Diane Ablonczy

[Social Security, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should realize that Canadians cannot prepare an informed response to his action plan unless they understand the financial consequences.

Will the minister help all Canadians deal with this reality by providing detailed financial projections next week with all the elements of his action plan?

[Social Security, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, seniors and those planning to retire want to know if their government pensions are safe and secure and who will pay for the programs that retiring Canadians have been counting on?

Will the minister's action plan deal with the reality that there will be a 40 per cent increase in the number of senior citizens in the next 15 years?

[Social Security, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, may I divert the attention of the House to something Canadians really care about?

Canada's social programs are not sustainable at their current levels. In fact estimates by the Auditor General and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions show that within only 15 years Canada's social security system plus interest will exceed 100 per cent of all government revenues.

Is the minister going to reduce spending on social programs or raise taxes?

[Canada Elections Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching the parliamentary channel instead of Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy , the purpose of this private member's bill is to change the Canada Elections Act so that a party can only be a legitimate registered party here in Canada if it is running candidates in at least seven of the ten provinces, one of which has to be either Quebec or Ontario.

Of course, the purpose of this bill is very clear, and that is to knock the Bloc. I suppose there would be a lot of Canadians who would have a sneaking sympathy for the intent behind this bill. A lot of Canadians I have talked to, a lot of Canadians all of us have talked to are pretty ticked that we have in this House, making laws for our country, deciding or helping to decide how our money is spent, shaping the future of our country, a group of people essentially intent on the destruction of Canada as we know it.

A lot of people are asking is there not a way we can stop this. They are particularly exercised, particularly angry, when a group of people in this House who call themselves Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have interests in mind, have an agenda in mind, which again is adverse to the interests of the national unity of our country.

A lot of Canadians would sympathize with the member for Don Valley West and the intent behind this bill to try to stop regional parties from forming and coming forward.

Sometimes the cure is a lot worse than the disease. Although the disease is bad, this cure is a whole lot worse. It is kind of like those ancient dragons. You cut off one head but two worse heads, more fierce with larger teeth, spring up in its place.

What this bill really does is abrogate a lot of democratic rights in this country. Canadians should be aware that the reason a party has to run 50 candidates somewhere in order to be registered as a party is really designed to make sure that taxpayers' money is not totally and frivolously spent. What happens, as most of us know, is if a candidate is successful half the candidate's election expenses are returned to them courtesy of the taxpayer. A lot of people think that is an abuse of taxpayers' money but it would be a lot more of an abuse if anybody could run and expect to have half their expenses paid by the rest of society.

The law was designed so that there had to be at least some threshold of support for a group or a party before they could expect to receive some funding from the taxpayer. That is the real reason why the present act says that a party must run 50 candidates somewhere in Canada in order to qualify as a registered party.

The law was not designed to limit the right to association of Canadians and limit the right of Canadians to get together for purposes of political activity.

I would suggest that it is very important that we not limit the right of Canadians, not make it more difficult, not put onerous requirements on Canadians who want to participate in the political process. This is a subject that obviously is very near and dear to my heart because for the last seven years of my young life I have spent building a new political dynamic to inject into a hidebound and reactionary system. We need change sometimes in democratic society and democratic politics.

That change usually starts small. It starts with a vision and support for it grows. It does not sort of arrive full blown from the soil. I am here to tell members that because I have participated in that kind of exercise.

If we insist that a political movement, a political dynamic, only has legitimacy if somehow it has instant support so that it can have registered candidates right across the country, and lots of them, it simply is going to limit the change, the newness and the renewal that we allow in our political system which is very unacceptable in a democracy.

The hon. member for Don Valley North when he spoke made two statements that I take very grave exception to. First of all, as a westerner I am absolutely outraged that he would say that you are only legitimate as a political party if you have an office in Ontario.

Somehow the arrogance of certain assumptions just overwhelms me. To say that only something rooted in Ontario has legitimacy in our political system is outrageous. I would suggest to the hon. member that the political renewal that has its base in western Canada is every bit as useful to this country, is every bit as positive a dynamic in our political system as a political party that has its roots in Newfoundland, Montreal or in Yukon. It does not matter where your head office is, it matters where your head is and that is the important thing.

