Debates of April 12th, 1999

Budget Implementation Act, 1999

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to seek consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, during consideration of Government Order, Government Business number 23, any speech by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition may be followed by a ten minute period for questions and comments and the House shall continue to sit after 6.30 p.m. this day for the purpose of considering the said Government Order, provided that after 6.30 p.m. the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent to propose any motion and provided that when no member rises the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the hon. House leader's point; however, we in the Reform Party would wish to be consulted just a bit more on this motion before we give concurrence.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There is not consent at this time, so the House will resume debate.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation act.

I will start by quoting from today's morning smile in The Globe and Mail . There is a sign at the dry cleaner's which reads “We charge GST, PST, EHT, UIC, WCB and a small fee for cleaning”. A small fee for cleaning. That is the livelihood of that small businessman. That sign talks about the economic conditions in this country.

We are in the middle of the tax season, the time when Canadians realize how much they pay to the government. It is not a pretty picture.

Canadians have been complaining for years, but the government has not listened to them. Now we have economists and tax specialists joining the debate and calling for a reduction of the huge tax burden. There is a fine article today in The Globe and Mail which makes reference to this.

We have to know what is this burden. The burden consists of federal income tax, payroll taxes, provincial taxes, municipal taxes, GST, PST, and the recent phenomenon of user fees, which I call hidden taxes.

Let me dwell on some real examples of what hard working Canadians are facing. Dan Ticcapaugh, a constituent of mine, is a hard working father. He is raising two children. He earned $17,000 last year to feed his family. He paid $2,000 in taxes when he completed his income tax form. His refund came to $97 and his wife's refund came to $150.

He asked me a very simple question. How can the government justify taking taxes from a low income family? I asked the same question. How does the government expect a family of four to survive when such a large portion of their disposable income is taken away? It is no wonder we are hearing of rising child hunger and poverty among our fellow citizens.

I would like also to turn my attention to the plight of small businesses in our country. During the last month I have heard from the owners of three small businesses who have approached me about recent rulings by Revenue Canada. These small business owners put in long hours and try hard to put food on the table for their families. Let me say at the outset that they are also willing to pay their fair share of taxes and have been doing so for years. What is happening to them now?

These individuals run small trucking and cleaning firms. They work hard to get contracts and to sell their services to prospective clients. They also hire people to provide services on a subcontractual basis. It is a fine arrangement that helps both parties to put food on the table. It is not easy for them. They work long, hard hours. They make a small income, enough to provide the basics for their families.

Lo and behold, Revenue Canada enters the picture and says that this arrangement is not right. They say “Sorry, but you have to pay EI. We do not accept these people as being subcontractors”. To make matters, worse it is backdated. Suddenly a successful business is facing a crisis. It is threatened with bankruptcy, which will put people out of work and send them back to welfare.

They have said that this arrangement is the most economical and viable option they have to keep them employed and to put food on the table. They have been forced into this kind of arrangement because of high payroll taxes and taxes that keep going higher and higher.

Instead of helping these people, instead of letting them use their entrepreneurial skills to earn income for their families, the government is forcing them into the hands of creditors.

The government has a huge EI surplus because it has squeezed money out of hard-working Canadians. It is a surplus that has accumulated on the backs of workers and small business owners. Therefore I say to the Minister of Finance, please listen. Listen to what is happening to small businesses and to people.

It is ridiculous to tax people so much that they are forced to go to food banks and welfare. In the end it costs us more. To make matters worse, how do these people feel when they see that while the government is reducing their meagre incomes through taxes it is spending their tax dollars on projects like a tunnel for senators so they are able to go to their offices in comfort and avoid a two minute bus ride? What about the millennium project; spending $140 million on what basically is a party?

Something needs to be done. The time has come for a real tax break, not just cosmetic changes. For years Canadians have been held accountable to pay taxes and they have complied. Now it is the government's turn to show accountability in the way it uses that hard earned tax money. Unfortunately this year's budget contains precious little for Canadians to smile about.

Let me quote what some economists and tax experts are saying. “Our taxes are snuffing out innovation, investment and entrepreneurial spirit”. That is from Sherry Cooper, senior VP and chief economist of Nesbitt Burns. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said “The government has chosen to spend far beyond what it had budgeted for just one year ago. Spending for 1998-99 will come in at a stunning $7.6 billion higher. In 1999-2000 program spending has been set at $111.2 billion, a $4.2 billion increase over the $107 billion projection in last year's budget”.

