Debates of May 4th, 2000

Crimes Against Humanity Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

At the request of the chief government whip, the vote on the motion before the House is deferred until Monday at the conclusion of the time provided for the consideration of Government Orders.

The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 28, 2000, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2000

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to rise to debate the budget implementation act, Bill C-32. In my capacity as industry critic I am quite concerned about the lack of progress on tax reduction. I want to refer to the study we commissioned in the industry committee and our dissenting opinion, which I will refer to with regard to taxes and the ways in which we could become more competitive in Canada.

In November of last year the Standing Committee on Industry undertook a study on productivity. The study was initiated in response to concerns expressed by many prominent economists and business leaders who warned of the alarming productivity gap developing between Canada and our major trading partner, the United States, and in particular the gap which developed over the past decade.

These leaders confirmed through statistical evidence what Canadians instinctively already knew. Our standard of living had fallen over the past 30 years and the rate of decline had accelerated during the 1990s. Currently Canadians earn $9,000 less per capita than their American counterparts and that disparity continues to grow.

Productivity is the measure of efficiency in which people, capital, resources and ideas are combined in the economy, which show up basically as our standard of living. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s we had a tremendously high rate of growth in productivity, approaching 4% per annum in terms of labour productivity and 2% per annum in terms of multi-factor productivity. Since 1973, however, Canada's growth in productivity has hovered around the 1% level.

What does that really mean? The picture becomes much clearer when we contrast the Canadian experience with that of our G-7 partners. At the end of the second world war Canada and the United States were by far the most productive countries in the world, but the levels of European countries and Japan have converged with those of North America. This of course was inevitable as the European and Japanese economies recovered from the second world war.

However, the data is clear and unequivocal. The United States remains the most productive country in the world, but Canada no longer holds second place. That is a concern. Canada is the only country in the G-7 that has not closed the gap relative to the United States in terms of productivity. In 1976 Canada was second in terms of productivity among the G-7 countries, but 20 years later, by 1997, Canada was fifth. Other countries are now much closer to the U.S. and have overtaken Canada. Italy and France are respectively the second and third most productive countries in the world. Germany, despite the reunification of the west with the east, is now the fourth most productive economy in the world.

After hearing from dozens of witnesses the standing committee tabled its 182 page report on productivity and innovation in the House of Commons on April 11. The report did a good job in providing a 30 year history of Canada's decline and documenting our current situation, but it failed to identify the underlying reasons for Canada's productivity decline. I say that it is a failing in the report. That failure is a significant weakness in the report and it prompted the Canadian Alliance members of the committee to offer a dissenting opinion.

I believe that if we fail to understand or choose to ignore the fundamental reasons for this decline it will impair our ability to offer constructive solutions. The issues related to Canada's productivity and weakened competitiveness are complex, to say the least. Many factors, including external shocks to a country's economy, can cause disruption. However, some countries, such as the United States, are better able to adapt and restructure their economies. The restructuring that took place in the U.S. in the 1980s enabled the Americans to lead the world in growth for much of the 1990s, and that continues to the present. Canada, however, did not enjoy that same level of growth.

For almost a century the Canadian and U.S. business cycles and economies were synchronised and could be charted with no divergence between the two. Between 1900 and 1980 Canada never experienced a recession without a corresponding recession in the United States. However, it is no small coincidence that Canada's business cycle began diverging from that of the United States in the late 1960s after the Canadian federal government expanded rapidly and became more interventionist. The role played by public policy in Canada during this period is a significant factor which needs to be examined.

I suggest that a fundamental shift in government policy in the 1960s and 1970s created the conditions that led to Canada's decline in productivity and currency devaluation.

Over the years major social programs were introduced and the federal government expanded through successive Liberal and Conservative administrations. Changes made to the unemployment insurance program, as an example, moved it away from the concept of an insurance program to that of a social program function. The result was an increase in Canadian unemployment rates, several points higher than those in the United States.

Meanwhile, federal program spending continued to grow every year, which had to be financed by tax increases and deficit budgets. The accumulated deficits created a federal debt of over $575 billion. Currently one-third of each tax dollar taxpayers send to Ottawa is required to pay the interest on our national debt.

Looking over the past 30 years, the Conference Board of Canada told the committee that the Canadian way—Canada's traditional economic and social programs established largely in the 1960s—is unsustainable. The Liberal response to this crisis is very weak.

The committee report claims that the latest federal budget is the answer to Canada's problems of productivity. While it did propose some tentative steps to improve our productivity, the budget is too little, too late, to resolve the problems caused by 30 years of misguided public policy.

Canada currently finds itself in a very competitive tax environment worldwide and it is becoming more competitive all the time. As such, the overdue tax cuts in budget 2000 are welcome, but their value is hampered by long phase-in periods and other half measures. For example, the corporate tax rate is not scheduled to decrease until 2001 and then by only 1%, from 28% to 27%. The planned seven point reduction will not be fully achieved until 2005.

As the United States, France and Germany continue to reduce taxes and increase their productivity levels, Canada will continue to fall behind. Canada currently holds the unenviable position of having the highest personal tax rates as a percentage of GDP of all the G-7 countries. Canadian tax rates in the manufacturing and service sectors are becoming the highest in the G-7, as rates in those countries continue to decline. Moreover, the $86 billion in new government spending announced on budget day clearly demonstrates that the priority of the federal government is to continue to increase its program spending, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.

The government claims to have taken decisive action in paying down the national debt, but its current commitment of $3 billion annually pales in comparison with the $13 billion handed out in the form of grants and contributions each year. Even at $3 billion a year, it will take 191 years to retire the debt. Meanwhile, half a percentage rise in interest rates would increase charges to the national debt by $5 billion annually. We know that interest rates are starting to rise.

Investors take small comfort from the tepid measures found in the federal budget. In fact, bold measures are needed to restore confidence in the Canadian economy. I agree with leading Canadian economist, Pierre Fortin, when he advised that the best answer for Canada's declining standard of living is to cut taxes and pay down debt.

Investor confidence is a very important factor as companies seek profit and increased productivity in this globally competitive environment. Unfortunately, the signals generated by government policies over the past 30 years have not instilled the confidence required to increase that investment necessary to improve our productivity and standard of living. As a result, the percentage of foreign direct investment coming into Canada has steadily declined over the past several years. Even Canadians are increasingly looking beyond our borders for better opportunities for investment.

