Debates of March 10th, 1998

House Of Commons

[An hon. member]

It is in fact because we do respect it.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

It is because I respect it and because I am told I sing off key, but I simply will not do it, because I have no feeling for it. I feel no call when it is sung. I am not drawn by deeper roots; it is Quebec that calls me. However, I do not come because I have no respect for the national anthem. I do not come because it is not what I am looking for.

However, I have great respect for the Canadian flag. No member of the Bloc Quebecois has behaved disrespectfully toward Canada's flag. We have never shown disrespect nor said anything against the national anthem. On the contrary, we hold it in respect, and it is not the focus of today's debate.

I will close on this. I would add that the national anthem was written by a Quebecker.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Perhaps the members of the Reform Party did not know that, as they do not know a lot of things. I will close by quoting the remarks our leader made in the House yesterday. I think they summarize the debate very well, and perhaps the Reformers should pay attention to what I am going to say. The Bloc leader said:

Members of this House must not make the Speaker feel that, should he rule in favour of the separatists and against the flag, he would have to resign or be replaced.

He also said, Mr. Speaker, that you must not rule in favour of the flag over the separatists but rather in favour of compliance with the Standing Orders over failure to comply with them. That is the issue, and I dare to hope that your ruling on the matter will be enlightened.

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, this terminates the debate on the question of privilege. We will now proceed to orders of the day.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.

The Budget

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance on February 24. The budget sets out the federal government's priorities for the coming years. Unfortunately, this government's priorities are far from being Canadians' priorities.

This budget does not address the concerns of Canadians. It says nothing about job creation, nothing about our crumbling health system, and contains but a few crumbs when it comes to the serious problem of poverty and education.

I would like to begin by looking at job creation. The Liberals were elected in 1993. During their campaign, they spoke about job creation. Now we hear in the House that it is not the government's responsibility to create jobs, but it was a different story before they got elected: “We are going to create jobs. Elect us and we will create jobs”. Once in office, it was no longer their responsibility. That was what the Liberals said in 1993, and now they are saying it is no longer their responsibility.

Today, five years later, 9% of Canadian workers are receiving EI benefits, not to mention how many are on welfare. Yesterday, it was pointed out that 730,000 people who used to qualify for EI had had to turn to welfare. This is a national disgrace.

Today they rise in their places and tell us how wonderful they are. It is unbelievable, completely unbelievable.

It is the government's responsibility to build infrastructures that will lead to job creation. Take the natural gas line in New Brunswick. Why have it go from Nova Scotia, and then turn at Moncton and continue on to Saint John and then Boston, instead of having it go through New Brunswick, benefiting the whole province, connecting it to Bernier in Quebec, and going on to make it a national line? Why not do that? But no. They are going to have it turn at Moncton and then go through Saint John to Boston, so they can sell gas to the Americans. But Canadians are not going to reap the benefits.

I suppose, for example, that not everyone can benefit from the arrival of a company in New Brunswick, in terms of the jobs created. Residents of northern New Brunswick, where the unemployment rate is 19.9%, will not benefit from it. They will not benefit from companies coming to our province because it costs these companies less to operate their business. Of course not. But the government has a responsibility. It is the government that gives the green light. “We are not concerned about you, even though the unemployment rate stands at 19.9%, not to mention the number of people on welfare. We are not concerned about you”.

We have to be careful about the budget. The government is boasting about a zero deficit. Great, but at whose expense has this been achieved? It was done at the expense of the poor.

A lady phoned me last week. Yesterday, I listened to a Reformer who mentioned the case of a lady in his riding and wondered what would happen to her because she must pay $800 in taxes. It may be that Reformers only get one such call, but I get 50 every day. So, a lady phoned me and said “Yvon, what can you do for us? My husband and I are on welfare. The wood in our house is rotten all the way up to the windows. In the bathroom, we have to be careful not to fall through the floor and end up in the basement. The kitchen floor is not even covered with linoleum and the fridge is empty”.

That is more worrisome than someone who cannot pay $800 in income tax. I had a call from another lady who said “Mr. Godin, yesterday my husband and I thought about shooting our kids and then ourselves, because we can no longer feed them”. That is more of a concern than reaching a zero deficit, far more.

I cannot bear to watch our country get into debt, but neither can I bear to watch the country pay its debts at the expense of the poor. That is not what the Liberals said while they were campaigning. They talked about job creation, and now today that is no longer their responsibility. They have the responsibility to administer the country justly, not to impoverish people still further. That is their responsibility.

Those hon. members from northern or southern Ontario whom I hear telling us that all their constituents are in favour of the federal budget, very much in favour of it, let them come down to New Brunswick and they will see people who are far less in favour of it.

The provincial health minister stated on tv or radio, and in the press, that there is absolutely nothing in the budget for health in New Brunswick. The provincial education minister was quoted in the newspaper and interviewed on television—and we cannot claim he was misquoted by the journalists because he was the one speaking—as saying there is nothing for education.

The New Brunswick finance minister appeared in print and on television stating that there is nothing for New Brunswick. Their counterparts in Newfoundland said the same thing, as did the premier of PEI. Are they all lying? These are all Liberals.

The New Brunswick finance minister, Edmond Blanchard, is a Liberal. Russell King is a Liberal. What have they done? They have put money into health and have tried to defend their actions in the area of health. They were given money and they do not know how to manage it.

There was a time when provincial money was spent on health. The provinces were not given the chance to spend it on whatever they wanted, to pass it on to their friends, as we have seen in our province with Doug Young for the four lane toll highway. That was not the case in the past. The money went into health.

If money was given for education, where did it end up? In education. Not any more. The government is administering the country badly, I can assure you of that, because their own Liberal counterparts in the provinces are saying so. So was it because they have not read the budget or do not know how to read, or because they cannot count or do the math? They are trying to shift blame to others, but who created the system that allows this? The Liberals did.

But the bottom line is that people are suffering. I get calls, and I know that people from my riding are listening today and know what I am talking about when I say that I am getting 50 calls a day and cannot even get back to everyone. They are destitute but they want to work. They are courageous people, not lazy like a former minister in this House would have us believe. Our people are hard-working. When a company starts up and says it wants to hire 300 people, 2,000 to 3,000 people apply. Then it turns out to be a false alarm because the company is not starting up after all. We are talking about hard-working people who want to go out and work.

And then there is the business with EI. Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development turned around and said they were not his changes, that the three reforms had begun with the Conservatives and the Liberals had followed on. Two weeks ago, he said it was too soon to say what was happening, to know how many people were affected.

I urge the minister to come with me and visit homes in my riding where there is nothing on the floor but holes and no food in the refrigerator. I issue an invitation.

Then the government boasts about all the money it has set aside for education. Only 7.1% of students attending university will benefit from the fund; the remaining 92.9% will get zip. And they are so pleased with themselves.

Imagine trying to convince Canadians that this is a good budget. When we look at what is happening in hospitals, when we see the elderly and the young in the corridors, that is the health system the Liberals have given Canadians. Before the budget, Canadians' message was clear: “We want money to be put into the health system. Nothing is more important than Canadians' health”.

