Dale Johnston

[Justice, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, take back the street rallies are becoming all too common in cities and towns across Canada. From the east coast to the west coast, Canadians are calling on the government to get tough with convicted criminals.

The years of lenient sentences, pampered prisoners and lax parole laws that favour offenders' rights over victims must end. Too many innocent lives have been snuffed out because this Liberal government is stuck in neutral.

Respondents to my recent householder demanded a return to law and order. Canadians want a say on capital punishment through a binding referendum. People want justice put back in the justice system.

Canadians are sending a wake-up call to the Minister of Justice. If he does not respond quickly, the voters will ensure that he and his colleagues are on this side of the House after the next election and will be watching a Reform government implement the changes that they were afraid to make.

[Points Of Order, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we are making parliamentary history today. It is the first time that we have debated a bill that has already passed through the House. Certainly, in my former life as a farmer I became accustomed to this sort of thing on occasion. Many times I closed the gate after the calves got out.

I am speaking to Bill C-3. Of course, this is precipitated by the fact that the Supreme Court in 1993 rendered a decision on labour relations in Canada that threw the atomic workers into a state of flux.

At Ontario Hydro, for instance, 42 per cent of the workers were under federal jurisdiction while the remaining 58 per cent were subject to the Ontario labour code. Workers in Quebec and New Brunswick were caught in a very similar bind. Needless to say, the situation led to more and more confusion and duplication, all of which was unnecessary and not conducive to good working relationships.

The importance of nuclear safety cannot be stressed enough. Indeed, it was a concern expressed by the Supreme Court and it is a concern to everyone who works at the nuclear facilities, to their families and all Canadians. A stable work environment will help to alleviate the uncertainty caused by this split jurisdiction.

The Reform Party does not oppose this bill. I would encourage the minister not to wait for future court rulings, but to move forward with the devolution of federal control in labour matters, devolving them to the provinces.

Part I of the labour code is currently under review and it would be an appropriate starting point for the minister, who I know is anxious to do away with duplication of service. The government is strapped with a $580 billion debt. I know the minister will do what is necessary to eliminate all duplication and overlap in order to downsize, and do his part to get the debt under control.

The minister will find that the workers, management and the people in my party would be most supportive of the direction taken by him.

I believe that labour and management have a common goal in maintaining a productive workplace and we as legislators should do all we can to advance that goal. We can facilitate this by relinquishing control over the bureaucratic regulations that stand in the way of sound labour relations. Bill C-3 is a step in the proper direction.

I encourage the minister to immediately convene negotiations with those provinces whose nuclear workers are caught in this legislative vacuum and allow these employees to be brought under provincial governance as soon as possible. I believe the government owes the nuclear workers of Canada that much.

When we were talking about the division of time I suggested that I would be very brief and I am going to be true to my word. I believe that one should be frugal with one's words as well as one's mind.

[Points Of Order, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to those terms.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if I could have the assurance there would be no votes or quorum calls I would have no objection to the debate being extended until 8 p.m.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify one thing. I did not suggest for one minute that we should let anything, to use the hon. member's words, drift in the wind.

I am suggesting that whether a low or a medium income earner or wherever one may be in the earning ability we would all benefit if we could lift this millstone of debt off our necks. This is something the Liberal Party has not address. If it really wanted to do something, not simply for low income earners but for every resident, it would get control of the debt and start living within its means and cut those interest payments down. The money that would be saved could be put to all kinds of wonderful uses.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to reply to my hon. colleague.

He asks me how I will come up with the $16 billion the GST generates. It was the Liberal Party that went door to door in October 1993 and said it will scrap it, abolish it, throw it away.

The question should be asked of the Prime Minister and particularly the Deputy Prime Minister how they will come up with the $16 billion. It is not my question to answer.

The hon. member makes the point of the five-cent reduction in premiums. That is five cents, one-twentieth of 1 per cent; five cents on every $100 of earned income. We were told this huge reduction, five cents on $100, will produce 25,000 jobs. That must be the new math, the Liberal math perhaps.

Following that reasoning, why do we not bring down the premium a full percentage point and create half a million jobs? We could reduce it 2 per cent, 3 per cent. We would have to import people to fill all the jobs in this country if we followed the reasoning of the members opposite.

The member opposite says we can create jobs, and maybe we can. Private industry can create jobs, private enterprise can. I do not believe for one minute that governments can create jobs. Every government over the last 25 years has said it would create jobs and that it is capable of creating jobs. If this is true we should all be working at two or three jobs.

