Debates of April 2nd, 1998

Foreign Affairs And International Trade

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the government's response to the report of the Subcommittee on Sustainable Human Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled “Ending Child Labour Exploitation: A Canadian Agenda for Action on Global Challenges”.

On behalf of the government, in particular the Minister of International Co-operation and the Minister of Labour, I would like to express my appreciation for the work the standing committee has put into producing such a detailed report and into ensuring that abolition of the exploitation of child labour remains a priority for us all.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport on Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Ivan Grose, Liberal, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The report is in relation to the Public Accounts of Canada, 1996-97. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all of the opposition parties, the Reform, the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, have unanimously agreed to present a dissenting opinion to this report.

The fact that all four opposition parties agreed to this dissenting opinion says a lot about the difference of opinion on this issue existing between the opposition and government members of the committee. We are all concerned with the government's failure to follow what are standard accounting procedures. We also feel that the government should take every step possible to avoid receiving another qualified opinion from Parliament's watchdog, the auditor general, on its latest budget.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present the second report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. This is a unanimous report by all committee members. It is a tribute to the excellent job done by MPs from all parties, as well as the clerk of the committee, Mr. William Farrell and the research branch of the Library of Parliament in the person of Mr. Alan Nixon. I wish to table this report in both official languages.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 11, 1998 your committee has considered Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Your committee has agreed to report it with amendments. In doing so I would like to thank witnesses who appeared before the committee, my colleagues on the committee and of course our clerical and research staff who were very helpful.

Petitions

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of my constituents in and around the Athabasca area. These petitions are two more in a series of petitions presented by myself and other members asking the House to reconsider the provocation defence in the Criminal Code. The petitioners believe that the provocation defence unjustly changes the focus of the criminal trial from the behaviour of the accused and his or her intention to murder, to the behaviour of the victim. Certainly I concur with the petitioners.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this Chamber as the humble servant of the constituents of Edmonton East. I am pleased to discharge my duties today by presenting to this House a petition which is signed by over 700 persons.

The petitioners ask for a very prudent review of the mandate of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to discourage the propagation of pornography and to encourage the broadcasting of ecclesiastical programming that supports morality and wholesome family lifestyles.

The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions from the citizens of Quesnel in the constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin.

The first petition has 50 signatures. The petitioners request that parliament impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians can have an opportunity to express their opinions on it.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second two petitions are also from the citizens of Quesnel. There are 50 signatures on each petition. The petitioners request that parliament deny the right of any board or group to remove or confiscate natural herbal supplements until public hearings are held across the country.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if question No. 73 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McLelland)]

Agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed. .[Text]

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

With respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Works program: ( a ) what projects have been approved under this program since June 2, 1997; ( b ) what was the location of each approved project; and ( c ) what was the financial contribution made by the Government of Canada for each approved project?

Return tabled.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker (Mr. McLelland)]

Agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments Act and certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again to the bill before us today, Bill C-28.

There are a number of things wrong with this bill. There are the measures that supposedly demonstrate the government's concern with respect to social programs and the deterioration of health care, which it brought about itself by cutting provincial transfer payments in the health, social services and education sectors over the last three years.

This bill is an attempt to make us think the government has invested in social programs, especially health. The reality is that the government has put no new money into transfers, particularly not for health. The $48 billion in unilateral cuts announced have now dropped to $42 billion. We are told that the government is investing the $6 billion difference, but in reality no new money is being invested; the government is cutting $6 billion less.

We are told that health is a priority. We feel it is arrogant of the government to try to persuade the public that it is investing heavily in social programs.

As things stand now, the provinces have been cut so many times by the federal government, particularly in the health sector, that they are running out of steam and are having a great deal of trouble maintaining the existing level of health care and keeping the whole system from falling apart. And the federal government remains indifferent to what the provinces are going through.

Worse yet, on top of cutting transfers to the provinces, the government is set to interfere in health, which is a provincial jurisdiction. We are told that, instead of rushing into restructuring, the government is investing; it is investing, however, by cutting less than originally forecast and dropping a little money into new programs that really fall under provincial jurisdiction.

