Reed Elley

[Taxation, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government always uses the excuse that it cannot lower taxes because it needs the money to fund our public health care system. Here are the facts. First, it has taken $21.4 billion out of our public health care system. That is how it fixed it. Second, in the U.S. the average taxpayer pays 30% less taxes than Canadians. Third, the U.S. government spends $800 more per person on its public health care system than we do in Canada.

No more excuses. The minister is sitting on a fat budget surplus. When will he give real tax relief to Canadians?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to enter into the debate on Bill C-78, an act to establish the public sector pension investment board and to amend several associated acts.

Bill C-78 is just one more bill in the history of the Liberal government that attempts to set legislation based upon poor policy development. Sixty-two per cent of the public elected representatives to this side of the House. Regardless of our political stripes on this side of the House, we have all been in opposition to Bill C-78.

I represent the good people of Nanaimo—Cowichan and they have told me loud and clear that they do not want to listen to the empty promises of the Liberal government any longer. They have told me that when a government does not listen to the people then it is no longer the people's government.

The people I represent here today are gravely concerned about a government that does not act logically to protect the nation's children from pedophiles who seek to harm children through child pornography. They do not trust a government that discriminates against fair family taxation.

The people of Nanaimo—Cowichan do not look favourably upon a government that turns its back on those who need our help, such as the hepatitis C victims. Indeed, the people of my riding are incensed in the way that the B.C. government, and now this Liberal government, have treated them with complete disdain over the Nisga'a agreement.

Now the government wants to have the trust of the people of Nanaimo—Cowichan in order to quickly and quietly push Bill C-78 through the House of Commons.

In the few short hours that my hon. colleagues and I will have to debate this bill, I do not anticipate that the Liberal government will understand what the opposition is saying. Some will hear but few will listen.

Motion No. 32, put forward by my hon. colleague from St. Albert, speaks about the need for government to table in parliament copies of the appointments made to the public service pension advisory committee. I feel it is imperative that this board be made up of qualified individuals. The board cannot be made up of political appointees. This is not the place for more public trough feeding. This is a place for expertise and applied knowledge, not patronage appointments.

In turn, the board must be accountable for its investment decisions. Accountability is imperative. Plumb political appointments cannot provide the expertise and transparent accountability that is required for a board such as this. It applies likewise to Motion No. 33 regarding the liquidation of the surplus into the government coffers.

Let us be perfectly clear about what the Liberal government is planning to do with these surplus funds. It is planning to put the funds toward the balancing of the books. During this parliament, the government has purportedly balanced the books. The real questions are: How was this done, and where did the money come from to balance the budget?

The budget has been balanced purely and simply on the backs of taxpayers, not on the reduction of the bureaucratic nightmare that exists all around us. There have been more than 30 tax increases by the Liberal government since it came to power. Bracket creep and numerous other taxes are alive and well.

This budget has been balanced on the backs of every taxpayer in Nanaimo—Cowichan and every other Canadian, not through wise fiscal management. That is what the Liberal government wants to do with this money today.

As the issue of accountability is imperative, the question that begs to be asked is where and how will the $30 billion be put and used.

I see lots of writing in this bill, over 200 pages worth, but I do not see the plan of action for the surplus. Where is the plan? This bill is akin to the signing of a blank cheque. Mr. Speaker, I know both you and I are not in the habit of signing blank cheques. I would ask my hon. colleagues to tell us the plan. We have yet to see the real plan for other moneys this government has taken from the federal piggy bank. I will ask the question anyway. Where and what is the plan? I would welcome the answer, but frankly I do not expect to hear a full answer to this question.

Rather than being prudent and cost cutting, the Liberal government is looking for every available dollar that does not affect its spending habits. I would strongly urge the government to leave the surpluses inside the respective pension plans. This is imperative for the security and solvency of the plan members. Without these funds remaining within the respective pensions, the risk to taxpayers from potential shortfalls is enormous. There have been shortfalls in the past and it is conceivable there will be shortfalls in the future. I say this not out of fearmongering but rather out of a look at demographics.

It is common knowledge that the baby boomers, and I am one of them, are rapidly approaching their retirement years. We are not close to reaching the peak of potential retirees yet. As more and more people begin to access their pensions, there will be a greater and greater effect upon the funds within the pension. Foolish spending today will certainly cause problems in the future. The financial strain on the pension fund will continue to grow, not shrink.

