Art Hanger

[Seaforth Highlanders, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, during the recent APEC summit in Vancouver the local Seaforth Highlanders were replaced as the guard of honour because some bureaucrat thought they did not look Canadian enough. That bureaucrat came from the prime minister's office, his own staffer, Jean Carl.

The Highlanders are one of Canada's proudest regiments. Will the prime minister explain to the House why the Highlanders are not Canadian enough, and will he apologize for his incredible insult to this fine regiment?

[Helicopters, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how much more it is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer. This minister is an expert at stalling.

I know why his government is stalling. In fact, we all know why his government is stalling. It is worried about a campaign flip-flop it made on the contract back in 1993 and it is trying to save political face.

This government has had four years to make this decision. We want the helicopters, the military wants the helicopters, all the opposition parties want the helicopters, and the money is in the bank.

When will the minister set aside his own—

[Helicopters, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the helicopter saga continues.

Let us look at the government's record to date: four years of stalling, $500 million in cancellation contracts for penalties, helicopters grounded because they are too dangerous to fly, and now suspicion of a rigged tendering process, all the consequences of a cynical election ploy back in 1993.

When will this helicopter saga end and when will the minister hand the military what it needs to do the job?

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Do you have it all figured out now?

[National Defence, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence should talk to some of the helicopter pilots and he will find out the truth.

This government has told Canadians that the long delay in replacing search and rescue helicopters would not adversely affect search and rescue capabilities. The reality is obviously somewhat different and the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of National Defence seem to be out of the loop, all because of a cynical election promise in 1993.

I ask the government again, if there had been a disaster in central Canada last week how would the victims—

[National Defence, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that all of the Trenton based search and rescue helicopters have been out of service over the days of November 21 to the 27. Half of Canada's population is actually serviced by that particular rescue team.

My question to the government is, what would the government have done were there to be a disaster in central Canada during that time?

[Canadian Armed Forces, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Matthew Schovanek's hopes and dreams were robbed from him while on peacekeeping duty in Croatia. He was left paralyzed, blind and in need of full time care for the rest of his life. His skull was crushed because our military sent him into service without a helmet. Helmets were not issued because of significant accounting difficulties, whatever that means.

The government must accept responsibility for what has happened to Matthew. Will the government assure Matthew and his family that he will be properly compensated for this horrendous preventable accident?

[National Defence, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to take action in the postal strike, which actually affects millions of people. Yet it does not waste any time when it comes to rewarding incompetence with promotions, particularly if it involves the Somalia affair.

Kim Campbell, Consul General in Los Angeles; Bob Fowler, Ambassador to the UN; and now Vice Admiral Murray has landed a whale of a job in the fisheries department.

When will the disgraced Somalia commander, Colonel Labbé, get his reward?

[Alzheimer's Disease, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting some of the members of the Royal Canadian Legion, North Calgary Branch No. 264, along with the Alzheimer Society of Alberta. The occasion was their annual Coffee Break fund-raiser. I was delighted to have been asked to attend.

The Alzheimer's Coffee Break is a grassroots initiative to promote awareness of Alzheimer's disease. To date, there is no known cause or cure for this terrible disease that can strike adults of any age. Currently over a quarter of a million people suffer from the illness and the dementia caused by this condition.

By the year 2030 it is estimated that over three quarters of a million Canadians will have Alzheimer's disease. The devastation of this disease is terribly hard on the family members of its victims. Inevitably it robs them of their loved ones.

I urge all members of this House to become involved in a coffee break program in their ridings. Members should please contact their Alzheimer's society or their legion to offer their support.

[Income Tax Act, November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-223 and commend my colleague, the member for Portage—Lisgar, for his foresight in introducing such a bill. I think it is worthy of debate and certainly worthy of the Liberal side to examine this whole issue of tax relief on mortgage interest.

I again would like to thank the member for Portage—Lisgar for introducing the bill. It is certainly open for broader reference too, not only for first time home buyers but also for everyone who may own a home.

Since this is my first formal speech in the House, Madam Speaker, during this 36th Parliament, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment and also the Speaker of the House on his election to the chair. I have a great deal of regard for both the Speaker's position, the Chair, and the office. I can assure you that you will have my full co-operation and respect throughout this Parliament.

I would like to thank too my constituents for once again placing their faith in me. I am extremely grateful for the trust they have given to me. I want to assure them publicly that I will represent their viewpoints and wishes as best I can. I will certainly keep them uppermost in my mind as I carry out my duties here in the House.

