Werner Schmidt

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I enter this debate from a rather different point of view. So far we have heard all kinds of criticisms of the bill. I have some of those to advance. But I would like to underscore the Reform Party position that we do support the concept of equalization payments from the richer provinces to the poorer provinces. I underscore that we do this and the kind of reforms we are considering in the whole business of equalization payments.

It is one thing to suggest that there have been five years of consultation among provinces, that there have been five years of discussion about the various amendments which have found their way into the proposed bill before the House. Whether or not that actually happened I do not know. The important thing I do know is that within less than 48 hours of consultation in the House and open debate we will be forced to make a decision.

I do not know what else went on behind closed doors. We have to accept that hon. members opposite are telling us the way things were. One thing is also true: we in the House have a responsibility to reflect upon those kinds of amendments and to think carefully about them.

Lest anyone misinterpret or misrepresent what the Reform Party stands for, let it be abundantly clear that we support equalization payments. We would like to suggest some reforms and changes that could be made which are not found in the current legislation.

Reform believes in a system that is open to all Canadians and uses a different, simpler basis for comparison. That is part of the issue. It should be a different, simpler and a more accurate and more honest comparison of people. Rather than micro managing equalization, which the current legislation and program do and what the proposed legislation maintains, we should use a simple indicator to determine who gets what. This is called a macro formula.

A shortfall in per capital provincial GDP as an indicator might be a good basis for comparison that would not require arbitrary definitions and an army of bureaucrats to apply them. That is a fundamental issue and one that we should address very carefully. It is this kind of thing that we should have concentrated on and debated in the next while. It is one thing to have a bill proposed to us, but is there nothing else that could be done?

There is a lot that could be done. Using such a macro formula would eliminate the incentive for provinces to adjust their tax bases in inefficient ways to qualify for more federal money. We cannot adjust an entire GDP.

Under a single indicator system equalization would be more focused on the provinces that need it most. It would be hard to argue that we have seven have not provinces in Canada. Canada is one of the richest countries in the world. That is abundantly clear. All we need to do is look at the population figures to see how many people have come into Canada compared to the number of people who have left Canada. In the last 25 years there has been no mass exodus or out-migration from Canada.

By focusing benefits more on the poorer provinces the federal government could reduce overall taxation, leave the money in people's pockets and thereby increase economic efficiency. That is what we are all about. Any province that experiences reduced payments would receive special financing to ease the transition. These ideas are worthy of discussion. They have been discussed. My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill indicated that and quoted from a particular study.

It goes on from there. I will get very specific on what has happened. In the current situation the average Canadian family is a net contributor of $3,500 to the federal treasury. A family in Saskatchewan pays $2,700 and an Alberta family, more than $6,000. On the other hand the average family in Newfoundland gains $7,000 per year.

To reduce this kind of unfairness the Reform Party has proposed a new Canada act. In this act we call for two basic reforms: first, an equal treatment of all citizens with per capita grants to provinces for shared cost programs and, second, a single equalization grant based on a macro indicator of per capita provincial GDP compared to per capita national GDP. If that is the kind of focus to which we would address ourselves we would be moving forward. We would be taking into account the changes that have taken place in Canada and the changes that have taken place in the world around us.

May I draw the attention of the House to a couple of things that have happened in Canada in terms of the GDP. I want to compare population increases and decreases to the GDP. We will look at the last four years, 1994 to 1998. We find that Canada had a net increase in its population of 4.35%. Newfoundland had a decrease of 5.5%, Ontario an increase of 5.3%, Alberta an increase of 7.7%, British Columbia an increase of 9.03%, and Yukon an increase of 5.3%. Those are the provinces with the greater gain.

Let us compare the gain relative to the GDP in those provinces. Here is what we discovered, using the numbers for 1993 to 1997. Prince Edward Island had an increase in its GDP of 19.9%, Ontario an increase of 19%, Saskatchewan an increase of 23.6%, Alberta an increase of 26.07%, and British Columbia an increase of 16.96%.

