Alex Shepherd

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has a problem with his memory today. Indeed, he has probably forgotten the fact that it was the Liberal Party that brought forward medicare in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for York West.

I am very honoured to take part in the debate about health care. As I observed and listened to the New Democratic Party bring forward this issue once again in the House, I think forward to what its campaign will be like in the next election. I know it will be able to save a lot of money on stationery presenting public policy documents because, quite simply, its whole public policy is based on two words, and that is, more money.

In the last couple of days we have heard the NDP members talk about the problems at CBC. It simply needs more money. When they speak about unemployment insurance, it simply needs more money. Today, on health care, it is more of the same, more money for health care.

Canada spends close to 10% of its gross domestic product on health care. Canada is one of the highest spenders in the western world on health care.

It is only reasonable that policymakers would sit down and ask themselves how much money they would need to spend on health care and what is applicable to our population. Does that mean that we are discriminating and getting a poorer quality of health care? Of course not. The problem with our health care system is clear to me: We are not getting value for our money. It is not about spending on health care.

We have had this constant debate that the federal government is not carrying its share of the health care issue. We contribute 33 cents on every dollar to health care. It is not as high as it was when it was originally brought in but we cannot ignore the whole issue of tax points, even though everyone wants to forget they exist.

Tax points occurred when the premiers and the federal government sat down and decided that rather than the federal government taxing people, collecting the money and then turning around and giving it to the provinces in transfer payments, that it would allow the provinces more tax room to tax directly and collect that money and spend it on health care. Today, provinces, like the province of Ontario, choose to ignore that part of our history.

I am not making these things up. Anyone can go down to the archives and get various documents and agreements that were signed at the time when provinces agreed to this kind of formula. Today they want to ignore that. Mr. Harris in my province has caused the spending of something like $6 million to carry on an ongoing battle with the federal government for no particular purpose at all, as far as I can see.

The fact is that we continue to spend significant amounts of money on health care. I did my own analysis to show that the province of Ontario was not even spending the money we gave it for health care.

We hear from members of the New Democratic Party that it is simply more money that is needed. They do not have any ideas about how they want to change the health care system. The health care system is important to Canadians.

Since we are giving anecdotal information, my commitment to a publicly funded health care system is also based on a bit of a life experience. I remember being on a dock down in Key West. The next door neighbour of a friend of ours who was a retired doctor from Illinois had been out fishing with a friend. His friend collapsed with cardiac arrest on the dock. His friend said to the doctor, “Do not take me to a doctor. I cannot afford it”. I thought that was such a great statement, because he was saying it to his friend who was a doctor.

Most of us in this Chamber would agree that we do not want that situation in Canada. It is important to maintain a publicly funded system.

Having said that, there are things we have to fix. The problem with this whole file is that the federal government is seen by many of the provinces as a dispenser of cheques. That is not the answer to the problem. That is not the answer to this file. We should look at the way the country is changing, its demographics. Our population is aging.

Many, many governments before us of all stripes had problems with health care. I would like to reiterate that the New Democratic Party was in control of the government in the province of Ontario during a significant period of time and our health care system eroded during its watch as well. If we are honest to the public, we should say that yes, we think there are some problems with the health care system but we have to have a comprehensive plan to make it better. It is not just those two words the New Democratic Party constantly uses, more money. It is not about more money.

There are problems in our primary care service. There are people who are not receiving adequate medical care from their GPs because the provinces have developed systems of remunerating doctors which quite frankly such as in my own province discriminate against the doctors for working certain long hours. It is hard for people to get 24 hour health care in the province of Ontario. It is because of the way governments have structured the payment system for doctors.

We have heard in the House that we have to have a publicly funded health care system. Let us be honest with ourselves. The reality is that what most people think of health care will probably have a broader definition than that of a good number of politicians. They probably think of chiropractic medicine. They may think of pharmaceuticals. They may even think of naturopathic medicine. If we actually looked at the total expenditures on what people think is health care in this country, 50% of it is probably privately funded already.

