Debates of March 31st, 1998

Budget Implementation Act, 1998

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-36, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998.

I will be addressing part I of the bill in particular, which deals with the millennium scholarships, a project which everyone knows is very dear to the heart of the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice.

We know these scholarships will come from a special fund of $2.5 billion, to be administered by a private foundation, starting with the year 2000 and running for 10 years. Some observers wonder, moreover, what is going to happen after that. If there is a need, why should the federal government not be responsible for it always?

This is already one somewhat foolish aspect of this project, which has just popped up out of the blue, or perhaps out of the head of our Prime Minister.

As you know, there is a hue and a cry in Quebec at the present time, and just about everyone is against this federal government project, from stakeholders in education at the kindergarten level right up to university presidents. This of course includes students and teachers via the CEQ and the Association étudiante du Québec. It should be pointed out, as well, that this coalition is being headed, most courageously, by President Shapiro of McGill University.

So, as I have said, this plan by the federal government is raising a great deal of opposition in Quebec. One of the best illustrations of this is a real gem written by Lysiane Gagnon on Thursday, February 26, in La Presse . Given her political opinions in general, Mrs. Gagnon is displaying remarkably clear thinking.

The article is entitled “A demagogic and provocative project”, and includes the following:

Future generations will find no better illustration of the reign of the current Liberal Prime Minister 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.

Is it pure coincidence or skilfully organized provocation? Hard to say. But one is stunned by this unbelievable federal intrusion in education.

—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 the Prime Minister, 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.

—Three years of budget cuts have left the universities in deep financial trouble, with the result that the quality of teaching and research is deteriorating.

And Ms. Gagnon goes on:

What is the point attracting more students on campus, if it is to give them an inadequate education and devalued diplomas?—If the 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.

It is probably in light of this that, yesterday, the Premier of Quebec made a proposal to his federal counterpart. The management of Canada being what it is, if Canadians ever want to have access to these scholarships—although we have doubts about the federal government's attitude—the government simply has to reach an agreement with the English speaking provinces concerned, as there is no grant program elsewhere in Canada. In Quebec, we have a loans and grants system. Such an agreement could meet identified needs and suit provincial governments. It is up to the federal government to come to an agreement with these provinces.

As usual, it is different in Quebec, where we have a very well organized grants and loans system.

This is the spirit in which, when they met yesterday, the Premier of Quebec, with the coalition I referred to earlier firmly behind him on this, gave the Prime Minister of Canada an amendment to be included in this bill as clause 46.1. Let me read it for the record. It concerns the right to opt out with compensation, which would be totally legitimate, appropriate and proper for the Canadian government to give the Quebec government in this context.

Under an agreement between the Lesage and Pearson governments, Quebec has had the right to opt out of loans programs since 1964, because the Canadian government is not involved with bursaries. If it now wants to get involved, why not include, in the same spirit, this opting out with compensation clause?

I will read this amendment, which we endorse and which would be added as clause 46.1.

46.1. When a province has established and administers a financial assistance program for students to ensure equal opportunities regarding post-secondary education, the ministers shall, at the province's request, conduct negotiations with this province to come to an agreement with respect to the fair compensation it should be paid in lieu of the foundation's activities in the province.

I think this would settle the matter. This is full of wisdom, as the Quebec government has often been these past few years, especially since 1994. I think it might meet both the needs of Canada, if these are indeed—which is questionable—needs expressed by the education community and the public, and those of the Quebec government and National Assembly in terms of use of funds and transfers. It is important to know that the coalition has the support of the Liberal Party as well as that of the public, including students. This would improve the grants and loans situation.

It seems to me that it would be the wise thing to do, in addition to being in keeping with the underpinnings of the Canadian Constitution, where it is clearly and plainly stated that education is under provincial jurisdiction. That is what we are asking for.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the education critic for the NDP I am very pleased to speak in the House to Bill C-36, an act to amend certain provisions of the budget tabled on February 24. I would like to focus my comments on the budget and how it impacts or whether it alleviates the crisis facing post-secondary education in Canada.

The millennium fund illustrates very well the government's failure to recognize the crisis facing post-secondary education. If we talk to students and to student organizations like the Canadian Federation of Students, which has done a lot of analysis and evaluation of what is the reality and the situation facing students today, we find out that the average debt for students graduating this spring will be $25,000. In fact, worse than that, approximately 130,000 student loans are in default.

There have been reports of a 700% increase in student loan bankruptcies from 1989 to 1997. What is a very shocking fact and statistic is that now 25% of all bankruptcies are as a result of student loans in 1997. This means that at the end of 1997 there was something like 37,000 bankrupt graduates. This is a very dismal state of affairs. It illustrates very graphically the crisis facing post-secondary education where student are graduating into poverty and where more and more students are declaring bankruptcy. In the recent budget the number of graduate bankruptcies was projected to be 216,000 by the year 2003.

Liberal members and the government have stated that the new budget, the showpiece of which was the millennium fund in education, is something that will address this crisis. Many members in the oppositions parties and in my party have exposed the fact that the millennium fund would not even come close to compensating for the years of cuts that have taken place in post-secondary education as a result of policies of the Liberal government.

The millennium fund will provide a fund in the budget of $2.5 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, but the fund will not even begin until the year 2000, which means that students will still be left with virtually no help or resources until the year 2000.

Even in the year 2000 when this fund begins we will be looking at a contribution from the fund of $250 million per year over a 10 year period. When this is put in the context of the funds that have been taken out of post-secondary education by the federal government, the real picture begins to emerge. By the time the fund starts in the year 2000 we will have lost over $3 billion from post-secondary education as a result of federal government policies and cutting back on education and transfers to provincial governments.

It is a very serious situation caused by the Liberal government that is now offering, with all the spin, rhetoric and talk about the legacy for the year 2000, the millennium fund. When the surface of that fund is scratched and examined we see that it offers very little assistance to students. It will only help an estimated 7% of students. It will provide—we are not sure whether it will be grants or scholarships—assistance to only about 7% of students who are actually in need. That puts the picture in perspective as to whether or not the millennium fund will actually address the needs before us.

Another very troubling factor about the millennium fund is that it takes us down the slippery slope toward privatization and the corporatization of post-secondary education. A lot of concern has been expressed by student organizations and by people in the educational field. Certainly the research we have done in the NDP suggests the course of action the government chose in setting up the fund was to set up in effect a private foundation. There was a named chair representing a very large corporate interest in Canada. This does not bode well for the future of post-secondary education.

