Debates of May 10th, 1999

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's thoughtful presentation which he always gives.

I have a question for him regarding the GST. I know the GST is a friend of his and he likes the idea of the GST. However, would he not agree with what many tax people tell us? It was the introduction of the GST, setting aside the rationale, explanation and need for it, which was the straw that broke the camel's back when it came to the underground economy? People said it was too much, a rotten tax and therefore moved as much of their operations underground as they could. I do not mean that to be a critical point directed to my friend.

Would my colleague agree that perhaps the people's perception of the GST, as accurate or inaccurate as it may be, was what lead to an acceptance of the reality of the underground economy as a reasonably legitimate way to do business in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, the GST was arguably the straw that broke the government's back. I am not sure of the camel to which the member referred, but the government seemed to be ignominiously humped from office at that point.

The difficulty the government faced at that time in selling the GST, which replaced the manufacturers sales tax that pummelled and punished Canadian export industries, was that only 18% of Canadians were aware that there was a manufacturers sales tax. It was not a good news story. People were not aware by and large that there was a manufacturers sales tax. This new tax was a very difficult sell.

A couple of weeks ago I participated in the Canadian Tax Foundation annual meeting on a weekend. That is what I do with my weekends; I go to tax foundation meetings. I am a pretty exciting guy. At that meeting over and over again tax experts suggested that the baby step movement in Canada with the GST to a consumption base was very important for Canadian competitiveness.

They argued that we need to move further toward a consumption base and away from income based taxation and taxes on capital and income on capital. Those types of taxes, whether they are on capital, income from capital or personal or corporate income, make Canadian industry and Canadian individuals less competitive. They hurt our productivity, reduce the potential for Canadians and companies to grow jobs, and hurt our potential to keep Canada's best and brightest young people in Canada.

A consumption tax, and there are ways to effect progressivity within a consumption base, would provide a more broadly based system which should not and would not increase the degree of the underground economy.

The numbers used by people in terms of the degree to which we have an underground economy in Canada vary significantly. It is much harder to get around paying GST than it is for people to use high priced tax accountants and get away with paying less income tax. As the member indicated earlier in his speech, there is an inherent regressivity in the tax system. People at the higher income levels can afford to hire tax experts and pay less income taxes, corporate taxes or whatever. With a consumption base it is much harder to get around that. I would argue that it would ultimately reduce in the long run the degree to which there is an underground economy if we are serious.

Another issue that exists is that it is much easier today to have significant tax reform than it would have been in 1993 because we are in a post deficit or surplus environment. We need not improve the tax situation for one individual by reducing or hurting another individual with the tax system. It is not a zero sum game any more. We can combine tax reform with tax reduction. I would argue that to maximize the potential of either we need to implement both.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate. I was not planning to do so until I heard my colleague's remarks about productivity and the discussion about the brain drain during the questions and comments.

It brought to mind that part of the 1998 budget which dealt with investing in young and older Canadians to make them more productive and more effective citizens. I am referring to the various measures under the Canadian opportunities strategy, a co-ordinated group of measures specifically focused on creating opportunities for Canadians. I want to mention one or two aspects of that co-ordinated strategy.

The first one is the establishment of the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation which is now beginning to provide scholarships to Canadians across the country. The focus of the scholarships is on qualified students who have problems dealing with the steadily increasing tuition fees found in universities in virtually every province in Canada.

The problem of accessibility to university and college has become a serious national problem. It was very appropriate at that time, as it still is, for the Government of Canada to look at the causes of the decrease in accessibility as provinces and universities increase their tuition fees, a serious problem for many students, and to try to deal with it directly through the millennium scholarships.

It is true that a couple of provinces very sensibly kept their tuition fees down. Even so, students will benefit directly from that aspect of the 1998 budget which deals with the productivity of Canada and of all Canadians and with the brain drain mentioned by my colleague in the Reform Party.