I think we are talking about the elements and the aspects of a health care system which includes health care workers, nurses and doctors and institutions we still feel should be controlled by the public because of some of the very reasons that are enshrined in the Canada Health Act, accessibility. That is the basic principle which I want to address today.

We need to change the way we do health care, primary and permanent care. We have not developed as a nation a full appreciation of how to deal with permanent care. Indeed, Mr. Harris in my province said, “Gee, we have all of these beds and we have too many people using them. Really what we need is a home care system so we will close the hospitals”. He forgot the other side of the argument. The other side of the argument is that we have to enforce a home care system. We have to have places where people can go, whether they are geriatric cases or otherwise, nursing homes or other facilities.

Constant studies have been done. An empirical study was done by going to people who were either in nursing homes or in acute care in their own homes. They were asked the very fundamental question would they rather be there or would they rather be in an institution like a hospital. The majority of the people said, “We would rather be in a home care facility where we have loved ones around us assisting us. And when it comes to dying, heaven forbid that we can die with dignity and respect”. Lo and behold when we take those figures and start extrapolating, it is $2,500 more costly to get this service in an institution. It costs the hospital.

Those are the kinds of changes that are needed and the federal government is not in the position to do that. The only position we have is to tell the provinces, with our money in our back pocket, that we have to move in the area of home care. I do not hear members of the NDP talking about this. I hear them saying to just give them more money and that will solve the problem. It is not going to happen that way.

We have not put the investment in technology. We should be able to track patients across the country. We cannot even do something simple, use the technology that is available to us today, to simply track patient records. We cannot even do that. We talk about investments in MRI equipment and all kinds of other new technology. We have not done that. We have not put our money in those areas.

We need to restructure the health care system. I would be the first to agree with that but we cannot simply talk about more money. We have to talk about the real things that matter to people.

That is why I am having a health care forum. The provincial members of parliament in Ontario do not care about this area. That is why I am having a health care forum in my riding and bringing in a former assistant deputy minister of health. It is to talk with the people and ask them how they want the health care system to change. It is not about giving us more money. It is about making the thing work so it protects our health.

[Canadian National Railway, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a ceremony which took place today. The Canadian National Railway donated a vast collection of photos collected by it over the last 150 years of railway building to the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology.

From the Grand Trunk Railway to the National Transcontinental, to the Newfoundland railway system and the Canadian Northern, railways have been the building blocks that have made our country.

These pictures are available to Canadians on the web. This shows how the new technologies being learned by Canadians can help celebrate our past history and culture.

On behalf of parliament, I would like to thank the CNR for its contributions to making the stories of the building of our country available to all Canadians so that we can appreciate the struggle that has made Canada the great country it is today.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to again discuss the issue of Devco. Some may wonder why I am interested in this issue. It is because I have had the opportunity to visit Sydney—Victoria and the great island of Cape Breton.

I talked to the people when I was there about a year ago. They were upset about the passing of a part of their history. They also looked at the future with a new challenge of what they could do to once again make a viable economy on the island of Cape Breton.

I heard some of the members say “We don't want to make telephone operators out of all of these miners”. Indeed that is not the intention. When a company like EDS wants to invest money in Cape Breton, it is a positive and good thing. It tells us that company thinks there is a future in Cape Breton as the people themselves think there is a future in Cape Breton.

There has been a lot of discussion about abandonment of the workers. It is interesting to note from statistics that the number of miners is divided into three groups, as I understand. We have one group which has made 75 pension points and they are over 60 years of age. Approximately 140 of them are going to benefit from an early retirement program with pensions over $20,000 a year.

A second group who are approximately 49 years of age with less than 25 years experience are going to have work. This seems to be the essence of the problem. Apparently some in the opposition would prefer these people to be pensioned off. It is assured that there will be at least 500 jobs for these people, so there is no unemployment. In fact there are jobs to go to.

