Gurmant Grewal

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and in fact all Canadians to speak to Bill C-79, the government's proposal to change the Criminal Code to accommodate the rights of victims of crime.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca who is also equally keen to speak to the bill.

The victims bill of rights only came about because of the pressure and input of all members of the Reform Party. In the last parliament the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford pursued a victims bill of rights. A Reform supply day motion was successfully passed in 1996 to cause the government to review and introduce legislation to improve federal laws to consider and recognize the rights of victims of crime. The hon. member for Surrey North was also responsible for many of the committee recommendations.

The bill does not go far enough. It is not what Canadians wanted. Obviously victims were not a priority to the Liberal government of the 36th parliament. The justice minister listed victims rights as one of her three top priorities, but despite that she has been stalling any action under the pretext of timely fashion.

Any time we ask her to take any action, or she is supposed to take any action, she has been using the excuse that she will be doing it in a timely fashion. I do not know how long the victims can wait for her timely fashion while the minister is sitting on her hands doing nothing.

Even though the bill does not go far enough we will take it. It is not what Canadians wanted but still we will take it. At least it is a start. The bill has not been changed since it was introduced by the government. Up until now it has yet to accept any amendments to the bill.

The government has dug in its heels and said the bill includes all the rights it is prepared to grant the victims of crime. That is not enough. We will continue to talk to the government until it places the rights of victims above the rights of the criminals in our criminal justice system.

The government has not done enough. Let us see what the government has not done in the bill. It has not incorporated changes to the corrections and parole systems which are quite important. Victims will still not have the right to participate in release hearings, be advised of escapes from custody, temporary absences and other important information that a victim of crime, particularly violent crime, would want to know in order to remain safe.

What about the people who have had to appear as a witness in a prosecution that resulted in a jail term for the guilty party? Let us say that an elderly person testifies that a certain person was the one who robbed him or her at knifepoint. Would that Canadian not be very concerned about when the aggressor is out of jail? Maybe the accuser would be afraid and would appreciate being alerted to the fact that the person who assaulted him or her was now out of jail.

Let us imagine that. Maybe the accused even threatened the accuser at the trail. We should protect the victim. It is not so difficult, as the amendments proposed by my colleague from Surrey North have demonstrated. Let us see some of the initiatives included in Bill C-79.

Victims are to be informed of their right to prepare a victim impact statement at the time of sentencing. That is good. Victims will have the choice to read the victim impact statement in court. Victims of sexual assault or violent crime up to the age of 18 years are to be protected from personal cross-examination by self-represented accused persons.

Another initiative included in Bill C-79 is that police officers and judges are to consider the safety of victims in all bail decisions.

These are some of the initiatives in the bill. There are some more that I will not elaborate on but probably I could mention one or two. Judges are required to inform the public of the possibility of section 745 applications for early parole for those who receive life sentences. I understand in private members' hour today we will be talking about consecutive sentencing. I will elaborate more then.

Victims and witnesses will have protection through banning publication of their identity where it is necessary for the proper administration of justice.

Some of the concerns have been taken care of in this bill. However, we are concerned about the definition of victims within the Criminal Code. We intend to pursue broadening the definition.

There is room for improvement. There is room for amendment. At least this is a step forward by the government in recognizing the rights of victims.

In conclusion, the government has done only half the job in looking out for the victims of crime. However, I will support this bill in the end and I will limit my comments so that I do not delay its passing one more minute.

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Pakistani officials told me they would welcome Canada's participation in mediating. Indian officials complained because the government has been turning its back on them for one year. They have not had any contacts with the government or this country.

The government imposed sanctions. It froze ministerial contact and it has turned its back on them since the nuclear tests. What is the government doing to relieve tension? What is it doing instead of doing nothing? What did it do in one year?

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians regret this week's military skirmish in Kashmir, just one year after the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. When I accompanied the secretary of state to the region last week, Pakistan asked Canada to mediate. Indian authorities asked for our participation in trade talks between these two countries to start relieving the tension.

Why will the government not exercise leadership and respond to what these officials have asked Canada to do? Why is it sitting on its hands?

[Business Of The House, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what he will add to the thin soup agenda of the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

[Bank Act, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to support Bill C-67, the government's proposal to allow foreign banks to branch directly in Canada. We can support this change because it is long overdue. The Liberals have dragged their feet on this issue which of course is not unusual for that party.

