Debates of March 18th, 1999

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998

[The Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, employment insurance.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody needs any information on kibbutzim, the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration worked on a kibbutz for a number of years before coming to the House.

It is important to focus the debate somewhat. It would be fair for me to say that the biggest cohort in the House is the class of 1993. When the Liberals formed the government at that time it is important to remember what our position was as a nation.

During the previous nine years the debt grew from $208 billion to $508 billion under the Progressive Conservatives and we had a record annual deficit of $42 billion.

In 1993, 11.4% of Canadians were unemployed and we were told by the former Tory prime minister that we should not expect anything below 10% before the year 2000. Although it is still much too high, the number right now is 7.8%.

In 1993 employment insurance premiums were scheduled to rise to $3.30. Since then we have lowered them each and every year. We are now at $2.55 for every $100 earned.

Our nation was falling into self-doubt and we were an economic basket case among western countries.

The reality is that we now have back to back balanced budgets for the first time in almost half a century. As we have recovered the fiscal integrity of our nation we must thank all Canadians for their support in this effort. We must also recognize and commend the leadership of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister in this effort.

Who would have believed that this day would come? In order to complete this first stage of the recovery plan and balancing the budget we pursued a balanced program of a reduction in spending, reducing transfer payments to the provinces and growing the economy. The decisions made and the actions taken were not easy for anyone, but they worked. We can once again look to the future with optimism.

Governing is about bettering the lives of Canadians and improving their standard of living. It is building today to ensure for a better tomorrow. In order to do this and do it well we as a government cannot work alone so we enlist the input of Canadians.

The principal concern of Canadians and Ontarians across the country is health care. We are making the largest single investment of the government in health care. Under the budget provinces will receive an additional $11.5 billion in transfers for health care over the next five years. My province of Ontario gets an additional $4.4 billion of that for a total of 38.2%. This investment will bring the health component of the Canada health and social transfer to the level it was before the 1990 cutbacks.

Because we are removing the equalization cap on British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and moving to a per capita entitlement for equalization payments, Ontario will receive an additional $900 million in transfer payments.

Health care is a priority for Canadians and continues to be for the government. As the Minister of Health has said, and I am paraphrasing, we must strive for a people centred system, one that stresses transparency, sharing of information and the right provider giving the right care at the right time in the right place at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. This increasingly means innovative ideas and the use of the newest technology.

My riding of Kitchener—Waterloo is well known for innovation and research. The budget has tremendous gains in this area, both in health specific research and research in general. I have just spoken of the health research initiatives as a cornerstone of the budget and will now continue to discuss other forms of research, an issue near and dear to me and the people of Kitchener—Waterloo.

I am very happy to have contributed to this process through the post-secondary caucus of the Liberal Party. I was one of the original members, along with the hon. member for Peterborough and Dr. John English, the former member for Kitchener who has now returned to teaching at the University of Waterloo.

Our universities are very pleased with the budget. Bob Rosehart, president of Wilfrid Laurier University, stated:

The focus on health in Federal Budget '99 was great news for all Canadians. The enhanced health research opportunities presented to all universities...and the increased funding to the granting councils was great news. Obviously the federal government has been listening to the universities and WLU looks forward to participating in these new initiatives.

The comments from the University of Waterloo were much the same. I am very glad to be able to say that the Kitchener—Waterloo area is very well served by the budget and by the government. Having worked with the post-secondary education and research community for a long time I knew that our caucus would help them in putting their message across.

In the consultations before the last budget the post-secondary education caucus helped to ensure that the future of post-secondary institutions and hundreds of thousands of students was given high priority. As a result, the last budget was good news for post-secondary education. This year it continues.

That is why the budget works. The people had an influence on its preparation through public opinion polling and through different caucuses and committees. Canadians are working hard to better themselves and improve their prospects. In so doing they are enhancing Canada's economic strength and furthering Canada's future prospects, enabling us as a nation to compete successfully in the new economy.