From 1988 to 1998 foreign direct investment flowing out of Canada rose more than six times. Meanwhile, incoming foreign direct investment rose only two and a half times. In fact, by 1997 Canada had become a net exporter of foreign direct investment.

Among other things, Canada's productivity decline and government policy have led to the Canadian dollar becoming very weak and some companies are relying on it to remain competitive. It is a poor way to try to get ourselves out of this problem.

As Jim Frank from the Conference Board of Canada said:

Surely to goodness...If 68 cents was a good idea, why don't we try 50 cents? Depreciating our currency will not serve us well....At some point there is a relationship between the cost of stuff we import and consume and our currency—

I want to sum up by saying that Canada is the second largest country in the world. It has a vital pool of human and natural resources. We have untapped potential for growth, but we need the proper environment to nurture that prosperity. I am confident that Canada can regain that prosperity and competitiveness; however, it will take strong leadership by government to do that. Our solution 17 on tax reform is a way to show confidence and we intend to introduce a confident budget when elected in the House of Commons to form the government.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Having closely examined each component of the latest budget by the Minister of Finance, we reached exactly the same conclusions as we did on February 28 when it was brought down. We have much criticism to level at it.

I would like to make one aside about the size and importance of the surplus to come. The people listening to us need to understand that when we refer to the surplus we mean the overpayments the taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada have made to the Minister of Finance. This has merely gone to swell the annual surpluses that are largely used for government propaganda. This money is also used to grease the palms of friends of the party, also known as looking out for one's buddies. The government has no control over at least part of this money.

The surpluses the Minister of Finance is projecting for the next five years are in the order of $90 billion or $95 billion. Knowing the Minister of Finance and how he loves to fiddle with the figures, and knowing how in the past he has deliberately hidden the true situation of public finances, the validity of his estimates are suspect.

It would be more accurate to speak of a cumulative surplus, over the next five years, of more than $140 billion. For the employment insurance fund alone, despite the decrease in contributions in the last budget and the one before it, there will still be a surplus of more than $6 billion. Employers and employees are, therefore, paying too much in the way of contributions.

Worse still, the majority of workers who pay into the fund while employed are excluded from benefits. Only 42% of the jobless can benefit, although 100% of them contributed while employed. This is a disgrace. This is why there are stupendous surpluses every year in the fund, like the average of $6 billion annually over the past three years.

We were expecting a thorough reform of employment insurance. My colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, introduced a general proposal to reform the employment insurance plan. Under this proposal, all the bias in the plan, all the harmful aspects of the plan that the Bloc Quebecois has criticized so often, all the elements preventing the people who should benefit from the employment insurance plan from doing so could be totally and readily corrected.

It would even be possible to set aside a bit of a surplus annually to ensure there would be something of a cushion in the event the economy slows down. The cushion in the employment insurance fund for the past four years has been over $26 billion. That is a lot. This is robbery, because the federal government does not put a cent into it anymore. The employers and the employees pay.

Worse yet, those who contribute the most, in these two categories of taxpayers, are the small and medium businesses and the middle income workers, because of the ceiling on contributions.

Not only are the SMBs penalized by the federal tax system, especially compared to big business, not only are middle income workers penalized by the tax system and the various programs they cannot access, but they are obliged to pay more than their share of contributions to employment insurance.

While the Minister of Finance has surpluses coming out his ears and polishes his image as the possible next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, it is appalling that this man is responsible for really botching a policy that had in the past made Canada an example in the area of social programs.

This man, with his ambitions for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, has ruined the work of a number of important politicians before him. He has wrecked the employment insurance plan. He stayed firmly seated on his fanny when he was asked to reform the tax system to make it a little fairer. He did not do anything for the poor. He let the ship drift. Let us not forget that he is a shipowner first and foremost, before being a Minister of Finance.

This man's ambition is to become the leader of a country. Imagine the catastrophe that could result if he were at the helm. People often forget that he is the one responsible for the increase in poverty since 1993, because of all the cuts he made to employment insurance and social programs.

Considering the surpluses that are coming out of his ears, we expected the Minister of Finance to fully restore transfers to the provinces for social assistance, higher education and health. But no. The minister earmarked only $2.5 billion, over the next three years, while everyone was asking him to allocate $3.7 billion immediately and to continue to do so every year.

This is far from restoring federal transfers to fund health, higher education and social assistance to the levels they were at before the man responsible for this chainsaw massacre came into the picture.

For social housing, $54 million has been earmarked. The minister was boasting, saying “I care about the poor”. It is hypocritical to present things like that. The minister gave $54 million when he knew full well—because of the representations that had been made to him, by FRAPRU, among others—that a minimum of $1.7 billion this year was required for a minimum number of social housing units.

Let us not forget that even if money has been put into social housing since 1993, it is not for new units. It is not to meet the needs of thousands of Quebecers and Canadians who are getting poorer because of the Minister of Finance. It is to maintain housing that has already been built. That is the difference. There is also quite a difference between $1.7 billion and $54 million.

I have a few words of congratulation for the Minister of Finance with respect to the indexing of the income tax tables. Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for the income tax tables to be fully indexed. Why? Because taxpayers are being robbed. Although the Minister of Finance does not rise in his place, when bringing down the budget, and announce that he is raising taxes, the government's coffers kept filling up at an incredible rate because, since 1994, he has ignored our requests to index the income tax tables.

And what has been the result? Since 1994, the Minister of Finance, who has visions of leading the nation, has taken in $17 billion of taxpayers' money—taken in and stolen, it boils down to the same thing—because there is no indexation. He might deserve some praise for what he has done in this year's budget, but it took seven years and $17 billion stolen from taxpayers before this Minister of Finance decided to act. This is unacceptable.

Those who are worst off and those in the middle income category will have to wait longer for tax breaks. With Canada's social policies scrapped, the worst off will benefit later from this huge sacrifice. The middle income earners, who have had billions squeezed out of them to eliminate the deficit and build up the surplus, will have to hold their breath too.

