Pierre Brien

[Summer Employment, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we obviously do not meet the same people. The students I know are not very pleased by the fact that they are being deprived of $500 million in return for $60 million. They do not see this as a helpful measure.

Does the minister realize that, by making cuts in social transfers and, consequently, in the funding of post-secondary education, he deprives young people of a decent education, accessible to all, and of true access to the job market?

[Summer Employment, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In its budget, the federal government claims that it will increase by $60 million the moneys allocated for summer employment. However, since 1994, the government has cut $26 million from these programs. Moreover, cuts affecting transfer payments will deprive Quebec students of $150 million this year and $300 million next year.

How can the government pretend to help young people when, in fact, it reduces funding for education by hundreds of millions, in return for a few temporary jobs?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre found some very interesting points in the position of the member for Kingston and the Islands. I also found some very eloquent comments of his. He said: "A new definition of democracy-That is what this government is trying to introduce to Canada-I suggest it is perhaps one of the worst outrages that has been perpetrated in this House in many years-it is still morally wicked of the government to proceed with this motion". We could go on and on with quotations like that. There are many.

He is not alone. The current finance minister, the member for LaSalle-Émard, once declared: "We find ourselves in the situation we are now in. The bill died on the Order Paper. In its supreme arrogance and lack of understanding, this government comes to us and says: `we would like to reinstate it"'.

These are the same people who today are tabling this motion. Nothing further needs to be said, to know that such actions contribute largely to the results of polls showing a 7, 8 or 10 per cent credibility rating for politicians. Some opinion polls even give figures as low as 2 per cent. I believe these people should feel responsible for that situation and should stop changing direction constantly.

They still have an opportunity to retain their credibility if they change their position and withdraw their motion so that the situation can go back to normal. They only have to return all those bills they want passed to the first reading stage. This is all I had to say.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before getting to the main part of my speech, perhaps I should answer the question asked by two Reform members. What these two members and many other people are wondering is why prorogue the session if the government wants to reinstate everything that was being considered during last session.

Probably all that has happened in the last few months, particularly in connection with the Quebec referendum, is one of the reasons why the government wants to start afresh, to show Canadians that it has regained control of the situation. But I want to get back to the main point, because I am not speaking in reply to the speech from the throne, but rather on Motion No. 1.

This is a motion to reinstate bills that were at various stages when the session was prorogued. That would appear logical, up to a point, but tradition has it that when a session ends and another one begins, we make a fresh start. Otherwise, we should have continued in the same parliamentary session without having a new speech from the throne and a new beginning.

This behaviour annoys me for two reasons: it shows a lack of respect for parliamentary tradition and practice, and-this annoys me even more, as it does many other people who are interested in politics-it proves that very often one says something when on one side of the House and something else when on the other side. I will get back to this in a while, since many members who now sit over there criticized the then Conservative government when it put forward a motion very similar to the one we are debating this afternoon. Just wait and see what their positions were then. It is rather difficult to understand how they can support this motion today after all they said against it then.

Let us go back to the first point, which is the lack of respect for tradition and practice. I agree that some things must be changed, improved, in the parliamentary system. The problem is that each and every time changes are made, the opposition parties or the backbenchers lose some of their powers so that the government, the executive, can have more power and be able to break or alter a rule as it pleases to go ahead undisturbed with its agenda.

This is rather disappointing, since all 295 of us here were elected to represent the people. Our constituents do not want to see our rights and responsibilities as members of Parliament trampled on; they want us to play an even bigger role and have an even greater influence on the parliamentary system.

Of course, my Liberal colleagues will say: "Motion No. 1 also enables members to reinstate private members' bills and to carry on with their consideration in the current session". But one has to be aware of one thing: how many private members' bills, and we can go back as far as we want, actually became law? How many private members' bills actually went through the whole legislative process? Very, very few of them.

If the government is proposing this motion authorizing the reinstatement of measures at the stage they were before in Parliament, it is to pursue its agenda on bills which it sets great store by; it is not to please members whose private bills had completed a stage in the process. This rarely happens.

So, the purpose of motion No. 1 is to deal with government business, basically everything that comes from cabinet and the executive branch. Thus, it is not a major argument for the government. Of course, it sweetens the pill.

