Debates of Feb. 1st, 1999

Finance

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Let me suggest that what is shameful and scandalous is the manner in which he has criticized two ministers, as he has just done here in the House, because he does not have the backbone to do so outside.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I will. I have done so before.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Go ahead and do it outside the House, and you will see what reaction you get.

I would like to ask the member who has been so busy being negative in making his comments in this House, why Quebec and he representing the Bloc Quebecois, never calculate the amount of dollars saved by the Quebec government and the Quebec people by the reduction of interest rates to benefit them and to use their priorities in the allocation of funds both as a result of the reduction in tax rates and the fact that they have had not only lower interest rates, but have had an increase and a transfer in tax points worth many millions of dollars?

With the tax points and the lower interest rates, Quebec has had a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars which the Bloc members do not care to announce, do not care to acknowledge but just care to criticize and be untruthful in their approach to the things that are going on in Quebec. They are certainly not interested in health care, certainly not interested in the citizens and certainly not interested in the education of their youth with the highest school dropout rate in the whole of Canada. The member should be ashamed of his remarks.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had read the paper this morning, she would know that I have already commented on this to a journalist, from the Gazette furthermore. As far as I know, she can read English.

I made exactly the same comments about the Minister of Human Resources Development as those I made in the House, so it is not a question of having the backbone. If she thinks the government is so wonderful with its tax points, she is mistaken. In any event, she has been mistaken as long as we have known her. As a member of Parliament, she is often mistaken. But this time, she shows her ignorance by constantly harping on the tax points ceded to Quebec in the 1950s and 1960s.

These tax points were ceded at a 1964 meeting between Mr. Pearson, a very sensible Canadian, and Mr. Lesage.

I would like to put a question to the member. If there had been no cuts, if things had been left as they were in 1994 where federal transfers to the provinces were concerned, what would the level of tax points transferred to the provinces have been? Exactly the same as they are today. This is undeniable proof that the changes in tax points are completely independent of federal government decisions. This is a given.

Is someone going to go after the person who sold him a house 50 years ago because the roof is now leaking? It is the same thing. As futile as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As for her reference to the good things the federal government has done, my colleagues and I have tried to find some.

[An hon. member]

We are looking.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

We are still looking, and maybe one day will find some. But if one reads between the lines of the prepared words that come out of the PMO or the office of the Minister of Finance, one can see there has been nothing positive.

How could there be when, since 1995, it has been decreed that there will be cuts year after year until 2003 in the health field? How could there be, when they have the nerve to want to use the contributions of employers and employees to the employment insurance fund to finance tax cuts for the rich?

Where are these positive actions? How are the interests of the people of the people of Quebec and of Canada being served? We are still looking, and maybe one day we will manage to find some.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for his comments.

He is very familiar with the employment insurance issue, and he is aware that it is a very important issue in New Brunswick. Our province has suffered losses of $927 million in revenues.

Whenever we put a question to him, the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us that he is giving back $5 million here and $2 million there, through various programs. My riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is losing $35.8 million every year. People in Albert County only collected employment insurance benefits for 18 weeks, even though they live in rural areas. Also, fewer and fewer women qualify for the program.

We have a surplus that keeps increasing and that will exceed $20 million. We know that poverty is on the rise in every region where unemployment is high.

Could the hon. member tell us what he thinks the government will do, more specifically the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is always trying to make us believe that 72 per cent of workers qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and that his government is putting money back into the regions? Is the Minister of Human Resources Development telling us what his government is really doing?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us is the total opposite of the truth. He twists the figures. He twists them in a scandalous way. Fewer than 40% of people can draw employment insurance benefits.

From December 2 last until March 31, employer and employee contributions to the employment insurance fund have been and will be used solely to increase the employment insurance fund surplus.

Even with the 15 cent decrease in contributions set by the Minister of Finance last November, the surplus in the fund is still going to end up over $6 billion. This is going to be used for something other than helping the unemployed in New Brunswick or anywhere else in Canada.