Surely this is a recipe for disaster. This is not being fiscally responsible. Bill C-78 only adds to the fancy bookkeeping. The Liberal government should not have access to this $30 billion.

The Liberals have been saying they are putting this bill forward for the betterment and benefit of the taxpayers of Canada. This is nonsense. What Bill C-78 proposes puts the taxpayer at greater risk, not less. Although the surplus in the fund is enormous, there is a distinct possibility that a deficit could develop in the future. There is a precedent for this statement. This has occurred in the past. In fact, past deficits have cost the very taxpayers that this Liberal government is purporting to protect a whopping $13 billion. That is a very big number, one that should not be foisted upon the taxpayers of Canada.

My office has received numerous calls and letters on this bill. The calls and letters to my office are saying words that we cannot utter, like “stealing”, “theft”, “criminal”, and “leave my money alone”.

The union representatives state that it is unconscionable that the government would seize the surplus. They are calling this a unilateral decision. They clearly make the claim that the money belongs to the workers and I agree wholeheartedly with them. The federal Liberals balanced the books partially on the backs of the federal civil servants and now they want to take away the security of their public pension plan.

I have several other concerns regarding Bill C-78. One is that the auditor general will not have the right to perform an annual audit. In fact, the board's auditors will not even have to report to parliament. This is simply wrong. Without public accountability, questions regarding the transparency of the whole process will and should arise.

By comparison, the auditor general is currently not prepared to sign off on several past government budgets. Why on earth would we in parliament deny him the right to assure all Canadians, especially those who are in the pension fund itself, that their funds are secure? This is wrong. This bill takes powers away from the auditor general and it causes me great concern.

If this government wants to ensure that it is directly accountable to the people and that the process is transparent, people need to be assured there is not a separate set of rules for Bill C-78. Why should the same rules not apply to all legislation? Is there a problem with the auditor general doing his job in this capacity, or is there something else that is being hidden here?

In conclusion, I have many concerns with Bill C-78. I am concerned with the way the board is being set up. I am concerned with the accountability of this government and its fiscal accountability, or as many would say, its lack of accountability. I am concerned that the government is pushing through this bill with its enormous fiscal implications in such a short period.

I believe that if nothing else, the amendments proposed by my hon. colleague from St. Albert need to be given very serious consideration. Without those amendments I cannot support Bill C-78 in its present form.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget that was tabled recently in parliament.

While this bill has many parts to it, I intend to speak primarily to concerns that I have with part 1, regarding the Canada health and social transfer, and part 5, regarding the tax on fuel and tobacco for some aboriginal bands. I am particularly concerned with the sections of the bill that affect my riding and will therefore address these concerns.

My constituents in Nanaimo—Cowichan, indeed all Canadians, find it galling that this Liberal government has the intestinal fortitude to actually feel good about its historical actions with the Canada health and social transfer.

The Liberals are big on emphasizing that they are putting $11.5 billion back into the health care system. Let us be very clear about this. This is money that the Liberal government took out of the health care system to start with. This was money that was in the health care system to begin with.

When the Liberals came to power in 1993, the Canada health and social transfer per taxpayer was $1,453. By the time this budget is fully accounted for, this amount will have dropped by 31% to $1,005 per Canadian. Anybody who can do the simple math realizes that the Liberals are putting in less than half of what they took out of health care in the past five years. These are the facts.

The Liberals can point fingers in any direction they want in trying to spin doctor this, but the undeniable truth is that they have taken far more out of the Canada health and social transfer than they have put in. They laid the groundwork for our present two tiered health system and they must be held accountable for their actions.

I know they will squeal and probably bleed over this accusation, but the truth must be spoken. They have slashed the Canada health and social transfer to the point where it seems to be beyond repair without a major overhaul of our health care system in Canada.

I know that every member on this side of the House could tell horror stories about the quality of health care in their riding. Let me offer an example from my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.

The Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is the main hospital for central Vancouver Island. It directly serves a population of approximately 85,000 people and offers support to a further 60,000. In the past weeks, the hospital has experienced a serious overcapacity of intensive care patients and patients on ventilators. This is nothing new. Due to Liberal cuts in the Canada health and social transfer, this life-threatening situation has been ongoing for some time.