At the World Trade Organization in 1997 the Liberals agreed to the letting into Canada of subsidiaries of foreign banks by June 1999. Bill C-67 will permit foreign banks to accept deposits of over $150,000. This means that foreign banks will not be constructing branches all across Canada and their competition with domestic financial institutions will be limited.

Let us look into the current banking environment in Canada. The presence of foreign banks in Canada has been steadily declining. It has been declining from a 12% share of total banking sector assets in 1990 to just 10% today. There was a peak of 59 foreign banks in Canada in 1987 and it was down to 45 in 1998.

Foreign banks cannot currently operate branches directly in Canada. They must operate as subsidiaries largely unconnected to the parent bank in terms of capital, governance and accounting. Bill C-67 proposes a new regime for foreign banks in Canada as well as some miscellaneous changes to financial sector regulations.

This proposed legislation would allow foreign banks to operate as branches of their parent banks with the ability to draw on parent capital, to make loans and to conduct other banking business. New full service foreign bank branches will primarily serve the corporate market. Foreign banks that want to take retail deposits, that is deposits below $150,000, will still have the option of establishing a separate subsidiary in Canada. New lending branches will not be permitted to accept deposits or borrow except from other financial institutions.

It is hoped these foreign banks will serve as sources of funds for both small businesses and credit card users. Both full service and lending branches will be allowed access to Canada's clearing and settlement system with the approval of the Bank of Canada.

As I understand it, changes to the Income Tax Act to place these new foreign banks in a comparable tax position to Canadian resident banks will be introduced as future legislation.

I would like to briefly explain why we support Bill C-67. The Reform Party supports allowing foreign banks to set up branches in Canada to provide more choice in banking for consumers and businesses as well as to allow for the offsetting of reduced domestic competition created by any future Canadian bank mergers.

As the hon. member said, direct foreign bank branching is the norm in most other countries. The Liberals have been promising the same for Canada since February 1997. The Liberals' introduction of Bill C-67 is two years overdue. The government has been sitting on its hands for two years.

Foreign bank regulations have not been substantially upgraded since 1980, 20 years ago, when foreign banks were granted the authority to establish Canadian subsidiaries. We will take what we can get from the government and take the opportunity to urge the government to work harder to keep up with other economies in the world and reform our financial services sector.

The changes proposed in Bill C-67 represent the least that Canadians want in terms of updates to the regulations governing foreign banks operating in Canada.

The government is taking a piecemeal approach to financial services sector reform when broad reform is needed to increase competition. We regret that but it does not take away from our support for Bill C-67. Large foreign banks generally would rather compete electronically but the government has done nothing about that.

The MacKay task force in September 1998 recommended that foreign banks should be able to carry on any banking business in Canada other than, of course, the taking of retail deposits below $150,000 through branches of the foreign bank as well as through their subsidiaries.

After reading through Bill C-67, I am convinced that there are some safeguards for Canadians which I will briefly touch on. The bill proposes that foreign banks obtain the approval of the Minister of Finance and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions before setting up a shop in Canada. That is pretty good.

The minister must be satisfied that the foreign bank will be in a position to contribute to Canada's financial system and its entrance would be in the best interests of the Canadian financial system. The foreign bank must be a bank in its home country of sufficient size, experience and financial health and be satisfactorily regulated in that country.

Authorized foreign banks must establish a customer complaint procedure with staff located in Canada. The foreign bank must also disclose to its customers all service charges, fees, the cost of borrowing, the penalties if there are any, et cetera, to customers before agreements are entered into.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI, will be authorized to seize all assets of a liquidated foreign bank to satisfy claims of depositors and creditors of the foreign bank branch in Canada, including going to the parent bank for such seizures if there need be.

Let us look at the reasons that the Liberals should have brought this legislation to the House at least two years ago. The Canadian economy has not had access to as much credit as would otherwise have been made available by foreign banks, so that opportunity is lost.

Canadian companies have not had access to the range of products and services available from foreign banks that would have assisted them in better managing their business risks and facilitating growth internationally. Foreign bank competition will push domestic banks to be more innovative concerning the kinds and amounts of services they currently provide to Canadians.

The Canadian financial services industry has not benefited from learning from the technological developments that foreign banks provide the industry all over the world. The presence of foreign banks in our economy would increase the responsiveness and accountability of domestic banks, which is badly needed.

