Sue Barnes

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much to the members in the House.

By repudiating discrimination against gay men and lesbians we extend a hand to those who have suffered, and acknowledge the contributions of others who have risen above prejudice to enrich their own lives and those around them.

Respectful of all my colleagues in this House, I call on them now to look deeply into their hearts with knowledge and understanding in their minds when casting their vote on this fundamental human rights issue, a bill truly worthy of their support. I thank hon. members all over this House for my ability to ask my prayer for them.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to this question. I respect the opinions of other people in this House, but I am a lawyer by profession and the Vriend decision in Alberta recently added ambiguity at a court of appeal level.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in the Haig case did lead this court and did change the law. It ostensibly changed this as of 1992. That is when the federal human rights commission changed.

In May of last year, the Egan and Nesbitt decision in the Supreme Court of Canada said that what we are talking about today is to be included at the federal level.

I am saying to this member, this is why we are here. A person should not have to look to the courts. What we are doing here is changing the basic nature. We are saying that discrimination in the workplace, discrimination in services is wrong.

This is a statute, anti-discrimination. It is necessary because there are elements in our society, as the third party well knows, that would not have us do this. They think that it is okay. It is not okay.

I want to finish my speech and I will use this question-

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of great responsibility that I speak at third reading of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The bill amends the act to include sexual orientation among prohibited grounds of discrimination. Gay and lesbian Canadians will be protected from discrimination in the provision of goods and services by the federal government and by federally regulated businesses such as banks and airlines. Canadians working in all areas of federal jurisdiction will henceforth be protected from homophobia in the workplace.

Bill C-33 covers all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality and bisexuality. However, it is fair to say that discrimination in Canada is other than against heterosexuals.

I became actively involved in federal politics in the late 1970s and this issue has been part of my understanding of the protection of minorities throughout my entire political career.

In 1977 Quebec led Canadian provinces in being the first to prohibit discrimination the basis of sexual orientation. In 1978 the Liberal Party of Canada resolved to make the same amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 1979 and every year since the Canadian Human Rights Commission has recommended that this amendment be passed.

In 1985 an all-party committee of the House unanimously endorsed the amendment which affirmed the will of Canadians to see justice done in this matter. One after the other, provinces were amending their own human rights laws to include sexual orientation. Now eight provinces and territories provide this protection to their citizens.

In 1995 a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the equality guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms extend to sexual orientation. Ontario's highest court had held in 1992 that the Canadian Human Rights Act was unconstitutional because it did not expressly include sexual orientation. Since then, the act has been deemed to include those words. And so the government is acting now to make the declared law explicit.

That is the legal and political history of an important period in the advancement of human rights in this country. But there is a parallel history, a social and deeply personal one for many Canadians which has accompanied this legislative progress. It is a history of increasing tolerance, founded in understanding, in humble recognition of our differences, in simple neighbourliness, decency and dignity.

As Canadians, we are blessed to live in one of the most tolerant and peaceful societies on earth. Who in Canada is not proud of the free, open and inclusive society we have built for ourselves? Still every day we witness bias, violence and prejudice. We read about it in the newspapers and view it on the television. Too many Canadians in all walks of life have suffered it firsthand, sometimes in subtle ways and other times in ways that are not subtle in the least, but coarse, insulting and demeaning.

As a parliamentarian I meet many people, many very good people so that when I suddenly hear bigoted words being voiced, I can only shake my head in sadness and wonder where they come from. My own view is that they are born of ignorance and that close cousin of ignorance, fear.

I find this view confirmed by the studies of Canadian attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. In a national Angus Reid poll conducted in 1993 fully two-thirds of Canadians supported amending the act to include sexual orientation. In 1994, Angus Reid examined Canadian public opinion regarding workplace discrimination. I was pleased to find evidence there of Canadians' profound understanding of the prejudice gay men and lesbians have to live with every day.

A couple of weeks ago another poll confirmed that 60 per cent of Canadians supported the amendment. There has never been a published poll showing that a majority of Canadians oppose such an amendment.

Let me put these numbers on the record because I think they are important. Eight out of 10 Canadians believe that gay men and lesbians encounter discrimination in the workplace and 4 out of 10 describe this discrimination as substantial. Typically, Canadians see this discrimination take the form of both personal hostility and damage to the victim's career. Happily one of two Canadians say that if they witnessed workplace discrimination of this kind they would speak out on behalf of the victim. In our personal relationships, every third Canadian has a gay or lesbian friend, one in four of us work with gay people, and one in ten enjoy their love and companionship as family members.