The Liberals did not listen. They let Canadians down, paid no attention. For the good of this country's inhabitants, I call on the Liberals to examine their conscience.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke has outlined an scenario where the government should take a posture where it is responsible for all things and the solution to all things. In my experience in corporate life and in government life, for every complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is wrong.

The member has suggested that this is a bad budget and that the government has forced Canadians into poverty. Yet the member did not concede at any point that Canadians have a role to play as well. The member talked a lot about education. I would raise with him the issue of education. As he knows, the budget contains substantial provisions for assisting Canadians to improve their educational background so they can acquire those jobs they need so they will not be in poverty. I would raise specifically for him the issue of the level of education with regard to youth unemployment.

For a university graduate under 25 their unemployment rate in Canada now is about 6.5%. For a high school graduate their unemployment rate is approximately 15%. But for a high school drop-out their unemployment rate today will be somewhere in the range of 23%. The member is from New Brunswick. He probably should know that the drop-out rate in New Brunswick approaches 30%.

That directly relates to the level of unemployment and certainly the level of poverty and difficulty that some Canadians have. As the member also knows, the jurisdiction with regard to high school education is provincial. He should look very carefully at what each of the provinces has done to invest in those young people to provide for their future.

The member also talks about families and I praise him for raising the issue of families. It is very important. He knows that the budget brought in an important first step, a care giver tax credit related to home care for those who prefer care in the home for the infirm or the aged. He knows that there is a commitment on behalf of the government to home care and to pharmacare and to those kinds of issues.

He must also recognize that we have just balanced the budget and we are now turning a critical corner in which we will be able to reinvest. Those items are there.

I would ask the member philosophically whether he would agree that there is an important role for all to play to invest in things like early childhood development and the early education of children, et cetera, so that some of these problems like unemployment, health care and social programs would be alleviated in order that all Canadians, regardless of their status in life, have a role to play in ensuring that we have Canadians who are physically, mentally and socially healthy.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his question. It gives me an opportunity to elaborate on my ideas a bit. I honestly did not come to Ottawa to play games. I believe in our people. I think they are hard-working people.

Supposedly at home some 30% of young people drop out of school. But those who go to school and university end up with debts of $25,000 or $30,000. They cannot repay them, and their parents are stuck with them. There is no work, and that has to be taken into account.

What does February's budget have to offer? Perhaps a $3,500 exemption on a loan, but people who are unemployed will still have $22,000 to pay back. They come out of university and have no work. That is one of the major problems.

I will give you an example of what happens at home. With the employment insurance surplus—since there is the $5 million the federal government gave—we should be able to resolve the problems with employment insurance, but things are done always at the last minute. There is no way to get organized ahead of time to give our people a good education. It is a last-minute band-aid approach that is badly organized. I said there are things we can do, and we will do them by working together.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Western Arctic, I am proud to stand here today as a northerner, a Canadian and a member of this government to speak to the budget debate.

First, I want to commend the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for their leadership which has brought our nation to this turning point. Canadians can look to the millennium with hope and anticipation of still better things to come.

Unfortunately the whole debate that preceded this casts a long dark shadow over this debate. It is quite unfortunate that some members of this House feel they have a hierarchy that is higher than the ordinary Canadian, better than most members of Parliament, that they are in a preferred category of having the ideologies that speak better to all Canadians than other members.

This is unfortunate. No one is more godly than God, more Canadian than Canadians. When we are all sent here by Canadians to work with one another to co-operate and to share a great sense of duty to do what is right for the Canadian people, we should not be appealing to the dark sides of one another. We should not be appealing and speaking to each other's weaknesses. We should do something quite unusual. We should be helping one another to promote the ideals of Canadians. It is unfortunate that we have this kind of blatant arrogance and ignorance that seems to be predominating in this House.

Unfortunately this affects our work. It affects the kind of work that can happen in committees. It affects the kind of relationships we can build to do good things for Canadians.

Maybe after 10 years I see things a little differently. My primary role is not to self-aggrandize but to try to promote what Canadians want us to do. If I look at the budget I see something that is quite relevant to my mandate. My mandate is for children and youth. What I find in this budget is that we have done what no federal government in Canadian history has done. We have followed an economic policy and undertaken the kind of specific initiatives that are more in tune with the hopes and dreams of young Canadians and their families.

Speaking of young Canadians and on the issue of young, I had the privilege of working with Doug Young, the former minister of human resources development. Mr. Young is a very accomplished Canadian. Mr. Young is the minister who allowed the department to double the funding for youth summer employment. We went under minister Doug Young's leadership from $62 million a year to $120 million because he believed that young people across the country should have that privilege. I have no doubt in my mind that the former minister will create many jobs out there in what he does. Those were his parting words, I was doing that and now I am going out there to try to help people create jobs to help people. I believe that.

Let us look at youth unemployment. Unemployment is one of the most serious problems facing young Canadians. We are moving on many fronts to help young people to prepare to find and to keep jobs. Last year we introduced our youth employment strategy with a budget of $315 million. To encourage employment for young Canadians in this budget we offer an EI premium holiday to employers to hire persons between the ages of 18 and 24 in 1999 and 2000. This measure will pick up and expand the existing new hires program. It will make it more attractive for employers to hire young people.

The budget will also help youth at risk, particularly those who have not completed high school and have difficulty finding and keeping work. This is very important. It is important that we make an investment in the education of young people. It is important that we do early intervention.

Like many of my colleagues from all sides of the House, I spent last week in my constituency and in other parts of Canada. I evaluated what we are doing as a government in terms of policy and programs and services and how they affect the lives of children, youth and communities that work in early intervention programs.

I started in Inuvik, Northwest Territories. I visited a whole round of programs and services and ended with town halls where I heard people's concerns. There are some difficulties and challenges but good things are happening as well.

In Inuvik we visited a child care program and saw infants to preschool age children. They were working with their mothers in child development in a setting that was conducive to proper nurturing. We also visited a computer lab. Students who had had difficulties in pursuing education are all gainfully occupied in learning new skills, in working together and in getting themselves into the system. It is quite marvellous and we had a chance to experience that. We shared with parents and other people in the community their concerns about the future of their young people.

Then we travelled to another isolated community, Fort Simpson. We were able to see the benefits of what is happening with prenatal nutrition. There is a lot of talk about child poverty and rightfully so. We all have that commitment and dedication.

In Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories we saw a centre that is working with young people. We talked to people who are undertaking a youth service Canada project that speaks to community service. These are young people who have essentially failed in the regular system, the institutionalized form of education. These young people went out on the land. They worked, hunted and shared their kill with the community. They did community service. They cut a lot of wood for the elders who needed it cut. These are things that are really hard to institutionalize but need to be done. This is the kind of community service young people are undertaking but which is not recognized. We only hear about the bad things about young people.

There were 12 points in Fort Simpson at which programs and services were being undertaken in early childhood development. The open door society does wonderful work there. Government cannot go in and save communities. Communities that organize themselves are the ones that are able to do it. We can best accomplish what we need to accomplish by empowering them and assisting them.

Then we went to Hay River, Northwest Territories. We met with various groups. We checked some snares with the preschool and head start children from the reserve in Hay River. These young people have had many kinds of cultural experiences that are very good for their nurturing and development.

