Alex Shepherd

[Finance, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to discuss the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance. I am sharing my time with the hon. member for York-Simcoe.

I know a lot about the finance committee. I served on the finance committee. I congratulate the committee for its work and its very fine report. I know the long hours which that committee sits and the many witnesses it hears in dealing with this country's economic problems.

The report talks of a broad range of generalities. It talks about our existing trade surplus. This of course is one of the things which has driven our economy to success. Within the trade surplus is the fact that we are continuing with our historical trading patterns. A lot of it is oriented toward automobile trade and the natural resource sector.

One very important aspect the report talks about is the need for more money in research and development. That is something which interests me. It is the underpinning of our economy.

When we talk about jobs and growth, it is appropriate to think not about what is going to happen tomorrow, but rather where we would like the economy to be in the year 2010. If we thought of ourselves in the year 2010 and looked back to today, we would ask ourselves what sort of structures we would put into place to make Canada a competitive economic engine in the world marketplace.

I congratulate the finance committee for noting the very important aspect of research and development. Canada is rated in the OECD countries as about 18th in the world in the area of research and development spending. That is not good enough. Through our budgetary constraints we have cut spending in research and development over the last two or three years by $91 million. For Canada to catch up to the world we have to put more energy into our research and development budgets. We have to do that effectively and efficiently. We cannot afford to waste our valuable resources as we build a new innovative economy.

The Asian countries are going leaps and bounds ahead of us in a lot of ways in this area. As a matter of fact, I just had the advantage of coming back from Taiwan where I was invited by the local chamber of commerce there to look at its economy. It is an amazing success story; from 1948 with a population of 5 million, the size of Vancouver Island, to today with 21 million and the eighth largest economy in the world. It did it with education, research and technology.

We have a great country here. It is a huge country full of natural resources but I do not think we are using our best natural resources, the resources between our ears. That is why I was very pleased to see that the finance committee noted the importance of increasing our commitment to research and development.

In 1993 we had an infrastructure spending program. That was very important for the economy and the mood of the people which existed back in 1993. The object of that program was to provide hope. I think that has done that. Most people in this country realize this is a different world and a different economy than we had in 1993.

That infrastructure spending program focused a lot on municipal infrastructure, roads, sewers, and so on. Everybody realized with the differences in our economic well-being that we are not going to be able to put as much money in the infrastructure spending program as possibly we once did. Having said that there is the other important aspect and that is to refocus that program.

I mentioned the infrastructure of the grey matter between our ears. I noted one of the very important points in that report was increasing funding for infrastructure through science and technology. I believe that is really where the growth in employment in this country is going to be.

Statistics Canada has told us over and over again that those companies which use science and technology in their operations expand quicker and have a higher payroll, that wages are higher in those industries.

We very much live in a time of a changing economy where the old economy is getting smaller and the newer economy, which is the knowledge based economy, is growing. We have to make sure

that we spend our resources on the right side of that equation. I believe the right side of that equation is in science and technology.

Speaking of technology, how do we physically do this? We have already established the NSERC program and also the national centres of excellence. These centres link all our university research programs together so that we do not have duplication going on in two or three institutions at the same time. They communicate with one another and they focus on how to develop new technologies.

It is through this type of system that I believe we should be underpinning our new infrastructure spending program. In my riding I have one of those schools of excellence at Durham College. I know it is looking forward to finding ways to enter and excel in the area of science and technology but it needs the resources to do that. This is where governments come in.

Some people will ask why governments are involved in research and technology and should not private industry do that. In every OECD country their governments are heavily proactive in the area of financing science and technology. Why is that? Industry invariably has short term goals, profit maximization. Indeed a lot of the people I have talked to talk about how much their profits or losses are going to be in the next three months. They do not even talk about next year anymore. Their focus is very much short term.

This is where governments can bring in that long term planning and thought horizon which will deliver us and our country into the year 2010 with a robust and engineered society. We are underpinning the importance of science and technology.

In our high schools and post-secondary institutions we have to spend more time focusing on where we are going as a country economically. I have been surprised by the number of secondary schools I have gone to. When I talk to the students they are unaware of how our economy is changing. I think it is important for government to show leadership in this area, to tell our youth this is how the economy is changing and that they very much have to be part of that.

