Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was billion.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Reform MP for Calgary Centre (Alberta)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 22% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act April 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the land tenure system that has been put in place from the beginning with the earlier settlers, those who settled this land and stayed put versus what those settlers may have found here as a group of people not necessarily staying on the land, and did that actually help develop this country?

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act April 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my caucus colleague from Edmonton. I appreciate and understand his concern about the size of the grant of funds.

What about inherent self-government and how that will interface? Perhaps he has an idea of how inherent self-government could be negotiated on the reserves within this large land area and how that would interface with the laws of the rest of Canada. Does he see any potential conflicts there? Should this be negotiated now before we do the land settlements?

He talked about precedent. That is something they did not mention. I would like to know as a businessman how he would be negotiating this deal from that point of view.

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act April 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, we are competing with each other to be recognized by you.

First of all I would like to congratulate the member for his speech today and the straightforwardness with which he expresses his point of view.

I for one am in this House to help resolve this problem. I definitely would like to see as much consultation and work as possible with the aboriginal peoples, the Indians, the Metis and the Inuit so we can resolve these long term outstanding settlements and agreements.

I know the settler people are here. I know the white man took over, those immigrants when they first landed. Perhaps the hon. member for Churchill would appreciate the current 1 per cent rule the Liberal government has and he would have maintained control.

Repetition is important; it is a fact of life. If he has to give a similar speech again and if he has to repeat it five or six times, I would encourage him to do that.

There have been a lot of wrongs committed. A lot of injustices to the native peoples have been perpetrated over the years. We in this House are not the ones who have perpetrated this crime nor made these mistakes. We are here to learn from these mistakes and we are here to try to make it better.

It is in this light and in this vein I wish to address the hon. member and let him know that what we are concerned about is the consultative process. Will he agree with us or put forward the next time he speaks the type of self-government the native people or the aboriginal people want will comply with the current law? He has his problems with the other tribes and other

nations. There is a problem with that interfacing with the laws of the land as they are today. It is a fact of life that the Government of Canada is here and it has to be negotiated with.

Will the hon. member try to put an answer in the context that what they are seeking for in terms of self-government will in fact comply with the laws we have today? How can we get over that hurdle? What would his response be on that basis?

Nafta Environmental Secretariat April 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, on January 24 in this House the Minister of the Environment said that the site for the NAFTA environmental secretariat would be selected and I quote: "with no politics involved".

On Friday the minister changed her tune and admitted that the site of the environmental secretariat was chosen based on political criteria. Also on Friday ministers of the government defended not only the environment secretariat but also the Shawinigan patronage park, not on the basis of economic feasibility but on the basis of politics and patronage.

Perhaps the government can provide a list of the projects that are motivated by economic benefits and a list of those that are motivated by politics and patronage so that we can see which list is longer.

This is not a good government. This is an expedient government, a gutless government.

Canada-Hungary Income Tax Convention Act, 1994 April 21st, 1994

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Reform Party to address Bill S-2 which in essence establishes conventions between Canada and a number of other countries so as to prevent income tax evasion and double taxation of workers from Canada, Hungary, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Argentina and the Netherlands while working abroad in these countries.

After listening to the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois who just delivered his comments, perhaps a lot of us will be looking at how to enter into an arrangement with the Barbados and making a deal there since its taxation system is so favourable.

My party supports Bill S-2 but would like to point out to members in both Houses, this House and the other place, that there are millions of Canadians who do not work abroad who could surely use a break from the high taxes they are forced to pay at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Implementing tax conventions between Canada and countries like Hungary is noble, but what about implementing similar conventions between federal, provincial and municipal levels of government within our own borders, ensuring that the Canadian taxpayer is not overburdened with double taxation?

For instance, the agreement between Hungary and Canada is 20 pages thick. I read it because my parents are Hungarian, I speak Hungarian, and I have a bit of a vested interest in Hungary and what happens there. If the principles in this agreement between Canada and Hungary were looked at and reviewed by this Liberal government, and it tried to negotiate and apply some of these principles with the provincial governments, what it would gain from that are the principles that would lead to removal of some of the interprovincial barriers to trade. That could save the country, our country, our economy and our taxpayers. The cost of doing business could be reduced by $4 billion to $5 billion.

