Joe McGuire

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Egmont and the neighbouring riding of Malpeque.

The petitioners are concerned with the profound inadequacies in the sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired driving charges.

They request and humbly pray that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that a sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death carries a minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum sentence of 14 years.

[Doug Maclean, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Stanley Cup playoffs are over and the coach of the Florida Panthers has returned to Prince Edward Island for the summer.

Doug MacLean, a native of Summerside, has accomplished what no Islander before him and indeed what very few Canadians have accomplished. He coached his team for the NHL finals.

The odds of making an NHL team as a player are very high. The odds of coaching an NHL team and having that team go to the Stanley Cup finals are infinitely higher, but Doug has done it in his first year as head coach of the Florida Panthers. Last Friday, there was outpouring of warmth and pride in Doug's accomplishments from the people of Summerside and P.E.I. in general.

As much as anyone can be, Doug MacLean is a self-made man. His determination and personality have made him the best coach in the NHL. All Islanders have their fingers crossed as we await the announcement of the coach of the year in the NHL.

I urge the House to share in my congratulations to Doug MacLean, his immediate family and parents for a job well done.

[Fixed Link Project, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, notice was given on Friday, May 31, 1996 to the federal Minister of Public Works and Government Services by the contractor Strait Crossing Incorporated that in one year, on May 31, 1997, the bridge connecting mainland Canada with Prince Edward Island will be officially opened.

This gigantic $800 million project which is a unique public sector-private sector partnership is on schedule and under budget. This in itself is unique for a project of such magnitude. Two thousand, four hundred Canadians work on the job site and 2,000 Canadians work off the job site.

Under P.E.I.'s terms of entry into Confederation in 1873 the Government of Canada was obliged to provide continuous and efficient year-round transportation for people, goods and services between P.E.I. and the mainland. This engineering marvel, a 13 kilometre bridge, will continue to fulfil that agreement. It was made possible by an amendment to the terms of Confederation passed by the federal government in 1993.

It is interesting to note that engineers from all over the world are coming to P.E.I. to study the innovative technology being used to erect the bridge. Hopefully, Canadian engineering students will avail themselves of the opportunity as well.

I invite this House and the people of Canada to come to P.E.I. and view this wonder of the world.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House on Bill C-12.

This bill is the culmination of a two-year effort on behalf of the government to change, to clarify and to improve, hopefully, the unemployment insurance system of this country. It has been a very long time coming.

The people of Canada had their first look at this bill last December. Some parts of it were greeted with a great deal of anger in some areas. One of the things that really upset members of Parliament and seasonal workers in particular was the calculation of benefits and what became known as the gap. They were also upset with the divisor rule, which reduced their benefits a great deal, as well as with the intensity rule, which would penalize people who worked in seasonal industries.

It is unfortunate that in Canada we have winters. We do not fish or farm in the wintertime. Neither do we have much of a tourist industry in the wintertime. Most of our nation consists of seasonal industries manned by seasonal workers. They are full time workers in seasonal industries. To penalize them, which was the message they received last December, would be a very unfair way to treat them.

With the change in the cabinet, the new minister undertook to rectify those situations. The minister of HRDC comes from an area which has seasonal labour, whether it be fishing, forestry, mining, tourism or whatever. A large percentage of the workforces in New Brunswick and in P.E.I. consists of seasonal labour. In my riding of Egmont almost 50 per cent of the labour force is seasonal. To penalize them, as we would have been under the bill which was introduced in 1995, was unfair and the new minister recognized that.

The minister and the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development put a lot of work into improving the bill. They worked very long hours. There are a lot of amendments which came from members of the Atlantic caucus and also from members of the Ontario caucus, the Manitoba caucus and the B.C. caucus. As I said earlier, the country is made up of seasonal industries due mainly to its geography.

I compliment the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury. He put an enormous amount of time and concern into rectifying the bill. I also compliment my colleague from Malpeque who made an amendment which will be introduced later on that will improve the bill.