Do people realize what the real tax reduction will be this year and next for a couple with one child earning $20,000? The tax savings for this couple will be $106 this year and $269 the next—not even a dollar a day. The tax savings for a couple with two children with a family income of $35,000 will be $115 this year and $195 the next. If this is not thumbing their nose at people, what is it?

A couple with two children and an income of $65,000 saves $485 in taxes this year, and $500 in 2001, which works out to about $1.25 a day. This is really laughable. However, the buddies of the ship-owning Minister of Finance, with their annual incomes of $250,000 or more, will benefit this year from a tax savings of $4,785. Next year, another $3,500 will have to be added to that figure, because the 3% surtax is going to be gradually eliminated.

We look at this on top of the enormous scandals at HRDC—the $3 billion hole, and that is just the amount we know about—the Placeteco affair and the creation over the years of no fewer than 80 government bodies which have no obligation to report to parliament in any way and which have a budget allocation of more than $10 billion, over which we have no control. We look at this mismanagement, this misuse of funds that could have gone to the disadvantaged and the middle-income earners. We look at the Minister of Finance greasing the palms of his little buddies, and we cannot do otherwise than to regret this latest budget and all this pretence at lowering taxes.

In light of the analysis I have just presented, it can be seen that, yes, there were tax reductions, but for the millionaires, the peers and buddies of the Minister of Finance. It is possible that these shipowners do pay taxes elsewhere, but not in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, the Budget Implementation Act, 2000.

I have spoken in the House in the past about the government's failure to embrace the realities of a globally interconnected, hypercompetitive economy that is writing new rules for the game of economics. We do not write those rules. In fact we ignore those rules at our own peril.

The government continues to play by yesterday's rules and to foster the types of programs that were dubious 20 years ago but today are recognized as being downright wrong. It refuses to embrace some of the elements of tax reform and deregulation that are necessary to prepare Canadians to embrace these realities, not just to compete globally but to succeed globally.

I will speak to some specific elements of the Budget Implementation Act, Bill C-32. The first is the increase of the basic personal amount. In the budget the government is proposing to increase the basic personal amount by $100 this year. This works out to be a tax cut of about 33 cents per week or $17 per year. That is about four cups of Starbucks coffee over the next year for Canadians. I am sure Starbucks and all Canadians are grateful to the government for this grudging, belittling, ridiculous insult of a tax relief.

The plan we are looking at would effectively raise the basic personal exemption over a period of time to $8,200. The fact is that in the U.S. the basic personal amount at which one begins to pay personal income taxes is not hit until about $11,000 Canadian. We are taxing the poorest of the poor in Canada. We call ourselves a kinder and gentler nation, but the fact is that in the U.S., our neighbour to the south, the greatest economic superpower in the world, there is actually more compassion extended to lower income Americans relative to the tax system than what is afforded to Canadians by our tax system.

The Progressive Conservative Party task force which reported in January would raise the basic personal amount to $12,000. We would like to see that amount raised further, but there is a huge difference from $8,200 to $12,000. It would liberate a number of Canadians from the Liberal tax regime which is attacking them at the very lowest levels of income.

One of the greatest disappointments in the budget was the failure of the government to commit significantly to increasing Canada's health and social transfers.

I do not need to remind anyone in the House that the Liberal government devastated health care in Canada by making draconian slashes to health care, by reducing health care funding and by putting health care in a crisis in every province in the country.

For the government, the finance minister and the health minister to be condemning provinces as they try to work creatively under the stress created by the government's draconian cuts to health care and social transfers is hypocritical at best.

The government has been the Dr. Kevorkian of the Canadian health care system. Through its indifference to the provinces and its failure to fund properly health care in Canada, the government has effectively almost euthanized the Canadian health care system or the capacity of the provinces to provide the type of health care system Canadians need in an increasingly expensive health care environment. If the federal government wants to play a meaningful role in working with the provinces and determining the future of health care in Canada, it had better come to the table with its chequebook.

There was a time that health care funding in Canada was shared 50:50. The federal government would provide 50% and the provinces would provide 50%. At that time there was a real partnership between the federal government and the provinces. There was some legitimacy to the notion that the feds and the provinces could work together on seeking new and innovative solutions to health care.

Currently some estimates are that federal government contributions are down to as low as 13%. It is very difficult if one is only paying $1.30 of $10 worth of gas to tell the driver where to take the car. The government is refusing to step up to the plate and provide adequate funding and leadership to address the complexities of health care in this very complicated period.

When the Canada Health Act was first introduced, health care realities were fairly simple. Since then pharmaceutical costs have increased to about 30% of total health care costs in Canada. Most pharmaceutical costs are covered privately. With the rising cost of pharmaceuticals and the increasing rate at which the pharmaceuticals are comprising our overall health care spending, we already have a two tier health care system. The federal government is not addressing the rising cost of pharmaceuticals and the composition of total health care costs as comprised by pharmaceuticals.

The federal government is not addressing the biotech industry. Increasingly there are very advanced and complex approaches to health care, almost to the extent that miracles are possible. However the cost of these health care miracles is immense. We have to address what could actually be considered ethical issues and work with the provinces on them.

Is it possible to have universal access to all new and advanced therapies and treatments? Has the federal government worked with the provinces to estimate what the cost would be to provide to each and every Canadian with the total and utter extent of treatments that are available to them in today's global health care environment? These types of things have to be considered.

Currently our health minister is sounding less like a health minister and most like an electioneering politician. Unfortunately, until we see some real movement of the federal government on the part of both the finance minister and the health minister on the health care funding issue, I would suggest that Brian Tobin, Premier of Newfoundland and former Liberal cabinet minister in this House, is correct when he says that the government has missed the boat by not reinvesting significantly in health care.

Across Canada the medical associations, nurses associations and provincial governments all agree that the federal government has to take a more proactive and aggressive approach to health care in Canada. It has to either butt out or butt in with more money for investing in health care. Clearly the budget missed the point on that.

In terms of the government's failure to embrace the importance of general tax reform, it is important to point out that our competitors in every country in the industrialized world are using tax reform and tax reduction as a vehicle to greater levels of economic growth and opportunity for their citizens.