If these bills are so important for the government and if they are so good for Quebecers and Canadians, why did it not introduce them earlier during the last session? Since it was elected two and a half years ago, why did it not hurry to introduce these legislative measures so vital to the operations of the Government of Canada and to the federal administration?

We wonder why. And when we search for answers, we find some clues. We notice that there has been an atmosphere of panic in the last few months. That was obvious in the speech from the throne. The government does not have clear directions for the second half of its mandate and it is even alluding to the possibility of an early election to avoid the constitutional agenda of 1997.

I will talk about the second part. I would like to quote some Liberal members who were in the opposition not so long ago. Maybe they will go back to the opposition seats. Not all of those who are here now, but some of them. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, now in the Senate, speaking to the Conservative motion, declared this: "I cannot understand why this government, these government bullies now want to impose their will on the House of Commons".

He was talking about government bullies imposing their will. I would be curious to know if the same bullies now work for the Liberal Party and if the hon. senator still thinks the same way. He was not alone to speak. There were several of them. There is one I just saw. He is the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands. He declared: "They have to be reinstated in the usual course, but they ought to have been introduced and dealt with as new bills in this session". That means that a bill must be moved as a new bill and go through the normal legislative process. He quoted from Beauchesne, saying that any irregularity of any portion of a motion renders the whole motion irregular. He fought hard and even contested the legality of that motion. He presented many arguments to that effect.

One of his colleagues, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who is still with us, was a lot harsher. He said: "The implications of ruling this motion in order would be such that I fear we could render-if a government wanted to-this House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant".

To render the House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant. That is what the member said. He is not a sovereignist, a separatist, but a member who sits on the other side of the House and who occupies a very important position within the government. Why has he changed his mind now that he is in a position of authority? How can that be explained? People become very cynical about politics when they see individuals change their mind so drastically in a relatively short time span.

How can a politician who says that he is working for the well-being of Canadians and wants to improve their social and economic standards of living have credibility when he contradicts himself constantly. People do not know when we are telling the truth. They do not know who among us is telling the truth. It is very serious. It is a lack of respect for the office we hold, for the institution for which we work, which, ultimately, is there to serve the people.

It is surprising to see those people, who claimed to champion the cause of integrity and transparency in their red book-which, by the way, they threw away as soon as the took office-suddenly adopting the agenda of the previous government in many areas.

Look at what is happening with the reform of social programs and think of the lack of respect for the institution. They are not even able to take a position that would be seen as their own, to promote the role of members of Parliament and to respect the institution.

If we really wanted to make the institution more efficient, as my Liberal colleague said, we could evaluate how really efficient committees are and examine the way they operate. There are many issues to examine.

The government tries to control everything: House committees, procedure and all the rest and this is why we have now almost reached the point where we have a sham of democracy. Some were complaining about the monarchy earlier, but it is simply disguised. The real power of individuals in this House is relatively small when we face actions like those of the government.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to be constructive. If I remember rightly, my colleague for Laurier-Sainte-Marie or my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm introduced an amendment whereby a bill could be returned to the stage it was at. Under certain circumstances, a prorogation can be very useful.

If a minister or a member introduces business from the previous session requesting the unanimous consent of the House to continue, he will have it, if the measure is in everyone's interest.

This would avoid having the government simply bringing back its own agenda, but also all the measures that are, to all intents and purposes, uncontested, approved by all the members and must be approved by all Quebecers and Canadians, given that we are from very different parties. In this regard, the amendment would therefore be constructive.

In the few minutes I have left before question period, I would like to mention that the member preceding me referred to the fact that we were sovereignists or separatists, whatever your preference, and that she was surprised at our interest in following parliamentary rules, because this is the British parliamentary system.

Since our arrival here, we have shown respect, probably even more than the government, for parliamentary institutions and rules. We are fighting democratically. We are seeking major change, major change in the future of Quebecers and of Canadians, because we want to build a relationship between peoples.

That does not prevent us from respecting institutions and from waging a democratic struggle. Thus this sort of remark reveals a considerable lack of understanding of our action and role here. I am pleased to be able to tell her that we are not attacking institutions. We are not attacking individuals, we are not attacking Canadians. We are leading a battle for Quebecers, because we think it is the best road for the future for the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.