The most perilous date recently was Wednesday, April 7, only a few weeks ago. Chaos reigned supreme on that day. At one point, four ambulances were lined up outside the emergency room. Inside, the intensive care patients and heart monitor patients were backlogged. In total, the 12 intensive care beds were filled with critical patients. Half of them were dependent on ventilating machines. Another four intensive care patients were being attended to in the emergency department. Six telemetry patients were in the recovery room because the hospital's ten telemetry beds were full.

I know this is beginning to sound like a very bad soap opera, but it gets worse. In the waiting room there are another four patients experiencing chest pains who have not yet seen a doctor.

The Nanaimo hospital was so full that other Vancouver Island hospitals were looked to for assistance. Guess where the only available bed was? Port Alberni. That hospital is almost two hours away by road, and it is not the best road either I might add.

Sadly this is not a Hollywood soap opera. This is a real Canadian nightmare. Elective surgery patients are being cancelled three, four, up to eight times. Think of the mental anguish to those patients. This is unnecessary pain and suffering. It is lost productivity. These are lives hanging in the balance. Why is there such chaos? Why are lives hanging in the balance?

Of course the Minister of Health would have a variety of excuses, but let us say it like it is. There is a lack of money in the system and the system itself is in need of massive reform. The Liberal government has taken a world class medical system and ruined it.

On February 12, almost three months ago, I called for a review of Canada's health care system. Canada's health care system is in crisis. We need an immediate overhaul of the entire system. Today, in the House, I reiterate my call for a full review of Canada's health care system.

The Liberals have decimated the level of health care for Canadians. Something needs to be done, and done soon. Although the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is one of the most drastically affected in all of Canada, the same story may be heard at any number of locations all across the country.

This simply is not good enough. It is not acceptable in a country of our stature. This bill is simply band-aid treatment for the life-threatening wounds the Liberals have inflicted upon the Canadian health care system.

Now I turn my attention to part 5 of Bill C-71, which allows some first nations bands the right to impose a 7% value added tax on fuel or tobacco. Besides being, as a Reformer, philosophically opposed to any new or increased taxes, I feel that I need to explain to the House one example of a similar situation in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Not long ago one of the local aboriginal bands wanted to impose a tax on all tobacco sales. Under Bill C-93 they were allowed to make a bylaw imposing a direct tax on consumers of tobacco at a rate prescribed in the bylaw. This was to be used as a means of raising funds for the band. Under Bill C-93 clear guidelines were laid out as to how the band could proceed with this.

At first glance, this may not seem to be much of a problem. However, to say that there was intimidation in this whole scenario would be an understatement. In this case the band bylaw has never been published, nor was it publicly advertised as Bill C-93 stated that it had to be. The contents of the band bylaw are then unknown. Therefore, the tax collection, calculation and distribution are all unknown. Talk about misrepresentative taxation.

Furthermore, the vote by the band members was held on welfare cheque day. Lo and behold, to receive one's cheque, one had to vote. This kind of thing goes on time and time again at the band level and it is directly a result of Liberal bills like this one.

According to the information I have, as of last June the band had collected $1.6 million and the distribution of these funds was to include housing for individuals through the welfare office of the band. Despite requests by band members, this information does not appear to be forthcoming.

At that time no housing was being worked on and nothing was projected. Big money and no action.

This story has an all too familiar ring to it. As we have seen all too often, if one is not a part of the chosen circle within the band, the support services do not come one's way.

As can be seen in this case, and as has been brought up time and time again in the House, the real issue at stake is one of band accountability. The media is filled with cases of band money disappearing, being unaccounted for or misspent. This simply will not do.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can say all she wants, but the Indian affairs system is broken even worse than the health care system. Today the health care and Indian affairs systems are prime examples of why there is such a high level of mistrust among many Canadians over the Liberal government's action. Let us remember that 62% of Canadians voted against the Liberal government in 1997 and these are good examples of why they did.

Democratic leadership of all stripes must be accountable to the people it serves. The grassroots aboriginal people are crying out for real leadership, accountable leadership, leadership that can look at the grassroots concerns and bring solutions to them. Accountability is a large part of such solutions.

