Roger Simmons

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-17, the budget implementation act, because the bill seeks to legislate a number of measures announced by the minister in his budget in February. The bill reflects the widely shared conclusions reached by many Canadians from all walks of life who participated in the prebudget conferences. They agreed at that time and I believe we agree in this House that action is needed on three major, closely linked challenges.

First, Canadians want the government to create job opportunities and to take action to restore the country's economic viability. Second, Canadians have called on government to address the deficit problem. Third, they point out, as they did in those prebudget conferences, the urgent need to reform Canada's social security programs, including unemployment insurance, so that these programs better serve those who are in need while remaining affordable for a nation with a growing debt. These are three important challenges: job creation, deficit reduction and the reform of social programs so that they can better serve the needs of Canadians.

On that last point, when we gave the enabling legislation in this House with respect to the reform of social programs, I said at that particular time when this issue was under debate at least that reforming social programs ought not to be a code word for dismantling, for gutting social programs. I am careful to say at all times when I talk about this that it must be an effort which

improves, better tailors those programs for a new time, not an excuse for gutting those programs.

There are people in need. There are people who depend on those programs. That is why I am proud to live in Canada. We were told this week once again that we live by internationally accepted criteria in the best country in the world. That comes as no surprise to us; even those who are working hard to leave the country must grudgingly acknowledge that.

The budget addresses all three of those important elements or areas. There are initiatives to create jobs, including the $6 billion shared cost infrastructure program which is now well under way. In so far as Newfoundland is concerned, the first phase was announced a month or so ago. The second phase will be announced tomorrow, a number of other projects that will help stimulate the economy and some short and medium term job creation.

The budget also contains important support for technological innovation and for the small business sector, a subject dear to the heart of my good friend from Broadview-Greenwood.

There is also important action in this bill, in this budget, to reduce the deficit primarily through cuts in government spending. Gross fiscal savings including the savings announced in previous budget secured by this legislation total $28.6 billion over the next three fiscal years. Net savings in that period total $20.4 billion. These measures will help to shrink the deficit from $45.7 billion in the year just ending to $39.7 billion in 1994-95, and to $32.7 billion the year after; $13 billion savings in two years.

I say to my good friend from Yellowhead, whom I am always delighted to see in this Chamber, it is important that the choice is not seen as being between jobs and the deficit. It is not one or the other. We would be irresponsible as parliamentarians if we saw it as one or the other, as if we said put the whole job need on hold for five years until we get the deficit under control, or put the deficit issue under control for five years until we get the job situation properly addressed. It is not that simple. Life does not stand still for people who have to buy the groceries, nor does life stand still in terms of accruing interest on our indebtedness as a country.

We have to juggle those two very difficult balls at one time. That is the challenge. The country is full of experts there who will tell you how to create jobs, who will tell you how to reduce the deficit. The crunch comes when you ask them to hold both balls in the air at the same time. Whatever the rhetoric of various members in this House, including mine, I do not believe there is a single soul in this chamber who believes that we can put one of those issues on hold while we solve the other. That would be irresponsible and I do not think Canadians sent us here to be irresponsible.

The measures announced in this budget last February will, of course, be supplemented with further initiatives next year as we reform major spending programs. We are taking some action now and will take some more in the future to ensure the deficit continues to decline steeply.

The budget also takes some measures to provide stable, sustainable funding for Canada's social safety net. This funding will provide a secure and constructive environment for both individual Canadians and policy makers at all levels of government as we embark on the process of reform and renewal that is currently under way. This legislation, Bill C-17, addresses two areas of spending in this regard: transfers to the provinces and changes to the UI program. I want to spend a moment on each of those.

First, the matter of unemployment insurance, a matter that is dear to my heart because it is dear to the hearts of my constituents who, through no fault of their own, have gone through the following traumatic situation in the last few years.

I say to my friend from Okanagan-Shuswap that when I first came here in November, 1979 my riding had a rate of unemployment which was the same as that in Alberta, the province of my friend from Yellowhead. It was 3.8 per cent in November, 1979. The riding of Burin-St. George's with its deep sea and inshore year round fishery, unaffected by ice conditions which have an impact on other parts of the island of Newfoundland, has always had a basic 11.5 month fishery, never a 12 month fishery. We believe strongly in certain things in Newfoundland and one of the things we believe in is the 12 days of Christmas. We take that time off for a great celebration of a great Christian festival and for a great party. In Newfoundland these two issues are not mutually exclusive.