When we see these numbers we should remember that many gay men and lesbians often feel bound to conceal their sexual orientation in order to protect themselves from the very real possibility of insult and injury.

In summary, the Angus Reid report states that 57 per cent of Canadians have at least one gay or lesbian friend, family member or colleague. It concludes that the most supportive attitudes are exhibited by those segments of the population who are relatively more likely to have a homosexual friend, co-worker or family member.

In the second reading debate on this bill a member of the Reform Party asked whether Bill C-33 would express the wishes of a fully informed Canadian public. I submit that the Angus Reid report, which the bill's opponents have studiously ignored, answers the member's question. The report proves that Canadians are already well informed about the discrimination which gay men and lesbians experience every day. It is precisely those Canadians, those who have the best and most direct information possible, who are the most supportive of this amendment.

As I said last week in the House, we are speaking here of our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our neighbours and our friends. Will those members who oppose this bill stand between Canadians and the anxious concern they feel for their fellow Canadians? Will they discount the tolerance and understanding that follow from personal knowledge of the people whom this amendment will benefit?

I reiterate, nearly all Canadian provinces have already enacted such legislation as have Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands and South Africa. Can this bill's opponents point to the dire consequences that have followed? They cannot.

Furthermore, the European community passed formal resolutions in 1994 calling for its member states to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. The United Nations human rights committee, the foremost monitor of human rights in the world, supports the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground. The world has always looked to and respected Canada for its leadership on and protection of human rights.

The homophobia that has marred societies for centuries is being recognized for what it is: a pointless and vicious injustice.

In my own province, Ontario, the provincial human rights law has contained this protection for over 10 years and the sky has not fallen.

Some of the bill's opponents advocate stripping the act of the characteristics which it presently lists: race, national or ethnic origin, gender, colour, religion and so forth. They claim that this enumeration creates specially privileged minorities. It is bad logic and it is bad law. I also find it extremely disrespectful of the tragic historic realities that inspired the creation of human rights legislation everywhere. Behind that list, which they disparage, there stand millions of human beings who had those characteristics and who suffered bitterly for them.

To the member of the third party who asks: "When will the additions to the list end?" I say: "When will discrimination and injustice end?"

The courts have already said that the act includes protection for sexual orientation. Why not just leave it alone? Because here lies our parliamentary responsibility and accountability. Fundamental principles of equality must be articulated and clarified. This is not simply a matter of jurists knowing the rules. At the level of fundamental principles it is a matter of declaring in our own statutes, easily accessible to all Canadians, the ethical basis on which we found our society.

In this debate we have been reminded of the high proportion of gay and lesbian youth among the homeless on the streets of our large cities. What contributes to this? Arguably the abuse and rejection within their own families, the alienation from their peers, the heightened rates of suicide and substance abuse. There are studies which relate up to one-third of all teen suicide to sexual orientation conflict, a shocking and tragic toll.

A great fuss has been made about the possibility of the extension of same sex benefits flowing from this amendment, but the fact is that these benefits are already extended without compulsion of law. With little fuss, hundreds of Canadian organizations, large and small, have extended same sex benefits to their employees. In my riding of London West I can cite the examples of the London Life Insurance Company, the University of Western Ontario, the London Health Sciences Centre, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, Fanshawe College, Canada Trust and the list goes on. Across the nation, hospitals, universities, colleges, municipalities, public utilities, community and social service organizations, private business, newspapers, crown corporations and churches have taken the step.

The government promised to work to safeguard and advance the nation's prosperity and security. Putting an end to the prejudice and violence which gay men and lesbians have long suffered is integral to that design and it has acted. Any sexual orientation should not be grounds for discrimination.

There is more at stake than the need to curtail long established habits of fear and discrimination against our fellow citizens, although that must be our first goal. Make no mistake, a failure to pass this amendment will help to entrench intolerance.

By repudiating-

[Vancouver International Airport, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with the open skies agreement, Vancouver is strategically placed to become North America's premier gateway to the Pacific rim. Revenue Canada has planned well for the increased trans-border traffic.