Over the past 10 years Ireland's GDP on a per capita basis has increased by 92%. During the same period of time the American GDP per capita increased by around 20%. Canada's GDP per capita increased by an anaemic 5%. Clearly, as citizens in other countries are getting richer, Canadians are getting poor.

Productivity is the currency of the economic environment. If we are allowing Canada to fall behind, effectively we are reducing the standard of living of all Canadians not only now, but well into the future. The Royal Bank of Canada's chief economist, John McCallum, predicted not so many weeks ago that under current trends Canada's standard of living would be approximately half of that of the Americans, that within 15 years our standard of living would be reduced to half of that of Americans.

The brain drain is a damning barometer of the performance of the government. Over the last several years the number of people leaving Canada to seek opportunities elsewhere in other countries has gone from 16,000 per year to approximately 100,000 per year. That is happening under the stewardship, or lack thereof, of the government.

It is not just a matter of tax tinkering based on Liberal focus groups and short term political polling. We need significant levels of tax reform focused on doing what is right for Canadians well into the next century, not simply poll monitoring focused on Liberal fortunes in the next election.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget brought forth by the government.

Once again the finance minister and his spin doctors are using five year projections to exaggerate his changes and to sell benefits to Canadians. It is too bad the government cannot be straight with the public over just what the budget will or will not do for the citizens of this country.

With a little more integrity and honesty the government would have to inform the Canadian taxpayer that the announced tax cuts for this year will already have been eaten up by recent increases in the price of fuel to operate our motor vehicles. After all, the tax cuts amount to about $10 a week and we have all seen how much we now have to pay each time we pull up to the pumps.

With a little more clarity the government would tell Canadians that the increase to the Canada pension plan premiums on January 1, 2000 was one of the largest tax grabs in the history of this country. The government sings the praises of its $10 per week tax cut, but says very little about the $8 a week tax increase to cover its mismanagement of the Canada pension plan.

With a little more sincerity the government would inform Canadians that it has done little if anything proactively to address the $576 billion debt. The government keeps putting off the reduction of the debt for some rainy day far into the future. The finance minister has survived this albatross around our necks solely because of the pace of the economy. Should the economy ever slow down or even recede, we will be in big trouble for not paying our bills when we had surplus capability. It is unfortunate when we have a Prime Minister and a finance minister who put off this problem until some time when they are no longer around to tackle the consequences of their inaction.

As I say, the spin doctors have worked overtime to sell this budget but Canadians are not buying. It is no wonder politicians are ranked so unfavourably by citizens. Even the government after years of good fortune and years of fancy bookkeeping now admits that our revenues are greater than our expenditures.

I mentioned the fancy bookkeeping or creative accounting and bring up the millennium scholarship fund as just one example. It is still a wonder how the country's chief accountant was able to write off a future year's expenditures in his current financial year. At least we now have a balanced budget even in the eyes of the finance minister and his strange accounting practices.

With a balanced budget the surtax should have been eliminated. After all, its only reason for being was to address the deficit. The deficit has been eliminated but the surtax remains and will only be finally removed sometime in the future. This reminds me of the GST. The government makes promises but fails to fulfil them.

I fully appreciate that the budget process is primarily about the money held by the government on behalf of its citizens. Maybe the government should recognize this fact occasionally. It seems to think the money belongs to it, the Liberal Party. Not too long ago the Minister of Veterans Affairs had the temerity to imply that the tax department was a Liberal Party institution. I always assumed that government departments were supposed to operate independently of the political arm of government. Perhaps he let the cat out of the bag as to the real truth in Ottawa. I would hate to think so as Canadians already have enough reasons to despise the tax collector.

Getting back to the budget and the money process, the Minister of Finance spends a great deal of time allocating money to this department and that department, but he does not spend a great deal of time ensuring the problems are corrected or that ministers are efficient and effective with their allotments. There appears to be little concern when the Minister of Human Resources Development admits to billions of tax dollars having been expended with hardly any checks and balances to ensure that we obtained value for the money invested. It appears the government views the taxpayer as a bottomless pit as the finance minister added to the problem in this budget by giving HRD more money to waste. As the saying goes, only in Canada you say. HRD should have been dramatically reduced in funding instead of being rewarded. It is a disgrace.

Let us break our budgetary process into very simple terms. Over the next five years the Minister of Finance projects he will have in excess of $119 billion from his excessive taxation policies. We all know how conservative the minister becomes when he projects his revenues. There is at least $119 billion that taxpayers are being forced to pay in excess of what this money grabbing government needs to operate. This includes the billions of dollars that are mismanaged, written off as bad debts and spent like the proverbial drunken sailor. There will be $119 billion of excess taxation over the next five years.

This $119 billion includes the $5 billion per year the finance minister continues to overtax through the employment insurance fund. There is a surplus of $30 billion in the fund but the government continues to overcharge workers in order to fund pet projects. The minister likes to point out cuts to employee and employer contributions over the past number of years. The simple fact is that there is an enormous surplus and there is absolutely no valid reason to continue to overtax workers.

The minister should be absolutely ashamed of his actions. He overtaxes citizens to the tune of $119 billion and then tries to buy them off by giving back a few tax breaks. The rest is used to perpetuate the Liberal legacy of spend, spend, spend. And we wonder why we are $576 billion in debt. And we wonder why we are facing a brain drain.

As an aside, I note that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have been noticeably quiet lately about the brain drain. Last year they said there was no such thing. They appear to have finally clued in.

Speaking of being clued in, where was the government prior to the budget? In the budget there was very little for health care. Now the Liberals seem to understand that health care is the highest priority among Canadians. The provinces are in desperate situations and have been demanding to meet with the Prime Minister.

Two tier health programs are now once again threatening our universal health care system. What strikes me as very questionable is that the health minister says that he wants to consult the provinces and additional financial resources are available. If more funds are available, why were they not included within the budget just a few weeks ago? A national plan seems to be seriously lacking.

In essence the government deserves very little praise for its accomplishments over the past seven years. Yes, when it took power in 1993, it faced a very shaky financial picture. Canadians were grossly overtaxed, government was far too big and we were in a deficit position as the revenues were less than the expenditures. The government likes to blame the Mulroney government for all our financial ills, but I seem to recall that it was the Trudeau Liberal government that started us on this downward spiral that will take generations to rectify.