It is an 11.5 month fishery. It never was a 12 month fishery. I would oppose it from ever becoming a 12 month fishery for the above reasons. It has degenerated, through no fault of the hard working people whose ancestors came to that coast 500 years ago. It is certainly not laziness or what we call in Newfoundland being a hangashore, one who stays ashore rather than go fishing. We have a very provocative and descriptive term for a lazy person in Newfoundland; he or she is called a hangashore and by definition that is somebody who will not go fishing. In Newfoundland work is fish, basically. That is why 17,000 people in my riding, until the recent catastrophes in the fishery, have traditionally earned their living either in the fishing boat or in the fish plant.

I was saying to my friends from Alberta and British Columbia across the aisle that in 1979 the rate of unemployment in my

riding was 3.8 per cent, the same as in Alberta, the province at that time with the fastest growing economy in Canada and the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. My riding was identical.

Today I could not even put a figure on it. Is it 40, is it 50, is it 60, is it 70 per cent? It depends on what you do with all those people who through no fault of their own are not in the boats today, not in the plants today, drawing a compensation package as a result of the moratorium.

This UI issue is very dear to my heart because it does affect some of those people. Contrary to public popular opinion in Ontario, I would say to my friend from Bramalea-Gore-Malton, all the people down there are not on the the fisheries compensation package. Many people in Newfoundland ply their trade in terms of forestry and in terms of seasonal construction activity, in terms of mining, in terms of tourism, and so on. These are impacted by unemployment insurance changes as well.

These changes being proposed through this bill are designed to achieve a couple of things. The first is to encourage the private sector to create jobs. We believe firmly in this party that government cannot be the employer of last resort. We believe that government can help create the climate, but it is private industry, including the small business sector, which must create the jobs. My hon. friend from Okanagan-Shuswap agrees. He and I agree on many things and this is one of them. It is the private sector. That is one of the objectives.

The second is to increase the fairness of the system by increasing benefits to low income recipients with dependents. To help create jobs, the bill rolls back the UI premium for 1995 and 1996 to $3. We believe and we hope this payroll tax relief will encourage business to create jobs.

By the end of 1996 the government expects that there will be 40,000 more jobs in the economy than would be the case if premiums had been allowed to rise to the levels required by the previous legislation.

Those rollbacks have to be accomplished in a way that supports deficit reduction. With this in mind, the legislation proposes measures to reduce UI expenditures by $725 million in this fiscal year and a further $2.4 billion annually thereafter.

I submit that these rollbacks in expenditures are being done in a way that is fair so that persons in areas with high unemployment will still be eligible for more benefits with less work activity than people in other regions of the country.

Our package of UI reforms promotes fairness in other respects. It increases the benefit for low income claimants with dependents. As well, the benefit of the doubt will be given to claimants who quit voluntarily. I have to say that this is an issue that I had a lot of difficulty with when the former administration brought in that change, about letting the axe fall when people quit or were fired because it put employees at the mercy of the employer in a way that they never should have been. This redresses that issue in a way with which I am comfortable.

Let me come to the Canada assistance plan. To help create a positive, co-operative climate for social security reform, the government is providing a two-year period of predictability and modest growth in social security transfers under the Canada assistance plan and established programs financing.

This means that in 1994-95 there will be no new restraint measures applied to either CAP or EPF transfers. The legislation before us today will place a ceiling on subsequent CAP transfers to the provinces, so they do not exceed the current year's levels. This ceiling will remain in place next year pending social security reform the following year.

EPF financing is not affected by this legislation. However, the existing restraint will be maintained. The process of social security reform has a goal of central interest to all Canadians, no matter where they live, to renew and revitalize Canada's social security system over the next couple of years. We will preserve protection for those in need. We will improve incentives to work and we must ensure that the social safety net remains affordable.