The government wants to enhance its visibility by giving everyone the impression that it is good to the people; it comes up with programs like medicare and home care, when such programs already exist in several provinces, including Quebec.

Once again, after vowing to avoid duplication and overlap, the federal government projects an image of itself as saviour while it interferes in jurisdictions that are none of its business.

Management of health, social programs, education and social assistance comes under provincial jurisdiction. Normally, the government should transfer their share back to the provinces instead of interfering in an area that is not under its jurisdiction.

The government does not seem to realize that no one has waited for it to take action. What the provinces need today is not more talks but the financial means to implement solutions designed to meet their needs.

In this respect, I would like to quote from the Quebec finance minister's last budget speech, which sums up well the mess the federal government has left the provinces, and Quebec in particular:

Since we took power in 1994, the federal government has unilaterally deprived us of $7 billion for health care, $3 billion for education, and $1 billion for asocial assistance. This adds up to $11 billion. The figure does not include the $2 billion that Ottawa has refused to pay for the harmonization of the QST and the GST, although the three Atlantic Provinces were granted $1 billion.

Were it not for these depredations, we would already have achieved a zero deficit and avoided many of the painful, sweeping spending cutbacks that some observers are trying to ascribe to our wishes alone. The health and education departments are not located in Ottawa, but it is there and without our input that the cutbacks have in the main been decided. That is how absurd the system has become... The latest budget confirms the federal government's complete insensitivity to a number of our needs, notably in the health sector. Ottawa prefers to distribute cheques to the population, emblazoned with the maple leaf. Lacking vision, Ottawa is investing in visibility.

That is what we have to live with in Quebec and how we view the situation.

I would also like to share another concern regarding Bill C-28. There is an apparent conflict of interest. Through Bill C-28, the Minister of Finance is trying to have legislation passed that is likely to give his shipping company, Canada Steamship Lines Inc., of which he is the sole owner, certain tax advantages.

Clause 241 of Bill C-28 would amend section 250 of the Income Tax Act. In this 464-page omnibus bill, clause 241 is only two paragraphs long and deals exclusively with international shipping; moreover, the Minister of Finance himself is the bill's sponsor.

How can the Minister of Finance sponsor a bill which includes tax provisions that could benefit his own company, while continuing to suggest that these measures will not apply to him and to his shipping holding company? There is indeed an apparent conflict of interest and, given the importance of the minister's position and the integrity he must show while managing the country's finances, there should not be any suspicions whatsoever about him. However, with Bill C-28, his personal name as a shipowner and that of his holding are directly linked to the legislation.

Even though the minister is defending himself by saying that his company has been held in a blind trust since he assumed his current position, he will not be a minister all his life and he will eventually benefit from that tax amendment.

The very first day that we questioned the Minister of Finance about this issue, he advised us to talk to Len Farber, director general of tax legislation at the Department of Finance. We did meet Mr. Farber, but he could neither confirm nor deny whether the minister might benefit from these changes, thus raising serious doubts in our minds.

Our next step was to table five motions before the Standing Committee on Finance, asking that various witnesses appear to shed light on the issue. The only witness authorized to appear before the committee was Mr. Wilson, the government's ethics counsellor, who is paid by the government and who is accountable only to the government. Nevertheless, Mr. Wilson's appearance before the committee strengthened our position, since he himself put the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in an embarrassing position.

After candidly admitting that he was not an expert on international taxation and that he could not adequately answer a number of our questions, Mr. Wilson also recognized that, indeed, there could be an apparent conflict of interest in this case, adding that had he been informed at the very beginning of the details relating to clause 241 and its impact, things would have been done differently.

He recognized, as we do, that there were serious problems with the way the finance minister was doing things and that the code of ethics the government had adopted in 1994 was not observed. Indeed, the code of ethics clearly states that public office holders must, as soon as they take up their duties, take necessary steps to avoid real, potential or apparent conflict of interest. Obviously, the code of ethics was not adhered to and the finance minister is at fault.

After the Liberal majority on the finance committee refused to agree to our request, the four opposition parties called a press conference to demand that the Prime Minister order a special committee to be struck to shed light on clause 241 of Bill C-28. As yet our request has remained unanswered.