If we begin to compare the increases in GDP in this four year period, compared with the population shifts that have taken place, we recognize very clearly that there is an unfairness built right into the formula which currently determines the amount of the equalization payments. That unfairness needs to be eliminated.

The formula is so complicated that it takes an army of bureaucrats to compute them and it makes it almost impossible for anybody to understand exactly how it works. I dare say a lot of people who put forward these amendments do not recognize or understand fully the implications that will take place in their particular provinces and the country as a whole.

We need to recognize as well that the composition of population has changed dramatically. We do not have the same kind of population composition in Toronto today that existed there 20 years ago. All we need to do is look at the changes in retail marketing that have taken place in those marketplaces to recognize those that have not changed with the times are experiencing very serious financial difficulties at this time.

That is exactly the kind of thing we as a country need to address. We need to recognize that the composition of our population has changed. It has shifted from one part of the country to another part of the country.

We in British Columbia are now experiencing a major shift of populations into the province. If we compare the increase in GDP in British Columbia and the GDP increase in Ontario or in Alberta, we discover that the GDP has not increased nearly to the same degree in British Columbia as it did in these other provinces.

This should tell us something. In fact it tells us a lot. If the government is determined that one part of the country shall be preferred over another part of the country, indeed the formula can be adjusted in such a way that it can be politically manipulated so that it will grant to some and take away from others.

What does it do? What has happened here is really interesting. If we take, for example, the people in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, they have had a 20% increase over and above what they pay into the revenues for Canada. The program services they receive are 20% more than they contribute into the treasury. In Alberta it is the other way around.

In Alberta there is a 9% decrease in the amount of services and product the people get and the money they pay in. In other words, there is a deficit in the government services received by Alberta people and there is a surplus in Newfoundland.

Perhaps there should be some of this sort of thing, but it is interesting that this happens to people at the lowest end of the income bracket. These are $20,000 to $30,000 people who get 9% less in government services in Alberta and get 20% more in Newfoundland. That is unfair.

[Division No. 316, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I found what we just heard to be a most enlightening discourse. It was absolutely amazing. What this man has been able to put together as a Liberal backbencher absolutely astounds me. He is asking the ministers of finance to be transparent and accountable. He is asking the provinces to be accountable. He is asking for things to happen. He is asking the finance minister to explain to Canadians how the equalization program actually develops the economy of Canada.

This gentleman represents a riding on behalf of the Liberal Party. Here he is talking as a Liberal but as if he had read and understood very clearly and completely the position of the Reform Party presented by the Leader of the Opposition a couple of days ago. I congratulate him for listening so well. I congratulate him for his ability to understand and to expound so clearly and so carefully what it is he heard here last week. It is tremendous.

He did qualify it a little and said “Well I do not really agree with that, I do take a different view of Canada than the Leader of the Opposition does”. But what he said before that was a total contradiction. I think it is absolutely fantastic. I commend the gentleman for saying that we need to examine our values, that we need to consider accountability and that we need to make this formula transparent.

I suggest that he tell this House exactly how he would make this formula simpler and a little more transparent, and how he would introduce accountability into it.

[Division No. 316, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would clarify briefly why Newfoundland should have a separate side agreement in terms of equalization and revenues that would handle the natural resource revenues differently in Newfoundland than it would say for the province of Alberta. Why should Newfoundland, for example, have only 70% of its revenues counted for equalization purposes when in Alberta it is 100%?

Could he explain exactly how that would work and whether he would be in support of having the same kind of treatment across Canada and have it done through equalization rather than to have some separate side agreements that really change the whole equalization formula?

[The Late James Baskin, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Reform Party. It is with respect that I rise to pay tribute to the hon. James Baskin, former member of parliament for Renfrew South, who died on January 8.

Although I did not personally know Mr. Baskin, it is my understanding that he was a man of great compassion, energy and entrepreneurial spirit.

Indeed in his 79 years he accomplished a great deal. In politics he represented his constituents from 1957 to 1963, participating in some of the most interesting political times in Canada.

