Werner Schmidt

[Highway 97, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, recently in the House I asked the Minister of Transport to join me and the civic leaders of the southern interior of British Columbia to facilitate the continued growth and development of this dynamic and progressive part of Canada.

By designating Highway 97 as part of the national highway system, specifically the portion between Osoyoos on the United States border and the junction with Highway 1 at Monte Creek, the minister would be recognizing the highway as an extremely important trade corridor to British Columbia.

Number 97 is one of the great highways of North America, running from Alaska to California, joining our homes and businesses in the Okanagan Valley with other vibrant and progressive areas of Canada and the U.S.

In recognition of its importance, this portion of Highway 97 must be designated as part of Canada's national highway system. It is an important initiative which we must all pursue with vigour.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely tremendous. I would love to enlighten the hon. member as to what this Canadian Alliance is. I will tell him what the Canadian Alliance is. The Canadian Alliance is the alternative to the Liberal government. This is a brand new party that has just been created. It received 91.9% support in Calgary last Saturday night, March 25, if the hon. member needs to know the date. That is the Canadian Alliance.

With regard to the balanced approach, yes, I am totally involved in the balanced approach. Let us pay down the debt so we have a balanced budget.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is as far as the Canadian Alliance is concerned. I think the underlying assumption that the hon. member has made is a very significant one. He is almost implying that the Canadian economy could exist independent of the American economy or independent of any other nation in the world.

The world has changed dramatically in the last while. It is now a global economy. A major part of our economic benefit comes from trade with other nations. The major part of that is of course the American economy, the United States, our excellent neighbours to the south. We benefit from them and they benefit from us. It is a mutual and beautiful symbiotic relationship.

If there was a downturn in the American economy would it affect us? Of course it would. It is simply nonsensical to suggest that it would not affect us. Do we have a plan to deal with that situation? I wish I had an hour to tell the hon. member about that, but I will tell him how much the output costs are of every job creating scheme that has been created by his government the Conservative Party, when it was in power, or when the Liberals were in power. Does he realize that for every tax dollar that is given away in the form of job creation schemes, there is an output cost? For payroll taxes, it is 27 cents. For every dollar that is put out in a job creation scheme, 27 cents is lost in output costs. For the sales tax it is roughly 17 cents. For capital costs it is $1.15 for every $1.

Is it any wonder that people are discouraged when they see all these millions of dollars going there? In fact, Jim Mirrlees, who developed the optimum tax theory, has clearly indicated that by applying that to the Canadian billion dollar HRDC system it actually costs the Canadian economy $529 million in order to give away $1 billion.

What is the net gain? It is not nearly as much as what the government is suggesting. It kills jobs in other places. It kills expansion and it does not last.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I find this debate very interesting and enjoyable. The only thing that confuses me every once and a while is how far away from the facts the hon. members across the way seem to be from time to time.

I wish to address the budget from a principled point of view. It has to do with what exactly is a budget. A budget reveals the values and the priorities of the government. It also reveals, indirectly and directly, the character of the people who wrote or constructed it.

I wish to present four very elementary principles of what a budget should do. First, it should be achievable. Second, it should be sustainable. Third, it should help Canadians achieve their goals and objectives. Finally, it should help Canadians realize their dreams.

How did budget 2000 fair on those principles? First, is it achievable? I suppose if interest rates do not rise very much, it is achievable. We will grant that one. Is it sustainable? I would suggest that, no, it is not sustainable unless Canadians are prepared to stop loading onto future generations the expenditures on programs that they enjoy. It may also be achievable if it stops the brain drain by reducing taxes. The way it stands now it will not do that. The taxation regimes are so burdensome that people are taking their money out of Canada and investing it elsewhere. So it is not sustainable.

It will not allow Canadians to achieve their goals and objectives either. I know that more than 50% of the money we earn should be discretionary. If I am to achieve my goals and objectives, I should have discretion over how that money is spent. When the government takes 55% of that then I have lost 55% of my discretion over my money. I cannot achieve the goals and objectives that I want. I cannot own my own home, I cannot give my children the post-secondary education that I want them to have and I cannot have the entrepreneurial application of capital so that businesses can be developed. It will not help Canadians realize their dreams of their children and grandchildren having a better life than the one they enjoy.

The budget fails on at least three of the four principles we talked about.

