Debates of Sept. 30th, 1997

Supply

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

I would remind members today that we are debating a Reform motion which reads:

That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

It is not difficult to see the reasons why we would propose such a motion in the House. There is plenty of evidence out there among ordinary average Canadian taxpayers that they are very dissatisfied with any suggestion that government would increase its spending at this point in the cycle.

The Financial Post did a poll of Canadian CEOs and average taxpayers in September. This poll was published in the Financial Post on September 27. I can give members a couple of examples from this poll.

Peggy Witte of Royal Oak Mines stated in answer to questions that Royal Oak Mines left Canada because of the high Canadian taxes which made it difficult to attract top-notch talent to fill positions in the company within Canada. I know that Peggy Witte's company, Royal Oak Mines, is certainly not the only one that has deserted our province because of high taxes.

Where I live in Vancouver, we are very close to the United States border. There are something like 30,000 Canadians who have business interests just across the border in Bellingham and Blaine. Many thousands of Canadians go to work every day just across the border because there is a lower tax climate there both at the corporate and personal levels.

It was not just CEOs though who responded to the poll and indicated that they were dissatisfied with tax levels. Among average taxpayers, a vast majority favoured tax reductions and by 28:1 they favoured cuts in personal income taxes. It is not difficult to see why they would favour cuts in personal income taxes when we look at an article that was printed in the Vancouver Sun on September 18 and sent to me by a constituent.

The article shows Canadian household savings are on the decline. Canadians are saving much less than ever before and mainly because since 1980 the government's share of personal income has gone from 17 percent to over 25 percent. The government has increased its take from personal incomes by 8 percent just since 1980. As a result, people have far less savings. In fact the graphs, which I cannot show to members, show that personal savings have dropped dramatically as taxes have increased dramatically since the early 1980s. At this point the savings rate is running at about 1 percent. That is a full 9 percent lower than it was just a decade ago.

Of course income taxes as we know were supposed to be a temporary tax. I mentioned to members yesterday that I had a folder full of things that constituents had sent to me over the summer that they would surely hear about as we went on through the business of this House.

There is another clipping here sent by a constituent who wanted me to remember that September 20 marked the 80th anniversary of the birth of the income tax in Canada. It preceded today's income tax. It received royal assent on September 20, 1917. It was supposed to be a temporary measure which would be reversed once the war was over. I think we are still in a bit of a war but now it is to try to battle back those who want to spend other people's money. They certainly throw it around very freely.

Mr. Trevor Roote in my riding was a bit outraged when bureaucrats at the GST collection department said that they were losing revenue because of the exemptions for groceries, drugs and medical devices. He really objects to the way that bureaucrats say they are losing tax revenues because of exemptions. He said that it was only through the permission of the people that they can have these tax revenues.

Really, it is quite outrageous that the government treats this as if it were a business income to which it has a right for some sort of service that it provides. I realize there are many services that the government provides which we all agree are necessary and essential but there is a tremendous amount of government waste. Some of it was mentioned today during question period.

I am sure many members have seen the headline on the front page of an edition of the Hill Times : “Pork barrel politics: Bagmen, old college buddies and riding association presidents all benefited from Liberal largesse collecting plum government appointments last month”.

There were some examples: Gilles Champagne will sit as a member of the Canada Post board of governors. The three-year appointment which was approved by cabinet on September 24 pays a $600 per diem and a $7,000 annual retainer. The Liberal Party director in Quebec knows Mr. Champagne from their fundraising work together and he described him as a good Liberal.

The Liberals for example made another appointment in the heart of Bloc Quebecois country. Mr. Frappier, who is the son of a Liberal appointed judge, was given a plum position there.

Bryan Williams, a lawyer in the Vancouver area, a long time Liberal supporter, was named chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia last month.

There are a whole slew of examples even in the Hill Times and many of these examples find their way into the mainstream press. We read about them regularly.

I think some of us will remember members who were not re-elected to this House. Geoff Regan, whom I remember, represented Halifax West. I mentioned to him at one time that his failure to represent his constituents on an issue would probably come back to haunt him. I see now though that not satisfied with the taxpayers' decision to throw Mr. Regan out of office, the government has appointed him senior assistant in the federal ministerial regional office located in Halifax, the executive suite where the ministers go to powder their noses. Mr. Regan landed on his feet.

Of course we remember Mary Clancy and how many times in this House she criticized the United States, how she slammed the Americans. And where is she now? She is in Boston in a patronage position at the embassy. Imagine Mary Clancy as an ambassador for Canada. Can you imagine that? The person who condemned the United States constantly.

That is one area of waste, but there are many others such as the federal-provincial infrastructure program of course, which Reform criticized because much of it went to pork barrel politics.

There are the results of a questionnaire that was sent out to all members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business a couple of months ago asking whether there should be a renewed federal-provincial infrastructure program. Of those who replied Canada wide 49 percent said no. These are business people answering these questions about the way tax dollars should be spent. Forty-nine per cent Canada wide and fifty-six per cent in B.C. said “Don't use our tax dollars on these pork barrel federal-provincial arrangements”.