It seems to me that we cannot get the Liberal government off our backs.

Jeff Rubin, chief economist with Wood Gundy, said “From a tax competitiveness standpoint, Canada ranks dead last in the G-7. While virtually every other G-7 economy lowered its personal income tax burden over the last 15 years, Canada's rose sharply, both as a percentage of GDP and of household income”.

This year's federal budget does not address many issues. It does not address reducing our federal debt. The federal debt today sits at $579.7 billion, which translates into $18,800 per person. The interest payment on the debt is $42.5 billion. It is the largest single government expenditure and translates into $1,400 per person.

My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill this morning said what she liked about the federal budget. I would like to dwell on the issues we do not think the government has addressed.

It was the usual pay more and receive less budget. The government continues to waste money. From $107 billion it is going to $111 billion. I do not understand why the government cannot get off our backs and allow Canadians to bring prosperity to the country.

There are examples. There is the Ontario government. The Alberta government has decided to uncouple its taxation system that is tied to the federal government. It is the first provincial government to do that. That trend will carry on because they do not see the federal government addressing what Canadians are looking for.

Personal income tax continues to make up the largest share of household spending. In 1997 an average of 21 cents of every dollar of household spending went toward personal income tax, as opposed to 20 cents for shelter, 12 cents for transportation and 11 cents for food. These figures are from Statistics Canada.

The top federal marginal tax rate is reached at less than $60,000 in Canada. In the United States the top rate kicks in at over $200,000. No wonder many of our brightest and best are moving south of the border.

After tax family incomes declined by over 5% in real terms from 1989 to 1996. Personal savings per taxpayer have fallen to an all-time low. Canadian families continue to work harder and harder and find they have less at the end of the month.

The government continues to ignore the critical issue of lowering the debt rapidly. The costs of social programs will rise dramatically early in the 21st century. We will not have the financial means to handle the increase because of the massive debt hanging over us.

Where has this budget failed on social programs? People work harder and pay more income tax. Canadians have heard about tax relief from this minister in past budgets but have seen little happen. Most will find that the basic personal amount remains at $6,456, a pitifully low amount as a basic deduction. Two years from now when we do our taxes for 2000 we will see that the basic deduction has increased by $675 to $7,131. That is probably because it will be election time and the Liberals are starting to hand out small goodies off the table.

Because the basic deduction is not indexed, its value decreases each year by the rate of inflation. Let us assume an inflation rate of 1.5% per year for a total of 3% over the next two years. The value of our deduction declines by $214 and our tax breaks by $36. Suddenly our $115 tax break is worth only $79. Already almost one-third of our promised tax break will have been lost. What have we gained? The government talks about tax relief but grabs it back through deindexing or stealth taxes.

The government has promised that over 200,000 low income Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls this year. Can we trust that promise? As it stands right now, unemployment insurance premiums are too high and with benefits declining, this gives a surplus which basically belongs to Canadian workers and business people. To make matters worse, the finance minister wanted to use this fund to balance the budget.

The government's budget has been totally silent on homelessness. It is a growing problem which the federal government should look at and decide what measures it should take.

What do we have in this budget that is going to take us into the next century? Unfortunately Canadians have nothing to smile about.

The productivity gap is growing. The government's own minister talked about it. As a matter of fact the ministers are fighting over the issue. The standard of living for Canadians is lagging further and further behind the U.S. and other countries. The brain drain continues with an increase in loss of international competitiveness. The government has reduced opportunities for many.

I have indicated in my examples what Canadians are facing and what this government has failed to address. I hope the government will listen to what Canadians and economists are saying.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to what the member had to say.

One of the major budgetary items of the government in recent years has been the child tax benefit. This is an allocation of upwards of $2 billion to the children of the poorest families in Canada. In my riding poor families looked forward to this with great anticipation. Here at last was a substantial allocation per child to the income of the poorest families in the land.

The federal government has to make particular arrangements with each province when it is flowing money of this type. Even though I suspect the vast majority of people in Canada support the idea of combating child poverty, the arrangements were different in every province.

