House of Commons Hansard #192 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was provinces.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I put this question to the minister. Was the minister referring to notes or was he referring to a document?
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
The Minister has said he would table the original document. That is what the House is entitled to. The House is not entitled to the notes of the minister. He has said he will table the document and he will do that at the earliest time.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, on a similar point of order, the finance minister quoted me as the member for Calgary Centre and some documents he had here. I just want to make sure that whatever he is tabling does include references to what he is alleging I said because I am not confident that what he has alleged is accurate. I would like to see the original documents.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would have to review the blues to see if the minister did indeed quote the hon. member directly. Would he care to comment?
Paul Martin Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, the comment was from Hansard . I would be delighted to table Hansard .
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
If the hon. member was quoted in Hansard that is an official document of the House. If that is where he was quoted from that would end it there.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. finance minister misquoted me in question period today, if in fact he quoted from Hansard , particularly in one of the quotes. I request that misquote be withdrawn.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Let us check Hansard and see what was said. If necessary I will come back to the House.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be read the third time and passed.
Deepak Obhrai Reform Calgary East, AB
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.
I rise again to speak on Bill C-65, the renewal of equalization payments. I have been sitting here all day listening to government speakers on this debate. What I have found is that they have refused to answer the questions that my colleagues and I have put to them throughout this debate.
We have listed our concerns point by point on this bill in reference to equalization payments. What we are hearing from the government side is the usual status quo or do nothing approach this government is becoming famous for.
The concept of equalization is not under challenge. We all understand and agree with the concept that Canadians are willing to share with their fellow citizens their good fortunes.
We have concerns and we have been saying them throughout this debate. Let us start with what the auditor general has been saying. In the auditor general's 1997 review he said that parliament is presented with the legislative proposals any time from a few months to a few weeks before an approval is required.
What is a problem is that parliament is not given adequate time to review this legislation. What is even more of a concern is that equalization makes up 8% of of all federal spending. We as custodians of taxpayer dollars need to debate the effectiveness of all legislation where taxpayer dollars are involved.
Here we have a program in front of us that uses 8% of all federal program spending and what do we get? We get probably three business days' notice or maybe a month's notice to look at this program. That is not transparency or accountability.
Bill C-65 from our point of view is an extremely flawed process. All my colleagues have been talking about their concerns. I was quite surprised to see the Conservatives showing the same concerns that we have despite the fact that at one point they formed the government and did not do much about this program. They have pointed out, as we have, the flaws in the legislation, the problems with this bill.
Let us talk a little about what concerns us, the formula. They have not told us what the formula is. We do not understand this formula. Who understands this formula, by the way? It is a formula that is supposed to create equality in Canada. That is funny, a formula that is supposed to create equality and members of parliament cannot even understand how it is calculated.
My colleague from the NDP this morning said he tried to look at the formula and gave up. We have a formula that nobody understands and it is now becoming even more complicated.
This is a question I am asking the government. Government MPs have been standing up and defending this equalization program with all its greatness, as they say, but they themselves do not understand it. How can they stand up and defend an expenditure when they do not know how it is calculated? This is a weird concept.
Government MPs have given the power to the bureaucrats again. It is the bureaucrats who are running the expenditure, not the House of Commons, not the elected members here. That is what is coming from that side and it makes me concerned and a little sad.
The auditor general has also talked about the formula and has said that he would like this thing to be addressed. The department said it would address the formula issue. It is quite interesting that even the bureaucrats have been struggling with this for 30 years and have had no success. It is becoming a guessing game. This is a cause of concern for everybody because what has the formula created? It has created inequality.
We now have seven provinces that we consider have nots. We have three have provinces. As my colleague this morning pointed out, some of the have not provinces have far more extensive social programs for their citizens than the have provinces, and I applaud them for that, yet they are called the have not provinces. In the have not provinces some of the programs are far superior. Where is this equality?
The whole formula issue was in a study done by Queen's University.