It is very important that we do not just have a hollow comment about the importance of this new economy but that we participate in the funding of that science and technology to increase the knowledge base that exists in this country.

Canada has a tremendous background of success in science and technology, in telecommunications sectors, bio-medical research and agriculture research and engineering. These are all areas where Canada has excelled in the past. We have a nucleus for that which exists in our country and we have that within our university environments.

One thing that is important that I believe any new spending program on research and development should underpin is a filtration system. By that I mean every project that a centre of excellence or NSERC looks at should have a filtering system where they actually filter out whether a concept is a marketable concept. It talks about the commercialization of basic research.

These are the things this budget summation is all about. It is looking toward the future, not the past, putting useful and meaningful employment in the hands of our young people, looking to the year 2010 where Canada can be the leader in the world in science and technology.

[Health Care, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak of the importance of a national health care program and in particular to express concern about the health and well-being of Canada's children.

Canadians are among the healthiest people in the world. Canada was rated first in the world in 1995 and 1996 on the United Nations human development index. This index measures a country's achievements in life expectancy. This is truly one of the best countries in the world in which to live. However, I am concerned about the direction our health care system is taking.

At a recent conference on Canada's children and their future, the Minister of Health expressed concern that too many Canadians are falling through the cracks in our system and that many of these are children.

One of these children comes from my riding. A family from the Courtice area currently has their son enrolled in a special needs residential program funded by the province of Ontario. The province is going to cancel the funding. Ironically, the funding could continue if the child was made a ward of the state through the Children's Aid Society. Craig and Gloria Brown believe that it takes families to raise children, not the state. It is the purpose of the state to support its families.

I would ask the province of Ontario to review its policy on special needs in order to keep families together.

[Hazardous Materials, December 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of Motion No. 241. I would like to thank the member for Burnaby-Kingsway for bringing this to our attention today.

As I have talked about this issue with a lot of firefighters and I have learned a lot about firefighting. The reality is that firefighting is not exclusively about fighting fires. It seems that less than 50 per cent of the time is spent in conventional firefighting and the balance in attending accidents.

The motion is on the movement of hazardous materials and as our society seems to be getting more and more sophisticated, it seems to be happening more and more often.

About a year ago January I was in British Columbia. I took the train through the Rocky Mountains and I probably passed close to the member's riding. I discovered that there had been a tremendous number of derailments out there. It must be very difficult for firefighters who arrive at the scene not to know what the contents of those cars are or exactly how to deal with them.

In an era of technology and software development it appears very appropriate that we develop Operation Respond, which already exists in the United States. As some other members have said, it is very easy to clone that system in Canada.

The minister has been very supportive in requesting that our two major railways participate in that plan. That minister is willing to provide funds toward the purchase of the software and the training of those people who will be engaged in the test site in Burnaby.

It is not just about the contents of these carriers. There is also the issue of training personnel in the evacuation of communities based on what sort of hazardous material is on these carriers.

I would like to thank the Oshawa firefighters, the Clarington fire department, the Scugog fire department, which is a volunteer fire department, and also the one in Oxbridge that brought this matter to my attention.

We talked about this time and time again. I have sent many letters to the minister and so forth. I am very happy that the government and the member for Burnaby-Kingsway have been able to come to an agreement. It shows how a government can work with the opposition. All parties in the House can work together to come to very sensible conclusions and to develop good legislation for the protection of our people.

[Excise Tax Act, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member's comments I wonder if he is aware that when we harmonize two taxes that what happens is there are adjustments. That means some commodities go up and other commodities go down.

The Reform member talked about those things which are going up. He did not talk about the reality that in all of those provinces at different rates, 5 per cent in Newfoundland, 4 per cent in Nova Scotia and 4 per cent in New Brunswick, the total quantum of taxes being collected by government has been reduced. The reality is that money is being added to the pockets of consumers. The bottom line is there will be more disposable income for consumers which will create jobs. The whole philosophy that the member used, that it will kill jobs, is erroneous.