One of the most common complaints about the goods and services tax that has been raised in finance meetings is the fact that when people purchase goods they are hit with a provincial sales tax of between 8 and 12 per cent and a GST of 7 per cent. In the eyes of most Canadians, this is seen as a double hit on their pocketbooks and has encouraged them to take billions of dollars in taxable revenue underground.

At a meeting in Vancouver either yesterday or today there is a presentation on the underground economy and the value of it. Why does one exist? It exists because this House and this government is continuing the practices of tax and spend and has not addressed the real issue of reduced spending, spending cuts, putting the money back into the taxpayers' hands so people would be willing to pay taxes on an equitable and fair basis and not go into the underground economy. It is becoming too expensive to be honest in this country. Even the finance minister has acknowledged that fact.

In the eyes of most Canadians the double taxation system with sales taxes, hidden taxes and income taxes is more than a double hit on their pocketbooks. It is a triple, quadruple whammy and it has encouraged them, as I said earlier, to deal in ways that they can save money.

According to Canadian Business magazine: ``Canada now enjoys the dubious distinction of imposing one of the highest taxation rates among the group of seven industrialized countries''.

I hope the government does not follow the practices of the previous Conservative government of always quoting the group of seven nations and how the United Nations said that this country is number one. We are no longer number one in anything except high spending on a per capita basis.

When will the government wake up and realize that the present system of tax and spend will no longer be tolerated by investors, lenders and consumers?

One of my constituents wrote in reply to a questionnaire that I sent out: "Only the federal government could find ways to make people pay for the privilege of living more simply and moderately".

For too long governments have forced people to live within their means and exercise fiscal restraint while politicians have lived in the world of guaranteed pensions and expensive junkets. While many Canadians are sitting around the kitchen table planning a budget, deciding what they need versus what they want, members of Parliament have travelled the globe, costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Parliamentary committees travel the country, justified on the basis that they are consulting with the people.

The cost of all these committee travels, combined with the junkets, is not in the millions of dollars, it is over a billion dollars. Yet the government will not look at ways and means of saving the taxpayers' money and getting input from taxpayers through householders or through visiting their constituencies every once in a while and finding out what they want.

It takes the Clerk of the House to look at ways and means of saving money for committees. It is a noble effort on the Clerk's part and the government should be looking and encouraging more effort on that basis.

How many trips have there been by members of Parliament, their spouses and their aides to Hungary, Nigeria, the Netherlands, Argentina, or Zimbabwe to hammer out the particulars of S-2?

I was invited to go to Hungary as a parliamentarian. I speak Hungarian. It would have been a wonderful opportunity to visit the country where I was born, but I turned it down. I turned it down because there was nothing to be gained there. There is more to be gained here. If they want to do a deal with us they can come here.

By doing that I hope I have sent the message that we will co-operate with other countries but we have problems to solve at home without trying to solve other people's problems for them. They have a responsibility to work on that themselves, including Hungarians.

Bill S-2 is largely a housekeeping bill. The federal government should consider housekeeping measures in our income tax system. It should stop dusting around the edges. I encourage

government members to take their gloves off and start throwing things out, such as unnecessary programs.

The Liberals should start by throwing out the Income Tax Act with its over 2,500 pages. They should develop a new proportional simple tax based on equity and understanding. It should be geared to family size, the amount of income and the family's ability to pay taxes on that income.

It is our high taxation level that is responsible for people fleeing to countries like those mentioned in Bill S-2. That is why the government is forced to draw up these conventions.

We have a system of overseas tax credits. People who work outside Canada for extended periods it is believed ought not to pay full taxes since they do not consume their full share of government services. That virtually eliminates tax on 80 per cent of their total income if they have been out of the country for six months.

On that basis an engineer making $70,000 would barely pay $7,000 whereas that engineer working at home would pay $23,000. When I questioned a certified accountant in my riding of Calgary Centre he told me about this and that it is a huge incentive. It makes it worthwhile for people to leave their families and work in Russia or Hungary for half the year to make this extra income.

The nature of this bill is technical and serves to provide a better understanding between Canada and foreign countries. Let me leave the government with some constructive questions that arise out of reviewing this bill, which I hope will lead to some improvements for Canada.