It took only two years to use the formula. After that it was a band-aid solution. The rest of the time the system is driven by various bells and whistles, which means that it is not addressing the real issue. It is at the whim of bureaucrats or at the whim of politicians.
As an example, Newfoundland Premier Tobin's expected deficit budget indicated that it was subject to manipulation. By whom? By bureaucrats and by politicians. Members of parliament who are supposedly the custodians of taxpayers money are unable and cannot find out how 8% of federal spending was spent.
This concept is justified by a very noble statement that services should be equal throughout Canada. It is driven by that statement and that is all it is driven by. After that it is lost in the middle of bureaucracy, in the maze of manipulation and inequality. There is something seriously wrong with the whole concept. That is what my party is challenging, not the noble concept of equalization.
Where are transparency and accountability? As I mentioned, members of parliament see in the budget document that so much money has gone to the have not provinces from the have provinces. It is a very strange concept, as my colleague pointed out, that seven provinces are have not provinces and three provinces are have provinces in a country that has the best standard of living in the world.
There is no accountability. What concerns me is that it is for the next five years. Perhaps government members have a problem. I think that is why they have been ramming through the bill to meet some deadline. They could not come up with a proper review of the formula, but they could have extended it for six months while a parliamentary committee looked into the whole process. All members who have given speeches in the House are in agreement with the concept, so I would not see any problem with all parties studying the issue for the next six months.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Madam Speaker, I value the intervention of my colleague. He gave some very good insights into the whole process of equalization renewal.
It is very curious that the legislation requires the program be renewed every five years but departmental officials work on the process for approximately two and a half years. We get that from the auditor general's report. The officials work in the back rooms. There are consultations with the provinces, also in the back rooms. However the final say is given by parliament because it is the expenditure of federal money. It is money for which we as members of parliament are responsible.
It is very curious and totally inadequate, even according to the auditor general, that parliament be given so little time. As I mentioned earlier in an intervention, we were given but three working days to study the legislation when it was introduced at first reading. We had no time to look at it in advance. We had no time to study it and look at the different convolutions.
I would like to put on the record of the House of Commons in this short question and comment period something the auditor general has said because I think it is very important:
We believe that the process needs to be opened up to facilitate wider participation in the consideration of changes to such a fundamental program.
Many interest parties, including some leading academics, have given considerable thought to this program and we believe their views could be useful. The government tried this approach once, in 1981, when it established the Parliamentary Task Force on Federal-Provincial Arrangements (Breau Committee), which focused on all fiscal transfers, including equalization. Its report, Fiscal Federalism in Canada , stands today as one of the best public assessments of Canada's fiscal situation.
Then he went on to say that he did not know whether this should be the approach but that it was an effective way of involving parliamentarians. He made the following recommendation:
The Department of Finance should ensure that parliament is consulted in a meaningful way on the periodic renewal of equalization.
My intervention is probably more a comment than a question, but certainly I would invite the member from Calgary to concur with what I just said.
Deepak Obhrai Reform Calgary East, AB
Madam Speaker, I have no comment to make. My colleague has very eloquently said exactly what our major concerns have been. I commend him for putting them on the record.
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be read the third time and passed.
Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
A long time ago a universal question was asked in the biblical story of Cain and Abel: am I my brother's keeper. The answer from the Bible that permeates the social justice system of the western world is yes. Yes, we are our brother's keeper. We have a social and moral responsibility to see that the poor, the less fortunate and the weak in society are taken care of.
Therefore I would not argue that the equalization program is a valued part of the federal-provincial relationship. We have regions of our country that have found greater prosperity than others. They have long been termed the have and the have not provinces. Typically the have provinces have included British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. The remaining provinces have been given the dubious title of the have not provinces.
As we know, the whole point of the equalization program is to ensure that there is a minimal level of service for all Canadians in all parts of Canada. My time will not be used to refute that premise. While all of us would agree that the premise of equalization payments has long been a part of the Canadian social make-up, the actual process leaves much to be desired.
