Debates of March 31st, 1998

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 1998

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly a pleasure to walk down to that other place to receive a blessing of sorts for duties that we do here.

I would like to finish off with the education theme. The basic concept is that money has to be spent in the most efficient, effective way possible. The things we are doing in Canada and in the government should not be simply for our political benefit. We should be doing things for our constituents and our provinces that are in their best interest.

In the case of education, the best interest of Manitoba as I was explaining—I will not speak for other provinces—would be to have that money flow directly to the provincial government as opposed to being put through the millennium fund or through other federal government programs that require duplication of administration, extra boards, extra audits and those kinds of things.

The priorities in government spending can be seen differently by different parties, but some basic truths and beliefs should always be adhered to. One of those is that if we spend ourselves into a big hole and get into big debt over the years, at some point we will have to get out of it. The province of Manitoba has taken its budget and shown the way for the federal government. It has done this by attacking the debt at the start of a budget surplus or a balanced budget.

By doing a front end attack on debt the amount of interest that has to be paid at the start is lowered. The government seems to want to do it at the end. Things change over the years and maybe it will never get done.

I would like to comment on the Manitoba budget, not because it is a perfect budget but because of the instruction it can give to the House. I understand Manitoba's debt is around $6.8 billion. The provincial government put $150 million against the debt in its last budget some few months ago. It kind of promised, as did this government, to do something about the debt. In fact it had promised $75 million toward the debt. It doubled that because of the compound effect of paying off the debt.

When the compound effect of the extra $75 million was factored in over the 30 year debt repayment plan it was worth $300 million and knocked nine months of payments off the books. Hon. members will notice that it has an actual plan. It is not just some promise that it is maybe going to happen or that it will work out.

That type of investment, if members want to look at it like that, will pay big dividends in the area of social programs, education, health or any of the things as I explained earlier are the basis of society and have to be in place for anything else to work.

At the present time interest on the debt is costing Manitobans about $520 million every year, which works out to $450 per person. If we did not have to pay the interest and that money were left in the hands of Manitobans, most people would spend it and the first thing we know jobs would be created and everybody would be better off.

I was pleased to speak on a couple of points. I hope the government in future budgets will take heed of our words.

Business Of The House

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier discussions took place among all parties and the member for Portage—Lisgar concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-223, which stands in his name and is scheduled today at the conclusion of Private Members' Business. I believe you would find consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-223, all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 21, 1998, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties and I have two travel motions.

I believe you would find unanimous consent for the first motion:

That, in relation to its examination of Biotechnology, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be authorized to travel to Saskatoon during the period April 2 to April 4, 1998; and that the necessary committee staff do accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will also find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the research officer of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations be authorized to travel to Calgary, Alberta from May 3 to May 6, 1998 in order to attend a conference on climate change.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the motion put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be now read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 1998

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and add a few comments to this debate.

I looked at some of the stats and listened to some of the debate in the House today. I wondered why is the Liberal government trying to postpone all of these goodies further down the road instead of implementing them pronto as the need is there.

It is strange the government would want to wait until the year 2000 to bring forward the scholarship fund if there is a desperate need for it. I would have thought the government would have said it should be retroactive when I look at the debt load of students today and the need that is there. Why not make it retroactive? That is where the need is.

Looking at the statistics, we probably lose 10%, 15% or perhaps as many as 20% of our graduates to the United States where they are able to acquire better job opportunities. What is the government doing? It is probably delaying the inevitable that sooner or later government will have to realize that jobs are either provided to people in our country or amalgamation takes place with the U.S. so that there are job guarantees.

This brought me to thoughts about the years when I grew up. Across the way are Liberal members who have that shade of colour I have in my hair and maybe some of them are even minus some hair. They will probably remember some of these things.

I finished elementary school and was only fortunate enough to go through grade 11 because of health problems in my family. My younger brothers and sister were able to go to university. What did it cost my folks at that time to send one of their kids to university?

One of my younger brothers loved to raise a calf or two each year. That calf put him through university. He did not have to go to the bank to borrow money. Dad gave my brother the calf at its birth. He looked after it and raised it. Dad supplied the pasture. My brother had funds to go to university. That was very easy. Nobody was denied this opportunity.

Why is it that it was so easy in those days? They had their priorities right. They did not have taxes taken off every little bit that they sold or every little bit that they earned.

My first year as a farmer I only rented 60 acres of cropland from a neighbour. After I had the crop harvested I was wealthy enough to buy a brand new pick-up truck. It was one of the fanciest trucks; it was two toned, had a radio and all the extras you could get. The cost of that pick-up truck was $1,400 Canadian, which took me less than 1,000 bushels a week.

Today a half-ton truck with all the extras on it will cost at least $35,000. At the price of wheat today at least 10,000 bushels will be needed. If we look at the 10,000 bushels, it is not just the wheat, but first of all at least 50% has to come off for taxes. Therefore at least 20,000 bushels will be needed to buy that truck. It is astounding that things have gone this way.

I look at the young pages. They want the opportunities that I had and that my brothers and sister had. They had the opportunity to get an education. If they wanted to, it was there. The finances were there. There was no problem. People could afford to send their families to university.