Bill C-17 is a key part of the government's agenda, an agenda that includes job creation, deficit reduction and renewal, and reform of our social safety net. Our mandate for this agenda comes from the people of Canada who entrusted us last October to set a new course. We, the Prime Minister and his team, are keeping faith with that trust by listening to what Canadians told us last year.

The recent budget was an important step, an early step, a big step, but just one step in making our agenda a reality. That budget reflects clearly the input we received from Canadians as do the measures in this legislation. That is why I am hopeful that members on all sides of the House will see fit to want to identify with what I believe are a handful of good initiatives, not the whole nine yards. We are not there yet. If we, through the infrastructure program, the youth corps and otherwise can see the jobs generated that we have projected, we will create just a little less misery for people out there, including young people.

If we are going to achieve our goals in terms of deficit reduction to get it under $40 billion, to have these $13 billion in savings over the next couple of years, that will go a long way to reducing the drain on our capacity, the drain we are paying out in interest charges, and be able to take that and redirect it to more job creation, to more social program underwriting.

Third, if we can, over the next couple of years, reform the social safety net in a way that does it credit to Canadians, in a way that meets the needs of those who are in need, while at the same time crafting it in a way that is affordable for us as a country with severe financial restraint facing us everywhere we turn.

Nobody in this Chamber, whatever their partisan platform during the election past, whatever their particular political ideology, can be against putting those young people back to work, putting people of all ages into productive labour activity. Nobody can argue with our goal of bringing down the deficit to free up dollars for use elsewhere. Nobody can disagree with what this party has said and stood by for many decades, that there is a group of people out there who have need for social programs through disability, through age, through other circumstance, through no fault of their own particularly, have need for those programs.

There but for the grace of God go I, go you. Again I repeat I am proud to live in a country that has that kind of social safety net for people in those circumstances.

For all of those reasons I hope members of the House would find it in their hearts to support with a heart and a half Bill C-17.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

In fairness, the member for Peace River interjects that it might be a better investment. I have to say to him in response that for a member of the Reform Party hope must spring eternal.

These borrowed funds would be used to generate operating savings or for venture investments. The operating savings would come from investments in capital equipment and projects which have a payback of four years or less. At the present time the CBC is unable to take advantage of these opportunities due to its shortage of capital resources and the immediate need of addressing physical obsolescence in plants and equipment across the country.

Perhaps a good example of how this proposed borrowing authority would help the CBC was the arrangement reached by the corporation to disaffiliate from its Pembroke, Ontario station and replace it with rebroadcasting towers at a capital cost of $2.2 million.

The subsequent annual savings in payments to the affiliate less the cost of using the towers yielded net savings to the CBC of $374,000. As well the corporation earned an additional $1 million in advertising revenue as a direct result of this disaffiliation in Pembroke. A capital investment of $2.2 million was repaid in under three years. That flexibility to undertake such initiatives is an indispensable tool for the CBC.

It is worth reminding ourselves that under no circumstances would the CBC be permitted to use these borrowed funds to address an operational shortfall and thereby operate on deficit financing.

I say to my friend from Medicine Hat, there is the answer to one of the questions he raised. If he listens to the debate he will get the answers to all these questions. We heard his questions. We not only heard them we had anticipated them beforehand because these are some of the legitimate questions that need to be asked. Nobody has scored the member for Medicine Hat for being unthoughtful. He is very thoughtful about his questions but he rushes to judgment a little too quickly. He decides this is a bad thing before he has fully examined it. However I give him credit for at least knowing the questions to ask.

I repeat to him that the CBC will not be allowed under any circumstances to use these borrowed funds to address operational shortfalls and thereby operate on deficit financing. It is not only a commitment of the government. It is a caveat that will be in the agreement that would be entered into between the government, the Minister of Finance on the one hand and the CBC on the other.

The CBC's borrowing ceiling under this provision would be $25 million. A memorandum of understanding between the CBC and the Department of Finance would, as I have just said, set out the terms and the conditions governing the borrowing authority. Foremost among those conditions is that the CBC would require the approval of the Minister of Finance, in accordance with the established Department of Finance guidelines, for each transaction it undertook pursuant to this particular provision.

