Debates of March 31st, 1998

Internships

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

Communications Security Establishment

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a canned performance, a softball question from a Liberal backbencher and a corked answer from a parliamentary secretary. Give us a break.

The Communications Security Establishment intercepts and monitors communications between drug dealers, gang members and other dangerous criminals. It has a direct impact on the security of Canada.

Why does the defence minister refuse to allow me and the Reform Party a briefing on the Communications Security Establishment?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what information the hon. member is looking for. There is information that has been filed. Obviously the kind of business that the Communications Security Establishment is in puts some limitations on it. But I would certainly be happy to talk further with the hon. member to find out what he is looking for.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, we are now going to proceed to tributes for one of our former members of parliament who died just a short while ago, Mr. Alkenbrack. I will call on the hon. member for Markham to begin.

The Late Douglas Alkenbrack

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to pay tribute to Mr. Alkenbrack.

Douglas Alkenbrack came to the House of Commons to represent the riding of Lennox—Prince Edward in 1962 after many years of public service in municipal government. His parliamentary career was spent in the pursuit of fair play and justice. His constituents returned him to the House in every election until his retirement in 1979. This fact attests to the worth of his work on their behalf.

He once said “Each of us is an ombudsman for the people he represents”. The records of the House bear witness to his vigour in his quest for fair treatment for his constituents.

A true blue Tory, Mr. Alkenbrack also loved his country passionately. He gave a message to all of us in 1970 that still holds true today: “Every Canadian, as had the Fathers of Confederation, has great spiritual resources available to him. Our patriotism emanates from and has its source not only in ourselves and in our relationships with our fellow citizens, but also in the majesty of nature and the physical grandeur and beauty of our great dominion from the misty Grand Banks of Newfoundland to the Rocky Mountains, Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands”.

To Mrs. Alkenbrack, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, I extend the sympathy of the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack, a former member of Parliament who represented many of the people in the riding of Prince Edward—Lennox and later on Frontenac—Lennox and Addington who are now my constituents.

Douglas served this House and the people of Canada from 1962 to 1979. His brother, Wesley Alkenbrack, attributed Doug's remarkable success in the political arena to the fact that he was a people's man. A devout member of the Conservative Party, Doug never lost the sense that he was the people's representative for his riding, whether those people were Liberal or NDP, black or white, rich or poor.

Before becoming involved in the all-consuming world of politics, Doug was a lumberman, co-founder and partner in the R.W. Kimmerly Lumber Company in Napanee from 1937 to 1962. His job took him through all parts of Lennox and Addington and Frontenac county where as a businessman he would gain the reputation as a straight shooter and a hard worker. It was no doubt this reputation gained as a businessman was part of the secret of his success as a politician.

Before and after I was elected in 1993, Doug was always generous in sharing his opinions with me. As a rookie MP, the House of Commons can appear intimidating at first glance. Doug was always just a phone call or a visit away. He wanted to make sure I was representing the people of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington in the best possible way because, as he would say, they deserve no less.

In 1995 Doug Alkenbrack in co-operation with the Lennox and Addington Historical Society published a book of his poetry entitled Rhymes of a Back-Bencher .

On behalf of my constituents and indeed the people of Canada, I wish to extend our heartfelt sympathies to Doug's wife Nan, his daughter Eleanor Grennell, his son Dr. Douglas Alkenbrack, and also his brother Wesley Alkenbrack of Napanee.

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack was not only a colleague but a dear friend. May he rest in peace.

I would like to take this opportunity to read from one or two of Mr. Alkenbrack's poems. This one says a lot about the riding and is entitled “Homeward”. There is a preamble:

My duties and work in Ottawa over a span of almost eighteen years kept me busy but I was always glad to get home to Napanee usually each weekend. In November 1968 I was glad enough to write this, entitled “Homeward'.

It's great to go down to the Capitol Where there's plenty to hear and see Of our country's might, as they talk all night Of a free democracy.

And they say it is good to be understood In committee or caucus hall Or in strong entreat from a Commons seat Where governments rule or fall. But there's one thing better that I prefer And the best that can happen to me Is to homeward wend, on the glad week-end And return to Napanee.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to the late Douglas Alkenbrack, former Progressive Conservative MP for the Lennox—Prince Edward riding, the people's man in Napanee and the north area.

Doug was elected in 1962 for Lennox—Prince Edward and served this House and his party with distinction until 1979. As a former counsellor and later the mayor of Napanee, Doug brought a sensitivity to riding issues and was known as a congenial and respectable gentleman by his peers on the Hill.

Doug was, as his brother Wesley characterized him, a people's man who devoted his life to his parliamentary and riding duties. Doug was an unpartisan individual who was receptive to ideas and input from those who claimed they did not support his party's views. He saw the good in people and the work of the individual and respected their right to offer another alternative.

Doug Alkenbrack was more than a politician. He was a student of politics, history and a published poet as we just heard. He embraced this aspect of his life with the same vigour and enthusiasm as he did for politics.

After Doug's retirement from politics in 1979, he remained a popular member of the Napanee community and area. Certainly this is testimony to the respect and high regard his community had for this gentleman and for the work he did on their behalf over his career.

I sat in this House with Doug Alkenbrack. I can say that Doug was a fine gentleman, a tireless worker on behalf of his constituents and a man who held this institution in very high regard.

On behalf of the official opposition, I wish to extend to his wife Nan, his daughter Eleanor and his son Douglas, our deepest and sincere condolences on his passing.

He will be sadly missed by those who knew and loved him and by all the members of this House.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack, a former member of this House, who died recently at the age of 86.

Mr. Alkenbrack first distinguished himself in the lumber industry between 1937 and 1962 at the R.W. Kimmerly Lumber Company Limited, a company that still exists today.

His political career began in 1952, when he became a Napanee municipal councillor. He went on to serve as mayor from 1957 to 1958.

In 1963 he was first elected to the House of Commons, as a Progressive Conservative, representing the riding of Frontenac—Lennox. He was re-elected in every election until he retired from politics in 1979.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to offer condolences to his family and friends.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I knew Doug Alkenbrack fairly well when he was a member of Parliament. I remember that in 1979 he sat roughly where the Conservative member for Ontario is sitting now, in the second row to your left, Mr. Speaker.