The health care system affects everyone at some time. Whether we use it on a regular monthly basis or sporadically every few years, we will all use it. The problem is that in creating the crisis in our health care system the Liberals just do not get it. They do not have a solution. They do not know how to get themselves out of the quagmire they have created. It is out of their control.

Much the same could be said about the sad way the department of Indian affairs has paternalistically dealt with our first nations people. This bill is only a small example of the problem that exists. The Nisga'a agreement is another example. Once the doublespeak and rhetoric is wiped away we find another bureaucracy out of control.

In matters of both health and Indian affairs the government has failed. For these reasons I cannot support Bill C-71.

[Awarding Of The Organ Donation Medal Act, April 22nd, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-498, an act respecting the establishment and award of an Organ Donation Medal to commemorate a person for the posthumous donation of an organ.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this very special day when the health committee will be introducing its report.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Dewdney—Alouette for seconding this bill.

I rise to introduce my private member's bill, which I call the organ donation medal act. If passed, the bill will serve to formally recognize posthumously those who have given of themselves through organ donation so that someone else may live a richer, fuller life. This medal would be awarded to a family member to recognize the gift of life.

Today over 3,000 Canadians are waiting for life-giving organ transplants and Canada has one of the lowest donation rates in the world. We know that needs to be changed. As a parliament and as a society we can take steps to change this.

This bill is without precedence and I hope that through this small step we can ensure that more of those 3,000 people will be able to receive the organ donation which they so desperately need. This bill would help those people.

I hope that all members on all sides of the House will give this bill the non-partisan support it deserves.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[National Organ Donor Week, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Organ Donor Awareness Week. This is a time when we remember the role organ donors play in many people's lives. In Canada today over 3,000 people are waiting for life-giving organ transplants. Canada has one of the lowest donation rates in the world. This has to change.

In most cases the saving of another life through a donation means that someone else took the time to think of others and acted in the most generous way possible. They literally gave themselves for others.

It is possible that my own daughter will be in need of a kidney transplant in the future. At that point my wife and I will be eternally thankful to the donor for they will be able to give her what we are not able to give. The gift of a kidney would be to her the gift of life.

Tomorrow I will be introducing my private member's bill, the awarding of the organ donation medal act. This bill will posthumously recognize the supreme gift that is a given to others in our society.

I would ask for the support of all members of the House in order to ensure that organ donors are suitably recognized through this bill.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, when a crime is committed every Canadian becomes somewhat a victim. When our standards of behaviour and morality and our laws are violated by anyone we all become victims in some sense.

Unfortunately there are people who become more of a victim than others: the people against whom these crimes have been committed directly. I am concerned about the definition of a victim in the legislation being somewhat restrictive. As it continues in committee stage and we bring together some witnesses and other Canadians have a chance to participate in this dialogue from a democratic standpoint, I hope we will see that definition broadened. I agree with the hon. member that it is too restrictive at this point.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join my hon. colleague's in debate on Bill C-79, which deals with victims of crime.

I have an outstanding constituency assistant in my Duncan office by the name of Inge Clausen. In 1981 Inge and her husband Sven had something happen to them that no one in this country should ever have to go through. Their 18 year old daughter was murdered. Today, if she had lived, she would be 33 years of age.

Inge and Sven have gone through the emotional anguish of being victims; victims who have very little real way to express their frustration, their anger and their hurt. They are victims who have experienced the gamut of emotions, wondering what could have been if this terrible event had never occurred.

Yes, their daughter's murderer was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 15 years. Even though he has not applied for parole, because of section 745 of the Criminal Code Inge and Sven go through the everyday anguish of wondering if this madman will suddenly get out of prison and possibly reoffend.

Inge Clausen is an activist. She cares passionately about issues that affect this country. She did not sit in her grief and do nothing. In 1981 she started an organization called Citizens United for Safety and Justice. For many years she campaigned for the kind of legislation that has been introduced in the House today.

The Reform Party, of which she was a member, had forcefully placed the issue on the national agenda. However, by 1997 there was little government action. Inge grew tired of the fight that her government would really do something about victims rights and she resigned from her position in the organization that she had created.

She had sixteen long years of remembering, of anguish, of lack of support from the various governments of the day. That is what victims of crime have had to go through in this country for far too long.

When a crime is committed, all law-abiding, peace-loving citizens are victims. It is just that some of us are more victims than others.