The domestic financial services industry bears a disproportionate share of the credit risk associated with the Canadian economy. Consequently, when major credit events occur, such as declines in the energy and real estate sectors, the stress to the domestic financial services industry is significant. The opportunity is also lost.

While the Canadian government is expending significant resources to boost the export of Canadian products, the ability of foreign banks to make the advantages of their global networks available to all Canadian companies is severely hampered.

In addition, foreign banks are keen to finance Canadian exporters who target emerging markets around the world, the sort of risky ventures that Canadian banks often avoid.

Canada has forgone tax revenues at both the federal and provincial levels due to marginal profitability and constraints on growth on foreign banks. Such tax revenue could be funding our beleaguered social programs such as health care and education.

The average retail banking consumer may not see a direct benefit from foreign bank branching. However, trickle down benefits are expected to come to them by way of increased financing to small and medium size businesses for starting up and/or expanding and thereby creating more competition in the consumer goods marketplace.

As foreign bank branches establish in Canada there will be increased investment in the Canadian economy by way of foreign banks purchasing goods to run their businesses in Canada, capital cost expenditures for infrastructure and real estate leasing and purchasing, among others. This increased investment will translate into more employment for Canadians.

In conclusion, while we on this side of the House are supporting Bill C-67 with no resistance at this time because we believe that the bill is offering advantages to Canadians, we should take the opportunity to scold the government for its foot dragging on implementing further changes to the financial services industry that need to occur.

This includes reforming the ombudsman system in the banking industry, reducing federal-provincial regulatory overlap and duplication, and reviewing the taxation regime encountered by banks with an aim to improving competitiveness in Canada.

As I said earlier, the Liberals agreed to allow foreign banks into Canada in 1997 as part of a commitment they made at the World Trade Organization. However, they dragged their feet and did not introduce legislation until this month, May 1999, which is the last possible moment that they could have done that.

They did the same with changes to the equalization program. As we know, the federal government updates the equalization program every five years.

The Liberals had five years to allow members of the House to debate the changes. Instead, the Liberals introduced that legislation into the House at the last possible moment, like this one, and had to invoke time allocation on that bill in order to get it passed before the deadline. This is a government that lacks vision. This is the way organizations proceed when they have no real long term vision or long term plan.

The Liberals are dragging their feet on changes to our youth criminal justice system. They have frozen the progress of the changes to the divorce laws that would give each parent an equal amount of responsibility for children. I can count a number of instances like this. They are also way behind in many other areas where Canadians want changes, including our immigration and refugee system. Today we heard the minister agreeing to allowing a criminal, who has been convicted of drug trafficking in this country, to become a refugee. This will allow him to continue his drug trade and continue to feed drugs to our children.

Help from the government for our law enforcement agencies, such as the RCMP in B.C., is very slow, and in returning integrity to the accounting practices of the Minister of Finance who has been cooking the books in the country.

The government is lagging behind in many areas of innovation in the way we govern ourselves. It will not do anything about leaked House of Commons committee reports. It just wants to study them. We still do not have televised House of Commons committees even though it was agreed to by all parties. It is still dragging its feet and not allowing Canadians to monitor and educate themselves on what we do in the House.

Bill C-67 should have been passed a few years ago, before our dollar dropped so severely and before our taxes got higher and they get higher during every session of parliament under this government. Those were the days, two years ago, before the Asian economic melt down, when if we had allowed foreign banks into Canada then perhaps we might not have suffered in that meltdown.

The government is using incremental policy when it comes to our financial sector. That means it is doing very little or nothing, or certainly only what it absolutely must do. This is a shame.

Along with the passage of legislation like Bill C-67 that would update the laws concerning our financial sector, we would see improvements in our economy. Our economy could grow. Jobs could have been created in the country. The Liberals leave the House with a thin soup legislative agenda and they do as little as possible.

The government goes as slow as possible and only does something when it absolutely has to. It has no intention of allowing a full debate on the legislation introduced in the House. We have seen 52 motions for closure or time allocation in the House. The government may also want to apply closure or time allocation on this bill to ensure it gets passed without exposing too many secrets that Liberal backbenchers know nothing about. They only need to know how to vote and the Liberal hierarchy tells them how to vote.

Yesterday we saw some Liberal backbenchers voting against the government on Bill C-78 and one member simply sitting on his hands. That bill will allow the government to take away the $30 billion surplus from the pension plans of our public servants, our RCMP and our Canadian forces personnel.