He was known around the House as someone who was a real gentleman as has already been said, as someone who was a very practical person, as someone who was not overly partisan in terms of being a member of Parliament.

Before he came to this House, he was involved in municipal politics. He was involved in his community. He was involved in the lumber business in his home community in northern Ontario.

I remember one of the last days he was in the House. As a matter of fact, we expected the government to fall. It was before the election of 1979. As it happened, I was to have the floor after question period. Doug came to see me during question period to see whether or not he could have the floor instead of me so that he could have a chance to give his farewell speech in the House. Of course I ceded my place to him.

On behalf of our party, I want to extend to his wife, his son, his daughter and his grandchildren, his family, our very sincere condolences on the loss of a great parliamentarian and a real gentleman who was well liked by people in all four corners of this House.

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

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998.

One very important thing in this bill is that it would establish the Canada millennium scholarship foundation. This project has been rejected by the whole education community in Quebec.

We saw it yesterday. Representatives at the elementary, secondary, college and university levels, administrators, unions, all Quebeckers clearly expressed their opposition to Bill C-36. They accompanied Mr. Bouchard, who came to Ottawa yesterday to give Mr. Chrétien a proposed amendment that would satisfy Quebec's education coalition.

The amendment reads as follows:

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.

This amendment is not just the position of the Government of Quebec, it is also the position of the entire coalition, which represents all those involved in education in Quebec.

There is recognition that the federal government might be entitled to a certain degree of visibility. It wishes to ensure that the people who receive money from this program know where it came from. I believe that desire may be legitimate.

This ought not, however, to be done at the expense of efficiency. The bill contains some things that are completely unacceptable. The way the foundation is set up and the administrators appointed, and the means they are equipped with, is duplication, in my vocabulary. It is creating, alongside the structure that exists in Quebec to provide financial assistance to students, another structure which will not only compete with the entire system in place in Quebec, but will also disturb it. It is important for those in the rest of Canada to understand this.

In Quebec, there is already a system of loans and scholarships in place. As a result, the average student debt load in Quebec is in the vicinity of $11,000 on graduation, as opposed to $25,000 in the rest of Canada. The explanation for the difference is that, since 1964, Quebec has exercised its right to opt out in accordance with an agreement reached between Prime Minister Pearson and Premier Lesage. Quebec has developed an incredible expertise in this area. I believe it to be a model that is the envy of all of Canada.

Today, when they want to put the millennium scholarships in place, the reason the Quebec coalition is opposed to the federal position is not because it will make more money available to students, but because it is necessary to ensure that this money will fit properly within the jurisdictional framework set out in the Constitution.

In Canada, education is a provincial jurisdiction. When I hear a phrase like the one used recently by a Liberal MP that “we are not interfering in education, we are going to give money to students”, this is evidence of gross ignorance of Canada's history, and of the fact that, for Quebec, jurisdiction over education is something sacred. It is one of the cornerstones of the Confederation pact of 1867. It is therefore important, and it is necessary that a solution be found.

The Quebec government took a reasonable attitude and made a proposal. Both parties agreed to appoint negotiators: on the one side, the deputy minister of human resources development and, on the other side, the Quebec deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs, assisted by officials from the ministry of education, to try and find a mutually satisfactory solution.

The Bloc Quebecois will be monitoring developments very closely, and I was very surprised by the Prime minister's answer today, during question period. He said these negotiations could take place and Bill C-36 did not have to be amended, it could be passed as is. That is absolutely impossible, since paragraphs 29(1) and 25(2) provide that the foundation may not enter into an agreement with the provinces to delegate the management of the millennium scholarships.

Therefore, if the federal government wants to show good faith following yesterday's decision to have negotiations, if these negotiations are not simply a way to buy time, the federal government should make a move. It could for instance set aside Bill C-36, at least as regards the millennium scholarships, or include a provision to the effect that, if an agreement is entered into by Quebec and Ottawa respecting the management of the scholarships, this agreement shall become part of the act following the negotiations.

It is important that it be made very clear that Quebec has control over the development of its education system. Yesterday, the coalition's spokesperson, Mr. Shapiro, who is the dean of McGill University, came here to speak on behalf of all stakeholders there.

We cannot call Mr. Shapiro a separatist. McGill University is no hotbed for separatists. I think there are people there of all political stripes, including federalists.

However, Mr. Shapiro and stakeholders in education have one concern. They say that instruction is an integral tool in the development of the individual. Certain things are learned at the primary, secondary, college and university levels, and equality of opportunity will not be assured by awarding university scholarships at the end of a program of studies on a merit basis. There has to be enough money available at all levels of education, especially at the post-secondary level. I think it is important for us to reach an acceptable outcome.

Could the federal government achieve its visibility objectives while the Government of Quebec and education stakeholders achieve their objective of efficiency? I think, in order to reach an agreement, that a way must be found to achieve both objectives—that is federal visibility, a condition the Prime Minister himself put on the table, and provincial efficiency, which holds together the coalition of education stakeholders in Quebec. So we have before us the opportunity to come up with a solution to a problem that could last several years.

There was the manpower issue, you will remember. It took a strong consensus in Quebec lasting a number of years and repeated questioning here by the Bloc for the dam to finally give way and agreements to be reached ensuring Quebec control over an important aspect of manpower and training.

There will be similar cases in the future, including the whole matter of the youth strategy. How can Quebec be given responsibility for manpower training with the federal government retaining control over the youth strategy? This is an example of work yet to be done, and the whole matter of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation is another one.

Yesterday, all the vital forces in Quebec education were represented in Ottawa. These people came to tell the Prime Minister of Canada “We want a solution that will allow the money to be used efficiently in Quebec. We want to make sure it will not be sprinkled here and there for reasons of visibility, which would lead to unacceptable results. We cannot afford to waste money in the education sector”.

From 1994 to 1998, the cuts to federal transfer payments accounted for 75 cents out of every dollar the Quebec government was forced to cut from the budgets for health and education. The situation is urgent. The federal government must negotiate in good faith. These negotiations must be conducted properly, which means that, as regards the millennium scholarship fund provided for in Bill C-36, the government must not act as suggested by the Prime Minister today.