Very important to the country is the notion and the principle of publicly funded post-secondary education. What we will see with the millennium fund is a private board being set up that will have the ability to set criteria as to how grants or scholarships will be administered, taking it out of the public realm.

In Ontario a lot of concern has been expressed about ongoing privatization. At the University of Toronto a fund to assist students in need was turned into a scholarship fund after the intervention of the president of the Bank of Montreal who sits on the board of governors. There are the same kinds of concern about the millennium fund because of the uncertainty about who will qualify for assistance or the level of assistance, whether it is a scholarship program and whether or not there will be creeping corporate influence in terms of setting criteria as to who will receive scholarships or loans. We have not yet received information from the federal government.

They are very disturbing facts about the millennium fund. The first is the lack of real financial support it will provide, given the level of cutbacks that we have had. The second is the fact that it is taking us down a road of privatization and corporatization of post-secondary education.

Another issue I would deal with around the millennium fund has to do with how it was set up. We heard in the House yesterday concerns expressed about the situation in Quebec. I understand the concerns that have been put forward by members of the Bloc Quebecois about the lack of consultation around the establishment of the millennium fund. However, let us be very clear. It was not just Quebec that was left out of the picture. It was all other provinces as well that are still waiting for a phone call from the Prime Minister or someone representing the government to inform them about what their role will be in the millennium fund and in setting up the criteria.

It is another indication of unilateral action being taken by the federal government. I would like to ask government members whether or not they think this is their new kind of federalism: unilateral action and no consultation with provincial government even though post-secondary education is a provincial jurisdiction and responsibility.

We in the NDP think this is an absolutely incorrect way to go about implementing the millennium fund. We believe there should be co-operation and discussion involving the setting up of a national grants program using the funds from the millennium fund as the beginning of a national grants program.

The last point I will make is that one of the things that was discovered in the budget was that buried in some of the background material were plans to change the bankruptcy laws. It was a most cynical ploy by the government. On the one hand we were told that the budget would help students, that the millennium fund would help students. On the other hand the finance minister was very quietly laying plans to change the bankruptcy laws which will make it much more difficult for students to file for bankruptcy and will extend the deadline from two years to ten years. This is a most cynical ploy by the federal government and illustrates why the millennium fund will not do what needs to be done in terms of providing federal funding for post-secondary education.

I conclude my remarks by saying that there is growing opposition and concern about the fund as people begin to realize that it is not doing what it is purported to do by the government. There has simply been a lot of political rhetoric about the fund, but the stark reality is that it will not help the students in need in Canada today.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-36 and the Reform amendment. It was great to see the budget finally balanced. It is what Reformers have been calling for, for years.

We want to make it perfectly clear that we have reservations with respect to the budget. One of the first and most important is the provision of the millennium scholarship fund. We have been advocating for years that there needs to be greater funding for post-secondary education. We were advocating putting money back into the CHST during the 1993 election.

The big problem is that the auditor general has found the government to be distorting the financial statements to make itself look good in this House and elsewhere. The auditor general gave an interview in which he said “You cannot record something just because you announce the intention of doing something. There is a difference between an expenditure and a future commitment”.

We have in this country families who intend to have children, but an intention expressed does not mean they qualify for the child tax benefit. The day the government is willing to hand out a benefit based on an intention will be the day when it would be within its purview to announce an intention and have it show up in a budget as if it had been an expenditure. We just do not accept that at all.

We also find that while the budget is balanced it has been balanced by increasing expenditures. It is no secret that interest rates in Canada came down not as a result of government actions but as a result of a worldwide phenomenon. The government has certainly garnered the benefit from that. However, it is not as a result of its doings. The government's reductions in direct program spending amount to 5.3% and it has increased the amount it has taken from taxpayers by 71%. We are not giving the government any kudos for that.

We also find that the government is refusing to reindex to inflation the personal income tax system. It had an opportunity to do that in this budget, but it did not.

As well, Canada pension plan payments will be increasing year in and year out. From our research it appears that by the year 2000-2001 there will be roughly $9,000 more in net tax burden for Canadians. I do not think there is anybody in this House or anybody in this country who thinks they will be that much better off in 2000-2001 to be able to carry that extra tax load.

I would like to leave this House with a couple of word pictures because they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

During the cold war there was a policy called MAD. It was an acronym for mutually assured destruction. It was an assurance that no one would survive in the event of a nuclear war. Everybody would lose and nobody would win. I would like to propose a new meaning for that acronym, which is that Canada has the mother of all debt in this country at this time. Our debt is $576 billion. It has been said a lot of times in this House and it has been said a lot of times across Canada, but not everybody knows it yet, so it certainly is not lost on Canadians to say it one more time.

We feel that Canadians have not been completely apprised of the debt they have. I just spoke in a high school in my riding and unfortunately some of the young people there did not know it. When they heard how much it was and how much they personally are inheriting from previous as well as present governments they were not one bit happy. MAD describes their state of mind as well.

We are definitely opposed to the continuation of spending and taxing and the maintenance of a debt which we do not have to have in this country. There would have been a balance left over this year if it had not been spent. We would like to see that go back to the people.

Taking that nuclear bomb illustration a little further, what is the fallout from a debt bomb? We have the highest taxes in the G-7. Bracket creep erodes every person's income in this country. The danger of overspending is that there will be a slight rise in interest rates and all of a sudden we will be back into deficit spending. Nobody wants that, particularly the young people of this country.

We have high unemployment and low wages. Wages can only get lower as the cost of doing business goes up with the taxes that are locked in by this budget.

Canadians are mad. They wanted tax relief, they expected tax relief, but they did not get tax relief. They are upset that the debt will not decrease this year. They did not want a millennium fund to polish the Prime Minister's image. What they wanted was real tax relief.

This is another illustration from the cold war. There was a movie called “Dr. Strangelove”. I cannot quite recall its subtitle, but it went something along these lines: “How I overcame my fear and learned to love the bomb”.

We have a debt bomb in this country. We have a Prime Minister and a finance minister who have overcome their fear of the debt bomb. They have learned to love it. They want to pass it on to Canadians.

At the end of that movie the mad scientist, sitting astride his bomb, was having the ride of his life. I believe that is an accurate description of our government today. It is astride the debt bomb, it loves it and it wishes everyone could be aboard.