As I have said, the situation is so serious that not only has access been reduced, thus adding to the surplus, but the unemployed are, as well, now being harassed into not challenging claims for supposed overpayments before the Commission. This is serious. It means that the rights of the unemployed are being denied, while the members opposite are pretending everything is just great, because there are not many appeals.

One day, the self-same Minister of Human Resources Development will be getting up to say “Judging by the number of complaints there have been in the past six months, things are going well. The number of complaints is dropping.”

I understand, throughout Quebec and Canada people are being discouraged from appealing overpayments, and that will be reflected in the statistics the minister likes so much to refer to, although he does it all wrong. This man has not served, and does not, serve the interests of the unemployed.

As I have said, I find it rather distasteful that he speaks in his report of the most disadvantaged and of his priorities, when in fact he is the one responsible for increasing collective poverty

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his answer.

I wonder if he is aware of the situation in which the Department of Human Resources Development could accuse an individual applying for benefits of fraud and force them to repay money, even though they have never received a cent from the government.

This situation has occurred in the Atlantic provinces. There are people there who apply and then go on to find a job. They report it on their card, but if the amount is not exactly what they earned, even if the department has not paid them a cent, officials can come after them a year later and ask them to repay the difference between the amount they reported and the amount they actually earned working.

But neither the Department of Human Resources Development nor any other department paid the individual applying for benefits a single cent. The individual never got a cent, but can be asked to repay the difference. Is the hon. member aware of this situation?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say this is the first time I hear about such a situation. However, there have been a number of other cases where small overpayments were claimed. People's initial reaction was “I will settle this and pay the amount”, even though they knew they had not received that money. Since they could not prove their case, they paid the amount that was claimed.

But what they did not know—and these people are not told about their rights in human resources development centres—is that once they recognized that an overpayment had been made to them and once they paid the amount, they became, in the eyes of the minister and his henchmen, guilty parties. They now have a black mark on their employment insurance file, and the next time they have the misfortune of being unemployed and make a claim under the employment insurance program, the department will take a look at their file. Because they spontaneously paid the money back, these people will be penalized in terms of the number of weeks required to get their first benefits. People must be made aware of that situation and it is our duty to do so.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to participate in this prebudget debate.

I know that traditionally this debate focuses on the report of the finance committee's fall hearings, but today I want to take the opportunity to report on prebudget consultations that I and my NDP colleagues have been holding around the country. We have returned to parliament having consulted with a lot of Canadians on their vision for a renewed Canada and on the budget priorities needed to translate that vision into reality.

People we have met in every corner of Canada are concerned about the crisis in health care, the escalation of child poverty, the gutting of unemployment insurance and the national emergency in homelessness. These are the devastating deficits created by this government's reckless disregard for the health of families, the health of communities and the health of our national economy.

In a series of community based economic round tables over the past two months bringing together people from all walks of life and all segments of the community to share their ideas on job creation, we heard very different views and priorities from those advocated by the Liberal majority on the finance committee telegraphing no doubt what the finance minister will say on budget day. Those Liberals think it is enough to cut the surtax for those in the highest income bracket and to throw a few token dollars back into health care.

Now that they have made the sacrifices to balance the budget, Canadians want the federal government to reinvest in the social programs that bring security to their lives and stability to their communities. They want some leadership from the government in tackling the challenges of the new economy.

When it comes to health care the Liberal government refuses to listen to Canadians. Emergency rooms are overcrowded. Waiting lists are getting longer. Hospitals are discharging patients earlier and earlier without publicly provided home care being there for them. That is why only 30% of Canadians give our health care system a favourable rating today compared to 60% in 1991. It is why there are growing fears that our health care system, a uniquely Canadian combination of innovation and social responsibility, is going to surrender to a foreign American style two tier health care system.