This bill must not be rammed through the House by the federal government. Rather, we must put things on hold and give time to the negotiators to find a solution in line with the amendment proposed by the Premier of Quebec. The purpose of this amendment is to allow a province that administers a financial assistance program designed to ensure equal opportunities, to reach an agreement with the federal government for fair financial compensation in lieu of the foundation's activities in that province.

This is the request made by the Quebec government, but it is also the request made by all stakeholders in Quebec's education sector. I hope the federal government will give favourable consideration to this request from all Quebeckers.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this budget on behalf of the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River. After surveying the constituency, I can report that their priorities differ from the priorities of the government.

More than 66% of my constituents said they wanted the reduction of the $583 billion debt to be the priority of any surplus. Over 56% said that their second priority was the reduction of the GST and income taxes. Another 9% made tax relief their first priority. Ten per cent wanted increased spending after the debt was paid down. Only 3.2% of my constituents agreed with what the government is doing by increasing spending before paying down the debt.

One of the best things about being an MP with the Reform Party is that we are not only free to vote, we are expected to represent the views of our constituents, especially when our constituents' views conflict with party policy.

I have not lost my role as deputy critic for national unity, nor have I lost my standing committee memberships.

We all know what the Prime Minister did to the independent member for York South—Weston and Warren Allmand when they would not go along with the orders that came down from the top. Warren Allmand was kicked out of the chair of the justice committee and the member for York South—Weston was first kicked out of the Liberal caucus and then the Liberal Party of Canada by the Prime Minister.

Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the BNA Act, assigns the House of Commons the responsibility for authorizing all new or increased spending in taxes. Under section 54 the crown and cabinet can only recommend new spending and taxes. They cannot authorize, at least in theory. Let us not forget that.

Through their member of the House of Commons the people are to be free to express whether or not they think increased spending or taxes is what they want. That is how it is spelled out in the Constitution. That is the theory.

The trouble is that theory is often fiction and the truth is very strange. Instead of MPs who are here to serve and express the will of the people on spending and taxes, the government seems to think MPs are here to serve and express the will of the government.

Last week we celebrated 150 years of responsible government, beginning with Baldwin and Lafontaine. In fact, Joseph Howe established responsible government sometime earlier in Nova Scotia.

What is responsible government? It means that the crown and the cabinet are to be held responsible to the elected House, the House of the people, the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not responsible to the cabinet. Somewhere along the line we got it backwards and now backbenchers are expected to fall in line with whatever the Prime Minister and the cabinet send down from on high. Responsible government is not working the way Joseph Howe, Baldwin and Lafontaine and so many others thought it should.

I think it is time to try some new ways of making sure that spending and taxes theoretically authorized by this House are supported by the people, the voters, the taxpayers.

What is the answer? How about the grassroots solution?

Tax and expenditure legislation in my home province of Manitoba requires that tax increases be authorized by the voters through a referendum. Tax and expenditure legislation also holds the premier and the cabinet of Manitoba personally and financially responsible for any budget deficit.

Someone once said that hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully. Tax and expenditure legislation concentrates it wonderfully on the priorities of government and on careful management of the public's money. After all, it is not the crown's money and it is not the Prime Minister's money. It is not the cabinet's money. It is not even the MPs' money. It is the public's money held in trust to be spent only as necessary in a responsible manner.

Someone might say “We cannot do that. We have never done it before”. My first response to that is to list the seven last words of any dying institution or organization. The seven last words of a dying institution are, “We've never done it that way before”.

I have already pointed out Manitoba's pioneering use of tax and expenditure legislation. Alberta has also enacted tax and expenditure legislation.

Even this House passed a very weak version of tax and expenditure legislation, the Spending Control Act, in the 34th Parliament. The Spending Control Act was brought to this House by Don Mazankowski in 1992. Most of us say it was too little, too late.

Under the Spending Control Act the finance minister was required to aim for statutory targets on program spending and to justify any deficits. The statutory targets were in effect up to March 31, 1996.

If the current finance minister really wants to make his mark on Canada and federal government spending policy, if he is really serious when he says that the mistakes of the past finance ministers to run deficits for more than 25 years will never be repeated, then he should bring in tax and expenditure legislation as soon as possible.

By the way, one of those past finance ministers who spent us into a $583 billion debt, excluding liabilities, was the finance minister who delivered the budget speech of 1978, the current Prime Minister.

We are glad the Prime Minister stayed in parliament long enough to be here to take advice from the Reform Party on how to begin cleaning up the mess he helped create in the 1970s. However, there is still a $583 billion debt plus at least as much in CPP liabilities that need to be cleaned up. If we go at the rate the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance propose it will take well over 200 years to clean up the mess.

The finance minister likes to compare Canada to the standards for European Community membership: budget deficits at no more than 3% of GDP and public debts at no more than 60% of GDP. What the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister forget is that those standards apply to the total deficits and debts of all levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. Maybe it is just selective memory.

Even if we deal only with federal debt, we are at between 70% and 75% of GDP. If we add the current CPP liability we are at something like 140% and 150% of GDP. If we add health care liabilities for the next 20 years, even I do not want to think about that.

What did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance do in the last parliament? They cut $4 billion in funding for health care and offloaded even more of the liability on to the provinces. If that is Liberal social conscience, I would like to know where is the conscience.

If the Prime Minister really wants to do something in the new millennium for Canada's youth then he should take steps to make sure that Canada's youth are not saddled with a huge public debt and high taxes for the next millennium.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should bring in tax expenditure legislation that does the following. First, I suggest they should require the public accounts to be balanced over the life of a parliament. Second, they should require public approval for any new or increased taxes. Third, they should require any budget surplus to be applied to lowering the debt and taxes.

In closing, members of the House should never forget that they have a constitutional responsibility to authorize only the spending and taxes people want. Tax and expenditure legislation would go far in sending a clear message to Canadians that we understand it is their money and that we take our responsibility to them seriously.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the debate at second reading of the budget implementation act. I will take a little different tact from what my peers have done. They addressed a number of aspects of the budget and I concur with their comments. However, I want to take a little different direction.

