Werner Schmidt

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I will be splitting the balance of my time, 5 minutes for me and 10 minutes for the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

What has happened to education? What is ironic about the fact that there is a millennium scholarship fund which does not deal with the substantive issue of education in the country?

The irony was expressed very well in a Globe and Mail article of February 21:

There is no more pointed paradox today than that of the tens of thousands of information technology (IT) positions left unfilled in a Canadian economy in which some 1.4 million people are without jobs.

At a time when advertised positions in many sectors draw a deluge of qualified candidates, organizations across the country are having to strategize and scramble to hire vital IT skills.

“This society's use of information technology is growing by 15 to 20 per cent per year, according to some estimates”, says Gabriel Bouchard, vice-president of marketing for TMP Worldwide in Montreal. “It's everywhere”.

We need information technology. This morning on the front page of the Globe and Mail a headline reads $1,000 if you know the name of a person who can qualify for a competent software position in Halifax.

We have a millennium scholarship fund which does not address this shortfall in our economy. What is happening?

The executive director of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, Mr. Nakhleh, said that many of the courses in electrical engineering have not changed since he was a university student in the discipline 25 years ago. In other words, the courses have not changed. We are moving into information technology. It accounts for 15% to 20% of entries on an annual basis and we are still offering the same courses we offered 25 years ago. Something has to be changed.

Universities are not getting the resources to expand their efforts in the field. Quebec has said to the universities they cannot raise their tuition fees and it will not give them more money. That is the government of the Bloc which has proposed this motion today.

There is a bright light. It is coming from private industry. Nortel announced yesterday a scholarship fund of $360,000 for students pursuing technology. That is the issue. That will provide in the Ottawa area $3,000 for a summer job and $1,000 for a scholarship toward university tuition for up to 30 high school students. That will give the budding techies hands on lab experience in Nortel's research and development facility.

The Nortel people, who employ a lot of technology people, have some advice to give to the universities and to our post-secondary technical institutes. Nortel suggests that other priority areas for business and universities include expanding the highly successful co-op work in education programs, internship programs and programs such as distance learning, video conferencing and virtual classroom concepts. These can lower costs and increase student access. Companies could encourage university professors to spend sabbaticals in private sector labs.

We need collaboration, co-operation and partnership among universities, private industry and the general public. That is what needs to happen.

This millennium scholarship fund simply perpetuates what has always been. We need new thinking. We need innovative thinking and Nortel is showing us the way. When will the government listen to the people of Canada and do what is right in the interests of Canada?

There is a whole other area that we have not talked about, the preparation of graduates. There is a shortfall of money in this country today that is available for basic research. This is probably one of Canada's greatest shortcomings.

Canada should be on the leading edge, and is in certain areas, telecommunications, for example, where Canada is recognized as being a leader in the world, and yet as we speak we recognize universities are being short changed in terms of money for basic research.

Yes, we have the wonderful statement made in the budget where the funding to the granting councils, MRC, NSERC and SSHRCC has been raised to the 1994-95 level.

The minister of industry says this is new money. It is nothing of the kind. It is simply replacing the money that was there in 1994-95. What has this shortfall done? This shortfall has brought about a deterioration of the infrastructure that is necessary for researchers to do their jobs. It has lowered the number of positions available for these researchers. We need to address the shortfall.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to rise on this motion proposed by the Bloc. I find the motion totally negative. That is perhaps not the best way to approach the education of our young people in Canada.

It would be absolutely appropriate to bring to the focus of this House what is needed in education in Canada. I have difficulty with the millennium scholarship fund in that it will affect only about 6% of the post-secondary students in Canada today. The cuts the Liberal government made earlier will affect every student. There is an unfairness in the whole proposition. Not only do I want to address that part, I want to address a positive direction that ought to be taken.

The biggest criticism I have of the millennium scholarship fund is that it has no substantive direction to education and to the education of our young people in Canada today. Let me put the context together for us. It is pretty clear that we are moving to a knowledge based economy. Knowledge based industries are going to be the big thing. Canada is rapidly moving from a resource based economy to a knowledge based one. Many factors are influencing that change.

Moving and sharing information has become the new economic engine. Outfit and employment are expanding the fastest in the knowledge intensive service sectors such as education, communication and information. This is where our young people ought to be trained.