Today that does not hold true. I talk to my constituents. A mechanic said to me one day “This is my wage. This is what I take home or what I should be taking home, but after the taxes and all the other deductions come off, I can barely afford to put food on the table without sending my kids to university. They have no opportunity to go. If you do not have somebody who will co-sign for you, it is pretty hard to get student loans even at the bank. It is not that easy”. That is why I feel for the younger generation.

Why has this happened? How did we get into this mess? I look at the $600 billion of debt, and I look at the $42 billion in interest to service that debt and then look at this millennium fund at $2.5 billion. Something does not add up. There is $42 billion blown into the wind. Why? Because politicians for the previous 30 years thought that if they wanted to maintain power in this House they had to buy votes by making promises. Promises can only be made and kept if you pay for them. If you do not pay for them, it is going to cost you.

I talked about buying a pick-up truck. What did it cost me to operate that truck? About 15 cents a gallon for the gas; an imperial gallon, not a litre. Today a litre of gasoline costs 50 to 55 cents and 24 to 26 cents of that is for taxes. This is what the young people are dealing with.

We are standing up in this House and saying “Look what we are doing. We are giving you a tremendous opportunity. You will get $2.5 billion for education”. It does not make sense. Why does it not make sense? Because this could have been avoided.

This reminds me of a prime example of something I have seen happen so often on the farm. When you had milk cows in the early years you pail fed the calves because you had to ship the cream. You wanted to sell the surplus, so you did not let the calves have everything that they wanted. You pail fed them. We would do that all winter long and they would be used to it. When Dad banged the pail they knew it was time to come to the trough and get their feed. That was simple. They enjoyed doing that and we enjoyed giving it to them because we saw them grow.

Then when summer came and the sunshine was bright outside and Dad decided to lead them out to the pasture, they all took off. They liked the grass. It was good. But Dad knew if he wanted healthy calves and wanted them to grow fast, they still should have some milk. What would he do? He would bang the handle of the pail and they would come running. He had to make sure there was enough milk or else they would run right over him if they did not get what they wanted.

This is what governments have been doing for the past 30 years. They have been banging the pail of luxury and saying “This is what we will give you”. Now they have all their constituents out in the pasture and they are very hungry. There is no more grass left. They are suffering. They are saying “I am banging the pail, come and get it”.

There is nothing left to get, except the debt of $600 billion. That debt is financed by foreign companies or foreign investors to the tune that one-third of that $42 billion is flowing out of this country and we will never see it again. I do not want to be pessimistic. The Reform Party has come into this House and has impressed these things on the government and finally we do have a balanced budget, which is the right step. But $600 billion of debt still has to be looked after.

Are the Liberals going to find a miracle? Are they going to somehow change straw into gold? I do not know what is going to happen, but I wish everyone well because I think the pail has run dry. Maybe some day the Liberals will also find out that people do not follow the pail any more and then what will happen?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-36, the budget implementation bill. I would like to deal with a number of issues. My colleagues have spoken quite eloquently on the faults of Bill C-36. I am going to deal with a few other issues and how we can revamp and rejuvenate our economy so that we can provide for a better future for all Canadians.

Bill C-36 is a microcosm of what this House does repeatedly. It nibbles around the edges of an issue rather than taking the bull by the horns and addressing the issue. Rather than dealing with the larger issues of debt reduction, poverty within our country, educational problems, problems of tax relief, egregious rules and regulations that choke off our private sector, the government has chosen to nibble around the edges and not really deal with the meat of the matter.

On the education issue, the millennium fund in principle is good. We have to provide moneys so our students can have the funds to be educated in post-secondary institutions. However, there are some significant failures within our education system which the government has an opportunity to deal with.

For example, a chasm exists between the needs of the private sector and the ability of our education system to fill those needs. Large numbers of jobs within our country go unfilled, primarily because there are no students to fill them. The government should work with the private sector and the educational institutions so that the students in the institutions today understand what are the future needs of the economy.

I was down in the United States recently. They have done some innovative work in that area. It is for that and other reasons many Canadians go south of the border to find employment. In many cases they find a more lucrative and challenging environment in which to work. That is a shame, because those students could stay within our country.

Look at the example of the United Kingdom. They have built some innovative links between industry and the private sector, the private sector, education and government.

For example, students should be provided with apprenticeship possibilities. Provide them with apprenticeships in professions that are going to be needed in the future. There are many needs the economy of the 21st century will require filled. We as a country have to look at the future, anticipate those needs and be aggressive enough to provide that information to our students. It is our role to provide those opportunities to the youth of today.

I compliment the government on its RESP and child tax benefit plans. These are things we have said are good. They will enable people within the private sector to have more moneys so as to provide for their needs and give them the ability to be functional members of our society.

With respect to our economy, the government could have addressed the issue of tax relief. Even in my province of British Columbia, if you can believe it, the NDP has actually taken the step to look at the successes of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario and has adopted a tax reduction strategy, albeit a timid one.

Why did the government not do that in any meaningful way? It has proven to work in country after country after country. High taxes kill jobs. Lower taxes will enable the private sector to be more aggressive and create jobs.

When we go into our communities and talk to the private sector, it tells us that the tax structure we have today is far too complicated and onerous and prevents it from hiring people.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, March 25, 1998, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 119

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be deemed to have voted on the motion now before the House, applying the vote just taken in reverse.