The government's ethic counsellor, who answers to the Prime Minister, claims it is irrelevant to know whether or not CSL, owned by the finance minister, may benefit from provisions in Bill C-28. If so, why did Mr. Wilson get in touch with CSL management, the very first day this became an issue, and ask if it was making use or was planning to make use of these provisions?

Moreover, Mr. Wilson admitted he was no financial planning expert. And yet he seems to accept without questioning or seeking an outside second opinion CSL's statement that it does not intend to make use of Bill C-28's provisions.

For weeks now the government has been denying the finance minister is at the very least in an apparent conflict of interest because he is not the one who was in charge of the shipping provisions.

However, the ethics counsellor contradicted the government when he admitted that the finance minister's sponsoring of Bill C-28 gave the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Mr. Wilson stated in this regard that procedural problems within the finance department had put the finance minister in an awkward situation, and that things would have been done differently had he been contacted, as he should have been, before Bill C-28 was introduced.

Since the ethics counsellor admits the finance minister is in an apparent conflict of interest, how should the June 1994 federal government code of ethics apply in this particular case?

Mr. Wilson also suggests that the finance minister was not aware of the contents of Bill C-28 before the Bloc Quebecois raised these issues in the House a few weeks ago. On the one hand, can the minister responsible for the Income Tax Act so easily avoid his responsibilities toward a bill that he is sponsoring and, on the other hand, what must the people be thinking about a finance minister who does not know the contents of his own bills? Is ministerial accountability not a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system?

In conclusion, there are many issues and these issues are serious enough that we should take the time to address them. So long as the government continues to ignore the requests of all opposition parties regarding Bill C-28, we will continue to put pressure in all possible and imaginable ways until finally, in the interest of transparency, someone answers our questions.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to talk about Bill C-28. I think this bill addresses several issues that are very important for Canadians today, and I believe it is important to discuss them.

It deals with taxes, health care, education, social services and social assistance. We have to say that this is a rather complicated bill, and this is probably intentional, to ensure that all kinds of things will go unnoticed, as my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois pointed out. There are certainly some questionable clauses in this bill.

I believe that it is very important that Canadians understand that this bill is extremely complicated, but in another way it is also quite simple. The bottom line is that we in this country still have problems with health care, education and employment, and nothing in this bill will solve these problems. It is important to talk about these issues.

On the flight to Ottawa this week, I was sitting beside a lady from the Fredericton area and I asked her where she was going. She was coming here to Ottawa for an eye operation. The waiting period in Halifax was 15 months, but she could have this operation right away in Ottawa.

I ask myself the question: What is the difference from one province to another in terms of waiting lists? I know that, in the Atlantic provinces, there are very serious problems with hospital services, as well as with health care in senior homes such as the Villa Providence in Shediac. Seniors certainly do not have the services they need in these institutions.

They are short-staffed. Their employees are totally exhausted. As in many other seniors home, several staff members are on extended sick leave because they are exhausted. There is just so much a person can do between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Too much is being asked of these workers and our relatives in these places are suffering because of it. It is important that this be pointed out.

We are told that money is being reinvested in health care, but that is not true. Transfers were cut drastically and people have to be reminded of that. That is the truth. The only thing the government did was not cut the $1.5 billion they had said they would cut. That is the only thing they did.

We are getting even less money than we did previously and there is nothing in this bill to reassure the people who have to wait four or five hours before they can see a doctor or the children who have to wait hours before someone can take care of their broken limbs. These are not imaginary problems; they are real and we keep hearing about them every day. We often hear about people who have to wait or even pay to get a cyst removed, etc.

On the television program This Hour Has 22 Minutes , there was a very good sketch where they said that if you are diagnosed with cancer, you will get your $100 back. That is so sad. How many people will not get their first $100 back and will still get cancer? Why? Because we have a government that took the word care out of health care.

I am also saddened to hear the opposition parties say that the United States have a better health system than we do. We should be careful with this kind of statement, because people in the United States do not have medicare. Health care is for people with money only. This should be taken into consideration when comparing health care in both countries.