Canadians have recently suffered through what I would call a terrible recession when we look at the unemployment rates sitting around the double digits over the last little while and now just a little below 10%, 9% approximately. However, the most devastating aspect of all is youth unemployment which is in the neighbourhood of 17%. That is not acceptable.

We as parliamentarians should all be doing everything possible to change that and drive this economy with every means possible to make sure our young people, the future of our country, are working and feel positive about what this country has to offer them in the future. Unfortunately many of them do not feel that their future is all that bright.

Besides the unemployed there are the under employed. Hundreds of thousands of working individuals are under employed. They are barely getting by and most of the time on two incomes and still barely scraping by. I think it is time for the government to take some urgent action to ensure that all Canadians enjoy the rich potential of this country.

As far as I am concerned, this private member's bill is a step in the right direction. Taken in a broad context, if everyone were to be given that relief, it would certainly be a real boon to the economy when one thinks about how many dollars are going to be thrown back into the economy. A dollar in the hands of an employer, an employee or a consumer is much better handled than a dollar in the hands of any bureaucrat, any government official or any parliamentarian.

As the House knows, this bill would provide for the deduction of interest paid by a taxpayer on the first $100,000 of the mortgage on his or her first home. This bill has several advantages which the government would be hard pressed to deny. I would just like to list some of those advantages.

First is a considerably lower tax burden on Canadian families. The member who introduced the bill certainly mentioned families a lot in his presentation. It is very important to recognize the strengthening of the family, the desire that they not be subject to someone else's whims in a way like rental or leasing property but they would actually be able to own their own home.

Second, it would make home ownership accessible to more Canadians. I had a chance to speak to people in the United States who have the advantage of this deduction. It offers them more amenities. One can actually buy a piece of property and be able to afford a few more items that they would not normally be able to afford because of that particular deduction.

Third, it would level the playing field between Canada and the United States. It would make Canada's tax regime more competitive.

People in this country are crying out for tax relief and yet it is falling on deaf ears. Those who are able to do something about it are not doing anything about it. In fact, they are taxaholics on that side. There is no question about that. Taxaholic is a term that our finance critic issued toward the finance minister and I think it is quite acceptable because every time there is a dollar loose somewhere it has to be grabbed. They have to grab as many dollars as they can from those hard working people out there across the country. I do not think that is acceptable especially when it is clear that the people in this country are fed up with taxes. They want relief.

Going on to some of the advantages, again it would increase equity between home owners with mortgages who must pay interest charges with after tax money and those without mortgages.

Most important, here is where my colleague from the NDP falls short. This money placed into the hands of the individual would actually stimulate the economy and create jobs. There is the key to this whole affair.

It is not the tax dollars that have to be replaced. Those tax dollars will not be replaced just by the mere fact that people out there have more money in their pockets and they will do something much more beneficial with it which will generate revenue into the coffers of any government. That is a well known fact.

This government spends precious little time doing anything that would support Canadian families in that regard. This bill would allow the Liberals to have something concrete to demonstrate that their grandiose rhetoric has a bit of substance. There is a dreadful lack of substance opposite.

Owning a home is of great importance to families. Unfortunately it is becoming increasingly difficult for many Canadian families to realize their dreams and own their own homes.

Bill C-223 would give many lower income Canadians that extra bit of cash necessary to allow them to afford that dream. It gives that extra little bit of room. It would give first time home owners the breathing room necessary for them to pay down their other debts, to set aside moneys for saving or to spend more on their families and their needs in that regard.

How can the government possibly object to allowing Canadians the opportunity to spend more of their hard earned dollars on their families? I do not think when it comes right down to it that it can legitimately object, although I listened to the parliamentary secretary who made it very clear that it is not acceptable.

Accessibility to home ownership is particularly important to our young Canadians. They need a break and they have been hit especially hard by tough economic times. They suffer from higher unemployment rates on average and they report a terrible rate of under employment.

Again, I know the parliamentary secretary spoke about the shortfall in the tax system, but it is not acceptable. I think many of these adjustments can be made incrementally but unfortunately the Liberal side is not even willing to entertain some of those very significant changes in the tax structure to offer some relief.

Our generation of young people is the first in Canadian history who will likely not enjoy the economic benefits that this generation has, our parents have. If we are not careful, home ownership will be another example.

I can relate what policies like this have done to other countries but I know I do not have enough time to really get into it. It is unfortunate because I think this is a very key issue.

I can only urge the Liberals to recognize a good idea when they see it. They have a habit of stealing good ideas and I think this is one they could steal. I hope in the end they will support Bill C-223.