Inky Mark

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tonight's vote is about real people like Keray Regan from Vernon, B.C. who was infected with hepatitis C through receiving tainted blood in 1986. Keray Regan said that he will continue to fight for all hepatitis C victims.

Will this government tell Keray Regan that it will do the right thing and compensate all victims of hepatitis C?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this budget on behalf of the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River. After surveying the constituency, I can report that their priorities differ from the priorities of the government.

More than 66% of my constituents said they wanted the reduction of the $583 billion debt to be the priority of any surplus. Over 56% said that their second priority was the reduction of the GST and income taxes. Another 9% made tax relief their first priority. Ten per cent wanted increased spending after the debt was paid down. Only 3.2% of my constituents agreed with what the government is doing by increasing spending before paying down the debt.

One of the best things about being an MP with the Reform Party is that we are not only free to vote, we are expected to represent the views of our constituents, especially when our constituents' views conflict with party policy.

I have not lost my role as deputy critic for national unity, nor have I lost my standing committee memberships.

We all know what the Prime Minister did to the independent member for York South—Weston and Warren Allmand when they would not go along with the orders that came down from the top. Warren Allmand was kicked out of the chair of the justice committee and the member for York South—Weston was first kicked out of the Liberal caucus and then the Liberal Party of Canada by the Prime Minister.

Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the BNA Act, assigns the House of Commons the responsibility for authorizing all new or increased spending in taxes. Under section 54 the crown and cabinet can only recommend new spending and taxes. They cannot authorize, at least in theory. Let us not forget that.

Through their member of the House of Commons the people are to be free to express whether or not they think increased spending or taxes is what they want. That is how it is spelled out in the Constitution. That is the theory.

The trouble is that theory is often fiction and the truth is very strange. Instead of MPs who are here to serve and express the will of the people on spending and taxes, the government seems to think MPs are here to serve and express the will of the government.

Last week we celebrated 150 years of responsible government, beginning with Baldwin and Lafontaine. In fact, Joseph Howe established responsible government sometime earlier in Nova Scotia.

What is responsible government? It means that the crown and the cabinet are to be held responsible to the elected House, the House of the people, the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not responsible to the cabinet. Somewhere along the line we got it backwards and now backbenchers are expected to fall in line with whatever the Prime Minister and the cabinet send down from on high. Responsible government is not working the way Joseph Howe, Baldwin and Lafontaine and so many others thought it should.

I think it is time to try some new ways of making sure that spending and taxes theoretically authorized by this House are supported by the people, the voters, the taxpayers.

What is the answer? How about the grassroots solution?

Tax and expenditure legislation in my home province of Manitoba requires that tax increases be authorized by the voters through a referendum. Tax and expenditure legislation also holds the premier and the cabinet of Manitoba personally and financially responsible for any budget deficit.

Someone once said that hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully. Tax and expenditure legislation concentrates it wonderfully on the priorities of government and on careful management of the public's money. After all, it is not the crown's money and it is not the Prime Minister's money. It is not the cabinet's money. It is not even the MPs' money. It is the public's money held in trust to be spent only as necessary in a responsible manner.

Someone might say “We cannot do that. We have never done it before”. My first response to that is to list the seven last words of any dying institution or organization. The seven last words of a dying institution are, “We've never done it that way before”.

I have already pointed out Manitoba's pioneering use of tax and expenditure legislation. Alberta has also enacted tax and expenditure legislation.

Even this House passed a very weak version of tax and expenditure legislation, the Spending Control Act, in the 34th Parliament. The Spending Control Act was brought to this House by Don Mazankowski in 1992. Most of us say it was too little, too late.

Under the Spending Control Act the finance minister was required to aim for statutory targets on program spending and to justify any deficits. The statutory targets were in effect up to March 31, 1996.

If the current finance minister really wants to make his mark on Canada and federal government spending policy, if he is really serious when he says that the mistakes of the past finance ministers to run deficits for more than 25 years will never be repeated, then he should bring in tax and expenditure legislation as soon as possible.

By the way, one of those past finance ministers who spent us into a $583 billion debt, excluding liabilities, was the finance minister who delivered the budget speech of 1978, the current Prime Minister.

