[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 7, 1996
.1218 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Order. I want to welcome you to our next session. I apologize for the short delay in starting.
This is the finance committee, and it's holding pre-budget consultations. As I explained earlier this morning, we have divided into two groups. Part of our committee has gone east and part of our committee has gone west. This is the western tour. We started in Vancouver on Monday. We were in Edmonton on Tuesday, Regina yesterday. Today we're in Winnipeg.
With us we have a number of members from the finance committee. We have Mr. Rocheleau, who represents the riding of Trois-Rivières in the province of Quebec; Gary Pillitteri, from the riding of Niagara Falls in the province of Ontario; Ron Fewchuk, from the province of Manitoba, representing the riding of Selkirk - Red River; Glen McKinnon, also from the province of Manitoba; Ron Duhamel, from the riding of St. Boniface in the province of Manitoba; Barry Campbell, member from St. Paul's in the province of Ontario and also parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance - so he has his direct ear and we're very lucky to have him with us - and Monte Solberg, who represents the riding of Medicine Hat in the province of Alberta.
Ladies and gentlemen, in case you haven't been properly briefed on what's going to happen, it's a round table discussion. We've been holding them across the country and we've been holding them in Ottawa as well. Everyone will be given approximately three minutes to present. I would urge you to summarize or bring out the pertinent points you think the committee should be aware of in your briefs. Your briefs will be read in full.
With that, today I will begin with an individual presentation from Mr. Robert Johannson.
Mr. Robert Johannson (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present to this committee. This is the third year I've been presenting to the committee and I'm grateful for the opportunity, especially given what I generally say to you.
I have been watching the committee hearings on CPAC, and a number of things have appeared clear to me. One of the questions the committee has been concerned with is that one of the issues facing this country is that we have massive unemployment. Therefore the committee has posed the question of what we are going to do about job creation.
We have approximately 1.5 million people unemployed. It goes up, it goes down, but it has been hovering around 1.5 million officially unemployed for some time now.
There are essentially three ways you can create jobs. First let me deal with the one which doesn't work but which is the most popular, which is the most fully funded, and which most people will come and speak to you in favour of: the big lie, I call it.
.1220
The big lie is tax breaks for business. Business will come to you and say, give us tax breaks and we will create jobs. Business is business. It creates as many jobs as it needs, neither more nor less. If it has work, if it has customers, it will hire staff. If it doesn't have customers it won't hire staff, no matter how many tax breaks it gets.
Real job creation the government can do. First, the government can just hire people. Clearly, with a government that is in the business of laying people off, this is not a suggestion that's going to be taken seriously.
Secondly, a similar kind of thing is for the government to give grants, as this government did in its first year in office, to develop an infrastructure program that will give grants to municipalities and volunteer groups so they will be able to create jobs. The great advantage of this is that it does create jobs. The disadvantage or advantage is that it is a temporary expedient.
The other way to create jobs is to give money to poor people. If you give money to seniors, unemployed, disabled, the working poor, they spend the money; and when they spend the money they create jobs. There is a very high multiplier effect for all basic consumer spending. There's a very low multiplier effect for grants to business. The problem with giving money to the rich, which you will be encouraged to do and have been encouraged to do numerous times, is that they will simply put it into the stock market.
That leads me to the other problem I think you should have the people in the department considering. I have here The Globe and Mail of Tuesday, October 15: ``Dow Jones Breaks 6,000''.
What are you going to do when the stock market crashes? In a capitalist economy there is a traditional problem of the stock market occasionally crashing and creating chaos in capital markets and in the financial system as a whole. If you look at the graph of what the Dow Jones has been doing for the last fifteen years, it's clearly a stock market bubble. We've had a couple of minor crashes. We're going to be looking at a serious crash coming down the pike.
On a technical note, you will be happy to know the management guru Peter Drucker wrote a paper proving the stock market could only go up and could never go down. Unfortunately no copies of this paper are in existence, because he published it in the summer of 1929.
The third problem is the problem that really concerns me and I think has to be addressed: the problem of child poverty. It is what brings me to this committee very year. It is what hurts me. It is what shames me. It is shameful. We are shamed as a country. We are shamed individually. We are shamed internationally. I am ashamed of my government, of my country, because of the situation of child poverty.
Last year Mr. Grubel, who I'm sure you're all familiar with, asked me if I thought the people in the government were either mean or stupid. I've done a great deal of thinking about that and I think it's rather like the pilots in Vietnam. The pilots in Vietnam dropped napalm on children. None of those men, if ordered, if given a direct order to put napalm onto children and burn them to death, would have done it. They would have recognized it to be an atrocity. But because they were flying in the sky, high overhead, in peace, and they could push a button, they could do it. No one here on this committee would create a system that would cage children and starve them, but because you can push a button and sign a bill and create a system that does that, it's very easy to do.
.1225
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Johannson, thank you for your opening comments. You'll have an opportunity during questions to expand on them.
I'll now turn to Marlene Vieno, please.
Ms Marlene Vieno (Individual Presentation): Good morning and welcome to Winnipeg.
I support everything that Mr. Johannson has said. I was late arriving this morning. Earlier, Evelyn Jacks and Laurie Beachell spoke about persons with disabilities. I support those people too, because it may not show, but I myself have more than one disability. This is why I am here. It's because of the elimination of Bill 76 and the critical impact that has had on persons like me, and especially on single mothers and parents. And as Mr. Johannson said, child poverty...
From my point of view, poverty has hit everybody across this country, not just children. I myself was born into a family in poverty. I am still surviving poverty to this day. The work I do is similar to Mr. Johannson's. We do not get recognized - and we are only two out of many - for what we contribute to our communities and to our people.
My suggestion for your government is this: we need a national standard of living clause. That is a necessity for the equality and benefit of all Canadians, and that includes health care. Unless a person's health or well-being is stable...if yours wasn't, can any one of you at this table right now tell me that you would energetically attend work?
We need more honesty and trust. There is money. The federal government and the provinces have the money, but it's being mismanaged. I see that more and more. And the more authority that provinces are given, the more that money is mismanaged.
Here in Manitoba, just a day or two ago, Bill 36 was being passed without any recommendation. That is our social allowance amendment act. I will know probably by the end of this year or by the beginning of 1997 what impact it will have on my income and on the people I work with, especially persons with disabilities.
Those people came to my rescue thirty years ago and helped me to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and they do so to this day. I support them. I cannot thank them enough. Those people have been a damn sight more helpful and more supportive, with better outreach, than any medical professional, apart from my current family doctor.
At the same time, if I require a letter from my doctor today, I have to pay $10 for that letter. As a community advocate, in the past fourteen months I have helped seven people. Three of them had to pay and were required to pay $20 or more for a letter from their doctors. All five of these people were on fixed incomes. Where are our rights? Where is our social justice?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you for your opening comments. Again, I remind you that you have the opportunity to participate in answers to questions. If you would like to submit a written brief, could you do so within ten days? We would welcome it.
I'll now turn to Mr. Sel Burrows from Cho!ces - A Coalition for Social Justice.
Mr. Burrows, please.
Mr. Sel Burrows (Cho!ces - A Coalition for Social Justice): Thank you very much. I feel humbled after listening to the two previous speakers. I think they've caught the mood of the people in Manitoba. I will try to expand on some of the issues they've touched on.
.1230
But I understand we're here because the government is entering into its budgetary process. The budget document in Canada is traditionally the major economic document in the country. That economic document affects the lives of everyone.
We have been working on a myth over the last few years, a myth that there isn't any money. We have this huge deficit; there is no money. We have to cut back on medicare. We have to cut back on education. We have to cut back on social programs. We have to charge our university students more tuition.
There is just as much money in Canada today as there was twenty years ago. There is more money today than there was twenty years ago. The capacity of Canadians to pay for important basic programs is greater today than it was twenty years ago. But we have developed an imbalance, an economic imbalance, in our society. We have developed a situation in which certain families of extreme wealth have massive amounts of money, yet we have huge amounts of unemployment, not just the 10% but those who have given up looking for work.
I think it's time to welcome you to Winnipeg. I'm particularly pleased Mr. Fewchuk is here. He's my member of Parliament. I live in Petersfield, just out at Netley, at the old grain elevator.
Winnipeg is the child poverty capital of Canada. As Mr. Johannson said, you are guilty of being part of Winnipeg being the child poverty capital of Canada. I wish to join with the Catholic bishops and accuse the Liberal members here of child abuse. You, when you pass budgets, add to the poverty of the children in Winnipeg and in Canada.
Governments ignore movements that come out of the prairies at their peril. The poor and those who align themselves with the poor in Winnipeg are getting angry. They aren't going to take it much longer.
One of the things Cho!ces has been involved in...and the reason our group is called Cho!ces is that we do not only criticize, we provide choices. We've been developing a document over the years called the alternative federal budget. You have had distributed a copy of last year's document. Dr. John Loxley, who chairs that process and who is the head of the economics department at the University of Manitoba, is in Africa at the moment and was not able to be here. I hope you'll take time to look at that.
