenville people pulled together to minimize the tragedies associated with this disaster.

If I seem to be holding my head a little higher it is because I have the tremendous honour of representing these people and their values in the 36th Parliament of Canada.

Fiftieth Anniversary Of The Fleur De Lys

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, January 21 marked the anniversary of the adoption by the Quebec Legislative Assembly of the Fleur de Lys as the official flag of Quebec.

In 1946, independent member René Chaloult tabled a motion in the Legislative Assembly calling for a flag “symbolizing the aspirations of the people of this province”. Finally, on January 20, 1948, at 3 p.m., as the Legislative Assembly met, Premier Maurice Duplessis announced that the Fleur de Lys now flew over the National Assembly.

Twenty years ago, René Lévesque made a statement on this matter which is as timely today as it was then: “As the settlers of New France, we had to become a specific and homogeneous people. As citizens of Quebec, all that remains for us to do, in order to imbue history with its full weight of reality and hope, is to become the true nation our flag already proclaims us to be”.

Ice Storm

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, several thousand people remain without power in the aftermath of the recent ice storm. It may be too soon yet to have a full assessment of the emergency measures, but it is not too soon for us to draw attention to the extraordinary assistance that has come from virtually everywhere in Canada, and from elsewhere.

In Brome—Missisquoi, Paul-René Gilbert and his group from Magog distributed firewood to the people of Sainte-Sabine, Farnham and surrounding areas. Our colleague from the Ontario riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant sent two generators from Stelco Steel to the municipality of Frelighsburg for their emergency shelter and their waterworks. This was only one of a multitude of examples all over Canada, but we will have an opportunity to say more about this later on.

I will conclude with a glowing commendation to all of the mayors and municipal authorities of Brome—Missisquoi and elsewhere in Quebec for their devotion and professionalism in implementing emergency measures.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to publicly thank our military on behalf of the official opposition.

During the recent ice storm which devastated eastern Ontario and Quebec Canadian troops played a crucial role in repairing the damage and ensuring the health and safety of Canadians. Our soldiers enthusiastically assisted with whatever needed to be done, whether it was helping hydro crews to restore power, protecting powerless neighbourhoods from looting or transporting the sick to medical facilities.

The vital role played by our military yet again during another natural disaster brought the attention of Canadians to the importance of our armed forces. It is unfortunate however that we do not often enough acknowledge the hard work and vital contribution our regular forces and reserves make each day to our national security.

While it is good for us to recognize the important work that our troops did to help deal with this natural disaster, I thank the men and women of our forces every day for working so hard and risking so much to make me, my family and my country safe and secure.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of my riding of Brossard—La Prairie have also been especially hard hit by the ice storm.

I want to pay a heartfelt tribute to the mayors of our municipalities and their staff: Paul Leduc in Brossard, Guy Dupré in La Prairie, André Côté in Candiac and Lise Martin in Saint-Philippe. Their relentless efforts and dedication have been absolutely outstanding. The constant, comforting smiles of volunteers, young and old, was an inspiration to me.

Many of my colleagues and their staff have spontaneously and selflessly offered their support. This show of solidarity was greatly appreciated.

That is to say nothing of the great job done by the military, the RCMP, the provincial and municipal police, Hydro-Québec workers, scouts, the Red Cross, firefighters, and the list goes on. On behalf of the people of our region, I thank them all.

I sure am glad not to have to select the volunteer of the year in Canada.

Bank Merger

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed bank merger points to a revealing similarity between the Liberals and the Reform Party.

The Reform Party says that the merger would be okay as long as the American banks are given a larger role in the Canadian economy. This is precisely what the Liberals have already provided for by signing, days before merger talks began, the financial services agreement at the World Trade Organization.

Indeed the Minister of Finance's outrage about the merger is just so much play acting. Does the minister really expect us to believe that his departmental advice was so bad that he did not anticipate that mergers might be part of the banks' response to the agreement that he signed?

Canadians do not have to choose between the fraudulent outrage of the Liberals and the spectacle of the Reform Party's arms opened wide to the embrace of American banks.

The NDP stands for a world in which banks are answerable to the well-being of all rather than being further freed up to serve their own selfish interests. Let us make Canadian banks behave as good corporate citizens and let American banks stay at tome.

One is reminded of the drug patent issue: much Liberal outrage and then its members hide behind an agreement that they themselves signed.

Ice Storm

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ice storm '98 will not soon be forgotten in my riding of Nepean—Carleton. Many in rural areas such as Osgoode, Rideau and Goulbourn townships were without power for between a week and two and a half weeks. Amidst the devastation of our hydro infrastructure, there was physical hardship, emotional stress and significant economic loss.

How did people respond? During the ice storm I saw strength, resilience, resourcefulness, generosity and even humour. People rose to the challenge and performed magnificently.

I offer my heartfelt thanks to the volunteers who staffed the shelters, the hydro crews, police, municipal and regional leaders and staff as well as the soldiers of the Canadian forces. Thank God for the army was a phrase I heard in every part of my riding. Our troops were greeted like an army of liberation.

With life back to normal, it is my sincere hope that the spirit of co-operation and neighbourliness that marked our experience during the ice storm continues. The communities in Nepean—Carleton were strong before the power went off. We are even stronger now.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like part of Quebec and eastern Ontario, the riding of Shefford has just experienced the effects of the worst ice storm in our history. The extent of the damage is such that we still cannot estimate how long it will take us to recover from this natural disaster.

It has given rise to an incredible community spirit we can all be proud of.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the federal, provincial and municipal governments, and particularly the help provided by the Canadian army, the Red Cross, Hydro-Québec and the many volunteers who spared neither time nor effort to provide assistance to the disaster victims.

I also want to thank all those who rallied to support and comfort us in spite of bad weather and distance, particularly the members for Madawaska—Restigouche and Tobique—Mactaquac and their constituents.

The effects of this storm will continue to be felt for months to come, and it is our duty to take a serious look at positive and efficient ways to alleviate the burden of those affected by the ice storm.

Solidarity in the face of adversity, combined with innovative solutions, gives us hope that life will soon be back to normal and that our economy will recover quickly.