Let me first point out that I believe this has to be a good process. Surely this is where the parliamentary process should be at its best. There can be a tendency, though, so I am told, due to the pressures and demands on our time, to lose sight of the fact that the decisions made here affect everyday people. Incrementally the lives of every Canadian are affected by every decision made in the House. This is particularly true of budget decisions, something of which many Canadians have become painfully aware.

Therefore, I think it is useful to remind ourselves of whom it is we are here to serve. It is the people of Canada and their positions on the issues of the day. Are we reflecting their position? How will individuals in our ridings be affected by the decisions we make?

Let us always be primarily mindful of the impacts on everyday Canadians and their families, not the partisan lobby groups that promise to re-elect us, not the self-proclaimed cultural elite that feel compelled to decide for us what Canadians need, and not the political favours being traded. Let us decide on the basis of how it will affect the lives of members of our constituencies who put us here. Let us reflect their concerns and make common sense decisions consistent with their desires and best interests.

It is within this context that I wish to make my comments on behalf of the families I represent. In Canada we pride ourselves on being fair and non-prejudicial. Yet for years we have tolerated an injustice perpetrated on the families of Canada.

The tax policies of this “liberal” government send a signal to parents who wish to be the primary caregivers of their children and raise them at home. That message is that this choice has no value. However, if they pay someone else to care for their children it does have value and is recognized in the tax treatment. The government is telling us, through its tax treatment, that parenting has no value or at least far less value than institutionalized care.

The government's message is negatively prejudicial against parents who wish to be the primary caregivers of their children. Over and above that, studies indicate that institutionalized child care is generally speaking—not always; there are always some exceptions—not in the best interest of children.

Under current tax laws in Canada, parents who choose to pay someone else to care for their children can claim the expense. Those who can or choose to forgo other activities and invest the majority of their time into the care and training of their children are told by our tax department that their efforts have no value. Therefore no tax considerations are given. This is a bad message. It is unfair and detrimental to the stability of our nation, and many families are calling out for changes.

The government has its priorities wrong by stating that parenting has less value than non-parental care, as implied by the tax treatment, and Canadians know this. We clearly recognize that not every one is able, due to circumstances or other personal reasons, to provide full time care for their children; but that is not a reason to treat unfairly those who choose to commit full time effort to caring and training of future generations.

It is for this reason the Reform Party has been calling for unfair prejudicial treatment to end by working to see implemented a child care deduction to all parents, including those who care for their children at home: $5,000 for every child under seven and $3,000 for every child seven to twelve years of age. Parents who can and want to should be encouraged, not discouraged, to provide as much direct parental care as possible.

Why do we take this position? It is what many families are calling for. It is well backed up by sound research that increased parental care is in the interest of the children. So it follows that it would be in the long term best interest of our country. They are our future citizens, our future leaders.

Allow me to refer to some thorough and respected research done on this very topic. The research I have today is from a well known research firm, the National Foundation for Research and Education on the Family. I will quote from a study it did for the Ontario government.

It found by more than a 10 to 1 margin that Ontarians felt it preferable for a young child to be at home with a parent than to be in institutionalized day care. It also found 77% of parents who had their children in non-parental care would have preferred to have provided parental care in retrospect. In addition, parents prefer family to day care. Given the choice between day care and a relative, 73% said that a relative would be preferable to institutionalized day care.

I could go on. I have a number of studies, but for the sake of time I quote from a cross-Canada study done in 1991. The question was: “If you had the choice, would you stay at home to raise your children or would you work outside your home and use day care?” Of course 70% said “Certainly I would prefer to stay home”. It was by far the majority, yet we have tax policies and tax treatment today which say this has no value but institutionalized day care does.

For this reason I brought this matter forward today. For some time now the Reform Party, as part of its policies, called for change in this area and for fair treatment of families. We argue that parents should have access to at least equal tax treatment which is not dependent on how they choose to care for their children. It is a reasonable position. Reform cares about families.

Let me quote from our policy book one of our key principles that has been foundational to the Reform Party and the reason I raise this issue today. Our seventh principle says that the Reform Party recognizes the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society.

We also recognize in our policy book that it is the duty of parents to raise children according to their own conscience and beliefs. We further affirm that no person or government or agency has the right to interfere with the exercise of that duty as long as the actions of parents do not constitute abuse or neglect.

The Reform Party recognizes the important work that parents do. We want to give them every opportunity and encouragement to invest in the lives of future generations. Why? Because it is in the long term best interest of a strong and healthy society in the years to come. Unfortunately the Liberal budget like many before it does not respect this principle or the work that parents do.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

For the benefit of the visitors in the gallery, later today the House will be going to the Senate to receive royal assent to certain bills. We are setting the stage for that now and in about three-quarters of an hour we will be going to the Senate.

Message From The Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, without amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

March 31, 1998

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable J. E. Michel Bastarache, Puisine Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 31st day of March, 1998 at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

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

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the members who spoke before me and raised specific issues relating to the budget measures. I want to present a more global view of the measures proposed in the 1998-99 budget.

My comments will be based on the fact that last year, as members will recall, the Bloc Quebecois said that the budget for the year now ending underestimated certain revenues, and that by the end of the fiscal year the Minister of Finance would end up, as is the case today, with sizable surpluses.

At the time, as members will certainly recall, the Minister of Finance said the Bloc Quebecois had not done its homework, that its predictions would not come true, and that there would be a deficit of some magnitude.

Surprise, surprise, the Bloc Quebecois was right. The Minister of Finance managed to get more revenues than anticipated, with the result that the deficit became that much smaller. However, taxpayers also saw their income get smaller, because the additional money was taken from their pockets by the government.

This year, it feels like we are watching the same scenario again. It is like the sequel to last year's scenario. Once again, the Minister of Finance will not divulge the true revenues that can be anticipated in the new fiscal year that begins tomorrow. This brings me to some important considerations if the government is to treat Canadian taxpayers with respect. After all, they are the ones who provide the government's revenues.

The problem is that if the government collects more money than it needs, then it is overtaxing Canadians. This is the sort of situation we are currently in. It was not the case last year. Revenues were higher than expected, but expenses were greater than the expected, or even actual, revenues.

