Jim Jones

[Ethics Counsellor, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals prefer to have a peekaboo ethics counsellor. In 1993 they promised to establish an independent ethics counsellor who reported publicly to parliament. In 1994 they delivered an ethics counsellor who reports behind closed doors at fireside chats with the Prime Minister.

This flawed approach to openness and integrity has resulted in an ethics counsellor who investigates the Prime Minister's business dealings in secret, an ethics counsellor who was unsure whether the Prime Minister should file a public disclosure, an ethics counsellor who makes decisions solely based on the information provided by the Prime Minister and his trustee.

When I tried to get the ethics counsellor to appear before the industry committee the Liberal committee chair toed the party line and ruled me out of order.

The Liberals need to stop covering up for the Prime Minister and his ethics confidant, Howard Wilson. It is time for the Liberals to prove their commitment to integrity, to live up to the red book promises and to establish an ethics counsellor who reports directly to parliament.

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for every one person who comes back we have seven highly skilled people leaving. They are leaving because of the high taxes in this country. The proof is in the history of Ontario, that tax cuts do create jobs. Is it not ironic that it is a province with a little over a third of the population? Since September 1995, 487,000 new private sector jobs have been created in the province of Ontario. In the five year period of 1990 to 1995 we lost 500,000 jobs in the province of Ontario because of the policies of Bob Rae. For 1998 as a whole, Ontario job growth averaged a record 200,000 net new jobs, almost double the 101,000 annual pace for 1997.

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is coming from. Let us look at the record of health care and what the Ontario government has done. Total health care spending for the fiscal year 1998 will be $18.7 billion. That is the highest in Ontario's history and an increase of over $1.3 billion since the PC government was elected. That is with a $1.1 billion cut in transfer payments to Ontario by the Liberals. This increase in health care spending in Ontario occurred despite the federal level cutting $2.7 billion in transfer payments to the people of Ontario. The Ontario government has put more into health care, education and social spending.

The federal government spends only $125 per person in Ontario for health care while the Ontario government spends $1,639 per person to meet provincial health care needs. In other words, for every dollar spent by the federal Liberal government on health care in Ontario, the provincial PC government spends more than $13. I find it despicable that the Liberals like to espouse policy but do not put their money where their mouth is.

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the prebudget debate. It gives me a chance to outline on behalf of my constituents and as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party a series of realistic achievable solutions to improve Canada's economy.

Despite the rhetoric of the finance minister and Liberals such as the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora who chairs the finance committee, the present economic situation is far from ideal.

Canada's unemployment rate stands at 8%, nearly double the rate of the U.S., our number one trading partner. Meanwhile Canada's youth unemployment rate is almost twice the national rate.

Canadians took home $400 less last year than they did two years ago and their after tax income has dropped 7.2% over the past decade. Personal debt levels also grew faster in Canada than in any other G-7 country over the past decade. Last year consumer bankruptcies reached 85,297, an all-time high. Never in Canadian history have more people gone bankrupt.

Those are just the figures relative to individuals. When we examine several key economic indicators, more weaknesses in our economy are uncovered.

Canada's productivity growth over the past 20 years has been slower than every other G-7 country. Canada also has the second highest debt to GDP ratio in the G-7. There is nothing for the Liberals to brag about. We already know, thanks to credible publications such as The Economist , that any economic growth during the Liberal government's term is because of the policies of former Conservative governments.

What is the actual Liberal economic record? It is a record of less real disposable income since the 1993 election according to Statistics Canada. It is one of a government that collected 38% more in personal income taxes during the past five years. With statistics such as these, it is hardly surprising that Canada's taxes are among the highest in the industrial world.

High taxes come at a considerable cost. They stifle economic development. They kill entrepreneurial initiatives. They discourage investment. Perhaps worst of all, they cause a brain drain, a trend that results in Canada losing a lot of its best and brightest to more favourable tax jurisdictions.

The brain drain inflicts plenty of damage on Canada's economy. A recent study by the C.D. Howe Institute estimated that for lost managers and professionals alone, the net cost to Canadian society from 1982 to 1996 was $6.7 billion.