I wish to stress that your economic policies have not gone unnoticed in other areas. Peter Gzowski was musing the other day that something is wrong in our society when the orders for corporate jets cannot be met because of the demand and the numbers of unemployed grow and the numbers of people who are poor grow. A society that sends the stock market up when unemployment increases is sick.
I noticed with interest that there are two members of various real estate groups here. A society that does not pay its workers well, a society that has a large number of people unemployed and a large number of people who fear they will be unemployed, will not buy houses. Then people will not be employed to build houses. Real estate agents themselves will not have decent incomes.
A society that depends on an export economy is doomed. We must have internal demand. Canada has been built on a mixed economy, and we must have a sense that the government has an important role in Canada to ensure our society is healthy.
I want to make one more point. The Auditor General of Canada has pointed out one very important case, a case where one family has moved $2.2 billion to the United States without paying any taxes. The taxes would have been $500 million to $750 million on that one case alone. This committee - and I wish Mr. Peterson was here - is part of the cover-up of that money leaving the country without taxes being paid. If that money was available, then there could be 15,000 more nurses in Canada, tuition could have been $500 less per student in Canada. But the unwillingness, the impunity that one family was granted, is totally unacceptable and it's part of the reason that the government has the deficit today and that we are struggling to demand a government that intervenes to end poverty.
.1235
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Burrows.
I'd now like to turn to Cathy Kalinowsky from the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, please.
Ms Cathy Kalinowsky (Board Member, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg): Good morning. We have a very brief presentation that we have filed with the members of the committee in a folder. I'd like to read quickly through some of my speaking notes.
We have chosen four areas on which we want to focus. First is our desire to see that the federal government, through the mechanism of transfer payments to the province, ensures that national standards are adhered to and complied with by the provincial governments. The national standards would encompass health, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, and would ensure that all Canadians receive the same level of these essential services.
National standards for social services must consider and encompass the following: eligibility to any person in need; adequacy to meet basic human needs; choice in opportunity to meaningful employment, training and education; incentive to gainful employment; right to participate in decision-making that affects one's life.
The need for national standards for social services are even more important now during times of fiscal attention to deficit reduction. Any move away from national standards will only produce greater inequalities amongst the provinces.
The second issue the Social Planning Council would like to raise with the standing committee is that of child poverty. As you've already heard, Winnipeg is the child poverty capital of Canada. Of the 34,000 people who rely monthly on food banks in Winnipeg, 40% are children.
In 1989, all the parties in the House of Commons resolved to end child poverty by the year 2000. Since then, the number of poor children has increased dramatically. Of the industrialized nations in the world, only the United States has a higher percentage of child poverty.
The child tax benefit, which was introduced as an anti-poverty strategy for families with children, has eroded since it is only partially indexed to inflation. We urge that it be fully indexed to inflation.
The Social Planning Council also urges the creation of an integrated child tax benefit to federal and provincial levels to prevent and reduce child poverty. We also urge that the Standing Committee on Finance correct the tax inequities for modest- and middle-income families with children so as to recognize the high cost and value of children and their importance to our present and future society.
The third issue that the Social Planning Council would like to bring forward is that although deficit reduction is a major target for all levels of government, the government should not lose sight of the social services it administers and the people that participate and receive these services. Achieving a balanced budget is indeed a very hollow victory if it is achieved by depriving Canadians of their basic needs and is at the expense of job creation.
We encourage the standing committee to recognize that governing and producing budgets is a task more than simply balancing the books. It is a task of providing Canadians with present needs and the tools with which they can enhance their future.
Fourth, we recommend that the Standing Committee on Finance adopt a guaranteed annual income as a major poverty initiative. Any guaranteed annual income must provide adequate benefits, be efficient in its delivery, be an improvement over the existing systems, be flexible, and have minimal administration costs. In setting the guaranteed annual income, it must be set at an income level sufficient to allow individuals to live in dignity and not be in the poverty level. I've indicated in my presentation that there are several ways in which it can be administered.
Finally, on how to pay for this, I would like to pick up on some of the comments made by the representative for Cho!ces. I understand the tax loophole has been closed that allows the 21-year deemed disposition of a family trust.
.1240
However, we also want to bring to the attention of the standing committee the report of the Auditor General. In particular, we believe after substantial pressure from the Department of Finance, Revenue Canada reversed its three earlier advance tax rulings and, in a decision that cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars, ruled that the trust assets of the Bronfman family trust could be transferred out of Canada on a tax-free basis.
If the $2 billion had been taxed in Canada, then the amount that would have been received by the Canadian government is between $500 million and $700 million. If the Standing Committee on Finance is serious about expenditure reduction, then these moneys could have been used rather than seeking reductions in other social programs.
We'd like to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to present our ideas to you today.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Ms Kalinowsky.
I skipped over on the schedule, and I shouldn't have done that. We have Ms Theresa Ducharme from the People in Equal Participation Incorporated, if you'd like to proceed, Ms Ducharme.
Ms Theresa Ducharme (Chairperson, People in Equal Participation Incorporated): People in Equal Participation Incorporated is a small but powerful organization that represents all people in Canada, not just those of different cultures or disabilities or abilities. Our mandate is to catch every person until we miss. We don't give up very easily, and that's why I'm here.
It is my honour, on behalf of People in Equal Participation Incorporated, to present our recommendations for financial prosperity for Canada's future.
Canada's budget for 1997 must concentrate on financial stability by removing duplication services such as Canada's federal, provincial and municipal social services regarding our welfare system. I've been a welfare recipient for well over 25 years, and the duplication of services is phenomenal.
The major step forward that is presently taking place is the review of our social allowance act, and PEP Inc. supports its amended form. A duplication of all Canadian non-profit organizations claiming to represent the disabled, or reaping financial funding for the purpose of maintaining disabled employees, is financially a fraud for funding their purposes and existence. Funds received must be returned as a loan without interest, thus requiring all non-profit organizations to eventually become financially independent.
We can't expect the government to hand over finances on a regular...with an increased forum to have all agencies exist so that they can manage to be in existence. They say, well, we don't have to raise any portion of our funds. We don't have to contribute. We'll just have to help ourselves and the community.
That's what our PEP organization wishes to remove. We don't receive any finances from the government, and that's how all organizations and agencies should look at themselves, as independent of reaping loans and not having to pay anything back and expecting everything for nothing.
In fact, even the lotteries receive. What the Manitoba and the Canadian federal lotteries receive must not be used for financial budget deficit purposes. In fact, it must be kept under watchful lock-and-key control for the intent it was originated, such as health and educational purposes.
The most aggravating insult to all Canadians is to have no control over Canadian politicians' wages. We have no control over their wages, saying: Go back. They say, oh well, we need another party. We need another intake. We need something. We'll go ahead.
Meanwhile, everybody across Canada has had a decrease in their own wages, but the politicians have increased theirs 20%. So I can't believe how the politicians can see beyond their own eyesight when the politicians are saying, well, we need this, we need that, and all these wages are ours because we're running the country. I can't believe, come hell or high water, how the politicians cannot be asked, as they once were, to volunteer their services.
.1245
I am requesting at this point a financial statement strictly on all politicians' wages, their benefits, insurance plans and expenditures to the taxpayers for the past 50 years. That's going to be a headache that you are all going to have to put together. If you're not able to provide me with this information, I shall follow through by receiving this financial information through the Freedom of Information Act of Canada.
It is our belief that our political and financial system must be recycled immediately, if not sooner, as taxpayers will have to initiate a strike to reorganize our financial deficit and political insanity. If we all stopped paying taxes, where would you be today? If we all went on strike, which is the head move...because, just like the gentleman said, real estate is here but they're not doing a good job. Well, who can do a good job when everything is taxed to the ultimate, your hairline recedes and everything else comes back to you? The fact is, you have a headache but the headache is right at the home base in the political field, because...for instance, the city of Winnipeg has 59 city councillors.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Ms Ducharme, we appreciate your opening comments. I apologize. I have to move on to another witness now; otherwise, we'll never get to questions.
Ms Ducharme: Okay. But you should have a clock or a watch so we can time ourselves.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): I have a watch. I've asked for a little ding clock, but they haven't given that to me.
Ms Ducharme: No, no, no. You should have a little bell to give us warning so we can -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): You'll have the opportunity again to participate in questions. If none are directed to you, just motion to me or look at me and I'll recognize you.
Ms Ducharme: I'll bring my clock next time, but you should run this meeting in a more professional fashion if you're going to cut us off in mid-breath.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): I'm sorry, Ms Ducharme.
Ms Ducharme: I'll take your position next time, because we'll all be running for political power -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Ms Ducharme, once again, we have three minutes per witness. I apologize.
Ms Ducharme: Okay.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): From the Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees, Mr. Albert Cerilli, president, please.
Mr. Albert Cerilli (President, Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees): Good morning.
On November 28, 1995, in this convention centre, we put to your committee a number of questions dealing with a number of issues that allow one segment of Canadian society to benefit at the expense of another. The unfairness is that there are those still benefiting and this federal government has done nothing to correct the contradictions of fairness.
