Debates of Feb. 11th, 1999

Supply

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleagues from Shefford and Madawaska—Restigouche.

For the past two years, my colleague has shown concern about the situation of the poor and the disadvantaged, and I think that this is a very important matter. I was smiling, because my colleague from the Liberal Party was talking about the situation in 1984, when the Liberals had just increased the debt eleven fold, from $18 billion to $200 billion. We doubled it in nine years, for reasons he is familiar with, namely debt service.

I would ask my colleague, given that the fight against poverty concerns taxation, if there might not be one time measures to be taken. One of the greatest growth sectors of the economy are the soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless. Right now, there is no program to help these two types of agencies, which need funding urgently.

I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks the upcoming budget could contain a specific program to support these two types of agencies, which are helping the most disadvantaged.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi, who shares my great concerns about poverty, for his words.

I agree there ought to be programs to help these people. As I said, food bank use has nearly tripled. There are, I believe, some things that need to be done on this score.

I could give a number of examples in my riding of people whose income is not enough to cover housing and clothes, and when the end of the month is approaching, there is nothing left in the cupboard to eat. Something must be done. Food is a primary need.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank my colleague from Shefford for agreeing to share her time with me so that I might speak to the House on this motion.

It is a motion of vital importance to me. There is no doubt that a lot of statistics will be recited to us today, some more disquieting than others. In my own riding, nearly 20% of families were low income families in 1995. That same year, close to 50% of single people were in the low income category.

In other words, the problem of poverty is not only an urban one. It does not manifest itself only in major centres. Poverty is a scourge in all regions and in all communities in Canada. We have a duty to address this problem in a concrete manner. We could spend weeks and months throwing up our hands at the huge scope of the problem, but that will do nothing to help the poor of this country,

The motion we are presenting today offers some really down to earth solutions which would make a big difference to many low income individuals such as the elderly, young people and children, single mothers, low wage earners, and many others.

The issue of poverty is very complex, which is why we know very little about the true state of poverty in our country. As a country we have not developed an effective way to identify and measure poverty. We have not identified all the causes of poverty and we do not have an effective and complete strategy to eliminate poverty. That may be a tall order, but unless we take specific first steps poverty will continue to grow.

The House has always been full of good intentions. In 1989, 10 years ago, members of the House gave their unanimous support to a motion which sought to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. A mere 10 months away from this critical date, the rate of children living in poverty has grown by 500,000, from 1 million in 1989 to 1.5 million in 1999. This is a true shame and a national tragedy.

I would like to quote one parliamentarian who spoke in the 1989 debate:

I never hear the Minister of Finance talk about the real deficit of this country, which is those one million kids in poverty. That is the real lack of investment. That is the real tragedy. That is the greatest deficit we face. That is the problem, and there is nothing being done to address that kind of issue.

The person I have just quoted is the current foreign affairs minister of the Liberal government. I look forward to hearing his comments today to find out if he is proud that many more children go hungry every night because of his government's policies.

The growing rate of poverty has become an international embarrassment for Canada. Last December a United Nations committee chastised Canada for its inaction in this domain. The 1998 report of the United Nations Committee on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights is less than flattering and Canada has a long way to go to meet the covenant obligations.

The UN report pointed out that since 1994, in addressing the budget deficits by slashing social expenditures, Canada has not paid sufficient attention to the adverse consequences of the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by the Canadian population as a whole.

It also notes that the absence of an official poverty line makes it difficult to hold federal, provincial and territorial governments accountable for their obligation under a covenant. There has been little or no progress in the alleviation of social and economic deprivation among aboriginal peoples. In all but two provinces the national child benefit is in fact only given to children of working poor parents instead of all children of low income families as it was meant to be given.

A reading of the UN committee's report leaves us with the impression that, in recent years, poverty has become an even more serious problem in Canada. Our country boasts about being a champion of human rights, co-operation and compensation. This means the international community should see us as a country that is trying to eliminate poverty.

However, based on our Prime Minister's recent actions, it looks like the tarnishing of Canada's international reputation is no big deal for this government.