The second area of this co-ordinated set of measures to create opportunity by expanding access to knowledge and the skills needed for better jobs that were built into that budget is substantially increased support for advanced research and graduate students.

The federal government supports research in Canada, particularly through the grants councils, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Medical Research Council. In 1998 there was a substantial increase in the funding of those councils.

At one level it would appear to be funds which are going into creative research projects in the social sciences, in engineering, in the natural sciences, and in the environmental sciences and so on across the country. However the other aspect is that those grants provide income directly to graduate students at various levels of their careers.

The increase in funding to the grants councils can almost be thought of as a job creation program, a very rapid and effective job creation program for highly educated young people who are seeking to become more educated. In effect they use those moneys to support themselves and to continue their education.

I would say again to my colleagues that in the 1998 budget there was a focus on research and on improving research to make Canada more productive. However through the grants councils the focus was on providing funds for graduate students who are the future of all kinds of science research in Canada.

Dealing with the same problem, the access to university and college which I mentioned with respect to the millennium scholarships and the question of graduate students receiving funds to support themselves through school, there were measures in the budget to help students manage debt loads.

It is popularly known now that our students because of increases in tuition are faced with much greater student loans to pay off than was the case previously. In the budget, dealing with the productivity again, tax relief was provided for interest on student loans. The Canada student loan program was improved to help students deal with the debt loads which they are unfortunately facing when they graduate.

I would point out to my colleagues that in the same package of material each item is directly tailored to dealing with improving research, improving the quality of our students, our future teachers and researchers, and helping to encourage students to stay in school, which we know is the way to go for jobs and for productivity nowadays.

It should be remembered that the government provided in the budget for tax free RRSP withdrawals for lifelong learning. That is important. We pay lip service to it now that we have to learn and relearn throughout a career. Before it was possible to go to school, to do an apprenticeship and be set for a career. Now that is no longer the case. People not only have to go to school when they are young. They have to go to school when they are less young.

Since the budget it is now possible for Canadians to upgrade their skills throughout their working lives because they can make tax free withdrawals from their registered retirement savings plans, specifically when those withdrawals are for lifelong learning.

In the same budget there was an extension of the education tax credits and the child care expense deduction for part time students. All those measures were aimed at productivity and ultimately at the brain drain which my colleagues opposite were discussing.

In the budget as a part of a very focused package there was the Canada education savings grant. In our educational system we often think there are no grants—

[An hon. member]

There is a brain drain going on now.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

My colleague points out there is a drain of brains occurring now. I will try to speak more slowly and perhaps more will stay.

I stress that the Canada education savings grant is a grant. It is often thought that grants no longer exist in our system. For very low income students there are still grants. For certain specific identified groups of students there are still grants as well as the student loans they can obtain in various ways.

In addition, as a result of the budget we are discussing today families can better save for their children's education through the Canada education savings grant. That means people who invest in RRSPs obtain a grant of 20% on the first $2,000 of annual contributions to registered education savings plans in addition to the tax benefit from that investment. There is actually a grant up to a maximum amount per child which families can obtain and retain until they take those moneys out of the plan and invest them in their child's education.

Continuing with the group of measures built into the 1998 budget, the focus of our discussions today, there was an EI premium holiday for youth at risk. Support for youth employment was provided by more than doubling funding for youth at risk who lack basic education and job skills and by providing employers an employment insurance premium holiday for additional young Canadians hired in 1999 and 2000.

We are no longer dealing with students who are faced with problems of getting into college or staying in college or university. We are dealing with those who lack basic education and job skills. Those provisions are extremely important for young Canadians. Through 1999 and 2000 they and their employers get considerable encouragement so that jobs are created for them.

The last measure I want to mention in this group of co-ordinated measures is designed to create opportunity by expanding access to knowledge and skills needed for better jobs and higher standards of living in the 21st century.

