Jay Hill

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's comments as he address the specific part of the country's problem with which he is certainly very familiar.

It occurred to me this really points to some of the problems and some of the reasons the separatists in Quebec feel it is their God given right to divide the country. The Liberal government has seen fit to enter into agreements with Indians and Inuit to set up separate governments across the nation.

We are setting up small self-governments in various parts of the country based on race. Is it any wonder the people in Quebec would be led to believe they should be accorded this same right to divide the country and to have their separate government as well? Where does it eventually lead?

I wonder if the hon. member would address that. By its very actions the Liberal government is creating and fostering this environment across the nation of separateness, of divisiveness.

Since we are talking about the possibility of another referendum to decide the future of Quebec in Confederation, what percentage would be acceptable? Since his leader said 50 per cent plus one is not an acceptable level to recognize the right of Quebec to secede, what would it be, 70 per cent, 80 per cent?

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to respond to the comments made by my hon. colleague from the Bloc.

I believe the majority of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River, whom I am pleased to represent in the House, want to see Canada remain united. They want to see Quebec stay a part of Canada.

However, from conversations I have had with them over the last couple of years, they are sick to death of this issue. It is dominating the agenda of the entire country and dominating the agenda of this place.

My constituents want Quebec to decide once and for all if it is in or out. They have a universal cynicism that the issue will never be settled or decided. The Reform Party, the constituents of Prince George-Peace River and I are in favour of referenda. We have demonstrated that.

However, the Prime Minister, the Liberal government and the separatists have fuelled the cynicism that exists. When the Prime Minister and the government say they will honour and respect 50 per cent plus one provided it is a no vote, and the separatists say they will honour and respect 50 per cent plus one if it is a yes vote, but neither side will respect the results if they do not go its way, what will be accomplished by holding a referendum? This is was asked last fall. What is the point? What does it solve?

Last fall's referendum proved there is a lot of confusion in the minds of Quebec voters. There is a lot of confusion in that province about what exactly people were voting on. The hon. member referred to an honest referendum, which is what we would all seek.

What result will it take? How many times do Quebecers have to say no before the separatists give up on their foolish agenda to try to destroy the country?

[Criminal Code, May 14th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of how Canadians must view this debate tonight, I am embarrassed to be an MP, a supposed representative of the people, a servant of the public. Since the death penalty was abolished in 1976 this is the third time it has been debated in Parliament.

Nothing has been resolved. Throughout the past 20 years the number of Canadians who support the reinstatement of capital punishment has consistently hovered around 70 per cent but MPs have steadfastly refused to represent their constituents on this issue. They have voted on the basis of their personal opinions or with the blessings of their political masters.

In my own riding 85 per cent of constituents who responded to a 1994 survey said that they wanted the death penalty reinstated. My efforts to carry out the wishes of my constituents and 70 per cent of Canadians were blocked by the Liberal dominated subcommittee responsible for deciding which private members' bills would become votable. The subcommittee decided that Bill C-218 was not worthy of three hours of debate and a free vote. This topic gets one hour and then it is dropped.

Ideally the people should finally get their say on this issue in a binding national referendum which would be held at the time of the next federal election. That is the position of the Reform Party of Canada and that is a policy I fully endorse.

However, the Prime Minister and the justice minister have already indicated that they have no intention of allowing this issue to be decided by average Canadians. My hon. colleague from North Vancouver presented a motion in September 1995 to enable legislation for a referendum on capital punishment. Again, government members refused to make the motion votable.

A free vote on a private member's bill would have been the next best thing, particularly if it were a truly reformed free vote in which all MPs could accurately represent the wishes of the majority of their constituents rather than voting their own conscience in spite of how their constituents may feel.

After tonight Canadians will remain frustrated with the government over this issue and they will be forced to continue watching criminals get away with murder. That is a sad statement on the job performance of MPs.

This bill is not just about capital punishment. The reinstatement of the death penalty is but one of many substantial and necessary steps Canadians have been demanding to better deal with murderers in our society. This bill was about plugging the leaking holes in our justice system.

We see murderers who show no remorse for brutally slaying their victims. They show no potential for rehabilitation and instead languish in jails at the taxpayer's expense. Worse yet, when they are released and paroled we are expected to welcome them back into our communities.