I asked myself the question: What is the vision of the government? Is it to pay down the debt? A little while ago, the hon. member opposite said that the government was paying down the debt. That is such a nominal amount that if we divide the amount of money that it is putting toward paying down the debt, which is roughly $3 billion a year, it will take 200 years to pay down the debt. That is a 200 year vision to pay down the debt.

The other question I have is: Is the government's vision to reduce taxes? I looked at it and it sounded really good. Over five years we will have a reduction of $58 billion in tax cuts. Notice that it is not a reduction in taxes. It is a cut in taxes. What it did not say was what the increase would be in taxes over that same time period.

Let me give members a specific example. EI premiums will go down but CPP premiums will go up. Guess what? The EI premiums went down less than the CPP premiums went up. The end result is that the individual pays more in taxes than before the cuts took place. That is some cut.

What would the Canadian Alliance do? I could criticize the budget in some many different ways but I will not do that. The Canadian Alliance is committed to principled and substantive fiscal responsibility, in particular tax relief. How do I know that? I know it by solution 17.

Solution 17 is a single rate tax. I will not go through all the particular features and specifics of that but I will deal with a few of them and some of the benefits.

What hon. members opposite and what we as colleagues in the Canadian Alliance are saying is that we want specifics but we also want to know why we have those characteristics. The first of those is to increase the base tax exemption to $10,000. That would take some 1.9 million taxpayers off the tax roll. We would have a single marginal tax rate of 17% and we would eliminate the 5% surtax. What would that do for Canadians? Right off the top, it would eliminate the discrimination of single income families versus dual income families. Why should a single income family be penalized and the advantage given to a dual income family? It is unfair, it is inequitable and it does not build strong families.

There is another part to this. It will also help to reduce the brain drain. It will probably not stop it, because taxes are still too high, but it will at least help to discourage the brain drain. It will also encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of young people. It will allow individuals to apply their capital to build enterprises here in this country and develop the skill and talent that will make more money and increase the economy.

We will have a universal child care deduction of $3,000 per child. What will this do? It will support the freedom of choice. If there was one thing that democracy did it was to give us freedom of choice. We want that. Here is a tax plan that will do that. It will leave the money in the hands of the parents so that they can choose the kind of child care that they believe is best for their children, not some kind of state run system where the government tells them this is where they should send their kids.

That particular tax plan also suggests that the RRSP contributions should be increased to $16,500. What is the benefit of that? The benefit of that is that it improves the incentive for individuals to look after their own retirement. What is the great benefit of this? It makes it totally and completely transferable and we do not have all of these complications of succession duties or of transfer of funds from one generation to another.

It has all the advantages for which we could possibly dream. It has the general corporate tax reduced from 28% to 21%, seven percentage points. That is a tremendous increase and allows these businesses to hire more people. That is the kind of job creation scheme we should have. We should not be doling out money. We should be giving it to entrepreneurs so they can develop the kind of expansion in their business and hire the people that they need. That is the kind of tax plan we need. The small business tax was reduced from 12% to 10%. It is a similar set of arguments, only this time for small business. That is what the Canadian Alliance would do, and it is solution 17.

How does it differ from budget 2000? First, it differs remarkably by being specific, clear and sustainable. That is the big difference. It will give to Canadians the tools whereby they can achieve the goals and objectives they have for themselves and for their children and grandchildren. It will allow them to build and to realize some of the dreams that they have.

Some people say that we are dreaming in technicolour and that it cannot possibly ever be because solution 17 is not that good of a plan. Let me read to the House the conclusion by the people who put together the examination of that plan. This was not a group of Reformers who are now Canadian Alliance. It was not our people who did it. This was an independent group, the same group that does the numbers for the Government of Canada, the Liberal government. The conclusion reads:

The tax reduction proposals...are well focused on the needs of Canadians today. They expand the economy, and most powerfully: personal disposable income, consumption and our standard of living. They create jobs. By lowering the marginal tax rates they are particularly effective in stimulating work effort, and stemming the brain drain and other productivity enhancing features. By powerfully reducing the level of personal income tax, particularly for Canadians of average and above average income, they are well directed at providing a more competitive tax environment in Canada relative to the U.S.

These are not my words and they are not the words of the Canadian Alliance. These are the words of an independent group that looked at that plan and said that it will work. We should listen.