When we are told that, in the end, it is in our interest to block the process-I remember that, when we first came into the House of Commons, everybody said that the Bloc would be doing anything to block the conduct of business of the House. People had fun making puns. It did not happen that way. We allowed for an improvement of the conduct of business. We co-operated a lot. There was much co-operation between House leaders of all parties to ensure that the House may conduct its business in the most efficient manner, to avoid using procedural technicalities to prolong debates late into the night and achieve nothing. We allowed for an improvement in the conduct of business of our institution. That is how we want things to be.

Motion No. 1 does not improve the functioning of the institution and, I am convinced, will not go down in history as a measure having furthered the British parliamentary system in the best interest of Canadians. On the contrary, it gives more power to the

executive, to cabinet which is really in charge of the government and controls MPs, who, when they protest in caucus-as is now the case-are threatened with a general election to keep them in line.

In that sense, it is a threat. I find it interesting when they threaten to send certain MPs from their own party to the slaughter house. Personally, I am not against the fact that you could call an election. The only danger is that you may lose your Prime Minister in the battle, but we shall see. When the time comes, voters in Saint-Maurice will be the judge.

I am quite sure that there are Liberal members in this House who are thinking, in their hearts of hearts: "This is true; this is another thing we are doing which does not make any sense." Let them keep it up.

If they cannot publicly side with us to defend the rules and the role of members, at least, when they meet in the privacy of their caucus, let them raise the issue with the cabinet members, who control this Parliament, and with all those behind the scene, who yield some power, and tell them: "Listen, there are limits to how far you can lead us; when you decide to make a new speech from the throne and start a new session, it is to make a fresh start in several areas and the same should apply to the bills introduced during the last session."

To conclude, I would like to point out that the unemployment insurance reform is among these bills, and nobody will convince me that it is not controversial and cannot be improved. Why not take advantage of a new session to put this unemployment insurance reform on a more solid footing? This way, at least, everybody's interests would be served.

Let have some self-respect and not change one's mind when changing side in the House; let us not make an about-face as did the member for Kingston and the Islands who has completely changed his minds on this motion. Furthermore, let us follow parliamentary procedure and try to make the role of member of Parliament as efficient as possible.

[Haitian National Police Force, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure us that Canada's contribution will not be overlooked by the Haitian government, and could he tell us what benefit he plans to derive from the money invested in the training of these police officers pending their integration into the Haitian police force?

[Haitian National Police Force, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Haitian Canadians who have been trained by the RCMP could not be integrated into the national police force in Haiti, despite the commitments made by the Haitian government. Canada has spent nearly $2 million to train these police officers.

At a time when Canada is striving to help the people of Haiti, will the minister tell us what he intends to do to ensure that these police officers can be integrated as planned into the Haitian national police force?

[English]

[Finance, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today the debate is on a motion intended to congratulate the government on a job well done in the area of government finances. Of course you will realize we do not share that view.

I listened carefully to the hon. member for the Liberal Party who just spoke, and I will get back to what she said later on. In fact, towards the end of her speech, she said she was pleased because people had told her this government did not reduce its deficit by attacking the most vulnerable in our society but by cutting subsidies to business, and so forth.

We will put that in perspective later on, and maybe she should provide some figures or information for the constituent who said that, because the exact opposite is true. The main sectors affected since this government came to power-and I will explain that later on-are transfers to the provinces and unemployment insurance. It is largely these two sectors, as well as some economic growth, that enabled the government to reduce its deficit.

In the case of unemployment insurance, it is an artificial reduction. I will elaborate on all that, but I will also comment on the pre-budget consultation process as such. In fact, this is the second year we have had these consultations. I am not so sure the process has improved over time. Perhaps certain technical details such as organizing round table discussions instead of hearings, could be seen as an improvement. However, when we consult people without providing a context, without parameters, as we did this year, there are certain consequences. The groups that appeared

before us had to answer several questions formulated by the Minister of Finance, without exactly knowing where the debate was leading and without necessarily having access to updated information which we did not receive until after the consultations. I will talk about all that as well.