Research and development are crucial to the economic well-being as we compete in the new economy. It is more imperative now as we are undergoing an information technology revolution and has a greater impact on jobs than the industrial revolution.

Millions of jobs across the country were lost in the old economy and the millions of net new jobs created in the past four years are a tribute to our ability to embrace the new economy, much of it a new economy founded on research and development.

For example, my community in Kitchener—Waterloo was once a manufacturing community and an insurance centre. Now its manufacturing sector is reduced and it specializes in higher education and high tech and is still an insurance centre. Under this new budget there is an increase in funding for research and research infrastructure that will be of great benefit to my riding, to my province and to my country.

This increase in funding includes another $15 million over three years for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, $15 million over three years for the National Research Council, $75 million over three years for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and $200 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This new funding is in addition to the funding granted for health research.

The Canadian opportunities strategy increases our ability to achieve our goals by giving every Canadian better access to knowledge and skills. The 1999 budget builds on this strategy by investing more than $1.8 billion for this year and the next three years. This funding will go toward knowledge: creating knowledge, disseminating knowledge, commercializing knowledge and hence supporting employment.

The Canadian opportunities strategy includes Canadian millennium scholarships averaging $3,000 a year up to $15,000 in total for four years; Canada study grants averaging $2,225 per year to help students with the greatest need; support for advanced research as detailed earlier; and tax relief for interest on student loans in the Canada student loan interest relief. The strategy also encourages families to save for their children's education through the Canada education savings grant announced last year. The government contributes to RESPs.

The Canada opportunities strategy helps to disseminate knowledge across the country through SchoolNet, a program to connect every high school and library to the Internet before the millennium. It is due to be completed by March 31, 1999. The community access program will connect 10,000 rural and urban communities in two years.

There is no question that my community of Kitchener—Waterloo is part of the new economy. As Canada moves forward into the knowledge based economy of the present and the future, we will have a budget that helps us as a nation to prepare for that. We have many challenges before us as Canadians. I think the budget helps us in that direction.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to be in the member's riding this week and to talk to some of his constituents. They are telling a very different story than the picture he just finished painting.

I spoke with students at Wilfred Laurier on Tuesday and I spoke to others throughout his community. I can indicate what they are saying about the government's actions, its high taxes, its high debt, and the slash and burn approach that it has taken to health care. It added $11.5 billion to health care, which did not make up for the $20 billion that it slashed and burned from health care. They are not happy about that situation. Individuals in the member's community are not singing the same praises of the government. In fact, they have hard questions for the member.

We heard today in question period the Minister of Industry talk about the falling standard of living. The member was singing the praises of the standard of living as though it was improving in his riding. The minister counteracted that today.

I would like to ask the member a very specific question. How can he justify saying that the standard of living is improving in his community when his own Minister of Industry is saying that there is a fall in the standard of living of up to $7,000 for Canadians?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is welcome any time to come to my riding and see a community that actually works. If he actually talked to the people and listened to what they had to say, the hon. member would understand why Reform support keeps dropping and dropping from election to election.

Let me say to the member very specifically how the quality of life has improved in my community because of the government. First, fewer people are unemployed. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. It is below 6%. If the hon. member looked around my community and studied what makes my community tick, he would recognize that we made the transformation from an old economy to a new economy. Previous governments had the foresight to make the necessary investments that are well represented by the University of Waterloo, Sir Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague had to say, and I really had the feeling he was from another planet.

Let me give you some figures: in 1995, the total poverty rate reached 17.4%. The number of Canadians living in poverty had increased to over 5 million. The poverty rate for Canadian families was at 14%, or more than 1 million families. The poverty rate for single Canadians was 36%. The poverty rate for single mothers under 65, with children under 18, was 57%.

My hon. colleague just told us that his riding was heaven on earth. Good for him, but he should come to my riding of Matapédia—Matane and listen to what my constituents have to say.

I would like to ask him a question. What would he say to my constituents?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, too many Canadians are poor. Certainly nobody in the House takes any joy in that.