According to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, more than half of all permanent immigrants from Canada were admitted on employment based preferences. This means that over 8,300 highly skilled Canadians were granted permanent residence status so they could fill important jobs in the U.S. economy. Another 44,000 Canadians were granted temporary work permits in the U.S. This must sound like a drop in the bucket for Canada's labour force of 14 million people but these people by virtue of American immigration rules are highly skilled and well paid more often than not.

The C.D. Howe Institute study found that six managers and professionals went south in 1996 for every one moving the other way. This is a major loss to Canadian companies and governments.

It is more than a corporate problem. The departure of thousands of highly skilled and highly paid Canadians also weakens our tax base and endangers the services supported by that tax base. That hurts everyone indiscriminately.

Before my colleagues on the Liberal and NDP benches start ranting and raving about making the wealthy pay, I would also like to cite some figures from Revenue Canada.

In 1995 more than 800,000 Canadians earned $70,000 or more. This group represents just 4% of tax filers, 6% of taxpayers and 19% of total income, yet this relatively small group of Canadians contributes 31% of all federal tax and 35% of all provincial tax paid. This tiny group of Canadians paid more than $30 billion in federal and provincial income taxes alone.

For every 1% of our high income tax earners who leave the country, some 8,360 emigrants, Canada loses more than $300 million in federal and provincial income taxes.

Keeping in mind the U.S. government's immigration figures for 1996, that means the Canadian government lost more than $1 billion in income tax revenue that year alone.

In short, Canadians from all walks of life and all income levels are paying a heavy price for our high income taxes. By significantly cutting taxes the Liberal government could help fill the gaping holes in the Canadian economy. The weak half hearted measures contained in last year's budget do not qualify as significant tax cuts.

We have seen the benefit of reducing taxes in my home province of Ontario. When the PC government was elected in 1995, Ontario had an economic basket case thanks to a decade of Liberal and NDP misrule. Thanks to the provincial PC government's ambitious plan of tax cuts Ontario with a third of Canada's population has accounted for well over half of the job growth in Canada for almost two years now.

Not only did cutting taxes help create jobs in Ontario, it had a positive effect on the province's financial situation which was in disastrous shape after Bob Rae's stewardship. The economic growth that resulted from lower taxes increased the province's revenues. That fact should not be dismissed out of hand.

Yesterday in the House of Commons the member for Mississauga West, a former member of the Ontario legislature, mistakenly claimed that provincial tax cuts took money out of health care in Ontario. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is the Ontario government is spending $1.5 billion more on health care than the government did in 1995, even with the $1.1 billion cut in health and the $2.7 billion cut in the CHST payments.

The Ontario record is clear: more money for health care, more money in the pockets of Ontario taxpayers, more tax revenues in the province's treasury thanks to economic growth resulting from tax cuts.

Liberals like my colleague from Mississauga West try to mislead people into believing there is a choice between more money for health care and tax cuts. It is as if the Liberals were convinced of the impossibility of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Unlike the federal Liberals, the Harris Conservatives have made good on their promise with a stronger economy as a result. I can understand the Liberals and the NDP for that matter not wanting to discuss the economic successes achieved by the Conservative Government of Ontario. I would therefore cite an international example on the advantage of lowering taxes.

The chief economist of the investment dealer Nesbitt Burns, Dr. Sherry Cooper, highlighted the experience of the republic of Ireland, a country that cut taxes and saw its economy take off. Investors have been attracted to Ireland's low corporate tax rates that start as low as 10% versus Canada's approximate rate of 46%. Indeed the Irish economy is growing at almost double digit annual rates during the past two years. When was the last time Canada achieved such growth?

Another international case representing the benefits of low taxes is Finland. With the lowest corporate taxes in the OECD, Finland has real GDP growth of 6% and a sharply declining unemployment rate.

In case after case, example after example, the verdict is in. Tax cuts stimulate economic growth and economic growth creates jobs and generates revenue needed by governments to provide services. That is why we need real tax cuts in this budget. We need to reduce high unemployment insurance premiums. In 1995 the minister of finance called payroll taxes such as EI premiums a cancer on jobs. Yet the government insists on gouging employers and employees through the EI fund.