Even if I do find fault with our present system, we still have a system which NDP members are striving to preserve because it is important and it should remain as a national system so that the same standard of health care should be available to all Canadians. The ability to pay should not be a consideration as far as health care is concerned. A patient who may have cancer should not have to pay for surgery.

It is about time we take a hard look at where we are headed in this country, because we are in a sad situation. Many people cannot get an appointment because doctors are overworked. We have the same situation in hospitals. The number of beds is down, but people still get sick. And the less health care we have, the sicker they will get, and the more beds and the more nurses we will need.

In the Moncton area, right now, 300 nurses work only part time. This is a problem. We should be realistic about this situation. First of all, people deserve a little bit of security. Bill C-28 does not deal with these issues. We have 730,000 people on welfare, and the government is telling us it has put in the system $1.5 billion more. It has not. It has simply cancelled cuts that were supposed to be made. This is the important thing to remember. The government has been cutting right and left for a long time.

We have seen in the last few weeks that if we have 730,000 people on welfare, it is largely because of the cuts in employment insurance. In high unemployment areas, we should be aware that there are no jobs, and that whatever jobs there are are part time jobs at $5.50 an hour.

I meet women who have worked for 25 years in fish processing plants and who earn $5.75 an hour. That is sad. How many of us could live on just $5.75 an hour? Not many, I think. And yet this is what we expect the poor in Canada to live on.

The places where there are paying jobs, like the employment centre in Bouctouche, where at least three or four full time employees were earning $13 or $14 an hour, they close. These are jobs our children might have had eventually. They are also services that are no longer available to the public. Now people come to my office because they no longer have access to the employment centre. Members of Parliament who want to look after their constituents are the ones who have to deal with these cases and settle the problems. That is what we see.

It is sad to see them continually closing down businesses in a region where the unemployment rate this winter was 50% and where jobs are replaced by seasonal employment, which pays $5.50 or $6.25 an hour. And the provincial maximum is $6.25.

These people cannot live on $5.50 an hour anymore than I can. I cannot expect them to either. This is the sort of thing we have to deal with.

It is no different in education. There is a problem here, too. Sure, our young people can borrow. I have visits from young people who are $40,000 in debt. They have been out of university for two years and they are still looking for work. They move. They leave. As I was saying the other day, half of the people in Calgary are from New Brunswick. It is sad, but that is what is happening.

So we have to look carefully at just what bills like C-28 have to offer. It is not very useful indeed. It may be beneficial to some Liberal members, but it does nothing for those who suffer, for the sick, for the growing number of children who live in poverty because of the cuts made by the Liberals and the Conservatives before them—sometimes we have a tendency to put all the blame on the Liberals, but the party that was in power before them did not do anything good either. It certainly made its share of cuts.

Social assistance is a serious problem in our region. Sometimes we do not want to talk about it, but in our part of the country, it is a reality. Those who do not have jobs live on welfare. Sometimes, when they are not eligible for welfare, they tell us they want to kill themselves.

There is money in this country. Lots of money. It is not true that there is no money. The problem is that governments have decided they will no longer help the poor in our country.

The statistics are clear: the poor are poorer than ever and the rich are richer than ever. And the middle class is paying for both. The middle class is beginning to disappear. I think the rich were sick and tired of seeing middle class people sitting next to them in the same restaurants. It was becoming a problem, a threat.

The middle class and the small and medium size business sector are constantly under attack. The ACOA, for instance, will lose one third of its funding. The government is cutting social programs in Atlantic Canada and it is also taking away the only agency that can help small and medium size businesses. We are beginning to wonder. Will the government totally abandon Atlantic Canada?

A couple of us were elected and we will see to it that Atlantic Canada is not abandoned. There is no job creation, and that is the main problem in our country. If the government did its job and made sure that Canadians had decent jobs with decent salaries, we would not have the problems we are experiencing today.

People are being replaced by machines, well-paying jobs are being destroyed, and then we wonder why there is a high level of unemployment. Do you want to see what high unemployment is? Come live in the Atlantic provinces, or in any rural area in the country. Then you will see what high unemployment is all about.