The minister has shown a complete contempt toward the citizens of Canada, the auditor general and parliamentary procedure. In the auditor general's report the following point was made:
The Department of Finance ... could use parliament more effectively, soliciting advice from a wider circle of interested parties, rather than relying almost exclusively on the advice of a committee of federal and provincial officials.
This has simply not occurred. As my hon. colleague just pointed out, at the initial introduction of the bill there were only three business days in which to review the documents and to prepare for debate. Reform staff had to ask to receive a briefing from finance officials in order to determine the effects of the proposed legislation. This is not good enough if government is to work for the people.
The equalization program makes up 8% of all federal program spending. A program this large deserves more than just a superficial glance.
I would ask that a review of this procedure take place. The House is to be used as a forum for debate that brings in alternative ideas, constructive criticism and allows the Canadian public full access to the parliamentary process. I do not believe this has occurred.
The Department of Finance has had five years in which to prepare for the legislation. Every five years the legislation must come to parliament to ensure that parliamentarians and indeed all Canadians know what transactions have occurred between the federal and provincial governments.
The auditor general's final concluding remark was that the Department of Finance ought to devote more effort to its relationship with parliament. Parliament is the legislator for the program and the body to which the department and the minister are accountable.
He concluded that in their view this relationship could be used to the advantage of the department and for the betterment of the program. Plain and simply, this has not happened.
The Minister of Finance and his departmental officials have simply ignored the report of the auditor general in this regard. It is outrageous to think that a minister of the crown can so blatantly ignore the office of the auditor general.
One has to wonder if there is something else amiss. The Minister of Finance knew that the bill must come before the House for debate and final approval by March 31, 1999. Yet he introduced it only weeks before this deadline. The minister and his department have had five years in which to prepare legislation, and yet the House is now asked to rush it through. Unfortunately this happens far too often in this place.
My second point is with regard to the matter of fairness. Currently the equalization payment is made by calculations of 33 different revenue sources. This is an incredibly complex formula. Few people in government truly understand how it works.
The model looks at 33 tax elements of the economies of five provinces and tries to estimate how much revenue the province can raise in each category. For each tax element it then converts each estimate into a per capita figure, totals them and multiplies them by the number of people in the province to arrive at the equalization payment.
Ten provinces have 10 different methods of calculating property taxes, income taxes, resource values and all other calculations that make up the 33 different revenue values calculated in the equalization payment. Where is the fairness in that?
One of the greatest inequities that affects my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan is the calculation of resources. While it is recognized that the value of the timber harvested in the province of B.C. is greater than that which is harvested in Saskatchewan, the cost of production is not taken into account.
Let us consider the following. According to the Council of Forest Industry the cost of building logging roads in B.C. in 1997 was $715 million. The cost of building logging roads has risen by 171% since 1992. The equalization formula does not take all this into account. This disparity will continue to grow. Simply the system is flawed.
My third major concern is the incentive to change. The way the system is currently structured there is no incentive to move from a have not province to a have province. For a have not province to increase its tax revenues means that it will turn loose a portion of its equalization payment. In general terms it is easier to accept money from outside the province than it is to raise it within the province itself.
The finance minister and his department have escaped much constructive criticism on this important issue by ensuring that the process is not transparent or easily understood. The more complex the system, the fewer the number of people who will understand it. The fewer who understand it, the easier it is for the Minister of Finance to subject it to political manipulation.
When a system is complex it is easy to be inaccurate and ultimately unfair. The system can be made much simpler. One such consideration would be to calculate the payments for the equalization program based upon provincial GDP. This would ensure that individual provinces cannot make internal adjustments and therefore add to the revenues from outside dollars. GDPs are not subject to adjustment.
Equalization payments should go to those provinces that require them the most. As one of the richest countries in the world, it is hard to believe that 70% of Canada's provinces are declared to be have not provinces. This simply boggles the mind.
Our system of equalization payments requires a major review and overhaul. At a time when Canadians are expecting to be rewarded for the pain and suffering endured under this government, and arriving at this stage of a balanced budget, this new equalization program will cost taxpayers an additional $700 million over the next five years. This to me does not appear to be sound fiscal management. This current program pits Canadians in one province against those in another. For all the government says, in reality this program is divisive.