We went to a youth service Canada project. Young people with the Metis nation were working in various communities. One set up an elders visitors centre. Another did the layout for a magazine which talked about what young people were doing. Others carried on with other projects. Some of the young people were moving on to other experiences.

We visited a group of young people in another program. They were on the verge of dropping out but are now getting quite high marks because an investment was made and an instructor was hired. They are now prepared to reintegrate into their regular high school and they are going there with special skills. They are able to take life skills. They are able to have discussions about complicated and sensitive issues. They are also able to write their own resumes. These are basic functional skills which are needed to get into the workplace. They are all things that these young people experienced.

To round out the week I met with a hard working and dedicated group of professionals. They work on the whole issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. This is where we need to continue to work.

Previously the Stan Wilbee report was done in a standing committee of the House of Commons. We need to revisit some of the goals and recommendations in that report. Perhaps it might be advisable that we do a national survey of best practices of what is happening.

The group is guided by the leadership of Dr. Geoff Robinson. He is one of the foremost experts on FAS and FAE and works with other professionals in B.C. They do very good work. This has to be promoted.

Perhaps what is needed is a national committee or working group to dedicate itself to some broader issues related to FAS and FAE. We also need to work into the national children's agenda and the centres of excellence a cornerstone piece of research on FAS and FAE.

If people are wondering how fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects relate to their particular area of concern, look at the young offenders who are filling the juvenile delinquent centres. Many of them suffer from FAS and FAE. There is a direct correlation. It is very relevant to what we are trying to do in other areas.

We need to seriously look at an approach that is going to promote the work that is happening on this particular issue.

To end the week on Sunday, I joined Senator Landon Pearson and a young lady by the name of Cherry Kingsley at an international conference on the sexual exploitation of children.

Under the tutelage of Senator Landon Pearson and others, Miss Cherry Kingsley, who is a young aboriginal person originally from Alkali Lake has taken the leadership. She has taken charge of how to change the world into a safer place for her and her colleagues and to perhaps find a different path and if not, to at least have security for those persons who are affected by all of these things.

This was an international conference. There were people from Bolivia, Guatemala and representatives from the UN.

It is a very serious issue which all members should consider.

All this is to say, yes, there are many challenges we face but I also know there is much happening.

Most of what I have just said refers to youth at risk. This is a very important issue. In 1995 more than 160,000 Canadians between 22 and 24 years of age had not completed high school. They are at risk of repeated unemployment because the workplace continues to demand ever higher levels of education and skills they do not have.

There are many such programs. We have doubled money for the youth at risk program because we have experienced an 85% success rate with youth service Canada. Most participants have either found permanent employment or have gone back to school full time or part time. It is the reintegration of young people who were totally socially marginalized because they were not in the education loop or any other social milieu that would help them advance in society.

Everyone knows about the Canada millennium scholarships. There has been much talk about that. There are 100,000 students per year with scholarships averaging $3,000 a year. This will provide relief to graduates who are having trouble managing their student debt load. There are other measures which will make it easier for students and their families to finance higher education.

In the budget there is the opportunities strategy which equalizes access in another way. There is increased funding for SchoolNet and the community access program. There is also $205 million of increased funding to connect Canadians which will help young people, especially those in rural communities.

We talked about child poverty. One of the ways we thought we could augment our efforts was to invest $850 million in the national child tax benefit. That will happen in July. Furthermore we will invest another $425 million in July 1999 and another $425 million in July 2000.

These measures will mean cost savings in social assistance. Our big battle is how to reinvest that money with our provincial partners in youth programs.

Perhaps the whole area of FAS and FAE, fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects, is one of special need. Other special needs children are falling between the cracks in regular learning institutions. We need to give further consideration to that issue. Perhaps this would be an opportunity for us to integrate it into the national children's agenda which is currently being undertaken.

I would like to talk about the north a bit. I deal very much with child and youth issues and I would like to give some consideration to the area I come from. I would like to point out how the opportunities in the budget will affect northern Canadians.

At page 61 of the budget the government commits to working with territorial governments and other partners to develop a modern economic development strategy which will recognize the dynamics of the north and the need to establish more diversified economies. The government recognizes that the economies of Canada's territories are undergoing significant change.

Everyone knows that in April 1999 we will face the division of the territories into the western part and Nunavut. Northern governments must embrace diversification by pursuing all forms of sustainable development from traditional economic activities such as hunting, trapping, arts and crafts, and the development of other art forms to the new knowledge based industries and to Canada's first diamond industry.

As many know, the Northwest Territories are on the verge of becoming a major source of diamonds with the first production expected this October. Northerners are now exploring how to maximize northern participation in all aspects of the diamond industry. A secondary or a value added industry is very much on the minds of many northerners and very much the debate of the day in the north. Throughout the north, diversification, full participation and sustainable development are watch words for economic strategies which will bring us into the new century.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in cabinet and my colleagues in the north to make this commitment a reality which will have a real impact on northerners. Canada has an opportunity to map a blueprint for a more secure future for northerners from which all of Canada can benefit.

There are other measures in this budget which northerners will find beneficial, such as increases in funding for First Nations and Inuit health services. These are necessary to keep pace with population increases. We have committed to similar increases in transfer programs which will be administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I must point out that the north has a very young and growing population compared with the rest of the country. These increases are absolutely essential in maintaining the progress we have made in the health of northern peoples.

All of the budget commitments demonstrate a balanced and compassionate approach by this government to our young people, to health care, to social services and to the economic well-being of Canadians from all regions while maintaining the kind of fiscal responsibility Canadians expect.

We could not have done it without Canadians. Canadians helped us carve this path and make the commitments we have made to children and youth. As the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, I feel we are on a very good path with our young people. We are fixated on early intervention, childhood development and parenting skills. These are the essentials for building healthy citizens in our society.

In terms of the Northwest Territories, we are undergoing a huge change. As of October we are essentially going to become the largest diamond producing centre in the western hemisphere but we need the resources and the infrastructure to help businesses take advantage of the opportunities there.

From our visits across the Northwest Territories, we know that the highest form of building on capacity is to empower people. We cannot do for people what people can do for themselves. Governments are facilitators and catalysts, not doers. It is the people in the community at the grassroots who will make the difference for themselves and their sense of self-determination.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know there are others who want to ask questions so I will keep my questions very short.

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with a number of aboriginal leaders from central British Columbia. They pointed out two serious concerns that they faced, recognizing the need for empowerment and the fact that they feel they can solve so many of the challenges facing them on their own, but they do need further education and training. A number of individuals living on reserves indicated that they simply are not able to access funding for education, particularly at the post-secondary level. It is a serious problem.

Second, native young people who see part of the answer to be through friendship centres are complaining about the dramatic lack of funding to support the programs in the friendship centres.

Could my hon. friend comment on these two areas where yes, there is support today, but I think she would also agree that the funding is seriously underfunded in terms of the challenges and the needs there? What hope can she give that changes are in the offing?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that my hon. colleague asked this question. It gives me an opportunity to share some information with him that he or some of the young people he spoke about may not be aware of.