Finally, there is another regrettable group, 42 years of age and under, the last people hired by the pit. They are receiving three weeks salary for every year that they worked. Plus, if they worked over 20 years, they get four weeks salary for every year over 20. Quite frankly this is better than almost any severance plan in the country. The government has been generous.

We are very concerned about the people of Cape Breton and their ability to change their economy. Often speeches in the House have been on how to keep the past going, how to keep the mines open just one more month or one more year, how to keep a way of life going that in fact has changed. The reality is that the coal industry in Cape Breton, as is the case in Britain which I visited recently, has gone by the wayside. The same members speak in the House about the terrible aspect of fossil fuel emissions and the environment and maintain the importance of keeping a coal industry. In my opinion these comments are terribly inconsistent.

It is not just about coal mining in Cape Breton. One listening to the debate in the House would think that is all that goes on in Cape Breton. However in Cape Breton approximately 3,000 people are employed in the forestry. Close to $1 billion of private money is invested in Stora in Port Hawkesbury. In 1999 tourism witnessed the strongest year in its economy with $230 million being gained in tourism in Cape Breton alone.

What about knowledge based industries? Some 44 businesses have set up on Silicon Island, employing 300 people. What about Precision Finished Components in North Sydney? It is making money and expanding. Also located on the north side is a company that manufacturers plastic for markets in Canada and the United States.

The list goes on and on. Poly Tech Windows in Baddeck employs 40 people and exports its products to the United States and all over the world. Finewood Flooring in Middle River employs 20 people and exports its products to Germany and the United States. MacPherson Bros. in New Waterford exports prefabricated homes to Spain and Germany. The list goes on.

This tells me that the people of Cape Breton are adaptable. In fact the people of Cape Breton have changed their economy. It may well be that members of parliament do not seem to realize this. We should be happy that Cape Bretoners have turned their efforts to creating a new economy in Cape Breton. They went back in history. They went back to the mines and kept the mines open just one more month, just one more year.

It seems strange to me when I hear members of the Canadian Alliance Party complaining about the system. They should be celebrating that Cape Bretoners have found the courage to deal with their misfortune and the ability to go forward. Certainly it was not without some unease. The industrial revolution was not easy on a lot of people. People had to make significant changes, which is not easy to do midway through life. I would be the first to admit that.

To keep on going with something that is not working is not reality. The reality is that they require change. As I understand it, more people in Nova Scotia are engaged in teaching today than either the fishery or the forestry industries. Economies change and they change with the times.

The people of Cape Breton are up to that change. They have accepted the fact that their economy cannot continue to rely on coal as a basis of sustenance for them. As a consequence, they have tried to experiment and they will continue experimenting. The government, in spite of the discussion about turning miners into telephone operators, will continue to find ways to encourage private industry to establish in Cape Breton to the betterment of the people there.

I am happy to be part of a government that has made a tough decision to dispose of the coal mining operations, but it is the right decision. All of us realize that governments are not the best operators of coal mines whether in Cape Breton or anywhere else. It is time to move on. It is time for a new future. The people of Cape Breton realize it and the government realizes it.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cannot understand the importance of the differences in processes, genetically modified organisms being a process similar to a steel-like process, I am sorry but I cannot help her with that.

As I was saying, we live in very exciting times. I farmed for about eight years in another part of my life, which I enjoyed very much. I was very aware of the concerns of not only consumers but producers and people who worked in the agricultural sector about the use of pesticides, herbicides and so forth in farming.

For our farm communities, genetic modification is not new. I can recall someone coming into my office one day and presenting me with a cob of corn that was only five inches long. That was the average length cob of corn that existed approximately 30 years ago. We are consuming genetically modified foods every day.