Bill S-2 is a good first step. But why are we only signing on with the countries mentioned in the bill and not some of the emerging markets we will be trading with in the future?

The reason for these conventions is that tax evasion exists in Canada due to our comparatively high level of taxation. Is the government willing to prevent this problem from occurring by bringing our tax level in line with other countries?

Is it realistic to expect these conventions to be workable when Canada's tax system is considerably more complicated than the countries we are signing conventions with?

Is our high taxation level responsible for people fleeing to these countries and is that why we need these conventions? My answer to that is yes.

In conclusion, it is Canada's high tax burden which must be addressed in order to attract investment in Canada and have a positive net cash flow of foreign investments to add to our gross national product.

Department Of National Revenue Act April 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the government Whip. I will be under that time limit so we will watch the clock closely and make sure we follow the schedule as pre-arranged by the three party whips. I am sorry, we have a party co-ordinator.

The Minister of National Revenue has said in relation to Bill C-2: "I believe a unified Department of National Revenue will build on the strength of our existing customs, excise and taxation administrations. It will better serve Canadians and strengthen their confidence in Canada's revenue administration".

I hope so, but I hope my example about the overseas tax credit is taken to heart and taken seriously because that is not the way to treat Canadian corporations or individual taxpayers.

In conclusion, we believe that improved efficiency and effectiveness can result from this bill provided that reorganization and government cost savings will be done with the security and the best interests of Canadians in mind, versus empire building within the bureaucracy or a heavy handed tax police force auditing and demanding tax dollars in a totalitarian fashion.

We support the bill but we will be watching and I will be watching as it is my duty to monitor the actions of this particular bill and the effect that it has on government over the next year. The Minister of National Revenue promises lower costs. The new super deputy minister of this cabinet minister in the Standing Committee on Finance promised lower costs. Therefore we will expect substantial lower costs.

Department Of National Revenue Act April 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-2 at third reading. I addressed the bill previously and have spoken favourably about it.

According to the Department of National Revenue, the approval of Bill C-2 will "enable it to be more responsive to changing needs, to streamline operations, to reduce the administrative burden on taxpayers, to reduce costs and duplication and to improve the quality of its services and programs". That is a pretty tall order and we hope it can be pulled off.

The Reform Party position on an objective like this is very much supportive. The steps taken by the Liberal government in an attempt to streamline departmental activities is a worthwhile effort. Combining immigration and citizenship, customs, excise and taxation and eliminating altogether the Department of Public Security will help reduce duplication and overlap.

I hope the current treatment of the overseas tax credit is not an example of this new and improved department's modus operandi in the future. The overseas tax credit is predicated on the assumption that people who work outside the country for extended periods ought not to pay full taxes since they do not consume their full share of government services.

This virtually eliminates tax on 80 per cent of total income for workers logging at least six months of the year abroad. I want to go into this to show members an example of what this super efficiency ought not to do.

By regulation, the tax credit cannot be claimed by employees of foreign parent companies but for years Revenue Canada permitted such workers to claim it anyway. They were taxed at the same level as employees of domestic firms working abroad.

Last fall, however, during a routine audit of the Calgary arm of Texas based Nabors Drilling, tax assessors said they would disallow the overseas tax credit not only for 1994, which seems legitimate, but retroactively for 1993, 1992 and 1991. The decision would nail up to 600 workers with additional tax bills of up to $48,000 each. Nabors' lawyers are currently disputing Revenue Canada's attempt to disallow the tax credit for the earlier two years, and so they should.

How can the Minister of National Revenue and the Department of National Revenue change the rules four years, three years after the fact? Once the department has set a precedent-it always deals on precedent-it should stick to it or change the law and give people warning so that they know what to expect.

If U.S. parent companies move their overseas operations centres back to the United States, that will kill office jobs in Canada and deprive Revenue Canada of far more money than allowing the overseas tax credit. It is not efficient. It is not effective. It does not serve the purpose for what this amalgamation is supposed to do. It gives the impression that we are creating a tax collection police force that is going to squeeze every penny, every dollar it can out of honest working Canadian companies and individuals. The Minister of National Revenue refused to be interviewed on this subject, so I plan to bring this up during question period in the very near future.