For three years, ending in 1999, we have invested $200 million for a labour market training program called the regional bilateral agreements which were done under national frameworks. All the labour market development programs have gone to the provinces or territories except in the case of First Nations, Inuit and Metis. We did framework agreements with them and then struck regional bilateral agreements so that money could flow to the people from those boards that are designated by those people who make those decisions. An amount of money has been out there and it is a lot of money.

I was involved with the negotiations in B.C. We cannot guarantee that every single individual who wants to be served at a certain level will be served because we have removed that responsibility from ourselves.

Post-secondary education is an issue that has, I believe, some crossover. There have been some sponsorships. In fact, the Metis from Ontario took some of this money and did a scholarship program with their partners so there was a lot of leveraging going on.

Further to that, we have just built what we call the aboriginal human resources development strategy. It will be funded to a higher amount, I believe, than the current arrangement. However, as soon as this one ends in 1999 another one kicks in for another five years. It does not quite meet what the royal commission wanted which was 10 years but we did not feel we could do that so we did it for an additional 5 years. There will be more money there than there was previously. It will be for training in labour market development. This is not necessarily post-secondary education but it does not necessarily exclude that either.

The national association of friendship centres get their core funding from heritage, so I cannot speak to that. Because the centres were not under the $200 million, we set aside a separate provision of $26 million under which the friendship centres benefited.

They were the beneficiaries. I cannot remember their exact amount but they are beneficiaries under the $26 million and I am not sure how they spend that money but that is entirely within their purview on setting their priorities and what they should do.

There is a cry about core funding but that is not something that I have the responsibility for or can speak to.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, in 1993 when we first came to this Parliament, I remember the statement on several occasions that there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of one million children in this country living in poverty and suffering.

In 1994 I heard the same thing. In 1995, 1996, 1997 and now in 1998 I still hear the same thing. Over one million children are living in poverty in this land and we need to address that. I know that the children aid societies in most of the cities that are trying so desperately to take care of so many people are struggling in terms of dollars and cents. We have not seemed to have gained anywhere because of the million children figure we keep hearing about continues to exist each and every year.

The education the member was talking about is good to hear and the opportunity to expand on that is great. But right now I am referring to young people, young children and families across this land who do not know for sure where their next meal is going to come from, who do not have proper clothing to wear in some of the wicked winter months that come through. There is genuine suffering going on and yet each year nothing seems to change.

We find millions and millions of dollars to give away for free flags which is a nice thing to do, nobody would deny that, but surely $25 million for flags would have fed a lot of hungry kids. There are kids out there who need dental work and they cannot get it done. Nobody can afford it, yet convicts in our penitentiaries eat three square meals a day, they are very comfortable at night in terms of getting out of the weather. A dentist visits the institution and takes care of their teeth. They are getting better treatment than our young people out there in that million who are starving.

This budget does not do anything to address that, nor any budget in the past since I have been here. I would like to know why. I would like the member to answer that.

Second, I would like to know why, by the auditor general's reports and everything through Indian affairs, for every dollar funnelled in at the top here only about 20 cents reaches the reserve where it is mostly needed. In the Stony reserve where I have toured around many times, there are people suffering and I would like to know why these budgets do not address those very basic needs. The education and the at risk programs I understand. That is all good. Nobody denies that. But what about the very basics?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased that my hon. colleague has risen on this issue. It shows his commitment and concern and I would like to just let him know that we have had great opportunities in the last little while. His representatives at the provincial level as well as federal partners in terms of our minister and the Minister of Health are working on a national children's agenda.

It is unfortunate that we do have a child poverty issue but let me tell the member what is the basis of this. We have to empower and engage parents in order to deal with part of the problem. If the hon. colleague cared to be so informed we could provide him with an overview of some of the most successful programs we have that have made a difference in the lives of children. Those are the programs I saw this week when I travelled in my riding and they are prevalent, hundreds of them across the country. He should take the opportunity.

There are community action plans for children's programs and prenatal nutrition programs. There are headstart programs, there are First Nation Inuit child care programs. There are many other initiatives. The community action plan for children's programs, the centre of excellence for children and the $850 million that we talked about that kicks in in July will give more money to low income families.

We have also done a bit of debt relief for those low income families as well and we were not going to book until the next budget week but we have booked the additional, doubled that $850 million. This will accrue in savings on social assistance which should be able to be reinvested back to children. This is the agreement we have with our provinces.

Regarding the auditor general's report, I cannot speak for Indian affairs but I can speak for what human resources development does.

The agreements that we have struck are based on client to service. We will not prop up the industry of poverty. We will not prop up the industry of employment. What we are doing is giving the money directly to the people who are affected. The $200 million I spoke about earlier, that is the way we administer it. There is an element of risk. We know that but we have a strong accountability framework. We give them money directly so they can serve the clients. It does not go to a middle person or an middle organization. It goes directly into servicing the clients we have.

Our youth programs are like that. We put a very small percentage of our money into youth programs which results in complaints. We do not provide core funding. We believe the organizations wanting to engage have the ability to do so and have the infrastructure for that. We give them money that goes directly to the young people who are affected.

With Youth Service Canada many of our youth who participate end up with a completion bonus fee. If they finish the program, they get some money at the end to take a supportable wage subsidy, tuition paydown or another form of credit note for starting a small business.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

The message I would like to share with the citizens of Canada and those of Quebec in particular is that the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance has left a bitter taste in our mouths as it is very generous with other people's money. For years now, the federal government has been saving money on the backs of the provinces, the disadvantaged and the workers.

Statistics show that, between 1994 and 1998, federal transfer payments to the provinces were cut by 52%. While the federal government reduced its own spending by only 12%, cuts in tax relief and transfer payments to individuals amounted to 37%. At the same time, the federal government gave itself a 51% share of any new spending to be incurred between now and the year 2000.

After impoverishing people and lessening the power of the provinces, putting them in a situation I would describe as perilous, the government then tries to pass itself off as a saviour and tells people “See, were it not for us in the federal government, you would not be getting the help you need right now”. The fact of the matter is that, were it not for the federal government, we would not be in this situation in the first place, a situation the government itself has dragged us into by spending wildly left and right in the past few years.

The federal government, which is primarily responsible for this situation, would have individual taxpayers believe it is their saviour.

In an editorial comment in Le Devoir , renowned journalist Jean-Robert Sansfaçon gives the following analysis of the situation:

In an effort to save about $6 billion a year, Ottawa presumably sent a $2.5 billion bill to the provinces. To add insult to injury, the Chrétien government cut transfer payments intended to cover part of the costs of social assistance.

On the one hand, there is the classic example of employment insurance. What has the federal government accomplished with it? It has given less money to the unemployed. In reality, there are far fewer unemployed persons eligible for employment insurance. What do people do when they are not eligible for employment insurance? They turn to welfare, which is a provincial responsibility.

Indirectly, through its employment insurance reform, the federal government has imposed an additional financial burden on the provinces, because people turn to welfare in order to survive. As we know, welfare is a provincial responsibility.

Provincial expenditures are increased because of the welfare burden, yet their transfer payment revenue from Ottawa is cut. The provincial governments therefore have more responsibilities, but lower revenues to meet them. Why is this? Because of federal government actions.

That is why it has always been said that this country had one government too many. One government—the federal—never stops trying to acquire powers, with the result that the powers of the provincial governments are increasingly becoming merely symbolic. I am certain that the underlying intent of this federalist government is to one day end up with a single government in this country, the one in Ottawa.