In the riding I represent, we have built a huge industry in the breeding of Holstein cattle. We have used artificial insemination. We have used the superflushing of cows for embryo transplants. This has been very successful for the last 20 or 30 years. The basic cow in our area is the Holstein-Friesian. Durham has been so successful in producing purebred Holstein-Friesian animals that we now actually ship them back to Holstein and Friesland where they are used in genetic stock.

I come to this debate with some interest in the whole area of genetic modification. As I mentioned, farmers have been using this for some time. Just look at the great benefits that exist in genetic modification. As hon. members know, Canada is a threatened country when is comes to its climate. The growing season is very short, but with the use of genetic modification we have been able to shorten the growing time for many crops. That has not affected the quality of the end product. It has increased the ability of some Saskatchewan and prairie farmers to effectively compete on the world market. That has done nothing but good and we will continue to do that.

In my area, for instance, people are using genetic modification in apples to thwart blight. In other words, we can actually get the product off the trees and into the supermarkets faster, better and more efficiently and it is a healthier food.

The great assumption is that genetic manipulation is somehow bad. The fact is that we have been able to reduce disease and pestilence in our food supplies to the betterment of the consumer. The consumer is far better off with these genetic changes.

Needless to say, we cannot have a situation where that kind of experimentation gets out of hand. We cannot have a situation where the mutant organisms are allowed to cross-pollinate and possibly cause dangerous mutations. There is a great deal of work that goes on, not only in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada but also in Health Canada, to ensure that sort of cross-pollination does not occur.

I had the benefit of being in British Columbia where we were experimenting with that sort of genetic manipulation. What we are attempting to do in Canada is to reduce the infestation of our softwood lumber in British Columbia to improve forestry stocks. This is another way of genetically using the science available to us to have better products.

When I talked to the science community, I asked them what was up in the real world of science and forestry. They talked about some of the research going on in Weyerhaeuser in the United States which is using genetics to build a faster growing tree with fewer branches and therefore more efficient when harvested. It causes less pressure on existing forestry and our conservation program is protected because of the abundant source of softwood lumber being grown commercially. These are all positive ways in which the economy can co-exist with the concerns of environmentalists, which is what I fancy myself to be.

There are of course limitations to genetic manipulation. Most of us have read recently about the cloning of cows and sheep. There is certainly a moral argument that goes along with this whole file. I will not get into that issue today because I know the Bloc member wants to talk about relevance and genetic modification. However, there is no question that most members of the public today are concerned about cloning and some of the moral issues that revolve around that. That is not a part of my speech today but I am sure there are limitations to the amount of genetic manipulation that we should engage in. I know our government has a concern about regenerative technology and has studied it to the point of possibly passing legislation on the use of that kind of technology.

The Department of Health, under the food and drug administration, requires any food process that has been altered or has changed its nutritional value to be labelled. We have a labelling system already in Canada. The Bloc members would like us to think that we have a laissez-faire attitude toward labelling, but that is not the case.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is another agency that has as its primary purpose to ensure that the food we eat is safe and consumable. The government supports the efforts of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board, which are entering into the process of people coming forward and voluntarily labelling their products.

A lot of the concern about genetic manipulation seems to be generating, to some extent, out of Europe. The European Union, which I had the advantage of being in about two weeks ago, in using its precautionary principle in trade, is using a lot of these areas, not for the protection of their own populations but rather to embargo Canadian imports. It is embargoing Canadian beef into the European Union. It is embargoing wine into the European Union. It is embargoing many of our agricultural products. I really question whether the European Union is a free trade area or an anti-free trade area because it does not want to trade with anyone other than the people who live within the European Union.

It is important that we not let that kind of fear take over our communities. One of the other speakers mentioned the increase in populations around the world. This is a great opportunity for Canadian agriculture. There is no question that southeast Asia and China will unlikely be able to continue feeding their populations.

We have not only an opportunity but an obligation to meet the challenges in the world definition of countries being able to feed themselves. We have an obligation to continue with a science-based approach to agriculture to ensure that our food products are the best in the world and that we can increase the amount of production.