I also take exception to the continual distortion by members opposite of the Reform Party and its policies. Here is another example that we just heard a few minutes ago. The member for Don Valley West said that the Reform Party signs during the election campaign said this we will run the country the way we run our campaign. Then he went on to say since we ran our campaign without candidates in Quebec, obviously we would run the country without Quebec.

What an abuse, what a distortion of what Reform really said. For the record, the Reform signs said, and I hope everyone is listening, that we will run the country the way we run our campaign, debt free. I challenge the member to indicate whether his party ran the campaign debt free. We sure know it is not running the country debt free. It is running this country into debt $110 million every single day. To it, success is placing a debt on our shoulders of another at least $100 billion in its term of office.

I would like to have less distortion and more facts from the other side about what the Reform Party has to offer this country.

The real problem in this country is not political parties and who they represent and where they have their head offices. The real problem in this country is that the status quo, the old system, the old thinking, the old way of approaching issues does not work for us any more. We need renewal. We need change.

What we see in this House with a party which represents only one province and whose agenda is to break up this wonderful country is not something that should be corrected by suppressing legitimate political concern and discontent, but by addressing the root of the problem that caused this situation to begin with. The root of the problem is that status quo federalism does not work. We are faced with an opportunity staring us in the face to fix this system, to acknowledge that changes are needed for the benefit of all Canadians. It is not just the province represented by the members beside us that are discontent with the way this country has been run. There are people in all parts of the country who are saying we need change.

We need to serve notice that there has to be an honest debate about renewing our federation so that it works better for all of us. We do not need bills to suppress legitimate political expressions and democratic involvement. We need a government that will put ideas on the table to renew the way we operate as a country.

We need solutions and we need a resolution of this problem, not to hide it, not to suppress it, not to make it illegal, not to push it under the rug but to say we need change and the kind of changes we need.

We need changes where governments live within their means. Not only the province represented by the Bloc but all of us are staggering under the load of a huge mortgage on our country which is getting bigger every single day. We need a federal system that lives within its means, where we pay for our programs today and we do not offload our spending on to our children. That is what is needed in this country.

We need a country where citizens are treated equally regardless of race, language and culture or where they have their head office. We need a system where all Canadians are treated equally. It is very important that we get those kinds of systemic changes.

I challenge the hon. member not to bring forward bills that suppress legitimate democratic participation but really have solid proposals to get to the root of the problem, fix the system, renew our federation and let us go on together as a country.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, back in April my colleague, the member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville, outlined some very good reasons for not supporting this particular bill. I would like to briefly review those reasons before providing some thoughts of my own.

The changes proposed by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert would amend the Unemployment Insurance Act be revoking the arm's length provision used by unemployment insurance adjudicators to determine if family members employed by other family members are in a true employer-employee relationship and therefore insurable and eligible to collect UI benefits should they be laid off. This includes employment by husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.

Therefore, as I understand it the net effect of this bill would be to allow all family members employed by their immediately relatives, mainly husbands and wives, to become eligible to collect UI benefits without giving the government any means of determining if the employer-employee relationship is legitimate.

Government officials predict that this change would result in at least 3,750 additional claims for unemployment insurance being allowed each year. Considering that the average benefit paid to each UI claimant in 1992 was $6,613 we are talking about a minimum annual increase in UI payouts of about $25 million. These figures were confirmed by the office of the hon. member who is proposing this bill.

Reformers oppose this bill for the following reasons. There are four of them. First, it opens up the Unemployment Insurance Act to yet another avenue of abuse and waste of taxpayers' dollars at a time when we should be tightening up the system, tightening up the loopholes and saving employers' and employees' UI premiums to cover UI claims by workers and families hardest hit by today's high unemployment.

Second, it would increase payout of UI benefits by many millions of dollars.

Third, it directly contravenes Reform Party policies which support elimination of fraud and abuse on returning UI to true insurance principles.

Fourth, spouses employed by their partner already have an advantage over other Canadians because they can split their income and reduce their taxes. Reformers support income splitting for all married couples, not just those running their own business.

