Bob Nault

[Social Security Programs, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague across the way let me make it clear I believe that benefits should be based on need.

The fact remains that we as a government can assess policy options through the review we are having with Canadians once the consultation process is over. I believe there is a strong possibility that we will be able to create change and programs and policies that base their assumptions on the needs of certain Canadians.

On the question of what is perceived to be the definition of poverty, I grew up in what would probably be classified as a poor to lower middle class family with 10 children. Our father and mother worked their tails off to get us through school and to a point where we could succeed as Canadians should. To me poverty is when there is no opportunity to succeed. That is a pretty easy, simple definition. When I went to school and was of university age I would never have had the ability to go to university without government participation. My parents could not afford to send 10 kids to university.

There is a need for governments to participate in helping people with the capabilities get from one school level to the next. The government and its record will prove that we have done that in the past and will do it in the future.

To me poverty also means that the basic necessities of life are looked after so students do not go to school hungry. In Kenora-Rainy River I represent the most aboriginal communities of any member of the House with a total of 46. A large majority of the kids I represent in First Nations communities go to bed hungry and go to school hungry.

If we as a government are not cognizant of that fact and do not create programs to deal with young people, how can they be expected to get off the treadmill they are on? Governments should participate in a program that makes sure young people have an opportunity or a chance by having a roof over their head and by being well fed and well nourished. Then when they do go to school, because we are supplying education, they will want to learn. They will be willing to get to the next step.

As a young person I had the opportunity to get into an educational institution to better myself so that I could make my way and make a life for my own family.

[Social Security Programs, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of change. Although I have not entirely determined my position on all the proposals contained in the government's discussion paper "Improving Social Security in Canada", I am carefully considering the various options. Frankly I am waiting for my constituents to digest these ideas and tell me what they think.

However I am certain of my support for the process the discussion paper initiates. It is a process of change. The government is once again showing its commitment to innovation and complete consultation with Canadians in an open and constructive manner.

The change I speak of is necessary because in Canada we have a social security system that is simply not working properly. Our social programs no longer function adequately, often neglecting those people who need help. I need only cite recent statistics on child poverty to prove the point.

Clearly there are some people caught in the revolving door of welfare who are otherwise capable and willing to work. That is a problem. It hurts the system and impedes our ability to deliver efficient programs. We must improve the system. We must bring about change.

When the Minister of Human Resources Development released his discussion paper a short while ago, immediately we listened to the barrage of criticism from across the House and complaints from interest groups across the country.

I could not be happier. In my mind the discussion paper is a total success. That is exactly what a discussion paper is supposed to do: to get Canadians talking about our social security system. Whether the comments are positive or negative Canadians have started the debate on social policy. That is exactly our intention. It is debate by Canadians that will inspire the creative ideas we need to improve our social security programs.

I remind members across the floor that the discussion paper is not government policy but rather a framework of proposals to work toward solutions. The debate will continue. The government is listening to the condemnations from political camps and special interest lobbies. Lo and behold the silent majority speaks. Canadians were recently solicited for their opinions. Scientific sources tell us the strong majority of Canadians think the social security system needs change.

That is one reason I am a member of this majority government. We promised change. We were elected to a majority for change and now we are delivering on change. Furthermore an overwhelming majority of people in the country apparently think specific programs like unemployment insurance and welfare desperately need change. I reiterate that I stand in support of change.

I also support the nation's exemplary tradition of helping our poor, our disadvantaged and our unfortunate. However I am concerned that what began as a system of assistance for the poor, the unemployed and disadvantaged has turned into a social trap. The system now applies social assistance inappropriately, thus missing the target and costing far too much in the process. Canada's social security system has drifted from its original intent. That is why we are here re-examining the issue with the objective of improving it.

I cannot speak for my colleagues but I have received several letters from people who are upset. They say that we are unfairly subsidizing the social security system and that we must seriously address those concerns.

I am not blaming the victims in our society. I want a social security system that will protect and help victims of misfortune. If we do not improve the system we will not be able to help those people in the future. We also have to face financial realities. When social programs are unfairly applied those truly in need are the people who suffer.

I would like to examine a couple of specific ideas if I could. One is the concept of getting people back to work. The other is the essence that in the priority of the government jobs for Canadians will solve a lot of our social security problems.