This is what Quebec has been opposing for years, because it knows that such a system would result in Quebeckers being assimilated. They would see their culture assimilated, their traditions assimilated; their language, their fundamental values and everything that makes Quebec different would be drowned out under a single government, which would be called the Ottawa government, the Canadian government.

This is sadistic; every time the government, from one budget to another, from one election to another, gains a year, or four or five years, this is just one more step toward subjugation of the provinces to the federal government. This is the ultimate objective of this government, one that never changes, regardless of which party is in power.

Right now, we have a Liberal government, but the situation would be exactly the same if the Conservatives or the Reformers were in office. This is because the underlying objective is not to create a true partnership with the provinces, as could have been developed and implemented since 1867, but to subject the provinces to the authority of the federal government.

Here is another example. I just referred to employment insurance and welfare, two areas of provincial jurisdiction the federal government has encroached upon. Another example is that great initiative announced in the Liberal budget, the millennium scholarship fund.

As was said, and it is worth repeating again, this is a spending initiative in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec already has a loans and grants program that is the envy of all the students and stakeholders in the other provinces, whether at the elementary, secondary, post-secondary or university level. These people are unanimous in praising Quebec's loans and grants program, which is unique in the sense that the other provinces do not offer grants.

The federal government, under the pretence of helping less fortunate students, decided to spend $2.5 billion in the country, with the obvious goal of being able to tell students “What the province cannot do for you in education, the federal government can, thus helping you continue your education”.

Why are the provinces hard pressed to resolve the educational problem? Because the federal government, since 1993, has cut billions of dollars from education and health care. It has cut money to the provinces and now wants to give back some—and I mean only some—to individuals, like students, so they will realize the situation they would be in were it not for the federal government. That is what is ironic about the situation.

Everytime the government has a chance, it deprives the provinces of real and potential revenues, which it should be giving back to them as transfer payments, and then, it uses that money for other purposes.

The millennium scholarships are simply a means for the government to raise its visibility and the number of votes for federalism. That is all. The average debt of students in Quebec is $11,000. In the other provinces it is $25,000. The problem is really different in Quebec. There a system of loans and grants already in existence. In the other provinces it is not as well developed or sometimes there is none.

Quebec is calling on the federal government to allow it to withdraw from this program and to give it financial compensation to enable it to set its own educational priorities, wherever it has identified them. It considers it is better placed to identify its own priorities.

Children arrive at school in the morning without eating or having a glass of milk. For the most part, these children live below the poverty line. I hope to have an opportunity through questions and comments to finish explaining the example I wanted to give you.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do have a comment and a question for the member. I would like to state on the record that I was delighted that the secretary of state who spoke previously raised in the House again the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. It is a very important issue to Canadians. It costs us $2.1 billion a year to deal with this problem. I appreciate her raising this in the House.

The member who just spoke has raised a number of issues. I would like to focus on the thing that he raised with regard to the federal government, as he put it, grasping power for itself. The member will know that Canadians look to leadership from the federal government on a broad range of issues. In partnership with the provinces on a wide range of areas such as health care, post-secondary education and social security, the provinces are the front line and administrators and deliverers of those services. That partnership is extremely important.

The member also referred to what he called downloading and offloading and that the transfers under the Canada health and social transfer have been reduced. There is no question that that is true. He also should acknowledge that with the federal funding of the health care system, post-secondary education and the social security system, the provinces were granted taxing authority called tax points.

Under the tax points, although the cash transfers may have gone down by some $7 billion, the value of the tax revenue to the provinces has gone up about $3.5 billion. The net effect is that the burden that the provinces were asked to share in dealing with the $42 billion deficit was much, much smaller than the federal government in its programs absorbed.

The provinces were asked to do a very small share of it. Indeed we have many provinces now which have balanced budgets and which have granted tax breaks to their constituents and not correspondingly shown that health care and post-secondary is a priority for their government. The member should well know that there are two partners in this.

My question has to do with the direct issue of the millennium scholarship fund.

There is no question that education is important and one of the most significant elements with regard to the success of people having a job. The member will know that university graduates have an unemployment rate of only about 6.5%. He will also know that high school drop-outs in Quebec approach almost 40%. It is the highest number in all of the provinces.

I would ask the member simply to answer the direct question whether or not he feels that students in Quebec should say no to the millennium scholarship fund in their best interest?

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite demonstrated the federal government's inability to understand the problems confronting the provinces when he spoke of partnership. But what kind of partnership is there in the millennium scholarship fund? The federal government plans to consult the provinces after the millennium foundation has been established. In a partnership, people sit down with their partners and discuss the best ways of dealing with problems.

He mentioned as another example the fact that zero deficit has already been achieved in some provinces; therefore, the measures put forward by the federal government will help all the provinces. This is not exactly the case in Quebec and Ontario. These are the only two provinces that do not have a balanced budget as of yet. Their circumstances being different, it is normal that their priorities and the solutions contemplated are different.

Perhaps students in Quebec will not say no to millennium scholarships. But when the hon. member describes the suicide rate in Quebec as one of the highest, does he think that the introduction of these scholarships will result in fewer students dropping out and fewer suicides in Quebec? Whether or not there are millennium scholarships has nothing to do with the dropout rate. We already have a loans and grants program in Quebec.

The cause lies elsewhere. That is why Quebec asked the federal government for compensation to help it address problems identified in education, problems like children who have nothing to eat before leaving for school in the morning or children without appropriate supervision who are suicidal or those who need psychological treatment that cannot be subsidized because of the cuts in transfer payments. That is what partnership is about, when one understands what it means.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the budget. I will direct my remarks primarily at the millennium scholarships which, while little has been said, are evidence of the federal government's wish to change the rules of the game and shift the focus of decision making from the provinces to Ottawa in the next century.

We would enter a new era in Canada, and the millennium scholarships are a very good example, where centralization will be complete and Canada will behave like a unitary country, where provincial governments will increasingly be viewed as regional governments, thus flouting the Canadian Constitution, which gives the provinces very specific jurisdictions.

This is a direct attack on the whole issue of Quebec, because we are a people, not just a province, although a province is all we are considered to be right now. The debate is not over, because these issues are fundamental to the development of our societies.

As for the millennium scholarships, some context is required. The federal government wants to set up a special $2.5 billion fund, that would provide for approximately 100,000 scholarships averaging $3,000 over a ten-year period beginning, as it happens, two years from now. There are a number of criteria for awarding these scholarships, notably merit and mobility.

What people need to know is that, as this fund is being contemplated, tuition fees in Quebec are approximately $1,700, while they are about $3,200, or almost twice that amount, in Canada. In Quebec, student indebtedness stands at an average of $11,000, while it is $22,000 in the rest of Canada.

It must also be realized that, from 1993 to 2003, according to the federal government's budget, transfers to the provinces for education will have been reduced by $10 billion, including $3 billion for Quebec alone. These cuts have already greatly increased the debt load of students in Quebec and in Canada and of post-secondary institutions.

Just this morning I read in the paper that the CEGEP of Trois-Rivières is calling for help, because it is at the end of its rope. Who is listening? The MNA for Trois-Rivières, a Quebec minister, and not the federal government, which does not care and keeps making cuts at the expense of the provinces.