I would now like to respond to some of the rationale used by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert when she spoke during the first hour of debate on this bill. The hon. member said the current law presumes that family members who work for their relatives are guilty of defrauding the UI account and must prove they have a legitimate employer-employee relationship with their husband or wife, mother or father, brother or sister.

Reformers say this is simply a reasonable safeguard in a system in which there is real potential for abuse. I must point out that Revenue Canada identifies over 3,750 UI claimants a year who are denied benefits because they do not work in a true employer-employee relationship and are denied benefits as a result.

The hon. member says the current law discriminates against women, not technically but socially because most of the people affected by this law are women. Reformers say that this particular section of the UI act is not discriminatory and is just a reality of small family businesses.

If a woman works for her husband in a small business, then she must be prepared to convince Revenue Canada that she is in fact in a true employee-employer relationship, not just hired on in fiction to add a nice windfall of UI benefits to the family income some time down the road.

The investigations carried out by Revenue Canada on behalf of unemployment insurance every year identify significant abuse in this area.

Why would we want to throw the door wide open to allow still more people to take advantage of the system. If this safeguard were not in the system there would undoubtedly be more abuse and many more millions of dollars wasted on bogus UI claims. The end result would cost workers and employers millions more dollars in UI premiums.

I want to emphasize that these premiums would be funded by an increase in payroll taxes which come directly out of each worker's pocket. People not trying to take advantage of the system who are legitimately and truly employed by immediate family members are not penalized. Why should we not support rules to deny abusers the right to rip off other workers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development also spoke against this bill in April. He told members of this House that of the tens of thousands of claims filed by employees of family businesses 15,000 had been reviewed by Revenue Canada and 25 per cent, the 3,750 claim-

ants I mentioned earlier, were found not to qualify for UI because they were not in a true employer-employee relationship.

Reformers agree with the government's concern about preserving the integrity of the unemployment insurance fund. Reformers think the current law is balanced and fair and must be maintained.

Our policies are developed by ordinary members of our party. This is the policy these average Canadians have put in place concerning unemployment insurance: "The Reform Party supports the return of unemployment insurance to its original function, an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of unexpected job loss". Reformers encourage the government to get on with its efforts to reform the unemployment insurance system.

The Minister of Human Resources Development promised an action plan in May, delayed it until June and then postponed it again until this fall. Yesterday in response to a question from our leader the Prime Minister said a discussion paper, not an action plan, will be released in October.

Canadians are fed up with the waste, fraud and abuse in the UI program and they want it cleaned up. Canadians want action, not still more discussion. Reformers believe that Canadians want real reform of unemployment insurance, not just more liberal tinkering around the edges.

Here are the issues Reformers believe are fundamental in any consideration of changes to the UI program. Do taxpayers, workers and employers think the UI program should be compulsory as it is now, or voluntary? Do taxpayers who are present employers think the government should continue to control the UI program or should unemployment insurance be administered by the employees and employers who pay the premiums?

Would workers like to have a choice to invest their money in their own savings plan to protect them against unexpected unemployment rather than being forced to pay UI premiums?

Would workers get a better return on their investment than the government run UI program offers them if they invested their money privately?

Should the UI program be turned into a self-financing program administered by the employees and employers who pay the premiums with government safeguards?

Should unions and employers be permitted to opt out of the government run UI program by establishing privately administered unemployment insurance programs for the benefit of their workers?

We know that the hon. member who proposed this bill has a genuine concern for the plight of unemployed Canadian workers and their families but she will not help them by allowing their pockets to be picked by fictional employment arrangements allowing bogus UI claims.

The UI program will take $19.8 billion this year directly out of the pockets of people trying to keep businesses afloat and people trying to earn a decent living. That is approximately $1,485 for every single Canadian worker covered by the unemployment insurance program.

I have suggested some fundamental issues that ought to be addressed in order to design a reformed system that truly works for the benefit of those who are paying the big dollars to support it. Rather than increasing the burden on these working people, I urge the member to work with us to find ways to make the system more efficiently and effectively meet the very real needs of Canadians who suffered the distress and hardship of unexpected job loss.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after a bill is drafted it is very difficult to get it substantially changed in committee. I believe and the hon. member opposite would know as well as I do, perhaps better because he has been in the House longer, that it is very rare for a bill to be substantially changed when it deals with a whole system, a whole process of dealing with a government department.