The list continues to grow and it goes on and on. This is the government that looks through the lens of political stripes and not through the lens of the issues. It should be ashamed.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who asked the question showed some ignorance about how the system works. That is quite evident on the other side of the House. That is why they are supporting this bill, although we read in the newspapers that there are some wise men on that side who oppose it. There are a few members who understand what this bill is about and they know to whom this money belongs.

First, I point out to the hon. member that I write my own speeches. I prepare my speeches and I work hard. I am not like other members who bring their papers but who speak without them.

Let me point out that the hon. member knows that under the CPP 30 years ago if someone invested $1 the return should have been $11. Now with that $1 investment we know they are getting 48 cents worth of return from their pension which is managed by the government formed by his party and which was managed by the other party that ruled this country. This money belongs to the pension fund of the employees.

I have received many letters from my constituents who are worried about their pensions. A few years ago there was a $13 billion shortfall in the pension plan. Who covered that shortfall? The taxpayers.

Does the member believe that government can raise the premiums in the pension fund time and again and give a little back to the senior people who depend on their pension as a small contribution for what they did? Is this not another tax? Is that how the hon. member thinks the government should balance the budget? It has already balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers.

Now it wants to score some brownie points during the election time by using the pension plan money of the employees, performing some tricks in the accounting of the books and taking money from the pockets of retired seniors to pay down some debt and give tax relief.

The government has already cut $20 billion from health care in transfer payments to the provinces and then it injected $11 billion. It brags that it is injecting $11 billion. Does it not remember that it cut $20 billion in the first place? Those are the mathematics the government is using.

Voters do not have short memories. I am sure that the 654,000 pension plan members will remember when it is time to vote.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central, federal public servants, RCMP officers who are retired and currently serving, our military personnel, and the families of all these people to speak to Bill C-78, the government's proposed changes to the public service pension plan.

The bill has become infamous on two counts. On the first count it is because Liberals will steal a one time windfall of $30 billion. Second, it lets the courts decide the definition of marriage. It will allow pension benefits to be delivered based on conjugal relationships.

The Liberals have raided the pension plan surplus federal public servants have amassed in their very successful pension fund. The greed on the other side of the House is disgusting to watch. The lack of respect shown to Canadians by putting a stop to this seizure of wealth and the government preventing debate on this matter in the House is a disgrace.

The government is allowing members of the House four hours to deal with this huge 200 page bill, true to the Liberal's democratic style. It has used outright closure 5 times and it has used time allocation 47 times since 1993.

This is the very same government that has taken $21 billion from the employment insurance fund surplus. The $21 billion should have been returned to the employees and employers who could have created jobs with that money.

Today, through Bill C-78, which we are not allowed to debate for more than a few minutes, the President of the Treasury Board will take $14.9 billion from the public service pension fund, $2.4 billion from the pensions of RCMP employees and $12.9 billion from the pensions of the Canadian armed forces, which adds up to $30.2 billion.

The official opposition maintains that any surplus should remain in the pension plan to cushion taxpayers from future shortfalls. This would ensure the long term viability and guarantee the solvency of our public service pension plans.

In the past Canadian taxpayers have covered $13 billion worth of shortfalls in these pension plans. Taxpayers will be on the hook for future deficits in these plans and we on this side of the House feel that Canadian taxpayers should be protected.

The Liberals want to settle the matter of dealing with the $30 billion surplus by passing Bill C-78 well before the next election in the hopes that the 645,000 pension plan members have short memories. That is not the case.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada says that the surplus money belongs to PSAC members and the government is stealing it. The word the union is using is stealing. It is a very serious charge.

The chief reason for the surplus in the plan is that it was assumed salaries would grow. The six-year wage freeze has reduced the liability of the plan. These surpluses will eventually slow down as wages are increased and today's lower interest rates kick in.

The money the government is taking establishes a precedent and sends a clear message to the private sector that it can follow the lead of the government and help itself to surpluses in employee funds.

This is the sort of government we have. We have a finance minister who cooks the books. We have a government that has no surplus in the Canada pension plan fund. That plan has been so mismanaged for 30 years that it could crash at any time.

Let us look at the history of the $30 billion grab. The President of the Treasury Board created an advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act to look at pensions within the public service. The committee carried on consultations for four years. It was comprised of members of the government, public servants, representatives of employees and pensioner associations.