The costs of communication and information processing have fallen dramatically. Today's computing costs are one-one ten thousandth of what they cost 20 years ago. This has swelled computer use and has heightened international trade and accelerated globalization. These factors have profound effects on the way people live, work, play and learn.

What this means is, for example, microchips today are doubling their ability to process every 18 months. To succeed in the face of such rapid change means continual vigilance to keep current with the technological status quo.

Competition is going global. We need to recognize that distance is no longer a relevant issue. I was speaking to someone who is doing a major telecommunications expansion and developing a program into China. I asked this gentleman if he is going with a line system into China or with wireless digital communications in terms of telecommunications. He said wireless digital communications.

With the developments of low orbiting satellites it will be possible for literally every nation on this globe to be serviced by wireless digital telecommunications. Where are the young people who have the skills to meet that new world?

If there was thing this scholarship fund should have done it was provide some incentive for our institutions to provide the kind of preparation for graduates to meet that kind of demand.

I draw the House's attention to a recent article, February 21, in the Financial Post . It says very clearly that we are experiencing a shortage of skilled people in our knowledge based industries. Many of the courses that our universities and post-secondary institutions are offering are not adequate in order to meet the demands for new graduates.

We had appear before the Standing Committee on Industry immigration people and HRDC people who said very clearly that we are scouring the world to find adequately trained and skilled people who can help us bring our computers to meet the demands for the year 2000 transition when we are going to have to be ready for a whole new system. We do not have them here in Canada. A large group of about 1,800 have just been brought in on the emergency immigration system to do exactly that.

We have a major issue before us. This program should have moved in that direction.

I see in light of the time that my remarks will carry on after question period.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in light of the hour, I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to recess the House for four and a half minutes so we can complete the speech after question period. Would there be unanimous consent to do that?

[The Senate, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the recent appointment of Ross Fitzpatrick of Kelowna to the Senate of Canada is an excellent example of why the Senate should be reformed.

Mr. Fitzpatrick is a very successful businessman. He has been a friend of the Prime Minister for many years. They are golfing buddies. They are political buddies. Mr. Fitzpatrick was influential in the Prime Minister's leadership campaign. The Prime Minister comes to Kelowna and stays at his friend's house.

Mr. Fitzpatrick was not elected. He is in the Senate because of his friendship with the Prime Minister. He is not accountable to the people of B.C. He is accountable only to the Prime Minister who appointed him without consultation of the people. This is not a voice of the people of B.C. It is a voice of the Prime Minister in the Senate. Enough of such patronage.

Yes, the time has come to elect senators and establish accountability to the people, not the Prime Minister.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we need to put money into NSERC and into research and development by reallocating funds.

If the member would have listened carefully as he should have, he would have heard me say that we need to cut wasteful spending. EI premiums should be reduced so that we do not have an $8 billion surplus there. We need to do away with grants and subsidies to industries that do not need them. We need to do away with the wasteful spending that exists and many duplications in various departments. Then the money will be there for reallocation to essential research and development. That is the answer.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. I read the article. I know the budget apparently is balanced. I think that is wonderful. That is great. The Prime Minister says that there is a millennium scholarship fund. It is to be a wonderful thing.

Is it not interesting how Liberal logic works? First, they cut the spending for education penalizing all students. Then they come in with a great big millennium scholarship fund which will maybe benefit 6% of students. Is that not interesting?

They take it away from 100% and give it back to 6% and say this is what they have done for the citizens of Canada. What a bunch of misleading logic.

Are there some good things in the budget? Have the Liberals listened? I am glad the hon. parliamentary secretary said that the deficit has been stopped and that they are going to listen. Notice he said that they were going to. They have not done it. They have not demonstrated that in the budget.

The time has come for us to get serious about exactly what we are going to do. When will government pass a law that says there shall be no more deficit spending or that it will be a liability for each MP who voted for going into a deficit position.

We need such a law. We also need to recognize that the people have said that if there is a surplus it should be used to pay down the debt and reduce taxes. We need to get serious about that. We do not need new spending.