I really think it would be better to look at this from square one rather than trying to tinker with a bill that has already been drafted.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be involved in a debate that has engaged people's thinking as much as this one has. It is a very healthy sign that we are looking at the merits and the particulars of what we are trying to do here.

The motion before us opposes Bill C-44 on the grounds that it does not prevent the screening out of applicants for refugee status or for permanent landing when those applicants have criminal histories or may be the perpetrators of violence.

This is as opposed to true refugees who are so often and often have been the innocent victims of violence.

Those on the opposite side of this House who have risen to speak on this motion and to Bill C-44 have argued that Bill C-44 does permit the screening out of undesirables. They argue that Bill C-44 does have teeth and that we are misguided in our attacks on this bill.

It is easy to understand why they would argue that the bill does go far enough, but this bill would not clean things up. This bill does not strike at the heart of the problem and does not deal with the real workings of the refugee determination system in Canada. One could say that it is a refusal to face facts about just how badly our immigration and refugee systems have gone wrong. We hear a lot of defence of the system across the way.

There is no excuse for this refusal and no excuse for the inability or the unwillingness of this government to face those facts. The shortcomings of the immigration system and our refugee determination system have been given wide publicity since the Reform Party began pointing them out.

The media has widely reported our exposing of deportation backlogs that cannot possibly be dealt with by the existing enforcement resources in Canada. It has been reported that refugees who are members of genocidal regimes who have caused death and despair in their native countries are now happily residing, often at taxpayer's expense, in Canada. They have reported, after we exposed them, refugee admittance guidelines that actually invite undesirables to make a refugee claim in Canada.

The government knows about these scandals. It is feeling the heat from these scandals. The people of Canada are better informed than ever about what is really happening in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and polls are reflecting their anger and dissolution.

In response to that outrage and concern, government hastily put together a package of response that it claims will take care of the problem. It claims that this package of reforms will stop riff-raff from calling Canada home by preventing refugee claims being made in prisons and will stop the immigration appeals division from overturning deportations, something that the IAD has become all too notorious for.

These so-called reforms are nothing more than long overdue common sense. However, they fall so far short of the mark of affecting any real fundamental and significant change to a system that so desperately needs it that we cannot support the bill.

I urge support not only by my colleagues in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition but also by the members opposite for a motion to stop this bill and force, finally, real reconsideration of the way Canada handles its immigration and refugee systems.

The minister wants us to believe that Bill C-44 is a cure for the massive haemorrhage in Canada's immigration and refugee systems. Bill C-44 offers nothing more than a few band-aids and for that reason it must be rejected. For that reason we cannot allow the people of Canada to be duped into thinking that they are getting real reform here, that things will actually be better after this bill passes. They will not.

Nothing significant is going to change and I will tell members why. The first element of this legislation, the element touted by the minister as being the most significant change, is one that would prevent criminals in Canada from making refugee claims in order to delay their removal from Canada. That is a good idea. I cannot understand why it was not done long ago.

The idea of immigration and refugee board members going into a prison to hear refugee claims is patently absurd. The government would have us believe that this is somehow going to prevent criminals from making refugee claims when it will not. We know how many criminals apply for refugee status from Canadian prisons or while they are on parole. That is easy enough to keep tabs on.

We have no idea whatsoever of how many criminals who have committed their crimes abroad seek refugee status and are successful each year. We have no idea.

It is easy enough to prevent someone who is already residing in Canada, especially in a Canadian jail, from making a last ditch attempt to remain in the country. It is not quite as easy to prevent those who have criminal backgrounds from entering the country in the first place, not that it is impossible. Other countries have extensive refugee background checks before they hear a refugee claim and make a determination. Why do we not?

We do not because the immigration and refugee board and its supporters tell us that we are not allowed to, that it would be a violation of our commitment to the United Nations convention on the status of refugees. Of course that is sheer nonsense but it is a popular tune that continues to be sung again and again.