I have heard from members of my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan for far too long on this very issue. Canadians have felt that their judicial system has looked solely at the criminal. Too little time and energy has been spent in speaking with and listening to the victims of crime.

Victims of crime are often double victims. They are the victims of the initial crime and, as the wheels of justice move ever so slowly, they often feel that they have become victims of the system. They become victims of the system when they feel that their rights are ignored while the accused has his or her rights upheld. The victims feel that they have no right to speak out, no protection under the law, no protection from the injustices which have been placed upon them. They become victims in the courtrooms and on witness stands all across the nation.

This legislation is long in coming. My hon. colleagues have worked long and hard to bring this issue before the government. It has taken far too long to bring the government's attention to this matter. I thank all hon. members for the work they have done on this most important piece of legislation. I congratulate the Minister of Justice for finally bringing this legislation to the House.

However, it is important for us to recognize that although this is a government bill, it has come about due to the relentless pressure which the Reform Party has placed upon the government on this matter. It is unfortunate, indeed, that it has taken this long to produce the legislation. However, the legislation has made some strides. I believe it could have and should have gone a lot further in a number of areas. It is a start, but there is much more that needs to be done.

I recall the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford coming to a rally in Nanaimo during the previous parliament. I do not recall the exact number of people who were in attendance, but that large auditorium was packed to standing room only. What was the topic? The victims bill of rights. My hon. colleague spoke passionately, just as he did earlier today. Time after time the overflow crowd clapped and cheered with their agreement. The constituents of Nanaimo—Cowichan are certainly very concerned about this issue and will welcome this legislation.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Surrey North for the work he has done. His story is the story of a victim and he has spoken clearly and eloquently on this matter. My thanks go to him. He is a man of courage and he is a man of action.

For a long time victims have felt alienated by our justice system. They have every right to feel this way. Until now the system has aimed all of its resources toward the accused. In the meantime, we have to remember that the victim was innocent of any alleged crime. The victim did not ask to be raped, murdered, injured, robbed or violated, yet in many cases the penalty placed upon them is greater than the sentence passed on the accused by the justice system.

There is no feeling like the violation a victim feels. For those who have had their homes broken into, the feeling is one of personal violation. They feel they have been dirtied by a criminal act. How much more violated does the person feel who has been personally attacked?

Today's society in Canada is filled with victims. Right now in the city of Victoria, British Columbia, family members of Reena Virk are living through their own personal hell as they listen to witnesses in the prosecution of the murder of their daughter. No matter how efficient the justice system is nothing will ever bring back their daughter. My sympathies go out to them. I have not walked in their shoes but I think I know how they feel.

More recently in Nanaimo a young man was returning home from a hockey game. As he drove under an underpass a 40 pound rock crashed through the windshield of his car. Kevin Holmes, only 21 years of age, was left with a fractured skull, five missing teeth and a broken collar bone. He had to undergo facial reconstruction and doctors had to open up his skull to look for damage and bruising. That was a senseless act of violence.

Kevin Holmes did not even know the perpetrator and yet Kevin Holmes has become a victim of crime. Reena Virk's parents and her family are victims of a senseless crime. These people deserve justice also.

As has been previously stated, the bill was far too long in coming. The need is not a new one. This need was brought to the attention of members of the House of Commons during past parliaments. The previous justice minister for instance stated in 1996:

Although steps have been made toward progress in recent years, they have been imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done.

Indeed there still remains a great deal to be done. When the current justice minister was sworn in, in 1997, victims rights were listed as one of her top three priorities. It has taken two years for this response. I repeat that I am grateful for this, but in the words of her predecessor there remains a great deal to be done.

I am not a lawyer. I have never been a police officer, but I have been a pastor and counsellor for over 30 years. During my time as a pastor and counsellor I met with countless people. Some of those people had been victims of various different crimes. Listening and working with these people were never easy. Their faces and their lives were literally filled with pain. Every day of their lives they remembered what had gone on in the past.

What these people are looking for is peace, peace within their souls. It is not easy to find peace in this world of ours. We need to bring all our resources as Canadians, emotional, physical and spiritual, to help victims of crime finally come to terms with what has happened to them.