When we think about it, what a silly way to raise taxes for local infrastructure. We tax workers in B.C., transfer their money to Ottawa where it gets shuffled around by the bureaucrats and then it gets dumped into a program for infrastructure and gets sent back to B.C. again where it gets shuffled around and handed out under the grants program.

We probably if we are lucky get back 50 cents on every dollar to actually spend on the infrastructure. It would have been better for the local government body closest to the taxpayer to be responsible for collecting that money in the first place and spending it on the infrastructure directly.

Then the minister for multiculturalism today in question period said how carefully she screens the grants to multiculturalism groups and how they never waste any money.

There was an example in British Columbia which I wish I could have brought up for the minister at the time, the Canadian Association to Fight Racism, which of course has a wonderfully politically correct name. No one would ever dare suggest that maybe it is doing something wrong.

That organization had failed to file its papers with Victoria for three years in a row. It got struck off the register. It was still collecting money from the minister of multiculturalism when it had no mandate and no legal authority to exist.

These are the sorts of things that go on constantly with our taxpayers' money. I could go on. I have a big stack of stuff here that I could go through for all these examples of waste, one which all the members in this House would have got about a week ago.

There is another survey from Ms. Tremblay which she does every parliamentary session, $41,000 down the drain again, asking us whether we think there should be more women in Parliament and what we should do to arrange that. It is the voters who decide who will be in Parliament, not us. What a waste of money.

I wish I could spend a half a day talking about this absolute pile of waste, but I know that members opposite are bursting to ask me questions.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for North Vancouver for his comments. I find it somewhat ironic that the member opposite often stands in the House to talk about the very excellent public policies of New Zealand. I gather the member is originally from New Zealand. I find it somewhat ironic in the sense that in New Zealand it was a labour government which was elected a number of years ago to clean up the fiscal mess which the previous conservative government had created. It was the labour government which introduced a number of privatization measures and caused the New Zealand economy to revive and avoid the country going into bankruptcy.

I do not know what the member's affiliation was when he was living in New Zealand. It is rather irrelevant. However, I think it is ironic that he stands in the House ad nauseam to rave about the excellent public policies in New Zealand when we know that country has experienced some of its own challenges.

I want to turn to the subject of the GST. The GST was introduced by the Conservative government in the eighties. When it was introduced, my understanding is that the government consulted widely with New Zealand to learn better from the mistakes of that country particularly in terms of the rate, how the rate was set, what kind of coverage the GST had and what kind of exemptions were made. It was a Conservative government which looked very closely at the New Zealand model in order to learn from that experience.

I wonder if the member could comment on the New Zealand experience with its GST, or whatever it is called in New Zealand. He might have some wisdom to share with the House.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do apologize to the member for going on ad nauseam about New Zealand, but now he has asked me a whole bunch of questions about it so I guess I will have to do it again.

First of all, I would mention that in New Zealand the type of government he is calling a conservative government which was in power just before the crisis was reached was known as the National Party. However by North American standards, all governments in New Zealand were socialist. When I lived there I thought the National Party was a progressive conservative style of government, but it was not really; it was socialist and I soon learned that.

They were all tax and spend governments. They were the first with a welfare state in the world. They really set the stage for the total collapse of a welfare state.

Yes the Labour Party which took power had to clean up the mess because within a few days of taking power, those investors who had been prepared to buy government bonds deserted en masse. The New Zealand government ran out of international currencies within a few days of the Labour Party taking office. Then the World Bank stepped in and helped them to recover. As a result of that, New Zealand really has found the optimum size of government and taxation. The government is now about 40 percent of the size it was in 1983. The country is functioning better.

Last year New Zealanders were given on average a $200 per month income tax reduction. However, the New Zealand government first began to pay down its debt before giving tax relief. It realized that as soon as it started to pay the debt down, the interest payments would begin to retract very quickly and there would be more money to spend on other programs. It has actually increased spending on social programs by almost $1 billion in the last year.

Now on the GST, of course the Liberals promised to scrap, abolish and get rid of the GST, which they did not do. It is true that the PCs asked New Zealand representatives to come here to give them advice on how to implement the GST. The advice was ignored. New Zealand's GST has no exemptions. It was at a lower rate across the board. There were no exemptions at all and they urged that if there were to be a GST in Canada, it should be that type of GST at a lower rate.

From a personal perspective to members, I am not sure that a GST could ever be successfully introduced when we have a bordering country that does not have such a consumption tax. It makes it very difficult and very competitive. Perhaps more consideration should have been given to that before that style of tax was introduced.

I thank the member for his questions. I am sure he will hear a bit more about New Zealand from me, but that goes with the territory, I guess.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, since this is my first formal speech in this 36th Parliament, I would like to thank you and congratulate you on your appointment. I would also like to express thankfulness to the constituents of Kelowna who saw fit to re-elect me, giving me the opportunity to represent them in this House. It is an honour to be able to do so.

