Jay Hill

[Mackenzie, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 1996 is a watershed year for the town of Mackenzie in my riding.

Unfortunately it is not positive. Due to the inaction of the government, the residents of this small, isolated community nestled in the Rockies have lost their northern living allowance. Why are the residents of Mackenzie discriminated against while thousands of people living in cities further south still qualify?

1996 also marks the 10th anniversary of spring weight restrictions for trucks travelling the Alaska highway to Yukon. The continued imposition of the 75 per cent load restriction is unfair and costly to trucking companies and northern residents.

Millions of resource dollars flow out of our region and little is put back. Like the Trans-Labrador highway, the Alaska highway is not even finished yet. Northerners in my riding are fed up with their needs being ignored by the government.

When will the government recognize that the north is a vital part of Canada's economy?

[The Environment, March 28th, 1996]

And you just happen to have the answer.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, quite frankly I find it incredible that the Bloc is opposing this motion.

Reform members have looked at this clause and feel that our motion is very appropriate and quite reasonable. I will go back over this clause so that the people back home who are watching can understand exactly what it is we are talking about. Clause 20 states:

For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6, the Minister may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.

On the surface it would seem quite reasonable to allow the minister to have that type of power and authority. However, as has already been articulated by my hon. colleague, we felt-call us a bit gun-shy or perhaps call us paranoid at times-we would like to see, especially in areas like this, as the Bloc has been articulating, that these are primarily areas of provincial responsibility. There has to be a proper check and balance put into place.

My hon. colleague has proposed a quite reasonable amendment to this clause merely by inserting "after obtaining the approval of the lieutenant-governor in council of the province". That is all we are talking about, not some lengthy legalistic mumbo-jumbo but just a very basic amendment that would see the government held in check by the provinces. I might add it is the provinces that the government is always saying it is consulting and in ongoing discussions, and with which it has excellent working relationships.

My party has difficulty with that. Unlike the member for Kenora-Rainy River, Reformers have very strong recent memories of some of the bills that this government has enacted over the course of the 35th Parliament, just one of which is Bill C-68, the gun legislation.

I would question whether the government had the support of the provinces when five of the provinces and both territories were very outspoken against that legislation. I need not remind the House that legislation is going to have a direct impact on the financial well-being of the provinces when they are called on by the federal government to enact the registration scheme for all long guns in this country.

That type of program has a very strong and definite economic impact on the provinces. Yet the government just arbitrarily declares it law and forges ahead. That is our fear in this area as well. The minister, when he runs up against some resistance from certain provinces, may just by-pass them and just forge ahead, putting the programs in place expecting the provinces to pick up the administrative costs or what have you.

Another incident of note for members of Parliament from British Columbia is what happened last November and December. This government decided to bring forward a constitutional veto for the regions of the country. In its wisdom it decided, arbitrarily once again, on very short notice that British Columbia did not constitute a region. The government was just going to lump British Columbia in with the three prairie provinces, in with the west, when it was doling out this constitutional veto.

Therefore, the provinces are more than a little gun-shy when it comes to these types of clauses, clauses that on the surface seem quite reasonable. Reformers feel that some appropriate check is necessary. We do not understand in this particular case at least why the Bloc Quebecois would not support it.

This is the party that is always concerned about the provinces having some authority. This amendment would see that before the minister could forge ahead and enact certain programs that would have a definite impact on the provinces, the minister would have to clear those programs with the lieutenant-governor. Obviously it would have to be cleared with the lieutenant-governor of Quebec where that program would be a bilateral agreement between Quebec and the Government of Canada. Yet a couple of members from the Bloc have indicated they are going to be voting against this amendment. Quite frankly I find it amazing that a party that is always seeking to have more control for its province is going to vote against an amendment that would do exactly that.

[Divorce Act, March 20th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the Divorce Act (joint custody).

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Athabasca for seconding this bill.

The Divorce Act is discriminatory. It leaves non-custodial parents, usually fathers, out in the cold. I know some very good fathers who always pay child support but can no longer afford to see their children because their mothers have taken them to live a considerable distance away.