There are some things we need in the House that must come only by taking the partisanship out of it. Sometimes we need to go well beyond party politics. There is no doubt in my mind that society is not perfect. Far from it. Nor is the House perfect. However I would like to think there are some matters we can jointly come together on and resolve for the betterment of all Canadians, not just for scoring political points.

I believe that this is one of those important matters. I plead with the House that as the bill goes beyond this point and into committee it will not disappear from the political agenda.

Let us all resolve as members of parliament to make the bill stronger and better. Let us assure that victims of all crimes can look to their parliament, to their government and to this legislation to know that their concerns and their needs are heard loudly and clearly.

In conclusion, I appeal to all members of the House to work toward making the bill stronger and workable. I appeal to all members to ensure that it is dealt with as soon as possible. Let us not let another 16 years pass so that people like Inge and Sven Clausen continue in their concerns and anguish because victims rights have not been taken care of. It is too late for many victims of the past. However it is not too late for the victims of today and tomorrow.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this hon. colleague of mine standing up and saying what he has said is just an absolute example of what I was saying previously.

It is an open and honest debate in our party. We brought this motion to the floor of the House today because we do not believe that Canadians across the country are well served at all by the undemocratic attitudes and actions of the Liberal Party which controls the Government of Canada today.

We would not have this kind of open debate in the country today if the Liberal Party was doing the same thing as we are.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to be able to get up and answer that question. It is obviously apparent that the Liberals have no idea about what is going on in the Reform Party today. The reason they do not is because such an open process of democratic decision making is total foreign to them. They have no idea of this huge grassroots exercise that is going on in this country to determine the future of the Reform Party and ultimately the future of Canada.

There has never been a more transparent process of trying to bring together like-minded Canadians across the country than what is going on with the united alternative today. If the hon. member ever cared to, she could come out and be an observer at these meetings and see what is actually going on.

Rather than listening to the radio, why does the member not get out there and really see what is going on in the grassroots because that is what Reform is all about? We are proud to have that kind of dissent in our party. At the end of the day, we will go forward to make this country a better Canada.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to today's supply motion. My point is to qualify clearly that the Liberals have lost complete track of the electoral populace and that constituents have lost faith in them.

Yesterday we heard the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia state that task force members met with over 60 individuals and organizations across Manitoba. I congratulate those individuals for even being able to find the elusive Liberal task force. Nobody even knows what its schedule is.

If the committee actually listens to western Canadians its ears will be burning. However I doubt that the Liberal caucus will learn much of substance from this task force for the Liberal disposition for not being able to face the truth will likely reign supreme.

I am certain many people from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia are very pleased to learn that the Liberal alienation committee plans to come to their province. I know numerous people in my home province of British Columbia who would love to meet with this task force and explain the facts of life in Canadian politics to them.

I challenge them to release its schedule and ensure that all members of the public are welcome to explain why they feel abandoned, taxed to death and sick over the current state of the health care system among many other things.

For the first 31 years of my life I lived in southern Ontario. I recently spent a good deal of time particularly in southwest Ontario. In this Liberal dominated province one would think that constituents would be pleased to be a part of the government majority. Family, friends, acquaintances and even perfect strangers have been telling me about their very strong concerns about how the government operates.

I would like to offer the top 10 concerns the people of Ontario have given to me about the Liberal government. These are not my words but what they would like conveyed in the House today.

Tenth, the Liberals have little or no grassroots involvement. The concept of actually having a bottom up form of government and ensuring that the people, the voters, the electorate, the ones who sent them here, actually have a say in what is going on is unheard of in the Liberal government. The concept is lost in the House.

Ninth, the Liberals are not accountable for their actions. As often as questions are raised on issues of the day, the Liberal government refuses to be accountable for its actions. A classic case in point is the hepatitis C debacle. Clearly the Liberal government erred in only including some of the hepatitis C victims in its compensation package. It was an obvious error and many of its backbenchers felt so. Yet the Liberals refused to account for and correct their past mistakes.

Eighth, the Liberal government is arrogant. The Liberal government knows no bounds. The decision making process in the House of Commons is an insult to democracy. The Liberal government has limited debate in one form or another 50 times since it was first elected in 1993. No other government in Canada's history has reached this number so quickly. I find that absolutely appalling.