The main problem with the old bill was the gap. When a seasonal worker applied for unemployment insurance they had to count back consecutively 14 straight weeks to calculate their benefit. Oftentimes there was no work at all. Even though an individual qualified to apply, they did not have 14 consecutive weeks. In an extreme case a person could have one week and 13 zeros. That is how ridiculous the previous proposal was.

We tend to ignore or forget that there was quite a protest against these parts of the bill. Whether it was in P.E.I., New Brunswick, Quebec or Ontario, people came out to help us make these changes in the bill. I was glad to see them demonstrate their support for the changes we were proposing. They made sure we held to our word that we would change the gap, the intensity rule and the divisor.

Once a person's seasonal employment is finished, whether it is in August or October, they can go back 26 consecutive weeks. If their 14 weeks, or their 12 weeks in the case of Prince Edward Island, is within that 26 week period, they will receive full benefit for the contributions they have made.

This will take care of the vast majority of seasonal workers. There will be a few who slip through the cracks. As with any new legislation there is always improvements that can be made. Even though they may not be made in this bill, in the future amendments can be made to protect those people who fall through the cracks.

There may be a year of adjustment for some people who apply in July for unemployment insurance benefits. When they take the previous fall's work weeks, coupled with the spring work weeks and then apply for unemployment insurance in July, these people will be left out. They will have a year of adjustment which may be tough.

On the intensity rule, it is not a perfect solution. However, if we had all kinds of money to apply to every problem we have I suppose we would never get out of debt or never get our deficit under control.

We have to credit the minister for going back to cabinet and securing funds which will take care of the cost of the gap, the cost of the intensity rule and the cost of the divisor rule. When we add it all up there is about an extra half billion dollars put into the bill over the past month.

The intensity rule now is that if someone is a repeater but their household income is $26,000 or less they will not be penalized. Depending on their dependants, they may be able to qualify for an extra amount of money because they are a low income earner. Those with higher incomes will be penalized 1 per cent a year for five years, which is still money and still a penalty. I believe it should still be recognized that $26,000 in this day and age is not a great amount of money and these people should not be penalized.

UI was never designed to support somebody who is making $60,000 or $70,000 net income. With the clawback that situation will be rectified to an extent where in five years' time someone making $48,000 will still be eligible to draw UI. Over that they will not be able to draw UI. I do not think anybody can argue with the fairness of that stipulation in the bill.

I know there are a lot of other things that can be said about the bill. I compliment the committee again for all its hard work, especially the members in my province, the members for Malpeque and Hillsborough, who have devoted a lot of their time to improving the bill.

[The Budget, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a statement in the Minister of Finance's excellent budget of March 6 reads:

-the present restriction on banks selling insurance will be maintained. The present framework for selling insurance through agents and brokers will be preserved. The white paper concerning this and all other aspects still under review will be released in the coming weeks.

The reaction of members of the House and Canadians generally shows that this was one of the most popular measures of the entire budget.

This prohibition of banks selling insurance to their branches should be followed by a prohibition of banks entering into the automobile leasing market. Due to the role banks play in the financing of present leasing operations they would enjoy an almost insurmountable advantage over existing automobile leasing operations.

In 1994 banks financed over 40 per cent of car leases, giving banks the additional right to be commercial lessors. This would allow them an unfair advantage over consumers, as well as seriously disadvantaged private companies involved in the vehicle leasing market.

Members of Parliament from both sides of the House should ensure that this not be allowed to happen.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member alluded to Labrador during his speech. Maybe we should send a copy of it to the constituents in Labrador.

I wonder what the Reform Party is telling the people of Labrador about the unemployment insurance system. Is it telling them that the unemployment insurance system should be eliminated? Is it saying that ACOA should be eliminated? Ninety per cent of ACOA supported businesses are successful in that area. Is it telling the people of Labrador that it would like to reduce the Marine Atlantic program? Is it telling them it is in favour of a two-tier medical system?

I would like the hon. member to respond to what the Reform Party is telling the people of Labrador.

[Maritime Union, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently we have had some strange echoes from the past in regard to maritime union. Let us hear what the past of maritime union has been.