This government is busy advertising the upcoming budget as the so-called health budget, and yet having taken $2.5 billion out of transfers in each of the past three years, all finds would suggest it may restore less than one-quarter of what it has ripped out of the health care system. Having reduced the federal share of health spending from the original 50% to 11% today, the Liberals have the gall to lecture the provincial governments about their responsibilities for health care. An immediate injection of $2.5 billion into health transfers to the provinces this year is the minimum required to get our health care system off the critical list.

Second, any health accord between the federal and provincial governments must generate secure long term federal funding to enable the provinces to deliver home care and pharma care programs at a standard adequate to meet the needs of Canadians regardless of where they live.

A decade has passed since parliamentarians in the House unanimously endorsed Ed Broadbent's motion, my predecessor, to end child poverty in Canada by 2000. It will be the shameful legacy, the most lasting and damning legacy of this finance minister that on his watch child poverty was proclaimed a national tragedy and homelessness a national emergency in communities right across the country.

Canadians are disheartened by the federal government's abandonment of all responsibility for social housing. They are humiliated at the UN's condemnation of federal Liberal policies that have dramatically increased poverty and homelessness during a period of economic growth, fuelling deeper and deeper divisions in Canadian society, and deteriorating conditions most drastically of all among our aboriginal peoples.

Millions of Canadians do not need experts to tell them about poverty and homelessness because they experience it every day in their lives. Others who may not experience directly the punishing effects of this abandonment nevertheless share the sense of loss. Canadians want a recommitment of a significant, not token, federal role in social housing and leadership in the reduction of poverty in our midst. If this government's betrayal of the poor and homeless has resulted from heartless neglect, erosion of our employment insurance system has been an act of wilful sabotage.

The government set out to destroy deliberately what little security was offered by employment insurance, and it succeeded in spades. Over 70% of unemployed Canadians received insurance benefits in 1989. Less than 40% do so today. In my riding of Halifax it is down to 29%.

Tragically and predictably, this has imposed great hardship on many families. It has driven many more into the ranks of poverty. It has also sucked tens of millions of dollars from local economies in communities right across the land.

The federal government must stop funding its general programs with resources collected from employers and workers for the benefit of the unemployed.

The upcoming budget must recommit employment insurance funds for their intended use, for adequate income replacement for unemployed workers and for investment in training and other active transition measures.

The government has acted with the same lack of social responsibility with regard to post-secondary education. The Liberals have simply transferred a portion of the federal debt on to to the personal debtloads of Canada's young people. In some parts of Canada we have a university system today that is public in name only. Tuition fees have skyrocketed beyond the reach of most working families. Our so-called public universities are being transformed into institutions for the privileged elites.

This government has betrayed a whole generation of young Canadians in much the same way that it has betrayed its own women employees in its refusal to negotiate in good faith on outstanding pay equity claims upheld by Canadian courts.

The first call on the budget surplus therefore is for government to begin repairing the damage that its policies have inflicted on our social fabric, on our communities, on our hospitals, on our schools and on the programs which extend support to the unemployed and our most vulnerable citizens who for whatever reasons are not able to fend for themselves. Canadians insist that their government fulfil these social responsibilities in a fiscally responsible manner.

For decades we have watched Liberal and Conservative governments adopt policies that led to annual deficits, a ballooning debt and rising personal taxes. This happened not because the government was providing more and better social programs. It is quite the opposite. The mounting debt and higher personal taxes resulted from the artificially high interest rates forced on this country by the Bank of Canada. In an act of supreme irresponsibility, the Bank of Canada knowingly deepened the last two recessions leaving lasting scars on both the public finances and on the lives of millions of ordinary Canadians.

As a result of that colossal blunder, Canadians are now paying higher taxes for fewer public services, paying more on interest payments on the debt than on any single social program. It is a bit like a family paying ever higher and higher mortgage payments on a house that is getting shabbier and more run down every year.

We must reverse this situation and we must begin with badly needed renovations on our house while also reducing the burden of our mortgage payments.

Canadians therefore want and deserve a fairer tax system. They want the debt problem addressed. It is not a question of whether these things should be done but a question of how.