The member talked about the Greenberg company. Its representatives have indicated that many of the Greenberg stores in the maritimes were marginal. They were losing money. They are talking about closing some of them. However, the bottom line is they were going to go out of business anyway. It has nothing to do

with the implementation of tax, but hon. members opposite want to use that as some kind of analysis.

The member did not talk about the positive things. One of the positive things is one collection authority. Right now each individual province has an administration to collect the retail sales tax and the federal government has an administration to collect tax. Why can the Reform Party not see that it makes sense to have only one administration collecting those taxes? Why can Reform members not see the great economic benefit that will be extended to the maritime provinces because they will not have to incur those costs?

Yesterday I talked to a fellow accountant in St. Anthony, Newfoundland. He said it was one of the best things he has ever seen happen in the province. The province of Newfoundland will save millions and millions of dollars. That money will go back into an economy which as we know is very weak. That is a positive benefit of this legislation.

Right now, small and medium size businesses, the job creators in this country, have to fill out forms for the retail sales tax and forms for the GST. There is not one of those small businesses that would not say that just having one form will be a tremendous improvement. Why is it that the Reform Party cannot see that?

Then there is the business about pitting one province against another. We have three provinces now, which is three more than we had a year ago. A couple of years from now we will have twice as many as that again, including my province.

[Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 1996]

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

Bill C-70 is really about re-engineering the Canadian economy. We live in very changing times economically. Surely as if we had lived back in the 1800s when the horse was replaced by the iron horse, today our society is changing dramatically before our very eyes.

When we talk about Atlantic Canada, for instance in the province of Nova Scotia more people today are engaged in education than in the fishery and forestry combined. It tells us that the nature of our society is changing. We have to change our internal and external trade mechanisms because this is becoming a very competitive world.

The harmonization of the GST is just part and parcel of a general program to make our economy much more efficient by stopping the duplication of various taxes and the overlap it causes and make our economies efficient and competitive as we move toward the 21st century.

We have talked about the WTO. It was the Atlantic provinces when they first came into Confederation back in 1867 that were the engines of growth at that time, the creators of wealth and the builders of ships. It is to their credit that those provinces have realized the importance of a harmonized GST system and of doing away with duplication and overlap to create more efficient economies for their people which will create jobs in the future.

We need a more homogeneous Canadian market, a Canadian trading system. This is just part of the parcel to do that.

Let me first address the whole concept of provincial sales taxes. Each one of our provinces at various times has implemented provincial sales taxes. They have come along and changed them, applied them to some things in one province and others in another province.

When I served on the finance committee I travelled to Atlantic Canada. I talked to the people about the kinds of administrations that existed in the provincial sales tax system. We get the same thing in my province of Ontario. It likes to protect children's clothing so it is exempted from the PST. Prince Edward Island is very concerned about home heating fuel so it is exempted. In other words, there is a patchwork of provincial sales taxes and rates which go from 12 per cent to 7 per cent and to 0 per cent in Alberta.

There is a hodge-podge of provincial sales taxes across the country. In and of itself what has that created? I am surprised that members of the Reform Party who talk about making this a better economy cannot see the importance of changing this outmoded system of individual provincial sales tax regimes.

When I was in the province of Newfoundland I was surprised and shocked to find that businesses were complaining about mail order businesses which operated out of Ontario and shipped products to Newfoundland because the retail sales tax in Ontario was less than that in Newfoundland. In other words, somebody would not buy something in their own neighbourhood because they could buy it cheaper through a mail order business in Ontario because of the difference in the provincial sales taxes.

These are some of the very basic problems a harmonized system is attempting to address. It is long overdue. It is not a matter of change for the sake of change. I hear some people say that the Liberals just want to change the GST and harmonize the sales tax so that they can meet their election commitments. Nothing could be further from the truth. This concept of integrating the two taxes is very important for our future as a country and for our economic well-being.

It is very important to have a similar system across the country from coast to coast to coast. That is my ideal. Some members of the Reform Party will say that we did it in only three provinces. Those three provinces are three more than we had a year ago. At this rate we will have harmonization across the country in a few years.