This package of budgetary measures was designed to focus on the area of increased funding for SchoolNet, community access and the Canadian network for advancement of research, industry and education, the acronym for which is CANARIE. The purpose of these investments is to bring the benefits of information technology into more classrooms and communities across Canada.

Let me talk first about SchoolNet. It is very common to say that education is a provincial jurisdiction. Of course it is. The federal government has no interest in running elementary schools, except in certain special cases which exist across the country. However we have great interest and a great responsibility in elementary schools and high schools if in the national interest there is concern about the quality of education across the country.

I believe the federal government should do something about it. SchoolNet is as good an example as I can think of. Under the SchoolNet program, one of the focuses of the 1998 budget, the federal government linked every elementary school and high school to the Internet.

It started in the rural areas and the more remote parts of the countries and gradually moved into the cities. Today all our young people, our elementary school and high school students, have access to the Internet many years before all students in the United States will have access to the Internet. If this is not an investment in productivity, I do not know what is.

I mentioned researchers and university professors getting increased funding. I mentioned graduate students getting increased funding. I mentioned through the millennium scholarships undergraduate students getting increased funding. I mentioned their families getting support to allow students to go to college and university. I mentioned the increased support for people who want to go back to school. Now I am talking about our elementary schools. If we are to have a truly productive society, if we are to stop the brain drain, not just today or next week, but forever, the federal government has to think about the whole pyramid. If we were to fix one part of the pyramid so that, for example, university faculty would be better off, important though they are, in the end, if we were not producing people to replace those university faculty through the elementary and high schools and undergraduate programs, our system would be of little use.

The SchoolNet program was the federal government thinking about productivity, thinking about accessibility to colleges and universities, and doing something in every elementary school and every high school in Canada. That is the way a federal government should think, nationally.

By the way, except in the House, I have never heard a protest from the provinces about interference by the federal government in their jurisdiction with respect to SchoolNet.

I also mentioned, in that same section, the community access program, which does the same thing. It links people to the Internet, but in this case, in my riding for example, it links libraries, township offices and other public places to the Internet so that people who are not in elementary school and high school can link and interact with the great virtual world of the Internet. The Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education, CANARIE, does the same thing. It links research organizations across Canada.

My point is that the discussion we have had about productivity is not simply a matter of manipulating taxation, although in the measures I mentioned there were some taxation changes; it is a matter of the fairest possible and most effective tax system we can have, but also positive investment in areas which encourage productivity such as those I have mentioned.

I have been very pleased to have this opportunity to speak and I move:

That the question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Debate.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need clarification. We have a motion that the question be now put and I am not sure that is debatable, if I am not mistaken.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Yes, it is debatable that the question be put at this time. The floor is open.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, then I will rise on debate.

The government wants to close the debate and get on with the vote, and I suppose in a way I do not blame it, since we have already filed our income taxes which concern this bill. I do not understand exactly what the government is doing. We thought we would be using the day to debate this issue, to talk about taxes and the measures the government is using, and here we are with a very flagrant motion to stop the debate and to basically shut off our discussion on this whole topic.

I wish that people in Canada knew what was going on in the country. We have a lot of members who are very upset. I am talking about members of our society, our citizens and taxpayers. They are very concerned because we have a government that insists on taxing them to death. At every turn there is another tax. There is a tax on a tax. The governments of the past 30 years have not done a thing about this. They have simply been riding roughshod over taxpayers.

This Liberal government has brought in a bill to implement parts of the Income Tax Act provisions from the 1998 budget after the provisions have already been put into practice. That probably puts the thumb on the whole issue of why we are in such trouble in this country. These Liberals want to pass themselves off across the country as having been successful in bringing our fiscal house into order. That is what they keep crowing about.

The fact of the matter is that we have more debt than we did when the Liberals first took office, about $180 billion more. We have higher interest payments on the debt as a result, even though we are blessed these days with low interest rates. We have an endless stream of taxes and user fees. The average Canadian family has at least $3,000 less than it had when the Liberals took office.