There are cries for help in my riding because the federal cuts have made it impossible to provide the services college students used to get. It is almost indecent on the part of the federal government to take cover in this fashion, while all the pressure is on the Quebec government, considering that federal measures contributed to the problems we are now facing.

We already have the Canada student loan program, but the federal government is adding the millennium scholarship fund, which will be based on merit. Quebec is being denied the right to opt out of that initiative, contrary to what was agreed in 1964 between the Lesage and Pearson governments, when the Canada student loan program was established. This right to opt out of the millennium scholarship fund is being denied to the people of Quebec. This is unacceptable. If the federal government respected the letter and the spirit of the Canadian Constitution, it would promptly congratulate Quebec on its good management of this provincial jurisdiction—the loans, grants and financial assistance sector—and automatically give Quebec the amount it expected to spend in that province through its millennium fund.

The underlying philosophy of the two programs is totally different. The millennium scholarship fund is based on merit, while the Quebec loans and grants program is based on the desire of students to pursue their education. Quebec then provides support to the students, based on their material and financial needs.

The Canadian scholarships, on the other hand, are going to be awarded according to merit, a pernicious notion contrary to the philosophy of the Quebec government loan and bursary program. So we will, obviously, end up with still more federal-provincial quarrels, stirred up by the Canadian government's trampling over the field of education because it is shaping the Canada of tomorrow, which involves all of the people of Quebec.

The Canada of tomorrow will have Quebec as a region, no longer a provincial government, and this will be the result of a decision made here in the Langevin Block with no consultation, particularly not with Quebec.

Speaking of debt, I would like to refer you to the words of Martin Roy, student association president at UQTR, the Université du Québec campus in my riding of Trois-Rivières. On February 5, when he learned of the federal government's plans relating to students in need, he said:

The needs are increasing every year. So far in 1997-98, UQTR's financial aid office has already handed out close to $400,000 in emergency funds to this clientele. They are increasingly in need of financial assistance to meet their basic needs for survival, not merit scholarships to finish their studies. At UQTR alone, these merit scholarships total close to $1.8 million.

Those merit scholarships, moreover, come from the private sector. Speaking of the private sector, a kind of near-privatization is taking place. This $2.5 billion is being entrusted to a foundation to be directed by none other than Yves Landry.

Six months ago, on October 22, 1997, in a speech to our Chamber of Commerce in Trois-Rivières, Yves Landry, who was not aware, I think, of the federal government's plans, said, and I quote:

—there was an urgent need to leave behind the old-style politicking slowly destroying us in Canada and to allow the provinces more power. It is suggested that the federal government give them authority in their respective fields of jurisdiction.

I do not understand Mr. Landry. He was either misinformed or conned. Nothing is impossible with these people. He was either misinformed or conned. Given Mr. Landry's views, I cannot understand why he agreed to serve as president of this foundation, which is completely at cross-purposes, because we never asked the federal government to look after this kind of scholarship.

In conclusion, I would like to read some passages from a remarkable and extremely perceptive article by Lysiane Gagnon that appeared on February 26. Mrs. Gagnon is known for views that are not normally very favourable to us. The article is entitled “A demagogic and provocative project”, and I quote:

Future generations will find no better illustration of the reign of Jean Chrétien than these millennium scholarships: the perfect example of a superficial and demagogic policy, of window dressing that does nothing at all about the real problems and that may even create a few new ones.

These scholarships will swallow up money that should have been put towards improving the school system, and they will contribute to the further deterioration of relations, if they can possible get any worse, between Quebec City and Ottawa.

Further on, she says:

The decent thing—would have been to substantially increase provincial transfer payments, now that Ottawa has put its fiscal house in order. This would not have been a question of generosity, but rather repayment of a blatant debt. But there was the vanity of Jean Chrétien, who wants his name associated with some sort of government handout, not to mention the deep-seated need of any government for maximum visibility. A direct gift to taxpayers brings in more votes than turning money over to the provinces.

And further on:

If the Liberal Prime Minister was even remotely sincere in his wish to stimulate education, he would have provided assistance to schools, through the responsible governments. But obviously, when it comes to votes, it is more productive to distribute maple-leaf bearing cheques to post-secondary students—all the more so because they, unlike primary school students, have the right to vote.

The millennium scholarships will be grafted, God knows how, onto an already existing grant system. Either they will based on different criteria, and this will thwart provincial policies, or they will be based on the same criteria used for existing scholarships, and this will be a patent case of duplication of services.

With that, I conclude my remarks. I would like to thank those who helped with the pre-budget study in my riding and, on budget night, with the study of the finance minister's budget. Rapidly, they are: Michel Dupont, of the FTQ; Michel Angers, of the CSN; Yves St-Pierre, of Action-Chômage; Jean-Louis Lavoie, of the Mauricie St-Jean-Baptiste society; François Brunette, of the AQDR; Martin Roy, of the UQTR students' association; and Brian Barton, of the Trois-Rivières Solidarité populaire.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc Quebecois commented on a number of issues but concentrated substantially on the jurisdictional role in education and specifically on where the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation fits in.

I believe the member was in error on one aspect which I would like to lay out for him. As he knows, now that we have turned the corner and balanced the budget, education was an important theme. The Canadian opportunities strategy was the prime theme in terms of directing funding toward the education of Canadians.

The member will also know that the Canadian millennium scholarship fund is the centrepiece of the Canadian opportunities strategy. It is designed to create new opportunities for Canadians by expanding access, knowledge and skills for the jobs they need and a higher standard of living for Canadians as a whole.

The area with which he dealt and in which I believe he was in error was the concept of eligibility for merit.

The Canadian millennium scholarship is intended to remove barriers for low and middle income Canadians. It is intended to get the post-secondary education or advanced technical training they need. The issues here are directed to low and middle incomes and accessibility.

Beginning in the year 2000 the scholarships will be awarded to over 100,000 full and part time students each year over 10 years, with the initial endowment of $2.5 billion. This is the single largest investment ever made by the federal government in support of access to education. We are speaking conceptually of the principle of access.

There is no question the provinces are responsible for the delivery of the post-secondary system. When it comes down to who was unemployed, youth unemployment and general poverty, it is the federal government that cannot stand back and leave it up to the provinces to be fully responsible. The federal government must play a role in ensuring Canadians have accessibility to education and an opportunity to have jobs.

If the member is so insistent that the funding is necessary for the school system in Quebec, could he explain to the House why the Quebec provincial government is spending millions of dollars annually on embassies abroad?

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I remind him that, on page 14 of the budget speech, reference is clearly made to criteria, and I quote:

—In particular, the Foundation will have the authority, subject to mutually agreed needs, merit and mobility criteria—

So, when we say the fund will be based on merit, it is not a figment of our imagination. The budget speech clearly alludes to needs, merit and mobility criteria.

As for mobility, one wonders what it means for Quebeckers. It may be a good thing for Canadians, but it is not necessarily the case for Quebeckers.

We also believe that Canadians should get to know their country better. Therefore, recipients of the Canada Millennium Scholarships who want to travel to study outside their home town or province will be provided help to do so.