I would like to talk about the difference between a multistage tax and a single stage tax which basically is what the provincial sales tax is. The value added tax is a more efficient tax, if the people listening believe that there is such a thing as an efficient tax. It is an efficient tax in that it taxes at all stages of consumption. The provincial sales tax is not efficient for a number of reasons. One very real reason is that the provincial sales taxes invariably become embedded in manufactured goods. What do I mean by that?

I mentioned initially the importance of re-engineering our economy, creating a more robust economy in Canada. Another aspect is our export sector which has been the engine of growth and the engine of employment. Many people come to the industry committee week after week and say that to start a small or medium size business in Canada they have to start with the assumption that 70 per cent of their sales will go outside the country. What does that have to do with taxes?

The bottom line is that with the provincial sales tax system, we incorporate and compound the taxes on our export sales because there is no mechanism to relieve our exports of the provincial sales tax. The whole concept of the GST or a value added tax is that when we export something, we do not include those taxes in the export selling price. In other words, it makes our products much more competitive in the world environment. I will give an example.

In my riding even though we do not have a General Motors plant, General Motors is a big player in the economy. General Motors currently would pay provincial sales tax in its operations. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a business tax per se. We hear the province of Ontario argue back and forth that it does not want to shift the taxes from businesses to individuals. I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as business taxes. The only taxes are on individuals. We are all paying the tax on a personal basis whether it is in that car or the products that we buy daily, our telephones, refrigerators and so on. We are all paying the tax. Sometimes we see it, sometimes we do not. That is the essence of the problem of provincial sales tax.

It is amazing that members of the Bloc have not noticed that their own system is a very efficient one. It is completely harmonized with the existing GST system. The automotive sector is one of the growing engines of our economy. It is one of the things that has kept people employed and has allowed our economy to go forward in the last few years. A car produced in Oshawa when sold in the United States has PST, provincial sales tax, embedded in the selling price but a similar car produced in Ste-Thérèse, Quebec does not. All things being equal, the car produced in Ste-Thérèse, Quebec and shipped into the American market is cheaper than the one produced in Ontario.

Everyone can understand why I believe that Ontario and most other provinces will eventually harmonize. It is just good business, just good sense and just good for the economy.

The interesting aspect about this is that moving toward a truly harmonized system means that we have a common base, a common rate and a single administration. One of the most important things is a single administration so that we end the duplication and overlap which exists in the system.

I would like to mention a person I contacted just this morning, Fred Shaw from St. Anthony, Newfoundland. Fred is an accountant. In his own practice, because of the harmonization process he is actually going to end up charging more on his invoices but he said that his customers are going to be a lot better off under a harmonized system. The province of Newfoundland is going to be better off by millions of dollars by harmonizing its administration system.

Mr. Shaw talked about buying a load of gravel. Before, he would have had to pay the PST and the GST on a load of gravel but if the same truck had spread it over his front lawn he would not have had

to pay the PST. This is the sort of ridiculous argument we are all doing away with under this system.

In conclusion the object of a harmonized system is to create a more robust engine within Canada and to create a more dynamic economy as Canada competes in the 21st century against many other competitors that are doing the same thing.

[Employment, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, over 17 per cent unemployment among our youth ages 15 to 24 is a waste of Canada's precious resources.

Idle time in one's prime income earning years will negatively impact financial security for the individual and is a waste of potential energy for the nation as a whole. Couple this with the fact that representatives of our high tech companies tell us time and time again that they cannot find suitable entry level qualified applicants. Some say they need to hire outside of our country to fill these challenging and high paying jobs.

We have an enormous mismatch between places of work and places of education. Our government has recognized the importance of improving entry level skills by initiating a youth internship program, a program I am happy to say is active in schools in my riding. We also have Youth Services Canada and we have doubled the funding for summer employment programs.

It will be important for all levels of government as well as businesses to work together in finding intuitive solutions to what has become a tremendous detriment for our youth and our nation as well.

[Program Cost Declaration Act, November 6th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-214, an act to provide for improved information on the cost of proposed government programs, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to start debate on Bill C-214.

The people want to turn the light on the departments of government that are spending their money. They want to be part of the process of government spending and not merely the recipients of the bills through income taxes after the money is spent. They

want to return to the origins of taxation when individuals gave their specific consent to be taxed.