Canadians want off. They do not want to ride this to its obvious conclusion. At the end of the movie we did not see what happened to Dr. Strangelove, but we know what the end will be if we do not get our debt under control.

We do not want debt in this country. We do not want higher spending. We do not want taxes. What we want and what the Reform Party is calling for is responsible government. We oppose Bill C-36. I oppose it on behalf of my constituents.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36, which we are addressing today, deals with the implementation of certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998.

This debate will provide me with an opportunity to raise, and to criticize for the most part, certain political choices made by the Minister of Finance, as well as to draw attention to everything he has not done and to the Bloc Quebecois' fiscal proposals he has not followed.

The Minister of Finance is boasting that he has managed to put public finances back on a sounder footing. I wish to speak out against what the Liberal government has done to attain that goal, and also what it has not dared to do. In order to attain its goals, it cut transfers to the provinces along with employment insurance benefits and failed to index the tax tables.

Transfers to the provinces were cut by $7.2 billion annually, which accounts for 52% of all the spending cuts the Liberal government made in 1994 and 1998.

Cutting employment insurance benefits means that people who lose their jobs are not as well protected since the reform, while the fund shows a surplus of billions of dollars.

Another thing the government has not done is indexing the tax tables. The Minister of Finance has taken advantage of the increase in revenues, in part as a result of not indexing the tax tables, GST credits and child tax benefits.

It is instructive to look at how the Minister of Finance has succeeded in putting his fiscal house in order, but it is particularly interesting to think about the choices the Liberal government has refused to make in order to attain those results. It has not made a serious attack against waste, respected its commitments, or really reformed the taxation system.

As far as an attack against waste is concerned, year after year the auditor general criticizes the spending of billions of dollars by the federal administration.

As for respecting his commitments, I should remind the House that, in 1995, the Minister of Finance promised a 19% reduction in his departments' spending over three years. In fact, spending was reduced by only 11.5%, so the government could have cut another 7.5%.

We also asked for income tax reform and the Liberal government could have undertaken a review of corporate income tax to help job creation, and one of personal income tax to improve fairness.

The suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois were flatly rejected by the Liberal government, even though our finance critic did an extraordinary job in proposing concrete solutions to the government.

What did the Liberals do when the first surpluses appeared? They could not keep themselves from doing what they have always done, which is to spend.

Even though the Liberal government's contributions only accounted for 11.5% of the federal spending cuts, the Minister of Finance is making 51.4% of the new expenditures provided in the budget. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have decided to reward themselves for eliminating the deficit, instead of rewarding those who actually did the work, namely the provinces, the poor and middle class families.

Out of all the new Liberal expenditures, the $2.5 billion for the establishment of a millennium scholarship fund was the initiative most strongly criticized by the whole community. As we know, the Premier of Quebec is trying to solve the issue with the support of a coalition that includes a number of Quebec stakeholders.

The Premier of Quebec proposes that clause 46 be amended by inserting the following:

Withdrawal with compensation

46.1 When a province has established and administers a financial assistance program for students to ensure equal opportunities regarding post-secondary education, the ministers shall, at the province's request, conduct negotiations with this province to come to an agreement with respect to the fair compensation it should be paid in lieu of the foundation's activities in the province.

We all know that negotiating with the federal government for fair compensation takes a lot of effort and energy, often with little likelihood of success. In this case, we hope that the federal government will take some responsibility and that, for once, it will be able to come to an agreement with Quebec on the millennium scholarship program.

They know that education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. For over 30 years, Quebec has had its own system of loans and scholarships. All of Quebec's education stakeholders are opposed to the plan, because it does not meet Quebec's priorities in this area. The only way to avoid duplication is to come around to Quebec's way of thinking. We hope that the Prime Minister will grant Quebec's request.

We also know that the auditor general is critical of the government's spending practices. The foundation's funding has been included in the 1998-99 spending forecasts, although the money will actually be spent in the year 2000.

One of the things we criticized about the budget had to do with the Minister of Finance's transparency. We would have liked to see the actual figures, in the right columns, so that we could have had a real debate about the surpluses but, instead, this year's surpluses have been concealed by including spending that will take place in the year 2000.

Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said that, if a government had such an excess of revenue and undertook to ensure the part of the common good that fell outside its jurisdiction, there arose the presumption that that government had taken more than its share of taxable capacity.

Quebec has said no to the millennium scholarships, and I hope its wishes will be respected.

There is also employment insurance. Those to whom the federal government owes a large debt include the unemployed, but the government has decided to ignore them. The budget speech is clear: the unemployed have no problem and the EI program will not be improved.

Bloc Quebecois members have introduced six private members' bills with suggestions for improving the employment insurance program. The federal government has accumulated $6 billion in savings in its fund. We asked that the eligibility criteria be restored. In 1989, 83% of unemployed workers were eligible for EI. This dropped to 43% in 1997. The percentage has dropped steadily since 1990.

In order to analyze this phenomenon, which has gone on for eight years, the minister has just ordered his department to do a study, in co-operation with Statistics Canada. Meanwhile, the unemployed are losing out. In committee, we moved that this clearly inadequate percentage be studied. We would have liked a report analyzing the effects of this new employment insurance policy.

The government continues to amass the surpluses without paying out a cent more. In 2000, the surplus will reach $25 billion. Premiums will not be lowered in 1999. They will be reduced by a meagre 10 cents in 2000—not enough. The Conseil du patronat was very clear on this point. They wanted a substantial reduction in premium levels to permit the creation of jobs in business.

The only employment insurance premium holiday will be for employers hiring young people between 18 and 24 years of age in 1999 and 2000. The measure applies to two years only. It is shortsighted. We would have liked the government to consider other clienteles strongly affected by the new employment insurance measures, especially those aged 45 or older, who often find themselves unemployed. We know the focus of business is on young people with experience, those in their thirties, and that older people find themselves without work and the possibility of finding any.

We also introduced anti-deficit legislation. It would control government spending. We deplore this government's refusal. This anti-deficit legislation may be found in five Canadian provinces, including Quebec, in 48 American states, in France and in New Zealand.

We were very disappointed at the policies proposed by the Minister of Finance in this budget. The Bloc would have advocated creating no new programs, reimbursing the provinces for the Canada social transfer, changing how the employment insurance plan is managed, implementing targeted tax cuts and passing anti-deficit legislation.