We have had to swallow our disgust as some of these released murderers murder again or commit other violent crimes. We see 16 and 17-year olds with little respect for the law receiving slap on the wrist sentences for murder.

Two weeks ago in Prince Rupert, B.C., three teenagers received jail terms ranging from only seven months to two years for the clubbing to death of a fisherman known as the Gentle Giant. I do not believe that any Canadian is prepared to let these preventable crimes and miscarriages of justice continue.

Politicians and academics are fond of quoting optimistic crime rates when they argue against capital punishment. That is pointless. Canadians know their streets are more dangerous today than they were 20 years ago. Statistics do not always tell the entire story.

As members of the House are sure to mention, it is true that there has been a slight decline in the murder rate since the death penalty was abolished in 1976. However, the last execution in Canada took place in 1961, 15 years before. The murder rate almost doubled during those 15 years. The murder rate is still 50 per cent higher than it was when that last sentence of death was carried out.

Some members across the floor have argued that the sensationalism surrounding a handful of murders is driving the demand to improve the justice system. Sensationalism? How can the efforts to prevent murder, even just one murder, be called sensationalism?

We must use these tragedies as a guide to help us make fundamental changes which would prevent further anguish. This government uses prevention to justify implementing a useless bureaucratic gun registration, but refuses to even consider what the people are really crying for: punishment that fits the crime.

In a further example of hypocrisy the government embraces the policies of the Canadian Police Association when it concerns gun control, but ignores a strongly worded resolution by that same association which calls for the reinstatement of capital punishment. There were 107 police officers killed in the line of duty between 1961 and 1994.

Even after years in prison and the efforts of an army of psychiatrists and social workers, we cannot rehabilitate a violent murderer who has no remorse. In this case the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of first degree murder, 70 per cent of Canadians believe the punishment should be death. This sentiment is not a matter of vengeance but a prevailing need to send criminals the message that society is not prepared to condone or excuse sadistic premeditated murder.

I do not claim that the prospect of death will deter others sick enough to consider committing murder, but at least we would not have to support a murderer for 15 to 25 years. Lethal injection may not provide any deterrence whatsoever but it would certainly eliminate repeat offenders.

According to the 1994 report of the auditor general it costs approximately $48,000 per inmate per year in a federal prison. While we are supporting an incarcerated murderer it is possible that he will become increasingly dangerous with the onset of resentment and bitterness over his years of imprisonment. Even convicted murderers have expressed that death could be a more humane alternative to a lengthy incarceration.

In 1982, one-third of the 300 convicted murderers in Canada said that they would prefer the death penalty over life in prison. In 1983 a convicted murderer in Saskatchewan formally requested the death penalty by lethal injection on the basis that his life sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. His request was denied by the court.

In this debate we cannot forget the inevitable release of murderers. How do members feel about the possibility of Paul Bernardo some day being their next door neighbour? Canadians do not want criminals who are guilty of torture, rape and first degree murder back on the streets to kill again. They have good reason to worry.

Between 1986 and 1995, 133 convicts released from prison for first and second degree murder returned to our communities and committed crimes again. These included 87 violent crimes and sex offences and 10 murders. Two convicted murderers who had escaped murdered again. How does one explain to the families of those victims that 12 murderers were given the opportunity to strike again? How can anyone possibly defend our justice system to the family of just one of those victims?

Let us take a look at the so-called rehabilitation of convicted murderer Allan James Sweeney. He was convicted of murder in 1978. Following his 1984 release on day parole, the taxpayers who paid for his expensive jail stay were horrified that his freedom resulted in the rape and stabbing death of a 21-year old Ottawa halfway house employee.

What about the impressive rehabilitation of Jean-Guy Chantal? He was paroled in 1984 after serving 17 years of a life sentence for a 1967 murder. Three years after his release he beat a Montreal janitor to death with a pool cue and a paint can. These are just two tragedies that could have been prevented if our justice system had served our best interests.

In the event that a convict guilty of first degree murder were successful in appealing a death sentence, this bill would have at least ensured that they stayed in jail. That would have meant no possibility of day passes.

