Jake Hoeppner

[Income Tax Act, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get to stage of the bill.

First I thank all participants in the debate on this private member's bill. I appreciate their thoughts. I especially appreciate those of my colleagues in the Reform Party who supported me in this regard.

The bill concerns a tax refund or a tax reduction. This will make home ownership more achievable for many. It is my intention that young families would reap the benefits of the legislation. My concern has been to do something right in the House to benefit future generations. I have children and grandchildren so that is why the bill is so dear to my heart.

In the aftermath of the government's budget it has become apparent to Canadians that the Liberals ignored their demands for tax relief. Canadian taxpayers shouldered the load for the elimination of the federal deficit, but the Liberal government apparently has no interest in giving them relief through tax reductions. This was a serious oversight on the government's part.

What a great opportunity for all members to support the bill and take a small step in righting that which was not done in the budget. This is especially important when we realize that we are asking young families to deal with a taxation burden never seen before in Canadian history. Going into the next century they are being forced to service Canada's $600 billion debt.

A representative of the Toronto-Dominion Bank stated that on a typical 25 year mortgage at 6.35% first time home buyers could claim $1,700 on their income tax. That is a tremendous amount of money for some young families. That is a good amount of extra money for a young family that is starting out. It would be especially good, considering that federal taxes will continue to increase to service our needs.

If members agree that the family is an essential building block for a strong society they should support the bill. By making it a little easier for families to acquire homes and build up some equity in them we would be supporting an essential building block of the nation.

If hon. members explain the bill to their constituents it would be widely supported. History has shown that in times when Canadians have been able to afford homes there has been a tremendous uplifting effect on the economy.

I have received numerous letters from individuals and groups in support of the bill. Those people with knowledge of the housing industry have given very positive support because they realize it will make home ownership more attainable for Canadians and therefore will create beneficial spin-off effects for the Canadian economy.

Young families would have extra money for appliances and furniture. They could possibly purchase big ticket items which were previously out of reach. They might be able to afford a better car or they might be able to put a few dollars away for education.

It is true that there is a program that allows putting RRSP funds toward a home. After many young people pay for rent, clothing and food there is no money left for RRSPs. The bill would give them a hand.

I hope all members of the House will recognize the bill as something non-political to give young people the opportunity to invest, to own a home in which they can build equity and in future years will be an asset for their retirement.

When I look at the building of the country and the homes that were affordable at the turn of the century and compare them to the homes of today, I wish and hope that every young couple could afford a home in the future. The quality of the homes has improved and the quality of family life will have to improve. I hope that we as a House take that issue seriously.

To comment on what support I feel this bill will get, the saying no news is good news and not having heard from the Liberals tonight, I am sure that every one of them is supporting this bill. I congratulate them for that.

I hope that when this bill goes to a vote they will show up and exercise their right and support the young families that would love to move into these new homes with a tax break, that they will receive some beneficial effect of carrying the burden of debt that we have put on their shoulders, and that they can have a more comfortable home doing it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

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?

[Transport, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is confusing because the article reads differently.

I am wondering why there is no attention paid by this government to why there was not a helicopter in place to do the job instead of depending on a private helicopter pilot who was willing to risk his life to rescue these people and who is now getting the this type of publicity.

[Transport, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians hope there has been a mistake made by this government in deciding to investigate helicopter pilot John Gibson who heroically rescued two people in a Manitoba air crash.

Would the Prime Minister please tell this House what action he is willing to take to call off the investigation of this Canadian hero?

[Search And Rescue, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of the importance of air regulations and safety.

This clearly was a special case. This was not someone out joy riding. This person put his own safety on the line to help somebody else.

Why will the minister not recognize the heroic efforts of this man instead of trying to discredit his flying ability?

[Search And Rescue, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last December a plane crash in Little Grand Rapids, Manitoba took the lives of four people. Weather prevented military aircraft from offering immediate assistance.

John Gibson, a helicopter pilot with 23 years experience, used his training to rescue a woman and a two year old boy from the crash site. Why will the Minister of Transport not give this hero a medal instead of an investigation?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the hon. member across the way do a bit of bragging because he is pretty good at that.

I happened to look at one of the World Bank ratings of income per person. It shows very clearly that since 1990 we have slipped from number three to number twelve. The income per person has gone down just about 10 rating points.

That just does not take the cake as far as I am concerned but in today's Quorum we see that even the people, including some of the bureaucrats, are saying this is no place for brains in this country, that we had better find jobs somewhere else.

I would like to see where all the gravy is coming from that this member is talking about. I am sure the ordinary people have not experienced it except the guys with the MP pension plan.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for four years plus but I have never during all the time in this House seen anybody destroy the integrity of this House and the credibility like the member who just spoke.

This is what it says on this little label: “As a loyal Canadian, please wave this flag the first time you see the Bloc member stand up to speak in question period”. These flags were put out by the member for Oshawa. The credibility of this government is such that I am mad, and damn mad. My relatives died for a flag. This type of credibility in this House is not deserved and I want to know what this member would do when a gun was pointed at him, not just a little stick?

[Dr. Cornelius W. Wiebe, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Dr. Cornelius W. Wiebe of Winkler, Manitoba who celebrated his 105th birthday this week. Our world has changed more in this century than it has over the preceding 2000 years. Some people resist change but Dr. Wiebe welcomed it and used it to give people in his community a better life.

Dr. Wiebe was born in a log home in the Manitoba village of Weidenfeld in 1893. Despite an early life of hardships, he excelled at his studies. He went on to become a teacher, a physician and a one term member of the Manitoba legislature.

He is quiet and determined man. His insights into medicine, politics and agriculture have been highly respected. He was instrumental in establishing Winkler's Bethel hospital and the Valley rehabilitation centre.

Today people in our community are still benefiting from his knowledge and his continuing contributions. On their behalf I wish Dr. Wiebe a happy birthday and thank him for all he has done.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is indicating that we brought forward Bill C-4. It is a government bill and that is what he should be addressing.