Many look in mystery as they study their weekly pay cheques. They are mystified that so much is gobbled up by taxation and they are at a loss to understand how they were part of a process that allowed this to happen.

Over 55 per cent of our total personal income is accounted for by all forms of taxation, from income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes and municipal taxes. Government expenditure is a great confusion to the public. It is an attempt to clarify and shed light on this darkness which my bill before us tonight addresses. The whole concept of taxation was originally based on consent, the consent to be taxed for things which we considered common good, for example sidewalks, snow removal and armies.

I have practised as a tax advisor to many Canadians and not just the wealthy but also those to whom I have donated my time. The common theme was did we consent to this level of taxation. Why is it important and why have we succumbed to this state of affairs when Canada's tax rates are the second highest in the western world? Graduates of Waterloo university are encouraged to leave the country because of a promise of lower tax regimes south of the border.

Did people rationally weigh the cost of programs which have pushed us to this dilemma? Indeed there are those who think by simply balancing the annual deficit it is good enough, as if we should continue to carry a mortgage of this magnitude forever.

What has caused us to create a deficit of over $600 billion? How can we prevent this situation from repeating itself? This is the real purpose of Bill C-214. People have lived in the dark over the cost of government programs. This does not mean we should turn every citizen into a bookkeeper or an accountant. We have to do away with a thought process that someone else is paying the bills.

I often encountered this philosophy in my professional life. People thought it was their next door neighbour who was paying for programs and not them. The reality of course is that nothing is for free and in one way or another we are all contributors. People want to get out of the darkness and turn on the light.

This is the purpose of this legislation. We have bureaucrats who spend endless hours studying government programs. Indeed recently in the October report from the Treasury Board the minister stated: "We must equip ourselves with better systems for evaluating the actions of government so that we can genuinely answer for our actions, first and foremost to our fellow citizens who are both clients and taxpayers".

Our government has come a long way in bringing fiscal responsibility back to government, from an annualized deficit of $44 billion down to $17 billion. We are on the road to financial responsibility.

The problem that gave rise to the original issue has not been solved. Simply put, everyday people did not understand the process or consent to the process that removed over 55 per cent of their disposable income. I suggest that because of this lack of consent we have watched a burgeoning underground economy and people taking their investments offshore.

Thomas Jefferson stated the people are collectively wise. That is why I believe this legislation will turn the lights on for those who pay the bills. It will allow them to be included.

This bill will not give everybody an economic overview of government but it will encapsulate the costs of specific legislation. It will make the information readily available to the public and to parliamentarians. Think of it, a bill that would shed light on the back rooms of Ottawa where people spend our money.

Members of Parliament jump up and down here all week long. They vote on legislation when many have not the slightest idea of its fiscal impact on individuals and the economy in general. This is because this information is not readily available. This legislation would empower them. It would give them more information and make them more effective in representing their constituents. Accountability is what it is all about. The public is clamouring for it and who are we to deny its rights?

The critics of this bill state two basic objections, that the process itself will increase the cost of government and it will inhibit the legislative agenda of the government. First, the government has prided itself on its program evaluation system which analyses the cost benefits of government programs. This is part of a program known as program review. The tool for doing this is a process called expenditure management systems. This is all very well and good as far as it goes.

The problem is all of this examines costs and benefits which have already occurred. Clearly knowing that programs have been efficient or otherwise is useful but the taxpayer will already be stuck with the bill. We are spending millions of dollars to conduct this after the fact review. It would make more sense to bring this examination process forward to the initial stage of legislation.

There is no question that with a greater degree of financial control and scrutiny the government will save more money than any incremental cost of having bureaucrats cost legislation prior to its introduction as opposed to after it is in full swing. Simple common sense tells us that better cost efficient decisions are made

when people assess them prior to their commencement than after the costs have been incurred.

A press release that was issued this morning by the Canadian Federation of Taxpayers states: "Taxpayers could save billions of dollars if the House of Commons votes to pass Bill C-214, the program cost declaration act, introduced by the member for Durham, to be voted on today"-which is not quite true-"at second reading. It would require government departments to provide a cost analysis for each new bill". The federation has stated that billions of dollars could be saved for the taxpayers of Canada.