We have heard again, particularly from my friends in the Reform Party, some concern about this issue. It is not surprising on the one hand because we know they are for the dismantling or the privatization of the CBC and I respect that point of view as a policy position. I do not agree with it myself and my party does not agree with it either but certainly I respect the point of view. It flies in the face of our position. It is diametrically opposed to what we believe on this issue. We see the CBC as a key national cultural institution.

At the same time I cannot resist mentioning to my friends in the Reform Party that there is a bit of an inconsistency in their position in that we hear them so often talking about the importance of the businesslike approach. I believe the record, what we said on this issue, demonstrates that what we are trying to achieve here is a more businesslike approach for the CBC.

Finally there have been concerns about adequate reporting to Parliament. This is addressed by the procedure under which the borrowing authority will be included in the corporate plan summary which the CBC is obliged to table annually in Parliament.

In the context of the $1 billion crown corporation that we are talking about, the $25 million we are talking about is a relatively small amount. I submit the government is taking adequate safeguards to see that it is done in a reasonable manner.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to say a few words on Bill C-17. I will come in a moment specifically to section 18 which deals with the proposed amendment to the Broadcasting Act to grant CBC some borrowing authority from the consolidated revenue fund.

First, the bill, in effect the budget implementation bill which flows from the budget of a couple of months ago, would seek to do a number of things. I am surprised, I say to my friend from Medicine Hat, that he did not spend a good amount of his speech lauding the bill because a lot of it goes straight to the issue of budget restraint which in some ways will be painful for various parts of the country, but necessarily painful because, as the Minister of Finance has said again and again and as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, we are committed to getting our financial house in order and Bill C-17 goes a fair distance to doing that.

In light of the comment made by my friend from Medicine Hat, let me come directly to the matter of the proposed amendment to the Broadcasting Act.

This amendment would give to the CBC the businesslike flexibility which I submit is necessary for a billion dollar corporation by authorizing the CBC to be able to borrow up to a limit of $25 million from the consolidated revenue fund and from Canadian banking institutions through lines of credit, through commercial loans and the issuing of bonds or commercial paper.

I believe this measure would represent an important step in our campaign to help the CBC by permitting it to become more efficient in operations and allowing the corporation to enter into other ventures acceptable to the government that provide a return on investment. It is perhaps in this context, I say to the member for Medicine Hat, that I find his objection most surprising. It is interesting to note that he did not say what he was going to do today. He said what his caucus was going to do.

I say to my friend from Peace River, I assume that is another example of the free vote approach of that party. Now one stands up and says what the entire caucus will do. What happened to the free vote we used to have in that great party, that party that I have come to admire? Where is the leader today when I need him to answer on this particular issue of why suddenly he is allowing the member for Medicine Hat to muzzle a party of free voters?

I digress. On the one hand the member for Medicine Hat decries the bill for allowing the CBC some borrowing authority but yet we hear them wax eloquently from time to time about how we ought to become more efficient as a government and as crown corporations. Again I say to him that we cannot really have it both ways, can we?

The funds that the bill would permit the CBC to borrow would be used only to generate operating savings. This idea that somehow it is going to go out and buy Lotto 649 tickets with it or somehow splurge-

[George Anderson, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the courage of a young man, a constituent of mine, Private George Anderson of Cape Ray, Newfoundland.

Members will realize that he was one of two Canadian peacekeepers seriously injured on Sunday in Croatia. In that incident he lost an eye and the lower parts of both his legs while doing his bit to help restore peace and stability in that part of the world.

Last evening I went to see his family: Ralph and Mary, his father and mother, and Angela and LeRoy, his sister and brother. His father told me he knew it was a dangerous place to be.

I want him and his family to know on our behalf that as he goes through this very difficult time in his life our thoughts and our prayers are with him.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 21st, 1994]

Has any action been taken by the Department of Environment to address the concerns raised by the Auditor General in his 1992 Report to Parliament that "the capability to respond effectively to a marine spill of any significant magnitude does not presently exist anywhere in Canada", even though "each year, Canada can expect at least one major spill, and a catastrophic spill can be expected once every 15 years", and, if so, (a) what was such action ( b ) are any specific environmental protection measures being developed to deal with potential spills of hazardous materials in relation to the Hibernia project?