That is no consolation for the families of Wanda Woodward and Vital Piquette. They were murdered in 1987 by Daniel Gingras, a convicted murderer who used his birthday present, a one-day pass from an Edmonton prison, as his opportunity to murder again. He had been under the supervision of his social worker, a man half his size who he overpowered and tied up before he escaped to roam freely for nearly two months. Gingras should never have been let out of jail in the first place. It is too late to protect Woodward and Piquette but it is not too late for all the other potential victims.

This bill would have made capital punishment the mandatory minimum sentence for adults convicted of first degree murder. For those who believe this is extreme and that life in prison is adequate punishment for these murderers, I ask them to examine the extreme nature of the lenient section 745 of the Criminal Code. Incredibly, it allows convicts the right to shorten their life sentence. Even if they are ordered to serve life in prison, all convicts can have the length of their sentence reviewed by a jury after serving only 15 years. If successful, they can apply for parole.

Of all convicts who have applied under this provision since 1987, only 13 applicants have been denied an early release. That is a frightening prospect when we consider that even serial child killer Clifford Olson becomes eligible to apply for early release on August 12.

The justice minister says that he is in favour of keeping section 745 in all forms. He finds this loophole is acceptable despite a petition from 16,000 Canadians asking the government to repeal section 745. This is another example of how this government is sticking its head in the sand and refusing to carry out the wishes of Canadians.

While we mend the punitive aspects of our justice system, we must not forget to address the grey area of the criminal population known as young offenders. Currently, a young offender convicted of first degree murder faces just 10 years as a maximum prison term. That 16 or 17-year old is perfectly aware of their actions and can easily understand the difference between right and wrong.

Many people think we should focus on rehabilitating and not punishing these youths. I disagree. There must be a balance. How will a youth who has already demonstrated disdain for justice ever take it seriously if they are not held accountable for their actions?

Between 35 and 65 kids, most of them older teens are charged with murder every year. Youths aged 12 to 17 were accused of 10 per cent of all homicides committed between 1983 and 1992. As with older criminals, they also need to know that their actions are not acceptable in our society.

This bill would have seen a 16 or 17-year old serve a life sentence for first degree murder. Furthermore it would have ensured that this age group served at least seven years for second degree murder. For those under 16, first degree murder would have carried a minimum sentence of 10 to 15 years while second degree murder would have meant imprisonment for five to seven years. Note that the key word here is minimum, not maximum.

I recognize that in advocating capital punishment serious consideration must be given to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death. Both law and science have progressed significantly in the past 20 years. A mechanism proposed in this bill would have given the jury the option of recommending clemency so only those guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt would be put to death.

The appeal process proposed was thorough and fair. A conviction could have been appealed to the supreme court on the basis of both fact and law. This means that legal arguments could be used as sufficient grounds for overturning a conviction. More important, the facts and details surrounding the murder case could be re-examined to determine if the conviction was valid.

The investigative tools and techniques of modern science certainly diminish the ambiguity of guilt or innocence. DNA testing has been proven to be a powerful means of identifying those who may have committed serious crimes. Bill C-104 which passed unanimously by this Parliament in June 1995 makes it easier for authorities to obtain DNA evidence through hair, saliva, blood and skin samples from a person who is reasonably believed to have perpetrated a crime.

Those opposed to capital punishment would have us picture in our minds a row of convicts hanging in the gallows. That is sensationalism. Lethal injection of sodium thiopental ensures a quick and painless end and does not turn the culmination of a tragic chain of events begun by a brutal murder into a media and public circus.

I am advocating change in the justice system as an average Canadian, one who sees criminals coddled and protected while their victims are denied their basic right to safety. Reinstatement of capital punishment along with other measures such as a victim bill of rights as proposed by my colleague from Fraser Valley West would go a long way toward restoring some of the public's lost faith in our judicial system.

There are avid supporters of our rehabilitation programs who believe we can help these lost souls through counselling or training. Of course this is the same program that was allocated an entire chapter by the May 1996 auditor general's report listing a range of inefficiencies.

Canadians want to see murderers be adequately punished for their crime. Canadians do not want a murderer out on the streets to kill again. They have grown weary of watching teenagers laugh at our laws. They are sick and tired of paying for failed rehabilitation. They do not want to accept that murderers may never serve their full sentences.

This government says tough luck for Canadians. The justice minister and his government like the status quo. Who cares what Canadians think? Canadians are being denied the right to vote for these changes in a national referendum and now their representatives, members of Parliament, are being denied the right to vote on their behalf.