Perhaps my Liberal colleagues from the GTA should heed the warning of Elyse Allan, president of the metro council board of trade, who told the finance committee last fall that high premiums stifle private sector creation and reduce personal disposable income. The actuary of the EI fund stated that premiums can be lowered to a rate of $2 per $100 of insurable earnings without being fiscally irresponsible.

We in the PC caucus agree with this independent, non-partisan recommendation. I doubt the minister of finance would move in this direction. After all, according to finance department documents released by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, almost a third of the $39 billion in increased federal revenues is directly attributed to bracket creep. As with high EI premiums, bracket creep is one of the cash cows of the minister of finance.

I urge the minister of finance to use this budget to bring in the broad based tax relief needed to develop our economy, improve our standard of living, stem the tide of our best an brightest leaving this country and set a vision for this country for the next millennium.

[Song For The Millennium, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while most of the public attention and discussion on the year 2000 focuses on what might go wrong, there is good news from my riding of Markham.

Justin Hines, a grade 11 student at Unionville High School, has co-written Song for the Millennium , an inspirational tune that was recently selected as the town of Markham's official anthem for the millennium celebration.

I had the privilege of attending the debut of Song for the Millennium . The audience was so moved that we jumped to a standing ovation before Justin could finish singing.

This is just the latest of Justin's songwriting achievements. Last year he won the YTV youth achievement award for singing and his award winning song Kid at Play was also nominated for a Grammy award for vocal performance.

Moreover, this 16 year old who uses a wheelchair has also become an example to other young Canadians with disabilities.

On behalf of all members I congratulate Justin Hines and urge the Deputy Prime Minister as minister responsible for Canada's millennium celebrations to designate the town of Markham's Song for the Millennium as Canada's official anthem for the year 2000 millennium celebrations.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the member for Scarborough East and his sidekick from Mississauga West. The trouble with Liberal members is that we cannot pat them on the back because they are patting themselves on the back.

With respect to the prosperity in Ontario, last year 73% of all the net new jobs in the private sector was created by the province and a high percentage of the remainder was created by the province of Alberta. Is it not ironic that the two provinces with the lowest taxes have created the majority of the jobs and probably have also made the biggest contribution to reducing the deficit.

I heard the member from Scarborough say that the Ontario government had an increase in revenues of almost $10 billion with a 30% tax increase. Is it not ironic that tax increases or decreases increase the revenue. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

The hon. member said that he was a debt hawk. Would he then agree that if we had locked the $3 billion contingency reserve into a repayment schedule with the servicing costs we could pay the debt back in 35 years? Would the hon. member support that type of a lock?

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of fluff in the speech from the leader of the New Democratic Party.

If she became leader of the country what would she do differently than when her cousin, Bob Rae, took over the Ontario government? In his tenure he lost close to 500,000 jobs for Ontario. He virtually took a balanced budget and Ontario into roughly a $14 billion deficit in a short period of four or five years. Meanwhile Mike Harris, since he has been in office, has created 500,000 jobs.

What would the leader of the NDP do differently than her cousin Bob Rae did in his tenure as leader of the Ontario NDP?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small businesses.

For the purpose of brevity, this bill seeks to replace the Small Business Loans Act with a new Canadian small business financing act. In essence, parliament will be guaranteeing that the principles of the success story known as the Small Business Loans Act will continue into the next millennium.

Since 1961 the Small Business Loans Act, implemented by the Progressive Conservative government of John Diefenbaker, has helped over half a million Canadian businesses. In the 37 years that have followed parliament has shown its resolve to assist small business by continually updating and innovating the act to ensure that it remains responsive to the needs of Canada's small and medium size enterprises.

By and large, this duty has been discharged with commitment and diligence.

Since its inception, the SBLA has experienced a successful repayment rate in excess of 94% of all loans. When we consider that during this period the program has guaranteed loans worth $22 billion, the numbers become all the more impressive.

In 1997-98 SBLA borrowers reported that they would create 74,600 new jobs. This is even more significant when we understand that over 50% of all loans made under the provisions of the act would never have been made under conventional lending practices.

This is easy to believe when we note a 1996 study entitled “Economic Impacts of the SBLA”. The study found that approximately 45% of the borrowers in this sample were companies less than a year old. In comparison, only 5% of non-SBLA loans went to start up firms.