You've heard about the million and a half Canadian children in poverty who are going to bed hungry. The federal government has yet to tax corporations in a fair and just way. We feel that the federal government has yet to deal with the job crisis in this country. In fact, more Canadians are working longer hours than shorter hours.
Your January report of the Standing Committee on Finance states in part, on page 31:
- Concern about unemployment was expressed in every part of the country. This concern arose in
two distinctly different but related ways, as a fear held among a large proportion of the
employed, and as a destructive reality lived every day by the unemployed.
- This continued pressure on Canadians is unprecedented in modern times. Your government
should be ashamed and admit to Canadians that they've lost their ability and the right to govern.
On or about May 9, 1996, the voice of Canadian business, The Financial Post, in a headline said:
- BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SLIP OFFSHORE UNDETECTED: Ottawa estimates that one in
five international transactions is not reported to Revenue Canada. Banks may be among worst
offenders.
- This dishonesty costs Canadian taxpayers literally billions of dollars. Billions (tax dollars) that
should have been used towards deficit reduction and funding of social programs, (education
and job creation).
.1250
On stimulating the economy, the Prime Minister and the federal government are not listening. Take your hands off the throats of the hungry children, the unemployed, the seniors' pensions, the educators, the students, the sick, the disabled, the youth and the workers of this country. Put your hands around the throats of your corporate friends, because you have a moral obligation to Canadians to govern on behalf of all Canadians from a strong central government.
In December 1982, the commission for social affairs and the Catholic bishops issued a report on the Canadian economy. The ethical reflections on the crisis of the Canadian economy called for an emphasis on the rights of the poor over the wants of the rich. Ten years later, Bishop Remi J. De Roo again flagged a warning to the government of this country. On October 18, 1996, a Globe and Mail article said:
- Social programs are an important way in which we are responsible for each other and which
maintains Canada as a national community. We believe the federal government should begin
immediately to develop a Social Security Act to safeguard that sense of community.
These hearings of the House of Commons, and I've come to the last two, have not dealt with the issues. They're simply looking at ways and means of putting the race to the bottom first and to hell with the community. We say it's a farce and we trust you will take this message back to the cabinet.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Mr. Cerilli.
I'll now turn to Mr. Bill Madder from the Brandon Real Estate Board, please.
Mr. Bill Madder (Executive Officer, Brandon Real Estate Board): Madam Chair, if it's all right with you, Mr. Thorvaldson and I are giving a presentation together. He will do the first part and then I'll finish up. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear earlier.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): That's fine, as long as it's within the time period allowed.
Mr. Derek Thorvaldson (Vice-President, Manitoba Real Estate Association): Madam Chair, we're here representing the Canadian Real Estate Association, with over 70,000 members. We did almost 300,000 property transactions in 1995. Here in Manitoba we have 1,800 members and we did property transactions in the order of $800 million. As an association, I guess we've had a lot of good news lately. If you look it up in the paper today, the interest rates are well down.
Therein lies one of our issues, which is that we believe we require an amendment to the Interest Act. This was on the Order Paper in 1994 and has since died. Due to what's happening or what we're seeing now, I think there is some sense of urgency about dealing with this matter.
If you talked to bankers today or in the last week, they would tell you that consumers are lined up trying to find out what their rights are as far as interest rate reductions and whether they can take advantage of the mortgage rates that are now available. We believe that if there were amendments to the Interest Act to give Canadians the right to prepay their mortgage with a standardized formula to calculate any penalties imposed, as well as expanded disclosure in plain language, this would be beneficial. The language is a problem, too, in that if you talk to most bankers they do not know how they calculate the penalties they actually impose. The penalties come out of a computer and the bankers throw up their hands and say this is the penalty you have to pay.
Some banks will give you different ways of calculating a mortgage. Most mortgages are calculated semi-annually, but the consumers when they get their mortgage document don't know what the effective interest rate is. Some mortgages are calculated monthly, some are calculated annually. This is another problem. We would like to see some standardization or some plain disclosure on the mortgage documents so that consumers know how much they are effectively paying.
We also believe that on penalty provisions lenders should have the right or should be mandated to disclose to consumers whether they are entitled to an NHA right to prepay with a three-month interest penalty.
.1255
There are other disclosure requirements we believe could be looked at. For example, many consumers don't know that a lender has the right not to renew a mortgage. If someone assumes their mortgage, in some parts of the country consumers are left on title with their personal covenant. In other parts of the country, their personal covenant is not exposed. We believe that is something the federal government should be taking a look at.
So the interest rate is calculated differently in different financial institutions. The formula is not outlined in the mortgage documents. We think there should be a net present value formula and that it should take into account prepayment privileges. Thus, if you have a mortgage that allows you to prepay 10% of your mortgage annually, we think the banker should take that into consideration when calculating your penalty in the event you have to pay that mortgage out. That's not currently done.
It's those kinds of things that result in consumers not knowing, when they go to the bank, what the penalties are going to be. We think some legislation in this area would really go a long way toward solving these problems.
That sums up my end of things. I'll pass it along to Mr. Madder.
Mr. Madder: Thank you. We have one other issue of concern and two other proposals we would like to put forward.
The second issue we would like to talk about is GST, a favourite topic for a number of people, and the current attempts to harmonize. We have a concern about how that will affect the price of new construction. When the GST came in, the government of the day took the view that was almost universally accepted that the price of housing should not be affected negatively by the tax. For that reason, existing housing was exempted and new construction was awarded or allowed the rebate that's currently in effect.
When the harmonization discussions with the Atlantic provinces started, the Canadian Real Estate Association commissioned an independent study to review what effect the GST would have on new construction. Their figures came up with an approximate increase of $2,500 to $3,000 per unit without any additional rebates from either the federal or provincial governments. We realize there are some negotiations there and some current announcements in the Atlantic provinces. They're doing it differently in each province, by the sound of it, so depending on where you live, you might get a rebate or you might not. We have a big concern about that and we'd like you to make sure that this is kept at least somewhere in your discussions with the provinces when you talk to the rest of the provinces about harmonization. We have a concern.
There are two other quick issues that have been presented to the standing committee previously. I know in our presentation last year both of these did come up briefly. The first one is the home buyers plan that allows first-time buyers to access their RRSP funds for the down payment. It's been an outstanding success, with close to 500,000 Canadians accessing funds. A large number of those people stated they would not have been able to buy homes without that opportunity.
I think the good news is that it did not cost the government any money to do that. It was deferred tax, and with pay-backs of the program, the government will get the tax eventually. I think there's a recommendation to expand that program somewhat, to perhaps parents of first-time buyers to access their RRSPs. It is along the same idea, just not quite as restrictive as the current plan.
The final thing is kind of a technical financial proposal that I hope to leave to the accountants. It's called the home investment program, which would access some funds from a reformed immigrant investor plan that could be used to construct up to 2,000 units per year that would then be sold under a rental-purchase agreement to low-income Canadians previously dependant upon government subsidies.
There is good potential with the program to create those much-needed jobs in the housing industry, which has been improving, but I think there's an opportunity for some Canadians who are currently relying on federal subsidies to maybe move into an ownership situation as opposed to renting. It's a long-term program and there's a lot of financial numbers involved. I think the proposal has been presented.
We'll leave it at that and hope you will consider it in the future.
.1300
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Mr. Madder and Mr. Thorvaldson.
I'll now turn to Paula Mallea, from Women for Equality.
Ms Paula Mallea (Women for Equality): Thank you for that. I want the committee to know my colleague and I have driven for three hours over a skating rink to get here. That's by way of telling you how important we think it is to be here. I normally wouldn't have gone out the door today.
It's also an important day to be talking about a subject that has already come up a few times here, and that is child poverty. The stories out of the press today are as follows.
Newfoundland has a new report out that says children who don't eat well don't learn well. Surprise, surprise. Mike Harris was heard to opine today or yesterday that the reason children are going to school hungry has nothing to do with his cuts in welfare and social assistance programs of other kinds; the reason this is happening is that their mothers aren't home in the kitchen cooking breakfast for them the way they did in the 1950s. As we speak, across the street here we have a government passing workfare bills, labour-bashing bills, privatization bills, against the will of the people, and that kind of thing.
My point is that although Women for Equality speaks to issues of equality and fairness for women, it's clear to us that a direct corollary of this is the poverty of their children - of your children. We have too much poverty and too many children living in poverty in this country. We have to start to do something about it.
I know if Mr. Martin were here he would be asking me, where are you going to get the money? Well, I'll tell you that in a minute, and I hope you'll take that back to him, because I too think the money's there. I relied for some of my research on some of the people who are at this table today. We are of one mind on some of these issues.
When you repealed CAP, you opened a huge door for increased poverty. We needed those guarantees, and we need them today. Please go back and see what you can do to reinstitute the situation of a civil society that does not coerce people to work in order to have the basic necessities of life. That's not the Canada I thought I was living in.