It is not true that the figure is 9% for Kent county, for Albert county, for Cap-Pelé or Port Elgin. I am sure it is the same in many places throughout the country, in all provinces. We will have to start by going to see how things are in the regions and then doing some long term planning. That is what I would like to see in this House, a government that says “OK. We will have to go to the rural regions to find our why there is such high unemployment. What is not being done right? What have we done wrong? What needs to be done?”

There are factories in our region that need a five to seven year program to ensure that people can be self-supporting. There is no such program. Programs must be created in this country to fit these regions, instead of waiting for us in the regions to change to fit the programs. That is not how it is done. We are serious about addressing the problem of lack of work in the rural communities.

In my riding people are, again this year, having to live for three months without any income whatsoever. And why is that? Because they cannot draw employment insurance. This is serious. Nobody in our region can survive for three months with no money coming in without the danger of getting into a real bind. There is a surplus of close to $20 billion in the employment insurance fund, and yet these people are expected to survive with no income. Ridiculous.

This is a great pity. All this is a real eye opener for a newcomer to this place like myself, as we see bills appear that can work to the advantage of certain companies in this country. That is a sad thing.

I have met with young people and I have asked them “Is there any tax reform that can help you?” They tell me no. I have a young fellow working for me who is way over his head in debt. There was nothing in the last budget, or the one before that, to help him out. Nothing at all. In fact things are getting worse. For 10 years our students will get some assistance, but only 7% of them, while 90% of them will be left out, and there is nothing at all for them between now and the year 2000.

If the government does not start introducing bills and promising to make job creation the number one priority in this country, we will keep on having this problem of young people graduating and unable to find work. There are people who had jobs but lost them. Money is no longer circulating. It is a problem

It is not true that the economy is so wonderful. Come and live in my riding for a while and you will see that things are not that rosy. Our SMBs are trying, however. We are trying to develop them, but we need help. They cannot simply be told that they will have to go it alone now.

All Canadians should have the same rights, whether they are rich or poor, men, women or children. Everyone has the right to food on the table, a roof over their head, clothes to wear, and an education. These are not privileges, although it is starting to look like it. The way governments are operating, a post-secondary education is becoming a privilege. Imagine.

Then they have the nerve to say that companies cannot find trained students to work for them. Something is not right. Once again, I think it is a lack of planning. One has only to think of how many people are on unemployment insurance, which is now called employment insurance. They have tried to change how we think of it, but it is not employment insurance. When people go to an employment centre for unemployment insurance, they are not offered a job. That is not what happens.

The government has tried to convince Canadians otherwise, but I am sorry. And I will not call it employment insurance till people go to employment centres with their little pink slip to find a job there. There would go to these employment centres in search of a job. It is not the case at the moment. People get unemployment insurance because there are no jobs.

The name may be changed over and over again, but no one can convince me or the people that this is employment insurance, because this is not true. We must endeavour to put these people back to work.

We must also be realistic. We have to recognize the impact this reform will have in areas with a high unemployment rate. It is sad to see the situation young people are in. There is no planning. We need long term planning. We need financial assistance for groups willing to invest their time developing our natural resources, whether in fisheries or forestry.

There is potential in our region, hard working people. There are hard working people throughout the country, in regions where the unemployment rate is high. Professionals are supposed to be working to help these people. Where are they? Who is listening when we say we need these programs? I must say that we do not hear much, because I read in the newspaper that ACOA will lose one third of its funding. The government is cutting on both ends.

The same thing is happening in the fisheries. We know that we must ask ourselves some questions about the conservation of lobster and cod. Who are the people who are making decisions that are causing so many problems?

Obviously, the New Democratic Party opposes Bill C-28. I look forward to having the opportunity to debate in the House something that will help people. Perhaps, for once, the Liberal Party will finally give priority to the poor and the destitute and the small businesses that are hurting in Canada.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from the NDP to elaborate on her view of the way the federal government is treating the provinces.

She said in her speech that everybody in this great country should be entitled to food, shelter and clothing, and I believe she is right.