We would have preferred the minister come to an understanding with the Bloc Quebecois. A number of people have expressed their disappointment with the Minister of Finance's budget. We would like the Minister of Finance in the future to accept some of our suggestions for lightening the tax burden of Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I rise to ask for the unanimous consent of the House that the order for second reading of my Bill C-237, standing on the order of precedence, be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent that the hon. member withdraw the bill as indicated?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no consent.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-36, otherwise known as the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation.

I would like everybody to realize one thing. This scholarship supposedly is about education. I have great difficulty in believing that. I do not think this is about education at all. I believe that it is actually the Prime Minister using taxpayers' hard earned money in order to boost his own ego, so to speak. And just to add insult to injury, we have only to look at the announcement he made to appoint the chair of the foundation prior to this legislation's even being introduced to this House.

That to me goes a long way in saying exactly what this is all about. They have talked time and time again of the great effort they have put into addressing the budget in order to bring this new found money into the education fund.

Number one, it was not this government that balanced the budget. It was the Canadian taxpayers, the hard working taxpayers in Canada who sacrificed a lot to see this happen. A lot of them suffered time lost from their families, something that money cannot compensate.

I see the arrogance of this government when it says that it balanced the budget. I question that. It is just not so. We look at what has happened in the last few years. This used to be a society in which only one working person had to go out to make a decent living for the family.

In most cases that is no longer possible. Both parents now have to work in order to survive. It is not for little extras. No, it is to survive in this country which we say is so great.

We have become unpaid slaves to the government in many cases. We have accepted this because we were led for many years to believe the government was looking after us, that the government was taking care of the problems and we would not have to worry.

Gradually through the years taxation crept up. The government said we have to do this in order to pay for this. We bought that. The government said it was good, it would benefit Canadian society. We thought the government was very knowledgeable. We agreed to work a little harder and to pay a little more in taxes.

Along came another issue and the government sold us under the guise that it is good for society, that it will make us better, caring, sharing human beings. We bought this and bought this and bought this.

Now Canadian taxpayers are waking up to one simple fact. Taxpayers definitely are caring and sharing human beings but this government lacks any of that sort of compassion. This government has become a tax addicted parasite on the taxpayers of this country.

We were led to believe that if we worked hard we could contribute to our own type of special retirement plan, that if we were diligent and invested wisely we could retire early and in comfort.

I am sad to say that in Canada this is just about no longer possible. The harder someone works, the more they are taxed. The more they put away to retire, the faster the government figures out how to get in there just like that and take it.

The government takes it no longer with one hand but with both hands, from a person's bank account, their wallet and their wife's purse. It will even take from a child's inheritance in order to say it will help you.

When someone asks for help from this government, they stand in a line. They are lucky if, when they phone, there is anyone on the other end. It often is a machine telling them to dial back later when it is not so busy. That is the caring, sharing feeling of this lousy government.

Let us take a look at this for one moment. The government is saying it will give back $385 million in the scholarship fund. It slashed over $7 billion from education and health but it will give back $385 million.

That is like cutting off a hand to save a finger and then saying we helped you, we fixed you, we made it better, aren't we nice people.

That snow job no longer works in this country. I think this budget came a bit early. It should really have been introduced on April 1. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

Let us look at what is happening in the EI surplus. We have mentioned time and time again what is happening here. This government is taxing employers and employees into poverty. We now know that there is a $13.5 billion surplus in the EI program alone. What does this government do? It says it will give back a few pittance to the employer and the employee. It tells us that because it raised it so high it can now cut back a bit and call it a tax cut.

This is like an armed robber taking $100,000 out of a bank and giving back $10 in the hopes he will not be sentenced. He feels that by giving some back he is not altogether bad. That is not going to wash too long in this country.

The people are starting to wake up. We have received phone call after phone call into all our offices. I do not even believe there is a member across the way, although they may not like to admit it and maybe will not admit it in public, who has not had phone call after phone call every day from people who are just getting by or who are not getting by at all because they are being taxed to death.

When we put that question to the Liberals here in the House, which I did a few days ago, one out of eight or nine I questioned says that in all the time they have been here since 1993 they have received two phone calls. That is hard to believe. In fact, I cannot believe that. I think somebody is fudging.

[An hon. member]

They must have had their lines cut.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Either that or they tapped into the machines. “There is no human being on this end so I cannot answer questions. Phone back at a more suitable hour”.

That means one minute, I hope, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I was not just checking the wind.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

It is not blowing that good. We have seen how ill the wind blows from that side of the House many times. In fact, we are still trying to pay for some of the moves they have made here.

It seems we do have our priorities really mixed up in this country when we allow situations to go on as we do today such as with the blood scandal and the part the government has played in that. I also have great difficulty with the millennium fund.

This government came to power it has put closure in this House 38 times, more than the PCs believe it or not. I heard complaints back then about this type of dictatorship but it goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I see closure has again come to this House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Closure may come later but for the moment the hon. member's time has expired.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parks)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in this debate on the budget implementation bill. I noticed that my colleague from across the way was talking about which way the wind was blowing. I was pleased to see last night which way the wind was blowing in British Columbia. It seems to be a very Liberal wind after that byelection.

I wanted to talk a bit about one component of the budget. It has to do with tax reduction. I do not know and I do not believe there is a great deal of argument in the country about the desirability of tax reductions. Regardless of whether one is in the centre or in the left or right of the political spectrum, most Canadians would see tax reduction as a desirable goal.

However, I think what is important is the way tax reduction is to be achieved. One of the important aspects of the budget was that there are some very important principles underlying the types of tax reductions in that budget. I would like to take a moment to enunciate some of those, give a couple of examples of how that works. Then if I have a moment toward the end, I am going to compare that to some of the suggestions which have come from some of the opposition members.

The first principle upon which the tax reductions are based is that tax reduction should begin at the bottom. As we have the fiscal manoeuvring room to provide tax reduction, it should be provided first to those Canadians at the lower and middle income levels. We start at the bottom with those who can least afford to pay tax and then expand the reductions upward as our fiscal dividends expand.

It is a very important principle. We saw that clearly enunciated in the budget with the raising of the basic personal exemption. This will take some 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. In addition we saw it with the 3% surtax being eliminated for those people earning under $50,000.