On taxes the Liberal majority on the finance committee apparently thinks that the first priority should be to remove the surtax on those in the highest income bracket. We in the New Democratic Party think there is a fairer and more effective way to grant tax relief. The first priority must be the tax reduction that will benefit the most people, a reduction in the GST.

Let me remind the House that a 1% reduction in the GST will give the biggest boost to the economy and create the most numbers of jobs while giving desperately needed tax relief to ordinary families.

On the debt, indications are that the finance minister wants to spend most of the surplus on direct repayment of the fiscal debt. This would be as imprudent and irresponsible as incurring another round of deficits.

With the uncertainties in the global economy Canadians could face a recession in coming months. We have already seen the terrible impact that the collapse in commodity prices has had on farm incomes. The federal government has been desperately slow to respond to this crisis in our farming communities and must do so now, adequately and decisively in the upcoming budget.

Because of the threat of a severe economic downturn resulting from the crisis in international markets it would be irresponsible to add to these risks. Overly aggressive debt repayment would put an additional drag on economic growth. Ironically such an ill advised course of action could slow down the economy to the point of forcing us into a deficit situation next year. That is something we must avoid. We need an approach that balances the need to lessen the burden of interest charges on the debt with the obligation to avoid risks with the economy.

Recommitment to social responsibility and a responsible balanced approach to spending, tax relief and debt reduction are the things Canadians want in the upcoming budget. These questions have been on the agenda for more than two decades. Canadians are looking for some leadership, some vision and some imagination in dealing with the challenges of rapid technological change in a world of global economic uncertainty. That leadership is needed to tackle the continuing high rate of unemployment and severe under employment that plagues too many Canadians.

The most recent disastrous decision that shows the government's insensitivity and unwillingness to respond to those continuing high levels of unemployment is its decision last week to pull the plug on Devco, an important engine of economic activity and growth in the Nova Scotia economy, a community suffering from an official unemployment level of over 20% and unofficially estimated to be above 40%.

Leadership is also needed to reduce the insecurity and stresses on families struggling to deal with deteriorating health care, escalating education costs and the erosion of vitally important public services. In the past 15 years the two parties holding government in this country has pursued virtually the same course, reduce inflation, cut the deficit, slash social programs, weaken worker ability to bargain selectively and somehow we will all be in economic clover. This government calls it getting the economic fundamentals right. It has not worked. It is not going to work to improve the living standards of ordinary people. It has not worked to lift families out of poverty. It has not worked for the homeless. The earnings of low and middle income Canadians have fallen rather than risen in the past decade. Ordinary Canadians are working harder and harder for less and less.

The government's formula has not worked in its own terms. Getting the economic fundamentals right, as it loves to say, has not got the economic fundamentals right. The Canadian dollar has declined to a level that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Economic analysts are unanimous in condemning the Canadian economy for one of the worst records in productivity growth among the major world economies. Despite generous tax measures in place, corporations in Canada, especially foreign multinationals, rate very poorly in research and development, one of the keys to future economic prosperity.

To ensure the vibrant economy that we need, to create the badly needed jobs and to sustain the social programs that Canadians cherish we must get beyond the complacent and lazy notion that getting the economic fundamentals right is enough. Canadians need government to encourage the kind of economic practices that will lead to a genuine widely shared prosperity that enables ordinary Canadians to make a rewarding life for themselves.

The first challenge is to reinvest in our social programs. This will benefit the economy in general and it will generate decent, rewarding jobs in health, education and other vital public services like environmental protection and clean-up, benefiting those who fill the new jobs but also the community where those jobs are created.

The second challenge is to ensure that the savings of ordinary Canadians are channelled into the long term responsible investments that will lead to improvements in productivity. Our current tax system treats short term speculation in exactly the same way as long term investments that create productivity improvements and sustainable jobs. This has to change. Our productivity challenge is to find practical ways of encouraging pension funds and other pools of savings into the kinds of investments that will improve productivity and assist community economic development.