Constituents, I understand, were his great political joy and one might have assumed as much from a man who had his roots as deeply entrenched in the constituency as he did.

As he represented a largely rural riding, he spoke passionately on behalf of farmers and took pride in what he stated. These are the words used in the House. He took pride in speaking, talking the way most farmers like to hear a man talk, soundly and without resorting to emotional appeal, relying on what they call common sense.

Outside parliament Mr. Baskin excelled as a businessman. He was a lumberman and a hotelier, but it was his passion for horses that saw one of his hardest fought but greatest business successes come to life. Baskin was largely responsible for building the Rideau Carleton Raceway which his friends say stands today as a monument to him.

James Baskin was without doubt a man who touched many lives. He will be missed and leaves behind a space which cannot be easily filled. But in death, as in life, it is in his character that his legacy will be left.

On behalf the Reform Party I extend our deepest condolences to his family, his friends and the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, if I used the word misled I withdraw that word, but I do not believe that I used that word. I think what I said was misrepresentation, and there is a big difference between those words.

It is another illustration of not listening properly to the grassroots and not even listening properly in the House. The time has come for us to get real and honest about these kinds of things.

We need to recognize what the legislation is attempting to do. It is to draw some very clear boundaries. Some people would call them fences. There is a proverb that says good fences make good neighbours. My good friend who is one of these land surveyor types says good laws build good fences.

What we are trying to do tonight is build a law that is better than the one that is being proposed. A fence is being proposed here but it has holes in it, some pretty big holes in it. It is through those holes that we get some difficulties.

I want to put clearly on the record for members opposite to hear and for my colleagues to support that we recognize among our first nations that we have some of the proudest and most respected citizens of the country. They are hard working people. They are patriotic. They do the kinds of things we want done in the country. The fact that they want some self-determination, that they want to preserve their culture, is a demonstration of how strongly they feel about themselves.

The first nations of the country have a tremendous reason to be proud. In the face of tremendous opposition and difficulty they have maintained their culture. That is why we have this legislation before the House.

I recognize that and commend them for it. I also recognize that they should not have powers that are unique, better or different from those that exist for all other Canadians. We are before the law, before the Constitution, equal Canadian citizens of Canada. That is an issue we do not want to forget.

There are some technical difficulties with the bill as well. I want to deal with them now. First I deal with the question of powers. The bill gives powers to the council to enforce the standards that exist under federal environmental law. It gives it powers to go beyond the provisions in the environmental law with regard to assessment and with regard to the process of projects with environmental implications.

Let me read subclause 21(3). It is a rather interesting clause:

First nation laws respecting environmental assessment must provide for the establishment, in accordance with the Framework Agreement, of an environment assessment process applicable to all projects carried out on first nation land that are approved, regulated, funded or undertaken by the first nation.

There is a separate set of observations. They must be within the standards set up by the legislation, but beneath that there is a process and there are details that can be changed by the first nation. As a consequence it can be delayed. It can be altered. All kinds of things can happen. This is not to suggest that they would do this. The idea is to create a law that creates fairness and equity for all participants who are affected by that law. That is what we are concerned about. That is a very significant issue.

The bill before the House says that the band or the council shall have a land code. That land code shall include, according to subclause 6(1)(f), a community consultation process. However, subclause 10(1) reads:

If the verifier determines that a proposed land code and a proposed community approval process of a first nation are in accordance with the Framework Agreement and this Act, the council of the first nation may submit the proposed land code and the individual agreement to the first nation members for their approval.

That is interesting. In the first instance the council must have a land code. That land code must provide a consultation process. However, in terms of the actual land code there is no approval process for the members who will be directly and indirectly affected by that land code before it is approved. That is very interesting. It puts the power in the hands of the council utterly and completely.