I will discuss program review, which is an important element, and the fact that the Minister of Finance just announced there will be a phase II. I will also discuss what happened in the past few days, and I am referring to a proposal from the government of Quebec which was dismissed out of hand by the finance minister. When Quebec is willing to start a dialogue on a serious and constructive basis with genuine decentralization as the ultimate goal, it is rather surprising that the response to this initiative should be a quick and categoric no. So we are going to discuss that, plus corporate taxation and some of the measures that are in the works. So let us have a look at these items one by one.

First, the pre-budget consultations. This was the second year. Last year, the Minister of Finance came to explain his position. He came with a whole launch kit, with his video cassettes and documents. He managed to make these consultations meaningful, up to a point. This year, the process was somewhat delayed, because obviously the Minister of Finance did not want to appear in person before the committee in the middle of the referendum campaign in October. The minister preferred to postpone his appearance and let the hearings proceed during the whole month of November, without appearing at the beginning of the hearings to tell people what he had in mind.

Therefore, we found ourselves in a situation where, contrary to what was said-well, in some instances, witnesses made proposals that were constructive to a certain extent-many groups came solely to defend their own corporate interests, unfortunately. They said: "Our sector is vital. What we do is important, so do not touch us, but do look at all the rest". We cannot comment on the rest, because we have neither the knowledge nor the information to do so.

On this point, I agreed with the witnesses. Very often they spoke of overlap and briefly explained the various types, especially in Quebec and western Canada. We heard very little talk of decentralization and overlap in Ontario.

These people asked us about things and said they could not get hold of studies on the subject. It is unfortunate, because the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says he did studies, but never made them public. It is as if management of public funds does not concern the public. It is as if documents should remain hidden somewhere and used only by cabinet. No, this is not the way things should work. If we want to consult people seriously, we have to inform them. We have a long way to go on this.

If we really want public consultation we will have to do it in some way other than having a committee make a show of touring the provinces telling people it is listening to them, when it is not necessarily.

The interim report of the finance committee is not particularly good. It is, obviously, not the final report, but it is not up to the level of an end of session report or a high school paper. It is really too bad that, with all the expertise of the members and the personnel involved in the committee's work, the result is so ordinary. It is regrettable. Let us hope that the January report will contain more detail. This will not be easy, however, given the way the minister categorizes these consultations, providing no specific objective, no particular direction as to what he wants by way of information really, and so this is the way we end up.

I am disappointed by and rather critical of this process, which, in my opinion, does not provide many positive benefits. I will now address this issue before moving on to unemployment and transfer payments.

I would first like to talk about the program review. The Minister of Finance told us that the program review was about to enter Phase II. This means that every program involving government spending will be assessed as to effectiveness and need.

One of the problems is that parliamentarians face elections every few years. Programs are put in place by different political parties and different governments and their goals set at a specific point in time. In the mid-1970s, for instance, the government decided to create a tax credit to stimulate research in a particular area. In 1995, however, this has become less of a priority. Programs should be assessed more according to their initial goals and to whether they meet a current need. I imagine that a program review does in fact assess the need for a given program.

Our current budget situation requires that we set priorities. This means keeping what we deem most important, and to do so, we need information. All this is done behind closed doors with just a few people. This is no way to achieve a consensus and convince people to make necessary but difficult efforts to improve public finances. Until we give a sense of equity to these measures and until people feel that everyone is doing his or her fair share, there will not be a consensus. When this information is not made public, people wonder what they are hiding and why. Do they want to keep some bad programs or to eliminate some good programs? Perhaps. To avoid this kind of embarrassment, the government has decided to do everything in secret.

I would like to talk to the minister about the upcoming Phase II.

If he is serious about it, he will start by releasing what came out of phase I, and then proceed to phase II. That could make things interesting. I am convinced that there are people who would have interesting things to say on the subject. Their comments could form the basis for his next round of consultations. Instead of using these studies as a basis, he should release them and make them available to groups interested in participating in consultations. That will make for a real budget consultation process involving public participation.

We do not hear enough from ordinary citizens. It is all well to hear from formal groups, but these already have a voice; they are in contact with the various department and opposition critics. Regular folks are the least represented in this debate. At hearings, they sometimes end up sitting at the same table as the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, who has the staff to prepare briefs and what not for him. This forum then becomes intimidating for these people. It is not the kind of forum that attracts ordinary citizens, at least very few of them and not as many this year as last year.