The constituents of Kelowna live in probably one of the most beautiful parts of this country. Some people say there is at least one other part of British Columbia that is better than that. It happens to be the place where they live, and of course I disagree with that because I think that Kelowna is the absolute most beautiful spot in which to live.

I wish at this point to refer back to a question that was asked by one of my hon. colleagues from the Conservative Party. I unfortunately do not know which constituency he represents. He asked probably one of the most poignant question that has been asked on this day in the debate of this particular motion, and that question was to the hon. member for St. Paul's.

The question was did she think that the taxpayer would be able to spend money more wisely or would a politician or a bureaucrat spend money more wisely.

For a moment I thought for sure it was one of my Reform colleagues because that is exactly the kind of questions we have been asking. We have discovered over and over again that it is the taxpayer who is probably in the best position to determine how best to spend his dollars. I am absolutely convinced that is true.

The hon. member for St. Paul's could not answer that question. She is prepared to take her money and let somebody else spend it for her more wisely than she is able to spend it. I do not believe that she even believes that particular answer.

I want to get to the substance of this debate. The substance of this debate centers around adequate public debate about what should happen after a surplus has been created in the budget.

That is an absolutely critical point because we believe so fervently that it is the people of Canada, the taxpayers, the people who voted us into these chairs, who own these chairs, who own this House who would say now that we have a surplus, where should that money be spent. That is critical and that is really what this debate is all about.

I am going to address my remarks pretty well to the business of reducing taxes and cutting taxes. There is a brief reference. It is not even a complete sentence. There is just one tiny little phrase in the Speech from the Throne that refers to a cut in taxes.

As individuals we are tired of the tax burden that we carry. As families, we are tired of the tax burden that we are carrying. It does not matter what business person you talk to, it does not matter what individual you talk to, whether they are married, whether they are senior citizens, every person comes back with the answer that their taxes are too high.

Recently I read about an Asian centre that is being built in Surrey. These people are considering that this may be their first and only investment until the tax structure changes in Canada to do any further development in this country. That would be a very serious blow to that part of our country.

The average family today has real problems. It is spending $3,000 less per year—that is all it has—on food, clothing and shelter, the very basic things we need. Families are unable to spend that money because it has been taken from them by the taxes.

There is another point and it has to do directly with the individual tax level, the brain drain.

In this part of the country alone, here in Ottawa, recently 11 scientists out of 17 of that group have moved out of the country, most of them to the United States. Why? The personal tax burden is to high and also because there is no money available to support the infrastructure necessary to conduct research.

There are two difficulties with the infrastucture. Some of the material is worn out and cannot be used anymore and other new machines have to be brought in to do some of the more recent research.

Our high tax burden is a very serious detriment to retaining strong people. It is at the point now that in some sectors we are missing the skills and the professional ability to carry forward the research application that needs to be done.

My hon. colleague from North Vancouver alluded to a survey in the Financial Post . There is a very interesting observation here. So many people argue that tax cuts are really not the thing that women want to support and that it is something men want to support. Women want social programs more than they want tax cuts. This is very interesting. There is a marked difference here. Women actually supported tax cuts to a greater degree than did men. It would appear that protecting the financial interests of families may be more important that protecting government abilities to fund programs.

That is very significant. The women have it right. They understand what matters. They can spend money very wisely. They think they can spend it more wisely than the government. Congratulations. It is about time we got some balance into this society of ours.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

We need more women in Parliament.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Is that not a wonderful comment, Madam Speaker? You have order in this place and another member said it is okay. I am a man who said the right thing. That is a fantastic way to live in this old world.

I want to go back to research and development.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Pretty smooth.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is very interesting. Now we have another man in on this. Now we really have a balance. That is what the House is really all about.

I want to move into the technology partnerships Canada program. This program is supposed to help build innovation, research and development in Canada.

[An hon. member]

What is wrong with that?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The only difficulty is the contrast. Whenever the minister makes an announcement, and he has probably made about 40 or 50 announcements about these various partnership programs, he says it is repayable. Not a subsidy, not a grant, this is a loan or an equity position. It is very interesting that there is absolutely no reference to what the provisions of the contract are, what the partnership shall actually achieve and what schedule there will be of the repayment of the grant, subsidy or loan. If it is not to be repaid, if it is an equity position, what are the dividends that will be paid on the investment?

If the contract is a secret one, this does not prove anything. There is no accountability here. That is very serious.

The DIPP, the defence industry productivity program, went essentially to the defence industry. The son of the DIPP, the technology partnerships Canada program, is going to exactly the same people. The first $150 million of that was to carry over and pay for some of the programs that have not been taken care of under the DIPP.

If this is what is going to happen, then we will have a DIPP and a TPC program which have not been paid for. I think we have to say that the DIPP has become tipsy.

I think we have to be very serious about exactly what is going on here. Where is the truth in what is happening here?