Reports such as this one serve two main purposes. First, because they tarnish our international reputation, they motivate us to take quick action to solve the issue and thus limit the damage. Second, they make us see the point of view of outsiders who have no direct interest in the affairs of our country. Consequently, these reports are generally quite objective, honest and fair.

Most people are prepared to talk about poverty and are concerned about the poor. Unfortunately, when the time comes to act, they usually decide to use their time and energy for other purposes. To merely talk about poverty does not help alleviate the problem at all. If we really want to eliminate poverty, we must immediately take concrete action.

There is only one way to eliminate poverty and it is by placing more money in the hands of Canadians. The government can do this through lower taxes and tax exemptions, better education and the creation of an environment that will stimulate economic growth and development.

In the motion we have proposed today we have identified but a few simple steps that would go a long way toward helping poor people. We suggest that the government should increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000. It should index tax brackets and index the child tax benefit.

There are many other measures that could be undertaken and I am sure we will hear many other suggestions today from all parties in the House during the debate.

No one party can lay claim to the best solutions to eliminate poverty and no one party can appropriate social conscience to the exclusion of all others. Within our chosen parties we are individuals who serve the people that live in our communities.

The people in my riding want us to act to better the lives of many of our neighbours, our friends and even strangers we have never met. I for one look forward to listening to my colleagues in the House in the hope of having a non-partisan and productive debate on this burning issue.

As I stand before the House I am reminded of the words of John Donne, a 16th century English poet and clergyman who wrote the following:

No man is an island, entire of itself Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main If clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in man kind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.

The bell is tolling for all of us in the House.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I say at the outset that I agree with the sentiment of the motion before the House today on poverty. It is an extremely important issue. It is an issue that puts our children particularly as having the first call on the resources of the nation, and with that I agree.

With regard to the specifics of the motion I do not agree. I want to quickly share why I do not agree on each of the points and ask for the member's comments.

The first item is with regard to increasing the basic amount, the non-refundable tax credit from the current $6,456 up to $10,000. That action would in fact be a benefit for all Canadians right across the board. It would be a tremendously expensive proposition and certainly would not focus dollars. Therefore I am not in favour of across the board increases.

Second, indexing the brackets would simply only benefit those who are currently making over $30,000 a year. Again it misses the target. The target is not those making more than $30,000 a year. We all know it is something much less.

Finally, with regard to the child tax benefit, there is no question that is one that specifically does go because it is income tested to our lowest income Canadians. An indexation of that in the current year would only generate an additional $14 a year to a family. That itself is absolutely insignificant compared to the cost of the other matters the Conservative Party is raising today.

All of the things his party is proposing have nothing to do with real poverty. Given that, would the member not agree that the important element in addressing poverty is first to define real poverty, not relative poverty, and to establish ways in which we can focus and target our resources to deal with real poverty in Canada? Real poverty is what they were talking about in 1989, food, shelter and clothing, and not what they are talking about today on child poverty, when they say that child poverty exists when children cannot go to a birthday party because they cannot afford a good enough gift.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, before I answer that question I would like to propose an amendment to the motion, that the words—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid at this point the member is not permitted to propose a motion. The member may answer the question.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question.

As far as measuring real poverty, yes, there is a problem with that in Canada. I do agree we have to find a way to measure the real percentage of real poor people in Canada. With the way it is now measured with the LICO, the low income cutoff, we know and Statistics Canada knows that it is not the right way to measure it. Yes, we must identify first of all what the real rate of poverty is.

As far as tax exemptions, we have spoken about the $10,000 as proposed by us today. It is certainly a first step. I do not see where a government can charge taxes to people earning under $10,000. It is absolutely ludicrous to even think that people earning under $10,000 have to pay taxes.

I would like to note something here. The 1990 Liberal caucus task force, which was co-chaired by the finance minister, recommended: more funding for affordable housing in provincial transfers; new federal-provincial programs to assist working poor with housing costs; holding a national conference on the homeless; increasing the funding of housing co-ops; looking for new ways to use housing co-ops; making surplus crown lands available below market value for low income housing; encouraging public-private partnerships to build affordable housing; and eliminating substandard aboriginal housing by 2000.