I believe that the way parliament works is the root of the problem. We have no mechanism by which the taxpayers can be represented here, no mechanism at all. Many members over there would argue that is not true. The Liberal government represents the government and its wishes. Liberals vote the way the Prime Minister or the finance minister directs them. They will acknowledge that they do not represent the people, that they vote on these issues the way they are told to. Surely it must be the role of the opposition to represent the people here. That is fine, but the frustration is that we on this side get up to speak on behalf of taxpayers, we speak on behalf of students, we speak on behalf of those people who are laying on cots in hospital hallways, we speak until our voices are hoarse, but no one listens. No one does anything about it. Then, when it comes time to vote, we are routinely outvoted simply because we do not have quite enough members here yet.

I am looking forward to the day when we have members in this House of Commons on the government side who, in contrast to the Liberals and the Conservatives, are dedicated and committed to representing the people who sent them here, to representing the taxpayer and the call for lower taxes, for fairness in taxation and decency in the way the government spends our money, not the flippant kind of spending that we see over and over again from this government. It is really atrocious that the government keeps doing these things and not listening to taxpayers.

I will refer briefly to a newspaper clipping, the headline of which indicates that 85% of Canadians are upset by the tax bite. I suppose that no one would really ever say that they love taxes. If I earn money and someone has the legislative right in this country to take it away from me, I suppose, no matter how good the cause, there is going to be a certain degree of resistance to that. However, we ought to pay attention when the headline says that 85% of Canadians are upset. In the text of the clipping it says that these people are very concerned about taxes. They are upset by them. In that scale of question, half of Canadians said they were very upset or extremely upset. The reason is twofold. The total tax bite is too high. Together the different levels of government take too great a proportion of our earnings. It is around 50%. It takes until July 1. Maybe that is why it is called Canada Day. We work from January to July just to pay our taxes.

It is little wonder that the proportion of families who have two earners instead of only one is being increased so much, against the will and the choice of many Canadians. They simply have to do that in order to pay their taxes.

I have mentioned in the House before that my wife and I decided she would be a full time mom. What did I do? I had to get an evening job to supplement the income. I used to tell people that I worked on Tuesday night for Trudeau and on Thursday night for my family. Back in Trudeau's time it was already that bad.

Has it been alleviated? Did nine years of Conservative government solve the problem? I think not. We had a massive increase in our national debt under that administration. Have the Liberals solved the problem? They want people to think they have. I suppose reluctantly we ought to say, thank goodness, at least they did not spend the surplus that was dumped into their lap through lower taxes, particularly in Ontario and Alberta, and more competitive and better trade because of the free trade agreement. The Liberals were against it, but it has been a bit of a saviour for our country and our economy.

It is incredible that these people want us to believe they have done anything. I insist that the budget is balanced these days despite the government. If we had not had this government we would have been way further ahead now.

I find it atrocious that the government has absolutely no plan to reduce the debt. Over 30% of our tax dollars go to pay interest. That is a direct transfer of wealth from ordinary Canadians who are earning it to the pockets of the bankers and the rich people who have more money than they need.

We have poor people who are hardly able to make ends meet. They have to pay atrocious rates of taxes, one-third of which go to interest payments on the debt. Does the finance minister or the Liberal government have any plan to reduce that debt? The answer is no, they do not have a plan.

I have a copy of the figures taken from the budget. This happens to be the 1999 budget, but the comments are still appropriate, even though we are talking here about the 1998 budget. It is the same thing. I am looking at the net public debt numbers.

It is true that the deficit has gone down, but what has happened to the public debt? What is the plan? The net public debt in 1998 was $579.7 billion. What is the plan for 1998-99, which is the budget we are talking about? It is right in the document, $579.7 billion. It is exactly the same number. What is the plan for 1999-2000, the budget which the finance minister gave several months ago? It is $579.7 billion. In that document, for the year 2000-01 what are they projecting for the debt? It is $579.7 billion.