We need increased financial reviews and reforms for all government departments to ensure that taxpayers' money is being spent efficiently and effectively. The reduction of costs associated with departmental consolidation and the removal of a few individuals at the executive level are just the tip of the iceberg when one considers the amount of government waste that has existed over the years.

The ivory towers of the Conservative years have to come to an end and I hope the government is serious in its attempt to do so. The new super deputy minister of National Revenue Taxation, Customs and Excise through this amalgamation told us in the Standing Committee on Finance that he will save money. But I have a concern. He also told us that the department employs 44,000 people at a cost of $2.2 billion. When asked what the short term savings of this bill are, meaning within the next 12 months, his answer after much fumbling was $36 million.

He then pointed out in another part of the bill that through amalgamation and the changes that had to take place due to the smuggling problem that existed three or four months ago, the department would be spending more money on customs officials, et cetera, and there would be $50 million of new spending. The net saving is not a saving. It is a $16 million increase to the already high $2.2 billion cost of running the department. Let us hope that is not something of which he is proud.

Thirty-six million dollars is a lot of money and a savings of that amount is very much appreciated. It would do well in a lot of our pocketbooks and the pocketbooks of the taxpayers. It is very important that those people should have that money back.

If that is all the deputy minister is promising to save out of $2.2 billion, at the end of the current fiscal year I would hope the Minister of National Revenue would look for a replacement. There has to be a better objective than that. If that is all he can save he is unfit for the job.

Our party would encourage the minister and the government to initiate a line by line, item by item review of all departments to find out where the money is going. If we took the time to find the savings in the estimates, through the estimates of every committee and if the backbenchers of the government were allowed to point out where those savings are and if the cabinet had the courage and the confidence in its backbenchers to listen to their input, it would find a lot of further savings. If all the millions of dollars that the Prime Minister is talking about in savings and cuts are added together, it will come to the billions that the finance minister is talking about in cuts and savings. Therefore the two stories would go together and we could restore some confidence in the economy and in the government itself. It would then be speaking from the same song book whether it is old or new.

We have some concerns about Bill C-2. Although we support it, it is feared that the combination of Revenue Canada Taxation and Customs Canada is designed to place more of an emphasis on revenue collection, controlling the underground economy and smuggling rather than designed to save overhead and this ivory tower bureaucratic structure we talked about earlier.

Customs officials must not be hindered in any way by legislation from performing the important duty of protecting Canadians from illegal drugs, weapons and criminal elements by reducing their ranks. By making administrative cuts at the top, the minister must not reduce the number of customs

personnel in the field which would hinder their ability to function effectively.

Other concerns have also been raised by the customs union, several municipalities and the media-I am sure the media is doing it on behalf of the Canadian public-with the consolidation of the two departments, customs officers' resources to effectively defend the border will be strained. The customs union is under the impression that increased emphasis on these activities will lead to a reduction in resources for other activities such as controlling illegal immigrants, firearms, pornography and stopping child abduction.

The Minister of National Revenue has said-

Excise Tax Act April 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, as a point of protocol, I guess, I rise to indicate that we do support the bill in third reading. I hope that all the points we have exchanged here today do flow back to the Standing Committee on Finance and from the Standing Committee on Finance back to the House and that the government some day in the near future, perhaps in time for the next budget, can come up with comprehensive reforms in taxation that would improve the system that we have.

Excise Tax Act April 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I will be the only caucus member for the Reform Party addressing the bill today.

I rise today to address Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax and a related act. The bulk of the bill offers relief to small business, charities, health care users and rabbit growers in paying their GST. Yes, that is right, they now get back the money they paid in taxes on rabbit food.

The bill makes life easier for them or permits them to pay less. It makes permanent administrative practices already in place. One section, however, prevents people who owe over $50,000 GST to pay by cheque on Friday afternoon and get a weekend of extra interest credit because the cheque does not clear until Monday.

The only contentious section concerns financial institutions that have been trying to get their GST bill lowered by claiming that a section of the act is ambiguous. The ambiguity was discovered by tax lawyers, which justifies their high pay. It would take several paragraphs to explain the highly technical nature of the ambiguity. However the weak position of the banks is revealed by the fact that for four years they paid between $150 million and $300 million under protest. The new bill removes the ambiguity and the money stays with the government. This is a very good and sound decision under the current economic circumstances.