Those were recommendations made by the current finance minister in 1990. Like so many other Liberal promises, all of these remain unfulfilled.

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

Madam Speaker, since this government first came to office, the overall level of the tax burden and especially how it impacts the most vulnerable in our society has been a major consideration in our budget deliberations. This year is no exception.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising an issue that is not only timely but also is of considerable importance and relevance to our underlying success and stature as a nation. It provides an appropriate opportunity to highlight actions that our government has taken in budget after budget.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are on record as saying that our government is committed to reducing the tax burden on Canadians. The 1998 budget gave concrete proof of this commitment and that this commitment is real, with over $7 billion over three years to the benefit of 14 million Canadians.

Both the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have made it clear that our priority within tax reduction is to give first place to those who are in the greatest need, those in poverty or those with low incomes and especially families with children. Here again our budgets have given proof to this priority through real performance.

For example, in the 1998 budget we acted to increase the amount of yearly income that low income Canadians can receive on a tax free basis by $500. That took 400,000 Canadians off the federal tax rolls completely.

Even more important in my mind has been the work we have done with the provinces and territories in the development of the national child benefit system. Our goal is to ensure that children are always better off when their parents leave welfare. That is why the 1997 budget announced an $850 million increase in our support to low income families through the Canada child tax benefit. That was followed up in the 1998 budget with measures to provide an additional $850 million increase in the child tax benefit, $425 million in July 1999 and $425 million in July 2000. Taken together, these measures benefit about 1.4 million Canadian families with 2.5 million children.

Let me make one thing clear. Our government recognizes completely that such measures are but steps, though important steps, in a much longer journey. We make no claims that we have done enough in the battle against need and hardship, but what we have done is what we could afford to do. This is the reason that while I respect the intent of today's motion, I cannot endorse its sweeping menu of action.

We have to remember that just five years ago this nation was burdened with a deficit of $42 billion. Interest payments on our surging debt were consuming about 33 cents of every tax dollar. Our fiscal follies were exacting a painful price. It was measured in interest rates that were too high and job creation that was too low. That is why our government has constantly balanced our commitment to tax reduction and our priority to ease the burden on low income Canadians with another equally binding commitment, that is, before all else to get the government's books back in balance.

What is important to understand is that these two binding commitments are not in conflict. They actually reinforce each other. The proof of this is also very visible today. The surest form of sustained assistance for Canadians in need is the opportunity to earn a better living, and that means jobs. The surest way for the government to obtain the revenues to better assist Canadians in need is through real economic growth, the type of growth that is helped by low interest rates and marked by growing employment.

We were not going to achieve these things if we were to continue as a nation to borrow against the future. That is why we took tough consistent action to put an end to government that lived beyond its means. Our success here is also a matter of record.

In the fiscal year 1997-98 we eliminated the deficit for the first time in over 25 years and we committed ourselves to balanced budgets again this year and in 1999-2000. It was not an abstract achievement. It has helped to position us so that despite a difficult global economy, Canada is still recording moderate growth. More importantly, this January our unemployment rolls fell to 7.8%. Yes that is still too high, but it is also the best performance since June 1990. In other words more Canadians are working than we have seen in almost a decade. That is the best way, the most sustained way to hit poverty head on.

It was our fiscal success that made it possible for last year's budget to begin the process of broad based tax relief so many Canadians desire. We were able to undertake investments such as the millennium scholarship fund, an investment that will help thousands of young Canadians obtain a higher education.

I emphasize once again that there is much more to be done but we will not do it in a way that jeopardizes the sustained advances, fiscal and economic, that have been hard earned by Canadians. That is why we did not and still do not have the luxury of moving toward the menu of actions the hon. member opposite is suggesting.

The world economy is still volatile. Private sector forecasts of Canadian economic growth have been consistently ratcheted down over the last nine months. While there have been some positive indications currently, the time is much too soon to make the kind of tax reduction commitments that are being suggested in this motion which we would pay for year after year after year.