We need to become serious about cutting our taxes so that the people can spend money where they want to spend it and spend it wisely. The only way we can find that out is to ask the people where they think a surplus should be spent once we have a balanced budget and there is extra money in the treasury. They will tell us far better than a bureaucrat or we sitting in this House. Let the people speak and we will all be better off.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to welcome my friend from Kelowna back to the House of Commons. Over the last four years we had a lot of constructive debate together and I still feel that when we work in a constructive way that is when we achieve the most.

The member for Kelowna today wanted more of a public debate on where this surplus should go. I find it really encouraging actually that the Reform Party has now come to the conclusion that the surplus is within sight. I think we can honestly say that just a couple of years ago the Reform Party had very little confidence in our ability to manage the fiscal framework of this nation. I am glad to see that today we have basically received its endorsement on the basic trajectory or direction that we are heading in.

When it comes to the debate on the surplus, I want to say to my friend from Kelowna that we will be on opposite sides. As passionately committed as the member is to tax reduction, and I have done some work in this area, I am passionately committed to making sure that the human capital that has been through a lot of suffering, those people at the lower end of the income spectrum who have not had a voice in this Chamber for a long time, I am going to be with that voice. I am going to be with that voice to make sure the Minister of Finance keeps his commitment that was stated during the election.

I was elected in my community, which is a disadvantaged community in downtown Toronto, on the basis that we have been through a lot of belt tightening. There have been a lot of cuts. There has been a big ratchet on this sort of obsession with the deficit and there has to be a dividend to look after the people in our community who are the most disadvantaged.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Tax relief, that is what we are talking about.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

No, it is not in a tax cut. If we really had a payday here and we can do both, terrific. However, I want to be on the record that I really think that some very important programs have been gutted, and I hate to say this because I have been part of a government that was a party to this. I feel badly for some of my colleagues who went down in Atlantic Canada because the cuts were too severe. They were victims, in my judgment, of extreme cuts.

In my own community, and I know the member will believe me when I say this, I have human capital, which is a very important thing to nurture, training and retraining. The member talks about the brain drain. One of the reasons we have a brain drain, even in the public service, is that we get all upset if we bonus some of our most respected senior public servants.

I think the Reform Party, which has been very effective as an opposition, has to take a more balanced approach and realize that we have to start creating an atmosphere of hope in our public service and hope for some of our more disadvantaged. I hope that he would modify his approach somewhat over the next few months.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I guess the admiration is mutual. I have a lot of respect for the hon. member opposite. The important thing about human capital is what do we want to create?

If he would read the Beyond a Balanced Budget document the hon. member will discover that there will be 1.2 million Canadians who will be off the tax roll. They will have the money that they are now paying in taxes. These are low income people who earn less than $30,000 a year. That is very significant.

The reason some of these people do not have jobs is because of payroll taxes. Many business people to whom I have talked, and the hon. member is a business man, know only too well how many people have not expanded their businesses because of the proposed increase in the CPP and employment insurance premiums.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is my maiden speech, so I respectfully request the co-operation of the members of the House of Commons, particularly members of my own party, to keep their heckling to a minimum.

I would like to thank the constituents that elected me and placed their confidence in me as their representative.

Today I will speak on the Reform motion and, as a deputy critic of industry, I would like to address the motion from the vantage point of the industry department.

Three large regional development programs, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification and the Federal Office of Regional Development of Quebec will account for nearly $1 billion in government spending in 1997-98.

If we analyse the throne speech and dissect such phrases as “public-private sector partnerships” we should have a grave concern that the Liberals plan to not only continue funding these outdated programs, but actually plan to increase the number of tax dollars to these programs. Throwing more taxpayers' dollars into regional development programs would be an awful mistake. They are inefficient, unaccountable and ultimately they represent, to Canadian taxpayers, money pits.

Let us examine what the auditor general had to say in his report of November 1995. The auditor general examined these three regional economic development programs and what he uncovered did not sound good. As a courtesy to the Liberal members who have this big government, high spending, high taxation mentality, I would like to caution and advise them that they may wish to cover their ears.

The auditor general found that information which the regional development programs supplied to him was inaccurate and incomplete. He discovered that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency had been reporting survey results as actual job creation figures. It had no idea about the actual number of jobs created. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency's rule of thumb is, if you do not know it, make it up.

Meanwhile, at the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec, the auditor general reported that its actions forced the closures of two fish plants, but its records showed a net gain of 250 jobs. At the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec the elimination of workers actually led to an increase in employment. I think it is time for a remedial math course.

The auditor general found that projects had been funded that did not require government money. I guess it does not matter. You fill out the forms, you get the money. This is taxpayers' money, money from ordinary Canadian families.

I do not recommend that the big government, high spending, high taxation Liberals uncover their ears just yet. There is more they will not want to hear.