As well, although it's easy to offload and blame other governments for the various problems of no money, the bottom line is that when you cut transfer payments you directly harm children and single mothers and working poor families and young couples trying to struggle along. This cannot be answered by saying the provinces are simply not distributing that money properly or they could do better with it. This is part of your job, as the federal government, to see to it that we can continue to live in a civil society here.
These things do require money, and even Moody's and Wood Gundy are saying you've cut the deficit too fast. You've made us plunge into this stagnating economy. We have to lighten up. Even William Thorsell of The Globe and Mail, for heaven's sake, says the inflation rate is too low. Lighten up. This is not the time for what Mr. Martin calls ``staying the course''. It's time for him to lighten up.
We need child care programs with national standards. We need to close the gender wage gap. We need to do something about affordable and accessible housing for people. We need to do something about your present plans for the pension plan, because they're going to be very inequitable for women. You have to begin to work on these issues. Otherwise the country is going to be on its knees. You'll have a zero deficit, all right, but you'll have a country on its knees.
I want to speak to how this can be accomplished. A lot of people have pointed at the issue of family trusts, the situation with the Bronfmans being the big example of the day. When you fixed that legislation, I noticed it was not made retroactive. This was deemed to be an unfair situation. However, recent legislation that permits Canadians to own $600,000 of property in the U.S. and get a great big tax credit for that was made retroactive for several years. It's not impossible to cover these off and do them retroactively when there's this degree of unfairness.
Canada's highly profitable corporate community...and I'm not referring here to small, struggling businesses, I'm talking about the big ones, those that are making a lot of profit and are walking away with my money. I'm subsidizing those guys. Anybody who's on a salary, having their taxes taken at source, is subsidizing these guys to drink Labatt's brew up in the SkyDome and deduct it from their profits. This is not appropriate. Too many corporations are not paying any income tax whatsoever, yet they rely upon and benefit from the infrastructure that the rest of us are paying for. They're relying on the airports and the highways and the education of their workers. In 1994, 60% of the federal revenues came from individuals' taxes, and only 8% came from corporations. That's way out of whack.
.1305
There is a fairer system. With time, I think we could construct one for you here today. I've listed, for Mr. Martin's benefit and for yours, some of the possible ways to go after moneys that are freely available to us now. Here are some of the big ones.
Canada is one of the only countries - if not the only country - in the industrialized world that has no tax whatsoever on inheritance or wealth transfers. That's ridiculous. Even in the United States, they raise a good deal of money through that kind of tax, and it's only fair.
Although it escapes me, there must be some reason as to why we don't, for example, tax lottery wins; why, for example, we are continually permitting people to still deduct the rather lavish meal and entertainment expenses that I've referred to; and why we permit people to deduct their expenses for lobbyists in Ottawa. This doesn't make any sense to somebody on the street who is trying to make a living here.
One of the big ones - and I'd really like you to take this one back with you if you don't take anything else - is this: financial transactions. The stock market is turning over stocks and bonds at the rate of trillions of dollars a day. They move millions with the flick of a switch on a keyboard. You all know that. None of that service is taxed, either with PST or GST. How in the world they ever managed to get an exemption from the GST is a mystery to me, but it is exempted. There is a huge pool of money there, and the upside of that is that it would make people think twice about simply speculatively moving money around. And I think that's important to stabilizing the economy as well.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you for your opening comments, Ms Mallea.
I'll now turn to Joan Johannson, from the Canadian Association of the Non-Employed.
Ms Joan Johannson (Chair, Canadian Association of the Non-Employed): Good morning. This is my second time here, and I'd like to say what has happened in Winnipeg since I was here last year.
In the last year, things have deteriorated even further. The pain, the suffering and the despair of people living on social assistance, with no money, no job and no hope, has deepened. There are those who only eat two meals a day. There are those who don't get out of bed in an effort to conserve their strength. There are those who send out job resumés rather than spending the money on food. You might say that the private sector should take up the slack.
Let me tell you what it's like depending on Winnipeg Harvest to feed yourself and your family. The other day I spoke to a young woman who was in tears. She told me she couldn't get milk for her child. She only had one child, and there was so little milk available at Winnipeg Harvest that their policy was that only families with two or more children could get milk. This child didn't have any milk, ladies and gentlemen, because of policies that the federal Liberal government has put into place, with the rationale for these policies being to reduce the debt.
There's no question that this goal to lower the debt is a good one, and it's a goal that we all accept. The question is how to do this. Thus far, the federal debt has been lowered by a systematic starvation of the people. The rich and the powerful in this country have lost nothing. It is the people who have lost their jobs, who have lost their incomes, who are the casualties in this war against the debt, and the horror of this is that this goal could be accomplished by different means.
The people you listen to - the economists, business, the corporate sector, the rich and the powerful - have told you that if you allow the rich to have more and more money, some of this will trickle down to the rest of us. If you allow business to pay less in business taxes, including EI premiums, some new jobs will be created. But these theories are just that: theories. This analysis is not true. Trickle-down economics is in fact vacuum-cleaner economics, where the rich suck all the money up to the top. There is less and less available for your average Canadian. There is less and less available for those of us thrown out of the labour market.
.1310
The cries of the people are not being heard, but it need not be this way. There are alternatives. Let me quickly list just a few.
Concerning work, it is possible for the federal government to do job creation through infrastructure programs, for example, or programs for young people to work in their communities. I was talking to my children the other day and I remembered things like the Company of Young Canadians. Like me, you guys are old enough to remember these things that Liberal governments used to put into place.
Reduce work time. Let's have a 30- or 32-hour work week. Let's share the work. We know that it makes sense. Let's redefine work. Let's say that moms with pre-schoolers are working moms and should be paid. They should have an income so that they can look after themselves and their kids.
On income, how do we collect income? The tax system that we have today is a disgrace, and you know that. People who don't have enough to eat pay taxes while banks and corporations don't. What is the logic in this? Traditional ways of collecting taxes might be all right if all those loopholes were closed - and we all know those loopholes. This lady here mentioned another important tax that should be collected. Transactions in stocks, bonds and derivatives annually total around $200 trillion a year. There's no tax on this money. Why not? The Tobin tax or a financial transaction tax, if it was only one-tenth of 1%, would give the government $200 billion a year. That's one-tenth of 1% for $200 billion!
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Johannson.
Ms Johannson: Could I just say one last thing?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Quickly.
Ms Johannson: Yesterday morning I listened to an Oblate father and a nun on the radio. They were talking about residential schools, and they struggled to contain their tears as they said they thought they were helping, they thought they were doing a good thing. How could this happen when they only meant good? Will you one day look back on the wreck of Canada that you have created and, with tears in your eyes, say you thought you were doing the right thing, ladies and gentlemen?
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Johannson.
I'm going to turn to questions in a moment. I'll remind you that you have interpretation devices in front of you. We will be having questions in both English and French. Please make sure your interpretation devices are working, because I will begin with Mr. Rocheleau from the province of Quebec.
If you do want to address a question that is not directed to you, give me an indication. I will watch as closely as possible to ensure that everyone has an opportunity. I'll ask that both the questions and the answers be as brief as possible so that we can get as many questions into our discussion as we can.
Mr. Rocheleau, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): First, I must thank and congratulate all of you who have made the effort to come and meet us, especially those who have presented a point of view different from what we hear in politically correct circles. Using a forum like this one to speak one's mind takes a lot of courage. There is not much public encouragement to do so.
Your point of view is not the one we hear from Bay Street; it's not the one we read daily in the papers or the one we hear on open lines everywhere in Canada and in Quebec. I sense a rising anger in Canada and I really hope we can convey it faithfully in our report to the minister of Finance.
Here even more than elsewhere, people have talked to us about a mechanism whose very existence seems immoral to me. The Auditor General has also mentioned it. I am talking about the transfer of billions of dollars of assets to the United States without any taxes being paid, and with the government's blessing.
.1315
I must say that the very existence of those family trusts does not have the same meaning for everyone.
We have been told for instance by a deputy minister that those trusts were helping Canadian families to provide for their handicapped children as they get older. The minister of Revenue said they were meant to help certain people to prepare to retire down south. Mr. Martin, who admitted benefitting from a family trust himself, said that it was for his children's welfare.
The debate generated by the Auditor General has taught us two things that I personally did not know. According to a deputy minister, there are around 140,000 family trusts in Canada, not 3,000 or 4,000 as we could have thought from what little information we have.
Since the Auditor General had talked to us about family trusts of 1 billion dollars each, which means two times 1 billion dollars, we asked the deputy minister to tell us how many trusts were estimated at 500 million dollars or more. He had to recognize that he had no way to tell Parliament about that. I would like know what you think about it.
I have therefore decided, as a member of Parliament, to ask the question officially to the government in the Notice Paper, which is part of the parliamentary machinery, to know the exact number of family trusts in different categories, namely from $1 to $100,000, from $100,000 to $500,000, and so on, including those of 500 million dollars and more and those of 1 billion dollars and more. I have also asked which provinces those trusts have been established in so that we could know what their impact is on each province's fiscal situation.