Now we know that the Liberal minister did not even recognize the further negotiations recommended in the committee's report. The President of the Treasury Board is trampling roughshod over the committee's recommendations and doing what he pleases.

Bill C-78 enables the government to get its hands on surpluses, the ownership of which, while not clearly defined, is morally the property of employees and ex-employees, that is, the pensioners.

This bill will extend pension benefits to same sex couples. It will allow marriage to be redefined and unfairly exclude others. The change in the definition of marriage should not be left up to the courts. It is a decision for members of parliament to take right here in this Chamber.

Granting survivor benefits should have nothing to do with sex, as defined by conjugal relationships. Rather, the definition should be based on a relationship of dependency and companionship. The latter definition would include gay or lesbian couples, but would also apply to a divorced daughter who lived with and cared for her elderly father after he retired from the federal government.

If we believe that what is fair is right, then we should do what is right.

Under Bill C-78 contributions would be deposited in retirement funds and then transferred to the public sector pension investment board. Who will manage the board? That is a big question.

The appointment process will be similar to the one used for the Senate. The appointees, who will be responsible for managing and administering this fund, will be the friends of the government. The Reform Party recommends that the new public sector investment board be comprised of qualified individuals and be accountable for the board's investment decisions.

This is how the Prime Minister appoints his friends to the Senate and the superior court.

Bill C-78 will allow the government, particularly the Minister of Finance, to take $30 billion and say again that it has balanced the budget, paid down the debt and given Canadians some long overdue tax relief. That is what the finance minister will say. He will boast that he is a hero, but he will actually be a zero. If he did all of these things he would be carrying out the official opposition's agenda. Remember that in the health sector alone the government cut over $20 billion in transfers to the provinces. Now, a few years later, it is boasting, saying that it will reinvest $11.5 billion of the money which it siphoned off earlier. The government siphoned off more than $20 billion and now it is reinvesting $11 billion. That is outrageous.

The official opposition would leave the surplus in the account and see that it is well managed. There would be a great deal of consultation between the stakeholders and the government.

There should have been enough time allocated for debate to take place in the House. Shame on the Liberals.

In the little time I have I will quote from a letter I received from a constituent of Surrey. It states:

The height of hypocrisy is to take from the working class to line the pockets of a politician, to make yourselves look good by reducing the debt by 15 billion dollars and to steal from those of us who contribute honestly to a pension that we have come to depend upon for our retirement years.

The letter further states:

We, the regular working Joes and Janes who contribute to this plan, contribute on a dollar for dollar basis and hope to receive back that which we have contributed plus the employer's share for our hard years of service.

If you remove money from any pension fund or EI fund to reduce the debt you are in fact stealing from the people who have contributed to the funds for all these years and are defrauding us of our money when you expect us to pay higher premiums when they are in fact totally unnecessary. Leave my pension fund where it is—

The letter concludes by stating:

As the voice of the people in parliament, if you sit by and do nothing you don't deserve your position of trust and if you allow the deficit to be paid down by the pension contributions of a few you are the biggest thief on the face of the earth and you deserve to be arrested for embezzling my pension money.

That is what my constituent wrote.

[India And Pakistan, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week was the first anniversary of the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan. Since then the Canadian government has shown a complete lack of leadership and has broken Canada's contact at the ministerial level.

Canada should not have pursued a disengagement policy. Canada has a reputation for our skill at mediation and peacekeeping. By taking a leadership role, Canada can help soothe the relationship and promote trade between these two countries that share language and culture. The Kashmir issue will take care of itself, otherwise the situation is a conflict in waiting.

Many other countries, including the U.S., China and France have talked with India and Pakistan, but not Canada. By not sitting at the table and talking, the Liberals are abandoning our traditional peacekeeping and peacemaking roles and allowing the situation to deteriorate.

There is still time to help relieve the pressure that is mounting between these two nations. We call on our government to take a leadership role while there is still time.

[Access To Information Act, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 2 states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and Crown Agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.

This motion is brought before the House for debate by my colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer, who is also our foreign affairs critic.

What is access to information? Any Canadian should be able to write a letter asking for information from a federal government agency and get that information within 30 days. That is the Access to Information Act. We should be able to see the books or get minutes or papers relating to why a certain decision was made in the administration of the policy and programs of our federal government and crown agencies.