It has been revealed to us by people intimately associated with the refugee process that this year the IRB has been giving orders to refugee hearing officers forbidding them to do background checks of any kind whatsoever prior to doing a refugee claim. They have issued orders preventing refugee hearing officers from using Interpol or even getting in touch with the RCMP or CSIS to investigate those refugee claimants of whom there is serious suspicion of criminal activity, guerrilla or terrorist backgrounds, or even genocide. As hard as it is to believe that is the fact.

Bill C-44 appears to be a bill that will take care of the problems when it does not even address them. What good does it do to make changes to rules governing the hearing of a refugee claim preventing those who have committed crimes in Canada from making claims when we welcome those who have committed crimes, even crimes against humanity, from other countries?

It is true that we are welcoming these sorts of people. In fact the IRB is going one step further. Not only are guerrillas from Latin America, double agents from Bolivia, and high ranking members of brutal totalitarian regimes allowed to make a refugee claim in Canada, once they do make that claim they are fast tracked through the system.

The Reform Party proved that this summer. We provided the documents written by a member of the minister's own department circulated by the immigration and refugee board and forced upon refugee hearing officers that spell out that those who fit the categories just mentioned do not even need to go before a full three member refugee panel. They get expedited. So far this year over 3,500 refugee claimants have been expedited in this manner.

How many of those claimants were criminals, terrorists, guerrillas or war criminals is not known. We may never know because the IRB with the full blessing of this government and the current minister has stripped its refugee hearing officers of the power to do even the most basic background checks. That is absurd and outrageous but it is happening.

While it may be a good first step to prevent hearing officers from hearing refugee claims in prisons it is far more imperative that the entire system, the entire process of refugee hearings and determinations be changed.

The Canadian interest is not being represented in this process and that is why it has gone so dreadfully wrong.

The second major element of this legislation deals with the prevention of the IAD, the immigration appeals division, from overturning deportation orders based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

That too is common sense but raises a troubling question. I am sure I do not need to inform this House that the IAD is a branch of the IRB, the immigration and refugee board, and that this board is populated by the same appointees as the IRB. The same people who are mandating that guerrillas, double agents, et cetera, be welcomed to Canada are also refusing to enforce the deportation orders of those we happen to catch up with.

The same people who want to fling the doors of Canada wide open have been refusing to enforce the laws of Canada for those who make it into the country. Now Bill C-44 comes along and it would take the power to overturn some deportation orders, not all just some, away from these appointees.

Instead of slightly curtailing the power of these people to allow violent offenders to stay in the country, we need to re-examine the very role of the IRB. Do we need such a board of political appointees accountable to no one? Who are they working for? Whose interests are they serving? What are the priorities of the government when it comes to immigration?

The government has two choices right now. The first choice is to align itself with the appointed members of the IRB, the members of the immigration industry and the refugee advocates who say that we need to keep the IRB the way it is, that we do not need major reform in the system and that the interest of Canadians must be, and I stress they have actually said they must be secondary to the interests of immigrants and refugees. The interests of Canadians come second.

The government could align itself with the overwhelming majority of Canadians who feel that immigration policy and even refugee policy should first and foremost work in the interests of Canada. Immigration and refugee policy while being compassionate, balanced and legal must clearly be seen to protect the interests, the security, the health and the safety of Canadians. That is the reform we really need and it is time the government looked after its duty to Canadians.

Bill C-44 does not reflect the willingness of the government to truly protect the interests of Canadians. Bill C-44 is stop-gap. It is a band-aid and it almost entirely maintains the status quo. The status quo does not deserve to be maintained. Canadians deserve better. Thus we cannot support a weak and ineffectual bill like this.

Let me make one last appeal to my colleagues opposite. I know that the Reform Party is not the only party that has been hearing the cries of Canadians for immigration reform. I know that the Reform Party is not alone in receiving hundreds and hundreds of letters and calls from across the country, but especially from Ontario, which decry immigration policy and demand change. They have been hearing those calls too. Do the people, largely the constituents of your ridings not deserve better than window dressing? Do they not deserve better than stop-gap measures? They want real change. They want a better system that protects Canadians. Let us give them that.