We know that whenever we put absolute power into the hands of a group, whether it is a first nation group or any other kind of a group, it has the potential of abusing that power. I do not want legislation to provide that kind of an opportunity. I want the legislation to provide checks and balances to power so that it will not be abused. I not suggesting they will; I am suggesting we want to make sure that they will not. This is the business of building a fence that does not have holes in it.

Motion No. 6 is a very clear motion. It says that there shall be consultation with the band council that has a land code with surrounding communities. It does not say that there has to be agreement on everything. The best solutions are usually found when there are opposing positions or there are different viewpoints on something. We are asking for consultations so that we can bring about a better resolution than is the case at the present time. That is not provided for in the bill.

We must provide for that kind of consultation and make it mandatory. Members opposite have heard the letters from the bands, from municipal councillors and from the mayors. We are trying to help them. Will they please listen.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very privileged to be able to enter this debate. There are a couple of points I wish to make particularly in reference to the member who has just spoken.

There seems to be a feeling that the only reason the Reform Party brought some amendments forward is that somehow we are opposed to the step that is being taken. That is not the issue. The issue is that this is not the final word on how to grant to first nations some sovereignty over the lands and some of the things they want control over. The issue is to determine a relationship with which we can all live with greater comfort and with greater harmony than has existed heretofore.

There seems to exist on the government side of the House almost a feeling of arrogance that once its members have spoken and presented a piece of legislation there cannot be a single iota of improvement to it. How could that ever be the case?

There is not a human being in the House who cannot improve whatever it is the government is doing. That includes my speech this evening. I want to make it abundantly clear that the member who just spoke deliberately misrepresented what the Reform Party stands for.

I want to make abundantly clear that I am not rising in this debate to indicate to members opposite that I am totally and unalterably opposed to the bill before the House tonight. That is not the issue. The issue is that the bill attempts to do something which I think is a step forward, but as usual it is a tiny step forward. It is a timid step forward. It is an inadequate step forward and it is an incomplete step.

We are trying to lift the legislation to a level that they can be proud of, that the members of the House can be—

[Canada Post, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's slashing of the stamp commissions has resulted in 30 franchised outlets filing for closure. By next August, it is believed that 100%, all of the franchises in the urban centres will be closed.

Why is the minister systematically dismantling the franchise system across Canada? When will he get tough with Canada Post and save these urban outlets?

[Canada Post, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week a delegation of postal franchisees is in Ottawa to fight for survival.

The minister guaranteed us that there would be no losses due to Canada Post's reduction in stamp commissions. The fact is that one week after implementation 30 postal outlets have notified Canada Post of their closure. It is only the beginning. The franchises predict that 100% of urban postal outlets will be closed by August 1999.

Yesterday the minister turned down a request to meet with the franchisees directly. Is it because he knows they are right? Is it because it is difficult to look into the faces of those who are losing their livelihood?

The minister may be able to hide in his office now, but in the new year he will have to justify to hundreds of franchisees and millions of Canadians why he allowed Canada Post to systematically destroy the postal network across this country.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from across the way for his remarks. I concur with some of the points he has made, in particular with regard to the arrogance of the Prime Minister and the arrogance of the minister imposing this new structure on the people.

I think the Minister of National Revenue indicated he had not been successful in getting the co-operation of the premiers to do this, partly because he is not providing any safeguards.

The point my hon. colleague made a moment ago about the common sense of the people and listening to what they have to say is significant and I commend him for that.

Could the member outline how we could get a true picture of what the people think? As well, could he suggest how we could get some sort of true, honest to goodness co-operation among the federal government, the minister and the premiers of the provinces? Finally, how can we ensure that some of the privacy violations that have taken place in the past will not be perpetrated again by this new agency?

[Canada Post, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Government of Canada has conspired with Canada Post to drive postal franchises out of business.

The fact is the schedule of commissions has been reduced by 71% for stamps, which represents over 50% of sales for most outlets. This gouging of revenues makes it difficult for the owners to make lease and loan payments. In severe cases it is spelling financial ruin and bankruptcy.

The Government of Canada is permitting Canada Post to steal from its franchises. Instead of the entrepreneurs—