Canadian farmers have led that challenge. Canadian farmers have been at the forefront. We now ship close to over $2 billion worth of agricultural products around the world. We have been successful in those things because we have been willing to embrace, accept and use change and new processes to make our products safe for Canadians and everyone in the world.

I do not have to tell members that the need for protein by different countries is increasing at an alarming rate. There is no question that these countries will be depending more and more on Canadian production.

I once had the advantage of visiting Taiwan. I was impressed. I had just arrived at the Taipei airport when someone asked me how the biological industry was doing in Saskatoon. I must admit that at that time I was not fully up to speed about the tremendous experimentation and results of our own scientists in Canada who have made such a huge contribution to biotechnology.

A simple thing, like the ability of plants to absorb nutrients, such as phosphates and nitrogen, from the soil is done imperfectly. There are now ways to inoculate seed so that the seed actually assists the plant. The plant will absorb more phosphates and more nitrogen than it did previously. Why is this important? It is important because farmers will now need less fertilizer to grow their crops. It will create less degradation of their environment because they can grow crops more efficiently.

Some of the things the Bloc members are talking about, some of what they believe the organic farm is doing, biological technology is allowing other farmers to also do that. This is a tremendous accomplishment for Canadians. Being the size of country that we are, we have become world leaders in the whole area of biotechnology.

It is time not only for politicians but for the science community itself to get out there and tell their message. A lot of people in this country, in the European Union and others are saying no, it is a terrible thing and that people are going to be born with three legs and four eyes because this stuff has been genetically altered.

I was in England not long ago and talking to the science and technology committee. They have had lots of problems with this issue politically. People are concerned about genetically altered food. They did a study on the media and what the responsibility is of the media in their country to inform people about the basic importance of the foods they eat. They discovered in the articles and the newspapers where people are talking about this issue that less than 15% of the writers in any of the newspapers had any background in science. In other words, the people who are spreading the stories about biotechnology are not scientists. They are people who are using most of their information as innuendo and things that are totally unsubstantiated by the science community.

The bottom line is we have to provide more responsible debate on the whole issue. There has been too much emotion and not enough science. There has been too much concern that somehow someone is manipulating our food supply and not enough thought process about the potential benefits not only for Canadians but for our ability as a country to feed the world.

I would like to end on that note. I probably have not used up all my time but that is not necessary. All I can say is I certainly defend the importance of using genetic manipulation but within the obvious context to ensure that our food is safe. I believe that is happening. We can do more. We are going to do more. People are demanding that we do more. Clearly our health department and our department of agriculture are very focused on the area to ensure that Canadians are consuming safe food but at the same time to unleash our ability to do even better in the future.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to enter into the debate on genetically modified organisms. As I walked into the Commons today, somebody offered flowers signifying cancer research. I would note that cancer research is another area where we actually use genetically modified organisms to solve some of the real problems of our health care system.

I do not think there are too many people here today who would argue against finding a cure for cancer. Similarly, I do not believe there are too many people here who would argue against finding better ways to produce agricultural substances and doing that in a healthful way.

The reality is that the debate is somewhat skewed. The fact that people do not like genetically modified organisms is not so much that GMOs exist but rather the process undertaken to create GMOs. This to me is essentially what is wrong with this debate.

Our primary concern and the primary concern of Health Canada is that the food we consume is safe, not the process that was undertaken to create it. It is analogous to the production of steel. If manufacturers were to buy steel for their automobile production facilities, their concern would be whether the steel was suitable for producing an automobile, not about the actual process that created the steel. This is part of the labelling process.

It seems to me that what people want to say—

[Taxation, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. There are only 19 days left for Canadians to file their 1999 income tax returns. Many low and middle income earners know that as their incomes approach the thresholds of new tax brackets they often pay marginal rates of taxes as high as 50%.

