Charles Hubbard

[National Volunteer Week, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Volunteer Week.

As members of Parliament we must acknowledge the tremendous contributions that many Canadians make in improving the lot of their fellow citizens. Time is one of our most precious commodities. It is important that all of us use this time effectively and efficiently.

Across Canada many Canadians budget some of their time in an effort to enhance their communities by serving on boards, in providing recreation, in coaching, with youth programs, in visiting the sick and providing services that would cost our communities

many thousands of dollars. Volunteerism, the offering of one's time to the community, offers all of us a tremendous contribution.

Today we salute these volunteers for their efforts and those people who offer their services to charities.

I would like to challenge all Canadians to reflect on this use of time and consider the importance of volunteerism.

[Communications, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the province of New Brunswick and my riding of Miramichi take great pride in our leading role in the field of computer technology and communications.

The premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, together with the New Brunswick Telephone Company and Fundy Cable have co-ordinated their efforts to provide services and opportunities for the people of our province. The New Brunswick Community College, Miramichi, has received national recognition for its leadership in developing programs in multimedia technology, imaging, animation and virtual reality.

There is no secret to New Brunswick's success in attracting leading edge companies and call centres. NB Tel has digital equipment and some of the best fibre optics communications systems in the world. Our province has the economic environment to pursue and attract industries in the 21st century. I would like to inform the House that New Brunswick and the Miramichi are opened for business.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present in both official languages to the House, a report from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 42nd Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference which was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from August 17 to 24, 1996.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, being from Atlantic Canada, it is certainly important for us to present our views on the employment insurance act. It is particularly important

to bring to the House some of the important concerns we have in Atlantic Canada.

As Liberals, we have always prided ourselves in introducing the original unemployment insurance bill, changing it in the 1970s and promoting and encouraging it, and to see that Canadians who are unable to find work are protected by legislation and by a program that will enable them to have a satisfactory standard of living.

Since the Liberal Party formed this government, we have been involved in discussions across the country through the HRD committee and through our members of Parliament meeting with constituents to discuss the ramifications and look at their concerns about unemployment.

Jobs are the major concern of many Canadians. Many of our young people, especially those in the 15-24 age group, have great difficulties finding jobs. Nearly 10 per cent of our labour force at any given time has difficulty finding work.

In Atlantic Canada, as in the rest of the nation, people do not want to be unemployed. They would prefer to find work, to have steady income. We as members of Parliament and as a government must attempt to bring forward measures to encourage programs, to develop an environment that will enable Canadians to find satisfactory and worthwhile forms of employment.

Since the bill was originally introduced last December, most of us went home to our constituencies and held town hall meetings. We attempted to find the concerns with the legislation originally introduced.

In Atlantic Canada there were two major concerns. Some people were concerned with what is called the gap, the idea that weeks were being presented on a consecutive basis. If one were to file for unemployment, HRDC would look at the consecutive weeks of work. In many cases in Atlantic Canada that was a major problem.

Others were concerned with what is called the intensity rule. It is the concept that those who filed annually or were unemployed annually were being penalized because jobs in their areas were not available year round.

In Atlantic Canada a lot of jobs are seasonal in nature. We do not have seasonal workers, we have seasonal jobs. In the forest, the fishery and the tourist industries people generally are only able to work when the season is right. When three feet of ice covers Miramichi Bay it is impossible to fish. When the snow is four feet deep it is impossible to conduct forestry activities. Even though New Brunswick has promoted winter activities in recreation and tourism, this industry is basically one which is conducted in the summer.

The committee which studied the bill when it was reintroduced has come up with solutions to the gap in the system. The system will apply so that one may go back 26 weeks to pick the best weeks that will add up to the required number of weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. The committee also recommended that the intensity rule would only apply to those with family incomes of over $26,000.

We as Liberals are able to protect those people in society. We have not been able to bring forward a guaranteed annual income, but we certainly have brought forward a system of protection so that those who are most needy are able to gain the most benefits from the program.

There are some other positive aspects to the bill. The system of hours of work for example will assist many people in terms of qualifying. Many workers in the past who had small numbers of hours in any given week were not allowed to count those hours toward their benefits. Now all hours will qualify. For those who might criticize that system we must point out that those who have paid in on an hourly basis and are unable to draw because they are students or are involved in a short term enterprise may apply for a refund of their contributions. The hours system is good because those who work long hours for example in the construction industry will be able to use the 35 hours as the basis of a week.