The auditor general also found that the regional development programs had an inefficient system for determining qualified recipients. I guess that does not matter either. If you apply, you get the money, taxpayers' money, money from ordinary Canadian families. The auditor general also stated “their objectives are not clearly established and performance measuring is inadequate so it is impossible to tell if the programs are meeting their objectives”.

The auditor general is not the only one who has harsh words for regional development programs. In November 1996 the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies published a book about the effects that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has had on the Atlantic region. It concluded that over 35 years of regional development programs have led to huge economic distortions. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency raised costs of producers, slowed private investment and kept unemployment high.

This should come as no surprise. These effects only stand to reason. The government should not be injecting money into the private sector. Wherever this is done an unlevel playing field is created. Someone enjoys a rich government subsidy at the expense of others, at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of ordinary Canadian families.

The institute went on to say that subsidies handed out under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency provided disincentives to work and promoted the expansion of inefficient companies.

Furthermore, these regional development programs are subject to abuse by pork barrelling politicians. The Liberals refer to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as the MLLM, money for loyal Liberal maritimers. In the past election they were not as loyal as the Liberals expected them to be, were they? This should worry us though. Much of the new increased government spending the Liberals are talking about may go back into these regional development programs. Now that the Liberals have lost support outside of Ontario, they will see these regional development programs as a way to buy back votes.

Liberals wasted taxpayers' dollars throughout the 35th Parliament and now they are promising to waste even more in this 36th Parliament. The problem with the Liberals, which comes back to regional development, is that they believe government spending can create jobs. They believe that massive job creation programs are the solution to the perpetual levels of high unemployment in this country. They do not understand that that approach has been tried over and over again. And guess what? It does not work. It is a waste of taxpayers' dollars, money taken from average Canadian families.

One might think they might learn from trial and error, but the Liberals just cannot seem to shake their big government, high spending, high taxation mentality. We have endured it for over 20 years. Actually that is not quite true. We endured the Conservatives for a portion of that time and they were even worse.

Canadians desperately need tax relief which will in turn spur job growth. It is a win-win situation. But the Liberals have raised taxes 35 times since 1993 and the average family has experienced a $3,000 drop in actual income. The average family spent more on taxes than on food, shelter and clothing combined in 1996.

The government is approaching a balanced budget but it has not been balanced by cutting government overspending. Instead it has been balanced on the backs of taxpayers, Canadian families, and their backs are getting really sore. Trust me, I know because I am a chiropractor and the most common complaint I hear in my clinic is that taxes are too high.

The cries for tax relief from Canadian families are dismissed by the Liberals. As long as they are dismissed, unemployment will remain unacceptably high. There is certainly room for government spending on such things as education, health care and funding for research and development. Canadians believe that governments can play a positive role, but that role does not involve handouts to profitable corporations. It does not involve taxing small businesses into bankruptcy and it most certainly does not involve scattering public money all over the nation in an attempt to buy votes.

Canadians want smaller government. They want lower taxes and they want real jobs. Accordingly, members who favour smaller and more responsible government must vote in favour of this motion.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member got his wish. There was not too much heckling.

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your recent appointment.

I would encourage the member over the next four or five years to do what is best for his riding, and that is to offer proactive, positive comments and suggestions on how we can make Canada better. He should not join the ranks of his fellow Reformers who constantly run a negative campaign, such as the one he demonstrated in his opening remarks.

Over the past couple of days I have heard my Reform colleagues consistently speak of open reform, public involvement, let the people make the decisions, referendum, referendum, referendum. I find it a very noble statement to make on the surface. However, I find it somewhat deceiving to make that statement when in fact they are suggesting that these referenda have to be somewhat selective. They need to choose which ones should be referenda and which should not, which ones need to have public debate and which ones do not.

I would ask the member if he is prepared to use that selective approach in deciding which ones he feels should have public involvement and which ones should not.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is rather ironic to hear a Liberal member criticizing Reform Party proposals for parliamentary reform. We have led the way in proposing freer votes in the House of Commons; member recall, whereby members of Parliament would be held accountable to constituents who elected them; and asking for referenda on issues of national concern. The Liberals have rejected our suggestions for parliamentary reform time and time again.

That brings me to the point he raised about negative remarks. There are no negative remarks coming from members of the Reform Party. We lead the way in providing alternative solutions. If it was not for the Reform Party, the Liberal government, no doubt, never would have focused on the deficit. If it was not for us it would not focus on the debt.

Canadians want their taxes to be reduced and we are going to make sure that is done.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on my Liberal colleague's comment about negative comments and the negative campaign.

I am quite concerned. I think there was a time when some Canadians were buying into that type of rhetoric, that kind of down talk. I do not think they are buying into it any more.

They have seen that a Liberal government has taken the country from a $42 billion deficit which was left by the Conservative Party to a deficit almost zero. In 1993 when I was elected, that was a very big concern.

My hon. colleague in the Reform Party did not say anything about the throne speech, about the fact that we have stabilized health care funding or about the fact that we have given $850 million in a child tax benefit to poor families.