This discourages people from working and reduces productivity, lowering the potential wealth for all Canadians. What is the minister doing to eradicate this disparity?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, normally I am happy to enter a debate, but I think this is a difficult one.

One of the things with which I have had difficulty as a member of parliament is the issue of morality and the fact that from time to time we are called on as representatives to attempt to prejudge, understand and reconcile the different moralities that exist within the general polity.

I say this not only to those in my own riding, but also to some in other ridings which possibly have an even higher threshold of concern about this legislation.

The member who spoke previously talked about the hundreds of letters he is receiving. I too have received some and petitions as well.

Because of my own concern about this issue and having to in a sense prejudge morality, I can well remember the last parliament when we had a debate over the human rights amendments and it was a somewhat similar debate. I commissioned an official poll in my riding. Even though I received hundreds of letters opposed to the human rights amendments, I discovered that the vast majority of my riding was in favour of them. I fear we are doing the same thing here. As a matter of fact, I have had less response on this legislation than I did on the original human rights amendments.

I stand in my place today to support the legislation. Why do we support the legislation? Behind some of the arguments today is the issue between collective and individual rights. We have defined our country as a nation in the world which respects individual rights. One of the things we can be proud of as a nation as we go forth in the 21st century is that we support, respect and try to enrich individual rights.

This issue comes down to a question of discrimination. Do we in fact believe that certain groups in our society are being discriminated against simply because of some of the relationships they choose to enter into? My background is as an accountant so I focus on the Income Tax Act. It tells me that with these amendments a same sex couple in a dependency relationship will be able to claim the other one as a full dependant. I ask myself, if that was not the case, are they discriminated against? The answer is yes, they are discriminated against and are treated differently.

Some of those in the opposition and others who oppose the legislation would tell me they believe that is appropriate. In other words, there is some kind of appropriateness to some forms of discrimination. Once we start making exceptions to the rules of a body of rights in a country, we are going down a very slippery slope in which there are only rights for certain people and rights for others. That gets me back to my original discussion of collective and individual rights.

What is really bothering some people behind this legislation is the ability to impose their morality on society generally. In other words, things seem to be changing. This is the way things were. One of the members spoke about her family. I have been married well over 30 years and have a grown family myself similar to what she was saying. I discussed this matter with them and they thought this whole issue was a bit of nonsense and that we were a bunch of old fogeys in the way we visualize society because society has fundamentally changed in front of us. I know my mother would be giving me heck for my opinion on this legislation but I think people's attitudes and views change over time.

For those people in my riding who believe very strongly about this legislation and think it is bad legislation, I can only simply say that I have tried to reconcile their views with what I believe to be the majority of the people in my riding. I have come to the conclusion that we still believe in a fundamental principle and that is that the majority rules. In spite of what some of the members in the opposition would have us believe, I believe that the majority of Canadians in fact support this legislation.

Getting back to the definition of marriage, this legislation does not really deal with the institution of marriage. It is the provincial jurisdictions that deal with the institution of marriage.

Having said that, we have provided a definition within the preamble. I believe that many in the community who would oppose this legislation are happy that at least there has been some recognition of what we believe to be a marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Getting back to the issue of discrimination, one of the things that bothered me about the legislation, because we are extending benefits and rights to a larger group of people than possibly now enjoy them, is that the question invariably comes up as to the form of discrimination. Are there other people in our society who are being discriminated against?

I talked about the dependency relationship under the Income Tax Act. Many people similarly brought up the issue of a daughter who is supporting her sick mother and should she also not have the right to claim her as a dependant. Fundamentally I think we all agree that is true. We agree that we should be extending this definition. It once again goes back to the theme of my speech. We must not provide for any discrimination in our system. In fact we must find ways to do away with as much discrimination as we can.