I think the problem is being attacked from the wrong end. If we did not have to pay $48 billion in interest to the international bankers every 12 months, $4 billion a month in interest, we would be able to fund social programs, unemployment insurance and medicare to the fullest extent. If the government had followed the Reform plan it would be sitting over there debating what it would do with the surplus next year and not about how it is saddled with all this.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago in the first throne speech of the 35th Parliament the government promised to make Canada's social security system responsive to the economic and social realities of the nineties.

After two years of extensive and expensive travel by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and countless expensive studies and testimonies by bureaucrats and experts, the cosmetic changes to the unemployment insurance were a real letdown. After listening to Liberal doublespeak for the last two years I cannot say that I am surprised.

Canadians are realizing the government's idea of an action plan really only amounts to a play on words: employment insurance or unemployment insurance. Only the name has changed. The program will remain as unworkable as ever.

Consider the goods and services tax. Scrapping the GST in Liberal terms means changing the name to the federal sales tax.

The Liberal definition for maintaining universality for old age pensioners seems to be combining the old age assistance plan and the guaranteed income supplement plan to come up with a seniors' benefit that most seniors will not qualify to receive. This is truly amazing since the Liberals scoffed at the Reform Party's 1993 election proposal to base seniors' benefits on family income. At least under our plan we suggested that benefits be reduced when family income reached the level of $54,000. Under the new Liberal seniors' benefit, couples whose total income exceeds $45,000 would see a drop in their pension benefits.

The member for Guelph-Wellington suggested that parties to the right of centre have a difficult time coming up with social programs. She should look at the province of Alberta. Its main problem at the moment is what to do with a budgetary surplus. When we as taxpayers and as government are paying out some $48 billion a year in interest that severely handcuffs the government to come up with any social programs.

Canadians are catching on that Liberals make great election promises which unfortunately are very conveniently forgotten immediately after the votes are counted. When it comes to legislation they also fail miserably. Bill C-12 is a prime example of this.

It is hard to imagine how the government could come up with a plan that could anger so many people. The consensus from all sides is that this is a flawed bill. Despite the musings of the new Minister of Human Resources Development that he will sweeten the bill, it will be another step backward for those Canadians who want to reduce their dependence on government social programs. The government somehow thinks it can win votes and maintain its popularity by perpetuating the social welfare system. Insurance means insurance, whether it is called employment insurance or unemployment insurance. The reason this bill should be withdrawn is that it does not resemble insurance in any way, other than the fact that it needs to have premiums paid into it.

Let us talk about insurance the way Canadians understand the concept. For instance, if you own and operate a motor vehicle you are required by law to purchase and maintain insurance on that automobile. If you have an accident or if the car is stolen you receive some monetary compensation. Also if your house burns down and your insurance premiums are paid up, you would be entitled to some monetary remuneration as long as you did not set the fire.

The unemployment insurance program is not a true insurance plan. It includes wage supplement programs, training programs and other add-ons that drain the resources of the employers and employees who fund the program.

The day the Minister of Human Resources Development unveiled his long awaited proposal for reforming the unemployment insurance program, Statistics Canada reported that full time employment fell by 64,000. In reply to my colleague opposite who

says that government creates jobs, this shows exactly the converse. The number of people with jobs dropped by 44,000 to 13.5 million in November. This is the worst monthly performance in more than three years. The proportion of young people in the labour force is at a 20-year low of 61 per cent.

In answer to these problems and in an attempt to look like its two-year review is worthwhile, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced $800 million for training benefit programs and another $300 million for disadvantaged areas. One has to wonder if these new programs are nothing more than slush funds set up to provide temporary jobs just in time for a new election.

The former Minister of Human Resources Development said that the jobs fund could be used to support local infrastructure projects. Does this mean that there may be more make-work programs and expensive projects for seasonal exploits like perhaps bike paths or exclusive boxes in sports stadiums or perhaps a canoe museum?

The government brags about replacing 39 centrally controlled programs with five benefits. What it really did was camouflage old ideas into a new package. Shades of the GST, more renaming and more repackaging.

When I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development in December about changes to the delivery of training programs, he said that we really should be transferring resources to the people, to the private sector, to communities. I would like to know why the government does not transfer labour market training exclusively to the private sector where the marketplace can create real jobs and that way Canadians can look forward to training that is specific to the economy and the jobs that they may be entering.

How does the minister reconcile his department's continued involvement in training programs when the Prime Minister announced that labour market training would be the sole responsibility of the provinces? The provinces will have to enter into agreements with the federal government on programs and their delivery and if they do not sign a deal with Ottawa no federal training money will be spent there. Instead the money will be earmarked for other programs for the province in question.

This is an arcane idea that somehow the government believes that it can keep provinces in line by manipulating the purse strings.

When the Liberals last revamped unemployment insurance in 1971 it was a tool to redistribute income on both class and regional lines. This time is has brought in a $3 million job fund designed to create new permanent jobs in disadvantaged areas.