We are glad the Prime Minister stayed in parliament long enough to be here to take advice from the Reform Party on how to begin cleaning up the mess he helped create in the 1970s. However, there is still a $583 billion debt plus at least as much in CPP liabilities that need to be cleaned up. If we go at the rate the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance propose it will take well over 200 years to clean up the mess.

The finance minister likes to compare Canada to the standards for European Community membership: budget deficits at no more than 3% of GDP and public debts at no more than 60% of GDP. What the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister forget is that those standards apply to the total deficits and debts of all levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. Maybe it is just selective memory.

Even if we deal only with federal debt, we are at between 70% and 75% of GDP. If we add the current CPP liability we are at something like 140% and 150% of GDP. If we add health care liabilities for the next 20 years, even I do not want to think about that.

What did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance do in the last parliament? They cut $4 billion in funding for health care and offloaded even more of the liability on to the provinces. If that is Liberal social conscience, I would like to know where is the conscience.

If the Prime Minister really wants to do something in the new millennium for Canada's youth then he should take steps to make sure that Canada's youth are not saddled with a huge public debt and high taxes for the next millennium.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should bring in tax expenditure legislation that does the following. First, I suggest they should require the public accounts to be balanced over the life of a parliament. Second, they should require public approval for any new or increased taxes. Third, they should require any budget surplus to be applied to lowering the debt and taxes.

In closing, members of the House should never forget that they have a constitutional responsibility to authorize only the spending and taxes people want. Tax and expenditure legislation would go far in sending a clear message to Canadians that we understand it is their money and that we take our responsibility to them seriously.

[The Senate, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since 1870 Manitobans have governed themselves in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Since Confederation, Manitobans have elected MPs to the House of Commons. Even earlier they governed themselves at the municipal level democratically.

Manitobans have always been saddled with senators who are party fundraisers, leadership campaign supporters, former MPs and political friends.

Senator Carstairs wants a triple-E Senate. Premier Filmon wants a triple-E Senate. Premier Filmon even said that Manitobans should have the right to elect their own senators.

The Prime Minister said he is ready and willing to make changes to the Senate when the provinces are ready. Manitobans are ready and waiting.

[Youth, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.

Kyle is from my riding. He is 21 years old, currently unemployed. He is a seasonal construction worker and owes more than $25,000 in student loans. How can Kyle afford to live, let alone pay down his student loan? Kyle wants to finish his education and cannot wait for, as the media calls it, the little guy from Shawinigan memorial fund.

How will the finance minister put more money into Kyle's pocket rather than his?

[The Senate, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister was asked if he was aware that most Canadians do not support the Senate. The Prime Minister said he is willing to reform the Senate when the provinces are ready.

Since 1989 Albertans have been ready to elect senators. Since 1990 British Columbians have been ready. Last week an MPP proposed a bill that could make Ontario ready to elect senators. Before and after she was appointed by the Prime Minister, Senator Carstairs indicated that Manitobans are ready.

Canadians are ready. When will the Prime Minister of Canada be ready?

[The Senate, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a member in the upper house indicated, upon appointment, that reforming the upper chamber would be a chief priority. This member, Senator Carstairs, a former leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, said: “I think the Senate should be an elected institution”. She criticized Mr. Mulroney's appointment of one of his fundraisers in 1993.

We hope Senator Sharon Carstairs will take a principled stand and insist that she will go down in history as the last Manitoba Senator to be appointed, not elected. We hope Senator Carstairs will take a giant step toward reforming the upper chamber, that she will insist that Manitoba elect a Senator for the next vacancy.

The next vacancy will occur May 6, 1998, the date her Tory colleague is scheduled to retire.

[Income Tax Act, February 10th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (percentage of gifts that may be deducted from tax).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act, percentage of gifts that may be deducted from tax. This bill will put charitable donations on the same tax footing as political donations for the first $1,150. Thereafter any tax credits for charitable donations would remain the same.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on C-4. The farmers of Dauphin—Swan River believe in the wheat board but want more accountability. They also believe that options must be made available to the producer.