We must make sure that everyone, not just computer wizards, gets the training they need to keep up with the dizzying pace of technological change. Canadians need ready access to educational opportunity and we must find ways to get employers to do a better job of investing in on the job training.

When profitable companies like Bell Canada sell off one of their divisions to avoid paying their pay equity obligations and to drastically reduce the pay and benefits of long service employees, there is something seriously wrong with our economic culture. An economy without expectations of corporate responsibility, where decision makers put shareholder value above all other values to the exclusion of their commitments to long serving employees and above their community obligations is one that is surely failing. As long as employees have no reason to trust in the good faith of their employers, no sense that their loyalty and service will be respected and rewarded, our economy will not be as productive as it needs to be.

In the case of Bell Canada the CRTC must review whether Bell Canada's actions violate federal regulations, but in general Canadians expect their government to start building the framework for an economic citizenship where economic decision makers are bound not just by the short term bottom line but to their responsibilities to communities where they do business, to the environment and to their employees.

The performance of our economy is not only a question of the quality of our technology. It depends on the social capital of trust between employer and employee in a democratic workplace and on the good citizenship of economic decision makers. To build such an economic citizenship in the context of globalization is a huge challenge and one that cries for federal leadership.

Another economic challenge requiring imagination is the situation facing Canadian families who are increasingly stressed out trying to juggle work and family responsibilities of children, of frail family members and of elderly parents. There is a shortage of affordable quality day care and no financial support for parents who care for their young children or elderly parents at home. Inflexible work arrangements make it difficult for parents to be at home when kids are forced to stay home sick or when kids return after school.

Neither the government nor the private sector has begun to meet the challenge of creating arrangements that reconcile a thriving economy with a thriving community that meets the needs of families. Canadians need their government to make this a priority. They need solid progress toward this important objective.

In conclusion, to make progress in these areas will take imaginative visionary leadership. Canadians are not getting that currently from the government or their Prime Minister. How typical of the Prime Minister's arrogance and petty mindedness when before Christmas he said to Canadians that some mornings he wakes up and he feels like giving the provinces some more money for health, and other mornings he wakes up and he does not feel like giving Canadians more money for health. He might as well have said let them eat cake.

Canadians deserve better, and on their behalf we demand better in the upcoming federal budget.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the leader of the New Democratic Party. I am reminded of listening to Tommy Douglas in the 1960s and 1970s. The speeches do not seem very different to me.

The issue I hear coming across loud and strong is that we should spend more money. Canada is the second highest spender on health care in the western world. We have to recognize that we are spending exceedingly great amounts of money on health care.

I do not deny that the member's argument contains a lot of concern about the delivery of the system. However I wish the member would have taken more time to say how we could deliver health care more effectively to the citizens of Canada within the parameters of our current spending envelope rather than simply writing more cheques.

My constituents are telling me that they do not want governments to spend more money in spite of the consultative process they claim to have gone through. The people of Durham are saying that they do not want governments to spend more money. In fact they want governments to have accountability for the money they are spending. They want more service for the money being spent. The answer is not simply to spend more money.

The member went on to talk about labour productivity. I am very concerned about the issue because labour is hiding behind a deflated and imaginary value of the Canadian dollar. The day the Canadian dollar starts trading anywhere close to 85 cents there will be massive unemployment in the country. The the association between labour productivity and the unemployment insurance system is inescapable.

Does the member have any commitment at all to balanced budgets in the future?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that not only the Prime Minister is not listening to Canadians. It is not just the finance minister who is not listening to Canadians. Backbenchers in the Liberal caucus are clearly not listening to Canadians. This backbencher certainly did not listen to what I was saying.

There is no rule in the House that requires him to do so. I acknowledge that. However, if he rises to ask questions one would hope that he would have listened to my making a point that I will make again very clearly for him to hear one more time. Canadians are looking for accountability in how their governments deal with health care. That is why they are offended by his government ripping billions and billions of dollars, massive amounts of dollars, out of the health system unilaterally and refusing to be accountable for what it has done in that regard.