Second is the concern that this will inhibit the legislative process. It seems to me this argument goes back to regimes of the past. Nobody would go down to a car lot, look over the car, agree to purchase it, drive it away and say "send me the bill" without knowing the cost, and neither should government. This is the whole point of this legislation.

Past governments have promised us all kinds of programs without fully informing us of their costs. A quick look at the state of affairs of the Canada pension plan would leave anyone to conclude that not taking the time or effort to anticipate cost has now led us to a place where we have to make some pretty drastic decisions which will not only affect the younger generations but also some who thought their immediate retirement incomes were secure. What degree of participation did people have in all of this anyway?

It is hard to understand how someone could argue the point of hindrance to the legislative process. It should be part of the legislative process and people should have a right to know.

These are not the issues of the rich but rather the poor and the disenfranchised. As we go through a period of retrenchment of fiscal priorities, many of the poor will be negatively affected. It is to the loss of some of these social programs that this bill directs itself, to the fact that after years of economic expansion that government has extended itself well beyond what it is able to sustain.

Indeed, the auditor general has gone on at length about whether our current levels of deficit are sustainable. That is to say at what point can governments no longer shoulder the cost of servicing the debt? If we have a mortgage on every single Canadian, as our government does, surely these same people have a right to see what the costs are. More important, they want some assurance that we are not going to return to the errors of the past.

This bill does simply two things. First, it requires that the fiscal impact of new legislation be included in a bill at the same time it is presented in this House. This also extends to the regulations of departments.

Second, it requires that the auditor general certify that the method of cost evaluation was fair and reasonable. I would like to underline this matter. The auditor general is only certifying that the method is correct. He or she has no political interference in the worthiness of programs but simply whether the method used to arrive at the estimated costs was reasonable under the circumstances. I suggest that the parallel in the private sector would be the certification of prospectuses.

Like the expenditures in the management system that we now have in place, the role of the auditor general is what is known as ex post. By this I mean he examines costs after they occur. Some of our listeners would equate this to closing the barn door after the horse is out.

This is the whole point of moving this process forward in time. It is small comfort for taxpayers and citizens generally to discover wasteful spending three years after the fact. It only makes them less trustful of their elected officials and government generally. They certainly feel they had no part in the decision making.

By costing legislation prior to its initiation, taxpayers and citizens generally will have available to them the tools by which to judge. It will be up to members of Parliament to justify whether the cost is justified relative to the benefits to be derived. This clearly is what democracy is all about. It makes people part of the decision making of government financing.

I have always had much respect for the people who work for the Treasury Board and also those in finance. I have often thought they were much like a lopsided hockey team where they were the goaltenders and every other department was the offence, all trying to score, and score means budget allocations.

This is why I find it hard to understand why some of them are reticent to accept this degree of accountability. It seems to me that with the support of the general public they will be in a better position to stop the pucks of the spenders of the future. This is the problem. Many legislators equate a zero annual deficit with the end of the story. This legislation would make legislators more cognizant of the cost effects on the general public. Turn the lights on. This is what taxpayers and citizens demand.

Here is what some people are saying about the bill. I have some quotations here. The Auditor General of Canada said: "We share your view that the cost of government programs and operations should be made more visible to Parliament and taxpayers". "I am pleased to inform you that the Certified General Accountant's Association of Ontario fully supports your private member's bill. Your initiative accords with the CGA's Ontario Board of Governors requirements that all action items presented to the board must be accompanied by an explanation of financial implications".

Another quote: "Mr. Shepherd's bill is a good first kick at the can and deserves the consideration of all members of Parliament". That was said by James Forrest of the Alberta Taxpayers' Association.

"I commend you for presenting the right type of legislation which will help the public to understand where their hard earned tax dollars are being spent". That is a quote from the president of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. I could go on with the list but obviously time will not permit.

We talk a lot about our youth and it is truly the younger generation that will inherit our nation and propel it into the next millennium. Saddling our youth with debts, which they did not incur, will tie their hands. Governments are struggling with this reality as we move toward a more responsible fiscal framework.

It is also appropriate that we conduct a post mortem. That does not mean that we are dead, but it certainly means that financially we are very much on the ground. When we conduct this port mortem we must ask ourselves how this situation occurred in the first place and ensure that we cure the disease so that it will not happen again. That is what my bill attempts to do.