We did not hear people ask the government to spend more money. They have asked for taxes to be cut and the debt to be reduced. That is what they said absolutely, unequivocally and very clearly all across the country. The CFIB said it. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said it. The Chamber of Commerce in Kelowna said it. Ordinary citizens on the street say it. Students in the schools say it. I say it. The official opposition says it. The government should listen.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to enter the debate on the budget and what has been presented to the House of Commons. There are three words that I use as a focus for my speech this morning. The three words are stop, look and listen. These words are addressed to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister: stop, look and listen. These are the three words that we often use when we prepare young people and children when they are going to cross the street: stop, look and listen before you cross to make sure that you are safe.

Why have I chosen these three words in terms of the context of a budget? There are a number of reasons. The first one is the finance minister should stop increasing the debt to larger than it is already. He says we have stopped that, we have balanced the budget, there is not a deficit this year. He did that, he says. No, he did not do that. He increased taxes and taxpayers balanced this budget. Fine, we will grant that the deficit continuation has been stopped. That is good.

Let us go on and ask why it is that it should continue to be stopped. We tell our children to stop, look and listen because we love them. Because we cherish them, we want to preserve the good quality of life that they have. We here in Canada are enjoying a quality of life that is the envy of many parts of the world. Many organizations, agencies and countries have declared Canada as the preferred country in which to live. If we do not stop the burgeoning of the debt, we are going to be in trouble and we will lose that preferred point.

We want to go now to the next word, which is look. Look where the Prime Minister and the finance minister are standing today. If we look at this very carefully we will recognize almost immediately that Canada is standing at the precipice of fiscal disaster. All we need to do is step forward and go into that debt creation spiral once more and we will create a problem not only for ourselves but for generations to come and reduce Canada's position in the world.

Why do I say this? I say this because we need to address a particular question. What are the social consequences of maintaining the position of not preparing and stopping this growth of the debt.

First of all, we should remember that we have in Canada an absolutely inadequate research funding proposal. I want to draw attention here to what has happened in terms of our research and development funding in Canada. In fact, we rank number six and number 14. Let me list the countries that are in a better position than we are in terms of spending on R and D. Sweden spends 2.9% of its GDP on research and development; Japan, 2.87%; Switzerland, 2.8%; United States, 2.75%; Germany, 2.6%; France, 2.4%; United Kingdom, 2.08%; Finland, 2.2%. Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, all of them spend more on R and D than we do.

We claim that we are one of the preferred countries of the world. We say that we want to be competitive. We want to compete successfully in the international marketplace. How can we expect to do this when these other countries are spending more money on research and development than Canada?

It is impossible for us to maintain that position. Why? Because Canada is essentially an exporting nation. We depend upon other countries to buy our products. If they are spending more money on research and development of new ideas and new discoveries, how can we hope to compete with them? The time has come to look at this very seriously.

Then we have the gall of the Minister of Finance telling us that the research money has been put back into the funding councils like MRC and NSERC. All that happened is that the money that was taken away five years ago has been put back.

It has not been put back in one amount. Listen to what the Minister of Industry said in his recent publication that he sent to all MPs. New funding he calls this. New funding for the granting councils will be increased over a three year period beginning with an additional $120 million in 1998 to 1999, continuing with $135 million in 1999 to 2000 and levelling off at $150 million in 2000 to 2001. This will restore the councils' funding levels to 1994-95. Now is that not an interesting twist of logic. First of all he starts off with new funding and then he says this will restore their funding to where it was in 1994-95.

There is no new money here. This is just replacing what they took away. What does this do? Not only does it threaten our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, it demoralizes and challenges, in fact it discourages, the brightest and finest of our intellectual people. Why? Because the material and equipment that they need to use to do their research is inadequate. There is a lack of appreciation for the work that they are doing, there is decreased motivation to pursue new ideas.

What do they do? They leave the country to go elsewhere where their efforts are supported and where they can have better equipment and where their particular work is encouraged and developed.

I want to refer to a particular article that was given to me from the Ottawa Citizen . This is a very serious development that has taken place. In this instance, the declining of money for R and D, the story chronicled the departure of 11 of 17 research scientists. That is well over half. They went to other nations because of the funding cuts in Canada. Eight of these went to the United States. We cannot afford to have this brain drain happen in Canada because that means our brightest and finest are leaving this country and going elsewhere.