There is a deficiency with programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance. For example it often makes more sense to remain on the welfare roll rather than seek employment because sometimes welfare benefits pay better than low end jobs. There is no incentive for people to enter the workforce and advance careers into better paying jobs. The problem is well documented.

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect we should develop policy that motivates people on welfare to enter the workforce. By encouraging Canadians to find jobs we are also helping individuals gain the dignity we all desire.

The proposal of supplementing wages with social assistance until people rise above the poverty line while remaining in the workforce is a commendable idea. We must also develop effective job training programs so that people can acquire the skills they need to excel in the workforce.

Social programs must involve the availability of education. We must explore policy options that direct federal funds to provide education and training for people who currently receive social assistance. Far too many children live in poverty because parents do not have the option of furthering their education and developing meaningful careers. By providing opportunities for education and training we will see welfare rolls decrease.

The proposed two tier system of unemployment as it relates to insurance has received considerable support in my riding at this early stage of social policy review. I contend that the UI program is being abused. The program should be used only as insurance in circumstances where Canadians find themselves unavoidably caught between employment opportunities. That is what the program was originally intended for but is not how the program operates today.

Unfortunately many Canadians have learned to depend on UI as a steady source of income. I do not think it is fair to ask working Canadians to subsidize those who consistently calculate UI into annual income strategies. We have to pay special attention to our seasonal workers. There are many Canadians and many careers in Canada that depend on seasonal employment. Those people cannot be left out in the cold, but we must address the excessive costs to Canadian taxpayers of a system that allows people to depend on social assistance when they are capable of working.

Rather than simply ignoring frequent UI applicants we should help them find long term employment, or perhaps multiple seasonal jobs. The government is obviously open to suggestions. We cannot escape the fact that the UI system needs improvement.

In conclusion I support the discussion paper on social policy because it represents an agenda for change. We are going through profound changes. Some of these changes are stamped with dire predictions of doom and gloom. I say that just the opposite is true. Social policy review is one component of a new process for change. We are asking that Canadians temper their immediate expectations. We are asking for sacrifice today so that our children may prosper in the future.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Obviously, it is a subsidy. I have questioned that for a number of years and it is only one example. Those are things the minister and the government are trying to change so that people will be able to improve their lot without being on a treadmill.

In conclusion, this morning the minister referred to diversifying northern Ontario and having regional development programs that do two things. They access dollars for the

diversification of regions like mine. We continue to say that. We still say that and the minister has said that.

We have also said that we want to focus on a business relationship more than subsidies, wherein we will give loans and encourage businesses to succeed by having a fair regional development program. That is very consistent with what we all have said in the past.

By taking the criticisms of the finance minister out of context the member is suggesting that somehow we have changed. In fact we have not; we are still saying what we said all along.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, yes, I did run into Reform candidates in the last election, which I found to be quite interesting. The member should know two things. I very much followed the platform of the Reform Party, simply because if I was going to run against somebody I should know what my opposition was saying.

Reform Party members did not say that they were just in favour of bringing UI back to its original intent of insurance. They were saying they wanted the government to get out of UI completely, to privatize UI and put it in the hands of the employers and the employees or, more important, in the hands of the business sector and let it run the whole show.

The member has to be a little more frank and open when he says that what the minister said today in his paper is identical to what the Reform Party said. There is a very significant difference between what was said in the paper today and what the Reform Party said during the last election campaign.

During the campaign I said-and we have said it continually in the House and I will say it again-that the UI system as it is presently working is ineffective for people in regions like mine because it puts them on a treadmill. Because of the problem created by the regulations as they now exist, businesses use UI as a means of augmenting their business and their existing revenues within the company structure.

I am a railroader. I have three railway terminals in my riding. At the height of the transportation of grains and other commodities at a certain time of the year there are hundreds more employees working in the railway industry than in winter months. As soon as they get enough weeks the railway lays them off. The industry is compensated by having individuals who are technically sound come back into the business when business picks up. Who pays for that?

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-46. I want to talk about some positive aspects of the government's policy direction because economic indicators in Canada are indeed positive.