The new terminal, which has the largest customs hall in Canada, has modern facilities, increased personnel, and both primary and secondary facilities have been increased.

The big thing is that 2,400 passengers per hour, a 40 per cent improvement, can be effectively and efficiently processed. This is good not only for travellers and good for Canadians, but it is good for the economy of Vancouver, the member's province of British Columbia and all of Canada.

[Taxpayers Bill Of Rights, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-215 introduced by the hon. member for Durham.

This bill has many purposes, including the establishment of a taxation ombudsperson to protect taxpayers' rights, the repeal of the general anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act, restrictions on the time allowed for Revenue Canada to complete its audits and limitations on the types of new taxation measures that could be introduced by the Minister of Finance.

I submit that Revenue Canada has a wide array of programs in place right now to protect the rights of Canadians. My remarks will address the issue of the taxation ombudsperson since this is of the greatest concern to me.

In order to assess the need for the new bureaucracy which this bill proposes I would like to review the mechanisms that we have currently in place. Revenue Canada has at least five major safety nets to ensure that its clients' rights are respected, to deal with complaints and to provide appropriate ways of resolution of problems.

These include the general inquiries program; the problem resolution program; the service enhancement program; fairness legislation; and the objection process. In addition to these programs taxpayers can appeal their tax assessments to the tax courts for a final decision on any issue.

The Department of National Revenue's commitments to its clients is articulated already in the declaration of taxpayers' rights which was published in 1985. The declaration gives taxpayers: the right to a fair hearing; courteous treatment; fair handling of any complaints; complete and accurate information about their rights and obligations under the Income Tax Act; an impartial application of the law; a presumption that the taxpayer is honest; service also in both official languages; and a very important thing, privacy and confidentiality.

The declaration of taxpayers' rights confirms that everyone is entitled to arrange their personal affairs or their corporate affairs to pay the least amount of tax that the law allows. Clients who dispute assessments are entitled to withhold payment of the amount in dispute until a court decides the issue in essence.

The problem resolution program started around 1986 and it handles problems which require special attention. The program budget is about $3.5 million annually. It employs 94 full time persons across Canada and it deals with cases which cannot be resolved through normal channels.

Program co-ordinators analyse, trace problems to their source and determine whether each case is isolated or if it is part of a larger trend that needs attention. Co-ordinators under the program are hand picked for personal suitability to be sensitive to clients'

concerns and they can cross functional and hierarchical lines within Revenue Canada to solve problems. They stay with the case until it is solved.

How does the problem resolution operate? Clients are encouraged to contact local client services staff if they have a tax related problem. Last year, this is an amazing figure to me, general inquiries answered over 24 million inquiries from business and individual clients. Two hundred and ninety-nine out of every 300 inquiries were answered to the satisfaction of the caller. For the one out of 300 callers who still needed help they were put in touch with a problem resolution co-ordinator and the co-ordinator acted as the caller's advocate within the department to ensure full, fair, quick, friendly resolution of a problem, mostly without the services of a lawyer.

Problems which have national implications are referred to Ottawa where the service enhancement committee develops and implements action plans to prevent the same or similar problems from happening again. We do not want irritants in the system.

How is this problem resolution promoted? It is found in the blue pages of the phone book. It is found on the reverse side of the notices of assessments. The problem resolution co-ordinators work with individual members of Parliament to resolve constituents' tax problems. Within the department the front line employees are encouraged to identify and solve clients' problems on the spot if possible and to refer problems that they cannot solve to the problem resolution program staff. There is regular analysis of client problems to provide information about problems in the system and the service irritants we know will affect client satisfaction. We think this is important. We are a service bureau as well as a revenue collection agency.

Revenue Canada has another fast track program, the service enhancement program. It is used where staff finds its ability to provide the best service possible is hindered by an internal process within Revenue Canada. This program places responsibility, authority and accountability for service at all levels of the organization and it provides the mechanism by which field personnel, senior management and the deputy minister level are kept informed about situations which could result in a loss of public confidence in the department.

How does it work? The mandate of the service enhancement program has been kept deliberately broad. It focuses on preventing conditions and problems and on improving the process within Revenue Canada, the largest government department.

The program provides frontline staff with a way to cut through red tape, to the person who can come up with a proposed action plan outside the normal administrative procedures. The program is designed to prevent issues from being side tracked or left unresolved. Each issue has an action plan to remedy the situation. Weekly reports are distributed to senior department officials as well as the deputy minister.