The second principle in respect of tax reduction is that it is important to target tax reductions to achieve important social objectives. Again we saw that in the budget. In the budget we saw such things as the $850 million tax credit being provided to low and middle income Canadian families with children. That is in addition to the $850 million that was provided in the previous year.

We saw that in a series of tax reductions in respect of obtaining post-secondary education. We saw a targeted tax reduction to achieve the very important social goal of providing access to post-secondary education. We saw tax reductions to help Canadians with disabilities in addition to the actions that were taken in the previous budget. We saw other specifically targeted measures such as a caregiver tax credit. On a smaller basis a tax reduction is being provided to volunteer emergency workers which is particularly important in a rural area like mine.

Another principle which the finance minister enunciated, developed and crafted his budget around is the importance of providing tax reduction in line with one's fiscal needs. We saw that very clearly. We saw a government with the help and support of all Canadians bring a balanced budget to this country for the first time in a generation and a half. Then once the fiscal dividend was at hand, the government started to provide the tax reductions. That is the appropriate way to do it, to make the reductions once the government is in the fiscal position to do so.

The fourth principle is a principle which some of my colleagues who sit across the way should listen to very carefully. The government has the responsibility not just to taxpayers but to all Canadians. If it simply takes all of the government action on the tax reduction side, then substantial numbers of Canadians will not be impacted and will not benefit by that action. In putting whatever type of fiscal plan together within a budget, one needs to remember the principle that not all Canadians are taxpayers, but all Canadians deserve to be considered for support by the federal government as they may require. We clearly saw that in the budget.

We saw $2.5 billion for the millennium fund, direct spending to help people access post-secondary education. When you come from a rural riding like mine, Parry Sound—Muskoka, the cost of post-secondary education tends to be higher because students need to live away from home. That is a particularly important thing.

We saw the increased funding to the granting councils. We saw the $1.5 billion restoration of the previously scheduled reduction to the CHST.

Those were non-tax measures, but they were measures that were important to Canadians. They were able to benefit Canadians who may not necessarily be taxpayers.

It is interesting to look at those principles. They are important principles. They are Liberal principles. They are principles the finance minister crafted within the budgetary measures.

It is important to look at what some of our colleagues across the way were suggesting in terms of budgetary action. Many were enunciated during the previous campaign.

First of all it was interesting to note that both the Reform Party by 1999 and the Tory party which had a date of 2000, were projecting balanced budgets far after we were able to achieve it. When talking about one of the principles, the interesting part is they wanted to provide tax action before they were willing to balance the budget. In essence they wanted to borrow money in order to provide tax cuts rather than bring the fiscal dividend forward and provide tax cuts in a sustainable manner. This is clear in both parties' platforms.

Looking at some of their tax measures, they certainly would not result in a bottom up process.

The Tories' 10% across the board tax reduction means the more you earn, the bigger the tax break you get. That is the exact opposite of the principle the finance minister is using, which is from the bottom up. The Tory approach is to provide the largest tax decrease to those who earn the most. We who come from Ontario know full well the results of that type of approach.

The Reform Party had a similar approach. It suggested a flattened tax regime and an average $2,000 savings for a Canadian family. When there is a flattened tax regime with an average of $2,000 it means the more you earn, the higher your income, the larger the tax reduction you will receive.

One of the most interesting and telltale signs of not adhering to those principles that I enunciated should be in the budget, was the Tory suggestion that the corporate tax rate, not the small business tax rate, but the corporate tax rate be reduced from 28% to 24%. This would mean that companies such as Canada's chartered banks, those cash starved corporations, would receive more than a 10% tax reduction.

The Tories, rather than suggesting that tax reduction come from the bottom up, suggest a corporate tax reduction from 28% to 24%. The impact of that is to put oodles of money into those cash starved institutions, Canadian chartered banks. That is the type of principle they want to bring to tax reduction.

Let me summarize. As we deal with the budget and the component of tax reductions, what makes it a successful budget, what has brought the support of Canadians to this budget, what has brought that Liberal byelection victory in British Columbia yesterday is the principle of providing tax relief from the bottom up. It is targeting tax relief to achieve important social goals. It is achieving our fiscal dividend first and then providing tax relief. Most important, it is remembering we have a responsibility to all Canadians and not just taxpayers but also including them.

Those are the reasons this budget has the support of the Canadian people. This was very clearly demonstrated yesterday in British Columbia.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to engage in today's debate on Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. I hope not to address what this government has done for Canadians but rather to point out what this government has done to Canadians. I will discuss what Canadians wanted from this budget and how this budget affects Canadian families and students.

On budget day the finance minister stood up and smugly told Canadians that he had slain the deficit monster. Well, I disagree. The deficit has been fought on the backs of the taxpayers. The hon. secretary of state was mentioning “We did it. The government did it. We did this, we did that”. It was the hard work of the Canadian taxpayers that balanced this budget and I do not think the government should lose sight of that fact.

The hon. member mentioned a balanced budget. He was trumpeting his own government's balanced budget. In 1993 we were saying that could be accomplished within three years. The government scoffed at that, yet it put in place the same kind of plan.

I sent out a householder survey in my riding of Dewdney—Alouette and had over 500 people respond on questions having to do with the budget. I will take a few minutes to touch on some of the results and point out some of the things Canadians wanted but did not get from the budget.

On the question of government spending, 72% of the people who responded in Dewdney—Alouette said that spending should be reduced. Only 3% of the respondents believed government spending should be increased.

On the question of interest on the debt and initiatives for debt reduction, 96% of the people who responded believed that government should set real goals and timetables to lower the debt.

On the point of deficit spending, my constituents were asked whether they believe the government should pass legislation to prevent deficit spending from happening again. Overwhelmingly, constituents sent a clear message. Of those asked, 92% supported the notion of this type of legislation preventing future deficit spending which of course has led to the enormously huge national debt of close to $600 billion.

Yes, the tax burden imposed on Canadian families is enormous. Canadian families work half the year just to pay their tax bill. For most Canadians, forgoing a second income is not even an option. For those who decide to stay at home and raise their children, they are unable to take advantage of some of the deductions for families who choose to have their children in care. We would like the government to address that and to have equity for all Canadian families.

Canadians wanted the government to cut spending. They wanted tax relief. They wanted the government to address the debt. What did Canadians get? They got higher spending on the part of the government, higher taxes and a government that is on the brink of falling back into the deficit gorge with any fluctuation in interest rates.