We in Quebec, while we agree, express it differently because we believe it is more meaningful for people. Instead of feeding them we prefer to give them the opportunity to earn what they need to buy food and clothes, and put a roof over their heads.

There is an old Chinese saying I believe goes like this: “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.”

What the federal government is doing with its subsidies and its encroachment into fields of provincial jurisdiction is feeding individuals and giving them something for clothing and housing. It is helping them in every area, while provinces would rather educate them and show them how to earn those things and become self-sufficient.

By making the provinces poorer, the federal government can then boast to private citizens: “Look, what the provinces are unable to give you, we are giving to you now. We are putting food on your table.”

But it is a lot more meaningful for people to be able to earn their keep than to have the federal government provide for them and make them dependent on its largesse. Would fishermen in New Brunswick and the other Atlantic provinces and their children not rather have the money to improve their fishing methods than be given subsidies to be able to put food on the table and a roof over their heads?

I would like to hear the member's point of view on this to know if people in the Atlantic provinces and people in Quebec are on the same wavelength.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

As I said, the problem is they are handing money out but without any planning. Does this mean the planning should be up to the provinces? This would be a problem in New Brunswick because the money does not always go where it should.

Where I come from, we were always afraid to give Frank McKenna money because all of it might be used on roads, while health care would be left out.

This is the problem: how the money will be managed once in the province. I feel there is not enough control and I think it is also the case federally. That is why I say we need programs that accommodate people, and not programs where people have to accommodate the programs. That is why nothing is working and there are so many bankruptcies. No one wants to listen.

Sometimes loans are denied to small businesses or organizations looking to create year round work because they do not meet the criteria. Look what that does. A $45,000 loan might create 25 permanent jobs but the bank has to go by the criteria. That is a problem and it is one at every level.

That is what the expression bottom up suggests. Does it mean that the province will be in charge of managing the money? Will the Kent economic commission manage the whole thing? Someone has to do it, but first we need to have programs.

We talk about prevention. People would rather earn a living than to always take money from the government, because, at some point, they no longer know why they should get up in the morning. People get depressed in winter when they are out of work. They always look forward to spring when they can resume working.

Ever since the Liberals were elected, they have gone after seasonal workers as if they were all lazy people. When the Prime Minister came to my riding to get elected, he said he was going to take care of everything. He would help the unemployed. He came back here and said: “They all live in shacks, they are drunk all the time and unemployed”. That is what he said.

We are the ones who elected him. But even worse, we believed him.

I find it sad that the Prime Minister, who chose to run in a region with the worst unemployment rate in Canada and made promises to the voters, came back here, to Ottawa, and said, as we found out later by reading the newspaper, that everyone was living in shacks, drunk all the time and on the dole. What an insult! Believe me, the next time they tried to get one of theirs elected, voters were more wary. That era is over. The people back home will not put up with this any longer.

I think it is time for the Liberals to start thinking about this. Nova Scotia has sent them a message and I am sure New Brunswick will do the same. I hope this will keep up, because we have a problem in this country.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address once again Bill C-28. We are speaking to the amendment in this case.

The first priority or perhaps at least a very important priority of any legislator is to ensure that we do our best along with our colleagues to create a foundation on which we can build a strong economy in this country. I know colleagues would agree with that.

I think we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation that passes through this House does indeed do that and contributes in some way to doing that. Sadly I do not believe that Bill C-28 really does that, certainly not in the current context. I think Canada's economic foundation is crumbling and cracking for a number of reasons.

First of all we believe very strongly that Canada's $583.2 billion debt is just about out of control. We know that our taxes are far too high. We also know that we spend billions on wasteful programs and that spending is largely unfocused. It does not go to the things that are priorities with Canadians.

Those are some of the reasons we oppose not only this legislation but a number of the initiatives of the government. It simply is not focusing on the things that are most important or doing the things that will prepare a foundation upon which to build a strong, healthy, sustainable economy.

Let me speak specifically to some of these concerns. I mentioned a minute ago that our foundation was crumbling and cracking. One of the reasons for that is the situation we had with our debt of $583.2 billion.