I will now discuss fairness legislation. In 1991 legislative amendments known as the fairness legislation were enacted to assist clients of Revenue Canada with problems which arise through no fault of their own, which does happen in our system. It allows for a common sense approach in dealing with those who, because of circumstances totally beyond their own control, are unable to meet the department's guidelines or comply with its rules.

The fairness legislation consists of the many provisions which make the tax system simpler, easier and fairer. Further legislative amendments were made in 1992 and 1993 with respect to customs and GST components of Revenue Canada besides the personal and corporate tax provisions. Further harmonization of fairness legislation is in process now for all business lines and business numbers.

Prior to fairness legislation, Revenue Canada was unable to grant refunds to individuals beyond the three-year normal reassessment period. Now Revenue Canada can make such refunds after verifying the claim.

Prior to the enactment of the fairness legislation, the department had little or no discretion to cancel or waive penalties and interest no matter what the client's circumstances or how the charges arose. The fairness legislation now enables the department to respond more flexibly to a client's circumstances where there is a reasonable cause to cancel or waive penalty and interest.

Generally, the department will consider waiving or cancelling penalty and interest when circumstances beyond a client's control prevent timely payment or other compliance. In addition the department may consider waiving or cancelling interest and penalty in circumstances where there is an inability to pay. The intent of providing such relief in such circumstances is to allow a means of easing the burden on clients who want to comply but who simply cannot do so, through no fault of their own.

We also have the objection process for clients who are not satisfied after discussions with officials in their tax services office. They would file a notice of objection with officials in a different branch of Revenue Canada which deals exclusively with objections and appeals. When this is done, an appeals officer would conduct an impartial review of the case in a friendly and hopefully very courteous manner, then contact the client to discuss the issue.

Except for large corporations, collection of the income taxes in dispute can be deferred until 90 days after the department mails its decision. The appeals process is involved when clients are still not

satisfied with the outcome of their problem. They can also file an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. This tax court hears appeals under two distinct procedures, an informal and a more formalized one.

Under a new Revenue Canada commission which was announced by the Minister of Finance in this year's budget, taxation officials will have even more administrative and financial flexibility to deal with problems.

It is my view that the creation of another layer of bureaucracy such as an office of the tax ombudsperson with the costs, the complexity and the personnel would be a step backwards, not forward. It would diminish the incentive for the department to resolve problems in a timely, cost effective manner as is the case today.

Accordingly, I cannot support the hon. member's bill but I do understand the honest belief, the hopefulness and the direction he was attempting to put forward in this bill. I thank him for that energy and commitment.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

I apologize. I will do that. It is as you have stated. I would ask my hon. colleague to tell me what he would do if he did not have this non-discriminatory law as the law of the country.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened and I am trying to understand because the hon. member who has just spoken is an honourable man. I have had conversations with him many times over the last two and a half years and I know that to be the case.

What troubles me in this debate is that situations will arise for real people. Those real people will be our brothers and sisters, our children, our friends and our co-workers. We know that most people feel that in the workplace there should not be discrimination.

I am aware that one of the other hon. colleagues talked about it being okay to discriminate in the workplace based on somebody's sexual orientation. I ask my hon. friend this question. If it was your child who faced this discrimination, where would you tell them to go? What would you do?

If you cannot look to the law of the land, where would you go-

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

When there is change there is anxiety about the change. It is true that people will call into a constituency office and say they are worried about the specifics of change which they think could adversely affect them immediately.

The first thing we must say is that there will be clear material given to people so they may understand the changes coming. With this budget we put out a special tax booklet identifying all the questions and answers relating to the changes in support payments.

We did another interesting thing relating to Revenue Canada. We allowed Revenue Canada, after the request from the Justice Department, to get information necessary to enforce payments of delinquent supporters. I believe this measure will go a long way.

I want to make it clear that Revenue Canada will not be releasing addresses to individuals requesting that information. However, we have done something to help with enforcement.

The changes we are talking about do not relate to visitation rights. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about tax treatment, a tax policy that will be implemented through the self-assessment process at Revenue Canada, which is the most successful in the world. Canadian taxpayers are honest for the most part. We are hoping to enhance the livelihood and to help with the real economic needs of children in homes where money is due to them from a non-custodial parent. We are changing the tax treatment to make it more efficient, more simple and faster. There will be concerns.