Through a little bit of cost cutting but primarily through a significant change in world economic growth and significant tax increases to an already overburdened taxpayer, this country was able to balance the budget. Canadians owe very little to the Liberal government for our present economic outlook. The deficit was conquered solely on the backs of Canadian taxpayers.

I would like to go on especially on such an important topic as the budget but my time is limited. I would like to mention the new money provided to the RCMP and I would like to talk about border security problems. In both cases the government has put more money to the problems.

The government created the financial disaster within the RCMP when it gave members a long overdue raise in salary but then forced the organization to fund the raise from its existing budget. This resulted in the closing of the training academy and resulted in shortages to the extent that the RCMP had difficulty in putting fuel into its vehicles and even into buying tires for its cars.

As to the border security problems, money is not the sole solution.

Unfortunately, the government has no other solutions to the problems of the country. There is no plan. There is no vision. We continue to ride on the seat of our pants and hope that the problems are solved by themselves. Canadians expect much more. The government has gotten very old and very tired.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to budget 2000, which may be described as failing to meet the needs of the people and should have taken into account all the problems facing the people of Canada and Quebec.

The federal government failed to do a very important thing: to restore the social transfers throughout Canada. In 1995, $48 billion in cuts to the social transfer to the provinces were forecast; in 1999, we have reached $30 billion in cuts. This is money for health, education and income security that has been cut.

We would therefore have preferred to see happen what we have called for on a number of occasions, namely the return of the Canada social transfer to better support the provinces, which provide the frontline services to the public. So, $3.7 billion a year was sought by the Bloc Quebecois even before the budget was presented. What the Minister of Finance delivered was $2.4 billion over five years, in trust, for the provinces to spend as they need.

We know that this practice of the government of putting money in trust for health does not permit the provinces to develop a long term strategy to better meet the needs of the public. At present, the health program is in a state of crisis everywhere in Canada, and it is often said that the need is greater than our ability to meet it. Still, some money will need to be invested after the government has reconsidered its way of doing things in the health sector.

In light of such factors as the ageing population, the new techniques to adequately deal with emergencies and health problems, and the increase in poverty, which requires more prevention work than in the past, I say that we now find ourselves in this situation because the government has been accumulating a social deficit and letting the public down for six years. This is why the situation is so disastrous in the country.

Because of all the cuts made to the Canada social transfer, Quebec has been experiencing a shortfall that has prevented it from hiring 3,000 doctors, 5,000 nurses and 5,800 teachers. Let us not forget that income security recipients could have received an extra $500 annually.

This is a federal government initiative that is far from pleasing the provinces, which are faced as a result with increased demands and an acute problem in health and education. The school drop-out phenomenon tells us that we need more teachers, helpers and educational psychologists.

The federal government's underfinancing has been condemned by a number of stakeholders in health and education. Social rights advocates also demand a greater degree of fairness to ensure adequate financial assistance.

So, regarding the Canada social transfer, it is a big zero in terms of this government's social concerns. This is the mark that I would give to the Liberals.

We noticed a second thing about this budget. It is unacceptable that the government has not budged on EI. The Bloc Quebecois, through the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, proposed a series of bills that would improve the government's approach to eligibility for employment insurance. It is no longer insurance when six people out of ten do not qualify. And there are all sorts of reasons why they do not.

We wanted to adopt a reform that would take the market into account, but here again I think we have our heads in the sand. What we are seeing now is people trying to cope with insecure and atypical jobs with few social benefits. When people no longer have EI to help keep them afloat until they find another job, it is a disgrace.

The government knows perfectly well what is needed to correct the situation. We know that in the meantime Treasury Board coffers are brimming over with more than $30 billion from the pockets of workers and employers throughout Quebec.

This is unacceptable and, once again, we know only too well that what the federal government likes to do is build up its revenue and its room to manoeuvre with an eye to an election so that it will get the biggest political bang for its buck.

So, there is EI and the Canada social transfer, and I would add social housing. It is unacceptable to see how the government has, since 1993, totally abandoned the help families and single mothers have been calling for, along with low wage earners who can no longer afford to pay the rent, and who often have to pay 30%, 40% and even 50% of their incomes to keep a roof over their heads.

These are alarming figures to the percentage of the population, of single parents and low income families who cannot find a decent place to live at a price they can afford.

In December, with great fanfare, a project was announced which will include the homeless and the street people. There was talk of a bill that would involve the major cities of Canada. As far as Quebec was concerned, there was talk of Montreal and Quebec City, but there was nothing for the regions. The project is being re-evaluated. Now they say there would probably be something for the regions as well.

With $305 million over three years, this is merely a drop in the bucket given the pressing need. It is hoped that the program which has been created will also take into account the realities of Quebec as far as assistance with social housing is concerned. All Quebec community groups comprising the membership of FRAPRU are calling for 1% of the budget, which represents $1.6 billion yearly, for five years.

This is a far cry from the $8 billion the various organizations, and we in the Bloc Quebecois, had called for in order to properly deal with the social housing issue.

The groups have received the message of the Minister of Finance loud and clear, when he plays to the crowd at major international conferences, talking of how we must think of the disadvantaged, that globalization should apply to the poor as well as to the rich, that poverty must be taken into account.

It is unacceptable that, despite the three measures in which the government had room to manoeuvre—much more than what was done in the last budget—to properly respond to the whole problem of the gap between the rich and the poor, nothing was done.

In another area, that of taxation, the tax tables have been indexed. The government did not go far enough in cutting the taxes of low income earners. A single person earning $20,000 will pay $2 less in taxes in 2000-01. The person will pay a huge $14 less in taxes in 2004.

Here again there is very little for people with low incomes. There is nothing either for people on welfare, nothing for those wanting better care or prevention. In the meantime, the Liberal government wanted to ensure it had a lot of manoeuvring room in an election period, so that it could spend for home care and for other forms of help. I always say that the federal government is more concerned with being returned to office in an election than with going after the real problems and, in the end, meeting the needs of the people.

I am currently touring Quebec to listen to what people have to say on the problem of poverty and the social safety net. Clearly, the federal government is evading its responsibilities to provide proper funding in this area through channels of investments; funding is inadequate and often non existent. That is what we see.