In his thesis on maritime union, John M. Wilkinson posed the question:

Was there ever in any one, or all three, of the maritime provinces any general or popular movement in favour of their union, as distinct from those inaugurated by official classes, such as politicians or those actuated by profit?

The answer is that, unless the situation has changed, popular support for maritime union has been virtually non-existent. Even the legislators who in the 1860s agreed to a conference to consider such a union did it without enthusiasm and certainly not in response to the express wishes of their constituents.

Because of its lack of interest in maritime union, Prince Edward Island has been called the reluctant province. History indicates, however, that it has been different only in degree. It has been somewhat more reluctant than reluctant Nova Scotia and reluctant New Brunswick.

Let me assure the House this situation has not changed. A recent poll on Prince Edward Island put opposition to maritime union at 70 per cent-

[Atlantic Canada, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Reform Party has insulted the intelligence of the people of Prince Edward Island and the rest of Atlantic Canada. The statement yesterday by the member for Vegreville oozed with contempt not only for local politicians but for the people themselves.

This patronizing, condescending attitude comes from a party whose solution for the problems of Atlantic Canada is simply to move people out. It comes from a party which opposes any form of regional development funding for Atlantic Canada. It comes from a party which espouses the belief that the only Canadians who deserve full health care are those who can afford it. It comes from a party which would replace the development of self-reliance in strong communities by an individually oriented survival of the fittest type society.

Perhaps most significant of all, it comes from a party that received less than 1 per cent of the popular vote in P.E.I. in the last federal election and will receive less in the next federal election.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

As we read the newspapers over this past month and a half we saw provincial government after provincial government, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and probably tomorrow Prince Edward Island, coming in with balanced budgets.

The hon. member says we are offloading to the provinces. Is it fair for the provinces to expect the federal government to subsidize the provincial balanced budgets and not address our own budget problems? If he answered that honestly he would say no. We have a major budget problem, not only an accumulated debt but in our annual deficits.

We see provinces balancing their budgets. We know most of the provinces receive transfer payments of one sort or another. They are looking very good in front of their people and getting all kinds of support and applause for doing so. A lot of the money to those provincial governments is coming from the federal government.

I do not think any fair minded provincial premier would say we should not address our budget deficits at all; that we should continue sending money to the provinces and to individuals that we do not have and have to borrow year after year.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Algoma. I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27.

I speak in support of the bill. I commend the Minister of Finance for the excellent job he has done in developing a budget that has been embraced by an overwhelming majority of Canadian people and international money markets.

On the one hand there have been complaints, as we heard from the Bloc Quebecois, that the minister went too far. On the other hand the consensus of the Reform Party is that we did not go far enough. However, the general consensus of Canadians is that the budget was a reasonable and fair effort to address the problems faced by the nation.

The people of Canada indicated very loudly and clearly that they wanted the minister to move decisively to address the problems of the debt and the deficit. They wanted to see a definitive plan by which the country could be moving toward a balanced budget and beyond to a surplus budget. Canadians also indicated that they did not want any increases in personal income tax, and there was none.

I am happy to say that the fundamental thrust of the budget addresses in a fair, equitable and balanced fashion the demands of the Canadian people. The budget responds to the need to put Canada's fiscal house in order. Granted, there will be some pain but I believe that the burden of deficit reduction has been distributed fairly. The confidence of the Canadian people is being restored as they realize spending is tightening up and that they will be getting better value for their tax dollar.

Many of the provisions in the budget have already been dealt with. Those remaining are being handled today with Bill C-76. However the message is clear and the message is consistent. The government is getting its own house in order. It is downsizing. It is focusing on cutting expenditures and not on raising taxes.

The targets set by the Minister of Finance indicate that we are moving toward the much desired position of a balanced budget. It is reassuring that we are moving in this direction in a fair and humane fashion. We must never lose sight of the fact, though, that some parts of the country are not as economically advantaged as others.

The principles upon which the country was founded require that the federal government maintain a program of redistribution of wealth so that no Canadian should have to endure diminished social security simply because he or she lives in one province as opposed to another. One of the main standards by which we are measured against other countries is the degree of caring and compassion we show to one another. Less fortunate Canadians must be protected.