[Senior Citizens, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our senior citizens are our most marvellous resource. They have made a great contribution to the country; whether it is risking their lives at war, building our infrastructure, designing our very enviable social safety net, preserving and transmitting our value system.

Everything we have, everything we are, everything we believe in, we owe to these men and women who are now seniors. Is it not time that we began to repay the debt we owe to these people, to begin watching out for those who have watched out for us for so long.

I am thinking particularly of the poor among them, the abused among them, the sick among them, the disabled. It is true that we have old age security and medicare, but it is time to go the extra mile, to reach out to those people really in need, those who want to stay in their homes, those who want to preserve and maintain their independence, those who want to live out their lives as they would choose to do it.

That is the challenge to us.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Edmonton Southwest.

Let me first address his concern about my style of speaking. Newfoundlanders in the foyer at a funeral tell jokes. That does not mean they are glad the guy is dead. That means they have a very particular way of dealing with an issue. If we can get a message across with a bit of humour or relieve a situation with humour we do it. Whether it works is for others to judge.

However, the subject is deadly serious. I can give the member an example that we have chafed under for a long time in Newfoundland. If the member knows the border between Labrador and Quebec he will know that there are two communities, one called Labrador City just east of the border and one called Fermont, Quebec just to the west, 12 miles from Labrador City. The person who lives in Fermont can drive down and work in the drug store or the shop in Labrador City, as she does and has for many years, but the son of the guy who owns that store cannot get a job in Fermont, Quebec. That has gone on there for many years. That is wrong.

The lack of labour mobility across this country is wrong and discriminatory. It has caused a fight between Ontario and Quebec recently. I concur completely with my colleague that-

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Chicoutimi, a man of great vision and foresight, the first person to recognize my skills and qualifications for the Quebec national theatre.

[English]

Despite the member's opening remarks about my parity and so on, I am sure what I was doing did not escape him at all. In effect I was saying practice what you preach and preach what you practice.

In the opposition's document of last fall there were only two fleeting references to unemployment and both related to past or current events. Neither gave any indication nor any inkling as to what the Parti Quebecois would like to see done insofar as the issue is concerned. It is difficult to preach to others if one does not have the solution. That was the thesis of what I was attempting to say. If I said it badly I apologize to my good friend from Chicoutimi.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. I extend my congratulations on your Speakership. This is my first opportunity when Madam Speaker was in the chair to say that and I wanted to very much.

Now I want to do some other things. My good friend from Mercier brings before this House a resolution. Let me say something else, Madam Speaker, that as long winded as I love to be, I am going to be all of 10 minutes because my good friend from Durham is going to follow me for the second 10 minutes of our 20 minute period.

My friend from Mercier would have the House deplore the government's lack of vision and lack of concrete measures relating to job creation policies.

I say to her that is a marvellous resolution. It is certainly grammatically correct. All the words are in the right place. It is procedurally correct. It is in the correct form for the House. It is certainly politically correct. That is what an opposition normally does. It says that it is not good enough, we want more.

Procedural, political and grammatical are three of the four litmus tests that one must always apply to any resolution before this Chamber.The fourth is whether the motion is substantively correct. Is it correct in substance?

My friend from North Vancouver as always is in the Chamber. He is nodding so vociferously I have a feeling he has something going with the member for Mercier. He must have written the resolution. He is pleased with the wording in the resolution and annoyed at me for suggesting it might not be absolutely letter perfect.

How gracious do you want me to be? I have already conceded that it is at least three parts correct, so we are 75 per cent of the way there.

Let us look at the other 25 per cent. Is it correct in substance? By analogy I say to her you can lament the poverty of a rich man, but that does not render him poor. You can cry in your beer about the low alcoholic content of your beverage, it will dilute the beer, but otherwise will not prove your overall thesis.

The smart thing to do, I say to the member, before rushing out to deplore, to lament or to cry in your beer is to analyse the beer, find out what it is you are about to deplore, and satisfy yourself that you know what you are talking about before you begin deploring it, let alone talk about it.