Farmers in Dauphin—Swan River want the wheat board to be not only accountable but more flexible and more transparent. This would mean that the Canadian Wheat Board should change the current system of government appointments to a fully elected board of directors, not just 10 out of 15.

The Canadian Wheat Board must be made more accountable to the Access to Information Act. In other words if people want information, they should have the right to get it by asking.

The wheat board should be audited by the auditor general. Former speakers have alluded to that aspect.

There is no doubt that the current act maintains the minister's excessive power and influence over the wheat board. That needs to be changed.

Agriculture is the backbone of the economy in Dauphin—Swan River. All economic activity in Dauphin—Swan River is dependent on the economic welfare of the farmer and the agricultural community. If the farmer has a dollar in his pocket, it is probably quite likely he will spend it and through this expenditure life will certainly be enhanced. This will improve life generally for all rural Manitobans in Dauphin—Swan River.

The lesson here is that governments must learn that they need to leave more money in the pockets of the producers and citizens of this country. The governance of the Canadian Wheat Board must do all it can to put money into the pockets of the producers whom they are supposed to represent.

On February 2 I was absent from this House to attend a meeting in Strathclair, Manitoba. The meeting concerned the Canadian Wheat Board and grain transportation. Present at the meeting were representatives from the Canadian Wheat Board as well as exporters of other grain products, and the Hudson Bay rail line company.

The most significant change that has occurred in this past year is the privatization of both the Hudson Bay rail line and the port of Churchill. It was interesting that back in 1930, as I have indicated to this House previously, the government of the day had vision for this country concerning the movement of grain the shortest distance to markets and not just east and west as has been occurring over the last 60 years.

That is the reason the port of Churchill was built back in 1930, which is a long time ago. The mileage distance has not changed. Today the port of Churchill is still 1,600 kilometres closer to European markets than to Thunder Bay. The port of Churchill is still the catchment area for 25% of the grain growing region of Canada.

Despite this knowledge, obviously it has not had an impact in the decisions that have been made by this House and by the Canadian Wheat Board over the last 60 years in which way the transportation of grain should occur.

It is hard to believe that even today that facility is like new probably because of underutilization. It still has a storage capacity of five million bushels. It has harbours for oceangoing ships, much larger ships than they can handle in the Thunder Bay ports.

At the Strathclair February 2 meeting the Canadian Wheat Board representatives were ecstatic in telling people how much grain they shipped from the port this past year, 400,000 tonnes. There are over 30 million tonnes of grain grown in western Canada so 400,000 tonnes is really a drop in the bucket.

There is no argument that it is cheaper to ship agriculture products through the port of Churchill. Farmers should no longer be forced to transport their grain, their agricultural product, to a port that increases their transportation costs and does not maximize their returns. They must have the right to ship to other ports of choice. They do not at this time because they are under the influence and authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The transfer of the Hudson Bay rail line to a short line operator should be viewed as good news. Likewise the transfer of the port of Churchill to the private sector should be viewed as good news to the government.

All the communities along the short line depend on activity for sustainability not only on the line but also the port. The town of Churchill depends on the port for economic survival. This past summer I had the opportunity to talk to the mayor and council of Churchill. They told me about the impact of the port. If the port was not there, their community probably would disappear off the edge of the map.

The rail line brings tourism. It brings people who want to come up to Churchill. Look at the picture of the famous Canadian polar bear on the toonie. This can only happen if the shipment of agricultural products continues to be headed in the northward direction.

I would like to close by saying that the fate of the Hudson Bay rail line and the port of Churchill is in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board at this time because of the rules that are utilized in terms of the transportation of the grain produced on the prairies. The future of the short line and the port are dependent on the grain moving to the northern port.

At the February 2 meeting at Strathclair, I challenged the Canadian Wheat Board representatives that if it is in the best interests of farmers to move grain north to Churchill and if that proposal and that direction will put money in the hands of farmers, then what seems to be the problem with the Canadian Wheat Board moving grain north through the port of Churchill? As well I challenged them to double or triple their record for 1997 which was set at 400,000 tonnes.

The bottom line is that the Canadian Wheat Board must be more accountable to the farmers of Canada. This bill needs a lot of change before it will make that happen.