The Bloc Quebecois said that there was $95 billion in surplus, but I believe the figure is much higher. The government should have given us a social budget, and not—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but her time is up.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the very sharp contrast between the tax and spend Liberal federal government and the fiscally innovative and prudent way that the Government of Ontario, the Mike Harris Tories, runs its finances, I want to remind the federal Liberals of something that is occurring in the country right now. I want to read this for their benefit.

An article in the Globe and Mail yesterday stated “Ontario is on top of the world. Canada's economic heartland has put behind it almost 30 years of deficits, decline, bad government, unsound investments and painful restructuring and emerges as one of the most successful economies in North America, and in the world”. This is from the Globe and Mail , which is known to be somewhat friendly to the Liberal government of late.

The article went on to state “The latest calculations in finance minister Ernie Eves' fifth budget reveal that the province's economy last year grew by 5.7%”—and get this, Mr. Speaker—“better than anyone had expected, better than anywhere else in Canada, better than in the United States, better than any nation in the group of seven”. Imagine that.

Why are the citizens of Ontario blessed with such an incredible economy? Let me give an example. The article continued “Ontario celebrates the economic fruits of four years of measured, comprehensive income and property tax reform”. Translated, that means tax cuts.

“Thanks in part to those tax cuts, real disposable income over the past three years in Ontario increased by 11.6%, double that of the rest of the country. Corporate profits rose last year by 22.3% and real consumer spending rose 4%. An economy like that can generate 200,000 net new jobs in a single year”, which, surprise, surprise, Ontario did in 1999.

Contrast that with the Liberal government. Since 1993 there have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 to 60 individual tax increases. The average disposable family income has decreased since 1993 by over $4,000. The average disposable income of Canadian workers has decreased by about $2,200.

The Liberals simply do not get it. They believe that the way to increase the tax revenue in government coffers is not to cut taxes, like most people in the real world would assume, to stimulate the economy. If taxes were cut citizens would have more money in their pockets to spend. Consumer spending would increase. Investors would invest in the economy, set up manufacturing plants and create jobs.

No, the Liberal philosophy is “We will simply hold the magic tax lever. In order to balance our budget we do not really have to grow the economy. We will let Ontario do that for us, or in spite of us. We will just wring that money out of the people of Canada, the businesses of Canada and the investment community”. That is what they have done.

That is how they got the money to balance the budget; not through prudent fiscal planning, but riding on the backs of the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta.

When Mike Harris and Ralph Klein formed their governments they said “We are going to get the finances of this country in shape. We are going to use a tried and true formula which we know has worked in numerous jurisdictions and countries around the world”.

That formula is simply this. Lower taxes equal a more buoyant economy. Higher taxes equal a sluggish economy. The government picked the first one. It was so simple, but the government does not get it.

In the last budget the finance minister claimed that he was going to give Canadians $58.4 billion in tax relief over five years. That sounds pretty good on the surface. We could almost get excited about it. Here is the real truth. From a $58.4 billion gross tax relief claim, we have to take away $7.5 billion over five years for social spending, which is the child benefit. Then we have to add to that $29.5 billion in increased CPP premiums because the Liberal government, which for so many years, unfortunately, has been in office in this country, has mismanaged the Canada pension plan since 1965 when it was introduced.

This is a good one. The solicitor general is going to love this one. The government has said that it will provide $13.5 billion in tax relief. It plans to schedule $13.5 billion in tax relief over the next five years. It plans on doing this but it will not do it so that it means $13.5 billion in tax relief or a tax cut.

For the benefit of the former parliamentary secretary of finance, the Minister of Health and the solicitor general, here is a simple formula. Let us say that I was a taxpayer earning $1 a year and paying taxes on that. The government says that it will, let us say, give me 13.5% in tax relief. I say “Whoopee”. However, what it means is that the government will not increase my taxes by 13.5% and therefore I will have a tax break. I look at my pay stub and say “Gee whiz, I did not get a tax break. All I got was no increase”. In Liberal terms that somehow translates into a tax break.

Let me talk about a couple of other things that the Liberal government has told us about its budget and the way it runs the country fiscally. All through this it has tried in vain to portray itself as being the caring and generous party of Canada. In the meantime, since 1993 it has cut $25 billion out of the Canadian health and social transfer. Does that sound like a caring, generous government? I do not think so.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a wise person sitting in that chair and I know that you probably get it before some of the ministers here. This generous, caring government cut $25 billion out of the CHST.

The government says it will end bracket creep. That is not a reduction in tax. It only means that a regular scheduled tax is again not going to occur. All the time the government has blown its spending budget. Every year since 1993 it has spent more than what it said it would. It basically adds up to a Liberal sucker tax cut, if I can use that term, or, in better terms, a no break tax break.

Canadians are waiting for it and they have not received it. While they look at the performance of the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, they say to themselves “Why does this Liberal not get it? Why can it not follow the example?” I hate to tell working Canadians but this government has never gotten it and never will get it. The only way Canadians will get substantive tax relief is by electing in the next federal election a Canadian Alliance government to sit on that side and bring in the tax cuts that they so dearly deserve.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to speak to the government's budget implementation act, Bill C-32, mostly because it gives the members of the Canadian Alliance another chance to poke holes in that big myth out there that the Liberal government is a prudent manager of the nation's tax money, to use the finance minister's term.

The fact is that a number of words may be used to describe Liberal economic management. I would use unimaginative, intrusive, counterproductive, ad hoc and so on, but prudent is not a word that fits the real story of this budget or any other in the last few years.

Bill C-32 has a number of components that taken in isolation can be argued to have or not have merit depending on the application. As a whole, they reveal two things about this Liberal government. It really does not have a clue about what it takes to build a greater country and it has no intention of giving up its ability to dictate and intrude in the lives of Canadians or in the activities of the provincial governments. He who has the money makes the rules.

Let us look at these pieces. On the positive side of the ledger is a provision for one year versus the now standing six month maternity leave. This is a nod to the fact that parents should attend to the raising of their children in the first crucial months of their young lives. However, since only about 30% of Canadian mothers qualify for the six month maternity leave now, it really begs the question: Why increase it? Why not put 60% into the six month slot? This leaves single income families, self-employed parents and many part time workers out of that loop.