Yes we will continue our process of expanding tax relief as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have stated, but we will also place continuing value on prudent planning and fiscal forecasts.

We dare not repeat the error of the hon. member's own party when it was in government of relying on rosy forecasts today that deliver economic turmoil and fiscal failure in the years that follow. No, we will continue our balanced approach because it is the approach that helps the most Canadians in the most need in the surest way. It is the approach that best ensures our government can continue to provide real assistance where it matters and in a way that can be sustained. Let me remind the House that this targeted approach to helping those in need has been a constant in budget after budget.

We know that charities are vital partners in the battle against poverty. That is why in our very first budget we lowered the threshold by which charitable donations begin to earn the 29% tax credit. We know that taking targeted action to boost assistance to students and to people trying to improve their economic condition by upgrading their education helps address poverty.

In conclusion, it is hardly strange that our government's record of tax relief may not be as dramatic or all encompassing as some opposition members say they would like it to be. It is always easy to spend money when one is not answerable to the future consequences.

A responsible government has to address more than just good intentions. It also has to face hard facts and deal with real risks. That means facing up to continuing fiscal constraints and dealing with the real risk of economic volatility.

The most important fact of all is that this government has proven year after year and budget after budget that a balanced and moderate approach delivers the results that Canadians want and that Canadians deserve. These results are positioning all Canadians for a more secure future whereby we can continue to deliver genuine gains for Canadians in need, rather than just pontificate politically as we just heard from the party opposite.

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

Madam Speaker, I would urge that the parliamentary secretary not reduce this to pure partisanship. This issue requires all parliamentarians to work to ensure that this issue is addressed because poverty and particularly poverty affecting children is something that all parliamentarians should take very seriously.

My question for the parliamentary secretary relates to the employment insurance fund. The fact is that EI premiums are a regressive tax on the poorest of Canadians. Somebody making $39,000 per year in Canada pays the same amount of EI premiums as somebody making $300,000 per year. It is grossly unfair in that regard.

The changes made by this government to EI benefits has hurt significantly. The draconian changes have savaged benefits for instance for seasonal workers. In my riding 4,580 people qualified for EI in 1994. That was reduced to 3,130 in 1997.

I want to read from correspondence received from one of my constituents. I want the parliamentary secretary to hear this so that he has some awareness of how his government's changes in employment insurance have affected people living in rural Canada and the rural poor. This is one letter I received:

How do you expect people to live on $200 per month for food, clothes, fuel, lights. Try to run a vehicle when the nearest town is 40 miles away. The government has never fought for seasonal workers. Seasonal workers need fairer treatment. How do you think small businesses, stores, farms can deal without crop pickers, without road work, without forestry workers, without strawberry pickers and planters, blueberry rakers, what about landscapers and roofers?

The changes made have impacted significantly, particularly rural Canada, and have created a sense of poverty that is egregious and unacceptable in our country. It is time we stand up and take off our ideological blinders in the House. It is time to do what is right and either reduce the EI premiums such that more Canadians can go back to work or take that fund for what it was designed, a fund to benefit those people who paid into it. It is absolutely grossly unfair that the EI fund which was designed to benefit the poorest of Canadians is being taken now by this government to pad its books to look better for the finance minister's records. It is no good to have a country that is in the black when Canadians are in the red.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member I will repeat what I said when I first stood up. I indicated that the raising of this issue was not only timely but of considerable importance and relevance to our underlying success in stature as a nation. If the hon. member would like, I would certainly take the time to provide him with a transcript of what I had said.

With respect to his comments on EI, one only has to remember not too long ago when the Conservative government was here in Ottawa when it did nothing but increase EI premiums, devastate the economy and increase poverty in this country. That government did nothing but have employment insurance premiums going up, unemployment going up and the economy going down. And this hon. member has the audacity to get up and talk about what this government has done in a negative way. January was the seventh consecutive month in which employment increased. There has been an average increase of about 57,000 jobs per month over those seven months.