There should be nothing to hide about the Canadian Wheat Board, for example. Canadians know about the mess this Liberal government either created or at least allowed surrounding the Somalia inquiry. In that case documents were altered, severed, lost or destroyed. Canadians will never know what really happened because the Liberal government did not want us to know. It shut down the Somalia inquiry.

We use access to information to track the Liberal government's mismanagement of the expenditure of our tax dollars. The Somalia debacle is the prime example of the importance of the Access to Information Act. A CBC reporter using access to information received two copies of the same documents from national defence. The copies were different but they were supposed to be the same documents. The Somalia inquiry is a very sad chapter in Canadian history in terms of the Liberal Party's lack of respect for democracy.

Our access to information laws should be reviewed and strengthened. That is what this motion is asking. We should constantly be pursuing a freer and more democratic government and society. That is what the official opposition is trying to accomplish with this motion. We should not risk our national security, but we should try to be as transparent and open with the Canadian taxpayers as possible.

The Canadian taxpayer finances federal government endeavours. Where are the details? Why are the details concerning the expenses of the operation of the Canadian parliament not covered by ATI? That is a big question. Why are other important agencies protected? We need to know that. That is why we are debating Motion No. 2.

The Liberals could have taken action concerning this matter as soon as they saw that my colleague's Motion No. 2 was on the order paper. Rather, he had to wait for the lucky draw for his motion to be debated. The Liberals forced the debate to take place.

There is another way the Liberals could have proceeded. If the Liberals had looked through the lens of issues and not through the lens of political stripes, they would have read Motion No. 2 and done something about it. However we know they do not do that.

The official opposition is forcing the government to talk about accountability as it relates to crown agencies as well as parliament. There should not be a Liberal in the House who would oppose my colleague's motion. Every Liberal should want their constituents to have access to information concerning crown agencies and parliament. As our federal government contracts out more and more work, the records of these contracts become more and more important. We need access to information.

We have seen the Prime Minister strangle a taxpayer. We heard him talk about an imaginary friend. We have seen him apparently throw away the rights of Canadian university students in favour of a foreign dictator. Most recently we saw all parties in the House, including the Liberals, agree to televise all House of Commons committees. Yet the Prime Minister and the elite Liberals do not want it to happen. Maybe the report on televised committee sittings is in the same place where Motion No. 2 was before the member for Red Deer forced the Liberals to take it off the shelf and debate it in the House.

The democratic record of the government is abysmal. Members across the way should be ashamed of their record on democracy. They have moved closure or time allocation to limit debate in the House more than 52 times. The government does not like the democratic process.

When I was deputy critic for foreign affairs I tracked the shenanigans at the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA. When my staff requested studies from CIDA, ATI requests came back saying “no such study was ever done”. Did CIDA change the name of the study? Or, was there really no such study? It is difficult to tell.

When our ATI laws are so weak it is difficult to know the facts and the truth. It makes it difficult to track the government, to hold the government accountable, to make the government more efficient, to find out where our money is being spent, where there is duplication and where there is waste. Canadians have the right to know what is happening with their money.

This is all wrong. It should be easy to track the government so we can be proud of our record and proud of the way the government is run. In conclusion, I urge members of the House to support Motion No. 2 and let us ensure that the Liberal government does not continue to make a mockery of democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of Canadians, and my constituents in particular, to oppose the Bloc motion which would delete a component of clause 4 dealing with the provincial share of cash contributions and CHST from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004.

Bloc members believe that this disbursement of funds occurs too quickly and would like to spread it over a longer period of time. They believe that the time line criteria for cash contributions should be weighted in favour of demographic changes.

The motion amends the bill we are debating today, Bill C-71, which is legislation intended to implement many of the programs announced by the government in the 1999 budget.

Just for the information of those who are watching, the bill is divided into nine parts. Part one amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Relations Act to implement $11.5 billion, which is an increase in the CHST for the purpose of health care. It is an important part because it is dealing with the health care aspect on which I will be elaborating later.

Part five enables some first nation bands to impose a 7% value added tax on fuel or tobacco.

Part six increases the maximum national child tax benefit by July 1, 2000 to $1,976 for the first child and $1,775 for each subsequent child. The other measures are simply housekeeping changes.

I will talk about the health care and child tax benefit aspects, but before doing so I would like to talk about the CHST. In 1993 when the Liberals took power the CHST for each taxpayer was $1,453. In gross terms this was $18.8 billion. Taking into account this budget, the CHST for taxpayers now will be $1,005 or $14.5 billion that they will try to restore. There is still a $448 decrease, which is 31% per taxpayer compared to what it used to be in 1993.