Prior to coming to parliament I used to work with an organization called Youth in Conflict with the Law. Many of the people we worked with were before the courts due to poverty and lack of opportunities.

What I said in my speech was that the situation is Canada has improved greatly since 1993. All members of the House must work together to make sure that trend continues. Child poverty is very much an important concern of the government. If he examines the budgets over the last number of years, he will see we have spent $2 billion to fight in that endeavour. We will continue to do more.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. parliamentary secretary across the way has two universities in his riding, Waterloo and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

I visit campuses across the country and talk to students. I know his campuses are no different from the others. Students have a problem finding jobs when they get out. They face high taxes. They have student debt loads. Many of them are reconsidering whether or not they want to remain Canadians or go to the United States to find work. I know of computer programmers, doctors and nurses who are leaving this country. They get an education here but because of tax differentials they go down to the United States.

Even though the member across the way likes to brag about low unemployment in his riding, is it because so many of the young people out of his universities find employment elsewhere in that the tax advantages are so much better in the States than they are in Canada?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member back to my riding—I know he has been there before—to continue his study into what makes a community click.

He talked about nurses leaving the country. In the case of the province of Ontario many nurses have left the country. It has everything to do with the fact that the provincial government, with which those members are so pleased, has fired 10,000 nurses. The government flips and flops and is trying to hire them back, bring them back from the United States. Poor planning.

Let me be very clear. For the most part, people who come out of Sir Wilfrid Laurier University go to very well paying jobs. Let me also inform the member that the Conestoga graduates have the highest employment rate of people going to community colleges in the province of Ontario. I am sure the member opposite would like to applaud that. The ranking was recently done and I believe it is at 94%.

When criticizing things, sometimes we hear mention of a glass of water. This glass of water happens to be 75% full. I would rather look at it as being 75% full than be like the official opposition and look at the glass of water and complain that it is 25% empty.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for St. Albert. Is the hon. member going to split his time?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think so but I will not take up the full amount of my time as I have another commitment I have to go to.

I am pleased to rise on Bill C-72, a bill which makes amendments to the Income Tax Act, perhaps not to raise taxes but to ensure the Minister of Finance collects all the money he feels he needs. I want to give a few highlights that were really not brought out clearly in the budget.

I am looking at the budget plan 1999, page 55. A table points out anticipated revenues for the year 2000-01 are $159.5 billion. Back at the time when this government took office, revenues were about $123 billion.

In the time the government has been here and the time I have been here, we have seen a $37 billion increase in the amount of money the government collects from Canadian taxpayers. There are only 30 million people in Canada, including babies and babies are not paying tax. I know the government would like them to pay tax, but not yet, give them a few years. It works out to over $1,200 or $1,300 more that the government is collecting from every Canadian than it did when it took office five years ago.

This is the type of thing Canadians do not realize as we hear these wonderful statements about a balanced budget and how the government has done marvellous things. I do not think it is a marvellous thing that the government has taken all this extra money straight out of the pockets of Canadians.

The government has told us how much it has brought program spending down and kept it under control. Again, looking at the same table on page 55, from 1997-98 to 2000-01 the government is projecting a $5 billion increase in program spending. Away it goes. As soon as the budget is balanced, let the money flow.

Public debt is paramount in people's minds. Canadians know we are in debt. It is time the debt was brought down. Not one penny change is being proposed. By 2001 the debt will remain at $580 billion. Today it is at $580 billion. The government does not have the slightest intention of repaying any of the debt that the Liberals and the Tory party accumulated over 30 years and hung around the necks of Canadians.

These are the things we need to bring out. We have to let Canadians know it was not the government that balanced the budget. Canadians through extra taxes balanced the budget.

Let us look at the budget plan 1999 and personal income taxes on page 61. What is happening to personal income taxes? The government says it is going to cut them. Personal income tax for 1997-98 was $70.8 billion. For 2001 it is projected to rise to $76.2 billion. That is almost a $6 billion increase in personal income taxes.