There is a better solution, solution 17 to be exact, and I will get to that a bit later.

There are provisions in this legislation to give the Minister of National Revenue more authority—scary fact—to pounce on Canadians who are either trying to avoid the GST-HST levy or are having trouble figuring out what to charge it on. The rules keep changing. I know the members opposite will say it is the former. This measure is just meant to catch the unscrupulous. When did a qualification like that ever slow down a tax collector? The examples of ordinary, law-abiding Canadians, small business people, who find themselves in a kangaroo court over paperwork screw ups or whatever are legion. We cannot expect that to improve until the whole system is overhauled.

In any case, what happened to the Liberal promise to scrap or get rid of the GST? Seven years later the GST is dinging Canadians for over $46 billion a year. Out of that figure, it gives back $24 billion in rebates, which makes one wonder why it takes that much in the first place. Why not reduce it to 5% or take it off things like reading materials or whatever? That would require imagination and political will and we do not see that. Let us not forget that the Liberal government was supposed to scrap the whole thing anyway. We should not expect any action on this very soon. We will have to continue to pay it.

I want to make another point about the GST before I move on. In the 1995-96 budget the finance minister pre-booked nearly $1 billion for transitional assistance to provinces that were going to harmonize their sales tax with the GST. The problem was that at the time no one had signed on to this harmonization scheme and of course no money changed hands that year.

In 1996-97 the Canada Foundation for Innovation received $800 million before it even existed. In 1997-98 the millennium scholarship fund received $2.5 billion. This money walked out the door despite the protests of provinces, opposition parties and even the students it was supposed to help.

In 1998-99 almost $4 billion in pre-booking went on, including $2.5 CHST funding that does not actually get to the provinces all at once but over four years. That is not a very big amount when we break it down over four years. We cannot make a big splash unless we are willing to throw a big wad of taxpayer money overboard.

The big problem is that the finance minister's shenanigans throws into question the real state of the country's books. The auditor general attaches a reservation to the accounts, which is the harshest criticism an accountant can level at the government. He saw that the Liberals were deliberately overstating the deficit and using taxpayer money for the very political purpose of making grand, empty gestures and claiming to be wonderful managers. There was no money for tax cuts or debt reduction. Just monuments and increased spending.

Members opposite like to defend the government's largesse by saying that it is spending on education. In reality, only 7% of university students in this country get in on the millennium gravy train and many of them have discovered that the taxpayer money from the feds only displaces money from other sources. That is a big point. There are bursary and scholarship programs out there already. Why invent new ones unless we are trying to build a monument to somebody, and the Liberals do such a poor job of it.

I know a 14 year old student from my riding who has qualified for a $16,000 scholarship to a very good school in Montreal. His parents have recently found out that they have to pay $4,000 in income tax for him to qualify for that scholarship. The government gives with one hand and rips it back with another. The family is beginning to find out that they cannot afford to send their child to that school. It is cost prohibitive because of the tax law. This is absolutely ridiculous.

In section 3 of this bill, the federal government has to take back the Canada student loans. A story circulated a few months ago that banks would get over $100 million to pay for defaults and costs. I can tell the House that my constituents were upset to hear that the billion dollar banks would be bailed out with taxpayer money. It turns out that the federal government pays a premium to these banks for them to co-operate in the student loans program. The situation remains murky as to who pays what in the end. The new program may cost $155 million versus the $75 million under the previous set up. This is more taxpayer money flushed. The Montreal Gazette reported on that.

We are aware that students are carrying $9 billion in loans right now and, despite publicity to the contrary, most students do pay back their loans. They are good citizens.

Considering the long term value to the economy of higher education, one would think that the Liberals would come up with a better plan than to place responsibility for doling out this money in the hands of the overworked HRD ministry, as we see in part 3 of the bill.

If the federal government feels compelled to join with the provinces in the education field, or compete with them, which seems to be the Liberal way, then it should offer a plan to alleviate student debt rather than add to it.

In view of the HRD track record, what assurances can we have that money will only go to people in need and to encourage our best and brightest to pursue legitimate courses of study? After all, this is the same government that defends the funding of dumb blonde joke books, porno films and displays involving dead rabbits.

There is a bright side, I guess, for the students, and I suspect the burdensome finance minister's tax system has a secondary purpose. By driving our best young graduates down to the United States, he assures them that they can make more money, get to keep more of it and pay back their Canadian student loans with a more valuable dollar. Our dollar is worth less than 67 cents today.

If I thought the finance minister was that clever maybe I could find an excuse to applaud him. However the real reason for the complex, archaic, confusing and unworkable tax system, which Bill C-32 barely tinkers with, is that it continues to allow the Liberals to indulge their overarching ambition to control the lives of as many people as they can.

Taxes are not just government revenue, they are power; power to pick losers out of the marketplace and keep them limping along, and power to reward loyal supporters. The old adage that the government picks losers and losers pick government is certainly reinforced in a lot of the things being brought out in question period lately.

It is not a prerogative that the Liberals are about to give up because they distrust individual choices. They fear entrepreneurship and they despise the fact that provinces, like Ontario and Alberta, are succeeding with 21st century politics while the Liberal government is stuck trying to make its 1960's policies work.

Part 6 of the bill includes provisions for eliminating bracket creep. It also raises the foreign content restrictions on RRSPs. That is great for the Liberals. Welcome to the 1990s. These ideas have been kicked around for the last 10 or 12 years. If we allow them to borrow more of our policies like that, we might even nudge them into the next century, though of course they would not be on that side of the House to enjoy it. The Canadian people will leave them behind.

The Liberals seem to think that the tax changes they are making are in isolation in the country. Unfortunately they are not. We are still coming up short when it comes to the G-7 ratings and most of the other countries around the world. They are making changes far faster than we are, and in the right direction.

My colleague from Medicine Hat has long been advocating the removal of the foreign content restriction on Canadian savings plans. While this country has incrementally lost ground to the U.S. economy, Canadians have been penalized billions of dollars in lost opportunities. Now that the stock markets everywhere are becoming increasingly volatile, the Liberals say “feel free to risk your retirement in other countries”. They are a day late and a dollar short, but even worse, they have the nerve to turn their stubborn vices into a new found virtue.