According to the budget measures proposed, next year's deficit is supposed to be zero, which means that any excess revenue will amount to a surplus. If only a few dollars are involved, for heaven's sake, we are hardly going to claim taxpayers have been overtaxed. But we are not talking about a few dollars here, we are talking about billions.

If we look at a 24-month period, we are talking in the order of between $20 and $30 billion. A huge sum. Especially since the Minister of Finance is not declaring it. As a member in this House I am concerned, because the budget measures have to be approved by this House. We are debating the fiscal year before us in order to reach a conclusion through a vote.

But if what we are debating is incomplete, when will we debate the use of these potential surpluses we expect will materialize? Our expectation is all the stronger because the same situation occurred last year, and we were right.

What we are debating now and will vote on is not the whole of the budget, which will be managed next year. I fear, and I do not think I am alone, that revenues in the order of several billion dollars, indeed tens of billions of dollars, will be beyond the reach of the democratic control exercised by the members of this House. The government is making arrangements to use the money as it pleases. Will it pay off the debt with it? I wish it would, but I do not think that is what will happen.

The Minister of Finance was quite clear in his budget announcements. He will apply to paying down the debt at most $3 billion, an amount he has set aside in a contingency fund. If there are contingencies, then this amount will not be available and the debt will not be paid down, while billions in extra revenues accumulate.

If any money is applied to the debt, at the rate of $3 billion a year, I can tell you that it is going to take 200 years to pay it off. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

But I want to get back to what I wanted to say. What will the Minister of Finance do with extra revenues during the fiscal year starting tomorrow morning? There is nothing in the bill about that. In fact, the Minister of Finance, who is a Liberal, has been very conservative; he has taken a liberal approach to spending and a conservative approach to revenues. Well, we are used to seeing people change colours overnight. It seems to be a real fad lately.

Here we have the finance minister, who is conservative with revenues, telling us that revenues will match expenditures exactly. But in fact, we know—we can tell and foresee—that he will have perhaps $10 billion, between $8 billion and $12 billion, at the end of fiscal year 1998-99. Where will this money go? Who will be responsible for deciding what it should be allocated to? The members of this House perhaps? Certainly not. There is nothing about that in these budget provisions.

It will most likely be covered in an addendum to operating expenditures, indicating that the amounts were used for this or that purpose, or else a fund will be established to carry forward the amount for God knows what new project.

My point is that, with this budget, with the measures we are debating here, the Minister of Finance is hiding several billion dollars, the use of which cannot be debated democratically. And democracy is something we care very much about.

I will conclude by saying that the Minister of Finance lacks transparency here and is failing his duty.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. I would like to start by giving the House a few reasons for my rejection and my constituents' rejection of the budget implementation act.

The first thing of course is that budgets are more than just numbers. A federal budget is about people and it is an opportunity for the government to express the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the people of Canada through an annual budget.

The budget this year has some hopes, dreams and aspirations in it. Unfortunately it covers only those dreams and hopes of two people, the finance minister who has dreams, hopes and aspirations of being the prime Minister one day, and the Prime Minister who is developing this millennium scholarship fund so that he will never be forgotten in Canadian history.

We can say with certainty that this Prime Minister and this government will never be forgotten by this Canadian public ever for what they have done to the Canadian people when it comes to the dreams, the hopes and the aspirations of those Canadians.

There are several problems and many things wrong with this budget. One problem that was identified by the Reform Party and also by Canadians overwhelmingly is that there is no plan to pay the debt down.

This is a huge problem for Canadians and for any federal government because it takes a huge portion of the federal budget to service that debt.

That is why that is such a problem. That money for servicing the debt could be put into transfers to the provinces for health care, education and programs that really make a difference to Canadians. This government has failed Canadians in that regard.

I conducted a survey in my riding. Ninety-four per cent of those in my riding responded in favour of debt reduction. They said that 20% to 50% of any budget surpluses should be directed in this area. This budget fails to address that issue.

The second point is there is no net tax relief measures in the budget. The Liberals will boast that Canadians will be better off after the budget. That is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I have heard it said that to cook a frog put the frog in the pot, put it on the stove and slowly turn up the heat. Before you know it the frog will not jump out of the water. He will just sit there and get cooked. That is what this government is doing with this budget. It is cooking Canadians to the point where we cannot stand the amount of taxes in this country. I will get into that a little later in my remarks today.

The constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla value some of the programs they get from government. They want a strong health care system. They want a system that will ensure that they can get a decent education. They want a government that will provide vital services like national defence, foreign affairs and a criminal justice system that actually works for law abiding citizens. These are the types of programs for which Canadians are proud to say they pay taxes, for those programs that mean so much to all of us.

What the hardworking people in my riding do not want to see is their tax dollars being wasted on programs that are not essential. The best example of this is the interest we have to pay on the debt as a result of Liberal and Conservative governments time after time living far too high on the hog.

Taxpayers are paying about $45 billion a year just to pay the interest on our national debt. The average taxpayer pays over $21,000 in federal taxes. Roughly one-third of that goes to paying the interest on the debt.

The people of British Columbia in particular are feeling more than a little abused as a result of the taxes they pay. B.C. today has the highest taxes in all of North America. The average family income in British Columbia is approximately $58,000 a year. The average tax bill for those families is approximately $29,000 a year. That is an overwhelming amount of tax for one family to have to pay. While all Canadians need tax relief, it is needed nowhere more than in my province of British Columbia.

The hardworking people in my riding are tired of seeing their tax dollars flow to Ottawa and never return. This government continues to take but puts little back into the province of B.C. Last year transfers from the federal government accounted for only 7.9% of the provincial revenues. That is the lowest in the country.

Other provinces receive much higher amounts from the federal government. For example, 43% of Newfoundland's provincial budget comes from the federal government. For New Brunswick that figure is 45.5%. For Quebec 17.6% comes from federal coffers. The Canadian average is 16.9%. For British Columbians it is at 9.7%. Once again the rest of the country gets the gold and we know xactly what B.C. gets.

This government continues to take from B.C. and does not give back. I will give members an example. Fruit growers in my riding have experienced this firsthand. In 1997 orchardists in the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys were devastated by the worst hail storm in 100 years and other severe weather related disasters. Fruit growers sought immediate assistance under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, to no avail.