What it really amounts to is a pay off to Atlantic Canada premiers so they will not complain about being short changed by not receiving complete control over training programs.

The hon. member for Mississauga West complained that Ontario was tired of supporting less prosperous provinces. In that case she should support the Reform plan to turn UI into a true insurance plan.

Bill C-12 will generate huge tax revenues of over $1 billion but it will increase business costs and it will kill off the creation of part time jobs. The government is still trying to make it look as though it is fulfilling its red book promises of jobs, jobs, jobs.

When will the government realize governments do not create jobs, governments are good at creating debt and that taxation is the killer of jobs? It will be about the time that hell freezes over and Satan learns how to play hockey.

The 7 per cent payroll tax on part time workers will be used to fund the $800 million of employment benefits. It did not take the private sector long to figure out that it was to bear the brunt of yet another tax grab. As it stands, the provisions of the legislation will have a detrimental effect on both part time employers and their employees.

Take for example the fast food industry. An owner-operator of a quick service restaurant in my constituency told me his costs would increase by 30 per cent if Bill C-12 is passed into law. He employs 90 people, many of whom are students working to defray university tuition costs. He says his customers are very price sensitive. In other words, he is unable to raise his prices. He will have no choice but to cut back on employee hours and reduce the number of new people he hires in his business. Taxation kills jobs. He went on to say that implementing the payroll tax would run counter to the government's job creation objective.

As I said earlier, the real killer of jobs is high taxation. Small business people realize it, students are coming to grips with it and soon Canadian voters will tell the Liberals they have had enough taxation.

Incredibly generous benefits introduced by a former Liberal minister were left basically unchanged until the mid-eighties when attempts to tighten the system were met with cries from the left and social activists. The Tories backed away from the far reaching reforms which were required, reforms which should have taken place at that time.

Now as a result of procrastination by governments for 20 years we have a Liberal government saddled with a $579 billion debt, a debt which will have grown by $100 billion after three years of this Liberal government. It still has a social conscience that it finds extremely difficult to finance.

There is the old saying that if something is not broken do not fix it. However, the employment program is broken beyond repair. When that happens we have to park it and start over. The government only has one option: scrap it. I mean really do away with it. It should not harmonize it and it should not change its name. It should replace it with a new system that provides

Canadians with a true insurance plan to protect them in times of temporary job loss.

The amendment put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast should be supported by all members of the House if they have the best interests of Canadians in mind.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested to hear the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington contend that the Liberal Party is the only defender of social programs in Canada. I suppose it is not too surprising that I disagree.

I find it most amusing, contradictory in fact that the member would hold Reform Party members up as those who would not defend social programs.

I would like to take the member back to 1993. In our literature, we suggested that with regard to old age security, family income should be taken into consideration. At that time we used the figure of $54,000 for a household income.

How would the hon. member explain how the Liberals can possibly be the great defenders of social programs for the elderly and those who have trouble fending for themselves when they criticized our policies at that time. Now they have reduced social programs on a household basis down to a ceiling of $45,000, some $9,000 less than the Reform Party advocated in 1993.

[Canada Labour Code, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his appointment as Minister of Labour.

Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, is heading in the right direction. Certainly there is a lot of confusion under the circumstances where there is one group of people under two sets of labour legislation, provincial and federal.

With all due respect to the minister and his portfolio, we should be working toward a time when there simply is no federal labour portfolio. It is a duplication. I refer to the budget speech. The Minister of Finance, on page 9, talks about duplication of services and uses as an example meat inspectors, health inspectors and food inspectors.

This carries on into the Department of Labour and we should see a devolution of powers in all areas of labour from federal to provincial in order to downsize government, to get these decisions closer to the people and to make them more effective and more efficient. I am wondering why it would not apply right across the board. Atomic energy facilities are a place to start. I would like to see legislation move along that line so we could have provincial jurisdiction.

Duplicate departments create overbudensome bureaucracy and overlap that nobody needs, especially in such difficult fiscal times. Smaller government is something we should be looking at. I cannot help but reflect on the Government of Alberta in the 1950s and the 1960s under the guidance of Ernest Manning, recently deceased. He gave Albertans only essential government. Waste, inefficiency and duplicity were something he was ever vigilant of. I believe all governments can learn a great deal about effective government from the example set in Alberta during that time.

While the Reform Party generally agrees with the bill as set out by the minister, we will be contemplating amendments later on as the bill goes through this process. We would provide our qualified support at this time.

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I present a petition, duly certified, signed by 39 constituents from my riding.

The petition has to do with families and children of divorced parents. The petitioners call on Parliament to pass legislation incorporating rights of children and principles of equality between and among parents.