It is particularly refreshing to note that Bill C-13 offers relief to rabbit growers in the country. Now all the Minister of Finance has to do is magically pull out one of these rabbits from a hat and balance his budget.

My party supports Bill C-13 but it would like to point out that it represents yet another example of a federal government tinkering with an old idea that does not work.

Since its inception the GST has been a burden for business to collect on behalf of the government the moneys owed and also for the government to administer. With its countless exemptions and high rate, the GST has become symbolic of the country's chaotic tax system causing confusion and resentment among Canadians.

I have said this before and I will say it again. Canadians pay too much in taxes and want the current system overhauled, not just tinkered with.

The problem is that governments have been spending in ways that ignore both the need for a strong economy and the dangers of continued deficit spending. The government, like those before it, relies on the revenues generated by taxes like the GST and the new tax sources to fund their programs and make interest payments on the debt.

If the federal government were to truly attack the debt and not just nibble around the edges as is currently the case, tinkering with rabbits, interest payments to service it would be lower and leave it with more revenue to fund other programs.

This would give the federal government the ability to reduce its current tax hauls from hard working Canadians and give them back their disposable income which will then be spent more efficiently and effectively. They know how to spend their money on their needs better than the government knows how to spend it on their behalf on what it perceives to be their needs.

With more disposable income in the hands of taxpayers, people in the private sector will stimulate the economy creating jobs using at risk money that motivates and not government money which wastes.

Continued government overspending of debt capital, not equity capital, on rehashed programs from the 1960s and 1970s has further encouraged taxpayer resentment, unemployment, high deficits and debts. In today's world, real sustained growth depends on trade, investment and strong industry.

Over the past two decades, the country has lost the competitive edge that it once held in the world marketplace because of poor government policies combined with overspending and high taxation.

As Mr. David McLean from the Vancouver Board of Trade has said:

Foreign investors do not just look at the costs of the goods and services tax and provincial sales taxes, they add them all up. If the cost is too high then capital will not come to Canada.

This is why we must re-examine all taxation, stop tinkering and put in place a simple, comprehensible system that will take the country into the future, leaving the old policies behind.

Enough reruns. Let us create an entirely new program. Canada needs a proportional system of taxation. The Liberal member who spoke first to this bill today mentioned that the finance committee is looking for a replacement for the GST as promised by its leader. One alternative it should consider is a proportional system of taxation or, as is sometimes otherwise referred to, a flat tax.

The present system of taxation is too complicated, too high and too unfair. These factors in combination with consistent government overspending are stifling our economy. I recommend the implementation of a proportional tax on individual and corporate income.

A proportional tax is the only way to increase the revenue side of the budget, remove the incentives for the underground economy, restore fairness and, most important, stimulate economic growth, which is a priority of all of us here.

While we are fighting with our high annual deficits, the high debt and the interest on that debt, we could increase the disposable income both for corporations and individuals through a completely new taxation system. This would help speed up the process of reducing the deficit to zero and starting to supply some surplus funds to the debt. This is the kind of signal, the kind of message that will really inspire and encourage this country to be a haven for investment as it used to be.

This concept is not new to the House or the government. It was the member for Broadview-Greenwood who sits opposite me who initially, I understand, supported a single or flat tax. He wrote in his book The Single Tax : ``Lower marginal rates and more take home pay would be an incentive to work harder and smarter. The new incentives plus elimination of avoidance and evasion would lead to this tax taking in more revenue''.

I unequivocally agree with the member for Broadview-Greenwood. I am very impressed by his intelligence and insight on this subject.

The objective of this tax would be threefold. First, it would simplify current complicated tax forms so that all Canadians could understand them. I challenge the 295 members of the House for this taxation year to fill out their own income tax forms by themselves and with no help go through the form. Whatever they come up with then send it in to the Minister of National Revenue and have two independent people within that bureaucracy figure out their tax return. I would not be surprised if over half the returns had two different answers with a lot of mistakes which would prove that is very difficult and complicated. Nobody understands the 2,300 and some pages of the Income Tax Act.

This would also increase savings for the Department of National Revenue in the collection of taxes and the monitoring of all personal and corporate tax exemptions.