The minister of agriculture blamed the banks when in fact the orchardists and the people of British Columbia knew it was not a problem with the banks, it was a problem with the federal Liberal government.

In contrast, it took less than one month for the maple syrup producers affected by the ice storm to begin receiving compensation. In fact, a new program called the ice storm recovery program was designed to provide an additional $50 million for part time farmers, specifically meeting the conditions of these producers.

B.C. fruit growers, on the other hand, waited almost a year and are still waiting while the producers in central Canada wait less than a month. Where is the fairness? Where is the equality in a system like that?

Another problem in my riding and in British Columbia is in the softwood lumber industry. The industry is in serious difficulty because of the federal Liberal government's mishandling of the export quota system. In 1995 the Liberals struck a softwood lumber deal with the Americans. They say they made the deal to ensure fair treatment of our lumber products being exported to the U.S.

What the Liberals actually did was put themselves of telling every Canadian lumber firm, no matter how big or how small, how much lumber they can export to the U.S. As a result of this bureaucratic nightmare it has cost my province and my riding jobs in that softwood lumber industry. That is not good enough from this government and we want to change that.

I see my time is running out. There are so many things that are wrong with the government's handling of the budget but I will not have time to address them all. However, I would like to close with the millennium scholarship fund.

The focus of the budget should have been debt reduction and on tax relief. The constituents of my riding said so and Canadians from coast to coast said so. Instead, the focus has been on new spending in a sphere of provincial jurisdiction, the $2.5 billion scholarship fund.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the new millennium scholarship fund is its abuse of the Constitution. The government continues to abuse its constitutional spending power by spending without consultation and without co-operation in the provincial areas of jurisdiction.

I started off this afternoon saying that budgets are about people and should be about people, about dreams, about hopes and about aspirations. They should be about a government that has a vision that is going to carry us into a new era in the year 2000. However, this budget fails to do that. This budget should have been about young people who are looking for their first job, about young people and young families who want to buy their first homes, about single mothers who are trying to make end meets and for the future of Canada.

I would argue that the government has let those people down. That is why I am proud to stand opposed to the budget implementation act, Bill C-36.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Firearms; the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Bill C-68; the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, Labour sponsored investment funds; the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Research and development; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment insurance.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable interest that I take part this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-36, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, introduced by the Minister of Finance.

As the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, I cannot go along with this bill. The budget that was tabled contains many inequities, one of which is the millennium scholarship foundation.

These scholarships are an obsession that is making our Prime Minister sick. They are raising a ruckus, not just with Quebec but with all the provinces, because he is going to show the scholarships, which are worth $2.5 billion, in the spending for 1997-98, when the bill has not yet been passed and when this amount will not be spent until the third millennium, over two years from now.

We are looking at a disgraceful duplication of public funds. Once again, I am reminded of the duplication we have in the Department of Agriculture with a Holstein cow. When her production is used for commercial milk, she comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec's agriculture minister. When her production is used for industrial milk, she comes under the jurisdiction of the federal agriculture minister. One cow and two agriculture ministers to look after her.

Now it will be the same for a student. The Government of Quebec has been giving scholarships and loans since 1960. Now, the good Prime Minister of Canada, out of generosity, and a wish to see the maple leaf on the cheques, is again going to duplicate structures and this is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Just as we had one Holstein cow and two agriculture ministers, we will have one student and two levels of government offering scholarships. In reality, this will not mean one cent more for the student. That is the sad and unfortunate fact of the matter.

Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard, accompanied by most of the university presidents, came to Ottawa yesterday to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada, and to try to bring him back on track. Since the Prime Minister does not wish to lose face, the task has been entrusted for the next two months to two deputy ministers—who have already succeeded in breaking certain impasses—to keep the PM from losing face while allowing Quebec to opt out of these famous millennium scholarships.

I would remind the House that clauses 29(1) and 25(2) do not, in fact, allow Quebec or other provinces to opt out.

It will not be the milk cow that will be penalized in this case, but the students. When they mess with our future, when they mess with our children, that is really tragic. I trust that the government will get back down to earth within the next few months.

Another point that prevents us from accepting the Minister of Finance's bill is the fate he has in mind for the hundreds of thousands of housewives. I have had the pleasure of speaking to dozens of women in my riding who belong to the AFEAS. I have, for instance, met Mrs. Yvonne Provençal and Mrs. Marie-Paule Giroux of the Disraeli region. In Lac-Mégantic I have had the pleasure of meeting with AFEAS members from Piopolis, Woburn and Lac-Mégantic, and they too have shared their concerns with me.

They are totally justified in being concerned, for the Minister of Finance plans to consider total family income when determining the amount of old age pension they will receive. This is true for most women who stay at home or on the farm to raise children.

Mr. Speaker, your mother, who played the role of nurse, educator, seamstress and cook and who comforted you when you were young, was not on any company's payroll. To determine the amount of the cheque she will receive when she reaches 65, the government will take her spouse's revenue, A plus B divided by two, to obtain an average.

In the great majority of cases, homemakers will again be the first ones to be penalized, which is very sad. I hope my Liberal colleagues opposite will stand up to make the finance minister, a millionaire who has completely lost touch with Canada's and Quebec's reality, come to his senses.

Another thing that convinces me to vote against Bill C-36 is the two year EI premium holiday that will be given to employers only. My colleague from the New Democratic Party, who defeated the former Minister of Human Resources Development in the last elections, was telling us this week, and rightly so, that we are opening a door that will allow employers not to contribute to the employment insurance fund. That is dangerous for workers, who pay ever increasing EI premiums without being fully entitled to benefits. That explains why it is estimated that the employment insurance fund will have a $19 billion surplus next year.

Let us turn now to another issue that prompts me to vote against Bill C-36. Two weeks ago, here in Ottawa, during the recent biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, Dr. Wagner, a distinguished resident of Saint-Hyacinthe, put the following question to the Prime Minister of Canada: “Mr. Prime Minister, are you going to put money into hospital care?”

Dr. Wagner knew full well that, during the last four years, the Liberal government has cut nothing less than $42 billion in transfers to the provinces. Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and all the other provinces had to cut in health care and seniors' homes.