The tax reduction proposals of the Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, are affordable. If all the tax reduction proposals are introduced as a combined package over the 2001 to 2004 or 2005 period, there would still be a fiscal surplus in each and every year. That is very significant and we should pay very careful attention to it.

It is time for a change. It is necessary to recognize that there is an alternative to the Government of Canada today, a government that is there to build an achievable and sustainable budget that will indeed reduce taxes and leave in the hands of the taxpayers the disposition of their disposable income so that they can achieve the goals and objectives for themselves and for their children.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I always like to listen to the hon. member when she speaks about her part of the world. She makes eminently good sense. I commend her for the enthusiasm with which she supports her constituents and in particular on some of the natural resources development like the proposed pipeline and the diamond mines. That is perfectly legitimate. It is the kind of thing I would expect any member of parliament to do.

I would like to ask the hon. member opposite whether she has thought about other parts of the budget and in particular the increase in Human Resources Development Canada. In this area there is roughly $1 billion and economists have done some estimates as to how much it really costs in terms of the output. If we put a number of dollars into the job creation scheme the assumption is that jobs are actually created. What is not said is how many jobs are lost or what output costs are attributed to each of these job creation schemes.

The job creation schemes have to be paid for through tax increases to someone. People are paying additional taxes to pay for these job schemes. Where does it come from? Economists have estimated that the $1 billion has cost Canadians $520 million, over half of the $1 billion.

Could the hon. member address this issue? It has been addressed by people like Jim Mirrlees for example who won a Nobel prize recently in developing the optimum taxation theory. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Canadian Alliance, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the race is on. It is an exciting time to be in Canadian politics. The people of Canada are saying that they are ready for a clear alternative to the ruling Liberals. They want fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, democratic accountability and new federalism.

I believe the Canadian Alliance, which became a reality on March 25, reflects that desire. We will know for sure when the people oust the unprincipled Liberals and vote for the Canadian Alliance at the next federal election.

The leadership candidates of the Canadian Alliance listen to the people. They understand and accept what Canadians are saying. They understand and accept the Alliance's constitution and declaration of policy as the voice of the people.

With the Canadian Alliance as an alternative, voters will be ready to deliver a fatal blow to the status quo and embrace a new vital democracy.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for some of the points he has made with regard to the Department of National Defence.

I would also like to ask the member, in response to the hon. member opposite, for his comments on what the auditor general said about $17 billion not being properly accounted for. We need to recognize that it involves not only the HRDC department but also EDC. What is happening here?

I wonder if my hon. colleague could briefly address that question.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Depending on what the plan is.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

They won't get another chance.

[Canada Labour Code, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-12, which is an act that purports to amend part II of the Canada Labour Code. It deals with occupational health and safety. Unlike parts I and III, this one also covers the federal public service.

Part II of the labour code has not been significantly updated for at least 15 years. There seems to have been a lot of suggestion that the government moved with all speed, but it has been 15 years which does not show the alacrity which was attributed to the government by the previous speaker.

A few days before dropping the writ for the 1997 general election, a bill to amend part II of the code was tabled in the House of Commons. I am sure it was not just a move to shore up Liberal support, even though it took almost another three years to bring the bill back to the House.

Employer groups and employer associations which have been involved in the lengthy consultative process now fear that if the government delays the legislation any longer, another election will be called and they will have to start all over again. There is some urgency to move ahead with this bill so that there is not the same experience as last time.

Health and safety in the workplace is the responsibility of every person on the work site. Whether it is a labour intensive industry or a high level high tech desk job, all have stress or other parts to them and health and safety factors are involved. The role of government is to set the standards and to provide a mechanism to resolve disputes when and if they arise.

Government legislation and regulations alone cannot promote a healthy workplace and prevent accidents. This involves every one of us. All of us who are involved in the workplace, in a supervisory capacity or in the actual work activity, are responsible to make sure it is as healthy and as safe as we can make it.

In November a report prepared by the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board for example showed that the province's stringent health and safety laws were doing little to curb workplace fatalities. It just goes to show that there is another element here and that is the human element; all of us have a role to play.

According to that report, British Columbians died from work related injuries at a rate of nearly three per week over the last decade. Nationally there are approximately 800,000 occupational accidents annually of which 750 are fatal. One worker is injured on the job every nine seconds of work time. That gives us an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Work related accidents cost the Canadian economy $10 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. Approximately 18 million days of work were lost this way in 1997. It is a serious issue.