I do not believe such opportunities are a priority for Quebeckers.

Since I could not do so earlier, I remind the hon. member that when the Minister of Human Resources Development says the federal government makes an enormous contribution to loans and grants in Quebec, he may not realize it but he should know that this supposedly enormous federal contribution has been of the order of 15% to 20% since 1990.

This is no big deal, particularly because every time the government gets involved in education, health and social programs, it directly contravenes the letter and the spirit of the Canadian Constitution, which it is supposed to respect. It is like the rules of the House of Commons, which are trampled whenever it suits certain people.

The same goes for the Canadian Constitution. When it does not suit the needs of this Parliament, of this government, it is simply flouted. This is probably one of the main reasons why it is in the interest of Quebeckers to leave this country and to deal with Canada on an equal footing, so that the rules of the game can be redefined, that we can be recognized as a people and that our province is no longer the laughing stock of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today in support of the 1998 federal budget. When we took office on October 25, 1993 our government was faced with a very difficult decision. In 1993 our government had three choices. The first was to continue spending without any concern for the future as the past Conservative government had done. We could have continued to add to the deficit. This choice would have been irresponsible and our country's future would have been at risk.

The second choice could have been to make deficit elimination our number one goal. This was the Reform Party's position. The most vulnerable in our society would have been abandoned. The young, the elderly, the sick, they would all have been abandoned by this approach. Instead, what choice did our government make back in 1993? We chose the most difficult option. Our choice was to reduce the deficit while preserving social programs. This approach required sacrifice from all Canadians.

Where are we today, five years later? We are in this House discussing a balanced budget for the first time in 30 years. It is the first time since 1969 and 1970 that there is no deficit.

Not only are we committed to balancing the budget this year, it will be balanced the next year and the next. It is the first time in almost 50 years the budget will be balanced for three consecutive times. I am delighted to be a part of a debate highlighting our dramatic and historic balanced budget.

This budget of balance addresses the needs and concerns of residents of Guelph—Wellington. Guelph—Wellington asked for a zero deficit. They got it. Guelph—Wellington asked for tax relief. They got it. Guelph—Wellington asked for increased spending on education and health care and they got it.

By dedicating 80% of this budget spending to health care and education, the government is addressing the priorities of all Canadians. The first and largest increase was for health care. This increase in funding acknowledges the many people in Guelph—Wellington who have asked us to make health care a priority.

When the Minister of Finance announced that assistance for advanced research had been increased, he was speaking directly to the University of Guelph and Guelph Conestoga College.

In this budget the minister increased the funding for the three granting councils. It was an increase of more than $400 million over three years.

Who in this House is going to stand up and say no to research and development? I should hope no one. The Liberal government recognizes the importance of research and development. These new research and development resources will provide increased support for the many students and faculty at the University of Guelph.

In a letter to the Minister of Finance, this is what Mordechai Rozanski, the president of the University of Guelph, had to say about this funding increase: “I am writing to applaud the initiatives you announced in today's budget to reinvest public funds. The University of Guelph is a research intensive institution with a growing reputation world wide. We appreciate the leadership shown by the federal government in today's budget announcement”.

The 1998 budget provides $1.4 billion in tax relief to 14 million low and middle income Canadians. This is good news for Guelph—Wellington and for Canada. Beginning July 1, 1998 the amount of income that low income residents of my community can receive on a tax-free basis will be increased by $500. This means that residents of Guelph—Wellington will be among the 400,000 Canadians that will be taken off the tax rolls.

Beginning July 1, 1998, 13 million Canadian taxpayers will no longer pay any federal surtax. This means that 83% of all Canadians will pay no surtax whatsoever. This type of tax relief is directed at those whose needs are the greatest. It is tax relief for Guelph—Wellington's working parents with low incomes, for students, for the disabled and for our local charities. Again, how can anyone fight against it? How can anyone oppose it?

The federal government has always recognized the importance of volunteers. For this reason the 1998 federal budget announced that the tax-free allowance for volunteer firefighters would be increased from $500 to $1,000. Not only that but the tax-free allowance has been extended to other emergency service volunteers.

I ask this House, why is the government taking such progressive action? The answer is simple.

We know that volunteers are important. Volunteers are what make many, many communities go round.

Our government has always recognized the importance of self-employed business people. Starting in 1998, those who are self-employed will be allowed to deduct premiums from supplementary health care and dental costs against their business income.

This measure addresses concerns residents of Guelph—Wellington had with the inequity that allowed owner-managers to receive tax exempt private coverage, but not the self-employed.

Since being chair of the Liberal economic development caucus a year and a half ago, I have been working hard to combat the underground economy: many, many meetings.

This budget ensures that mandatory subcontracting income is reported. This measure has been included to ensure fairness and equity in the tax system for all contractors. There are many contractors in Guelph—Wellington who will benefit from this measure.

With this budget, the Minister of Finance has made the job of the opposition extremely difficult. How do you criticize a balanced budget? How do you criticize tax relief that assists 90% of all Canadians? How do you criticize 80% budget spending on health care and education? The answer is you don't.

The opposition should be congratulating the Minister of Finance who took an out of control deficit, balanced it as promised and, may I add, one year before the Reform had promised—the Reform had promised much, much harsher measures—while protecting our social programs. There is the key. We are protecting our social programs. That would not have happened under the Reform's proposition.

This budget stays the course. Canadians are now seeing the results of all the hard work and sacrifices they have made since October 1993. This budget takes a balanced approach that is delivering real benefits for the residents of Guelph—Wellington and all Canadians together are making a stronger country. We are making a difference.

I hope every member in this House is willing to stand up and applaud this budget. It is an important one and it is unique.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington for her speech, but I do want to take issue with some of the assertions she made.

I heard her say a minute ago that we should be congratulating the finance minister for balancing the budget. Surely the member knows it was the Canadian taxpayers who balanced the budget. Revenue is 70% higher than when the government took power.

We have a situation now where the government has completely reversed its stand from 1993. I point out in the 1993 election campaign we had the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, saying zero deficits, zero jobs, zero hope.

What conversion on the road to Damascus did the Prime Minister go through? All of a sudden, it sounds as though the member for Guelph—Wellington is somehow suggesting that a balanced budget was the government's idea all along. Quite the contrary. In fact, they spoke against it in the election campaign.

I want to point out, leading to my question, that the hon. member does not intentionally want to lead people to believe that somehow they are going to get a tax break under this government. I am certain that is not her intention.

I simply want to point out by way of a question that the member is mistaken if she believes Canadians are going to be getting tax relief under this government's proposals. I point out that if the CPP increases that came into effect January 1 are included, if the effective bracket creep that takes place every year is included, amounting to just over a billion dollars in tax increases that Canadians face, and this is all netted out, we find that we in Canada will pay $2 billion more in taxes in 1998-99, $2.15 billion more in 1999-2000 and $2.8 billion more in taxes in 2000-2001.

Given those facts, will the member acknowledge that Canadians will be facing higher taxes, not lower, because of this government's actions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Medicine Hat started off his debate with the fact that there are more revenues coming into Canada. That is the reality. More Canadians are working now.