He touched a bit on partnerships and private sector funding, but he did not talk about all the good that has been done through internships and because of the fact that we have created internship programs for students.

I would ask my hon. colleague if the Reform Party is opposed to stable health care funding, to internship programs and to helping the poor in Canada?

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member obviously was not listening to my speech. I said there certainly was room for government spending on such things as education, research and health care. That is an exact quote from the text of my speech.

I would also like to correct the hon. member on her position which seems to say the Liberals have somehow done a good thing with health care. They cut health care funding from $19 billion to $10.5 billion. Now they have brought it back up to $12 billion and are trying to say that they have increased funding for health care. I think they need a remedial math course along with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

I just do not understand this thing about negativity. We proposed positive reforms to the criminal justice system and tax cuts that will stimulate employment. On national unity they have kept their ears covered. It is time to uncover them.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised by the motion today. The Reform Party is attempting to suggest that a balanced approach would be fiscally irresponsible.

When the member for Medicine Hat spoke earlier he talked about it being irresponsible spending and that things did not seem to improve.

I thought I would start by getting it on the record, in case the member for Medicine Hat was not aware, that we will be the first government in almost three decades to balance the budget.

Part of the balance means that the government will not bend from its pledge to Canadians to invest in the future of our young people. The future of our country calls on us to make responsible ongoing investments aimed at improving the educational and job prospects of young Canadians.

Our young people are well prepared and well placed to take advantage of the many opportunities arising from our increasingly high tech and knowledge based economy, for they are the best educated and most adept ever in the use of technology.

Nevertheless, Canadians are worried about the prospects for youth. A recent poll showed that 91 percent of Canadians were concerned about the difficulties facing youth today and 74 percent of young Canadians said that they expected to have a lower standard of living than that of their parents.

Such worries are reinforced by frequent media stories suggesting that many young Canadians will face bleak job prospects and will be forced to take work that does not enable them to contribute to their full potential.

Sadly these stories have helped to perpetuate myths like the one that having a good education does not matter. That is not true. Education matters more than ever today.

It is also believed that the job situation and salaries of youth have deteriorated considerably compared to those of previous generations. This is also not true.

Many young Canadians today face very good job prospects, but far too many youth face serious challenges which must be addressed. That is why one of the first mandates of the government is making youth a priority.

As members know, the government made youth a priority as soon as it took office in 1993. We have already helped by introducing a number of initiatives aimed at helping youth. For instance, the youth employment strategy launched in February 1997 will provide more than 110,000 young Canadians with the work experience opportunities they need to help them get that critical first job.

This strategy builds on an investment of approximately $2 billion in Government of Canada programs for young people. It comes out of the commitment of the Government of Canada to address youth employment issues by working in partnership with all sectors of the economy.

As my colleague from Guelph just mentioned, we talk about internships and mentor programs. We know those are what the youth of the country need and want. We are just starting. We are at the tip of that program. There are places to go and room to move within it.

We have also moved to improve accessibility to post-secondary education by building on initiatives announced in the February 1997 budget which included improved registered education saving plans, increased and expanded education tax measures, extending the period of interest relief for graduates having trouble repaying their loans, and gearing loan repayment to income.

Our colleague from Medicine Hat was actually on the finance committee with me as we travelled from the west coast to Toronto. He heard what the youth who came before us had to say. They talked about having the opportunity for a first job, about having the ability to get an education and about having the ability to afford an education. We took action in the 1997 budget and addressed it again in the throne speech. We will continue to address the needs of youth as money becomes more available. That is why the 50:50 approach worked, because 50 percent will go into social programs including youth where we need it.

We know what also works. We know that higher education is the key to getting a good job. We know that the Canada student loans program has helped young Canadians to get an education. We know that getting relevant work experience is increasingly important to help make the transition from school to work. We know that a variety of services are needed to address the challenges facing low skilled and low educated youth to give them a better chance.

Finally, we know that lifelong learning and access to labour market information contribute to the long term success of all young people. Knowing what works is just the first step. What really matters is translating this into practical initiatives that can make a real difference in the lives of our youth. The Speech from the Throne has done just that.

In our second mandate we will continue to build on what works. The Speech from the Throne has renewed the government's commitment to youth as a main priority for the second mandate. We will continue our efforts to support access to post-secondary education and to ease the transition from school to the first job.

We will also address the special needs of disadvantaged youth, especially those who face barriers to becoming self-reliant due to lower education, low skills or other social and economic factors. These youth often find it difficult getting started in the workforce and deserve a better chance.

All Canadians have a stake in meeting these challenges. No single sector could have all the answers. In the area of new partnerships with the provinces, with the private and voluntary sectors, and with Canadians the government has made a commitment to our young people.

Partnerships work. We have seen the success firsthand of the internship programs undertaken by the private sector. One good example is the career edge initiative which demonstrates the private sector's commitment to helping youth.

The federal, provincial and territorial governments will also continue to address the problem. First ministers and territorial leaders will be working on the issue when they meet this fall.

