Dennis Mills

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

To clarify a point, this is a very serious issue. In the last Parliament the issue of violence against women and children was something I spent a lot of time on.

Let us say a mother from Trinidad has provided categorical proof, whether it is sworn affidavits or telephone messages, has given concrete evidence that she has been threatened by her husband and if she were to return she might not only be a victim of violence but possibly murdered. Is the hon. member suggesting that in any way, shape or form we should consider deporting that woman back to Trinidad?

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want clarification on the issue of women and children as victims of violence.

If a mother and child come to this country and in claiming refugee status they claim that one of the reasons they want to stay here is because they are victims of violence, if they have categorical proof that they are victims of violence, is the hon. member suggesting that we should deport them back to that violent situation?

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, could I please have the time to rephrase my question?

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to say there were some aspects of the hon. member's maiden address which I really appreciated and support, especially those areas relating to support for small business.

However, I have to deal with this issue of women who are victims of violence not being considered as bona fide refugees in our country. I have to make sure I understand the member correctly. Is the hon. member suggesting that if a mother and children who might be fortunate enough to get to our country and claim refugee status that part of the reason-

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the member.

I must say that I read the member's opening address last weekend when I was taking a bus to Belleville, Ontario. I brought it to the House today because I was struck by the second last paragraph in which she said, on January 20:

Mr. Speaker, you can tell the Minister of Human Resources and Development that he can count on my unqualified support whenever he wants to help people in need, but I will make every effort to be as fierce a parliamentarian as he was in the opposition, whenever he deviates from this path.

I thought that was a most constructive and supportive statement.

Earlier in the member's speech she talked about the fact that there was inherent overlapping, duplication and consequential incapacity to make the right decision at the right moment for the maximization of social benefits. I thought this was just a great speech.

When the minister responsible for human resources addressed in a speech today some of the very things the member talked about in her opening remarks, did she not see that eliminating some of the duplication or overlap and flushing out some of the waste in institutionalized bureaucracy would allow us to have further resources at the same time to help put people back to work? Is that not the way she sees the debate unfolding?

I did not hear the minister talk today about cutting. The only deficit I heard him talk about today was the human deficit. That to me was the sense he was projecting. Could the member not try to see it as a possible approach of the minister?

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have to say to the member opposite that I was a little disturbed by his remarks. I come from downtown Toronto where the largest employers are those directly or indirectly related to the motion picture industry. Many of these young men and women got their beginning in places like the National Film Board and the CBC. The programs and the apprenticeship training in these great national institutions that helped these young men and women to develop the world class skills which currently allow them to make movies.

In my riding there are close to one million square feet of motion picture studio space. Right now, 5,800 people are employed with good paying, quality jobs. They make films for Disney and companies from Germany and all over the world.

Quite often people are obsessed with looking into government institutions like the CBC and the Canada Council. They are so obsessed with deficit cutting they do not realize that these are incubators for great human development and ultimately serve the whole nation and allow for a variety of export potential.

I share the concern of the hon. member about waste and making sure that we are getting a good bang for the taxpayer's buck. All too often the contribution of Canada's cultural industry to the whole macroeconomic equation is viewed in a deprecating way.

We have to be diligent. We must keep our heads up and make sure that we never desert the cultural industry in this country because it represents a good part of our soul.

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to once again remind the opposition party that today is the beginning of a debate in which we are attempting to re-invent, redesign or review government programs and services with the ultimate aim of meeting many of the objectives that the hon. member described in his speech of decreasing, overlapping, and eliminating waste. We on this side of the House share that with you. I guess the only thing we do not share with you is that we do not believe in separation.

There is a question related to putting people back to work. In 1982 there was a program called NEED, designed by the then Minister of Employment, who happens to be the same member responsible today. It was a program where, rather than people being on unemployment where they received approximately $17,000 a year, people went directly to small and medium-sized businesses and said, "If you take someone off unemployment or off the welfare rolls, then we will pay you approximately 60 to 70 per cent of their salary", rather than paying them to sit at home not doing anything. The employer would put in approximately 30 per cent. After six months of work the employer's contribution would increase and the government's would go down, and after a year the employer is responsible for the person.

Essentially it acted as a catalyst to help small and medium-sized business. At the same time, within a five-month period we put about 300,000 Canadians back to work in every region of this country.

I wonder if the member would consider looking at a program like that and whether or not he considers that type of reform worth while.

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since this is a debate on restructuring all the human resource initiatives that exist in this country, I would like to ask the member, through you Mr. Speaker, a very specific question.

An important weakness in the preparation of young Canadians to participate in the labour force is the lack of linkages between the school and the work place. By way of comparison, in Germany some 70 per cent of students enrol at the age of 16 or 17 on the famous dual system, in which a part of each work week is spent in the classroom and part on the shop floor acquiring practical experience under the direction of a professional instructor. My question is, will the minister of youth, in this period of renewal and reform, look into and consider such a system?

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the hon. member that I listened to his remarks attentively. I share his view that the small and medium sized businessmen are under stress right now because of the incredible paper burden and tax situation which exists at all levels of government. I thought the hon. member's comments, unlike those of the Bloc Quebecois, were constructive.

Today is the day the minister of human resources has said that we are going to start afresh, that we are going to look at new ideas and new proposals. He did not say that we were going to withdraw from all social programs. He said that we were going to look at the existing social programs to see if they are meeting their original objectives.

For example, if there is a Government of Canada program of which only 10 cents on the dollar is going to the end user then obviously we would not want to support continuing that program.

The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition said in his opening remarks-

[Magna International, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 31 to clarify and confirm my wholehearted support for Magna International's proposed $200 million development project.

This project, which includes a world-class research and training facility, will create 1,100 jobs immediately in Aurora, Ontario, and will create 10,000 spinoff jobs throughout the entire southern Ontario economy.

I would urge the municipal and regional authorities to consider this as a massive investment in infrastructure that requires no taxpayers' money to create.

I am sure in light of this massive proposed investment in the greater Toronto area and in light of the fact that all or part of this project may have to be moved to the United States if it is not approved that all necessary planning and environmental issues will be resolved quickly.

I urge the provincial, regional and municipal authorities to consider this project in an appropriate and timely manner.