What are some of the cold hard facts? There are several, but there is a word in this motion, I love it, vision. Vision connotes something down the road. It suggests that somebody back there had some perception of what ought to be or what might be and so you say to yourself: "Who's the author of this resolution". Ostensibly it is the member for Mercier, my good friend, but just possibly it is her House leader.

Just possibly it is her leader. Just possibly it is a committee project. Perhaps all 54 had a hand in this. I do not see too many taking credit, but let us give her credit. She is at least the author of record and she uses the word vision. Let us look at the vision of the author because it is very insightful.

Could it be the same author who wrote a document called "A New Party for the Turning Point" last May? Could it be the author of a document that was circulated widely during the election of last fall in Quebec? Could it be the document that talked extensively about the separation of Quebec? I understand that because it is a publicly stated part of the party's platform. I have no difficulty as a matter of principle with that being in the document. It would be deceptive on the part of the party if that were not in the document. I do not decry that. However, since this is a party that decries the lack of vision of others then the implicit question is this: How about its vision on this same subject?

We go to the document. They had a fair amount of hindsight on page 7 of the document, the first reference on employment. It says that naturally there has been a considerable increase in unemployment. That is not exactly vision. It is not a bad observation but it is based on past experience, not on what might be.

Then we slave through the document, which makes for some pretty good reading actually, and wind up on page 22. On page 22 there is a table which again, for the second time now in 22 pages, refers to job creation by name or by inference.

There it says that in 1988-89 the federal government spent $2.7 billion on job creation exclusive of transfer payments. That is not bad but it is also hindsight. It is also what has been. There is not one solitary sentence about what the vision of the member for Mercier would be on the subject she now deplores.

What are the cold hard facts? I suppose a not too cold but certainly hard fact is: "66,000 lost jobs returned", a story a week ago in the Financial Post . Another not too cold but certainly hard fact: ``New jobs jump in February'' in the Toronto Star a week ago. These are some of the hard facts, not particularly cold.

"Job rate drops to 11.1 in February". My good friend from Calgary Centre enters the debate. I am so glad to see him. His favourite paper, the Globe and Mail , says that the job rate dropped to 11.1 in February. These are just a few of the cold hard facts.

I see my time is quickly running out. Let me come to one more issue. The issue is Chicken Little, the sky is falling. The easiest thing in the world is to say that everything is wrong with the world. The easiest thing to say is that the sky is falling. Unless members have some information for me to say how they are going to prop it up, I do not want to hear it. If I am going fast, I would like to go without knowing.

It is true whether on the issue of separation from Canada or on the issue of job creation that my good friend from Lac-Saint-Jean, the Leader of the Opposition, had a Damascus road experience, no question about it. The day he left the Tory cabinet, he had a true Damascus road experience.

For those members who are not as biblically correct as I pretend to be, Paul on the road to Damascus did a 180 degree turn and saw a light. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean did a 360. He did a turn on the road, but when he finished turning he was still going in the same direction, away from the light.

I stick to the issue of job creation. He realizes that the party he aided and abetted for a number of years was on the wrong track economically, with regard to national unity and a number of other issues.

I respect his decision to see the light. What I lament about with his behaviour is that he did not just do a turn, he twirled. He turned not only into the light but back away from it and in the process missed a great opportunity to not only to help build a great country but to get more young people, more people of all ages, back to work. That is what I lament over.

That is why the deploring in this motion is about all the wrong things. The basic premise of the resolution does not bear scrutiny. I appeal to the members of this House to treat the motion for what it is worth, a politically correct motion that the Official Opposition was obliged to move. We respect its adherence to political correctness. We appeal to the House to do the right thing and stick by the government which has a program for youth, an apprenticeship program, that I could go into. I have pages. I have not even started my several page speech here.

There are so many things we are beginning to do. Have we done it all in four months? Not quite, but we are working on it.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 22nd, 1994]

What action, if any, has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans taken to resolve the many long-standing deficiencies- in management practices of the fishing vessel insurance plan, including a rapidly declining insurance base, rising deficits, and declining efficiency, the failure to improve client service and the process for reviewing and approving claims, the plan's deteriorating performance, and the Department's lack of corrective action, as raised by the 1992 Auditor General's report?