What is going to happen with the hated GST? Look at the same table. The goods and services tax at $19.5 billion is going to rise to $22.4 billion. Another $3 billion squeezed out of the pockets of the taxpayers on top of the $6 billion. It is not much wonder the Minister of Finance is awash with cash.

What else is there? It says that employment insurance benefits will rise. The announcement I heard today by, I think it was the leader of the NDP, suggested the EI benefits were going down, not going up. As the Minister of Finance is awash with cash, he is cutting back on the payments to those who most need it.

Of course there are the public debt charges. The interest we pay on this huge $580 billion debt, is projected to rise from almost $41 billion to over $43 billion. The sum of $43 billion a year means for example that we could multiply by four the cheques we send out to people on employment insurance. Or we could double the amount of Canada pension plan payments. Or we could cut income taxes by more than $1,000 per Canadian.

That $40 billion is hanging around our necks. It is a noose strangling the productivity and the standard of living of Canadians. That is the legacy of the government and its predecessor. That is why the Reform Party is here. That is why we are saying lower taxes. That is why we are saying fairer taxes.

We heard earlier from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, a medical doctor, a physician who dealt with the sick every day before he was elected. He told us that in his professional opinion, stay at home parents provided the most valuable of services to Canadians, to our young families and our next generation, by providing the nurture, the love and support for the most vulnerable of our people. Yet the Minister of Finance and the government find that they have to penalize people who want to do that.

I have heard it said so often that two income families have to work whereas a single income family does not have work, that one can provide enough money anyway. Let me relate a little incident which happened when I was going back to my riding. Going through the Ottawa airport, the security guard who checks the baggage and ensures that our flights are safe noticed my member of parliament pin. He stopped me and said, “I only make $23,000 on this job. My wife and I have three children but my wife is a stay at home parent because it is important for us that my wife raises our three kids”. There he was with a $23,000 family income and getting no assistance whatsoever from the Minister of Finance, absolutely none.

There is someone who is absolutely dedicated and committed to his family, someone who is obviously making great sacrifices financially for his family. No doubt as a family they are providing the nurture and the love to raise their kids to the best of their ability.

Those are the types of things the Minister of Finance does not tell us too much about. Another thing is he is salting some money away for the next few years after the millennium. Right after the millennium we might have an election and it seems that the two might coincide.

What is the Minister of Finance doing? For example, last year he took $2.5 billion, charged it against the public accounts and said, “I am not going to spend this money now, I am going to spend it after the millennium as a millennium scholarship fund. I am going to have $2.5 billion to spend on students after the millennium”. While students are crying and trying to pay for their tuition today, last year the Minister of Finance tucked $2.5 billion into a bank account. It is sitting there gathering interest and he is not spending a penny of it until after the millennium.

In the last budget he announced $3.5 billion that he will charge to the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, a couple of weeks from now. The provinces can draw that down over the next few years to pay for their health care.

Just those two items alone add up to $6 billion which he has charged against the public accounts. And he has not spent a penny.

On top of that, the year before there was $800 million for the centre for innovation. The auditor general tripped him up saying the finance minister could not do that but he said yes he would anyway. They had a little spat. The auditor general called him to account for it, the same way he called him to account on the millennium scholarship fund. There is another $800 million that the Minister of Finance tucked away two years ago and the money has yet to be spent.

We are up to almost $7 billion that the Minister of Finance has prepaid. He has the money sitting in bank accounts. It will be after the millennium before Canadians see the benefit of this. In the meantime he says, “All I have got is a balanced budget. I cannot give you tax relief like you expect tax relief. I cannot show a surplus”.

Why does he not show a surplus? Because he is tucking this money away in other bank accounts and not spending it until he feels it is appropriate for his particular agenda. We can only speculate what his agenda may be. May be it is for the leadership. It could be for the next election. Who knows?

The point is Canadians are paying. They could have tax relief. They could have more money spent on health care this year. They could have more money spent to help young kids with their tuition this year, but the Minister of Finance said, “While you have paid for it, you are not going to get the benefit until later”, until it suits his agenda to give it.