It is not just research funding that is the problem here. There is also the question of taxes and salaries. Let us compare a person earning $50,000 in the United States. That person pays, in the United States, $4,910 in taxes. In Canada, that same person earning $50,000 pays $10,647.

Not only is the money there to provide for the equipment and for the research and development but also in the personal taxes that these people pay. Is it any wonder that they leave?

We need quality research. We need to develop it further. Let me point to one particular development at the University of Saskatoon and the establishment there of the Synchrotron facility. That needs to be developed and expanded so that it can do the kinds of things that need to be done in this country.

Medical research has slipped back. The application of new ideas and the development of new technologies is in jeopardy. That is not all. The other social costs that come out of this is that students are unemployed; 16.8% are unemployed. That is far too high. First of all when they graduate, they carry on their shoulders a government debt of $20,000 because of the huge debt that is there. The average student has another $25,000 of student loans. That is a $45,000 debt charge right off the top and that poor student has to start paying income taxes the minute he reaches a salary of $25,000.

What kind of justice, what kind of fairness is that in this particular country?

Not only do we need to look at the social consequences of not stopping the marshalling and the growing of the debt but we have to listen.

In four different high school classes last week I was told for the first time ever by young people that it was not fair that those who graduate from post-secondary institutions have to begin to pay for the debt the government was unable to pay for. The government spends money on their behalf so that they live a standard of life they are not prepared to pay for. They think it is not fair they should be saddled with a tax bill that is so large they are groaning under its burden.

The time has come for the government to stop wasteful spending, to stop giving grants and subsidies to business and industry, and to look at where it is and where it is going. Government should listen to what the people are saying. It should reduce the debt and lower taxes.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address the House on Bill C-19, to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code. Some eloquent speeches were made this morning.

I could not help but think of an experience I had during the last election campaign. I went to a door that was answered by a young person. We started talking about the upcoming election. I asked him whether he would be voting this time. He said “Yes, this is the first time I will vote. I am proud of it. I really want to vote”.

We got talking about what the various parties represented. That young person was aware and thrilled about the ability of being able to vote. He was on fire because he wanted to get involved in the election. That right to vote is being denied in this legislation to the workers of Canada.

The purpose behind labour legislation is to create harmony between employers and employees, harmony that will result in increased productivity and greater efficiency and will create the goods and services we need. That is what this legislation is all about.

For some reason or other built into the legislation are not principles that create harmonization, not principles that create harmony in working together, but rather principles of confrontation, principles of invasion of privacy, principles of denial of the democratic process. It is an indictment of a government that proposes this kind of legislation.

It goes beyond simply denying a vote. It goes into the details of allowing a quasi-judicial board with no political or administrative accountability to do this. I read directly from the bill. “The board” that is the Canada Industrial Relations Board “may certify a trade union despite a lack of evidence of majority support”. Is this not absolutely amazing?

Imagine the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada saying that even though the people did not vote for the Liberals they would still be the government. It would be terrible. It is hard to imagine how anyone would dare to do such a thing.

Then it goes into substituting a card for a ballot. My hon. colleague from Vancouver West has just mentioned how easy it is to intimidate someone by going to their door and asking them to sign a card. We also heard the conflict that can exist when two unions are in competition with each other to get the members to come to them and they use the same process to prove that they are the winners. That is the kind of situation we are in at this point.

Interestingly enough the bill provides for and insists that there be a secret ballot when the members decide to strike, or if a group of employers want to lock out a group, that requires a secret ballot. Is this not interesting, that which will affect my life as a member of a working union can be subject and open to everyone, but when it comes to whether or not I am going to vote for a strike it has to be done by a secret ballot. There is a complete contradiction of principles here.

I want to move to an area that was touched on so eloquently by the member for Vancouver West, which is the business of privacy. This list of names is now obligatory. For what purpose will that list of names be used? To send out information? To appeal to me to become a member of this particular group? To be bombarded with unsolicited mail from people we do not want to hear from? We have no way of knowing how this list of names will be used.