Canadians want capital punishment reinstated. Poll after poll has overwhelmingly shown this. When capital punishment was abolished in 1976 it was given 98 hours of debate. In 1996 this debate tonight warrants one hour. One hour.

If the reinstatement of the death penalty were given fair attention and due consideration by Parliament, there would be no backing down. Canadians would have demanded that this bill be passed. Given the tremendous support of Canadians for the reinstatement of capital punishment, and because it is the duty of MPs to represent their constituents' interests in the House, I seek the unanimous consent of the members present to make Bill C-218 votable this evening.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, considering the imposition of time allocation on Bill C-33, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on this piece of legislation. However, I must inform the House that it is not a pleasure. I would have far preferred if this legislation were not brought forward by the Liberal government.

I will begin my remarks by indicating my approval for the amendments we are presently discussing. They are put forward in good faith, dramatically improve the intent of the bill and make it much more palatable. It is certainly my wish to see them passed and the bill amended as in the grouping of the first nine amendments.

In particular I should like to indicate my support for the basic thrust of Motion No. 11 put forward by my colleague. It would add a new clause affirming that sexual orientation will not redefine the terms marriage, family and spouse in any act of Parliament.

This is particularly important because this area seems to be causing so much concern among the constituents of Prince George-Peace River, the riding in northeastern British Columbia which I represent. The people of Canada from coast to coast to coast are very concerned about this amendment being put forward and about the term sexual orientation when it has not been defined by the justice minister or by Parliament.

I would like to read into the record "A Statement Regarding Bill C-33" from the Archdiocese of Vancouver:

In order for the federal government's proposed amendment of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding sexual orientation to be acceptable, three basic safeguards need to be built into the legislation. First, sexual orientation must be defined; second, the amendment must not be used to give homosexual couples marital or marriage-like status; third, the conscience rights of Canadians morally opposed to homosexual behaviour must be protected.

Sexual orientation should be defined to refer to homosexual persons but not homosexual activity. By homosexual persons I mean individuals who experience a predominant, exclusive or very strong attraction to members of their own sex. Such a definition will ensure that the focus of the amendment will be where it should be: on prohibiting unjust discrimination against homosexual persons who have the same inalienable human dignity as other members of society. By specifying homosexual persons, the definition also would prevent the amendment from being used to protect pedophilia or other aberrant sexual behaviour.

It is also necessary for the legislation to explicitly state that the amendments should not be used to redefine the meaning of marriage, family or spouse so as to include homosexual couples or confer marriage-like benefits on such couples. Without such a statement, the amendment's preamble, which refers to preserving the role of "family", is unclear and subject to misinterpretation.

Thirdly, the legislation should make it clear that the amendment is not to be used to restrain Canadians who are opposed to homosexual behaviour from acting in conformity with their conscience, assuming they maintain due respect for homosexual persons. It should not force them to do something which reflects approval for homosexual behaviour, and it should not prevent them from doing

something which reflects disapproval for such behaviour. For example, it should allow employers to make the non-practice of homosexual activity a bona fides occupational qualification. (Manitoba's human rights act explicitly provides for this).

These safeguards are necessary to preserve the common good while at the same time enabling Canadian society to clearly oppose unjust discrimination toward homosexual persons.

This document comes to me from the most Reverend Adam Exner, OMI, with the archbishop's office in Vancouver. I thought it was particularly appropriate to read it into the record because it certainly fits in quite nicely with amendments we are debating at present.

Motion No. 12, also submitted by my colleague, adds a new clause affirming that sexual orientation will not affect freedom of religion, expression and association as guaranteed in the charter of rights and freedoms.

I refer briefly to the Reform blue book. Bill C-33 has certainly caused quite a stir in the Reform Party, the Liberal Party and most if not all political parties over the last week or so since it was introduced in the House.

This is my first opportunity to speak to the bill because over the last couple of weeks I was back in my riding. There are many people at the grassroots level across Canada discussing the legislation. There is open and honest discussion about the possible ramifications of Bill C-33.