As a government we will spend money to assist in the administrative changes necessary. I can assure the House that the changes were necessary and were done after massive consultations. Members of the government crossed the country over a year ago asking for input from custodial parents. We got the input and we listened. Finally, after nearly a half a century of one system we are about to change and modernize our laws.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to discuss the Minister of Finance's March 6 budget.

This budget proves that the government is keeping its promise to put Canada's fiscal house in order. The 1996 budget consolidates and extends the actions taken in the 1994 and 1995 budgets. It continues our work to create the proper climate for economic growth and job development. It meets and even betters our fiscal targets.

It ensures the sustainability of Canadian social programs so that those who need assistance receive assistance. The budget relies on government expenditure cuts to meet our goals. There are $1.9 billion in cuts in 1998-99.

Program spending stood at 16.8 per cent of GDP when this government took office in 1993. It will be reduced to 12 per cent in 1998, the lowest level since 1950. Taken together this government's first three budgets have introduced seven dollars in cuts for every dollar of tax increases. Our borrowing requirements will drop from $30 billion in 1993-94 to $6 billion in 1997-98. As well the ratio of debt to GDP will drop by more than one percentage point in 1997-98. In other words, the economy will finally be growing faster than the debt in 1997-98. The hon. member asked that question just moments ago and I have just provided the answer.

The cuts we have made are strategic. We are remaking government to meet the needs of Canadians in a globalized high tech world. Government may be smaller but it is more efficient. Services are provided more quickly where and when Canadians need them.

I would like to review the budget measures relating to Revenue Canada. We are strengthening our ability to combat the underground economy. The underground economy is not a victimless crime. It hurts honest taxpayers who are forced to pay more than their fair share of taxes. It places honest businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Revenue Canada is undertaking new enforcement measures to address this. Some $3.8 billion of additional taxes have been assessed. More resources are going to our audit program aimed at unincorporated businesses and self-employed individuals and we expect this to bring us further net revenues of about $100 million.

Over two years ago the government consolidated revenue administration at the federal level. Sales, income and excise tax collection were integrated with customs and trade administration into a single department. The integration has performed as expected. By eliminating administrative overlap, considerable savings have been generated for the government. More important, the change has meant better service for Canadians. Administrative costs have been cut and the burden of compliance for taxpayers has been reduced.

There has been excellent progress, but the job is not finished. The budget confirms that the government will create a new institution, the Canada revenue commission. The new commission will enhance internal efficiency by providing increased administrative and financial flexibility.

The real gains for taxpayers, however, lie in the possibility of greater co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and the streamlining of revenue administration.

We must also ensure that our social programs are affordable and sustainable into the future. The budget contains measures to provide secure, stable and growing funding for health, post-secondary education and social assistance.

The Canada health and social transfer, CHST, introduced last year provides the provinces with enhanced flexibility to design and administer their own programs while safeguarding medicare and other social support.

Since the cash component represents a sizeable part of total federal spending, we could not put our finances on a sustainable basis without reducing the transfers. That is why funding arrangements for 1996-97 and 1997-98 decline.

Following consultations with the provinces, the 1996 budget now acts to extend the CHST but there are no further cuts. We have set out a five year schedule in which transfers grow and the cash component is stabilized and increases over time.

The budget provides additional protection to the provinces. A new cash floor will guarantee cash transfers of at least $11 billion in all years. We also want to ensure that Canada's retirement income system will be there for Canadians when they need it.

Over the next 30 years the number of seniors will more than double while the proportion of Canadians working to support the pension system will decline. Recognizing the wide public concern

over this situation, the Prime Minister has promised to protect the pensions of today's seniors.

Beginning in 2001, a new seniors' benefit will replace the old age and guaranteed income benefits. The new benefit will be tax free and fully indexed to inflation. Those most in need will receive $120 more a year than under the current system. The vast majority of seniors will be as well or better off.

Those 60 and older on December 31, 1995 can opt for the new system or the old one, whichever is more advantageous. The Prime Minister's commitment to our senior citizens will be met and surpassed.

There will also be fairer, more affordable tax assistance for retirement savings. The government is committed to assisting individuals to save for their retirement. At the same time, our fiscal position calls for reasonable limits on the amount that can be saved with tax assistance.