What hon. colleagues around the House will know is that we spend about $45 billion a year just to pay the interest on the debt. It is an unbelievable amount of money. It is the largest cheque the finance minister will write every year. It is a lot more than we spend on employment insurance and old age security combined. It is far bigger than that amount. It is a tremendous amount of money.

I point out that for average families it means they have to pay taxes that are $6,000 higher than they would be if they did not have pay that interest. Average families have to pay $6,000 in taxes just to pay their share of interest on the debt. It is an unbelievable amount of money. If we compare that with our friends south of the border, their debt, as huge as it is, is about 40% less per capita than the Canadian debt.

It is a staggering amount. That is about 70% of the gross domestic product. If we combine it with what the debt of the provinces it is close to 100% of the gross domestic product. It is one of the worst levels of debt in the world. It is a huge problem.

Bill C-28 does nothing to address it. Nor did the budget which recently came done. Not only are we saddling the present generation and all the people who are struggling to make the economy move with this debt but we are saddling the next generation, the people who are yet to be born. It is wrong. It is immoral to cast a huge burden of debt on to their shoulders before they are even born. These people will not get a chance to benefit from the goods and services that were purchased with that credit. However they will be saddled with the debt. Reformers oppose Bill C-28 for that reason. We think the lack of a plan to deal with debt is a very serious omission.

I want to make an argument that is maybe a little less academic, a little less abstract, a little more practical and important in present terms with respect to the need to deal with the problem of debt.

Not very long ago in Asia we saw a dramatic meltdown of its economies. Some of the currencies saw a devaluation in the order of 55%, a tremendous devaluation. There are tremendous economic problems in Asia.

The result was that area of the world, which represents about one-third of the entire economy of the world, saw money flee from there to get away from the uncertain economic conditions and go to other parts of the world. It went to the places where the countries had strong foundations, which is precisely what we are talking about, a strong economic foundation.

Did it come to Canada, one of the countries that should be one of the richest in the world given our vast array of natural resources? No, it did not. It went to the United States. That money went to the United States, our biggest trading partner, with the result that we saw our dollar fall relative to the American dollar, which meant that we had to pay more for all kinds of imports.

The way the Bank of Canada reacted to it also hurt Canadians. The Bank of Canada, in a effort to shore up the dollar, raised interest rates which hurt all Canadians. That is a direct impact of high levels of debt on ordinary Canadians. When that kind of situation exists, in a sense it is a form of taxation on Canadians. It means they have less money for the things they care about doing, the things most people and families consider to be important like buying groceries, paying the mortgage, paying the rent, paying the car loan and setting aside some money for retirement and putting the kids through university. However, we were denied that to some degree because of what happened as a direct result of having a high level of debt.

Let me again say that Bill C-28 does not deal with debt or present any plan to deal with the debt at a time when Canada is in a very precarious situation with respect to its debt. Therefore we oppose the bill for that reason.

Let me speak a bit more directly to the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois which deals with the issue of taxes. Bill C-28 is an omnibus bill which deals with a number of things that have to do with the Income Tax Act. However it concerns Reformers any time a bill amending the Income Tax Act does not do anything on one hand to simplify taxation or on the other hand to lower the level of taxes Canadians have to pay. Sadly Bill C-28 does not do that.

Specifically in Bill C-28 is a clause that could potentially confer some benefits on Canadian shipping companies. The Bloc Quebecois has raised this amendment because it is concerned the finance minister, who sponsored the bill and who has interests in a shipping company, could potentially have some benefit from clause 241 in Bill C-28.

The finance minister and some Liberal members have suggested that although the finance minister may have sponsored the bill he did so unwittingly and did not seek to profit from the legislation. I accept that because I think it is correct. I do not think he would do that on purpose.

I want to set that whole argument aside for a moment. I think there is a more important principle at stake when we talk about a situation where Canada's finance minister has to shelter assets offshore because taxes in Canada are too high. It is one of the great ironies in the country today and it is almost unremarked upon by the media. Truly it is a great irony when the finance minister of the Government of Canada, through completely legal means, has done very well for himself. In order to do some of the things he has done, he had to have his assets registered offshore in other regimes where taxes are more favourable. He is not alone in doing this. Many other companies do this.