Much has already been done to facilitate the work of this House as well as the industry committee when it begins its indepth examination of Bill C-53. To date a comprehensive review of the financing needs of small business has been completed with special emphasis on economic impact studies, compliance and default studies, stakeholder consultations, cost benefit analysis and future evaluations, and capital leasing studies.

As well, our hon. colleagues in the other place finished their committee work, a review of the Small Business Loans Act.

I am very pleased that an issue I raised at second reading and with the department has been addressed, specifically the treatment of non-arm's length transactions under the new Canadian small business financing act. At that time I spoke about a clause in Industry Canada's review of the SBLA. Specifically in the booklet entitled “Meeting the Changing Needs” on page 27 there is a reference to asset transfers. Included in this is a reference to non-arm's length transfers of assets of going concerns.

The issue I raised was that the sale of a business from a parent to a child was specifically itemized as being excluded from the CSBFA guaranteed loan. This needed to be reviewed, and for a very good reason. We no longer live in a time when the purchase of family businesses is financed by long apprenticeships; that is to say, children working at below market value with the understanding that some day the businesses will be theirs.

Instead, the inherent value of small businesses represents the equivalent of an RRSP to many business owners. This provision would have resulted in children being unable to secure the proper financing. Then what would have happened? I suggest parents who are facing the insecurity of retirement would have been forced to look at selling their businesses to a non-relative who would not know the ins and outs of that business but who would have access to the Canadian small business financing loans guarantees, a possibility that would have been inconsistent with Canada's reputation as a fair, small business-friendly nation.

At a time when high taxes and a lack of opportunity is leading to brain drain and breaking down the family unit, we do not need to make this situation worse with punitive anti-family legislation.

For that reason I am pleased that the industry department reversed this decision and saw fit to withdraw this provision.

The other contentious provisions of Bill C-53 would have seen leasehold improvements removed as a valuated asset for financing purposes. This would have had a huge negative impact on several industries but especially the restaurant industry. This is an industry that has suffered particular difficulties accessing financing over the years. Once again the process works and this provision was successfully removed.

I have spoken thus far about the positive outcomes of the efforts of my colleagues on the industry committee. I think we have accomplished much as a committee in an exceptionally co-operative manner. The reason for that is very clear. We trust one another and the process that allows us to make changes to legislation.

In light of this I feel I must comment on the decision by the government to invoke closure on debate for the ninth time in this parliament. Sixteen amendments to Bill C-53 were listed on the order paper. Some may have more merit than others. However, through the course of parliamentary debate members of the House may have come to appreciate the motions put forward by others. Unfortunately we will never know. If the government has a problem with the process perhaps it should undertake to reform it. The censoring of members should only be undertaken as a last resort.

Many provisions of the SBLA have remained unchanged. The loans loss ratio remains at 85% of the cost of claims for loans in default. This is same rate it has been since 1995. Lenders remain responsible for the remainder. The Liberal government reinstated this ratio in 1995 after the Conservative government reduced the risk to lenders in 1993. The Conservative government did this to encourage greater financial sector participation in the SBLA.

When a government sets up a program like the SBLA, which guarantees loans for small business, it does so for one very obvious reason. Without such an act, loans would be labelled too high risk by lenders and they simply would not be given. Therefore I have to question the judgment used by the government when it increases the risk to lenders. At the risk of attributing motives, this appears to be an instance where good politics took precedent over good policy.

I say that because since the Liberals did this, studies have shown that SME lender dissatisfaction has been steadily increasing. Rather than point fingers at the lenders or the borrowers the legislation should instead be focusing on improving the environment for both.

A few other program parameters have not changed but should be noted. The maximum loan size remains at $250,000. My colleagues in the Reform Party have been actively working to lower this figure to $100,000. However, while the average loan is still well under the $100,000 threshold, there are numerous examples of situations where that figure is just not enough.

I have heard from many individuals in the tourism and restaurant industries. They face large equipment and infrastructure costs before they are able to open for business. Therefore the Progressive Conservative Party is pleased to see the $250,000 threshold remain.

The percentage of the cost of eligible capital assets accepted for financing remains at 90%. This is a reasonable figure and there is no need to review it.