Accountability is needed but Canadians are sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the Liberals saying to the provinces that they should be accountable for health care dollars. The provinces should be accountable for health care but so too should the federal government be accountable for health care.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of fluff in the speech from the leader of the New Democratic Party.

If she became leader of the country what would she do differently than when her cousin, Bob Rae, took over the Ontario government? In his tenure he lost close to 500,000 jobs for Ontario. He virtually took a balanced budget and Ontario into roughly a $14 billion deficit in a short period of four or five years. Meanwhile Mike Harris, since he has been in office, has created 500,000 jobs.

What would the leader of the NDP do differently than her cousin Bob Rae did in his tenure as leader of the Ontario NDP?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely disappointing to think that opposition members in that distant corner are so disinterested in holding the federal Liberal government to account that they want to divert attention, to divert pressure and to talk about a provincial government of a different political stripe in a bygone era of almost a decade ago. I do not think that is doing what constituents elected federal members of parliament to come to Ottawa to do.

The government needs opposition members who are seriously interested in demanding accountability, in focusing on the challenges we face today and tomorrow in delivering an adequate government and quality social programs, in balancing the budget and in seizing the important economic challenges we are facing in an increasingly complicated global economy.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, does the leader of the newly business friendly New Democratic Party want to see a combination of cutbacks and higher spending, or has it entered her mind that perhaps some tax cuts might be useful?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen a demonstration of one more way in which government members and official opposition members behave in the exact same manner. Members from neither party listen to a single word said in the House by anybody but their own apologists in their own caucuses. Members from neither party seem to understand the notion of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

It is absolutely clear that Canadians do not want either/or. They do not want better and more accountable spending but recklessness with respect to dealing with the budget. They want both/and. If the government cannot deliver both, it is darn clear the official opposition cannot deliver either. That is why we are prepared to present a real alternative.

Kangiqsualujjuaq Tragedy

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, January 1, 1999, will always be a sad day for the people of Kangiqsualujjuaq, in the Nunavik. We are not about to forget that, on that day, an avalanche destroyed the school's gymnasium, injuring many people and killing nine Inuit.

Seconds after this tragedy occurred, without hesitation, dozens of members of this Inuit community rushed out to get the search and rescue operation under way in the middle of the night to prevent further loss of life.

I wish to draw the attention of all Canadians to the magnitude of the work done since this tragic event and the difficult conditions in which it was performed following the avalanche.

The constant co-operation of experts from various Inuit organizations and from provincial and federal departments throughout this operation must be commended.

We must also commend Mayor Magie Emudluk and the Inuit staff of Nunavik, of the Kangiqsualujjuaq health center and of Kuujjuaq for their contribution. Their tireless efforts have brought great comfort to the affected families.

We will continue to support your efforts to help the families affected, to rebuild and to get back on your feet.

Norbert Reinhart

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, an Alberta boss has set a new standard for employer-employee relations. Norbert Reinhart, an executive of Terramundo Drilling, courageously walked into the jungles of Colombia and voluntarily gave himself up as a hostage. He placed himself in jeopardy in order to secure the freedom of his employee, Ed Leonard, who had been seized by Marxist guerrillas. Mr. Reinhart remained a hostage of the guerrillas for 96 days before he was released for ransom last month.

This Alberta businessman showed true compassion toward his employee and had the courage to risk his life for another's welfare.

Today we honour Norbert Reinhart for being a model of the values that build a strong, caring society and for being a true Canadian hero.

White Cane Week

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first week of February is White Cane Week in Canada. This event, organized by the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, is designed to focus on the abilities, concerns and needs of people who are blind, visually impaired or deaf-blind. The white cane, associated with people who are blind since the 1930s, has become a symbol of blindness, courage and independent spirit.

White Cane Week was first launched by a group of blind people who felt there was a lack of understanding about what the white cane represented. It continues to be an event to educate the public and to make all Canadians aware of blind people's achievements.