What is the change in the debt? Zero. Because the government has no plans to pay off the debt. Instead it is saying it has a contingency fund and if it does not need it, of course it will be used to reduce the debt. Meanwhile the government is using all sorts of chicanery in its budgeting process, in its documentation and in its communications and says “We are going to take this money and put it into a fund. We will be able to use it so that Canadians will think we are doing something”.

In this budget which we are talking about today, and the debate on which has now been shut down, there is a motion about the millennium fund. The parliamentary secretary, for whom I have a lot of personal respect, read a departmental speech and referred to the millennium scholarship fund. That is atrocious. It is against accounting rules. It is against everything that makes any sense.

The government in the 1998-99 budget is costing out money that will not be available until the year 2000 so we can celebrate the year 2000. It is taking money year by year, budget by budget, and socking it away for the big Liberal re-election fund which coincidentally will happen within a year of the millennium celebration. That is atrocious. The way the government is trying to spin it is absolutely shameful.

I have a son who is a student and is really having trouble making ends meet. He has to look after his family while he goes to classes. He is trying to earn money so that he can pay his tuition and provide food and housing for his family. He has to make enough money so that he gets close to having to pay taxes. If he actually earned enough so that he could get by without having to borrow, he would have to pay taxes. As it is now, all the Liberal government does is force him into debt while it is saving up for its election fund with this big high power millennium scholarship fund for students in the future. The government is ignoring those who have a genuine need today. The 1998-99 budget ought to deal with the issues of 1998-99 first and foremost.

I am not against the government saying it projects in subsequent budgets that this will be done and there is room for long term planning, but to actually budget it out is contrary to the rules of accounting. It is contrary to what the auditor general says is acceptable and those guys are doing it anyway. They are running roughshod over the rights of Canadian taxpayers.

I think of the ways the government mismanages and misspends money. My hon. colleague from the NDP brought some of these to our attention already. It keeps spending money and wasting money on things no Canadians would support if they were actually given an opportunity to vote on them. Instead the government is just wasting our money.

The hon. member mentioned the dumb blond joke book for $98,000. There are people in my riding who make $15,000 a year and pay taxes. If I asked them if they were happy about the fact that the taxes they are paying are going to supplement the publishing of such a book, they would really get upset and I would not blame them.

There are other things which are just ridiculous. There is one in Hamilton which is using $60,000 of taxpayers' money, which I suppose is the money that 60 middle income taxpayers have to earn in a month. Sixty taxpayers will be sponsoring a trail in Hamilton so that visitors can stroll along and discover old factory buildings. That is totally absurd.

We need to leave the money in the hands of the people who earn it. Sure we can justify taking money out in the form of taxation for reasonable expenditures, but this type of thing has to stop. I am committed to making it stop.

We are contributing $50,000 to a scavenger hunt in Parry Sound. When I was a youngster we had scavenger hunts and they did not cost a penny. Somebody would make up a list of things that people would go looking for. They did not need $50,000.

There is a millennium project under way recreating the Calgary town hall with the original bell for $1.1 million. Why can the locals not do that? It is because the federal government is taxing them to death. They have no choice in these matters. The whole country has to fund this. It is absolutely ridiculous.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening attentively for the last 12 minutes to the member for Elk Island. I look at Bill C-72 and I see things which deal with supplementary personal tax credits and the homebuyers plan. I have not heard the member talk about anything pertaining to Bill C-72.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sure the hon. member for Elk Island will make his speech pertinent to the bill.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course the member is totally wrong. The millennium fund was announced in the 1998 budget and the member knows it.

[An hon. member]

This bill, Bill C-72.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-72 deals with the 1998 budget and that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the whole issue and what should have been in this budget. We are talking about what should have been in Bill C-72 to fix the budget to make it right. Instead we are being fed all this garbage. I think it is time that we looked at the way the government does these things.