The constituents of Prince George-Peace River have made it very clear to me as their elected member where the majority of them stood on the bill. Motion No. 12 dovetails nicely with principle number eight in the Reform blue book:

We believe that every individual, group, province and region in Canada is entitled to fundamental justice. That fundamental justice entitles the people of each region to benefit equally, without discrimination, from participation in Confederation and from the programs and expenditures of the Government of Canada.

Certainly that fits in quite nicely with this amendment. That is why we are supporting this motion.

Motion No. 13 warrants some attention. It adds a new clause that sexual orientation will not affect the enforcement of provisions in the Criminal Code.

Motion No. 14 adds a new clause to affirm that nothing in the bill will result in the extension of same sex benefits. This is consistent with Reform policy and consistent with survey results from my own riding.

I conducted the survey in a householder in the spring of 1994, some two years ago, but it is still appropriate today. Because we were forewarned in the infamous Liberal red book of what they intended to do, I took it upon myself to ask questions of the constituents of Peace George-Peace River. Over 1,200 constituents replied to the questionnaire.

Question No. 3 indicated that the Canadian Human Rights Act should prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It was very succinct and very straightforward. Thirty-four per cent of the respondents agreed, fifty-four per cent disagreed and twelve per cent were undecided. It was not a large majority but a majority nonetheless.

On the accompanying question of same sex couples being eligible for spousal benefits received by traditional couples, men and women, 16 per cent agreed, 75 per cent disagreed and 9 per cent were undecided.

The vast majority of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River feel quite strongly about the issue, certainly those who responded to the questionnaire at any rate.

As early as about an hour ago I was faxed a memo from one of the more prominent radio stations with a very high profile talk show, CJDC out of Dawson Creek in my riding. It is signed by a number of people who work at the station and states:

I oppose the initiative to have sexual orientation added to the Canadian Human Rights Act without definition and proper input from the Canadian people.

A large number of people have advised me as their representative how they feel I should be voting on this piece of legislation. I have received over 100 E-mail letters in the last two days alone, all in opposition to the bill. I have received faxes, phone calls and personal consultation over the last couple of weeks I had the opportunity to travel throughout my riding. Certainly constituents were coming to me and making their views known on this piece of legislation.

In summary, without these amendments being passed I will have to vote against the legislation, not because any individual should suffer from discrimination but having the term undefined could lead to all types of things that I have clearly laid out in speeches in the past. Those are my concerns and therefore I will be voting against Bill C-33.

[Mackenzie, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 1996 is a watershed year for the town of Mackenzie in my riding.

Unfortunately it is not positive. Due to the inaction of the government, the residents of this small, isolated community nestled in the Rockies have lost their northern living allowance. Why are the residents of Mackenzie discriminated against while thousands of people living in cities further south still qualify?

1996 also marks the 10th anniversary of spring weight restrictions for trucks travelling the Alaska highway to Yukon. The continued imposition of the 75 per cent load restriction is unfair and costly to trucking companies and northern residents.

Millions of resource dollars flow out of our region and little is put back. Like the Trans-Labrador highway, the Alaska highway is not even finished yet. Northerners in my riding are fed up with their needs being ignored by the government.

When will the government recognize that the north is a vital part of Canada's economy?

[The Environment, March 28th, 1996]

And you just happen to have the answer.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, quite frankly I find it incredible that the Bloc is opposing this motion.

Reform members have looked at this clause and feel that our motion is very appropriate and quite reasonable. I will go back over this clause so that the people back home who are watching can understand exactly what it is we are talking about. Clause 20 states:

For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6, the Minister may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.

On the surface it would seem quite reasonable to allow the minister to have that type of power and authority. However, as has already been articulated by my hon. colleague, we felt-call us a bit gun-shy or perhaps call us paranoid at times-we would like to see, especially in areas like this, as the Bloc has been articulating, that these are primarily areas of provincial responsibility. There has to be a proper check and balance put into place.

My hon. colleague has proposed a quite reasonable amendment to this clause merely by inserting "after obtaining the approval of the lieutenant-governor in council of the province". That is all we are talking about, not some lengthy legalistic mumbo-jumbo but just a very basic amendment that would see the government held in check by the provinces. I might add it is the provinces that the government is always saying it is consulting and in ongoing discussions, and with which it has excellent working relationships.

My party has difficulty with that. Unlike the member for Kenora-Rainy River, Reformers have very strong recent memories of some of the bills that this government has enacted over the course of the 35th Parliament, just one of which is Bill C-68, the gun legislation.