We all know the issue of poverty is an issue we would like to deal with. Every parliamentarian in this House would like to deal with poverty but most parliamentarians in this House understand that whatever it is we do as a government, we must do it in a measured fashion. On one hand he talks about doing something on the benefit side while on the other hand he talks about ripping seven or eight billion dollars out of the bottom line to deal with his EI premiums because he thinks it is going to create jobs. When I speak to small business people they say “reduce my EI premiums and I will hire as many people as you like”.

Small business is concerned about the relevance of the economy. That means interest rates, a growing economy and growing opportunity which is what this government is providing.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House of Commons, this place of debate on the behalf of Canadian people, to debate this Progressive Conservative Party motion.

It is important to be aware of what that motion actually says. I will address a technical problem in it shortly. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take steps to alleviate the burden of poverty in Canada by encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance and, to that end, should increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000, index the tax brackets and index the child tax benefit.

It is interesting to me when the word poverty is used. We always characterize Canadians as caring. That is what we are in this country. That is one of the great benefits of being a Canadian. That is one of the things that makes me so grateful to be a Canadian, that we can help one another.

I suppose the first question is who is in need of this. Hence this statement. We want to address the problem of poverty. We want to alleviate poverty. Second, what is the method whereby one does that?

I would like to address the question of the definition of poverty. I believe I have stated this in this House before but it bears repetition. I think it is very important.

Our eldest son spent some time in different countries working with Christian relief organizations. I remember the time when he was in southern Sudan where there was a lot of poverty and famine. Brent communicated back to us “We are having great success where we now are. When we first came there were 150 children every day dying of starvation. We have reduced that number to 60”. He then put into brackets “of course, by Sherwood Park standards,” a town near where we live, “we have not yet reached the goal”.

I think it boggles our minds. It wrenches our hearts to think of moms and dads and family members burying their children because they have died from starvation. That is true poverty. I sometimes think maybe as a country we are very selfish because of the definition we use for poverty when there are children around the world who literally are starving to death because there is absolutely no food. I have seen these pictures. I am sure that all members have seen them, little children with the distended abdomens swelling from starvation. It is very sad.

I believe that not very many children in Canada actually die of starvation. There may be some but I believe it is very few. Of course, if there are any, that is not acceptable. Surely in our country, the richest country in terms of resources, an eager population willing to work, we can provide for every one of our citizens so that they do not live in poverty but rather have sufficient food, adequate clothing and adequate shelter.

I taught mathematics for 31 years. One thing I always resisted was a statistical application to marks in my classes. I always set out standards. I said to my students “When you graduate, I want you to have competence”. When I taught surveying students I said “You will not survive as a surveyor if you do not have a mark of 70%, 80% or 90% in trigonometry because that is the basic building block of your program. I expect you to get more than 70%. I will not fail one-fourth of you because you are in the bottom quarter of the class”.

Yet that is part of the statistical measure that we use in Canada to define poverty. I simply question the integrity of that measure.

One of the measures used is that any child living in a family whose income is less than one-half of the median income is living in poverty. If our median income in Canada for a family is $56,000, which I think is close to the number, that means anyone with a family income of less than $28,000 is living in abject poverty.

Yet I know many people who earn $18,000 a year who have families and children. They do not consider themselves living in poverty. They have adequate food, clothing and shelter. So I think we should be intellectually honest. We should exercise integrity in our definition of poverty, always remembering there are people who are having trouble making ends meet. There is no doubt about that.

It goes without saying, it is inevitable that living in a country where every penny earned is subject to taxation, where the governments confiscate 55% of everything earned, there is not enough left for us in order to alleviate poverty. We are causing the poverty. Think of how many millions of people who would not have a problem of poverty if we stopped taking that money.

There is a technical error in the bill. I am sure the PCs did not mean this, that they wanted to increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000 since that is about 10 times what it is now. I move:

Replace the words “increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000” with “increase the tax free threshold to $7,900”.