In time, only corporate interests will participate in this forum. I am not saying that they are all bad; there are a few that are great and quite legitimate in the bunch, but the problem is that we already hear from them. We already know their positions, and these contain very few surprises, because there are other means available to them to make themselves heard. So, this whole issue needs to be reviewed.

Moving to deficit reduction. The Minister of Finance just announced his targets for the years to come and gave us an additional piece of information: this year's deficit will be $32.7 billion. The deficit will be reduced next year, down to 3 per cent of the GDP, which means that it will be somewhere between 24 and 25 billion dollars. The following year, it will be brought down to $17 billion. No one can oppose deficit reduction, which is a laudable goal.

However, we can be critical of two things regarding the means used to that end. The first one is the transfer payments. As we know, transfer payments to the provinces are part of federal government expenditures, since it collects revenues and then makes transfer payments to the provinces.

This is the way it used to be done in certain areas such as post-secondary education, health, as well as the old Canada Assistance Plan, or CAP. Now, these transfer payment programs are grouped together under the Canada Social Transfer. The various transfer payments are combined into a single consolidated category, so that only one payment is made.

In so doing, the minister pursues two objectives. The first one is to make things less transparent, so that he can say: "We put all this together, but we reduced the payment by a certain amount". It then becomes difficult to accuse the minister of making direct cuts in the health, education or social assistance sector, since he is making a cut in the global payment made for all three areas. He says to the provinces: "It is up to you to cut where you want. You have a choice between health, education and social assistance. I reduced the overall amount paid to you for these areas. You do what you can with what you have and you pay the political price attached to it".

We must remember that this means $2.5 billion in cuts for 1996-97 and another $4.5 billion for 1997-98. That is a lot of money. My hon. colleague from the Liberal Party said earlier that cuts to social expenditures were not as steep as those made to business grants. That is just not true. Cuts to business grants made so far and over the next to years amount to about half, perhaps $1.5 billion, when transfer payments primarily used to fund social services will be reduced by $7 billion.

There is an order of magnitude there. Cuts to the Canadian social transfer alone will be four or five times larger. And that is not taking into account successive UI reforms, which, once again, are much deeper and wider in scope than cuts to business grants. So, let us not draw long bows here and let us be honest. The people should know that the cuts in question were made mainly to government social expenditures.

We could argue to determine whether these cuts were necessary or not. The hon. member may think that they are appropriate. She may think what she wants; she is perfectly within her rights. But she cannot tell people that cuts were not made there. The figures and the facts speak for themselves. The hon. member should set the record straight with her constituents, who believed her when she said that only business grants would be affected.

So, as far as the Canadian social transfer is concerned, Quebec alone will bear 26 per cent of the cuts, the first round of cuts. During the first year, there will be $2.5 billion in cuts, of which Quebec will bear 26 per cent. The following year, we are not quite sure yet how extensive cuts will be because the applicable criteria have not been set.

According to a document issued by the Minister of Human Resources Development, the new Canadian social transfer will be distributed on a population basis, which means that Quebec would absorb 42 per cent, or $1.9 billion, of the $4.5 billion in transfer payments to be cut in the second year. That is a lot of money. Especially when you think that, if the current criteria were maintained, Quebec's share of the cuts would be $1.2 billion. That is already a substantial amount. But with the new criteria, Quebec will lose an extra $700 million.

There have been discussions these past few days and an interesting proposal was put forward, but I will come back to that later, if I have time. The minister will soon have to be more precise about where he stands on this issue. Our point is that, overall, if the

federal government reduces transfer payments to the provinces, it does not really spell deficit reduction for ordinary citizens, for the taxpayers, because the problem has only been shifted from Ottawa to the provinces.

In turn, the provinces then have to make cuts and pay the political price for this. They are the ones left with the unpleasant task of explaining to their people what must be done to reduce the deficit. It is no easy task. Here they are washing their hands of it and saying that they are putting their fiscal house in order. Part of this is an illusion.

The other part that is illusory is the UI account. In the last five years, the UI account has been funded by employees and employers, which means that UI premiums are paid by insured workers through payroll deductions and by their employers. The government does not make any contributions to the UI fund. It is funded solely by the employees and their employers.