I would like to know what you think about the appropriateness - since this is a bit of a taboo - of pursuing our inquiries about the existence of that tax avoidance mechanism which has been in place for 21 years and has been renewed, as you know, by Mr. Mulroney's government. What do you think of the idea of creating a commission of inquiry to shed light on the scope of that tax shelter?
My question is for Mr. Burrows, Ms Mallea, Mr. Cerilli and whoever else would like to answer it.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Burrows.
Mr. Burrows: I'm very pleased to apply myself to this. I've been studying the issue of these family trusts since the Auditor General's report came out in May. I'm sure all of you are aware of this, and I think the majority on the committee should be ashamed of themselves and their treatment of the Auditor General.
The Auditor General is our representative, the citizens' representative who keeps his eye on you. And what did your majority report say? It said he should keep his nose out of the activity of the public service. In short, the Auditor General cannot be asked to intervene if public servants reasonably exercise their professional judgment. Well, just a minute! The Auditor General said the reasonable public servants wanted to do the opposite to what Mr. Gravelle, the deputy minister, finally ordered them to do.
Now, there is a massive cover-up. One of the things that is said... I'm quite angry thatMr. Peterson isn't here for me to talk to, because some of the things he has reportedly talked about in this committee's report are totally unacceptable. He says the majority of the tax experts who testified supported the Revenue Canada position. Was he aware that some of those tax experts worked for and have gained money in working for the family that owned the family trust? Was Mr. Peterson aware that they were potentially in a conflict of interest? Who chose those six tax experts against Professor Neil Brooks, who, in the words of the dean of the Manitoba law school, is the top tax expert of any kind in Canada?
.1320
The issue of this family trust, this particular family trust, is that Canadians have lost faith in the taxation system. And in the words of the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press from Friday...I hope all of you have seen it.
Mr. Fewchuk, I'm sure you read the Winnipeg Free Press.
To paraphrase the editorial, it's a good thing that if Revenue Canada can't do its job, there are other groups such as Cho!ces that will do the job for them.
I also wish to quote that well-known left-winger, Dalton Camp, who referred to your puny effort to cut off this tax loophole as closing the barn door after the galloping horses of the family trusts and others who have used this tax loophole have gone.
I don't want to get involved in discussing our court case, but I think that when this case comes to court - and I ask this committee to encourage the government to help this case come to court - the issues of cover-up, the issues of impunity and the issues of who influenced who will come to the fore.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Burrows.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau, do you have another question?
Mr. Rocheleau: No. I will forego the rest of my time to allow other people to make comments.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Ms Mallea.
Ms Mallea: I'm sitting here very worried about Mr. Martin's children.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Ms Mallea: We're talking about an abuse of a mechanism that may have been set up for the proper purpose. I also simply want to observe that this would be the same Mr. Martin whose entire family fortune is involved in an offshore industry. I don't know what his tax obligations are to this country, but he's not providing jobs in Canada. He's not paying his obligations here either.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Mallea.
Mr. Cerilli.
Mr. Cerilli: I would like to answer the question on the commission of inquiry into the whole matter. I think that the mechanics of that kind of commission of inquiry would in fact broaden the scope on the whole issue of fair taxation in the country, on how these family trusts are accumulated and so on, and on who holds them and how many billions of dollars are in them.
Unfair Shares: Corporations Taxation in Canada is the title of this little document. It's a very interesting reading - if you like that kind of dry read - of the billions of dollars that are really owed to the taxpayers of this country, who are being taxed to death, if you like, without any creation of the jobs that are required to give them the purchasing power for new homes, new washers, new shoes, food, shelter and education and so on.
It would be a very interesting concept for the House of Commons to really push and look into this thing, not as a gimmick for pre-election time but out of a real desire to get to the bottom of all of these things with regard to what is really happening. Let this crazy deficit/debt reduction in this country, the nuts and bolts of it, the mechanics, really have the expression of the people...by the experts that Cho!ces referred to.
By the way, we are part of Cho!ces. There's no hiding that. And I'm proud of it. The fact of the matter is that the more you develop a sense of direction in regard to the fair taxation of this country, the more that kind of commission of inquiry might give an impression to all Canadians...we might really see where the hell we are and where we're going.
If this country is going to go down the tubes because of that and because of a lack of job creation in the true sense...never mind this nonsense about job creation during an election with a red book in your hand and a scythe in the other to cut people's legs off as far as their jobs go. That kind of pressure is not needed. The families of this country don't need that kind of pressure. There's enough stress and strain. Let's really get into the meat of the thing. Let's have an open debate in this country on unfair taxation.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Cerilli.
Mr. Johannson.
Mr. Johannson: Yes. [Technical Difficulty-Editor] that members of the committee came and said we had presenters who were very pathetic and we felt very sorry for them in the sense that they had disabled children, and therefore they should have massive million-dollar trusts and multimillion-dollar trusts to look after them and that sort of thing.
.1325
But the reality is that there are many disabled people in this country. There are thousands of disabled people who don't have family trusts because they're not rich. It's symptomatic of a tax system that has one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. That's what is destroying our confidence in the tax system.
Secondly, I think there is a tax attitude that is potentially disastrous. The tax attitude is that it's okay to tax consumption, but it's not okay to tax capital. It's okay to tax the poor, but it's not okay to tax the rich. Given the nature of our system, that attitude is fiscally irresponsible. It's asking for economic disaster.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Johannson.
Ms Kalinowsky, please.
Ms Kalinowsky: I'd like to support the different individuals here who have asked for a commission of inquiry to address the issue of family trusts.
However, I also submit that the terms of reference of this inquiry commission should be expanded to examine all taxation issues. In particular, it should examine things such as why there's a deduction for entertainment for corporations and why financial transactions are not taxed fully. It should investigate the profits of banks and, in particular, whether there should be a special tax on these financial intermediaries.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Kalinowsky.
Ms Vieno, please.
Ms Vieno: I really support what Mr. Johannson said earlier about persons without family trusts. I believe in representation, and for low-income citizens and mental health services consumers here in Manitoba I am a perfect example.
As I said at the beginning, I'm a recovering mental health services consumer and I am damn proud of it. Yes, I was born into an impoverished family and I have survived poverty. But it is persons with disabilities who see me as a human being. They recognized me as a human being and gave me that respect and dignity. They opened their doors. That is what has helped me to climb that ladder and learn what I have and achieve what I have. It was not money. It did not require money. They didn't need to have money to help me and I didn't need to have money to receive their help. Today, unfortunately, the ``me'' generation, which began in the early 1970s, has caused one big turnaround.
From my perspective as a community activist, I run into this continually. I run into power struggles. Many of us have already mentioned health care and poverty, but what is continually overlooked in a broader view is that for both we have an impact on everyone.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Vieno.
Ms Johannson.
Ms Johannson: Of course I think it's a good thing to have a review, but as I'm listening to people talk I'm remembering another review of a few years ago, which was called the social security review. This government went to the people and said it would like to know what we thought about our social services. In fact, it put money into this. Our organization was one of the organizations that got money.
We had a conference. We talked to people. We made both a written and a video report of what we wanted to see in social services in this country. What we said was pretty much the same as what all the other groups were saying, whether it was Cho!ces or the disabled community or whatever...people more or less said the same things.
And what happened? That report was made in December. Two months later, in February, the federal budget came down and did exactly the opposite of all the things we had said.
.1330
I think what's here is more important than having a report. We all know that's a good thing, to have statistics and show how you can do this. This has all been done. You go and ask Neil Brooks, who teaches law at Osgoode Hall Law School. He'll tell you how to do it. It's all there. Cho!ces' alternative budget: they've done it. It's all there.
It's not a matter of giving you the facts again. They are there. The question is, do you hear the cries of the poor? Do you hear the hungry children and do you care; because by God, if you don't stop and you don't turn around and you don't change what you're doing, there will be a revolution in this country. How long do you think the poor are going to see their children suffer?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Johannson.
Ms Ducharme.
Ms Ducharme: I would like to comment that we've come a long way. I'm here in an electric wheelchair. I'm here with the adapted form. I used to be in a wooden wheelchair. We had no sidewalks. We had no roads. We've come a long way. Through the gifts and the blessings of those who are elected by the people and who come out to make any effort to place people such as yourself and others in office for us we see a lot.
We're talking about children, child poverty. We're talking about everything in the negative form, yet I haven't seen a whole slew of children on the street dead or buried. They haven't made it to the door and they haven't been here, there, and anywhere.
At the same time they are emphasizing disabled, disabled, disabled. Well, there's not one person here at the table who doesn't have a disability. We're all equal people, because you have glasses, some people can't walk. You get up in the morning and you have a sore hip, so you can't turn, you can't bend.
Every one of us is a Canadian citizen and we have equal rights, whether you live in Quebec or wherever...because Ms Ducharme is contagious and infectious, and what I cope with is called love. I love Canada, I love to live, and there's no cure for love. Isn't that wonderful? I thank the Lord for bringing you here, recycled, reformed, or whatever it is.