In 1993, and I am glad he pointed this out, when we took office the unemployment rate was almost 12%. Now we are down to 8.6% nationally. It is wonderful that we all recognize that there has been an almost 4% decrease, and I thank the member for pointing that out. That does mean that the economy and everything else works better. We do have more money to support our social programs.

When the hon. member talked about the finance minister and gave him credit, it is true, all Canadians shared in this. My speech did reflect that. Perhaps the member missed that part of it.

What I also want to say is we do also need to have leadership shown at the federal level. We do need to have somebody directing and saying that we are on a course. Clearly the finance minister did. He has said right from the beginning that we will balance the budget, we will have no deficit. Along with that he also made a very clear statement that we must preserve our social programs, that we must invest in health care, we must invest in education, we must invest in research and development. This budget does reflect those very values.

Ever since the Reform Party came to this House, it has said consistently that the bottom line is to reduce taxes at all costs. We are Canadian. Our vision in who we are is the fact that we believe in social programs. We believe that health care is important. We do not believe in a two-tier health care system like the Reform Party.

We have clearly stood up and said no to the Reform Party's agenda. We will balance the budget. We will and have reduced the deficit.

Clearly it is a budget we all should be proud of.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this budget debate.

Let me start with what the Prime Minister and the finance minister have said. I quote: “The victory over the deficit is due to the hard work and sacrifice of Canadians over the past four years. Therefore, achieving a balanced budget is a win not for the government but for Canadians. This is their victory”.

The only way to measure the significance of this achievement is to look at where we started. First, when we came to office four years ago our deficit stood at $42 billion, the highest in Canada's history. At 6% we had the second highest deficit to GDP ratio of any G-7 country. Second, the federal debt to GDP ratio was almost 72% and rising. Third, the unemployment rate was 11.4% at the beginning of 1994. Last, our interest rates were above rates in the United States. That is where we were in 1994. That was our dismal starting point.

Where do we stand today? Today the deficit is dead, dead for 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999 and the year 2000. This is the first time Canada has had a balanced budget in almost 30 years. What a monumental accomplishment. I believe that all Canadians, and I hope that all the opposition parties, will applaud. Canada has the only balanced budget of any G-7 nation.

That is not all. This shall be the first time in almost 50 years that the Canadian government will have three consecutive balanced budgets. Last year the debt to GDP ratio fell, the first meaningful decline in 20 years. It will fall again even more. By the turn of the century, the debt to GDP ratio is projected to fall just over 60%, the biggest percentage decline of any G-7 nation again.

What about jobs? More than a million new jobs have been created since the government took office in 1993. Last year alone some 372,000 jobs were created. Employment has risen in every region of our country during the past 18 months.

We admit that the unemployment rate is still high, but it has dropped remarkably since 1994 and the downward trend definitely is clear.

What about interest rates? For the first time ever both our short and long term interest rates are below those in the United States. That means that a home owner who gets a five year term $100,000 mortgage will save more than $3,000 a year on mortgage payments compared with three years ago. It means that a consumer who gets a car loan of $18,000 will save $320 a year. It means a saving of some $7,500 on a $25,000 small business loan over 10 years.

That is not all. According to a Statistics Canada report issued a couple of weeks ago the economy grew by 3.8% in 1997. Inflation is at its lowest level in three decades. Consumer confidence rebounded in 1997. Business confidence achieved record levels in the same year.

Let me quote what others have said. From the Globe and Mail , a longstanding and acerbic critic of federal budgets, Jeffrey Simpson, said: “This week's budget was the best in a generation. It got priorities—right. It helped redefine the proper role of government in a modern economy. It balanced revenues and expenditures. It opted for prudent forecasts”.

It is a major accomplishment. In a four year period we have gone from a $42 billion deficit to zero.

The CTV Ottawa bureau chief was poetic when he said Canada was the Titanic that missed the iceberg.

I would like to read quotations from my province of Manitoba. The headline in the Winnipeg Free Press read: “In the black. Surpluses rolling in after 28 straight years of deficit spending”.

There is more from the Free Press : “Door opens to tax relief. Measures benefit 90% of taxpayers”.

I remind members of the opposition that means tax relief for about 14 million Canadians.

The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: “The biggest thing in there for small business was the income tax reduction. Putting more money into people's hands is good for the economy”.

Another headline in the Free Press read: “Students' debt pains eased”. It will ease the crushing student debtloads. It will increase interest relief and make post-secondary education more accessible for Canadians.

Indeed praises for the budget come from a cross-section of people across the country. They come from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, from the Canadian Youth Foundation, from the Association of Universities and Colleges. I hope that opposition members will share the sentiments of those people who are truly concerned and interested in the budget.

The chairman of the Association of Universities and Colleges, Paul Davenport, said: “The millennium fund is going to help students. So for student assistance, this is the best budget that I've ever seen in my 20 years of university life. This is a breakthrough budget for universities, a tremendous boost for accessibility in Canada. This is going to help our young people participate in the knowledge based economy”.

Why do they praise the budget? Perhaps the best quotation has come from a Toronto Star editorial: “This budget tells the nation how the Liberals see Canada in the 21st century. Their vision rests on the principle that every Canadian should have the right to learn”. With those praises I really cannot understand how opposition members can still find things that are not in the budget. If they focus on what is not in the budget they will miss the great things that are in the budget.

The research granting councils receive an extra $400 million. This will certainly prevent our best scientists from leaving the country. This is of benefit to our scientists and students and it is good news for all Canadians, for the fruits of the labours of our researchers will certainly spill over for the benefit of all Canadians.

Another quote in the papers was by the social critics: “The finance minister heads in the right direction”. Perhaps another article I will quote from in the Free Press will sum up the social vision of the Liberals and the social conscience that we can see in this budget, in addition to transferring $1.5 billion for health care and social transfer for the years far ahead. The finance minister said there are those who seem to believe there is nothing government can do and nothing government should do, that we should just unleash the market and let loose the forces of change and abandon those whom opportunity has passed by. That view is not ours. A rising economic tide tide does not lift all boats.

In conclusion, I am very glad to see the Prime Minister and the finance minister working on a coherent tangent and vision for the country. I have one last quote from the Winnipeg Free Press editorial: “This budget is a milestone in Canadian politics. It is the first time we have had a surplus in almost 28 years. It is the first time since 1970 that the federal finance minister has been able to talk about long term choices, not short term choices. This is the first time that we are able to build a country instead of just holding it together”.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while I have been listening to the people opposite congratulate themselves and the Minister of Finance, calling this a historic budget, there are a few things that are historic. We have historic high taxes. We have historic high unemployment rates for youth. We have a historic amount of families living on the edge of poverty.

I remind the member that the people who are to be congratulated here are the people of Canada, the long suffering taxpayers of Canada who have balanced this budget. It was not the Minister of Finance or that government, it was the people of Canada. I just want to keep reminding him of that.

They keep bringing up the fact that we would, as an opposition, destroy social programs. I would like this member to explain to me how, by not addressing the debt and the fact that some 30 some cents of every dollar that comes to Ottawa goes to service that debt, the projections in the Liberal budget for the next two years do not reduce that debt by $1. What is that doing to social programs in this country? If that were reduced could we not have more money for social programs? Could we not make it truly a historic budget? I would like to hear his comments on that.