In my own riding there was great disappointment when it was discovered that because of the arrangement we had to make with the Government of Ontario, the province took away from those low income families which were on social assistance the amount the federal government had added to their incomes. As a result there was no change in their income.

It is true that because of the agreement the federal government made, the moneys the provincial government took away were flowed to programs for low income working families. Nevertheless, there was no change in the income of the impoverished families and children. In Ontario more than 40% of the people on social assistance are children.

The member represents a riding in Alberta. Would he explain to the House what the Government of Alberta's policy was and what his position was with respect to the flowing of the money to low income children through the child tax benefit which this government introduced?

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to answer the hon. member's question.

I will dwell on the first point, the child tax benefit. It is amazing that he says the federal government is giving child tax benefits. I tell him it is not in this budget. The government's child tax relief is going to come in 2000 and 2001. Why not now? The member talked about his constituency and what it was looking for. That did not address the issue. It moved it back.

The member in his second question talked about Alberta. I mentioned in my speech that the new tax the Alberta government came up with is uncoupled from the federal government. Why did it decide to uncouple in the year 2000? Alberta is the first province to do it. Other provinces will follow because they do not agree with what the federal government is doing in giving tax relief. Alberta has decided to uncouple from the Liberal government so it can give tax relief to its citizens. That was one of the best things the Government of Alberta did. It has come up with one of the most innovative ideas in this country, a single flat tax rate. This government could learn from Alberta.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, to echo the words of my colleague from Calgary, the Liberal government since 1993 has stood in the House and told us how important the child care tax credit is to it and how it places this as a high priority. The finance minister stands up and crows about his so-called balanced budget and the surplus and the very people the Liberal government has supposedly placed such a priority on, the children of this country who are living in homes where money is of greatest need, yet there is not one red cent in a child tax credit. That could almost be called somewhat hypocritical. The government says it is a high priority yet it fails to act.

I wanted to make that comment so that the member opposite is clear on what his finance minister has done. Perhaps he did not know that it was not in the budget. It is very important and the finance minister, despite his balanced budget and the so-called surplus, has failed to address it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing that point up.

Again I would like to take this opportunity to advise my colleagues on the other side of the House to look at what the Government of Alberta has come up with, to listen to the voices of Canadians and get off our backs with high taxes. I have given members examples in my speech. They should look at those examples. They are real Canadians who are suffering. The government is sending them into bankruptcy. They must be allowed to work and put food on the table. The government must get off the backs of Canadians.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite was commenting on the child tax credit, which is a positive initiative and heads in the right direction.

However, if he really wanted to ensure that we actually have fairer taxes, he should read the initiative that we proposed in Winnipeg in 1996 as part of our policy document. The Reform Party dedicated an opposition day in the House with respect to ensuring that we have fairer tax treatment for families with one parent who chooses to work in the home and one parent who actually—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the member. The intent of my recognizing you was to ask a question to the member for Calgary East.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

In lieu of the comments I just made, would the hon. Reform Party member concur that if we want to ensure that all children are treated equally we should tax families that have one parent working inside the home and one parent working outside the home in the same way as we do dual income parents?

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very important question. I agree with him. Only four days ago there was a headline in the Calgary Herald that 6,000 children in Calgary face hunger.

The member is absolutely right when he says the government has failed to address the fundamental issue that is facing Canadian society, which is to give tax breaks to parents who like to stay at home. This has totally been ignored. When Beverly Smith met the minister, the impression she got was that the government was not interested in stay at home parents.

I concur with the hon. member that this is an absolutely important issue. I thank him for bringing it up. We know that the government has yet to do something about that.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important moment in parliament when we debate the budget, and we cannot debate the budget without discussing the government.

When the Prime Minister shuffled the cards and selected cabinet, he said “I need a cabinet with a lot of jacks, not too many queens and definitely a lot of jokers”. This is essentially the distribution that has inspired the government in implementing its policies.

This budget is disappointing, for two reasons. First, the government failed to deal with the right priorities. What would they have been? The fight against poverty, naturally. There have never been so many poor in Canada. A look at the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s reveals that there are more poor people now than ever before. What is the government doing about this problem? Nothing.