As a whole, Canadians are known to be compassionate, generous and caring for one another. We have seen this time and time again during the past several years with ice storms in Ontario and Quebec and major flood disasters in Manitoba. Canadians all across the country reached out to assist other Canadians in need. They did it without being asked. They did it in their neighbourhoods and from afar because they believe that they are their brother's keeper.
The equalization program does not do this. Surely there are better ways to do business for all Canadians, but the finance minister has chosen an arrogant approach in the handling of this matter. With the inherent problems and inequities that still exist under this legislation, I must oppose it.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech regarding this bill.
I know the member has a large interest in the funding of health care which has had quite a history in Canada. When our forefathers put our Constitution together, they gave explicit responsibility to the provinces to run the health care system in each province. Over time, particularly in the last 30 years or so, there has been quite a shift in this. The federal government originally intervened by paying voluntarily apparently with no strings attached 50% of the costs. It used its spending power to intrude into a provincial jurisdiction. Over the last several years that has eroded. The number which I last heard is 13% of actual costs are covered by the federal government although it continues to tax us the same.
I presume the member has given some thought to how the federal government should be participating in the health care funding. I would appreciate it if he would give us his insight into this and perhaps tie it into the whole idea of equalization. I would like to know from him whether he would like to see the CHST separated from equalization or merged with it, perhaps like the giant HST where the sales tax was merged. Perhaps we could merge the outgoing money, instead of the incoming money and equalize it per capita for each province and territory so that they could provide close to equal services to their people.
I do not know how much thought the member has given to it, but I would be very interested in his response to that question.
Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I am very interested in the country's health care system.
The federal government in proposing the universal medicare system a number of years ago did indeed shoulder its fair share of the load. At that point it was contributing some 50% of the moneys for health care. Like many other good things that over the years turn progressively worse, the health care system has deteriorated because the federal government has failed to live up to that initial obligation. The hon. member is quite right. It is down to 13% and less now in terms of actual funding.
In terms of equalization payments, what we have here is another inequitable system that is based on a very abstract and complex way of figuring it out. Over the years it has not done justice to balancing across the nation the need for fairness in our taxation system, in the amount of money that government provides for people and for the health care system itself. I would certainly say that the government and all of us as legislators here in the House should be giving far more thought to the reform of this system.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, I thought there was time left for questions and comments. I was giving the hon. member the opportunity to ask a question. I have another question if time permits.
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.
Yesterday when we were debating Bill C-55, that bill which protects this country's magazine industry, I said that I was a passionate interventionist. Today I am happy to see that we have another debate in the House which in essence deals with Government of Canada intervention.
Quite frankly, I believe that the purpose of all of us sitting in the House of Commons is to deal with different levels, different styles of government intervention. I believe our purpose in sitting in the House of Commons is to speak for those people who do not have a voice, to speak for those regions of Canada that from time to time need voices to stand up for them. When I hear debates in the House of Commons where we stand up for people who need a referee in terms of making sure that their needs or their concerns are looked out for, I cheer.
I feel sad when I see an issue like that of homelessness and the Government of Canada is not in a position to respond in a direct way. Some of our listeners and some of the members today might wonder what I mean by that. Over the past few years, in the name of fiscal responsibility we have boarded up Government of Canada instruments, or Government of Canada departments or agencies that allowed us to intervene when we needed things done in the common good.
Homelessness is one of those issues which I think illustrates that by disengaging too rapidly and too radically we have lost our ability to intervene. This problem exists in my city and in other cities across Canada. People are living on the streets. Families, and not all of them are young families, are living in motel rooms.
In my city of Toronto, the richest city in all of Canada, over 1,200 families are living in motel rooms. Think of that. A country as rich as Canada, a city as rich as Toronto, and over 1,200 families with young children are living in motel rooms.
When Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is a Government of Canada agency, had the national authority to participate in housing requirements in whatever region of Canada, we in this House of Commons could have intervened in a second. We could have fixed that problem. We could have had a national housing policy. But in 1989 we devolved and the government said that it did not want to intervene, that it wanted to walk away. There would be less bureaucracy, less intervention.
This chamber walked away from the responsibility that had been bestowed on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a Government of Canada crown agency. We walked away saying that we would let the provinces look after it, that we would give them the constitutional authority to deal with that national issue and that we would let them do it by province. That was a mistake.
I said it yesterday and I will say it again today. I believe that the Government of Canada, when there is a national crisis should have the authority and instruments to intervene. I believe in intervention. I believe in it passionately.
It almost makes me sick when I think that we are sitting here with a $160 billion budget process and we do not have the mechanism or the authority to intervene and look after those families that are living in motel rooms, or that this national chamber cannot figure out a way to get those people who are living on the streets in whatever city of Canada into medical centres where they can be looked after. Most of those people living on the streets in sleeping bags are there more through a mental health condition than anything else.
When I see the bill in front of the House today talking about equalization, I cheer. The essence of the country is that those who are advantaged must look out for those who are disadvantaged. There are regions of Canada that have extraordinary wealth and resources. We are here in this chamber to make sure that all members of the national family have access to the total riches of Canada.
I hear the opposition talk about less government intervention and interference. That is an abdication of our responsibility in this chamber. We are not in this chamber to speak for the advantaged. We are not in this chamber to speak for those people who can look after themselves. We are here for the exact opposite reason, generally speaking for those people, regions or situations where government intervention is required, because the voice of those people or the message of those situations is not getting through. We are here to make sure that it does.
We could have an honest disagreement on levels of intervention and types of intervention, but let us at least agree that the essence of the responsibility we share in this chamber is government intervention. We should not be shy about it. We should not run from it. We should be proud of it. This is something that I could never understand about the Reform Party.
Many members of the Reform Party come from the province of Alberta and other regions of the west. Historically, government intervention at all levels, but certainly at the national level, played a tremendous role in building the fabric of western Canada from the railway through to the oil and gas business through to the wheat board and all of the areas that are considered to be the jewels of the west.
The sectors of the western economic fabric were reinforced and embellished because of Government of Canada intervention, intervention from this Chamber, over the past number of years.
It is a mystery to me when Reform members stand to say “We do not want Government of Canada intervention. Why would we let bureaucrats intervene?” That is really misstating what happens.
Bureaucrats or officials of government do not do things on their own, without direction; they implement the political decisions that are taken in this Chamber. We tend from time to time to knock bureaucrats, but we should not do that. They are there to implement what we ask them to do.
Essentially, if someone is knocking a bureaucrat they are knocking what goes on in this House because they follow the law of the land by department. Those directions come from the laws that are made in this House.
When we cut, cut, cut, our public servants, our officials, cannot do their work because they do not have the resources or the manpower. I will give a specific example.
I remember when the Conservative government came to power in 1984. It said that it would cut the bureaucracy by 10% across the board. In my city we have a huge immigration challenge. When 10% of the bureaucrats were cut from the department of immigration it caused lineups. It caused people to jump the queue. There were no more immigration police. We ended up with people coming in through underground means.
It created a bigger problem in the long run. We were penny-wise and pound foolish. The government wanted to have the satisfaction of saying to the general public “We will cut those bureaucrats”. That was folly because we, the people of Canada, ended up getting a quality of service that ultimately did not serve our community or the country.
We applaud the opposition's support for the thrust of this equalization bill which is being debated today. However, let us stop knocking government intervention. Let us start celebrating it because that, in essence, is the life of a national parliamentarian.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I have heard some funny things in this House, but the intervention by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood in which he suggests that government intervention has been beneficial to the economy of western Canada is one of the funniest that I have ever heard.
He referred specifically to the CPR and to the western oil industry. I grant you that the railways in general owed their existence to the intervention of the federal government, but I would also venture to say that the people of western Canada paid for those interventions tenfold, twentyfold, thirtyfold while they were raped by the railways, by the central Canadian establishment sucking the resources out of the west and putting nothing back.