I want to point out again that the government has no idea of what is going on in the countryside, in our villages and in our towns. The finance minister is no model for the government. Instead of doing the right thing and paying his taxes here in Canada, he has registered his fleet of ships in some tax havens. It is a crying shame to have this guy managing the $160 billion we put in his hands, year in and year out. If he were to do the right thing and to pay his taxes here in Canada, he might have more money to manage, we might have less money to pay and he might do his work a little more conscientiously.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. The reason I will be very resoundingly voting against the bill is that contained within the bill is the fact that the government is not adhering to standard accounting practices.

The words of the auditor general are: “I believe the change will open the door for governments to influence reported results by simply announcing intentions in their budgets and then deciding what to include in the deficit or surplus after the end of the year once preliminary numbers are known”.

This is not an unqualified person. This is the Auditor General of Canada who is expressing severe concern about the way in which this Liberal government is currently administering the finances of Canada.

I stand on behalf of a number of people when I come here in my role as the member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia. I would like to refer to an e-mail that I received from one of my constituents on March 2, 1998.

The constituent writes that her husband is employed at a planer mill. His income is over $60,000, which sounds like a lot of money, but she said I should keep reading. She said they have just sent in last year's income tax and, if it is correct, they will have paid $21,552.91 in income tax, Canada pension plan and unemployment insurance premiums.

This works out to almost 31% of the couple's income. If sales taxes, hidden taxes, municipal taxes and the others are added, it means that almost 50% of their income goes to taxes.

The woman goes on to say that there are four of them living on her husband's wages. She worked at B.C. Gas until January 1994. She quit because in 1993 her husband and she paid more in income tax, Canada pension plan and UI premiums than the amount of her take-home pay and she was earning almost $20 an hour.

The couple has a daughter living at home who works part time and a son who is presently attending college. She said that their budget is very tight, to say the least. They are at the point where they pay the bills, buy some groceries and put gas in their vehicle.

The couple has not taken a holiday since 1993. Since the woman quit work, they have had to replace their furnace, hot water tank, washing machine, dishwasher and the fence around their yard.

During the winter of 1996-97 the couple's roof leaked. Therefore, last summer they sold their car so they could afford to replace the roof. They are now driving a 1984 Jimmy that they repaired with the balance of the money they got for their car. They have just one vehicle.

The woman concludes that it is no wonder local businesses are having hard times. She and her husband cannot afford to buy anything that they really do not need and she suspects that many others are in the same boat. Unless they get a break on taxes they will not be spending any more than they have to.

How can this constituent have any confidence in the investment that she, her husband and her family have made in this government when they, one way or the other, turn over 50% of their income to this and other levels of government and when this government is not even adhering to the watchdog, the Auditor General of Canada, who says that the way the government is doing its books is effectively cooking the books?

The letter I referred to is not the only one I have received from constituents who have expressed concern about the way this government so cavalierly mismanages the finances of this country.

During the election I had a rather interesting experience. The Liberal candidate accused me of going into a senior's home in Revelstoke and taking in a bogus financial adviser to tell them what was going on with Liberal government policy. I was told that I had scared those seniors so much the Liberal candidate could not even get the ear of the seniors in this home.

It was rather laughable because, as I pointed out to him in debate during the campaign, the adviser who I had taken in with me was a civil servant in the employ of the government, in the human resources department, who had gone to advise the seniors on the policies of the government. These are the policies that are going to rip off 75% of their income over $24,000. The only thing that Canadians got from the speech of the finance minister was that the government was going to look into it.

That is not adequate. That is not even remotely adequate because Canadians want to be able to look after themselves. Canadians want to know what the rules are going to be. In this piece of legislation the government is walking away from the recommendation of the auditor general who says that the government is doing it wrong, that it is breaking the rules with respect to the $2.5 billion millennium fund, that it cannot do it that way. What did this government do? It said that it will invent new ways.

As a matter of fact, the finance minister said on March 18 in this House “Let us understand that the world evolves, things change and governments must adapt”. What cannot be adapted at a whim by this finance minister, this Prime Minister or this Liberal government are accounting rules. Accounting rules are in place so that the seniors in my constituency, so that this woman in my constituency who has written this heartfelt letter, can have a feeling of confidence that this government is being straight up and straightforward and is putting all of the numbers on the table. It is not doing that according to the auditor general.

This is not anything that was fabricated by the Reform Party. This came from the Auditor General of Canada.

What were my constituents to think when the finance minister stood to say that he was going to remove the 3% surtax, which was imposed by the Tories when they were in power, for 85% of the population? He said this as though he should be getting some great credit. In fact, what he failed to tell us, which we all knew anyway, was that it was a deficit elimination surtax.

What has this government boasted of? This government has boasted that it has eliminated the deficit. So what right does this finance minister have to keep even 15% of Canadians paying the deficit elimination surtax?

It is called honesty in government. It is called full disclosure. This government is not into full disclosure because it knows if it was the people of Canada would take the time to listen and realize that they are being sold a bill of goods.

The government will be successful in passing this budget implementation bill because of its majority. By virtue of its majority it has shut off debate in the House of Commons and we will be voting on it tonight. The government has brought in time allocation to force this thing through. This bill will do nothing more than change the rules in the face of the auditor general who is saying, “No, that is wrong. You can't do it”.

I really do not know what goes through the mind of Canada's naturally governing party. That is the way it visualizes itself. It is here forever. It will assume the centre of the road. It will say anything and do anything to assume the position of being Canada's naturally governing party.

Canadians have to wake up. We have to call on these people to be accountable. If enough of us stand up, if enough of us speak up, sooner or later the government jig will be up.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the provisions in the recent budget, a budget that was made possible because the Government of Canada carried out the wishes of Canadians. Their message was loud and clear: eliminate the deficit and get our fiscal house in order.

We have accomplished that. Now Canadians will be the beneficiaries of the sacrifices they have made.

This budget commits 80% of new spending to two of Canadians' highest priorities: health care and more opportunities to improve our knowledge and skills in competitive workplaces.

I can think of no better way to direct our resources than to help young Canadians prepare for the 21st century. They are the leaders of tomorrow and we must do what we can to ensure they are able to meet the challenges of the knowledge based economy.