The people in the Bloc Quebecois are very committed to the fight against poverty. There is myself, naturally, but there is also the member for Québec and my colleague from Rivière-du-Loup, who has led and continues to lead a fight for an independent employment insurance fund. The government must realize that the poverty we are talking about is the poverty created by government measures, and we will come back to this.

The other disappointment we had with this budget is that it confirmed and perpetuated the hallmark of Canadian federalism—government intervention in provincial jurisdictions.

Historians will understand, on analyzing the years 1994 to 2002, that this government was one of those that had the least respect for provincial jurisdictions. It was one of the most interfering governments.

I see the Liberals smiling. As they say, the fool laughs and the sage smiles. There is no lack of smiles on the other side of the House. This is a bit disconcerting, because they did not react to federal government interference in the health field.

If one asked any of the government party members, whether from Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan, to point out the place where the constitution, which is supposed to strike a balance between the power of the provinces and of the federal government, states that the federal government is allowed to get involved in the health field, I am willing to bet that no one over there could find such a thing, because it is not there.

They just waded in to do their dirty work, with no hesitation whatsoever. I will give some examples of this. There is the creation of the Canadian institute of health research, an expenditure of $65 million by the year 2001 and another $175 million in 2001-2002. The federal government wants to get into the health research and development field.

Would it not have been more respectful of the provinces' powers to say “We are going to transfer the available funding”. There is no denying that the federal government has plenty of money at this time. Of course, these funds can be considered ill gotten gains, because the government passed its deficit on to the provinces.

At present, the federal government has a lot of money. If it had wanted to put it to good use, it could easily have transferred to the provinces funds that would have enabled them to fund research in the health sector, because we all agree that it is important to do research in that area.

Our population is aging, and seniors are living longer. We all have a pretty good chance of living until the age of 85, 90 or 95. I do not want to exaggerate, but the fact is that people are living longer.

Another example of federal intrusion is the research and evaluation fund for nursing staff. The government will spend $25 million on this over a 10 year period. Then there is the Canadian institute of health research, which will get $328 million to improve health information systems by applying modern technology. In short, the government's attitude is brazen, impolite, disrespectful and shocking, and all those who have some backbone in this House should be outraged. Of course, this excludes a good half of the membership here.

Be that as it may, if the government had wanted to do something useful, it could easily have accepted a number of the Quebec government's legitimate demands. This is a democratically elected government, one of the best we have had in a long time in the National Assembly.

I will give the example of the Montreal convention centre. Montreal is an international city, and a hub for the tourist industry. Montreal, and Quebec City of course—and I see my colleague from the Quebec City region nodding in approval—are both very important tourist destinations.

The Government of Quebec is going ahead and enlarging the Montreal congress centre, because it realizes that additional space is required for a number of important congresses that are planned years in advance. Reservations have already been taken for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Organizers of a congress—not a simple convention, but an international congress—must obviously begin their preparations a few years in advance.

In the past, the federal government has always contributed one third of the money required to expand congress centres, whether in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, London or Ottawa. Ottawa gives every impression of being a patronage, with the Minister of Industry giving Ottawa's congress centre priority over Montreal's.

The Government of Quebec decided to go ahead and expand the Montreal congress centre on its own. Now we must pay for this expansion. The Government of Canada owes Quebec exactly $58 billion. We would appreciate payment in the next few weeks.

Here is an area where the government had some leeway, but did nothing. When it comes to Quebec's interests, there will always be people on the government side ready to steamroller over them. If the Bloc Quebecois were not here in Ottawa, who would represent Quebec's interests? Certainly not the Liberal members from Quebec, who epitomize the “silence of the lambs”.

Like all his colleagues from Ontario, the member from Ontario is very vocal, but only when it comes to defending his province's interests, and certainly not those of Quebec. I could give many other examples, such as the harmonization of the QST and the GST, where the Government of Quebec, which was the first province to harmonize, lost out. We are still waiting for our $1 billion. The same goes for the ice storm; the federal government owes us $435 million.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had 20 minutes, not 10.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I was given to understand the hon. member would be sharing his time. Continue.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

The House will be pleased to know that it is 20 minutes, Madam Speaker. I would take a round of applause by the government members as a sign of encouragement. We all need a little encouragement in this House.

The budget provided the federal government with a golden opportunity to settle its debt with the Government of Quebec, but it chose not to do so.