Let's work positively in the fashion we must work together, as a unified force to make things happen. You've seen people with no hair on top of their heads. The next year they walk in with hair and you ask, how in the hell did you get that transplant, and where did you come from?
We all look better. I was supposed to be dead twenty years ago and I'm still alive. The doctor said, see what we've done for you, Ms Ducharme.
Right now we need more research, more funding for research, because long-term side effects of life-support respirators have caused us diabetes. Every one of us on respirators is susceptible to diabetes. I'm one of those. Right now I'm coping with that situation. I'm am epileptic. You're lucky I don't stand up, because I could lift every one of you and throw you over my shoulder. At the same time, my husband has said if every woman has this respirator attached she will be a weapon uncontrollable, because we could talk non-stop without taking a breath and drive every man crazy.
At the same time, could you imagine if we said, I love you, I love you, I love you, I love you, I love you? You would go crazy and every man would want to leave Canada. How do you like that?
We don't have that many men. They've taken a survey, and in every elevator there's one man compared with five women. So all women must respect all men. That's why the Lord's prayer says ``Amen''. It's not ``a woman'', it's ``a man''.
That's the closing prayer for everybody here, because you have a hell of a mess to clean up. As I said, if you want a job, go out and run for your country, become elected. Run as a politician and do everything you can for your country, instead of saying, disabled, disabled, disabled.
I don't want to be represented as a disabled. I'm a citizen. I'm a woman. I'm disabled, but at the same time I emphasize that I am a woman of equality. Don't be surprised if I'm be the next Prime Minister of Canada. I'll make the House of Commons accessible to me -
Mr. Campbell (St. Paul's): For no pay.
Ms Ducharme: Absolutely. Everything I do is for no pay, no income, no taxes. We'll change and recycle the whole system, thanks to Madame Ducharme. How do you like that?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Madame Ducharme.
Ms Ducharme: Oh, I have one more request.
Every time Jean Chrétien sees me he asks, what are you selling now, because I sell ballpoint pens. So everybody has to buy five. All the members of Parliament have to buy five ballpoint pens at $3 each.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Madame Ducharme.
Ms Ducharme: Every time you have a carrot it costs money, Sunshine, so you have to pay.
.1335
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): I don't want to stop you in mid-speech, but -
Ms Ducharme: You'll have to come and disconnect my mood. How do you like that? I'm cheering up this party, so let's have a party mood.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you. Mr. Solberg, please.
Ms Ducharme: One last comment. You gave everyone else a chance. They don't call me a political hemorrhoid for nothing, because I'm a pain in the ass for most politicians. So please be nice to me.
So what do you think of that, Sunshine?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Ms Ducharme. Let's let Mr. Solberg have a chance to ask a question, and maybe you'll get an opportunity to speak again. Thank you.
Ms Ducharme: Oh God, I hope not.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Solberg (Medicine Hat): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you,Ms Ducharme, for your remarks. They help to lift the mood a little bit around here.
First of all, I want to go on record as saying that I appreciate very much the work of the Auditor General. I appreciate the work he did with respect to disclosing the transfer of funds to the U.S. tax-free.
I do, on the other hand, want to talk a little bit about taxes, the taxation of the rich. It's a very appealing call to say we should tax the rich, but I think that before we get into this, it's important to lay out some facts.
According to Revenue Canada, the top 1% of income-earners in this country pay 16% of the total taxes. The top 10% of income-earners pay about 49%.
Mr. Burrows: What about corporations?
Mr. Solberg: I'm going to get to that. The top 10% are people who have incomes of $50,000 and more. So we're not talking about a high level of income. If you taxed away all the income of people who have incomes of more than $60,000 in a particular year, it would amount to $13 billion.
I just want to touch on corporations. Between 1983 and 1993, the average profit in those years was $25 billion. If you taxed away half of that wealth, plus all of the wealth of people who made more than $60,000, then in the last budget year you wouldn't have balanced the budget. It would have come out to about $25 billion. The deficit last year was $28.6 billion.
I would argue that we've had lots of tax increases in this country already. In the last three years, taxes have gone up about $3,000 per family. The point I'm trying to make is that it's very appealing to raise taxes, but if you do that, aren't you just going to drive people out of the country? We all know that capital flows across borders. Aren't you going to prevent people from coming to establish businesses here if you continue to drive taxation rates up?
I note that in the Cho!ces' budget you're talking about increasing overall revenues 50% in five years, which is dramatic. Why would anyone want to invest here?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Solberg. Ms Mallea, please.
Ms Mallea: I think people want to invest here because we keep saying over and over that this is the best country in the world.
The other reason people want to invest here is because taxes come something like third in the list of things that industries, for example, will look at when determining where they will locate. The first two involve a really good transportation system, and the second is a very highly trained labour force.
Taxes are third on the list. I don't think investment is going to be affected.
Also, I have some numbers for you. You've told us what wealthy Canadians pay in taxes. Maybe that's an equitable arrangement when you consider that the top 1% of Canadians own or control more income than the bottom 80%. I don't think things are out of whack there.
In 1991, which is the last year for which I have numbers, 98,000 people who earned more than $100,000 here paid no income tax whatsoever. They are the ones we're looking at.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Ms Johannson, please.
Ms Johannson: What party do you belong to, may I ask?
Mr. Solberg: The Reform Party.
Ms Johannson: That's interesting. I was going to say that you sound like a Reformer.
.1340
I've heard this argument all my life about how people are going to leave the country. I'm wondering whether McDonald's is going to leave Canada because you ask them to pay a little bit more in taxes. Is The Bay or Eaton or any of these stores going to pack up and say that they're afraid they'll have to leave Canada? I think those kinds of scare tactics are ridiculous, and you know it. There aren't any companies that are going to leave here if you make them pay a fair share toward this country.
You know that if people are poor, they're not going to be able to go buy consumer goods for all the companies that are here.
The other thing you don't mention is something that a couple of people mentioned. Consider all the money that's floating around in the air through stocks and bonds and derivatives and all this kind of trillions of dollars that benefit nobody except the men in the red suspenders. Why don't we look at taxing some of that?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Johannson. Mr. Burrows, please.
Mr. Burrows: I'm always amused by politicians who try to lump the upper middle class with the wealthy to protect the wealthy. When Reformers first came out of Alberta, they were a populist group, and now they've shifted their efforts to defend the extremely wealthy.
We are not talking in this document about increasing taxation on the upper middle class. We're talking about increased payments from those who have the ability to pay and who should be paying taxes.
Just took a look at the Auditor General's report in chapter 11. He talks about what was mentioned earlier, which is financial transactions by our major corporations that are avoiding taxation by moving money out of Canada and not reporting it to Revenue Canada. Alone, just looking at the Auditor General's report, we're looking at billions of dollars in increased taxation. As for the issue of the wealth transfer tax, we're looking at billions of dollars in income.
We're looking at Carter commission. There are those of you who remember that. We're now back to the level of interest rates we were at roughly when the Carter commission came out and said that a buck is a buck, so that wealth gained from whatever source is taxed the same.
Those are the issues that have to be looked at in terms of ensuring that the revenue is available for the needs of the Government of Canada to provide an adequate quality of life for all. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Burrows. Mr. Cerilli, please.
Mr. Cerilli: Thank you. I think there are a couple of issues here that have to really be cleared up. Sometime back in the middle 1960s, the Carter commission on taxation said that a buck is a buck and it's taxable. So I think that's the short answer to your question.
However, let's deal with some of the facts that are out there and that I have. In 1954, for example, direct taxes on corporations provided 23% of all federal revenue, while direct taxes on individuals provided 35%. By 1994, taxes on people jumped to 58% - I think you used the 60% figure - of all federal revenues, while taxes on corporations fell to 8%. And we can go on by pointing out that there is $14.7 billion on which not one cent of taxes was paid.
However, let's take a look at investment and job creation in Canada. I think that some of you were at the last hearing last year when we proposed a shorter work week. More people are working part time every year, and more people are working longer hours. What an imbalance. Yet we're trying to stop the gap from getting wider.
The system in Canada that allows medicare and other social benefits creates, compared to the U.S., up to almost a 20% lower manufacturing cost. So in that respect, we don't buy the argument that investment will flow.
We pointed out in the last hearing as well that the deregulation of financial institutions has allowed a worldwide flow of capital all over the place. You couldn't stop that anyway.
.1345
The race to the bottom is creating a situation where there are no home buyers; and if there are, they are borrowing from their pensions, which they are going to have to rely on when they get a little older. The provisions my generation provided for pensions, for example, are being eroded by this federal government, through old age security and that kind of stuff. That investment can create all kinds of things for the benefit of the people.
If you're talking about the ethical question of movement of production from this country to another, that's another debate this government and this country must get into, as well as the world community. You're going to allow capital to flow from this country to a country with slave labour, with no benefits, $2 a day. Let's face reality. We're talking about your generation.
We have protected and created a country that is second to none in this world, and the governments of the day can't even maintain what the hell we provided you for. That's the issue, not moving one manufacturing aspect from this country to another and letting it flow out of the country. That's a bunch of BS. I don't buy that argument.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Cerilli.