The Income Tax Act is pages and pages of convoluted words that only add to the distress of Canadian taxpayers. There are several ways to reduce taxes but all of them require the use of professionals. Gone are the days when ordinary taxpayers making $12,000 or $15,000 a year could do their own tax forms. Canadians have to hire professionals. They know that this government will screw them out of another couple of thousand dollars unless they have a paid professional. Whether Canadians pay the government or the professionals, their money is being stolen from them. It is a shame and the government ought to be ashamed of itself.

What does Bill C-72 say about health care? It is what it does not say. It is a fact that budget after budget is a shell game on how we are going to communicate. We have a government that talks about an education budget. All the government does is it arranges for students to have a maximum amount of debt. The government gives them no real help. It taxes them. Sure the government gives a little deal with a tax break on the interest on student loans. Thank you very much but that has to be the correct kind of loan. Bank loans are not covered. Is that not shameful.

Some students cannot get enough money from their student loans to go to school, especially mature students with families. They do not have enough money from the basic student loan to attend school. They have to get a bank loan. Can they deduct that interest? No. They pay taxes and interest on the money that is left after the tax bill.

That is how the government operates. It takes money over and over again from those who are unable to pay a great deal because of their low income levels. Not to mention the fact that our dollar has slid down to almost zero because of the tax and grab scheme of the federal government. I think it is atrocious.

We have tax changes that are supposed to increase the non-refundable personal tax credit for the individual surtax. Once again the spin doctors and the communicators announce a number, $500.

[The Speaker]

With that comment, you have run out of time my colleague, but you still have 10 minutes for questions and comments. We will take one question and a response. You will have still some time later on.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would prefer to continue after question period with my comments and questions and possibly my remarks, if that is favourable to you.

[The Speaker]

It is okay with me. That will give the full 10 minutes to our hon. colleague who can use it all up. This will give us a bit more time for Statements by Members. We will proceed to Statements by Members.

National Police Week

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May 9 to 15 is National Police Week in Canada. It provides Canadians with an opportunity to show their appreciation for the remarkable job being done by police across Canada. These men and women have chosen to dedicate their professional lives to serving and protecting our communities often at risk to their own safety. We applaud their commitment.

Police week provides police with an opportunity to forge stronger ties with those they serve. Police men and women in Canada help to maintain a consistently high level of safety in our communities. The fact that Canada is considered the safest country in the world in which to live is no coincidence.

I know that I have the support of the House when I say that Canadians value their police forces across the country. Strong police community relations are vital to the preservation of our safe streets and homes.

It is a privilege to recognize National Police Week. I invite all Canadians to join me in saluting those men and women who have chosen to dedicate their lives to the protection of our homes and communities.

Agriculture

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, spring is here and farmers in Lakeland constituency have started seeding the 1999 crop. Many have been dealing with the fallout from the worst drought in recent history and again are planting into dry soil. They are faced with low prices due to unfair European and U.S. subsidies and unfair import restrictions into Asian markets.

For eight long years the Reform Party has promoted its policy of creating a trade distortion adjustment program which would use part of the capitalized value of the Crow rate subsidy to create a fund to compensate farmers for this type of financial loss.

The Liberal response was to announce a $900 million compensation program which was supposed to be delivered to all farmers before seeding began. Show me the money. In my riding where the disaster is the worst I have yet to hear that a single grain farmer has received a cheque from this $900 million program. Why does this government routinely make promises it has no intention of keeping?

National Student Commonwealth Forum

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 4, I had the honour of addressing the National Student Commonwealth Forum. These students came together in Ottawa from every region of Canada to explore global issues and work toward reaching a consensus in their vision for a better tomorrow.

A project of the Ottawa branch of the Royal Commonwealth Society, now in its 27th year the forum encourages learning, role playing, discussion and brainstorming regarding the cultures, countries, institutions and issues of the Commonwealth. The theme of last week's forum was poverty.