That is the type of smoke and mirrors we are getting from the Minister of Finance. While he makes these wonderful magnanimous statements about how well he is doing, let us remember that the budget has been balanced on the backs of Canadians. There is a surplus that the finance minister has hidden away, $7 billion in total so far, that could be spent on Canadians or to provide tax relief which we have not seen. People need to know that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the critique of the member for St. Albert. It reminds me of the difficulty the Reform Party seems to have with how government revenues are generated. It is a fairly simple phenomenon that as the economy grows and expands, which Canada's economy has been doing with great strength, and as new jobs are created, which has been happening in Canada with more than 1.4 million new jobs since 1993, there is more income in the economy and more income taxes are payable. It is a sign of a good economy. It is not the sign of a bad economy.

The members opposite seem to be challenged with this very simple concept. I want to remind the House that gross tax revenues are up because the economy is growing.

I would like to briefly comment on one item and perhaps the member opposite could answer. The member for St. Albert was in Australia recently attending a conference on budget cutting and expenditure reduction. Given the fact that our expenditure to GDP is the lowest in about 30 or 40 years, what new ideas did he come away with after his visit to that jurisdiction?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's first point about lower unemployment, the Minister of Finance in budget plan 1999 on page 64 projects that employment insurance benefit payments will rise from $11.8 billion to $13.8 billion by 2000-01, an extra $2 billion for employment insurance payments. I do not think the government is looking for reductions in unemployment.

Getting to his other point, when I was talking to the senior officials in the treasuries of Australia and New Zealand, I found that they have a policy of focused program spending. They are into what we call accrual accounting, double entry accounting and budgeting.

The Canadian government made a commitment in 1989 to get into accrual accounting. It is going to be 2004 before we get there. It will have been 15 years before it gets there.

In the meantime, for lack of clear, precise guidelines on how we spend the money we have wasted billions. That is what I learned.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to commend my hon. colleague for the lucid way in which he projected forward and indicated clearly on what basis the budget was really put into a balanced position.

I would like to give him the opportunity to correct the hon. member opposite who seemed to indicate that the only way revenue increased in Canada was simply because the GDP was rising, the economy was generally healthy and therefore obviously the revenues would increase.

What the hon. member earlier forgot to hear my hon. colleague say had to do with the income the individual taxpayer in Canada had to pay. It is not as a result of the GDP but simply because the tax burden of each individual taxpayer has been increased. The accumulated effect of that has been to increase the revenue and to say for sure that the balanced budget is as a result of payments by Canadian taxpayers.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he is perfectly correct. The increase of $37 billion in tax revenue came from Canadians. There was virtually no real increase in our population. That works out to $1,300 to $1,400 per Canadian paid to the Minister of Finance and this government. Canadians balanced the budget.

I do not care if he says it is because they went to work or whatever methodology or rationale he uses, the point is Canadians are paying a lot more. The Minister of Finance is hiding surpluses and could provide more tax relief now.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about some of the ways the government is raising funds now and some of the ways it is spending it. Does he think that corporate welfare, waste, patronage, dumb blonde joke books, the canoe hall of fame, crown corporations, Senate budget increases or section 745 appeals are a good way to spend taxpayer dollars?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Calgary West just pointed out, there is absolutely no end to the innovative ways the government gets to spend money. It just seems to keep on doing that.

When I was in Australia and New Zealand I found that they, because New Zealand hit the wall and we almost hit the wall too, had to focus their government spending and ensure that every penny they spent was productive, focused and provided a benefit for their citizens. On that basis, they created accrual accounting, balance sheets, clear results and focused spending.

On that basis, if we were to apply the same rigour and discipline to our spending, I am sure tens of billions of dollars could be shaved from the government's spending with no real impact on the economy.