I will briefly touch on the millennium scholarship foundation. As some members mentioned earlier, this is not really about education, it is about the Prime Minister using taxpayer dollars to boost his political profile. The way this was handled in the budget was quite surprising. I find it quite unbelievable.

The government simply cannot record something just because it announced the intention of doing something. There is a difference between an expenditure and a future commitment. The finance minister lost sight of this fact. The very finance minister who is trumpeting the budget for what it does for education slashed and burned health care and education funding by $7 billion. That is a fact that cannot be lost on Canadians.

A few members mentioned B.C. I am glad they realize where it is now because there will soon be blowing an ill wind from the west.

If the Liberals really had a concern about education, they could never have cut to the degree that they have cut since 1993 and then make these half measures, not even half measures, not even quarter measures, to try to convince Canadians that they care about education. Words are empty if they are not backed up by actions. Canadians are starting to realize that a budget that pretends to address all these concerns in not even quarter measures just does not match up with the actions the government is implementing in the budget.

I was talking to two university professors about the millennium scholarship foundation. They thought it was a good idea until I pointed out to them that the students at their institution would not be eligible for these scholarships. This is due to the fact that they teach at a public institution that is privately funded. Students who choose to go to that type of institution do not have the opportunity to take part in the millennium scholarship foundation. That is a shame because this is not even a quarter measure, as I mentioned before. It does not address the concerns of the majority of students in this country.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to over 60 high school students. I was explaining to them the concern with the debt and why we need to address that debt which is close to $600 billion. They asked me how that was possible. I used the story of overspending.

When a government chooses to overspend year after year, the debt piles up higher and higher. I had to explain to those high school students that $45 billion goes to interest on that debt alone and is eating the heart out of our social programs. They were shocked that this could happen in our country. They asked me how it happened? I said because the governments of the day put us in this shape because they did not take care of the financial house of this country. I am sorry to say, but the Liberal government started us along this path.

I explained the so-called debt contingency retirement plan of the finance minister. He wants to dedicate $3 billion to debt retirement on that total of almost $600 billion. There is a big if. That is if that money not needed for other spending. I see it as an escape clause that could be used at any time for the finance minister to dedicate to any other kind of spending without having to put it to debt retirement.

If we treated our mortgages on our homes in the same way the government is treating the national debt, we would be hauled off and put into a place not nearly as nice as this for not meeting our financial obligation. We must have this house in order.

This finance minister's plan does not address any kind of substantial debt retirement plan. That debt was created over years. There has to be a plan to get that debt down. The future of our country hangs in the balance as a result of that. This government must take note of that and do something about it. It must do something soon with a concrete plan; not an if plan, not a plan that if we do not need the money we will put it to debt retirement. It has to be a committed plan.

When I was talking to those high school students they were shocked at the state of our country. They asked me why I wanted to get into politics. I was a teacher prior to this. I said this country needs people who are willing to stand up for their future, for our children's future, for the future of our nation and set a course to address the major concerns in this country. That is why I entered politics. We hope to influence the government to look at these concerns and these issues and address them with concrete plans.

It is for that reason that I cannot support Bill C-36.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some displeasure that I rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-36 to implement certain provisions of the 1998-99 budget.

Indeed, on behalf of the citizens of my riding of Verchères, whom I have the honour of representing in this House, and all Quebeckers, I have the duty and responsibility of conveying our profound disappointment with this misleading and shamefully partisan exercise.

At first glance, this budget may seem extremely positive. After all, is it not the first balanced federal budget in nearly three decades? Does it not contain very good news for the taxpayers? The fact is all this is a smoke and mirrors, a cover up.

All of a sudden, after four years of intense deficit reduction efforts on the backs of the provinces, the unemployed and the most disadvantaged, as soon as a surplus is achieved, the Liberals are starting to spend left and right again. Really, once a Liberal, always a Liberal.

To add insult to injury, the federal government has once again decided to invest the money saved at the expense of others in areas over which it has no jurisdiction.

Imagine this, after accumulating in the employment insurance fund billions of dollars in surpluses at the expense of employers and employees to help wipe out part of its deficit and cut back billions of dollars in transfer payments to the provinces, forcing the provinces, including Quebec, to make difficult decisions, which have been made courageously, in the areas of health and education, the federal government has the nerve to use a substantial portion of the extorted money to encroach yet again on provincial jurisdictions.

By the way, members will note that the provinces got hit with 52% of federal cuts; yet, according to the last budget, they are entitled to only 23% of the new expenditures. However, while federal spending was cut by only 12%, it accounts for 51% of the new expenditures.

What is important to the federal government, when it comes down to it, is the visibility of providing services directly to the public and getting into their hands as many cheques bearing the maple leaf as possible. This is an underhand strategy: Ottawa seeks to make the Quebec government look bad by hampering its progress toward a balanced budget, so that it can look good at Premier Bouchard's expense as the provincial election approaches.

Then the Liberal government wants to rush to the rescue once again with new initiatives in areas of provincial jurisdiction in order to lighten the burden of misery it itself has imposed, and continues to impose, since $30 billion or so in cuts still remain to be made across Canada by the year 2003 in education, health and social assistance. Some would call this absolute bunk, yet the federal government is quite open about it.

As proof of this, the President of Treasury Board is quoted in Le Soleil of March 8, 1996 as saying “When Bouchard has to make cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of social programs”. Edifying, is it not? Is this the co-operative federalism they delight in referring to on the other side of this House?

When will the Liberals understand that this strategy leads nowhere? When will they understand that Quebec cannot be bought for billions of dollars? They have put this strategy in practice over and over during the past three decades with somewhat disappointing, even catastrophic, results. They have been unable to slow the rapid growth of the sovereignist movement and have plunged Canada into the perilous spiral of debt from which it is hard to extricate ourselves today.

In its prebudget document, the Bloc Quebecois asked that a significant portion of the surpluses for the next two years be given back to the provinces as tax points, to compensate them—at least to some extent—for the drastic cuts made by the Liberal government during its first mandate to transfer payments for health, post-secondary education and social assistance. However, it seems that, as with the surpluses generated in the employment insurance fund, Ottawa has decided to keep control of that money.

The Bloc Quebecois has urged the federal government to make sure the employment insurance fund is used only by those who contribute to it. We continue to condemn the misappropriation of funds by the federal government with the employment insurance surplus. That surplus is constantly increasing, because of the more strict eligibility criteria imposed by the government and maintained against all logic.