We need to give people the tools to make conscious choices about government policy. Our younger generation will accept nothing else. It is to these people that we address the need for a more consensual form of government.

This is the day after the U.S. election. I was in the United States on the weekend and I actually took part in some of the electioneering. I stopped people on the street and I knocked on doors. The mood was: "They are nothing but a bunch of crooks. It really does not matter anyway". Corrupt election financing practices, together with the fact that people cannot see how they would count, has brought their voter turnout to less than 50 per cent. Imagine, more than half the population of the so-called strongest nation in the world do not consent to their government.

It is this issue which this legislation addresses here in Canada. Turn on the lights and let the people decide. Include them in the decision making process. To do otherwise is to court divisiveness and exclusivity which may well lead to violence.

I have studied many regimes in Australia, Great Britain and the Netherlands that are all moving in the direction of providing more accountability for the actions of government to the people. Think about it. Every piece of legislation that comes before the House would have a cost attached to it. Some in the bureaucracy are going to say it is very difficult to do. But the reality is that we already have an evaluation and internal system of calculating the cost of programs. It simply means moving the thought process up a little bit closer to the legislative process.

How can we as legislators go around the country talking about various pieces of legislation without understanding the full impact it will have on the economy and on government spending? As I researched this issue in other countries, I found that other parliamentarians were doing much of what I am suggesting: moving in the general area of greater accountability, greater awareness of the programs for the general public.

There is nothing unusual about any of the things I am suggesting. It is done in business every day. I am not saying that government is a business. It is not. We have a very different social purpose here. But government needs to be run a little bit more like a business. People have to know the costs.

My fear is that even though we are going down the road of financial and fiscal responsibility and we have moved the ship of state, if you will, maybe 10 degrees on the course where we want to go, there are people who will move it back the other way and we will be off course again. People want to be part of the process. They want to be involved in the process that allows them to make judgments on how governments spend.

People are not going to sit down with a calculator and figure out how much every piece of legislation impacts them, which is why I have included a clause that says: "divided by the population statistics". That way, everyone will know exactly how much every piece of legislation costs him or her.

This could be a good thing. This is not a negative thing for government programs. It could well be a good thing. For instance, we may find that the cost of day care, if we extrapolate it over our population base, is really quite small. People would have a greater degree of acceptance of that if they saw that it was a small cost on an individual basis. On the other hand, there would be those programs that people would not think were particularly cost effective. They would be able to make those kind of judgment calls.

There will be those people who could not care less. They will not use the information at all but the bottom line is that they will have the ability to do so.

The longer I sit in this House and the more legislation I see come by, I cannot figure out what the financial impact of it is at all. I feel it is really part of my responsibility, as a legislator, to know that and to explain it to my constituents. I do not feel that I have the ability to do that with the present legislative format.

Finally in summary, just simply turn the lights on here in Ottawa.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 86 constituents and it involves literacy. I have a particular interest in this subject because my wife is very involved in this.

The petitioners state that applying the 7 per cent GST to reading materials is unfair and wrong. As supporters of literacy the petitioners believe that literacy and reading are critical to Canada's future and that removing the GST from reading materials will help to promote literacy in Canada.

The petitioners urge Parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers. They urge the federal and provincial governments to ensure that reading materials are not taxed under the proposed harmonized sales tax. They ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated promise to remove federal sales tax from books, magazines and newspapers.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present two petitions.

In the first petition the petitioners request the House of Commons to enact legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as a voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to the exclusion of all others.

[Fresh Start, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when I heard that the leader of the opposition announced his fresh start theme as if it were something new, something innovative.

My own election theme in 1993 was the fresh start team.

Voters were met at the door and on the phone with a fresh start theme. Buttons and literature stated this theme. It was a time for change and the people got their fresh start.

Trickle down economics and tearing down the central government are not new or fresh ideas. Borrowing the themes of other campaigns shows us just how bankrupt of ideas the Reform Party has become.

The fresh start team of Durham says, as per usual, the leader of the Reform Party is too late and it is a false start, not a fresh start.