It has taken 15 years from the time it made the decision in 1989 to move this way and 2004 before it is to implement phase I. It will be 2025 before it gets it finished perhaps if it is still in office. Of course it will be long gone by then. The point is that every day we waste is money wasted too.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again that famous question gets asked. Why are we here? What are we doing? We are here to debate Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Right there there has to be a problem. Every time the government has amended the Income Tax Act, take hold of your wallet because something funny is about to happen. It is about to get lighter. I can tell the House about all the ways our wallets have become lighter as a result of this government. It is wonderful at finding ways to lighten the Canadian taxpayer's wallet.

First it was life insurance premiums the government went after. It lightened our wallets to the tune of $210 million last year. That is a lot of lightening. It is not only last year, it started off with $120 million in 1994. Add it all up and there has been over $1 billion worth of wallet lightening. That is a lot of lightening.

Then it went after lifetime capital gains exemptions. It did a lot lightening there. Just this last year it lightened our wallets again by $340 million. Then it did income testing for age credits implementation. That was another $300 million. Then there were the deductions with regard to meals. It got rid of that. It changed the definition of income once again, like it is doing today with Bill C-72. It has lightened our wallets by $275 million. Forget calling it lightening of the wallet, it took $275 million.

Then corporations' tax rate increased. It took $160 million and killed some jobs in the meantime. Then it went ahead with a corporate surtax and that increased. That was another $120 million. It killed some more jobs. That is something this government is good at. It is good at lightening the wallet and killing a few jobs along the way. Then it came in with a tax on gasoline. It took another $500 million. Then there was the tax on tobacco. It cannot forget that one. That was another $65 million.

What about the pensions? The government went after that. That was another $10 million. That was just on foreign pensions. Then it went after RRSP withdrawals and took out $45 million. It changed the time when people could put into it. Then look at EI premiums, part time workers, people who cannot collect on EI because they are not full time but they are paying in. It is a tax. If they cannot collect on it and they are paying in it is called a tax. In this last year it has been $1 billion.

When we look at these numbers it is ludicrous. In 1994 it was $370 million. In 1995 it was $808 million. The year after that it went to $1.15 billion. Add all these things up cumulatively. Then look at the bracket creep. The Liberals have raised taxes by billions upon billions of dollars. Any time I see Liberals talk about amending the Income Tax Act I reach for my wallet and I hold it dearly.

I will go on to a few other things these Liberals have been up to. Let us talk about priorities. They are increasing taxes. Liberals know how to do that better than anybody. I do not doubt that. Of any of the parties in the House the Liberals know how to whack at taxes better than anybody around.

We ask ourselves what they do with all this money. They raise our taxes, these Liberals, these people with these grand priorities, these big government schemes, these tax and spenders. What do they spend it on? They discriminate against single income families. That is what they do. They give money out in corporate welfare, profitable businesses. They give out subsidies. They give out grants. They give out tax concessions. Shame on them. None of the competitors for those industries want to see them get a break and get subsidized by the government.

Then there is the waste. My goodness, I was in the human resources development committee and a departmental official came into that committee. The departmental official said there was $200 million they were not going to use in a budgetary envelope. All the Liberals across the way got glum. The Reform Party asked if the departmental officials said there was no use for the money, why not take it out of the budgetary envelope.

All the Liberals lined up like little duckies in a row. They said “It is a ministerial document. If the minister said this was okay, we will not challenge the minister. The minister is all knowing. The minister is all intelligent. The minister must know what is going on”.

The $200 million the departmental official said they would not use got used. Wow, the waste. Then I look at the patronage. When I have people come into my riding office and tell me about OAS clawbacks, when they tell me about being taxed on the money they are setting aside for their children's educations, I have to tell them the Liberals have a higher priority on patronage. Shame on the Liberals.

This is insulting. This is above and beyond. It goes beyond the pale, that they would fund a book on dumb blonde jokes. I see a couple of blonde heads across the aisle. I wonder how they feel about that. I see a couple of female MPs opposite. I wonder what they think about the dumb blonde joke books their government funds. I wonder whether they think that is a good expenditure. Shame on them, and they do not even speak up about it.