Compared to the $11.5 billion that they will put back over the next five years, the Liberals are removing $3 billion from the system for every $1 billion they are putting back. It is a ratio of 1:3.

The government will raise the income threshold at which the child tax benefit begins to be phased out to $29,590 from a front level of $25,921. The child tax benefit was announced in the 1998 budget and implemented in July 1998. It replaces the child tax benefit and working income supplements.

The new Canadian child tax benefit began clawing back benefits at lower levels of income than the existing system. When announced in 1998, the CCTB clawback began when a family's after tax income exceeded $25,921.

This budget states that spending would increase by $14.1 billion over the next four years, including the remainder of this year. We also know that the revenue is now expected to rise to $156 billion for 1998-99.

What I am driving at is that our tax system is failing. We heard already the debate on productivity. The Minister of Industry is on one side and the Minister of Finance is on the other side, and the Prime Minister is somewhere. We do not know what the government is doing.

They are hiking taxes. Productivity is falling. The standard of living is falling. The government has no sense of where it is heading or what it is doing. We pay the highest personal taxes of all G-7 countries. This is killing jobs in Canada.

My constituents agree that what we are looking at is a pay more, get less budget. The Liberals balance the books on the backs of the taxpayer. I do not call it balancing the budget. It is not balancing the budget at all. It is matching the budget.

The Liberals try to match the revenue to the spending level. That is how they balance the budget. If that were the criteria to balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers without reducing spending, without eliminating duplication or waste, it could have been done 29 years ago. Why did the Liberals wait for 29 years?

The real balance in the budget is reducing tax levels, reducing spending and trying to match them. This is matching of the budget, not balancing the budget at all. The Liberals have not made the size of government smaller. They have not controlled or significantly reduced spending levels. Duplication and waste are not eliminated.

The government is boosting the health care budget. Let us talk about the record. The Liberals must pay back the billions of dollars they have been taking out of health care spending. As the new official opposition deputy critic for health, I will not allow the Liberals to forget that hospitals are closing, there are fewer beds in hospitals, waiting lines are longer and longer, 1,400 doctors and 6,000 nurses have left the country since the government took over. There are about 200,000 patients on the waiting lists for medical services. Waiting times for Canadian patients to see a specialist, for example, are up by 38%. That is appalling.

Who are the people who are waiting? They are our loved ones. They are our relatives. They are real people. They are human beings who are waiting on the lists to get treatment. What have the Liberals done to help Canadians since they caused the health crisis? They have done absolutely nothing.

In the budget for 1999, which is the pay more, get less budget, Canadians are paying $2,020 more in taxes than they did in 1993. Let me tell the parliamentary secretary that the Liberals have increased taxes by that amount but in return they have $1,500 less to spend per Canadian on health care.

The government has its priorities wrong. It caused this health care crisis by slashing health care spending. It is the root cause for what we see happening currently in the health care system. Now they are trying to act very generously by trickling money back into health care, not even restoring what they have cut so far.

What they are not restoring is the $21.4 billion they cut from health and social spending since 1993. They are simply putting in $11.5 billion over the next five years. That is peanuts to improve the system. That is half of what they owe Canadians for health care.

The cumulative decrease in federal funding will grow to $21.4 billion in 1999 from $17 billion in 1998. Canadian taxpayers are paying $42.1 billion more in taxes in 1999 than when the government took over in 1993. In my view, which is shared by the Auditor General of Canada, by leading accountants and by economic editors around the country, the Prime Minister and the finance minister are cooking the books. The auditor general has refused to sign the books for two years in a row.

When the Liberals were running the government at a budgetary deficit they backloaded the federal government's annual budget. Then they were busy cooking the books. They started frontloading the budget. Whatever the surplus was, they are trying to show that the surplus is getting smaller and smaller. The Liberals even budgeted the millennium scholarship endowment fund money, which is supposed to be spent in the year 2000, in this account.

In conclusion, this is a pay more in taxes and get less in health care and benefits budget. Despite the increase in CHST we should remember that it was the Liberals who gutted and savaged the health care system.

The budget did not contain any significant debt or tax relief measures, increase disposable income, or create investment opportunities for entrepreneurs. It completely ignored small business. The budget perpetuates the discrimination against single income, two parent families in the tax code.

There are many examples I could give but just to summarize—