When this funding method was adopted in 1990-during the recession-, the UI account was running a deficit, which the government had to absorb. In the first three years, the fund ran a deficit, thus accumulating a three year debt. Since the 1994 UI reforms, however, the UI fund has run a surplus. This year, this surplus will reach some $5 billion.

If we look at the five years since employee and employer premiums became the only source of funding, the UI fund will have accumulated a surplus of about $1.2 billion at the end of this year. The fund therefore did not run a deficit for those five years.

Another $5 billion surplus is forecast for next year. The accumulated surplus will exceed $6 billion. The Minister of Finance has not said anything about raising benefits or reducing employee and employer premiums next year in order to stabilize, to contain a surplus that could reach $11 billion in three years in this account funded by employees and employers.

The government uses this surplus to give the impression of reducing its deficit. Without unemployment insurance in this year's books, the deficit would be $37.7 billion.

If the fund was balanced this year, for example, the deficit would be $37.7 billion. A different accounting method must be used, as well as a different account, so that we have a better balanced system and that the government does not use the UI account to create an indirect tax on employment.

We do not agree-and I will end on that note because I am running out of time-with the fact that the government significantly reduced its deficit through transfer payments and changes to the UI account. It will have to truly tackle other issues. It will have to take a hard look at the corporate tax system and conduct a real review of programs, so as to see which ones are no longer essential.

The government will arrive at a more comprehensive, permanent and stable solution that way than by simply making minor changes to its accounting method, or by off-loading the whole problem onto the provinces and never tackling the real issue.

This is why we will try, in our report, to reflect that spirit and ensure that the government will head in the right direction in terms of reducing its deficit.

[Unemployment Insurance, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister said in his document that these premiums could have been lowered to $2.93, I assume he could have done it. But given the minister's estimation that lowering premiums by seven cents, in 1995, would result in the creation of 40,000 jobs, will he recognize that, by refusing to lower these premiums by two cents, down to $2.93, he is sacrificing, based on his own calculations, 12,000 jobs?

[Unemployment Insurance, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The economic and financial update released yesterday by the minister indicates that the government could have lowered UI premiums to $2.93 for every $100 of insurable earnings and still have collected the whole amount set in the 1995 budget. Yet, the government decided to set the premium at $2.95.

Will the minister recognize that he could have lowered UI premiums to $2.93 and still have met his 1995 budgetary objectives?

[Income Tax Act, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I too rise to speak to the motion by the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton concerning the tax exemption of interest income from saving accounts generating interest of less that $1,000.

I am convinced that this motion, under its present form, as the member explained in his speech, is aimed at helping people with low incomes, people who are not well off. However, it creates a huge void, because, of course, a motion is not a bill, it is not very precise. The motion provides:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income Tax Act to eliminate the payment of income tax on interest from personal savings accounts when the amount of interest is $1,000 or less.

Let us look at it in today's context. Someone with $10,000 in an account earning 9 per cent would make $900. This means that this $900 would be tax deductible. It might be a commendable goal. However, if I had $50,000, I could make five $10,000 term deposits in five different accounts and earn $4,500 in interest, $900 on each account, and pay no income tax. But in truth, I would not belong to the group the motion is aimed at. I am not convinced that he is not trying to help people with a high income or large savings to evade income tax.

For this reason, I find it difficult to support a motion whose present wording would create such an unprecedented tax loophole. Even if there is a precedent, it would still be a horrendous loophole.

If you put this debate in a larger perspective, you can see that the goal of the motion is to help lower income people. I am pleased that we are showing concern for people with a low income and few savings.

In politics we are very often influenced by the richest lobbies, we also go to bat for the neediest, but in between there are all the workers, all the wage earners, that we very often forget and that are probably the least organized. They very often belong to professional corporations or trade unions, but it is very seldom that we show concern in our speeches or political actions for the lower middle class. They maybe the least organized and this would explain the fact that they are the target of all government measures: they are not a political force.

If you look at this motion in the larger perspective, it shows a desire for equity. In the area of taxation everything is a matter of equity. However, I do not think that the solution is to increase the

deductions we now have. With our deficit at around 32 billion dollars, such a proposal does not seem like a good idea at the present time. Just as we cannot afford to forego tax revenues, because our tax system is extremely complex and some people can even afford tax experts to bypass the system. I am not talking about fraud or anything illegal here, just going over every comma and every sentence in the Income Tax Act to get the most out of it.