We have been warning them for years that bracket creep was eroding the values of Canadian tax deductions, even while their own experts complained that Canadian net incomes were falling. Finally they decided to come clean and try to take the credit for reforming one aspect of a flawed tax system. Some $10 billion have been unfairly raked in by bracket creep alone. One million low income Canadians were dragged onto the tax rolls while another two and a half million found themselves paying outrageous rates on their few dollars of earnings.

The Liberals will want us to congratulate them for lower taxes but I am afraid we will have to hold our applause. Like all promises by this government, lower tax rates are today's headline and tomorrow's excuse.

Solution 17 will work to fix all this, and part of that solution 17 is increasing the basic personal deduction to $10,000 for both the husband and wife. A $3,000 credit for every child, real values.

Anyone who believes the government's budget spin should take a reality check. People should look at their pay stubs and judge for themselves. The real measure is whether or not we are gaining or losing.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here to speak on Bill C-32 today. Although we are close to the end of the debate, it is good to get one's two cents worth in, particularly right after tax season when it is all that many Canadians will have left as a result of the tax and spend policies of the Liberal government.

We just had a budget introduced in Ontario that gives significant tax relief. On the heels of that budget, there was a dinner in Toronto last night at which every leader of a major Conservative-minded, Conservative policy political party, were in attendance. We note that the leader of the Tories at the far end of the building was not there. We thought maybe Joe Clark did not consider himself to be a Conservative. We have been saying that for quite some time.

The reason our taxes are so high is that the Liberal government is not really in control of spending. Since I am deputy critic of Indian affairs I thought I would talk about some of the uncontrolled and misdirected spending occurring in that area with which I am most familiar.

In committee recently it is interesting to note that members of all parties have begun to speak out on the mismanagement of resources and the wasted lives of Canada's aboriginal people despite massive government spending that is equal to or exceeds the amount spent on other Canadians. Spending on elementary and secondary education of Indian children is in the region of $976 million annually. This is second only to social assistance in the amount of $1.097 million. That is a lot of money. The money spent on education amounts to 21% of all spending by Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

In chapter 4 of the latest report of the auditor general he pointed out that money spent on aboriginal education was not being properly accounted for. The report makes statements like:

Actual education costs are not known to the Department.

The report goes on to say:

It is noteworthy that education funding and costs may be different from each other. For example a March 1999 study concluded that it is not possible to determine how education funds provided by the Department for First Nations schools are actually spent...We reported similar concerns in our previous audits of funding arrangements between the Department and first Nations.

I note the use of the plural of audit. In section 4.65 he says:

We could not find any separate cost per student analysis for First Nations elementary and secondary schools; nor could we find information that identified per student costs paid directly to provincial authorities.

I have spoken to a couple of school boards in my riding about that same issue, where funds have not found their way to the school board responsible for educating the children who have moved in off the reserve. It is getting to be a major issue. Moving on to section 4.66, the auditor general again raised the issue of funding by saying:

—methods used to allocate funds from the Department's headquarters to its regions are based largely on information that was developed at least 15 years ago. The Department has no updated analyses.

What can I say? That 15 year old information is still being used to base spending. The Minister of Finance is raising funds to transfer for Indian education based on 15 year old information, which is a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Special needs students are a special responsibility of society, and here is what the auditor general reported on this area:

In one region of Canada the amount spent on special needs children was $581 per year for all students. In another costs range from $2,047 per special needs student to $65,650 although there was no mechanism in place to ensure that the needs of those students were being met.

What can we say about that? Why should Canadian taxpayers be happy about statistics like those? These figures are not out of the air. They are actual statistics used by the auditor general in making his report.

The finance department collects taxes from all Canadians to fund education for Indians. It is necessary to ensure that the taxes and other funds collected are well spent. Mismanagement of public funds is one of the main reasons taxes are so high. Repayment of Canada's national debt which stands at almost $580 billion is negligible.

We have been speaking about the money side of it, but the numbers only tell half the story about Indian education. The latest auditor general's report uncovers a human tragedy. Students are just not getting the education they need to succeed in society. Their dropout rates are far higher than normal. They are not moving from high school into jobs.

The dropout rate before completion of grade 9 is 18%, whereas the rate for all Canadians is 3%. For Indian youth between the ages of 18 and 20 who left school the rate is 40% and 16% for the Canadian population. For Indian youth between the ages of 18 and 20 who graduated the rate is 30% whereas for all Canadians it is 63%. The population with at least a high school education is 37% for Indians and 65% for all Canadians.

Canadians are paying a lot of money in the form of the millions of dollars the finance minister's bracket creep has brought into the taxation system. This includes people from the first nations and immigrants. It includes all taxpayers from teenagers with after school and evening jobs to people past retirement age who are still working and everyone in between, the rich and the poor. People have been pushed into higher tax brackets and are paying more and more money for results that just do not amount to anything. It is a disaster for the human beings involved in this kind of program. We should all be ashamed of it. I certainly am.

What can we say about the government when it comes to other things like debt repayment? Does debt repayment amount to anything? Not at a bit. No homeowner or businessman would be permitted to take such a cavalier attitude toward debt reduction.

Let us imagine what would happen if people with mortgages on their houses were permitted to tell the bank how much they were going to pay. What would happen if they could walk into a bank, reach into their pockets or wallets and pull out some change? What would happen if they counted out a few bills, tossed them down and said that is what they were paying on their home mortgages? They would not even get out of the bank without the manager grabbing on to them and saying that they need to sit down, sign something and make a plan to get out of debt.

When people get too far in debt I am told counselling is available. Maybe we should send the finance minister for counselling to figure out how to handle Canada's debt. The government is putting a mortgage on the future of our young people. Anybody who deals in mortgages knows that is a dead hand, that we cannot move. That is the way of the future.

Unless the Minister of Finance gets a grip on Canadian taxation and allows the economy to get moving, we will pass on to our children a non-performing economy and a country that will be better to leave if future economic prospects mean anything. The best alternative is a Canadian Alliance government, and that is what will happen after the next election.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.