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Private Member's Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act by introducing a deduction for interest paid on mortgage loans.

From listening to the former speakers, I believe they have really missed the boat. This bill is about putting money in people's pockets. When they have money in their pockets they spend it. When people spend their money we have increased economic activity. That is how the world operates.

I applaud the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar for introducing the bill. It would provide for the deduction of interest paid by a taxpayer on the first $100,000 of a mortgage loan, secured by the first qualifying home acquired by that taxpayer. In other words, that is the ceiling.

If I can simplify this, for a mortgage amount of $100,000 amortized over 20 years at an interest rate of 7%, and the government should take note that interest rates are unfortunately going up today, with that mortgage a buyer will pay an estimated amount of $84,632 in interest.

To simplify this for those members who do not like math, let us divide $84,632 by 20 years. We come up with about $4,231.50. That is potentially $4,231.50 more per year that a first time homebuyer would have to spend on their children, on the purchase of a car, on an RRSP, on things like dental care, on furnishings and on the upkeep of their home. That is potentially $4,231.50 depending on the terms of the mortgage, a homebuyer could put toward paying down a mortgage early, saving even more money.

No matter how we slice it, that is $84,632 more in the pockets of the first time homebuyer. In other words, that is the interest.

What is the philosophy behind this bill? It is simple but profound. As I said in my earlier remarks, a dollar left in the hands of a taxpayer, a consumer, a parent, a citizen, is better used and more beneficial to the economy and all Canadians than that same dollar put in the hands of the tax collector, a minister or a bureaucrat.

Believe it. With a few more dollars in the hands of first time homebuyers this bill will achieve the following. It moves Canadians from renters to homebuyers. Instead of giving money to a landlord, more Canadians would have the opportunity to invest in themselves, their families and their futures.

In Winnipeg, the largest city in my province of Manitoba, 60% of the homes sold from January to September 1997 were purchased by first time homebuyers. According to an article reported in the Winnipeg Sun on October 27, 1997, Terry Kozak, a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation spokesman said: “A record high of 25,000 Winnipeg renters could afford to purchase a home. The added incentive of tax deductible interest would encourage renters to take the plunge”.

The second point I want to make is that in 1995 under the Liberal government, housing starts in Manitoba were down by 38.6%. Since then housing starts have seen very modest gains. According to CMHC single family housing starts are up in Manitoba by 10.7% compared to gains of more than 37% in Alberta for 1997. But as I already mentioned, interest rates are headed up. That is not good news for homebuyers. If the government is really interested in sustaining the growth in housing starts, it should pass Bill C-223.

The government should use this tax break for mortgage interest to counteract mortgage interest rates going up. That is good public policy. It is real compassion for families and other potential first time buyers just getting started in life. If all of us can think back 30 or 40 years, we will remember what it was like when we did not have two nickels to pinch.

Even the columnist who is not a fan of the Reform Party, Brian Mulroney's former chief of staff, Hugh Segal, agrees with the objective of this bill. I quote from his column of September 13, 1997. “Middle income Canadians would experience an increase in disposable and discretionary income, there would be an easier transition from renting to owning and the family home would for once be the beneficiary of enlightened tax policy as opposed to a victim”. He goes on to say, “It was right when finance minister Crosby tried to introduce it almost 20 years ago”, as the former speaker alluded to, “and it is even more right today”.

My colleague has enunciated how there are many other benefits with the economic spin-offs that this tax break would create. There is no doubt we would see an increase in job creation, certainly jobs created for carpenters, plumbers, electricians. There would also be a big demand for the manufacturing sector to fill these homes.

Money spent locally in communities usually turns around about seven times. Every dollar that is spent locally spins around seven times.

Real jobs are created when governments put more money into the hands of the consumer. The expenditure of money is what makes the economy go around. The people of Canada are waiting for tax relief. I remind the House that we are the highest taxed people in all of the G-7 countries.

I close by saying that it is time we passed this bill. It would help first time homebuyers create their own homes and enhance the quality of life for their families.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate on the amendment of term 17.