We must all contribute to helping young people take their rightful place in society. We must also ensure that they have access to education.

Governments have a responsibility to ensure the widest possible access to learning at all levels. Working with its partners, the Government of Canada will continue to reduce barriers to post-secondary education by reforming the Canada student loans program, by making it easier for students to repay their student loans, by introducing new grants for post-secondary students with dependants and by introducing scholarships to promote academic excellence for low to moderate incomes.

In addition, just last week the prime minister announced a one time investment in learning and knowledge that will form the foundation of the most significant millennium projects for young Canadians. Beginning in the year 2000, the Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund will reward academic excellence and will provide thousands of scholarships for low and moderate income Canadians to help them to attend college or university.

We will also expand information awareness and guidance related to career and job options and the skills required for them. That means ensuring that young Canadians know what education they need to get a job in high growth sectors of the economy. There are thousands of unfilled jobs out their because we did not help our young people prepare for the demand. This can, will and must end. We will work to better equip ourselves, our partners, our government and Canadians to forecast the needs of our economy.

When I look at my own riding of Essex I know that each day in the paper there is a high demand for mould makers and skilled trade. We are still not meeting that growth and demand.

In other parts of Canada the same thing is happening in the high tech industry. We have to funnel our interests and efforts together at all levels of government. We have to work to ensure that all youth in Canada have equal opportunity. We must also ensure that they can make the transition to the workplace.

We will continue our strong support for youth seeking to make the transition from school to work by extending existing international science and technology and first nations internships, by extending student summer job programs, by sharpening their focus on relevant experience, by building on existing exchange programs and by creating a new national career mentorship program in partnership with provinces and the private sector. This will give them a better chance.

As announced in the Speech from the Throne, we will also focus on helping youth facing barriers to becoming self-reliant due to low education, low skills or other social or economic factors. To this end we will bring partners together to create a new community based program to assist higher risk youth, including aboriginal youth, upgrade literacy and basic work skills, create work opportunities and get the help they need from community resources. We will do this in partnership with provinces, communities and employers.

We will also seek to address the special needs of aboriginal youth through the creation of urban multipurpose aboriginal youth centres which will provide a relevant cultural and supportive environment capable of encouraging first nations youth to stay in school and complete their education and which will offer career planning and employment opportunities.

Investing in young Canadians makes good economic and social sense. The government has from the very beginning made preparing young Canadians for the 21st century one of its main priorities. As I mentioned, investing in young Canadians makes good economic sense. It helps ensure they will become highly skilled and productive workers who can compete and thrive in a demanding global economy of the future. It is good social policy too.

A young Canadian with a job has a foothold in the labour market and is better able to contribute to the economic and social fabric of his or her community. Our youth programs are aimed at ensuring that the youth of today can make the transition to tomorrow, can get access to education, can get experience in the workplace and can get a job in the future.

I am also pleased that the throne speech mentioned that the needs of rural Canada would be addressed. I am looking forward to the youth programs being adapted to meet the needs of rural Canada to ensure that youth return and work in the communities in which they were born and raised and bring the educational skills back to help those communities grow and prosper.

As the Speech from the Throne makes clear, the Government of Canada intends to do even more by working in partnership with the provinces, business and labour, voluntary groups, youth and their families to ensure that young Canadians have access to the skills and knowledge they need in today's economy. Federal, provincial and territorial governments are working to address the problems that face youth. The first ministers will discuss the issue at their meeting this fall, as I mentioned earlier.

The commitment is vast because all of us must contribute to meeting the challenge, each in our areas of competency. All Canadians have a stake in meeting that challenge successfully.

This is an ambitious yet vital agenda since its success will ensure that our youth are prepared for the jobs of the next millennium.

I call upon all members of the House today to defeat the defeatist motion by the member of the opposition. By doing so we will be sending the signal of support for our young people, thereby ensuring a prosperous future for our country. Our young people of today are our future of tomorrow. Our goal is to balance the books and then to spend 50 percent on investment in people and programs. I believe this is responsible.

We will split our budgetary surpluses on a 50:50 basis over the course of our second mandate. Half will go to investment in social and economic priorities.

I cannot believe that a member on the other side of the House would find the youth of today not to be one of those economic and social priorities.

The other half will go to a combination of tax reductions and debt repayment. Members on the other side talk about how there will be no tax reductions. That has not been decided. We will consult with Canadians as we have in the past. There has been a lot of talk about consultation but the government is the first one in many years to consult with Canadians. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has participated in those consultations, in what we called prebudget consultations with Canadians.

When the finance minister releases his economic statement later this fall I assume there will again be consultations with Canadians. They will be asked for their input concerning what will happen, the direction of Canada's future and how they want the 50:50 ratio to be adapted.

They gave us a vote of confidence in the last election in which they said to this government “we want you back, we like your balanced approach, we respect the fact that there needs to be spending on social and economic priorities, we know that there is an issue of getting the debt under control and we are concerned about the level of taxation”.