I would question whether the government had the support of the provinces when five of the provinces and both territories were very outspoken against that legislation. I need not remind the House that legislation is going to have a direct impact on the financial well-being of the provinces when they are called on by the federal government to enact the registration scheme for all long guns in this country.

That type of program has a very strong and definite economic impact on the provinces. Yet the government just arbitrarily declares it law and forges ahead. That is our fear in this area as well. The minister, when he runs up against some resistance from certain provinces, may just by-pass them and just forge ahead, putting the programs in place expecting the provinces to pick up the administrative costs or what have you.

Another incident of note for members of Parliament from British Columbia is what happened last November and December. This government decided to bring forward a constitutional veto for the regions of the country. In its wisdom it decided, arbitrarily once again, on very short notice that British Columbia did not constitute a region. The government was just going to lump British Columbia in with the three prairie provinces, in with the west, when it was doling out this constitutional veto.

Therefore, the provinces are more than a little gun-shy when it comes to these types of clauses, clauses that on the surface seem quite reasonable. Reformers feel that some appropriate check is necessary. We do not understand in this particular case at least why the Bloc Quebecois would not support it.

This is the party that is always concerned about the provinces having some authority. This amendment would see that before the minister could forge ahead and enact certain programs that would have a definite impact on the provinces, the minister would have to clear those programs with the lieutenant-governor. Obviously it would have to be cleared with the lieutenant-governor of Quebec where that program would be a bilateral agreement between Quebec and the Government of Canada. Yet a couple of members from the Bloc have indicated they are going to be voting against this amendment. Quite frankly I find it amazing that a party that is always seeking to have more control for its province is going to vote against an amendment that would do exactly that.

[Divorce Act, March 20th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the Divorce Act (joint custody).

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Athabasca for seconding this bill.

The Divorce Act is discriminatory. It leaves non-custodial parents, usually fathers, out in the cold. I know some very good fathers who always pay child support but can no longer afford to see their children because their mothers have taken them to live a considerable distance away.

Statistics show a direct correlation between access and non-compliance. Non-custodial parents who get to see their children are more likely to make their payments. However, custody now goes to one parent unless an application for joint custody is made. It should be the reverse.

Joint custody of and access to one's children should be automatic unless it is not in the children's bests interests. Today I am tabling a bill to amend the act to make joint custody automatic.

The recent controversy over child support payment taxation should not detract from the most important issue to children. In most cases that issue is not dollars and cents but guaranteed access to both parents.

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

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Otherwise, why do it?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the honourable member. Quite frankly, I am getting sick and tired of the government's trying to brag about bringing the deficit down to 3 per cent or 2 per cent of GDP. I find that totally misleading for the general population. The government likes to quote that number because it is a small number, when in reality it should be talking about the debt and its percentage of GDP. That number is considerably higher. The debt to GDP ratio is more like 73 per cent.

The hon. member quoted statistics. She seemed to enjoy quoting statistics to tell us how wonderful Canada is doing and how great the government is doing. She mentioned that Canadians want the deficit and debt reduced but they also want those who are the most vulnerable in society protected. It is interesting that she mentioned not only the deficit but the debt in that statement. Canadians want the deficit and the debt reduced.

Let us talk about the debt for a minute. The debt under this Liberal administration has grown since 1993-94, when it was about $508 billion, to a projected figure for next year of $602 billion. That is an increase of almost $100 billion.

The hon. member talked about revenue in her speech. She mentioned that there have been no increases in personal income tax. She might be right about that, but revenues have increased dramatically. Revenues have increased from 1993-94 when they were $116 billion to a projected figure in 1996-97 of $136 billion, an increase of about $20 billion of increased income from the taxpayers.

Those are the real numbers that count, not the deficit but the debt. The fact is that the interest charges on the public debt have increased from $38 billion in 1993-94 when the hon. member's government took office to a projected $49 billion of interest charges for next year, an increase of $11 billion. Those are the numbers that Canadians should be concerned about. Those are the numbers that present the most serious threat to Canada's social programs.

I would like the hon. member to address those numbers when she is talking. I think it is totally irresponsible of the government to be talking about reducing the deficit when the debt continues to grow at an alarming rate.