I am just back from a series of consultations held by the finance committee in western Canada, where even tax experts told us: "Look, we cannot even make sense of this Act ourselves, and we are not sure that the government can make sense of it either. One of these days, we will have to consider a real reform, whose first objective would be, even before the amount of tax revenues to be generated, to simplify the whole system". Of course, the second objective would be to determine the optimal level of revenues to be generated by a new tax system.

All of this brings me back to an issue which has yet to be settled. The people have the feeling that the current tax system is not working and they are not mistaken.

Take, for example, the GST which has been in effect for several years now and which will not generate more revenues this year that last year. There is a problem here. Even though the growth of domestic demand is weak, we see that taxpayers have developed a number of ways to avoid paying this tax, which is perceived as being extremely unfair.

This has been fuelled by the Liberal members who decried this tax, when they were in opposition, and promised to replace it, something they never did. By the way, we should also be concerned about that. People felt that their concerns were legitimate since they even had the support of a political party saying that the tax was unfair.

It is true that it is not perfect, that it is flawed, that it causes a lot of problems, but the Liberal Party was accused of demagoguery when it said that it was a new tax. The tax on services was new, but the tax on goods simply replaced the federal sales tax. In that context, it is not right to make the taxpayers angrier than they already are about the current tax system for purely political reasons.

I come back to the fact that we cannot afford today to add these types of deductions, but if we want people with low incomes and few savings to feel that there is some kind of justice, we have to ensure that our tax rules do not allow higher income people to avoid paying their fair share.

Sometimes people are right, sometimes they are wrong, but when we refuse to have a thorough debate on an issue, the perceptions that people have, whether good or bad, remain. An example of that is the perception that banks do not pay their fair share. I do not have a definite opinion on that, but I think that it is something that is worth looking into. It is not by avoiding the issue or by making a fine statement that will sound great on the news, such as it is too generous, it is out of date, etc., that we will make progress. We will have to look into all this.

Perhaps when the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Revenue both consult Canadians on the budget next year they ought, instead of listening to all of the organized groups whose final word is always "Do anything you want to anybody else but me", to set some guidelines for a real debate, true consultation on various scenarios for tax policies and tax expenditures, in order to get a proper evaluation.

How much do the present measures cost? What are their objectives? Based on that, let us go out to Canadians so that they may make their own evaluation and come up with a final conclusion that "We can afford this, but not that. Here are what our priorities are for taxation for economic and social development".

Our taxation system pursues two objectives, obvious economic ones, but a major social objective as well: the redistribution of wealth. This ought never to be lost sight of. For that reason, if the taxation system is simplified, that second objective must not be lost sight of.

You do not deal with fiscal problems due to the fact that not enough tax revenue is being collected from people who could pay more, by increasing the number of deductions that already exist. We simply cannot afford it. How much would the measure suggested today cost? Good question. I repeat, those who are a little better off may manage to avoid this altogether by having more than one bank account, as I explained earlier, by having three or four accounts, for instance. That often happens.

I have two or three accounts myself. The point is to put your money into different accounts, keep your interest income below $1,000 and thus avoid paying taxes on this income. I realize this technicality could be improved upon while maintaining the purpose of the motion which is that interest income of $1,000 and less would not be taxable, but in the end, what have we achieved? How are we going to finance all that? The question lies here as well.

Therefore, out of a sense of fairness, yes, we have to work on it, but not necessarily in the way suggested. In the minute I have left, I wanted to say, because I heard mention of RRSPs, where accumulated interest is tax protected, that they are not really affected by such a motion, because RRSPs are taxable only when money is removed from them. This is when tax is taken, according to our income at that point.

So this would not promote saving necessarily. It would not have a particularly strong effect on saving, because the vehicle already exists and is already attractive enough, I imagine, from all the

funds successfully channelled and the financial institutions' aggressive campaigns to solicit RRSPs.

So, to avoid creating an additional tax shelter, which will cost us a lot and risks benefitting those who, in the end, perhaps have the income and ability to avoid it, we cannot support this motion.