It is not a complete coincidence that the Canadian government has introduced new restructuring such as the Department of Industry. At the same time, to be frank and forthright, there are still unsatisfactory economic conditions which need to be addressed. It is my hope that logical steps, including the new Industry Canada format, will lead to sustainable economic recovery in Canada.

The approach of fiscal responsibility with sensible spending reductions while maintaining integral support for business and industry is a reasonable policy for today's economic climate. The reorganization and creation of the new Department of Industry is probably most often associated with business operations in cities such as high tech and sophisticated science based companies. However, I would like to comment on the new Industry Canada from a different perspective, that of a rural setting. Canada's rural regions also depend on industrial development.

My riding of Kenora-Rainy River is in northern Ontario where most people automatically think of resource industries like mining and forestry. While that is true, we do depend on the resource sector to provide us with an economic foundation but the realities of a new market order dictate that economies across Canada diversify.

Industry Canada is tailored to accommodate diversity in all regions of the country. In northern Ontario diversification has been ongoing for many years, out of necessity I might add. Changing market conditions and economic downturns in the major resource sectors have forced regional economies to develop new markets and new strategies.

Diversified industrial sectors play a vital role in northern Ontario's economy. The focus of tourism has expanded to include non-traditional and non-consumptive vacation packages which complement the more common products of fishing

and hunting lodges. This new brand of ecotourism is not replacing the traditional tourism market but rather diversifying a strong sector.

In the past our resource sector consisted of pulp and paper mills and gold mines only. These mills and mines are still the backbone of the northern Ontario economy but now we realize there must be a concerted effort to diversify.

Companies are now concentrating on secondary industry by manufacturing wood and mineral products instead of exporting raw materials. The production of wood furniture and mineral products such as granite headstones is indicative of a diversified economy taking shape in northern Ontario.

Secondary manufacturing such as printing products and packaging and, yes, leading edge technology in a vast array of fields from computers to agriculture and telecommunications is the new wave of economics in northern Ontario and rural regions across the country. This is why Industry Canada profoundly affects rural Canada as well as urban Canada. This is why northern Ontario is keenly interested in the structures within a new department of Industry Canada.

Although I have just cited fairly large resource sectors, there is another area important to my riding and the rest of the country which Industry Canada must service efficiently to promote economic growth and that is a topic that I have raised many times in the House, the area of small and medium sized businesses.

The initiatives and new mandate of Industry Canada are essential tools for small business growth. In order to become more efficient and gain access to large markets, small business across the country must be provided with a network of services and information so that skills can be acquired to start new innovative operations as well as expanding traditional businesses.

Federal developments important to the success of the small business sector include the Canadian Technology Network, Canada Investment Fund, engineers and scientists programs and the much talked about information highway.

Networking and sharing of market information are absolutely crucial to building competitive companies in the global marketplace. Organizations such as economic development offices, centres of excellence, and the new local training boards must develop networks so that business can access the tools they need to remain competitive. Industry Canada is actively promoting such a network with its new initiatives.

New changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Federal Business Development Bank and the formation of a new relationship between financial institutions and small business are also areas important to business and industrial progress. I took part in a task force hearing in Ontario with my colleagues examining a new code of conduct for banks and small business. Granted, changes will not take place overnight. It is this type of initiative that small business will need to survive in the new marketplace.

Gaining reasonable access to capital dollars has been a distinct problem for small and medium sized businesses attempting to expand or establish new ventures. We need these companies to create new jobs and fire the economic engine.

Industry Canada is one of the federal departments working to enhance financial conditions for Canadian companies. Industry Canada will also work toward other objectives to strengthen our potential for economic growth. Eliminating duplication of business services and regulations between federal and provincial governments is an important step in making it easier for our industrial sectors to flourish.

Industry Canada is vigorously pursuing new and practical partnerships with different levels of government. Combine this action with programs that are developed in co-operation with the private sector and we hope to have a new industrial structure in Canada that promotes growth and prosperity. I acknowledge that the private business community will lead Canada's economic recovery, but we in government on this side of the House strongly feel there is a constructive role to play for departments like the Department of Industry.