For this reason RRSP contribution limits will be frozen at $13,500 through to the year 2003 but then will increase to $15,500 by the year 2005. These measures will affect only individuals earning over $75,000. Thus, individuals earning less will continue to be able to save up to the full 18 per cent of their earnings.

This is consistent with the government's objective of directing tax assistance to the large population of modest and middle income Canadians. Because our younger population is facing different challenges we have eliminated the seven year limit on carrying forward unused RRSP contribution room.

The budget also introduces improved tax treatment, new guidelines and better enforcement to ensure that adequate child support is paid regularly and on time to the custodial parent.

We are now in a situation in which six out of ten children who live with lone parent mothers are living below Statistics Canada's low income cutoffs.

The Thibaudeau case in the Supreme Court simply brought home what many had been saying for years. We have to make it simpler, faster and more efficient to get child support into the hands of the parents to the benefit of the children.

The government consulted the Canadian public widely on this point. It became clear that few Canadians think it is right to tax child support as though it were the custodial parent's own income. Nor should the person paying the support receive a special tax break merely for performing the ordinary obligations of a parent.

For this reason, child support will no longer be included in the taxable income of the custodial parent, nor will it be deductible to the payer. Custodial parents will no longer have to worry about setting aside a portion of the support they receive to pay taxes on the amounts and payers of the support will not have to make high payments and then wait for the deduction at year's end.

The working income supplement of the child tax benefit is intended to help low income parents meet the costs of things like transportation and child care when they go out to work. It can also help to compensate for the loss of certain material benefits which parents lose when they go off social assistance to enter the labour force.

To encourage this type of initiative and to help low income families make the transition we are doubling the maximum annual benefit in two stages from its current level of $500 to $750 in 1997 and $1,000 in 1998.

When it is fully implemented, Canada's low income working families will have an extra $250 million annually to assist them with their child care expenses. About one-third of the families eligible for these benefits are single parents. We will thus be targeting what we have identified as a serious locus of child poverty.

The government has taken a number of actions to reallocate funds to increase Canada's investment in youth, technology and trade, all very important areas to Canada's future. To encourage education for young Canadians an additional $165 million over three years is being funded by reallocating money from within the tax system. We are increasing the limits on education tax credits, the limit on the transfer of tuition in education credits and the limit on contributions to registered education savings plans.

There will be more flexible child care expense deductions for low income parents who are in school or attending training programs.

We are creating new employment opportunities for youth by reallocating budget savings. We will double the funds for student summer employment to $120 million this summer. We will increase support for programs like Internship Canada and Youth Services Canada to help young people who have left school to find employment opportunities.

Canada is a nation at the cutting edge of high technology. To ensure our continued predominance in this field, the government is establishing the Technology Partnerships Canada. This new fund will encourage private sector investment in high technology products and processes and assist in technology diffusion. New equity capital will be made available to increase the lending efforts of the Business Development Bank in strategic growth sectors such as the new technology area.

When this government took office it was charged with a double task: to address Canada's increasing fiscal burden without destroying the social fabric that has made this country one of the most

admired in the world. We can achieve this only by ensuring the kind of economic health that made our unique social system possible in the first place.

The government has followed its jobs and growth agenda with one clear objective: to build an innovative economy that will mean prosperity for all Canadians. We are succeeding. Employment in the first quarter was up by 91,000, the largest quarterly growth in two years. The overall unemployment rate is down nearly two points from 11.1 per cent to 9.3 per cent. Interest rates are down and inflation is at its lowest level in 30 years.

Let us give credit where credit is due: to the Canadian people for their resourcefulness in a difficult time, to the private sector for its willingness to partnership and to explore innovative ways of doing business and sharing and joining with government, and to the Minister of Finance for his sure and measured handling of our national finances.

[Business Taxation, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this question by stating very clearly that this government has acted to stop the situation from repeating.

The government of the day in 1992 issued draft regulations after the court decisions were halted and over with. We passed legislation in 1995 requiring large corporations to specify and quantify their outstanding tax issues. We released the new tax rules for the resource allowance in the 1996 budget.

Of the refunds being issued over this time period, they were anticipated and prudently allowed for in our budgets. Fully two-thirds of the moneys being expended as refunds now is interest. There will be corporate tax, mostly at the top corporate tax

rate, payable on this interest. Therefore the government will be getting some of this money back in its pocket.