Let us vote against Bill C-44, start over and change the way that Canada does business when it comes to immigrants and refugees. Let us give Canadians a system that really works not just for immigrants and refugee claimants but for Canadians too.

[Petitions, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of constituents in Calgary North I would like to present a petition to this House requesting that Parliament not amend any legislation to sanction same sex relationships or to make the undefined sexual orientation prohibited grounds for discrimination.

[Full Employment Act, September 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this bill. I join the hon. member for Yukon in her sincere desire that no Canadian ever have to suffer the anxiety and the stress of being unable to find a good job with a good income sufficient to provide for themselves and their family. I commend her for her compassion and for wishing to devise a way to relieve this and other difficulties faced by all too many of our citizens.

Unfortunately the measure she is proposing in the bill before this House today simply cannot achieve this ideal. It would be wonderful if people through their elected representatives could by putting the right words on paper eliminate difficulties and uncertainty in the economic, political and social spheres of our society. In my view it does not work that way. That view is based on observations of government actions both past and present, some in our own country.

Creating a state bureaucracy which will somehow create jobs for everyone is certainly not a new idea. The well known slogan of the old Soviet Union was: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". What that led to was summarized in the typical black humour of the Polish workers who used to say: "We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us".

To suggest to Canadians that governments owe them jobs or are even capable of providing them with jobs in every case would be a cruel deception. This is particularly true for this government, already over half a trillion dollars in debt and spending $41 billion and rising every single year just on interest on that debt.

The tax burden on working Canadians simply to sustain the present level of spending is already a crushing load. Where will the money come from to create the ministry of plenty envisioned in this bill? Governments have no money of their own. They must work with money taken from citizens. Even if they recovered some revenue in the form of taxes this proposal would still require an enormous additional expenditure in terms of the bureaucratic handling fee that would be made necessary by this new initiative.

If government programs, spending, borrowing for more programs and increasing tax grabs to fund it all could give people jobs, there would be enough programs and spending in Canada to give every single citizen three jobs. It has not worked out that way.

Since big government, big government programs and interference in the economy are what have brought us to today's fiscal mess I am frankly amazed that anyone would be advocating more of the same today.

Allow me to outline some of the obvious flaws in this bill. Clause 3 of this legislative proposal calls for governments to give priority to the undertaking of sufficient measures to achieve full employment in Canada and establish programs that ensure that employment opportunities are available to all adult Canadians who seek work.

These suggestions are vague and they are optimistic. The shortage of specifics with intent to achieve idealistic goals seems to infer that the government should spend tax dollars to create employment without creating wealth or economic growth to support it.

It seems to me that we have tried these measures before in countless forms throughout our history without creating any possibility for long term employment. The most recent example is this government's initiative to assist unemployed Canadian youth. These programs amount to a redistribution of tax dollars to our young people in exchange for performing routine tasks. It does nothing to give them long term jobs and skills.

The premier of Ontario tried to spend his way out of recessionary times during his first year in office. We know the results there. This type of mentality has already plunged Canada to the brink of fiscal collapse. Investor confidence has weakened and with it has come a loss of jobs and a shaky economy.

High interest rates are another result of this type of government policy. The vicious spiral of government spending leads to a high level of taxation which in turn contributes to inflation which stifles entrepreneurship.

The best way to create employment and thus achieve this bill's objectives is to eliminate government waste, remove barriers and regulations that hinder commerce, cut spending and reduce taxes. In this environment there would be a streamlined bureaucracy serving the real needs of Canadian entrepreneurs. Canadians would have more money left in their pockets to start and build businesses and there would be enough profit left to make their work and risk worthwhile. Only when individuals are prepared to risk their own capital can we expect to have a strong and vibrant economy.

Studies have shown and indeed the hon. member opposite just mentioned that an enormous percentage of real long term jobs are created by a healthy small business sector.

We need to get government off the backs of people and keep governments' demands from obstructing their dreams and work. There is no need to further encumber the people of Canada with yet another government department and still more regulations to stimulate employment.