Specifically I do not blame the industrial sector in northern Ontario if it feels the previous government left it out in the cold during tough economic times. Unfortunately it was the attitude of the federal government to feed struggling companies to the dogs. Liberals, I might add, do not think that is the way we should go. We do not want to throw good money after bad money, but far too often companies needing only a small amount of support to get over the hump were ignored and died a very quiet death.

In the past I have suffered alongside business people in my riding who were unable to access appropriate government services and funding programs. Business proposals with excellent promise were often ignored because of patronage attitudes, a lack of vision within the federal government and plain old bungling. I hope we can eliminate that in the future.

Programs and services being developed by Industry Canada are designed to identify struggling companies with a potential worth saving. That is the Liberal way of building a strong economy.

In conclusion, I return to the resource sector in northern Ontario and the rest of Canada. Primary resource industries not only provide revenues, jobs and valuable exports, but they also spark secondary industry. This economic process is vital to my riding and all of northern Ontario.

Secondary industries, or clusters as they are known in the current terminology of new age economics, spin off from a strong resource sector and form all sorts of companies providing jobs and stability. It is of the utmost urgency that Industry Canada follow through with the promising initiatives created by this new federal department. The new and revitalized role of Industry Canada truly has the potential to forge a solid economic framework in the country. The new mandate of federal departments like Industry Canada is to nurture co-operative partnerships on which we can build an effective national economy.

I am confident that regions such as northern Ontario will now at least have a fighting chance to take advantage of a healthy business environment, due in large part to the development of practical effective federal programs.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Ask the question. I don't understand a damn thing you are saying.

[Committees Of The House, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on forestry practices in Canada entitled "Canada: A Model Forest Nation in the Making".

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for all their hard work in the last three months in putting together a very comprehensive report on the state of our forests.

Some 17 recommendations are made on how we can continue to be a model forest nation and what we as a nation must do to have sustainable forest practices in order to continue to lead the world as a forestry nation.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, without amendment.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Dauphin-Swan River, I am very much interested in issues that relate to the expenditures in the estimates and the budget.

Mr. Speaker, you will understand this being of the same bent, in the old hockey days I used to play in Dauphin. Dauphin is a small community very much the same as Kenora and places in my riding like Kenora, Dryden and Fort Frances. The thing that impressed me the most was the agricultural land that was available for production.

One thing in this budget the member could fill us in on is the issue of whether the government is listening regarding farmers. Farmers have had a very difficult time in the last few years. As I do not have a large agricultural sector and am not well versed in agricultural issues, I would like to know if she could tell me if we are on the right track as it relates to agricultural issues. Are there initiatives in the budget that she thinks are going to help the farmers in her area and across the west?

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the issue my colleague raised as it relates to infrastructure.

There seems to be an underlying motive in the Reform Party's attitude that money should not be spent on infrastructure because they are part time jobs and that when there is a debt, the money should not be spent or used toward the development of infrastructure.

Even though we have financial and fiscal problems-we all admit it; we are not suggesting otherwise-his party is suggesting that we should not bother with infrastructure in regions like mine which of course are huge. There are 800,000 square kilometres with virtually no roads that have tremendous potential, as I mentioned before.

Should we hold off on trying to develop regions like that until some day when we may be able to get our debt back to zero? It is going to take a significant amount of time if we are reasonable about it. I need to know from the member whether he is suggesting that we should put everything on hold and let infrastructure crumble and fall apart as is the case in other countries around the world.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

The member suggests that is what Mulroney said. What Mulroney said and did are two different things, as we all know. He played around on the fringes. He liked to play around and pretend he was making cuts while he sat there with 40 ministers along the benches. There were so many of them and so many limousines around they had trouble getting to their offices after question period.

We do not see that in this government. There is a dramatic change in how we do things and how the Prime Minister is trying to use a more common man approach because that is where he comes from. We do not have a presidential kind of atmosphere around here any more. We have a House of Commons attitude with which we are going to slowly work our way through this.

I have said to my constituents that we need, and what I think we are following as a government, is about a 10-year plan, not a 3-year plan in which we slash and trash everything that is not nailed down and then say: "I cut the deficit but everybody is out of a job, but are we ever doing good". What we want to do is build the economy over a 10-year period. I certainly believe that I will still be in this place if I am so fortunate as far as my constituents are concerned to prove to members opposite that we have done the right thing and have the right policies in place.