Last year we introduced our youth employment strategy which helps young Canadians make the often difficult transition between school and work. Through programs such as Youth Service Canada, Youth Internship Canada and Summer Career Placements we are helping our young men and young women to gain valuable work experience which will help equip them with the skills necessary for today's labour market.

We will build on these foundations with new measures that encourage youth employment and, equally important, we will ensure that all our youth are given the opportunity to fulfill their education potential.

As the Governor General said in last September's Speech from the Throne, there is no better way to mark the millennium than to invest in Canadian youth. That is why we announced the Canada millennium scholarship fund. Hon. members know that over 10 years the fund will award scholarships to more than 100,000 full and part time students and it will do so annually. It will begin with an initial endowment from the federal government of $2.5 billion.

I have heard concerns expressed that the millennium scholarships will infringe upon provincial jurisdiction and will duplicate provincial programs. I want to ensure hon. colleagues that this will not be the case. The Government of Canada fully recognizes that education falls under provincial jurisdiction, but our history shows that both the federal and provincial governments have worked together to assist Canadians who face financial barriers to learning.

The federal role goes back to the post World War II years when we first provided assistance to veterans who wished to complete their post-secondary education.

There is no need for apprehension regarding infringement. The millennium scholarships will be administered by a millennium scholarship foundation, an independent body which will be at arm's length from the federal government. Part of the foundation's mandate will be to consult with provincial authorities and the post-secondary education community to build upon existing programs.

Since 1964 the Canada student loans program has helped make post-secondary education more accessible by providing students with loans. This government has continued that tradition and in the 1997 budget we extended interest relief from 18 to 30 months for borrowers having difficulty repaying their loans.

Now we are expanding assistance even more. All borrowers will receive tax relief for interest on federal and provincial student loans and we will provide a 17% tax credit for the interest portion of what they repay each year.

Since Quebec does not participate in the Canada student loans program, the province is entitled to compensation if its program has substantially the same effect as the CSLP. With respect to reduction of student debt, the Government of Canada will review provincial measures with Quebec to see if they have a similar effect.

We are also addressing the challenge of helping families finance their children's post-secondary education long before they reach the post-secondary level. The new Canada education savings grant will benefit all families, but especially low and middle income families. The secret is to start early and to make regular contributions. The government will encourage this through the savings grant.

For example, if a family contributed $25 to a registered education plan every two weeks for 15 years, their child would have $4,700 available for each of the four years of higher education.

The previous two budgets included measures to make RESPs more attractive by raising the annual and lifetime contribution limits. The new Canada education savings grant will pay 20% on the first $2,000 in annual contributions for children up to age 18. The maximum annual grant will be $400 per child.

Saving for your child's education through RESPs means you will benefit from the savings grant and the tax-free growth of investment income. The savings grant will make RESPs among the most attractive savings vehicles available for a child's education. RESPs will definitely be one of the best things parents and other relatives can do for their children, for nieces or nephews.

Speaking of children, hon. members will recall that in the 1997 budget we enriched the Canada child tax benefit by $850 million effective this July. We promised further enrichment and we are delivering on that promise in this budget. We are committing an additional $850 million, spread over two years, beginning in July 1999 and again in July 2000.

As well, the budget proposes to increase the dollar limits for the child care expense deduction by $2,000 for children under 7 and by $1,000 for older children. This measure will provide tax relief of about $45 million for some 65,000 Canadian families.

As honourable members have pointed out on more than one occasion, we must continue to address the unacceptably high youth unemployment rate. The youth employment strategy is tackling that problem as will provisions under the new Canadian opportunities strategy. But we are also addressing youth unemployment quite specifically by challenging the private sector to hire more Canadian young men and women.

Employers who hire youth between the ages of 18 and 24 in 1999 and 2000 will pay no employment insurance premiums for those new workers. All companies will be eligible, not just small companies as was the case in the new hires program which ends this year.

It is estimated that this new measure will reduce payroll costs for employers by $100 million annually in both 1999 and 2000.

The budget clarified the Government of Canada's intention to make effective changes in the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and the spouses allowance program, the SPA.

We will move the beginning of the GIS/SPA payment year from April to July. This will give needy seniors an additional three months to submit their income statements. This will ensure that the income tested payments of these individuals will not be cut off and the definition of income used to calculate payments will be more in keeping with those used for income tax purposes.

I began this debate by saying the budget is the result of sacrifices made by Canadians to eliminate the deficit and ensure fiscal responsibility. I congratulate Canadians for their determination to stay the course.

All hon. members can help us move in that direction by supporting Bill C-36.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the last speaker I certainly do not intend to be supporting the budget implementation act. The problems with it are quite massive. However, we cannot deal with everything at one time in one speech; 10 minutes is just too little.

There are good things in the budget but there are a lot of things that could have been done differently, that could have been done properly, that could have been done in keeping with what the provincial governments around Canada would like to have seen.

The duplication and the wasted money were just dripping from the last member's speech. I could see it and feel it. I believe that had this budget been properly prepared we would see a lot of benefits going to Canadians in actual dollars that are now going to be wasted.

I would like to deal with education for a minute since that was a topic recently brought up. We have in Canada two essential elements to our society that are really the basis for everything else. Those two elements are health and education. Without a good solid health program properly financed, people are not capable of working, and without education they will not know how to do the job in the new economy that has developed after the industrial revolution.

The federal government has great taxing powers and is able to use those tax powers to take a lot of money from all of us. That is not a bad thing in itself because some provinces certainly need a bit more help than others. However, when the federal government takes money away from taxpayers and from provinces, as it flows through Ottawa a certain amount is going to stay in administrative fees, in commissions, regulations and all kinds of things. In this balanced budget the funding for education was to go through the hands of the federal government.

I have made a point of speaking in Manitoba with students, provincial politicians, municipal politicians, teachers and average citizens. There is absolutely no doubt that to benefit all students in this country the money for education should not have gone into this millennium fund, this $2 billion, $3 billion, I cannot remember the exact figure now that we start talking billions of dollars.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of his honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-5, an act respecting co-operatives—Chapter No. 1.

Bill C-33, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1998—Chapter No. 2.

Bill C-34, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999—Chapter No. 3.

Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, Chapter No. 4.