But it is in research and development that the duplicity of this government is most obvious. Indeed, while the Liberal government's rhetoric has been impressive, we have seen very few concrete measures. The Bloc Quebecois has asked that, at the very least, funding for granting councils be restored to the 1993 level. However, the Liberals have only pledged to restore that funding to the 1994-95 level, thus making Canada fall even further behind in research and development.

This budget speech, like the one last year, was full of grand phrases regarding the importance attached by this government to research and development, and so on.

I will, if I may, quote a few of the gems in the finance minister's budget speech about research and development. First of all, the minister said, and I quote: “For 200 years in Canada prosperity and knowledge have gone hand in hand.—The creation of jobs in the new millennium will be anchored in two essential components: the infrastructure of innovation, and the infrastructure of skills and knowledge”.

And he went on to say: “There can be few things more critical to determining our economic success in the next century than a vigorous, broad based research and development effort. The fact is the more R and D that is done in Canada, the more jobs that will be created for Canadians”.

How are we to square these fine words with the meagre resources committed and the highly questionable decisions already made by this government with respect to R and D?

On numerous occasions in the House, I have seen government members rise and claim that R and D into sources of renewable energy is one of their greatest priorities.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Two years ago, Ottawa announced that it was terminating its modest annual contribution of $7.2 million to the Tokamak magnetic fusion project in Varennes, now the largest R and D energy project in Quebec. Magnetic, or nuclear, fusion constitutes a very promising form of producing a large volume of energy in a clean, safe, environmentally responsible manner.

Since then, I have been trying to understand the twisted reasoning that led this government to make such a ridiculous decision. On numerous occasions, I have questioned the various stakeholders and have met with inconsistent, incomplete and incomprehensible answers. Not only will the $70 million already invested in the project over the last 20 years be lost forever, but the technological, industrial and economic shortfall for Quebec and for Canada could be colossal.

Many other industrialized countries have realized the importance of nuclear fusion research and some are even spending as much as 10, 20 and even 40 times more than Canada in this very promising area of research.

It is important to point out that Quebec, which is already receiving a lot less than its fair share of federal investments in research and development, is facing an even greater deficit with the end of the federal government's financial participation in the Tokamak project.

Paradoxically, Ottawa is pouring billions of dollars into far less promising areas and paying particular attention to Ontario. I am thinking of the federal government's decision to focus on the development, production, marketing and sales of Candu reactors, whose reliability and environmental safety record continue to be questioned.

What explanation is there for such stubbornness and false economies on the back of a province that is not receiving its fair share of research and development funding, in an area where dividends are potentially so numerous and so high compared to the modest annual investment required? I take this opportunity to again express my indignation and to appeal to this government's common sense in this matter.

I would also like to have talked about the millennium scholarship foundation, but unfortunately, as time is short, I will close by taking the few minutes remaining to remind the hon. members of this House that Quebeckers are not fools. They have had it with fancy speeches aimed at nothing more than raising the profile of the government on the backs of society's disadvantaged.

Far from being a prophet of doom, I would like to repeat to the Minister of Finance what many analysts fear. After creating surpluses, he cannot just rest on his laurels and spend wildly to then fall back into the same bad habits. Instead, he must structure public finances so we will no longer have to face the nightmarish deficits passed on to the people of Canada over 30 years by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would hasten to let the speaker know before I begin that I do not intend to follow the pattern of the member for Verchères and to address my remarks specifically to the concerns of one province. I will speak to this bill as a Canadian.

I am pleased to stand as the official opposition critic to address Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.

Part VIII of the legislation addresses the phase-out of the air transportation tax levied on air travel as a percentage of ticket prices. Coinciding with this phase-out is the commencement of NavCan's user fees for large aircraft and for the reduction of federal funding for this not for profit corporation which was created to provide air navigation services on a commercial basis.

The air transport tax will be completely off the books by November 1, 1998. At that time NavCan will be cut off as planned from government funding and will have to operate on its own. That is the way it should work. Once a government service has been commercialized and is financed by charging fees to those who use it, the taxes previously collected to pay for the service should be reduced. Otherwise the result is double taxation.

Unfortunately this is what we may see happening to operators of light aircraft. Although November 1 is also the date for the commencement of NavCan user fees for small aircraft, there is no plan to ease the tax burden on the general aviation sector.

The Reform Party is a great supporter of user pay, but operators of light aircraft are already paying and paying and paying increased Transport Canada charges and new airport user fees, for example, the infamous fee to pee that so many pilots talk about.

Particularly galling is the excise tax on aviation gasoline which is poured into the government's general revenues. Aviation gasoline is taxed at a much higher rate than jet fuel. Jumbo planes fuel up and pay 4 cents of excise tax per litre while the tax rate for aviation gasoline is 11 cents, a full 7 cents per litre difference.

It is not in our national interest to charge and tax general aviation into the ground. Commercial aviation needs a healthy general aviation sector to be its pilot recruiting and training ground. That is the way it has always been. However, in the face of spiralling costs in the form of taxes and fees the number of licensed pilots in Canada has been steadily decreasing for years. Double taxation of operators of light aircraft will only make matters worse.

Canada must not follow the example of some European countries which have killed private flying by overregulating airspace. These countries are now forced to seek foreign pilots to fly commercial aircraft.

I have noticed a good omen. The finance minister has received a letter from NavCan's president proposing a solution to the problem. NavCan has requested that the 7 cents per litre difference in excise tax rates levied on jet fuel and on aviation gasoline be eliminated, and that NavCan be permitted to collect a similar amount from aviation gasoline sales to finance air navigation services for smaller aircraft.

I urge the finance minister to carefully consider NavCan's proposal. It is only fair to offer a revenue neutral, user pay system to the operators of small aircraft similar to the deal being given to major operators of commercial aircraft.

It is also solid common sense to tie fuel consumption to financing the air navigation service. This way there is not only no double taxation of light aircraft operators but heavy users of light aircraft would automatically pay more than infrequent weekend flyers. Equally important, NavCan would not have to waste money and effort tracking down and invoicing individual pilots.