Seventh, the Liberals run roughshod with aboriginal affairs. The people of Ontario are dismayed with the callous way the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development deals with people, native and non-native alike, in Ontario.

The people of Chatham—Kent were recently outraged when the Liberal government initiated a new reserve in their area. The outrage was not aimed at the need for settlement of aboriginal claims but was aimed at the Liberals for not working with the local residents. The residents wanted to be assured that the planned reserve would be compatible with current land uses and that an environmental impact assessment was completed.

In 1995 Dudley George was shot and killed at Ipperwash. The dispute around Ipperwash Provincial Park has been ongoing for some time now, yet the Liberal government insists that it knows what is best. The people of Ontario are still waiting for answers from the government for actions taken at Ipperwash four years ago.

Sixth, the Liberals have poor ethics. In the 1993 Liberal red book the Liberals stated that they would appoint an independent ethics counsellor who would report directly to parliament.

Here we are in 1999 and guess what? The ethics commissioner has been appointed by the Prime Minister but he reports only to the Prime Minister. This in itself creates a conflict since the current debate over ethics concerns the Prime Minister's shenanigans in Shawinigan. The office of the ethics commissioner only works when it is viewed as being unbiased by all. This is not the case today.

Fifth, the Liberals disregard the auditor general. Only in Canada could the office and authority of the auditor general be so blatantly ignored. At this time the auditor general has not signed off on the past two budgets of this government. The accounting method for balancing the federal budget has been called into question. New accounting methods have been invented. Other recommendations by the auditor general's office are blatantly ignored.

Although the auditor general recommended more intensive efforts of consulting with parliament be made with regards to federal-provincial equalization payments, no such efforts have ever been made.

Fourth, the Liberals are not trusted. For many people of Ontario the level of trust for the Liberal government is at an all time low. While the bank accounts of the average Canadian decreases, the finance department dips into the EI surplus in order to help balance the budget.

The conclusion drawn by Ontarians is that just prior to the next federal election being called, all sorts of election goodies are going to be carted out. The people of Ontario are not blind to this action. This sort of chicanery is obvious and will be remembered by the electorate when they have their say at the next general election.

Third, the Liberals gag their backbenchers. Pavlov would be proud with the lever of control that the Prime Minister has over the Liberal backbenchers. The Liberal backbenchers are not allowed to speak out on behalf of their own constituents. It was sad to watch as Liberal members in an obvious conflict with their conscience, were not given the opportunity to vote as their constituents would have mandated on motions such as hepatitis C, child pornography and assorted private member's bills.

The Liberal backbench is under such tight control that these Ontario members must dread returning to their ridings and answering to the concerns of their own electorate. I cannot imagine how I would feel if I could not look a constituent in the eye and tell him or her that I was able to vote on any given issue with a clear conscience.

Second, the Liberals have destroyed the health care system. The Liberals have done more to institute a two tier health care system than any other government in Canada. Since 1993 the Liberal government has reduced the Canada health and social transfer by over $21 billion. Then the government had the audacity to put token amounts back into the CHST and ask to be thanked. One of my hon. colleagues has described this as like thanking the mugger for bus fare after he stole your wallet.

While the federal Liberals were taking money out of the CHST, the Ontario provincial government was putting money in. Between 1995 and 1998, it actually increased provincial health care spending by $1.2 billion, more than any other province. Why did it do this? It had no other alternative in the face of the massive Liberal gutting of the health care system of this country.

These are indisputable facts and yet the Minister of Health criticizes the Harris government for reducing taxes instead of spending more on health care.

The number one reason Ontarians do not trust the Liberal government is simply because of overtaxation. No matter who I talk to or where I am in Ontario, people are concerned with the high level of taxation they have to endure.

Why is it that a family earning what should be a reasonable income can just make financial ends meet? If they live frugally they can just get by. Single income families face greater taxation than the dual income family earning the same amount. EI payroll taxes are higher than the actuary recommends. Bracket creep sucks millions of dollars out of the national economy and into the federal government's coffers. Yet the Liberals just do not get it.

As this motion states, I hope that if nothing else the Liberals will heed the call to listen, not just here but actually listen to what Ontarians and other Canadians are saying. Communication is a two way process and right now Liberals are not listening.

Ontarians and Canadians are not satisfied with the Liberal government for the Liberals have successfully alienated every part of this country.