There are five cornerstones here which will help people who are unemployed. There is the system of wage subsidies and earning supplements. More money is being put into the self-employment assistance program. More than 45,000 people across the country are involved in becoming entrepreneurs and developing their own companies and businesses, thereby being able to employ others and continue in full time employment. Money is going to be put toward skills and loans grants for enabling people to further their job skills to better qualify for employment.

There will be a fund which will enable communities to participate in providing work. The fund will enable environmental, community and other groups to develop programs and improve their communities. They will use money from the fund in order to make their area a better place in which to live.

I have listened to members opposite. I know they have many concerns, as we in Atlantic Canada have many concerns. We are concerned with the fact that people need jobs. By the same token we are concerned about the fact that people need help when those jobs are not available.

We must respect those 90 per cent of Canadians who on any given day are working full time and who through their contributions to the system are paying 3 per cent of their wages into a fund which will help those who are unemployed.

This week the fishermen in Atlantic Canada, especially in my area, went out in their boats for their annual fishing season. The fishermen's UI is separate from the major part of the program.

I hope when we eventually bring before the government an unemployment insurance system for fishermen that we will be able to have a dialogue and hear their concerns. It will bring to the people of Atlantic Canada and those on the west coast about whom they spoke this morning a program which will enable them to remain a viable part of our economy. It will enable our fishermen to go out and fish each summer. The fishery is a very important part of our Canadian economy.

I support the bill. It certainly is not perfect. There are some members who would like to have a perfect bill. We never have perfection but we as Liberals try to work toward that degree of perfection. We try to work toward the concept that we as a party and as a government will look after those people who are most in need. We want to assure them of our concern and support of their best interests.

[Auto Leasing, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a major problem in the country today is the concentration of economic power in the boardrooms of major corporations whose sole business is to maximize profits.

We are lobbied today by banks, an industry that has made billions in profits while using automation to lay off thousands of employees to now enter the field of auto leasing.

It is important for our local car dealers that major banks not be permitted to enter the leasing markets. They believe it would be a conflict of interest, as banks are their major source of financing. They are concerned that they will jeopardize their chances of obtaining financing from the banks if they are forced to compete with the banks in the same market.

We cannot afford to have the banks take more jobs away from hardworking Canadians. I ask all members to support car dealers in their opposition to banks' entering the field of leasing.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians realize that we have to have a balance. We cannot continue to spend just because we have a certain figure today. The message which Canadians gave us in the last election, which they are still giving us on the streets today, is that somehow we have to bring our financial house in order. If we continue, as the hon. member says, to build programs and to spend more money, I do not think that is what Canada wants.

In reply of his comments on the UI program, the House of Commons committee has been reviewing the proposals. The minister, who comes from my province, will work with that committee to ensure that Canadians who are most in need will have programs which will enable them to continue to live in an economically healthy family unit.

I certainly appreciated his comments. I also appreciated the comments which were made by the hon. member from Rivière-du-Loup. However, we have to appreciate the fact that there are Canadians who are in need and as a government, we will continue to help those Canadians who are most in need.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.

The budget debate over the last several days clearly indicates the dilemma the people of this country must perceive as they watch it on television. The Bloc criticizes the government for reducing spending and cutting back on programs. Reform, although somewhat inconsistent in its dissertations, generally condemns the government for not balancing the budget by reducing expenditures and eliminating programs.

As the only national party in the House, we the Liberals must reflect the concerns of all Canadians. We must have a program and a plan to direct our economy and create a climate that will stimulate growth, encourage investment, enhance consumer confidence and create jobs for the Canadian people.

The budget as presented by the Minister of Finance on March 6 has been well received across the country. It is the continuation of a long term plan with specific short term objectives. The finance department, like the Department of National Defence, has always been a very difficult portfolio for Canadian politicians. The tenure of many of them has been very short. The minister has done an excellent job. His vision, determination and perseverance are appreciated by most Canadians.

Canada's debt was and is a major problem. Nine years of Conservative mismanagement saw our national debt increase from approximately $168 billion to more than $500 billion during that period. Annual deficits were often in excess of $40 billion. With interest rates of nearly 8 per cent to 10 per cent, 25 per cent of government revenues are and have been directed toward interest payments to lenders both in Canada and abroad.