This bill also calls for a draft plan that will include an estimate of the number of jobs expected to be created in Canada as a result of the plan and a timetable for its implementation and

for the achievement of full employment. This suggestion poses some very serious questions.

First, experience has amply demonstrated that governments by their nature cannot be trusted to forecast the economic capacity of a free market. Their attempts to do so have only led to some type of a planned economy. I am sure we are all aware of the outcome of such strategies as practised in other countries.

The omniscient role for government as advocated by this proposal would be best replaced by enhancing the resources of the private sector which has the most at stake. Other countries have recognized that economic decision making must be centred not on periodic pronouncements and decrees from a distant bureaucracy. This type of top-down policy would only cost Canadians jobs by stifling initiatives and creating obstacles.

There is a need for government policies that promote competition and choice. This would foster a market culture predicated on efficiency and ingenuity. These in turn will generate more activity in the marketplace which will create more jobs. It would be of great benefit if government was more user friendly and more accessible. Canadians want more personal responsibility and less imposed government dependency.

This bill's plan unfortunately seeks the opposite. Every able and willing Canadian should be able to find suitable employment but that can only happen when the nation's wealth is left in the hands of entrepreneurs, investors and business people rather than taken from them to be spent by bureaucrats, politicians and grant recipients.

Clause 6 of this bill itemizes 22 regulatory protectionist or expenditure related measures which the sponsors hope will ensure full employment. Most disturbing of all is the consideration of the establishment of a department of full employment that would include a mandate to achieve full employment. It is almost incredible that as our fiscal crisis looms larger, ideas involving yet another increase in government spending and thus an increased tax burden are still being promoted.

Still others of these measures would close doors to Canadian drugs and restrict our markets to imports. To tie this all together, an intricate web of new agencies would also be created to carry out the policies.

What fascinates me is that there is no mention of where the funds would come from to realize these goals. This is one of the best examples of a recipe for disaster. We must instead strengthen co-operation between business, government and labour to ensure sustainable environmental development, the development of training programs which will meet the real demands of industry and work for tax relief and reform.

The Reform Party supports a general program of expenditure reduction, not increase, leading to a lower level of taxation, a lower cost of doing business and a lower cost of living. We need to get the deficit and debt under firm control while reforming the tax system in order to create a level playing field which would allow private initiatives to stimulate the economy.

To this end we will work toward a simple, visible and flat taxation system. I was glad to hear the member opposite support that in the speech before me. Investment consumer confidence in a market economy are directly related to the cost of participation. Canadians should be allowed to spend their hard earned dollars as they see fit, not in funding endless government programs.

In conclusion, Bill C-209 reads like another attempt at a planned economy which historically has never achieved its objectives. This legislative proposal does not allow society to harness the initiative of individuals. It creates structure and dependency, trade, profit-

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we learn so much every day from the Chair and we appreciate that.

My colleague asked me to comment on two things. One was how seriously I think the government is taking this matter of health hazards associated with these attempts to diminish cigarette smuggling. I think the government is serious about the problem. There has been an attempt to address it vigorously. The only problem is that I do not believe this way of addressing it is the most effective. I do not think it was well thought through. I do think the costs of this particular approach outweigh the benefits and that there can be some changes to the legislation which will make it much more effective in addressing the problem.

All of us in this House including those on the government side are concerned that we not have a problem of cigarette smuggling in the country. We know the disruption and the social cost but we have to make sure that what happens to stamp out one fire does not start a bunch of others.

The second thing mentioned by my colleague was banning cigarette advertising. This has not been talked about too much in the House. I guess my comments to start us thinking about advertising are these.

The goal of advertising is to create a need, to create a desire. In simple terms, why are we allowing an activity that creates a need and a desire in our citizens to use a product that is very harmful to them personally, has an enormous social cost and an enormous economic cost?

We need to sit down and do a cost benefit analysis on that. Yes, it does create some jobs and that is good, but at what cost? It seems to me that when we are so eager to legislate, to make moves to change social policies and social structures, this is an area that we really have not considered as seriously as we could.

I would suggest that it would certainly be an appropriate use of the legislative powers of the House to diminish activities that create a need and a desire for a very harmful product for Canadians and for Canadian youth.