We can talk as much as we want about this utopian society, but the reality is we are curtailed somewhat by affordability. That does not mean the government is not concerned about that issue. I am very heartened to discover that the Minister of Justice and others have commissioned a study to look into the ability to expand this definition to include other people who may well be discriminated against. That is appropriate, but obviously to go down that road today to include a broader definition of discrimination would be very costly.

When I explain that to those in my constituency who are concerned about that, I explain to them that under our current laws a broader definition of discrimination would be prohibitively costly. The impact on private pension plans and others would be that some benefits now being received by some people in my constituency would actually go down to provide for this enhanced vision.

I suspect that in a future parliament, parliamentarians will be discussing expanding the definition to allow other forms of deductibility of obligations and rights. There is no question that as we go down the road our society is aging. I am very concerned about families who are trying to support themselves and possibly invalid members of the family and need some help from our taxation system.

I do not believe it is appropriate to continue to be silent on those issues. We will continue to debate them. As we prosper in the future, the definition of dependency relationships will increase to include those people but as of today we are going with this one measure.

It has taken us a long time to have a charter of rights and freedoms. As a government it has taken us a number of years to even invoke it, which is where we are being led to today. The courts are saying that we have not been living up to the terms of the charter and it is time that we did. That is fair and justified. To say otherwise means that what we really want to do is to amend the charter of rights and freedoms and take away individual rights and liberties, a famous hallmark of this country.

In conclusion, I am very supportive of this legislation. I certainly respect the views of others who are opposed to it.

[Petitions, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from over 100 of my constituents, which include members of the Pine Ridge Bible Chapel and also the Emmanuel Pentecostal Church of Port Perry. They call on parliament that Bill C-23 affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution. They request the withdrawal of Bill C-23.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the second member from the Canadian Alliance today. We can dress them up but we cannot take them anywhere.

What I basically heard from the first speaker today was that we on this side of the House are just a bunch of spenders and that the tax cuts we gave in the last budget were minuscule. The very same speaker then said that $2.5 billion more in health care was not enough and that they wanted more. Then I heard the second speaker stand and say that he wanted $8 billion more in the defence portfolio. Those members have no idea where any of this money will come from. They must think it is some kind of magic. We will give tax reductions and increase spending at the same time. It is just wonderful.

I heard them talk about the flat taxes. I believe it was eight years ago that the former Reform Party talked about flat taxes. Just about everybody, except the province of Alberta, which wants to experiment with this, has given up on the idea of flat taxes. Everybody knows that the great wonders that the members opposite want to come up with to modernize the system and reduce the administration of the taxation system are not feasible with flat taxes. We can do that in a progressive system as well.

The issue is that a flat tax, by and of itself, is simply shifting the tax burden from the lower middle income earners and the middle income earners to the higher income earners of this country. That is what the so-called CAs envision. By the way, I also object to their name. I happen to be a chartered accountant, as are some of my colleagues. These people are now calling themselves a professional designation by stealth. I suppose we all have to call them CAs as well but they certainly do not know much about economics.

Would the member explain how we are to keep ramping up all this money and at the same time reduce taxes and have a responsible approach to government?

[The Hon. Michael Starr, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was saddened last weekend to hear of the passing of one of Canada's great parliamentarians, the Hon. Michael Starr.

Mr. Starr represented part of my riding and I met with him on a number of occasions.

This feisty Ukrainian was first elected to the House on May 26, 1952.

Mr. Starr's compassion for the underdog elevated him to the position of Minister of Labour from 1957 to 1963. He later became interim leader for the opposition during the Diefenbaker years.

The appointment of Mr. Starr as Minister of Labour made him the first Canadian of Ukrainian descent to be appointed to the federal cabinet.

I can tell the House that I have run into a lot of his supporters on my rounds, and they all have a story to tell. I think the most interesting was when Mr. Starr went down to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and got in line with a lot of GM workers to see what it would be like. In short order he bellowed out from the end of the line that if it did not start moving, somebody would lose their job.