Statistics show a direct correlation between access and non-compliance. Non-custodial parents who get to see their children are more likely to make their payments. However, custody now goes to one parent unless an application for joint custody is made. It should be the reverse.

Joint custody of and access to one's children should be automatic unless it is not in the children's bests interests. Today I am tabling a bill to amend the act to make joint custody automatic.

The recent controversy over child support payment taxation should not detract from the most important issue to children. In most cases that issue is not dollars and cents but guaranteed access to both parents.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Otherwise, why do it?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the honourable member. Quite frankly, I am getting sick and tired of the government's trying to brag about bringing the deficit down to 3 per cent or 2 per cent of GDP. I find that totally misleading for the general population. The government likes to quote that number because it is a small number, when in reality it should be talking about the debt and its percentage of GDP. That number is considerably higher. The debt to GDP ratio is more like 73 per cent.

The hon. member quoted statistics. She seemed to enjoy quoting statistics to tell us how wonderful Canada is doing and how great the government is doing. She mentioned that Canadians want the deficit and debt reduced but they also want those who are the most vulnerable in society protected. It is interesting that she mentioned not only the deficit but the debt in that statement. Canadians want the deficit and the debt reduced.

Let us talk about the debt for a minute. The debt under this Liberal administration has grown since 1993-94, when it was about $508 billion, to a projected figure for next year of $602 billion. That is an increase of almost $100 billion.

The hon. member talked about revenue in her speech. She mentioned that there have been no increases in personal income tax. She might be right about that, but revenues have increased dramatically. Revenues have increased from 1993-94 when they were $116 billion to a projected figure in 1996-97 of $136 billion, an increase of about $20 billion of increased income from the taxpayers.

Those are the real numbers that count, not the deficit but the debt. The fact is that the interest charges on the public debt have increased from $38 billion in 1993-94 when the hon. member's government took office to a projected $49 billion of interest charges for next year, an increase of $11 billion. Those are the numbers that Canadians should be concerned about. Those are the numbers that present the most serious threat to Canada's social programs.

I would like the hon. member to address those numbers when she is talking. I think it is totally irresponsible of the government to be talking about reducing the deficit when the debt continues to grow at an alarming rate.

[Education, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, scholarship recipients are some of the brightest stars of our future. Many could not afford post secondary education without scholarships, particularly those from northern communities who must attends schools in the south. Competition for scholarships is fierce and students work hard to get them.

On the one hand, by announcing increased spending for summer employment the government wants us to believe it is supporting students. At the same time, the government continues to tax student scholarships.

Students are facing massive tuition increases and higher educational costs. With high unemployment and a workforce unqualified to fill the thousands of available high tech jobs, a system that discourages students from furthering their education is ridiculous.

It is one thing for the Prime Minister to urge the private sector to create more jobs. If the government really wants to help students it should make scholarships tax free, or at a minimum increase the tax free amount of $500 established in 1972 to something more appropriate for 1996.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was recently in Labrador. While I was there I met with representatives of ACOA, representatives of the business development centres, and I talked to them about the problem. The most frustrated people are the people inside the system. They see the huge waste of tax dollars. They are also taxpayers. It has to end.

Perhaps after March 25 we will have a member representing Labrador over here who will be truly representing those people for the first time in a long while.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Say the number of jobs that are going to be lost. There is absolutely no accountability for these agencies. There never has been and there never will be as long as they continue to be run the way they have.

We have seen a tremendous growth in the amount of dollars spent on these agencies over the last few years. In 1991-92 WED, since that is the particular agency the hon. member is directing his attention to, had a little over $185 million to dole out. In 1995-96, our current year which is coming to an end at the end of March, it had almost $500 million to dole out, yet we have not seen the positive effect of that. There is so much money taken up in the administrative costs of running these programs they actually kill jobs, not create them.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the short answer would be yes we are. We have talked as much about WED as we have about ACOA. Therefore, I dispute what the hon. member is saying. We have talked about all the regional development agencies and we say it has to end.

This government talks about balancing the budget. It wants to move toward a balanced budget. It is always asking for new ways in which to bring down government spending. We have been consistent in condemning these types of ridiculous loans to business.