During the ice storm, the people in Quebec came together in a show of solidarity and everyone gave a helping hand. Although in a tight situation, the Government of Quebec agreed to loosen the purse strings. There are overdue payments with regard to the ice storm: Quebeckers are being denied $435 million, because the federal government argues that the expenditures incurred by Hydro-Québec to undertake emergency measures and rebuild its infrastructure are not covered by the federal disaster relief program.

When will the Liberals play fair with the Quebec government? That is the question.

We could talk about Oka. The Government of Quebec is still waiting for a $38 million cheque to cover expenditures the province considers eligible under the federal disaster relief program.

We are dealing with a petty government, a low, mean, and heartless government, except maybe for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who stands out a bit, though not enough to deserve an award.

There is also the whole issue of systemic inequities that have continued for several generations now. Let us start with research and development. Is there anything more important in a modern society that R&D?

I am glad to see that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is showing some concern. I have some consideration for the minister of course because she is a charming lady, but also because she had the courage to apologize, on behalf of the Government of Canada, and that she is working now on a plan of reconciliation with the aboriginal people.

I hope the minister will not forget that, if there ever was a government on this earth that has worked, that has recognized aboriginal governments, and that has paid tribute to, made things easier for and given space to aboriginal communities, to the first nations, because they are nations, it is the Government of Quebec that did it, as early as 1985.

In a sovereign Quebec, within a matter of months, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development knows that we will treat all the aboriginal communities on Quebec territory on an equal footing. The Erasmus commission urged the government to do the same. I hope that this call will be heard, but I still think that the minister stands apart from the rest of the government, which is quite unimpressive. She is like a breath of fresh air in an all too dreary situation.

I also want to raise the whole issue of social housing. Eighty-nine per cent of my constituents are tenants, not owner-occupants. In the 1996 speech from the throne, the government had committed to decentralizing certain powers. Among the commitments that the government had made at that time, $1.9 billion was to be redistributed to the provinces for social housing. What has happened since that speech from the throne? Nothing happened in the case of the Government of Quebec.

Nothing happened. Why? It is not because the Quebec government was not ready to negotiate or refused to take over that responsibility. Since Quebec is already responsible for the Civil Code and for land use management, it would only be normal for it to also take over responsibility for social housing.

You will not believe what I am about to say. The Government of Canada does not want to give Quebec its fair share of the social housing budget. Despite the fact that Quebec has 29% of all Canadians who are in dire need of housing, the Canadian government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, invests only 17% of its available funds in Quebec. Whether we look at the percentage of the total Canadian population Quebeckers represent or at the percentage of Canadians in need of housing living in Quebec, Quebec is clearly being short-changed.

The federal government wants to transfer $300 million, which is ridiculous, when Quebec can rightfully claim more than $500 million. Who is protecting Quebec's interests in this government? Who is interested in these much needed negotiations? No one.

I ask the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to initiate negotiations, to negotiate in good faith and to give Quebec its due share.

I could give many more examples, but I want to take a few minutes to say that tomorrow will be a sad day in the House of Commons. I want to prepare you in advance because I know how sensitive you are.

I would like to address my comments to all Liberal members. Tomorrow there will be an important vote on a motion to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. In fact, this is a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Shefford, whom we wish to commend. Government members could seize this opportunity to create an additional tool to fight poverty.

Quebec, which is without any doubt the most progressive province in Canada, added to its Charter of rights in 1975 a provision prohibiting discrimination based on social condition. The Canadian Human Rights Act still lacks a similar provision.

This explains why some Canadians are still victims of discrimination in terms of access to financial services, housing and, indeed, under the employment insurance legislation. Our bet is that taking action to put an end to discrimination, by adding social condition to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination for instance, would contribute in a significant and realistic way to improve the condition of the less fortunate.

I am ready to bet that, tomorrow, all government members will rise and vote against the bill introduced by the member for Shefford. Canadian citizens will not forget that this government was not concerned about poverty and would not take concrete action to fight poverty.

I would ask the government members who will sleep tonight to think about the benefit that would accrue to their communities if they agreed to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. I remind them that eight provinces have already prohibited discrimination based on social condition. It is high time we, as parliamentarians, enabled those who are discriminated against, at least those who do in federal jurisdictions, to put an end to it.