I have two reasons for this amendment. The income tax credit is an income tax term which basically relates to the amount of money returned to families based on their taxable income. There used to be a basic exemption, a certain amount of income on which we did not have to pay income tax. That amount is now nominally about $6,400 for an individual and a little less for a spouse.

The tax credit given on the income tax is actually $1,098. I am sure the PCs did not mean to increase the tax credit from $1,098 to $10,000. That is unreal. The amount I propose is a more realistic figure. Instead of having about $6,400 exempt from taxation, it is about $7,900. It is still an increase and the basic personal credit would be increased to $1,300. That is the wording of it and I am sure that the members of the party that proposed the motion today will agree with this amendment since it clarifies what they want. It brings it to a more realistic number and basically should settle the issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The debate is on the amendment.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member pointed out there is a flaw in the motion and he has moved an amendment correct that flaw.

The member for Mississauga South pointed out that the two other aspects of the motion would have very little effect. Limiting bracket creep to all incomes means that it would affect all Canadians and it would have very little effect on the impoverished. The member for Mississauga South also pointed out that the recommendation with respect to the child tax benefit would result only in a net benefit of about $14 a year.

A motion like this really is a partisan motion because it is not so much the content of the motion or whether the content of the motion is worthy or practical. It is a motion that is designed to put us in the situation where, if we voted against it, it would appear we were voting against combating poverty.

I hope the member and his party will examine this motion on its merits and show courage when they vote, and not support it simply because they are afraid to be branded as being against combating child poverty. They should treat this motion for what it is worth, and it is not a very practical motion.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is an eminently practical motion, as amended. I believe it is high time that we start leaving more money in the hands of families so they can avoid poverty, instead of driving them into poverty.

There are many businesses which end up declaring bankruptcy because of the high levels of taxation. They lay off their people and they land in poverty. If we had a tax regime that would allow them to thrive and survive, then we would have less poverty.

I have seen people who are jobless. My family used to serve soup in the evenings to homeless people. We used to minister to them. We provided basic food to them. The best thing possible that we could do for them would be to provide them with a job.

How does one do that? It is not by overtaxing Canadian businesses, families and individuals and then having a huge army of bureaucrats to distribute the money. The answer is very simple. Leave that money with the people. They will drive the economy because they will have money for food, for housing, for shelter, for clothing and for some of the luxuries of life. That is what drives the economy. That is what provides jobs. These people now, in much greater numbers, would have jobs. Meanwhile, we would still have a greater income, even at lower rates, because more people would be employed and the economy would thrive. With that additional money we could generously provide for those who because of physical and other problems cannot work. I know those people too. I have friends who are unable to work.

I wish I had more money in my pocket so I could help them directly. I have done that from time to time. However, the taxation level is such now that after we pay our bills we have scarcely anything left. It is unfortunate.

The way to handle this is through organizations. Yesterday we talked about the homeless. There are many private organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity, which more efficiently handle limited resources in providing homes for the homeless than does any government bureaucracy. That is what I am talking about.

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

Madam Speaker, did the member actually say that some Canadians may starve, but not many? Does he actually believe that the homeless have chosen somehow to be homeless? Does he believe that there are not children who are going to school hungry in the mornings? Does he recognize that in constituencies like mine there are families of four making less than $10,000 per year, living in squalor?

Perhaps it is easier for him. Based on statistics, he has a 9% poverty rating in his riding. But for those of us who represent ridings with significantly more poverty this is a real issue. It is very easy for someone in the House making around $100,000 a year to pontificate about Adam Smith, but there is a lot of poverty out there and there are a lot of people who need our help.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am aware of the fact that there are some people who are hungry. However, I do not believe—and my words were specific—that they are starving to death. That is what I was talking about.

I insist—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member's time has expired. Resuming debate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I beg the indulgence of my fellow colleagues. Could I, by unanimous consent, finish my sentence?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there agreement for the hon. member to finish his sentence?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For those families who actually have children who are hungry, let us provide a government regime of whatever means to provide for those children. We think the best way is by providing them with jobs, which come from lower taxes.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Routine Proceedings in order that I may table the third report of our special Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member is seeking unanimous agreement. Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.