If there is a shortcoming in the bill, it lies in its failure to come to grips with the issue of the lack of access to the SBLA that currently exists for knowledge based industries. The minister raised hopes when he asked for a report on whether the SBLA should be expanded to target knowledge based industries. When the answer came back that something definitely needed to be done unfortunately he chose to ignore it.

Knowledge based industries are among the most dynamic job producing companies in Canada today. The problem lies in the fact that their major assets are intellectual and thus are not capable of being financed under current criteria. In the past the Minister of Industry has indicated his willingness to encourage the development of knowledge based industries. My party stands ready to assist, although it is possible that we have missed an opportunity to use Bill C-53 toward this end.

I turn my attention to the specific changes that will come about when Bill C-53 is implemented. First is the mandatory program review provision. This will mean the end of current provisions that require an automatic ending of lending authority if a new bill is not passed, as we saw last year with Bill C-21. While we are still a little short on the details of what would constitute this review process, it appears to be a good idea in general terms.

Under the current system the government is in a situation in which it must present a bill to parliament in order to keep the program alive. The bill could potentially contain clauses the government of the day would like to slip through while at the same time keep the opposition handcuffed by inherent time constraints.

With this in mind, the review process is a better way to deal fairly with any necessary changes. Under the proposed process the review would see data collected over a five year period prior to the review used to give parliamentarians and policy makers the tools needed to evaluate where changes need to be considered.

At the end of the five year period currently designated as March 31, 2004, the minister would have 12 months in which to cause a comprehensive review. At this point we are not prepared to comment on the reasonableness of these time constraints and we look forward to reviewing them at committee stage.

There is a new component to the act that Bill C-53 proposes, that is the idea of pilot projects both for capital leasing and for the voluntary sector. Capital leasing has been an ever growing and popular financing option for SMEs. This type of lease ensures that the lessee will own the equipment at the end of the lease. A provision of this nature seems to protect the interests of taxpayers, as the equipment would become an asset of the company at the end of the lease.

A revealing analysis of the financing realities of the SME sector was brought to light in the conference board study published last fall entitled “What is new in debt financing for small and medium size enterprises”.

The study highlights two major findings. First, the size of the business debt financing market targeted at SMEs continues to be misunderstood usually because analyses limit their review to term loans and lines of credit provided by the large deposit taking institutions. In the process they capture only about half the financing provided to SMEs. Sources of SME funding are much broader. One of the main conclusions of the report is that SMEs are being funded by a wide variety of providers of financial services using various innovative products, services and delivery channels.

The second major conference board finding was that while the total business debt financing market has grown, increasing 7% over the last two years to $271 billion, growth has been relatively even. The bulk of the growth has come from specialized finance companies that experience a 31% increase in total business debt financing. The study identifies the specialized finance institutions as heavily represented in the financing and leasing industries. At present the leasing industry does not approve leasing for firms under two years old that are seeking less than $100,000. This typically excludes a majority of present SBLA borrowers.

The other proposed pilot project deals with the voluntary sector. The document “Securing our Future Together” made a commitment to reviewing federal small business programs with a view to extending their mandate to the voluntary sector. This program raises many questions. In fact in recent hearings concerning this issue witnesses generally were opposed to extending provisions of the SBLA to the voluntary sector. Some of the reasons cited included cost as well as instability of revenues.

These are legitimate concerns. I am also concerned that we are about to put in place a program which would allow non-profit or voluntary organizations to unfairly compete with other business interests. If Bill C-53 is passed, it will be incumbent upon all MPs to monitor any negative impact this pilot project might have on businesses in their ridings.

Cost recovery is a worthy goal in the Canadian Small Business Financing Act. Toward the achievement of that, Bill C-53 seeks to allow the government the ability to restrict access to program loans or guarantees. I would caution that any legislation covering this area must be generous in scope with allowance for various contingencies. We already have a heavily regulated financial services sector. If any abuse of process is suspected, other avenues may exist to achieve compliance.

The next area I wish to address is that of the proposed accountability framework. This proposal by Price Waterhouse will access the CSBFA over the next five years. Several criteria will be used including the visibility of the program to potential borrowers, its impact on creating and maintaining jobs, and the performance of the borrowers.