If government members were to vote against the bill, I predict that a standoff, an all out war would result, because we in the Bloc Quebecois will never tolerate so much insensitivity on their part with respect to the fight against poverty.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased the member included in his remarks comments with regard to poverty in Canada. I think all members will agree that the best way to approach a problem is first to understand it.

The member will know of some current research, for instance the research study of the Golden task force on the homelessness situation. It identified that 35% of the homeless in Toronto were mentally ill, which I expect is reflective of other urban communities across the country; 28% were youth who had been alienated from their families, and of those 70% had experienced physical or sexual abuse; 10% were abused women; and 18% were aboriginals off reserve. That accounts for a very significant proportion, over 80% of the homeless in Toronto.

The member well knows this is a symptom of poverty but is not the sole cause. The social housing issue the member raises certainly is important. He will also know that one parent families, which account for about 12% of all families in Canada, also account for over 50% of all children living in poverty.

There is not a simple solution to poverty and homelessness in Canada. There is certainly an economic poverty that has to be addressed. We have to be vigilant on that. I think the member would agree, and I would be interested in his comments, that there is a social poverty in Canada that also has to be addressed.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with a number of the comments made by our colleague.

I would, however, invite him to understand that, when it comes to analyzing the phenomenon of poverty, it must be realized that there is a kind of fault line that dates back to the early 1990s.

A link must be made to poverty—and the hon. member is right to point out that this is a phenomenon in the major cities for the most part—and particularly the poverty created by certain measures. If he hon. member wants to raise this issue, he might make an extremely useful contribution to the debate, first of all by asking his government to amend not only the Canadian Human Rights Act, but the Employment Insurance Act as well.

The hon. member must be aware that, because of his government's employment insurance legislation, 200,000 people across Canada have had to make use of last resort solutions. This might be termed social poverty, the last resort solutions provided by income security programs, because his government has raised the qualification criteria so high for those who pay into the employment insurance program, that they end up on social security, and this keeps them poor.

There are, of course, many causes of poverty. There is the matter of housing, the matter of outdated skills. People who have been skilled workers in the clothing, the textile or the petrochemical industries, which have been in decline internationally since the early 1980s and the 1990s, find themselves out of the workforce, and it is hard to get back in.

I would remind our colleague that it was his government that abolished the older workers adjustment program, known as POWA. I invite him therefore to give some more thought to the poverty created by governments, the one he belongs to in particular.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of brief comments with respect to my hon. colleague's remarks. He spoke to the issue of Bill S-11 which was introduced by the member for Shefford and sponsored originally by Senator Cohen in the Senate.

Establishing social condition in the Canadian bill of human rights was something a number of provinces across the country have done. Given that the Minister of Justice just the other week made comments indicating that social condition should at least be considered or studied to be added to the charter of human rights, would the member not think that by not supporting Bill S-11 on this occasion and perhaps doing it down the road is an indication that the government prefers a bit of partisanship as opposed to doing the right thing and voting for Bill S-11 right away?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, our colleague is right to remind us that there are times in parliament when we must rise above partisanship.

One of those very important times is, of course, when we talk about human rights. Had it been a government bill, I believe we would still have supported it unconditionally.

What is social condition? The way the courts have defined social condition refers to three elements: one's position in society based on one's income; one's position in society based on one's education; and the prejudice one suffers as a result of those positions.

Based on the rulings handed down by the courts, it is clear that welfare recipients have a particular social condition. In some cases, these court rulings have condemned discrimination against the poor because welfare recipients very often, if not almost always, live below the poverty line.

It must be noted that the debate on social condition is not an academic debate. It has a very concrete meaning for those people who would be able to challenge not only a number of discriminatory practices related to the services they receive, but also discriminatory measures taken by governments as the case may be.

Again, I urge all members—and I am sure my colleague, the member for Shefford, would do the same if she were here today—to vote tomorrow in favour of this bill that would improve the Canadian Human Rights Act and that would send a clear message to all Canadians that we do not accept discrimination, no matter which forms it takes.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we can always count on the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for a lively speech. Unfortunately, we heard nothing new, just the usual sovereignist claims.

He cited all sorts of information and figures in his speech, but I heard no mention of the figures in this budget for the equalization payments. I wonder whether the member could speak to us about that a bit.