Ms Vieno.
Ms Vieno: This is something I was asked to bring to your attention. In 1991 the GST came into effect. This was created by the federal government. Before the 1993 election you people promised the GST would be removed. It has not. Instead, Bill C-76, on the Canada Assistance Plan...was eliminated earlier this year. At the same time, in 1991 when the GST refunds...what persons like me receive, every three months is totally inadequate compared to the amount of GST taxes that are paid out. It is calculated by what amount we receive from the province.
As I've said before, the money is there. It's being mismanaged. As a Canadian...where is our pride? Where is our dignity? Where is our future?
It has been mentioned to you before that every one of us around this table has a youngster on our family tree. What future do those young people have? Or do they?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Vieno.
Ms Ducharme, you had a comment?
Ms Ducharme: We have a great future. We have a great country. We're here as great citizens, and we're doing a great job by listening to everybody and working positively. It's their job to bring back the reality that... We're not poor. We all have clothes on our back. We all have food. We're not underweight. Every one of us has a weight problem here, I'm sure. At the same time we're doing the best we can with what we have to do.
Now, we'll follow our neighbour's example. Be good to our neighbours. Let's have more positive action, that these people who are here to help serve Canadians will do their best when they return, because they won't be able to have a good night's sleep without thinking of l-o-v-e. We love Canada. We will help Canada. We're going to work together as one, right?
The member of Parliament from Quebec -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Madame Ducharme.
An hon. member: [Inaudible - Editor]
Ms Ducharme: The only French I know is the word for manure.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you. Mr. Duhamel, please.
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have but one question to Mr. Cerilli.
It's a serious question. I'm not, I assure you, trying to bait you.
Let me tell you what's happened this week as we travel from city to city. In B.C. I was told by the citizens there the new social democratic NDP government was undertaking brutal cuts to the civil service, and a number of other things. In Saskatchewan, people described to me the savage cuts that have been undertaken by another NDP government with respect to health care. In Alberta, clearly I heard comments about both.
.1350
My point is as follows. We have in Alberta a political party that's considered to the right in the political spectrum; in B.C. and Saskatchewan, to the left. Yet, as I understand the situation - and I'm trying to be fair here - their approach to these fiscal problems we are experiencing as a nation and as a society is extremely similar.
My question to you, sir, is why is that? Am I seeing things incorrectly? That's not an impossibility. Have I misunderstood the points that have been given to me? That's number one.
Secondly, in each of those two jurisdictions I've mentioned, B.C. and Saskatchewan, I'm told - and again, it's subject to verification; I haven't had a chance to do it - that they could indeed tax their corporations much more than they have, but apparently they've chosen not to do that. In view of a number of comments that have been made today, I'd like to understand why that is not so, why they have not chosen to do so.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Duhamel.
Mr. Cerilli, please.
Mr. Cerilli: First of all, I'm not even going to try to speak for the governments of the day anywhere, but I sure as hell will criticize any government that attacks the poor, the disabled, families, the unemployed and pensioners, and so on.
But let me answer the first question on the attitudes of different governments - and I'll quote from a fact sheet. That's why I made the comment of a strong federal government. I've always maintained that, and I always will. Without a strong central government you have really a community of a country where you have ten provinces, the federal government, and a couple of territories and so on, and of course, the aboriginal people are caught in the middle of all this. But it's in your transfer arrangement that you're going to be depriving the provincial and territorial governments of any revenue.
I'll quote it all because I think it's worthy of being put on the record. I'll just deal with Manitoba.
Mr. Duhamel: Where is the fact sheet from, Mr. Cerilli?
Mr. Cerilli: It's from the Canadian Health Coalition, which we're part of. My group does a lot of research with them.
The facts can be researched and double-checked by you. That's why I want to put the whole thing on the record. Is that all right?
Mr. Duhamel: It's up to the chair -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Actually, Mr. Cerilli, we have very little time left, so if you want to -
Mr. Cerilli: I know. Let me do this, though. It says:
- Starting next year, the federal government is changing the way it transfers money to the
provinces. The new Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) will give provinces block
funding (no strings attached).
- All the provincial governments know that, so they're looking at ways and means. It goes on:
- Manitoba will lose $139 million in the first year of the CHST (1996/97).
Mr. Cerilli:
- Future CHST allocations will be negotiated. But if the transfer cuts are allocated evenly in
1997/98, Manitoba will lose another $103.8 million.
- Over the first two years of the CHST, the annual amount of money Manitoba receives for
health, post-secondary education and social assistance will be reduced by $242.8 million. That
is an absolute cut of 33 per cent over two years.
On the other part of your question on the taxation end of it, those are mechanics that can done on a fair tax system. That's the issue before the House, and your party is shovelling it under the rug. When you had a minority government in Ottawa, you used to get a lot of action, a lot of debate, in the House. I suggest to you that a lot of these questions can surely be answered by a proper debate across this country.
So your transfer payment is creating a hell of a shock and a jolt to this country and all the provinces and the municipalities. So the fight for the municipal governments is with the provincial government, and the provincial government's fight is with the federal government. What they're really doing is turning on the people of the country, including your party and your government. That's the unfortunate part of this whole debate. That's why I say that these hearings are a bloody farce, because we're not dealing with the issues.
.1355
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Cerilli.
Mr. Duhamel: I'm not sure you've answered my questions, Mr. Cerilli.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Excuse me, Mr. Duhamel. Please.
I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. We only have a few minutes left in this hearing. I'm going to have to go to specific questions now.
Mr. McKinnon, did you have a specific, quick question?
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Madame Mallea, could you outline a little more specifically that idea of financial transactions in stocks, of how any kind of tax could be implemented and tracked, if you will, in an appropriate way?
Ms Mallea: I think we're tracking fairly thoroughly how that money is moving around, but at the moment it's after the fact because it's moving so quickly. However, the point of the submission is that the selling of those commodities is no different from the selling of any other service and ought to be treated as such. There's no reason that makes any sense to anyone here, I think, as to why there should be a particular exemption for those.
Again, a structure can be created that would easily enough track these and easily enough control these. We're trying to be very careful about financial transactions of every kind, both provincially and federally, and I don't think there should be any difficulty in pursuing that.
Mr. McKinnon: Lacking time, that's very interesting and I think it should be pursued.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. Fewchuk, a brief question.
Ms Johannson: I just want to give you information on this issue.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): No problem. You're welcome to table anything with any member of the committee.
Mr. Fewchuk, please.
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): Good afternoon, and thank you all very much for coming. I'm pleased to see so many of you. Winnipeg is one of the biggest crowds we've had since we left Ottawa, and since we left Vancouver, Edmonton and Regina.
Many of you mentioned this morning that there should be a tax review in Canada. How do you feel about our municipal governments and provincial governments? Is that also your feeling at the local level at home here?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Fewchuk, I'm sorry, but we're running out of time here.
Mr. Fewchuk: They have the same feeling, okay.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Burrows.
Mr. Burrows: This answer is also for Mr. Duhamel.
The federal government is the government that sets the major tax rates in Canada. With the exception of Quebec, corporate tax rates and corporate tax laws are set by the Government of Canada. The province gets a percentage of the taxes collected by the Government of Canada; therefore, the responsibility for setting the general tax rates and the general tax laws in Canada lies with the Liberal government at the present time. It is your responsibility - and that's why you're here, for the budget - to decide who pays taxes, how much, when and where, and provinces get a share of that.
Mr. Fewchuk: The municipality sets your mill rate, and that's your local council. I was one of them, so I have to correct you a little bit there. Thank you.
Mr. Burrows: I don't want to get into an argument. I understand -
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Fewchuk.
Mr. Pillitteri, did you have a brief question?
Mr. Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): For the first time in four days in this committee, Madam Chair, I don't have any questions.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Okay, thank you.
Mr. Campbell has a brief question.
Mr. Campbell: Ms Mallea said this morning that she'd driven for three hours to be here, and I want her to know we appreciate that effort. I want her to know that many of us made at least that much of an effort to be here to listen to our witnesses.
I have to tell you I'm quite disappointed that some of you chose to open your remarks earlier by calling me and my colleagues murderers, child abusers, evil and stupid. I looked forward to engaging in a constructive dialogue here, to do a lot of listening, to share some information. I'll not engage in discussion with those of you who chose that kind of provocative and accusatory language, but I do want to make some observations and give you some facts so that the next time we come back - and I won't be afraid to come back; I will come back - maybe we can have a more constructive dialogue. And maybe there will be a little more time, because we're out of time here.
I do prefer Ms Ducharme's approach, which was not only charming, it was instructive for all of us.
Ms Ducharme: L-O-V-E.
Mr. Campbell: You've got it.
I just want to respond to something she said. I want to respond to several things with some information for people to think about. As for politicians and politicians' pay, Ms Ducharme, we'd welcome having you there, although I suggest you probably wouldn't do it for nothing. Even the Reform Party found out that they couldn't live on their salary under their plan to give back 10%. I do want to say also that if we were to go further and did not just get rid of the salaries but closed down Parliament - the House and the Senate and all that flows from them - we would save $400 million. That's a big amount of money; however, you would still have to find $25 billion to balance the budget.