White Cane Week is an opportunity for everyone to find out more about the blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind. We should all be more aware of this condition that affects so many Canadians. If anyone wishes to find out more about White Cane Week they can contact their local Canadian Council of the Blind or the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. They are deserving of our support.

The International Year Of Older Persons

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has designated 1999 as the international year of older persons. At its launch it encouraged all nations to take advantage of the year so as to increase awareness of the challenge of the demographic aging of societies, the individual and social needs of older persons, their contribution to society and the need for a change in attitude toward older persons. The UN has designated this year's theme as “A Society for all ages”.

In this context I would like to salute the hard work of the Community Older Persons Alcohol Program, or COPA, which is situate in my riding. Founded in 1993 as a specialized home-visiting addiction treatment service for individuals 55 years of age and over, COPA is committed to addressing the treatment needs of the older adult in the west Toronto area.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all organizations who believe in improving the lives of older persons and to salute a community which built this country for generations to come.

Women's Hockey

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no other sport defines our nation as does hockey and no other sport is more exemplary of our culture and our pride in our country. That is why I was especially proud that my own Durham federal Liberal riding association was able to sponsor the Olympic women's Team Canada versus Team Finland hockey game in Oshawa on January 20 last month.

I want to thank the Minister of Canadian Heritage for being part of the ceremonies. It was the first time Team Canada has played in the Metro Toronto area. The minister's commitment to fostering and advancing our unique culture in the mainstream of public life was recognized by all.

With standing room only, 4,000 Durhamites in a sea of Canadian flags was an inspiration for us all. A great display of skill and perseverance ended in a six-all tie that was a real fan pleaser.

I extend thanks to the CHA, the staff of the Oshawa Civic Auditorium, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Clairington women's hockey association, the Clairington girls' hockey association, as well as all the other women's and girls' hockey associations that made this event a great success.

The Prime Minister

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to say that the Prime Minister has extraordinary vision for the country, but ironically the PM only sees 20-20 when it involves his blind trust.

While it is in the Prime Minister's best interest to keep Canadians in the dark, he should come clean before the House about his conflict of interest. The Prime Minister is required by law to put his business in a blind trust so Canadians know he is not abusing power. But the Prime Minister ignores the law and gropes around in the not-so-blind trust anyway.

This raises two questions: What kind of ethics commissioner would have an open discussion with a public office holder about holdings in a blind trust? Only one appointed by and dependent upon the Prime Minister for his job.

What else has the Prime Minister not told us about his business dealings? Bombardier gets a lot of lucrative, untendered contracts. Maybe the PM has stock. We do not really know. Canadians deserve to know.

This is a case of three blind mice: the Prime Minister, the ethics commissioner and the public, but only the public is in the dark.

The 1999 Federal Budget

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, later on this month the Minister of Finance will be bringing down our 1999 federal budget.

Last summer I conducted, as did many members, a survey of my constituents of Bruce—Grey. I asked them about their priorities for our communities. They said to me, in no uncertain terms: health care, debt reduction and tax relief. That is what I hope the finance minister will come up with when he brings the budget down on February 16.

I want to say to my constituents that the finance minister listens to the needs of Canadians.

As well, I hope the finance minister will be listening to my appeal for help for families and children.

Justice

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were horrified when a judge in the B.C. supreme court recently ruled that it was legal to possess child pornography.

The B.C. government is appealing this decision and even though it is not binding on other provinces it could set a precedent for other jurisdictions to follow.

Child pornography is violence against children. It is child abuse and the possession of it must be treated as such.

There are many things that are illegal to possess, as well as illegal to produce. Child pornography should be no different. The full force of the government must be brought to bear against the possession of this filth.

The youth of today are this country's future and our responsibility. We have the duty to shield our children from the scourge of child pornography. I support the Minister of Justice in her efforts to quickly achieve intervener status in order to defend the legislation and protect our children.