As far as our oil industry goes, the only federal intervention of any consequence that I am aware of in the petroleum industry was the national energy program, which was designed to murder the oil industry in western Canada and very nearly succeeded. We had refugees from Alberta all over the country trying to escape what was done to the industry by the Liberal predecessor to this federal government.
Because the member for Broadview—Greenwood is acknowledged to be quite knowledgeable on taxation, I would like to put a question to him. If we are going to have equalization payments, and I do not think anybody in any party in this House would say that we should not, why do we have to have these dreadful convoluted formulae tying them to God knows what? Why could we not just simply have a transfer of funds, a cheque from Ottawa to the have not provinces based solely on per capita GDP in those provinces and get away from all of this crazy bureaucracy? Why not?
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his questions. I will first deal with the elimination of the cap on CAP in the transfers. I would never have eliminated the cap on CAP. I would have done the equalization in a way that these moneys would have been handed directly by department, by members of parliament in this Chamber so that the Government of Canada presence could have been reinvigorated, especially in the remote regions of Canada.
On this notion of writing a single cheque to the premiers, I would not trust half of them. The notion of them distributing this money is not something that appeals to me. We are here to think in terms of the national interest and they do not tend to think that way.
Let us deal with the member's issue on tax reform. I support every member in this House from all sides and all parties in the idea that the biggest challenge we have in this Chamber is comprehensive tax reform. I think the tax act of this country is a scandal. I really believe that. We have 50,000 cases in front of the courts of Canada on tax challenges and 95% of them are with huge corporations that know how to essentially challenge or rig the system. I pray for the day when we can all come together on that.
The third point was the national energy program. I was working in Ottawa in Mr. Trudeau's office at the time. I think the national energy program was like a crafted jewel.
Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON
Oh, no, no. The security of supply, the conservation thrust and the Canadianization of our resource related to energy. There were gangster-like tactics being used by the American oil companies to push us around and bully us. Finally Brian Mulroney came in and threw it out the door. It was absolutely scandalous. The national energy program was a jewel, a crafted jewel.
I cannot wait for the debate when we deal with making sure that we manage the sharing and caring of our national water resources in this country. I am deathly afraid that the Reform Party is going to say “Give it away”.
The final point has to do with the member's formula of distribution. I believe that was the first point. We can debate the formula, but in essence what we are saying is, let us take those provinces that are haves in terms of cash and distribute to those that are have nots. There is always room for improving the actual formula and I accept the member's point on that.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member for Broadview—Greenwood said that it was up to the government to defend society's weakest members, those without a voice.
He said that over 12,000 families in Toronto were forced to live in motel rooms. Last summer on Toronto's Yonge Street it was impossible to walk 30 metres without running into one or two homeless people begging for money.
Since the Liberal Party to which the member for Broadview—Greenwood belongs took office in 1993, this number has steadily risen. The member said he wanted to defend the homeless, the neediest members of society, those who do not have a voice. Yet his government has slashed provincial transfer payments for health, education and social services by $42 billion. Obviously, the provinces made cuts in turn, with the result that these people must beg for money to provide for their daily needs, or live in motels.
It is easy for the member to say, and I quote “As we know, most of those people living on the streets in sleeping bags are there more through a mental health condition than anything else”. I would agree that some of them have mental health problems, but I would not go so far as to say that all the homeless are so afflicted.
The current federal government, his government, a Liberal government, has slashed the funding available for the neediest members of society. One example is employment insurance. There was a time when 92% of those who paid EI premiums qualified for benefits. Today, four years after the EI reform, a little over 40% of those who pay premiums qualify; 60% are paying into the plan for nothing.
I wonder whether my colleague, the member for Broadview—Greenwood, would urge his colleagues, the ministers in various departments, to have cabinet amend various pieces of legislation so that the first scenario in his speech would hold, and more importantly, be respected, so that it would not just be idle talk to impress the voters.