Then I look at the canoe hall of fame in the Prime Minister's riding. By what stretch of the imagination is a canoe hall of fame in the Prime Minister's riding more important than seniors pensions or more important than health care or more important than education? A person has to stretch pretty darn far to come up with that type of Liberal logic.

I look at the subsidies they give to bad governments. I am talking about some of the things they do with foreign aid around this place. What do they do? They look at people like Mobutu in Zaire. They gave money to this person who is well known for bad government, for corruption and bad policies. They help to fund weaponry and genocide and all the rest of these things.

Liberals love giving money overseas. I do not know by what logic they do that when they have taxpayers at home who are crying for tax cuts and crying for services they have been cutting back for years.

They are funding roads overseas and yet we have problems with roads in Canada. What a joke in the transportation committee. We are studying intelligent transportation systems. How about the cracks in the highways? Never mind intelligent transportation. Get the noodle working on that.

What about crown corporations? We are giving money to CBC TV. Why? The unions are killing it anyway. What are we doing? The unions will finish off that company.

Then I look at Canada Post competing in e-mail with the private sector, competing in couriers with companies like FedEx and UPS, cutting out from competition companies like T2P overnight in Calgary.

What are we doing taking taxpayer dollars to subsidize businesses to put other people out of the play in the marketplace? Shame on the Liberals.

The Liberals are funding Senate budget increases, an unelected, unaccountable body with people who do not show up for work, with criminal records, violating the law and the Constitution. Yet they are giving them budget increases of 16% over two years. That is where our hard earned tax dollars are going, to the Senate.

I look at section 745. Each appeal under section 745 is costing us on average $500,000. Clifford Olson's appeal cost us over $1 million. That is where the money is going.

With all those tax increases the Liberals are bringing down, every time they feel people's wallets and bring in amendments and redefine what income means, watch out because this is the type of stuff they are spending it on. That is a crying shame.

It would be better to burn that money than give it to the Liberals. They use it against taxpayers. They fund the competition. They put in worse legislation that works against people. That is what they are doing. It would be better to take that money and burn it than to give it to a government which mismanages it and uses it against the taxpayer. It would be better if it were buried. That is the type of thing we have going on here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member but, as he knows, all good things must come to an end. I assure him that the next time this matter comes up for debate he will have nine minutes remaining to continue his speech.

The time for Government Orders having expired and it being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

An Act To Amend The Act Of Incorporation Of The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation Of Mackenzie

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding any standing order and the usual practices of the House, Bill S-20, an act to amend the Act of incorporation of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie, be now called for second reading; and that the House do proceed to dispose of the bill at all stages, including committee of the whole.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion, that we deal with all stages of this bill today?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

moved that Bill S-20, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-20. By way of background, the corporation of Mackenzie was created in 1913 by an act of parliament. The corporation takes in 38 Roman Catholic churches in the Northwest Territories, northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Since 1913 the vicar and eventually the bishop have continued to serve the social as well as the spiritual needs of Canada's northern peoples. The presence of the Catholic church in the western Arctic for over a century has contributed a visible and important presence in the Canadian north that has significantly served Canada's Arctic sovereignty.

In 1913 when the act of parliament was passed sections 4 and 6 placed certain restrictions upon the corporation including limiting the value of the property and assets of the corporation to $50,000 and the length of time the corporation may own land. These limitations were no doubt at the time sensible and appropriate. In the decades since that time, however, the corporation has invested wisely and has received considerable support from various benefactors resulting in holdings in today's market which are considerably more than the legislated limit.

It is important to the continuing work of the corporation and the financial well-being of the diocese that the limits upon its holdings be removed so it may continue with its worthwhile service to the northern community. I am pleased that Bill S-20 will bring the act into line with the modern reality of the corporation.

There is also a proposed technical amendment to the French name of the corporation. The amendment to the French name of the corporation better translates the intention and context of the English name of the corporation and brings the act into line with current French drafting terminology.

I am confident that this bill will ensure that the Corporation of Mackenzie is well managed and ready for the next century. It is with great pleasure that I support the bill in the hope that it will be passed in an expeditious manner.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?