I realize the system of federal transfers must be reformed. It must become more efficient, more effective and more sustainable. Without this kind of change our capacity to fund would be seriously constrained, maybe even terminated. Some critics say that the proposed changes which consolidate the EPF and CAP into the Canadian social transfer put some social programs at risk. I suggest that without a sustained effort to address our deficit and debt problem the same social programs will be put at even greater risk.

However, in my province of Prince Edward Island there is considerable concern about the possible effects of the new CST. I am sure the Minister of Finance understands that the fact a province has more flexibility and more capacity to be innovative is of minimal value if the resources, the dollars, are not available to work with.

When the minister is negotiating with the provinces I am sure he will keep this in mind. Though the budget document indicates that national standards especially under the Canada Health Act will be maintained, there is still concern in economically disadvantaged areas that there could be some difficulties encountered. It is encouraging that included in the process of change is a commitment to a co-operative approach whereby a new federal-provincial fiscal relationship will be established.

One area about which Canadians were quite vocal was taxation. They wanted no increase in personal income taxes, and there was none. They wanted no changes to RRSPs, and there was virtually none. They wanted health and dental plans left alone, and they were left alone. They wanted big business to pay a fairer share. This has happened with increased taxes on large corporations, a surtax on corporate profits, and a tax on deposit taking institutions.

The public got hit with a small tax it did not particularly want, but I have not heard many complaints about it. That was the 1.5 cent per litre tax on gasoline.

Overall, for every $1 in new revenue the government cuts $7 in spending. That ratio is a fair and balanced way to approach our deficit and debt problem. It is also reflective of the sentiments of the vast majority of the Canadian people.

One of the areas of budget cuts that did impact negatively on P.E.I. involved the transportation subsidies. The cuts to the freight subsidies will be supplemented for a number of years with transitional funding in the amount of $326 million. There were cuts to the dairy industry. The dairy people did expect some cuts there, especially when they saw the Western Grain Transportation Act being abolished.

One thing not counted on in the budget was the hit from Human Resources Development Canada whereby the farmers will suffer the loss in the agriculture employment program. Hopefully over the next few weeks we can develop a program which will ease the burden on the farmers as they ease out of this well used program.

Atlantic Canada is sharing in the pain of deficit reduction. Two items in the budget which had relatively cosmetic treatment, which would seem to be due for major surgery over the next year, are seniors benefits and UI. I am pleased the government is renewing its commitment to seniors so they will have a system of protection that is fair and reliable.

In order to do that the CPP, OAS and GIS must be sustainable. In making the changes that will make it sustainable I asked the Minister of Finance to keep in mind concerns such as those expressed by John G. Bates of Etobicoke. He said:

I'd gladly trade all the benefits that I'm supposed to be getting as a senior for a return to a level playing field for those over and under age 65. -return my right to work beyond age 65-allow me to be eligible for employer paid health and dental plans-allow me to get tax breaks allowed others through RRSPs and work related deductions and credits.

Discrimination because of advancing age is the last bastion of the bigot.

I would caution the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development that frequent UI users are not automatically abusers. In my riding the main industries are fisheries, agriculture, tourism and forestry. They are all seasonal. Workers in these industries are needed every year. Some of them cannot simply be retrained or shipped out to higher employment areas.

I want to use a quote from the columnist Peter H. Nicol in the Ottawa-Carleton Review :

The most significant word to come out of the federal budget speech is the word change. Not the millions of dollars slashed here, the millions of dollars promised there, numbers which are virtually meaningless to those of us who can't balance our cheque books. The word change was the crux of the matter, for it was the first indication that the federal government was prepared to face an issue that the public had been aware of for some time; that is to say that if Canada is going to survive in either the financial or political sense we must make fundamental changes both in our political structures and in our personal lives.

The change the Minister of Finance talked about was not so much in terms of dollars, although they will play a role, but more in the philosophy of government. The minister asked what role the government should play in the lives of the people of the country and the answer he received was less.

Paternalistic government seems to becoming a thing of the past with the government once again becoming a tool instead of a solution. That is no bad thing.

[Translation]