It is not easy to bring our financial house into order. Abruptly reducing spending within a budgetary framework where interest payments and legislated spending accounted for approximately

75 per cent of revenues would have created hardships for many Canadians and possibly bring havoc to the Canadian economy.

The prescribed cutbacks in the three budgets in 1994, 1995 and 1996 are a determined effort to gradually reduce government spending. The annual deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product will move from 6 per cent to 3 per cent to 2 per cent, and hopefully by the turn of the century we will have a balanced budget.

The 1996 budget proposes some very reassuring commitments to Canadians. Seniors, through benefits for those of age 60 and older, will have a definite plan for their retirement.

The Canada health and social transfer program will be guaranteed a five year commitment which will encourage the provinces to do their own budgeting.

There is a program of jobs and growth, especially for our youth, with emphasis on education, technology and international trade; a school network program for more than 1,000 rural communities; a partnership with provinces for food inspection and other government agencies; a concern for child support and programs to assist families with educational credits, child care expenses, credits for infirm dependents and a doubling of the working income supplement; all of these without any increase in taxation.

It is surprising that as I listen to the opposition we are not hearing a great number of positive comments and suggestions that could be brought to future budgets. The budget, for example, encourages the Department of Revenue to attack the underground economy. We also must continue to be concerned with loopholes and policies. They are unfair to many Canadians as they approach the taxation system.

We might ask, for example, if we can continue to permit large corporations that are concerned only with maximizing profits to avoid what might be a fair amount of taxation.

Can we look at bank machines that have replaced tellers, closed rural banks and eliminated thousands of jobs? Can we watch big companies such as General Motors lay off employees through outsourcing of work while making profits of more than $1 billion? Can we watch these large corporations pay their executives more than 50 times the salary of some of their yearly workers? Can we continue to permit those earning $1 million a year to pay the same tax rate as those who have taxable incomes of $60,000? These are some of the questions the opposition might be asking.

This to me is a good budget in terms of the financial problems the country has faced. We must not forget we have nearly a 10 per cent unemployment problem. It is especially a problem for our youth. All of us in the House must strive to make Canada a better place for young people as they seek to find gainful and meaningful work.

We must insist that employers be fair, compassionate and considerate. Business has a role to play. We are hopeful it will participate in programs that will assist our youth, our greatest resource, in promoting the future of the country.

The budget outlines the government's plans for revenues and spending. Its success depends to a large extent on the ability and willingness of our people and businesses to pay their fair share for the support of government programs.

I call today for all civil servants to watch their spending, to avoid spending if it is only to consume the allocations for their department, for their agency. Canadians must be assured of true value for their hard earned tax dollars. They have always been supportive and generous. We as politicians must encourage strong controls and insist that specific spending be justified.

We must not overlook the fact that many Canadians are hurting. Too many cutbacks by both business and government attack those in our society who are least able to defend themselves. We must ensure that downsizing of governments does not place the entire burden on those of low income or who are in difficult economic circumstances.

Atlantic Canada and many areas of other provinces are concerned with UI reforms and the concentration of activities in larger centres. As parliamentarians we must work to ensure compassion, fairness and understanding. In our committee work and in reviewing estimates especially we must be very diligent.

The budget reflects our Liberal principles and I am happy to support it.

[Chatham, New Brunswick, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.

The base at Chatham was closed in the budget of 1994. For the last two years local groups: Sky Park, the city, the premier of New Brunswick and the province have been working to determine optional uses for the base.

Would the minister please inform the House what has been the results of the negotiations?

[Child Labour, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to the journey of a young man from Toronto, only 12 years of age, Craig Kielberger, who left this week for the Far East to visit India, Pakistan, Thailand and other countries that use child labour.

Very often countries in the western world are appalled at human rights violations and the denial of political freedom in these backward countries.

Labour standards, and especially the abuse of young children in nearly slave-like conditions must be of serious concern for all Canadians. As a trading nation, and as consumers of products manufactured under uncivilized conditions, we must somewhere draw a line in the sand against those who profit from such practices.

Today, let us salute Craig in his crusade, Free the Children Campaign. Hopefully all of us can join with him in his venture.

[Petitions, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents concerning the methods our government might use in the area of furniture moving.

The petitioners indicate a concern that the proposed method, if adopted, could indicate that one company would have the entire system of moving furniture for all governmental departments. They petition that the former system, the one that has been in place for some years, be continued and that all companies across Canada be given some portion of that movement.