As air transportation taxes are the sole transportation issue deemed worthy of a mention in Bill C-36, I would like to use my remaining time on a more general issue. I have to admit that I am somewhat encouraged by the budget being balanced for the first time since 1969. However, my enthusiasm evaporates when I consider how the Liberals managed to do it. It was not done by cutting wasteful spending. Of this I can assure the House. The Liberals continue to spend money, coddling their corporate darlings such as Bombardier and Power Corp, not to mention simply squandering money on things like the free flag program.

The Liberals brought the balanced budget into being by increasing taxes 37 times, by slashing health and education transfers to the provinces and by hoarding big UI surpluses so that they could disguise an ongoing deficit. It is truly the Canadian taxpayers who dislodged the deficit as increased revenues actually counted for 69% of deficit reduction.

Spending days are back. First there was redbook two in which tax relief and debt reduction were given second billing to spending. Now the budget makes it abundantly clear that the Liberals have not learned a thing. What we are witnessing now is a foolish rush to spend any surplus to maintain unity within the Liberal caucus: pork, pork, pork.

Rather than basing its spending plans on contingency reserves, the government has displayed its contempt for debt reduction by essentially arguing that it is not necessary: don't worry, be happy.

Rather than consolidating the budget balance so that it stays balanced during the next economic downturn, the government could not wait to start spending again. Thus we have more than two dozen spending increases, totalling over $10 billion over the next three years.

Liberals seem to feel that they have to be big spenders even though Canadians would be happy with a responsible government that provided stable funding for the things Canadians count on, those things that governments do best such as health care, a national highway system and education. The Liberals cannot resist grand gestures like the new millennium scholarship fund.

I hate to be cynical but I am afraid this place eventually makes all of us a bit cynical. When considering spending projects, the government's number one concern is to get the lion's share of any glory to be gained. I wish the government would think of how it could best help Canadians rather than how to use taxpayers' money to boost the its political profile. How else can the millennium scholarship fund be explained, except as a gesture to boost the government's profile?

First, the fund is not about post-secondary education. It will not restore slashed education funding or provide students and parents with tax relief so that they can better afford to save for tuition and repay student loans. It is the same old malarkey, the tax and spend approach. If the Liberals were so concerned about education, why do they not just return some of the $7 billion they took away from the provinces in transfer payments?

If they are such defenders of post-secondary education, why did they do away with the Mulroney scholarships program which was really the same as the millennium scholarship fund? It was another political ploy like the one we are getting now. I predict that the ultimate fate of the millennium scholarship program will be the same as it was for the Mulroney scholarships as soon as that one time political benefit has been exhausted.

I am heartbroken. I could have gone on for another 20 minutes on the millennium fund.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure all hon. members would like to hear more from the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate on Bill C-36, but not to say that I am in favour of it, because I certainly am not.

Let me give you an example of the sort of thing that happened back home, in New Brunswick, last week. While the Liberals were boasting “Canadians are happy and so are post-secondary students”, last week, universities held a rally to let the federal government know how hard hit they have been by cuts in education.

[An hon. member]

Provincial cuts.

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

An hon. member across the way said “provincial cuts”. If these were only provincial cuts, why did the Premier of New Brunswick and both his finance and education ministers say they had to be made as a result of federal cuts? And by the way, the Liberals are still in office provincially in New Brunswick. Perhaps not for much longer, but they are still there.

At any rate, the government is telling us there is something good in store for post-secondary students starting in the year 2000. It is important for Canadians to know that things are not as good as they are made out to be. At present, university students have to spend between $25,000 and $30,000 to get the education they need to enter the labour market. The proposed changes to the tax credits might save them $3,000 but they still will not have a job at the end of the day. How are they expected to pay off their debts then?

I think what the government should have done is increase funding for educational institutions in order to reduce the cost of a university education.

Here is an example. This week, New Brunswick announced it would cost 10% more to attend university. This announcement came immediately after the federal government said it would improve its program for education and that it would benefit post-secondary students. It is obvious that university students are having a hard time. They expect to see their debt level rise to as much as $40,000 in the years to come. These young people who attend university accumulate huge debts, which they are then unable to repay.

Turning to the scholarships that the government plans to award, only 7.1% of all students in Canada will benefit. Let me give you an example. If, in the Beresford region of New Brunswick there are 100 students who want to go to university, only seven of them will get scholarships. It is the same across the country, in Vancouver or anywhere else. Therefore, not many people will benefit from these scholarships.

Moreover, these scholarships will be awarded based on merit, that is to say, they will be given to those who have good marks. They will definitely not be awarded to the poor, when we know that some students have to work at McDonald's or in other restaurants or convenience stores to earn a bit of money so they can pay off their debts.

The government really missed the boat, unless it deliberately chose to launch a big advertising campaign in Canada by saying it would give money to students, without spending that much. The numbers may seem impressive—millions of dollars for Canadian students—but once you split the money among all the regions, it does not amount to much. Again, only 7 students out of 100 will benefit.

The government has a greater responsibility than this toward our young people, because they represent the future of our country. They are the ones who will take over from us, and getting them into debt is not the right thing to do. As I said, the government has a responsibility to help these young Canadians, and it is a good investment for the future of our country.

This is why I oppose the government's budget. I oppose the way the government tried to convince Canadians that it was supportive of our young people. Our young people are not getting government support. They go to school from grade one to grade twelve, and then they have to fend for themselves. To make things worse, the rich have a better chance to get these scholarships than the poor or middle class people.

I met with students who came to my office. They told me they would be penalized if they worked, because the following year the government would deduct 80% of their earnings, thus making it impossible for them to get a student loan or scholarship.

These sorts of things have young people across Canada really worried. I have used New Brunswick as an example because that is where I come from and I had last week's example, when students from the Université de Moncton marched in the streets. University of Fredericton students did the same, to let the government know they were being poorly treated. This is what is really happening in this country.

[An hon. member]

In Quebec too.

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

Students in Quebec, in Manitoba, in Ontario, or in British Columbia feel the same way. They are not happy with the budget of the Liberal government.

I think that our Prime Minister is selective when he visits universities, and perhaps chooses those attended by the wealthy. He should come and visit New Brunswick and see the reception he gets. He should come and visit an area of the country where people are living in poverty. He should come to my region and see what he is doing to our young people and how they are not helped by the 1998 federal budget.

The Liberals have the nerve to travel around the country boasting that they have done something good for Canadian students. I say that this is misleading, as only 7% of students will benefit.

[An hon. member]

It is smoke and mirrors.