.1400
Somebody asked about labour - two of you - and long hours, work sharing. The problem is the unions don't accept that.
Lotteries: somebody said to tax lotteries; $1 billion could be obtained by taxing lotteries. The anti-poverty groups tell us uniformly across this country, don't you dare, because low-income people are the biggest buyers of lottery tickets and winners of lottery tickets.
Family trusts: you've all talked about Professor Brooks, a wonderfully entertaining man. He was employed by the Department of Finance. I guess that means he has a conflict too. He was very embarrassed when that came out at the committee.
There's no way around it. There's no way around it. We pay $50 billion a year in debt interest. We transfer $22 billion a year to seniors. I would like to tell you that young people come before us - none are here today - and they ask what seniors are going to do about the $22 billion. Are they going to share some of that to deal with child poverty? We hear precious few people who come here saying, look, we can contribute somehow to solving this problem. It's always someone else's fault and someone else is the source of it.
You heard comments about taxation. I want to make just one other point on taxation, about the relative share of tax revenue coming from the personal income tax and from the corporate tax. You cannot simply compare. People do this all the time, and it's incorrect. Maybe next year when we come back we can continue the discussion. You cannot compare share of revenue paid by individuals and share of revenue paid by corporations without looking at levels of profit in that same period and without looking at the tremendous increase over those same years in government spending to finance all the things we've been doing for everybody, things Canadians wanted and didn't want to pay the tax on to cover.
Ms Ducharme: Wonderful, Mr. Campbell!
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell.
Ladies and gentlemen, as our time has dwindled, I'm going to give each of you thirty seconds. I will cut you off after thirty seconds. I'm sorry if you find that rude, but that's my choice.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Madam Chair...
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): No, I'm sorry, Mr. Rocheleau. We're out of time now. We're out of time. I gave everyone equal time for questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: You should at least allow the witnesses to react to the gentleman's comments.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Rocheleau, I'm giving everyone the opportunity in thirty seconds or less to give us their priority or their main point. I apologize, Mr. Rocheleau.
First of all, I want to thank you all. We'll start with Mr. Johannson.
Mr. Johannson: Let's give her a vote of thanks for trying to be a very fair chairman.
Voices: Hear, hear!
Mr. Johannson: I would like to respond briefly to Mr. Campbell.
I have a class I teach, and I say to them that politicians are honest, decent people who are in politics because of their concern for the community. I fight for politicians and the honesty and the concern of politicians all the time. But from time to time you have to call a spade a spade. If what politicians are doing is evil, you have to call it evil. You can't get away from it just by being positive all the time.
I'm trying all the time to convince my class that the politicians are basically honest, they're basically concerned. I'm not getting a lot of help from you guys.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Ms Vieno, please.
Ms Vieno: I wonder how well we people have been heard this morning? This is not my first appearance. From what little I have seen happen for the better, actions speak louder than words. Really, I beg and I plead for every one of you to listen to what has been voiced, concerns from every one of us here today. Remember, you have young people in your families. It's their future also.
Last and most of all, my major message for you to take back to Jean Chrétien and this government is that we need the recreation of a national standard of living clause for the benefit of all Canadians. Let us focus on Canada first before we give out billions of dollars to foreign countries, money we cannot afford.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Vieno. I'm sorry, we're out of time.
.1405
Ms Vieno: We need to take care of our own country first.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Mr. Burrows, please.
Mr. Burrows: Thank you very much.
Canada grew as a mixed economy. We used to have giants as leaders among our politicians. We used to have John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Tommy Douglas, and Ed Schreyer here in Manitoba. We're led now by pygmies.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Burrows, come on.
Mr. Burrows: Mr. Solberg, I think you should be happy to have a Mr. Campbell. He's probably a good recruit for your party. The right-wing drift is totally unacceptable. I join with the Catholic bishops in calling Mr. Campbell a child abuser because whether he likes it or not, that is what he is doing.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Okay, Mr. Burrows. Thank you.
Ms Kalinowsky, please.
Ms Kalinowsky: When the standing committee returns to Ottawa, I guess it could perhaps reflect that there has been a certain amount of frustration expressed at this table, although maybe it hasn't always been expressed appropriately.
There are five points that I would like to have the standing committee return to Ottawa with. One is that there is perhaps too much focus on deficit reduction. Child poverty has to be examined. It is very important that social programs continue at an adequate level. There can perhaps be a reform of the taxation system in order to make it much more equitable. And finally, national standards are to be preserved.
Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you very much.
Mr. Cerilli, please.
Mr. Cerilli: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
First of all, I think that if governments quit attacking the labour movement and workers in general, you'd be surprised at the cooperation you might get. We have an old saying: What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all. I think J.S. Woodsworth put it well before Parliament many times. We have never attacked politicians for whatever they get in benefits, and I think the people around this table - particularly the ones from Manitoba - know that.
On poverty and learning, I think it was expressed that poverty leads to deficiencies in learning. I think the bishops touch on that, and if you don't have the document, I'm prepared to provide it. But there are articles all the time that say the computer, the information highway, hurts the poor. When we don't have the means to learn, we won't have that.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you.
Mr. Cerilli: Old age security is on the block here, and I want it to go on record that if the legislation is passed as it is, people don't understand that old age security is going to be eliminated by this government by the year 2001. As taxpayers who provide a lot of infrastructure means for the whole country, we urge you to look at pensions.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Cerilli.
Ms Mallea, please.
Ms Mallea: Thanks. I would like to disassociate Women for Equality from some of the more intemperate language. I think we've always made it a policy to try to address any forum like this with respect. Although I feel very strongly about these issues, I hope I've done that.
I guess the only other thing that I want to say for the record is to Mr. Campbell. I don't know if he's still in the room or not, but I know he made an effort to be here. However, we ran some risk today and we're doing this on our own time.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Mallea. We appreciate that.
Ms Ducharme.
Ms Ducharme: Susan, the standing committee should stand up and applaud themselves because they're doing a marvellous job - and I would like to stand up and applaud you as well. I ask that we share a little prayer so that we can calm ourselves. I believe and I trust that the message we've shared through the weakness of those who have lived out frustration and discouragement will be heard.
Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for the standing committee's efforts in bringing us here this evening, this morning and yesterday. Dear Lord, may they travel safely back home, may their words of wisdom touch the hearts of all Canadians, and may our financial deficit not be the lifeline of love that will flow through all. We love each other, we need each other, we can't live without one another, and we love to be in Canada. Amen.
Take back that word, and make sure Jean Chrétien opens Parliament with a prayer.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Ducharme.
Mr. Madder, I realize you weren't involved in a lot of the discussion this morning, but I want to assure you that we have had your national association before us in Ottawa. We have also met with other groups across the province, and your message was heard with regard to the prepayment of mortgages; that was also part of the white paper recommendations that the finance committee released last Thursday.
If you have a final comment, please go ahead.
Mr. Madder: I do, and I'd like to thank everyone. We did feel a little out of place today, but we certainly don't want to either minimize or lessen the importance of the issues that were raised. I think it's important that everybody knows that certainly in the city of Brandon - which is where I'm from and which Mr. McKinnon represents - things are going very well. The real estate market is strong; homes are being purchased; and the RRSPs that are being used to purchase homes are being paid back, so first-time buyers don't have to choose between retirement savings and buying a house.
.1410
I think the reason we brought these two proposals today - I'm glad you have seen them - is that we feel that people who have jobs are more than happy to pay tax. I've been paying taxes for a long time, and I hope to continue that.
I think the two programs will help put people back to work. There are jobs in construction, there are other jobs affiliated with the purchase of houses and all other things. The two proposals we brought today don't involve government funds, so they won't lessen any of the financial problems, but hopefully you'll give them consideration.
And I hope the other folks who are here today will continue to come back and bring their issues, because it is important that they come forward.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Mr. Madder.
Mr. Thorvaldson, did you have a final comment?
Mr. Thorvaldson: No, thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, I appreciate that.
Ms Johannson, please.
Ms Johannson: I hardly know what to say. I see things getting more and more and more desperate. Some days I don't even want to go into my office or answer the phone, because I listen to people who are hungry and who have no hope. I wonder who is going to take the responsibility for this. Is our federal government willing to say it is responsible for the people and will do something so that the citizens of Canada and their children do not go to bed hungry? If you don't take that responsibility, what hope do we have as a country?
The Vice-Chair (Ms Whelan): Thank you, Ms Johannson.
I want to thank all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee today. I want to assure you that we all do have our own personal experiences that we bring to the table. Your message has not fallen on deaf ears.
I will give you my own personal examples. I have a cousin who is disabled. I have two aunts who have breast cancer and are threatened by the structure of our health care system. I have a sister who is struggling to be a stay-at-home mom while her husband is working. So I understand the difficulties and I understand the concerns. We all do. We all come with very similar circumstances, and we will do our best to reflect your message in the pre-budget consultation report to the minister.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.