In any workplace if accidents are to be prevented, everyone must be involved. The more people understand about workplace hazards, the better equipped they will be to prevent injury and illness. The question then is how will the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-12 help ensure that people are better equipped to prevent accidents?

The intent of the bill is laudable but some of the provisions require closer scrutiny. That is precisely what I hope will happen as the committee delves into the details of this proposed legislation.

For example, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that companies with over 300 employees shall, they are required to form a health and safety committee as well as a policy committee. The question really arises of why the number 300 was chosen. Is that some kind of arbitrary number? What happens if a company has 299 employees? Is that a materially different company from one which has 300 employees? That is the real question. The government is not so much setting a framework as saying, “This is what you shall do; this is how you shall manage your company”.

The argument was made by the hon. member who spoke just before me that the government's role is to set standards and to provide mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. However here in this provision the government is going beyond that kind of situation and saying to the president of a company, “This is how you shall organize. This is what you shall do. These are the kinds of committees we want you to have and these are the ways in which that committee is to operate and exercise its mandate”.

Another area of concern is the lack of a second stage appeal process. While we as Reformers favour a reduction in red tape, it is important to ensure that a fair and effective appeal process be set in place. Not every decision is the right one in the first instance. There ought to be an opportunity for both management and workers to appeal a particular decision.

Under section 146.3 for example, the appeal officer's decision is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court. I think an appeals process is essential. If by some chance the officer errs, there is no recourse for the employer or the employee to challenge that ruling. It is my understanding that employer and worker groups have concerns about this particular provision. I am sure the committee will deal with this and get into it in some detail. Hopefully a resolution of this concern can be reached.

Recently a lot of attention has been focused on workplace stress. Mr. Speaker, in your role as Speaker you are subjected to all kinds of noise and conflict in this place and in your office. I am sure you would recognize only too well what stress can do to an individual.

Bill C-12 refers to workplace stress but it does not attempt to define it. That is part of the problem. What constitutes ordinary workplace stress and what constitutes exceptional workplace stress? Stress affects different people differently. Different types of employment have their own built-in stress. For example, the stress of an air traffic controller is slightly different from that of someone who cleans the latrines in the airport.

In some situations stress can lead to violence. While the bill contains a provision relating to workplace violence, it is vague and open-ended. I am sure the committee will deal with this and other areas when it studies the bill in detail.

Bill C-12 also allows for the establishment of workplace violence regulations. Are companies and their safety officers or safety committees free to develop workplace violence regulations or will the government impose them? It is a very real question. A lot of vagueness and a lot of unanswered questions need to be addressed in this section.

In January at the coroner's inquest into the tragic shooting deaths at the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission, employees focused attention on workplace stress and violence. The jury made 77 recommendations, including one stemming from the problems encountered by police who were not familiar with the layout of the massive facility.

That is an obvious thing that should have been looked at but it was not. These are some of the things that ought to be looked at in some detail.

While up to date information may not prevent a tragedy, it may save rescuers time and ultimately help to save lives. That is really significant.

We have to look at this as well with the firefighters. In very many instances the nature of the fire and the elements that are actually in combustion dictate the kind of retardant that is applied. The firefighter needs to know what it is that is actually burning. It is not just the fire. He has to know what kind of fire it is. Also in a case like the OC Transpo shootings, it would have been good if the police officers had known exactly where to look and where to go and did not have to waste a whole lot of time in getting there.

Those are some of the areas that we plan to address and look at in some detail. I am sure the government will go along with this as we examine the provisions of Bill C-12.

In conclusion, the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board study showed that 99% of accidents are preventable. That is wonderful. If we can prevent 99% of accidents, that is great but it depends on the workers and management working together, not some government person coming in and telling them what they have to do.

The onus is on both the employers and the employees to work together on how they are going to do this. As I said earlier, the primary role of the government is not to set the standards but to provide the mechanisms and show how the mechanisms can resolve disputes.

These amendments have been in the works for almost 10 years. All sides have spent a lot of time and effort in coming up with provisions that are progressive and acceptable to the stakeholders.

We are anxious to move ahead and get this thing done so that people will be safe and healthy in the workplace.