We know that if the power is granted to get this access to information, how the information is used becomes completely unpredictable. The points are very clear in the act as to how the list of names shall be used. It states that the list shall be used for purposes relating to soliciting trade union memberships; the negotiation or administration of a collective agreement; the processing of a grievance; or the provision of a trade union service to employees. That is what it shall be used for.

However, there is no guarantee that the list will be used like that. It may be used for other purposes. The access has now been given to private information. Once private information is out there, it can be used in whatever way the individual who has it chooses to use it. That is frightening. The potential for abuse and misuse is severe.

Let us look at another provision in this act which relates to the same thing. It comes in clause 54 where the following provision is made:

For greater certainty, the following may not be disclosed without the consent of the person who made them:

It is not everything that can be made public, but there are certain people who are protected from invasion of their privacy. The first one is:

(a) notes or draft orders or decisions of the Board or any of its members, or of an arbitrator or arbitration board chairperson appointed by the Minister under this Part; and

(b) notes or draft reports of persons appointed by the Minister under this Part to assist in resolving disputes or differences, or of persons authorized or designated by the Board to assist in resolving complaints or issues in dispute before the Board.

One could argue that is privileged information in the actual negotiating process. And it is correct to say that. That information should be private and it should be confidential. But what is more secret, what is more private and what is more confidential than the names of myself and my family and the address of where we live? It seems to me that has the same significance as do the notes and draft orders from the negotiating process. The bill fails on that point.

Another area has to do with the replacement workers. I refer to clause 42(2):

No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use, for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an employee in the bargaining unit—

Half an hour ago a Liberal member said that this can only be used in the case where the employer is deliberately using the replacement worker to undermine the union. The member made the point that if an employer is using a replacement worker for that purpose he cannot use that person and therefore this bill is absolutely sacrosanct and absolutely pure and great. Is that not a very interesting interpretation of this clause.

How will anyone ever be able to show clearly and without any doubt or equivocation that the person was hired to do one thing and one thing only, to destroy the union? It is totally irresponsible and ridiculous to make a claim like that. That is the protection. That protection has such a big hole in it you could drive an 18 wheeler through it and you would not even know you had gone through the hole. That is what has been done here. That is an absolutely irresponsible clause. I do not think it is a good clause but even if it were, the way it is written makes it absolutely impossible to enforce.

I will discuss the accountability of the proposed board. A Liberal member made the point that the board is accountable, that it must submit an annual report to the minister. Guess what the annual report contains. It will be a statistical report that contains an analysis of those statistics. Is that not interesting. It will tell the minister how many members there were over various years. There is no requirement for the board to report how much money it gathered, whom it gathered it from, how it was spent or to whom it was sent. There is absolutely no accountability whatsoever. My interpretation of the statement that the annual report will make the board accountable is nonsense. It does nothing of the kind. We take very strong exception to this.

I want to end on a positive note. We want harmony between employers and employees. This will make us a competitive nation. It will build our businesses and employ our young people. In order to do that, my colleagues and I in the Reform Party have advocated the following phrase which members will have memorized if they have been listening: We need final offer selection arbitration. That is what we need. That will give people the kind of harmony we need. It will avoid the confrontation that makes people fight. It will bring them together to say “Let us do this together”.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I found it rather amusing to look at the members who proposed the motion and to hear the reply we just heard from the Liberal member opposite. A pox on both parties.

On the one hand the Liberal government says the fault lies with the previous Conservative government. The Conservatives simply say it was the Liberals' fault because of what they are doing. One of those parties governed the country since Confederation. Therefore it seems to me they are both to blame.

If the hon. member would have had another five minutes to speak, I think he would have lost one arm. He was so busy patting himself on the back that there is no way he could have preserved his arm.

The claim is that taxes have been reduced and the government has been balanced in everything it has done. Why is it, then, that we have so many bankruptcies and so much dissatisfaction with what is happening?

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am really quite intrigued by the comments made by previous speaker, the member who made the presentation. I thought this motion related to students and keeping brains in Canada. I thought it was concerned with identifying reasons for losing them.

I refer the hon. member to his own record and the record of the government at this time. In successive budgets the government has reduced the money available for science and technology, in particular for research and development and especially basic research.

Would the member be prepared to address the question of how we could keep our brains in this country and provide them with the research infrastructure that is so necessary to develop and advance knowledge?