I found making a decision on this to be very difficult, so difficult that actually last week I had indicated to my own caucus that I would oppose the amendment but since then, I have changed my mind. I believe that this is about the future of Newfoundland much more than about the past. I support the motion to amend term 17. I am certainly concerned about the rights of minorities, distinguishing rights if that is what they have, and about the flexibility of the Canadian constitution. We need to examine the type of educational system that is best suited for the future of Newfoundland.

I have no doubt that having been a teacher for 27 years in the public education system will certainly bias my decision to some point, but the question I focus on in making this decision is how the amendment will affect the future and welfare of students of Newfoundland schools. Does the amendment put the future of the students first and foremost?

As has been mentioned by members of the House, it is difficult being an MP from outside Newfoundland to deal with a Newfoundland issue that has been ongoing for many years. It is difficult to step into the shoes of a Newfoundlander.

Because education is a mandate of the province, I would have preferred solutions to have been found in Newfoundland. I would have been happier if the issue had not reached this House so that the people and legislature of Newfoundland would have come up with a solution.

In Manitoba we have a voluntary separate school system, but most students attend a public school system much like that of the rest of the country. The funding for separate schools, many of which are religion based, is voluntary on the part of the government. Some of them receive about one-third funding.

In Manitoba all facets of education rests with the province: the school boards, teacher certification, all school funding and the curriculum. It is ironic that with new provincial reforms in the Manitoba school educational system there tends to be a new direction of focus to give parents more rights in terms of determining the schools their children attend, the type of instruction afforded to them and the language of instruction.

In this case, if we amend term 17 we are literally taking away religious education in Newfoundland as has been previously practised by the minorities.

In Manitoba there is no compulsory religious education. As well there is no religious observance practised in schools. In the early 1980s Manitoba indicated that the Lord's Prayer was no longer a requirement in the public classroom. Students who object to the singing of O Canada have the right to leave the classroom.

The province of Newfoundland has been struggling toward a non-denominational educational system for the last 25 years. As I indicated earlier, who knows? If this process had continued, perhaps the legislature would have worked a little harder and it could have essentially had a public system much like those of other provinces.

At the same time we realize it is very difficult for most other Canadians to understand and realize that a province such as Newfoundland in 1997 does not have a public school system.

Most students are attending interdenominational protestant schools in Newfoundland. I personally believe amending term 17 will level the playing field for everyone concerned, both students and teachers. No one will be treated as a minority.

In other words, the whole issue of equality will be exercised to a greater extent. Teachers will be hired and fired on their professional merit, not on religious association. I am told a generic course in religion will be provided to students and all stakeholders will be consulted on its development. Religious observance shall be permitted in schools where requested by parents. Academic educational opportunities of Newfoundland students will improve. As well an efficient and cost effective system will be created. All this was recommended by the royal commission and has been uttered by other members of the House.

The churches were asked to work together to create an interdenominational system but after two years it failed.

A constitution tends to be regarded as a badge of nationhood. As such it may reflect the values a country regards as important and show how these values are to be protected, for example, as in our charter of rights and freedoms.

Not all countries have the same type of constitution. Canada's constitution is flexible and not rigid. Regarding term 17, which only applies to Newfoundland, it was twice amended under section 43 by the bilateral amending formula.

I agree with Ms. Anne Bayefsky, an international law expert, that constitutions must be flexible and, as befits the description of a living tree, modernized and made responsive to the needs of the community over time.

I am concerned about the lack of funding for parents who choose to educate their children in a separate system such as religious schools. Funding will not be guaranteed under the amendment as proposed. Parents should have the option of sending their children to a separate school system and I believe that funding should be carried with the student.

In Manitoba parents have the option of home schooling, separate schooling or public schooling. Outside Newfoundland the numbers are growing in separate schools as well as in home schooling.

Religion is deeply entrenched in the educational system of Newfoundland. No doubt many minorities see the amendment as a threat to their constitutional right. Change is never easy. Through referendum the people of Newfoundland have spoken loud and clear. There is no doubt they want change.

This amendment will set the stage for future educational opportunities in Newfoundland. The children of Newfoundland deserve the best education the province can afford to provide. I support the amendment to term 17.