Members of the House should reflect on why it is necessary for companies in Canada to do that if they want to succeed. It raises some questions. It raises a very important question that is brought home to regular Canadians every day when they sit down to do their books. Taxes are simply too high in Canada today. They are staggering.

We have personal income taxes in Canada today that are 56% higher than the G-7 average. It is much higher than the Americans, the Japanese, the British, the Germans and even the French. We have staggering levels of taxation.

What the government proposed in the recent budget did little to help. All it did was slow down the rate of growth in taxes. When the government brought in its budget, it brought in some measures that introduced tax relief which it talked about in the budget. However, it did not talk about the fact that in the last few months it had raised taxes far more than any tax relief would benefit Canadians through the measures in the budget. Through the Canada pension plan premium increase we will see the largest tax hike in Canadian history. We will see those premiums rise by 73%.

On the other hand, we know that every year a silent tax increase occurs that not many Canadians are aware of. I refer to the phenomenon of bracket creep, a situation where because of the deindexation of the tax system many Canadians automatically are pushed into higher tax brackets every year as a result of cost of living increases that essentially leave them worse off. In fact, bracket creep alone this year will wipe out all the benefit given to people through any of the tax measures introduced in the budget. The tax measures, according to the government's own 1998-99 budget documents, will lower taxes by about $880 million, but bracket creep alone will increase taxes by more than $1 billion. With that measure alone Canadians are worse off.

What does this do to the ordinary Canadian? I want to relate a story. I was in my office on Friday talking with a constituent, a man who is on disability. He is receiving Canada pension plan disability. His name is Lawrence Weston. Mr. Weston said “Please use my example in the House if it suits you”.

He has an income of just over $13,000. He gets a bit of money from workers' compensation as well. He has literally thousands of dollars in expenses because of his medical problems. He is diabetic. He has had a number of surgical operations on his eyes and he is slowly going blind. He cannot work. If he goes to work, if he tries to do anything, his disability income disappears immediately.

He is in a situation where he makes just over $13,000. He still pays about $400 a year in personal income tax in Canada today, even with all his medical expenses. He cannot, believe it or not, take advantage of the disability credit in the income tax system. One almost has to be dead to take advantage of that credit. One probably has to be in the morgue for three days to be able to take advantage of that credit.

I do not know how many people have come into my office, people who are severely disabled and have tried to apply for it but cannot get it. It is virtually impossible to get. Mr. Weston could not get it so he is in a situation now where he has to come up with $400 and does not know how he will do it.

If my friends across the way are truly concerned about people who are simply not making it today, they should start to lower taxes in a meaningful way. Not everybody can, like the finance minister, find tax relief by moving assets offshore. It is not something the rest of us can do.

It does not just end with people like Lawrence Weston. Many other people are in exactly the same position. I received an e-mail the other day from a woman who had just retired as a nurse. It is the same sort of situation. She is complaining about the high level of taxes that she has to pay, a staggering level of taxes. We receive mail all the time. Often in this place I have quoted from letters we have received from people who are just barely making it but still paying all kinds of taxes.

Let us consider for a moment some of the businesses out there. For example, a Canadian Tire franchisee who is trying to make it cannot avoid taxes by all of a sudden flying a flag over the business saying that it is now Bahamian Tire or Panamanian Tire simply to avoid the high level of taxes in this country.

That cannot be done. People would like to do it; donut shop owners would like to be able to do that but cannot. That is left to a few people and luckily the finance minister was able to do that. I do not blame him one bit. He is doing exactly what business people will do if they have a chance to do it. They are trying to find a way to shelter their income. They do not want to pay taxes. Everybody does it. People take advantage of loopholes in the tax system all the time. If we can, we use RRSPs. If they can, they shelter income offshore.

Should we not have a tax regime that draws investment to the country? Should we not have a tax regime that encourages people to come and invest in Canada? My friend, the member for Peace River, pointed out the other day that for the first time ever in the history of Canada Canadians are investing more money outside Canada than foreigners are investing inside Canada.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I wonder why.