On Wednesday, May 5 members of the federal branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had the opportunity to meet with the students and share their views about issues facing Canadian youth.

I would like to thank the planning team for organizing an exciting week and commend the Royal Commonwealth Society on its leadership in creating this forum.

National Nursing Week

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that May 10 to 16 is National Nursing Week. The theme is “Older Persons and Nurses—Partners for Healthy Aging” emphasizing the pivotal role nurses play in the delivery of safe quality health care.

Nurses have long played an important role in providing quality health care and in promoting the development of more appropriate health care service delivery systems. Today there are 260,000 registered nurses in Canada whose commitment, dedication and caring services touch every aspect of our lives.

This year, the International Year of Older Persons, the Canadian Nurses Association will be highlighting available resources and raising public awareness for the needs of our aging population.

This week and every week let us give our nurses the appreciation and respect they deserve.

Thanks to all the nurses in Canada and congratulations to them for them invaluable contribution.

Wegener's Granulomatosis

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Wegener's Granulomatosis is an uncommon disease where the body's immune system attacks its own body tissues leading to the inflammation of the blood vessels.

Primarily affecting people in mid-life, this disease affects their respiratory system and may involve the kidneys, eyes, throat, skin and other body organs. With no known cure, early diagnosis and proper treatment are essential to bring the disease into remission.

I congratulate the Wegener's Granulomatosis Support Group of Canada for increasing public awareness about this disease and for the ongoing support it provides to those with the disease and their families.

North-West Mounted Police

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was 1874. The North-West Mounted Police, only one year old, was dispatched from Manitoba to points further west. The primary goals were to establish friendly relations with the aboriginals and to maintain peace as settlers arrived. Two hundred and seventy-five men, 114 ox carts, 73 wagons, 93 cattle, field artillery and agriculture tools were on their way to Alberta.

Now 125 years later this trek west is being re-enacted as a part of preserving the history of our proud police force. Saturday, just two days ago, the first contingent left Emerson, Manitoba. The northern contingent of this trek is expected to arrive in Fort Saskatchewan in my riding on July 23.

We are proud of our history and the RCMP which had its beginnings 125 years ago. Congratulations to the organizers and participants in this historic re-enactment. We look forward with enthusiasm to the excitement of this celebration throughout the summer.

Constable Michael Joy

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to a model Canadian and a great constituent from Hamilton West.

Back in 1997, Constable Michael Joy, an officer with the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Service, received the Star of Courage, the second highest medal of bravery. Earlier today Constable Joy was again at Rideau Hall and became the first officer to be decorated with a second bravery award from His Excellency the Governor General.

These awards from the chancellery add to Constable Joy's numerous recognitions. He was awarded seven St. John's life saving awards, including the Priory of Canada. In 1996 he received the prestigious Ontario Police Medal of Bravery for which he has been nominated a second time. Constable Joy has also been nominated for this year's Canadian Police Association Top Cop Award.

On behalf of all hon. members in this House, I thank Constable Joy, the most decorated officer in Canada, for his dedication to the Hamilton community and to the people of Canada. Mike, thank you. Thank you for continuing to serve with distinction, courage and bravery.

Canada-France Parliamentary Day

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce the second Canada-France parliamentary day being held today within these precincts.

The day began with a symposium on the co-existence of the civil and common law systems in international commercial contracts. French and Canadian experts shared their concerns and suggestions with us.

Late this afternoon, there will be a round table on the Canada-France action program signed last December by prime ministers Chrétien and Jospin with a view to strengthening the partnership between our two countries.

At the end of the day, there will be an opportunity for all participants to meet His Excellency the Ambassador of France, as well as members of the France-Canada federation.

Clearly, the relationship of co-operation and friendship between France and Canada is very strong and grows stronger daily, both at the intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary levels.