Second, it would restore equity in the tax system, eliminating the perception that one group of taxpayers is favoured over another by setting a lower fixed rate of tax over a certain threshold for individuals. Corporations would also pay a low fixed rate of taxation under this reform system.

Equity is when people who make relatively the same amount of income pay relatively the same amount of tax. By eliminating yesterday's incentives, which we refer to today as loopholes for the rich people, we can ensure that we capture 15 per cent or 20 per cent, whatever the flat rate would be of that income. That is what would increase the revenue for the government. We could give a high enough tax deduction for the first $12,000 or $15,000 of earned income so that nobody has to pay tax on that. That would also relieve a lot of the pressure on our social programs.

It would restore integrity and bring effectiveness to the system by eliminating the need for so many tax concessions and loopholes like those that the government is trying to close with Bill C-13. We waste our time on old laws and old rules that are not working.

The Liberal government must stop following the same path as its predecessors and show some initiative. Stop just talking the talk and walking the walk. Take some tough action and act instead of talking about acting by setting up 15 new committees. It will take six months before they come back with a recommendation which the House will then have to review for a further six months or a year. Let us take some action.

By maintaining the status quo with taxation and programs like infrastructure and the Katimavik II youth job program, Canadians are seeing nothing new from this government. When will this government wake up and realize that you cannot keep taking from Canadians higher and higher taxes and borrow indefinitely in the bond market. One of these days and soon somebody will not buy the bonds.

My hon. colleague for Beaver River said in the House yesterday something which I believe is worth repeating: "Old songs by new singers are still old songs".

The Liberal red book for example is now becoming an old song book which offers a two-track policy of growth which will, and I quote from the book, "make possible a monetary policy that produces lower real interest rates and keeps inflation low". The Liberals promise that their policies, measures, budget and all the necessary budgets made to date will get the deficit to 3.5 per cent of the GDP, will keep the interest rates low and we will have low inflation. Since the budget was released the Bank of Canada rate has jumped to a two-year high of 6.26 per cent, an increase of 2.16 per cent. Interest payments on our debt will now increase which will likely force businesses and consumer rates to follow as well in the marketplace.

As a former professional football player, I would like to point out that the current Liberal government playbook is not working. It is time to write a new one.

I finally have the attention of somebody from the government side. He finally put down the trivia that he was reading and is now listening to me. I got his attention.

The playbook is not working. It is time to write a new one, a dynamic one. Let us create a new system of taxation which is fair and simple for all Canadians, that will put to rest the need for band-aid bills like Bill C-13. It is our collective responsibility to develop new ideas and move the country toward a future based on prosperity and away from the old school ideas that just do not work.

I hope that in the Standing Committee on Finance where new ideas are being presented by witnesses from all across the country that the new proposals being suggested for a replacement for the GST are really and truly listened to and that the committee will not be just a job for backbenchers to keep them out of the way while cabinet occupies itself on the greater issues of the country.

There have been some worthwhile suggestions put forth in that committee. Some good solutions have been put forward in that committee. It comes from non-politicians, the intelligent people in this society. They have put forth some good ideas and we should be listening to them. If they do and it is on a non-partisan basis, I look forward to a report in the House that comes to you, Mr. Speaker, and says "the replacement for the GST is-"and that it has the unanimous consent of all members of the three parties in the House who are on that committee. I look forward to that and I hope it will be that conclusion.

In conclusion, easing the GST burden on the public is highly desirable and we should support all such legislation. I encourage the federal government to examine the benefits of a completely new system of taxation, a proportional tax which would remove the need for undesirable taxes like the GST and put money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

The Reform Party will offer any assistance it can to move this country toward a proportional system of taxation and eliminate the need for debate and talk by the bureaucracy and politicians on useless bills like Bill C-13 when there are much better solutions to the problems, new solutions to new problems.

The Economy April 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, further to the remarks of the finance minister I would like to add another possible reason the Deutsche Bank gave this recommendation despite the breakfast.

One of the reasons both foreign and domestic investors are uneasy about the Canadian economy is that mixed messages

keep coming from the Prime Minister and the Finance minister. The billions versus millions controversy is only the latest contradiction by these two senior ministers.

Could the Minister of Finance clarify once and for all for the House and for foreign and domestic investors, whose comments on deficit reduction can be relied on, his or the Prime Minister's? And no double talk, please.