This government has proven that a balanced record and a balanced approach are best for Canada and what guarantee a great future for this country. I cannot believe the member for Medicine Hat could put forward today's motion after he sat on the finance committee with me as we travelled from Vancouver to Toronto. He also sat in on many meetings in Ottawa. He listened to the Canadians who came before us, in particular young Canadians who said they wanted a future in Canada, that they wanted to be a priority, that they were looking for investment in that future.

Today I stand here and ask again that everyone defeat this motion and send the signal to our young people that they are our priority.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member some questions about the aboriginal funding initiatives that she mentioned were announced in the throne speech. This is the only area in the last budget to receive an increase in funding. Spending on Indian and northern affairs is now more than $6 billion a year which, as someone worked out, is the equivalent to $32,000 per annum for every man, woman and child in the aboriginal community. It is quite a lot of money already.

Yet in Alberta and northern B.C. in polls that were mainly aboriginal the member will probably be surprised to learn that the people in those polls voted Reform in the last election. The reason they did that is in a lot of native communities the structure of the bands is not very democratic. As the auditor general pointed out, about 20 percent of bands are in financial difficulties because they either improperly manage or are incapable of managing the money they get.

Many rank and file band members recognize this as a problem but because there is no democratic structure within the band, it is a hierarchical chief system, they have no way of controlling expenditures or ensuring they get their share. I see that on the Squamish Indian reserve within my riding. I get complaints from band members there who are shut out of the process, who cannot get a home, who are not allowed to open a business, who cannot do things because they are not related to the chief, and there is no way they will ever get the money.

Would the member identify any initiative of this government to first make sure there are democratic processes in place to make sure this money she is talking about will truly get down to the end user instead of being given once again to people who perhaps are incapable of managing or who improperly manage the money?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments but I am not sure he heard what I said. In case he did not hear I will repeat for him that I was talking about aboriginal youth. I said we are going to create urban and multipurpose aboriginal youth centres to help them provide that cultural and supportive environment, to encourage them to stay in school in order to complete their education. We will help by offering career planning and employment opportunities.

Regarding the democracy of bands themselves, there is democracy in the elections of their leaders. I will not comment on that because I am not part of that process, nor do I represent an aboriginal community per se. I do know that in Ontario there are members who represent large aboriginal areas. They supported the Liberal members on this side. They returned them to Ottawa. The minister is working very closely with all groups across Canada to ensure their needs are met and that they are a priority of this government.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, this past weekend I attended an economic forum in the riding of Matapédia—Matane. Do you know what the people there are calling for, are demanding? They are saying that money has been lifted from their pockets. They should get that money back.

When the hon. member said “yes, there is money coming in, but we don't know how to return it”, well, it must be returned to those whose pockets it was taken from, and in the amount taken. Are you brave enough to give back the money you have taken, you have stolen, from the poor, from the most disadvantaged? I am asking that the people of Matapédia—Matane get that money back.

Next Tuesday I will be seeing the fishers of Tourelle. They are 50, 40 or 30 hours short of eligibility for unemployment insurance. What is to be done with them? They will find the winter a very long one, and I am asking my colleague, if she has a little compassion, to do something for the families of those people, for their children. I am asking her to push her government a bit, give it a little jolt to get its heart working a bit.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments but I do want to assure him that we have compassion on the government side. We do recognize that the disadvantaged in Canada and the poor in Canada need assistance.

Changes have been made to the EI benefits to address seasonal workers, especially in Atlantic Canada and other areas. There are ongoing pilot projects to ensure that those needs have been met.

We will also be introducing legislation with respect to the seniors benefit which will again benefit lower income Canadians and ensure that nine out of ten women who are seniors will be better off down the road.

We have a lot of work to do as a government to ensure that with the 50:50 split which we talk about going toward tax reduction or toward debt reduction, disadvantaged Canadians benefit at the level they deserve.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, if there were a family in my riding with an income of about $50,000 a year and it was spending $15,000 more than its income, having to borrow on credit cards, I think the last thing we would hear that family talking about when its borrowing decreased to $5,000 per year was where to spend the extra money. It does not have any extra money. It is still spending $5,000 a year more than what it is taking in.

That is the state of affairs in this country. The Liberals like to pass on to Canadians the myth that their finances are in order.

I have to concede, hesitantly, that they have made some progress. They are borrowing less. That is true, but to try to pass that off as economic success and as fiscal responsibility is—I cannot use the word. That is what it is. It is what I cannot say.

I ask the member what she said in the campaign.

Did she, like the Minister of Finance, say our fiscal house is in order, please vote for us, we're great? Now they are talking about spending money. They have not even heard the question yet. What are the needs? Where do we have to spend the money? Instead, they are in advance saying they going to spend 50 percent of the surplus.

During this Liberal government we went into debt another $100 billion in the last term of Parliament. If that does not stop then Canadians are doomed. I want this member's response to that and I want that to be a responsible response.