The auditor general in his report, “Management of the Small Business Loans Program”, pointed out that claim audit procedures needed to be strengthened. This is an area that will have to be dealt with, with great sensitivity to the viability of the program as a whole.

I remind the House that the reason this act exists is due to the unidentifiable fact that a program exists. The problem was the unwillingness of banks to lend to SMEs. Any attempt to change the program so as to put greater compliance demands on lending institutions will only result in fewer small businesses getting the financing they desperately need.

I am not opposing the provision at this time. I am suggesting that we tread carefully. As I have indicated throughout my address today, my party is supportive of Bill C-53 and much of its intent. However there is an issue that needs to be raised in the interest of full disclosure.

When the comprehensive review was undertaken one of the issues to be reviewed was the issue of personal guarantees and whether or not they should remain in effect. In the end personal guarantees were deemed to be a necessary component and thus they were retained.

The PC Party has no problem with this. When we were in government and performed a review of the SBLA we did not remove the personal guarantee either. However there is a difference. Perhaps members across the way will want to brace themselves, as I am going to discuss the entire discredited Liberal red book of 1993. In that fictional collection of whimsical vote getting prose on page 49, for those keeping score at home, a commitment was made to remove personal guarantees from the act.

I realize this was just an election promise much like eliminating the GST or tearing up the free trade agreement. The new leader of our party has certainly seen this in the past. He saw the willingness of Liberals to promise anything to get elected, and they turned around and increased the gasoline tax anyway. Some of the hon. members across the way will remember this incident.

I reiterate that my party has no problem with the personal guarantee being retained. We just wish the Liberals had recognized its importance before they started making wild promises to voters which they knew they could not possibly keep.

In conclusion, my party is pleased with Bill C-53 and the work of the industry committee in making it a better piece of legislation. All members of the committee deserve special commendation for their co-operative approach in making necessary changes to the bill. Out of this process we now have a small business loans tool which will stand up to any comparable legislation in the world.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Motions Nos. 6 and 11.

I have heard a lot of inaccurate information coming from members of the Reform Party. It truly shows that they have a lack of understanding of what the Small Business Loans Act is.

I would assume that any financial institution would do proper due diligence on any person applying for a small business loan.

I heard somebody say that the loss is 10 times higher than it is in the private sector. That is not true. It is about double. The private sector has a loss of about 3.7% on its loans, and the average is 6%. I cannot see how that is 10 times higher.

There is also the 50% proposal. Reform members assume that it is 50% of all losses. It is not. If it is a financial institution and it has an accumulated loan portfolio of $100 million, it is 90% on the first $250,000, 50% on the next $250,000, and for any losses over and above that it is 10%.

They are saying there is going to be a huge amount of losses. That is not true. I have trouble understanding their logic.

Most small businesses would prefer to get their loans from financial institutions because to get small business loans they have to pay interest which is 3% above prime and another 1.5% in administrative fees. It is unfortunate that these people cannot get their loans from financial institutions, but they help to create a lot of jobs. Over the life of the Small Business Loans Act several hundred thousand jobs have been created. A lot of businesses have grown bigger and they will create a lot more jobs in the future.

Motion No. 11 concerns the 21 day notice period. A financial institution may have many loans across many of its branches. When it is given notice of an audit it takes a few days to collect the information. That is the reason the committee supported 21 days for the notice.

My party will not be supporting these two motions.

[Down's Syndrome, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, communities across Canada officially recognized this week, November 1 to 7, as National Down's Syndrome Awareness Week.

Down's syndrome is a common chromosomal abnormality that causes delay in physical and intellectual development and affects 1 out of every 700 children born in Canada. Given this fact, every community, including my riding of Markham, has been affected.

The Canadian Down's Syndrome Society is working to raise public awareness of the unique abilities, strengths and contributions of Canadians with Down's syndrome. Its mandate is to enhance their overall quality of life. The society and its 45 affiliate organizations will be holding a variety events this week to honour the many individuals who have Down's syndrome.

These Canadians should be duly recognized for their valuable contribution to Canadian society. Many harmful myths exist about those who are affected by Down's syndrome. It is time to realize that these myths are wrong and destructive. The fact is many individuals with Down's syndrome are productive, happy members of society.

I am honoured to—