Werner Schmidt

[Petitions, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to Standing Order 36, I would like to present two petitions. The first petitions the government and prays that Parliament ensure that present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Committees Of The House, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this morning and to be able to support and to be part of a process in which democracy is operating in its truest form.

The committee developed recommendations that will support small business. These were developed based on the people's commentary. The committee has come up with recommendations that in my opinion will definitely help to develop small business in Canada.

Some of the key recommendations are the increase of competition among financial institutions by increasing the number and kind of institutions that provide financing; setting interest rates under the Small Businesses Loans Act that are commensurate with risk; developing a code of conduct for banks; and the establishment of a bank ombudsman with the power to investigate and order compensation on matters of breach of duty or maladministration in order to ensure a level playing field between businesses and banks.

We know that small businesses play a major role in the economic development of Canada. We need to shore up this part of our sector. Our economic future is dependent upon them and this report. If the government sees fit to implement the recommendations, we will have a better climate as a result of this development.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I wish to address my remarks with regard to Bill C-46 starting with the explanation of why the Reform Party had a subamendment which my colleague presented to the House to include that not only should Quebec be recognized but that rather all the provinces should be recognized. We put this into the framework of the Reform's vision for the department.

I would like to now recognize some of the remarks that have been made by my colleagues opposite. If all of those things that they are talking about, the industrial development that is going to take place, the research and development, the integration of research with industrial development, take place it will take place not because of this bill but in spite of the bill.

We believe the department needs, like all governments, a set of guiding principles and policies, a mission if you will. I would like to state that once again. We believe the role of the Department of Industry is to establish and maintain a culture which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research, and ensures a level, competitive and honest marketplace.

To achieve that means to decentralize, not to centralize control. We need to emphasize the reduction of the ability to interfere in the marketplace, and this bill does exactly the opposite. What this bill does is allow the minister and the cabinet in particular to interfere in the marketplace. There must be an emphasis on improving the ability of the marketplace to self-regulate, as was so clearly demonstrated by my colleague. Serious intervention by the government and by the minister in particular should be in emergency cases only.

The national interest must be clearly defined by the people of Canada through Parliament, and in extraordinary circumstances by a national referendum, and not be left in the hands of the cabinet as this bill does.

Regional development is in particular the focus of our amendment. Many fundamental problems that exist in the marketplace today arise not because of the fact that the marketplace was allowed to operate but because there was intervention in the marketplace. Many scholars and former senior mandarins of this and related departments have noted that a national industrial strategy and regional development strategies are mutually incompatible. They fight against one another. We heard my

colleague mention that with regard to subsidies and grants in particular.

The federal government should treat all regions of Canada equally and provide a level field so that people can compete on an equal footing. Fair treatment would eliminate the need for a minister to decide between the national interest on the one hand and the regional interest on the other.

Regional political patronage and, just as important, the temptation to engage in it would be removed to a great extent if the instrument of regional development were done away with. Better efficiency within the department should be realized.

The history of the department coupled with this proposed reorganization shows that this minister has chosen not to exercise leadership, but rather to accept as a fait accompli what was there with the previous government which was a Progressive Conservative government. This government in this bill is perpetuating the confusion and lack of solid direction that existed before.

I want to draw particular attention to some of the things that have happened with regional development. They are an excuse very often for the pork barrelling patronage that goes on. They have represented slush funds in the history of Canada.

Let us talk in particular about Shawinigan for a moment. Shawinigan turned into a canoe specialist area, with the federal government's infrastructure contribution to the canoe hall of fame this year. The canoe hall of fame may be portrayed as regional development but it is certainly not an infrastructure program as Canadians understand it.

When Canadians voted this government in last fall they expected two things from the red book: integrity in government and sound fiscal management. I contend that the record thus far has shown they did not get either.

Projects across this country similar to the Shawinigan one may be noted and we need to look at some of the ways that money has been spent. It does not matter whether the projects are under the infrastructure program or the regional development agencies, it is a pork barrel at its worst.

Let me give a few examples. The list is long but I will refrain from going through the whole list.

Twenty thousand dollars was given to a Quebec fashion industry gala at Montreal's Olympic Stadium; $500,000 for the Upper Humber Golf Club in Deer Lake, Newfoundland; $89,434 for an Acadian wax museum in Caraquet, New Brunswick; $150,000 to develop a program to educate teachers in Cape Breton about economic development; over $500,000 for boccie courts in Toronto; $5 million to help Peter Pocklington improve Northlands Coliseum and Ducey Park in Edmonton; $25,000 to study the possibility of hosting the International Pan-Celtic Festival; and $224,000 for Rita McNeil's tea room and gift shop. It is all too sad that these types of projects are the norm and not the exception. There are some noted good projects as well, but these are the kinds of examples that should not exist at all.

A new parity is needed, one where the free market is allowed to operate freely with competition and let the best one win, not the government deciding who wins and who loses.

I conclude with these words. We should establish a marketplace, an industry department that establishes and maintains a culture and rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research and ensures a level, competitive and honest marketplace. Hand in hand with this approach are government policies encouraging free markets, enhancing competition and treating all individuals and groups equally. They are the kinds of policies that will make Canada strong and prosperous in the 21st century. These are the kinds of policies we support.

[Hazardous Products Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to support my colleague. Together with my colleague from the Bloc, I commend him for his tenacity in bringing to our attention again something that is very important.

The Weese family took seriously an accident that happened to them and the suffering they went through. They made us all aware of a problem to which I personally was not paying very much attention. When I read the details of the story I was unaware that these goal posts were causing this much trouble, that people actually were being killed. I have now become aware of the problem. That is the negative part.

Here is a family who suffered. A child died and some of us were still unaware of the cause. They took it upon themselves to write thousands of letters to people to make them aware, to make school boards aware, to make parks and recreation departments aware so that out of an accident something good came. I want to thank this family for that.

I want to thank my colleague for drawing this tragedy into the public arena and into the highest court of the land, the Parliament of Canada.

It is easy for us to blame manufacturers for not putting the right signs on equipment and not supplying enough information. It is important that they be charged with that responsibility. School boards and parks and recreation departments should be made aware of this fault so they can anchor the goal posts and make them more safe.

However, I want to emphasize another aspect of this as well. It is the responsibility that we as parents and adults have in our respective communities.

I was impressed to hear the member say that he and the Weese family had travelled around southern Ontario only to discover that there are still places where the safety features are not being observed. They are exercising a responsibility that goes well beyond that of parents by going into the community and extending their care to other people's children. It is a highly commendable action on their part.

In particular, I want to recognize the establishment of the the PARCS, Parents Assuming Responsibility for Children's Safety. It is through their efforts that the hon. member brings this bill to the House to amend the Hazardous Products Act. Through their efforts school boards are now aware of a problem that they were not aware of before. Through their efforts I have become more sensitive to this problem.

My two boys are now grown men. They do not have children but when they do I want them to be able to feel comfortable that their children are safe as far as playground equipment is concerned.

Also I want us to recognize that regardless of whether the goal posts are fixed or movable, or movable ones that are anchored, there is still in the heat and activity of play the tendency to forget that one could be hurt rather badly on these goal posts. We have a responsibility to recognize that our children when they play can be in some danger.

There is no better way to ensure that our children are safe than for us as parents to accept responsibility for our children. In the larger community we as adults should recognize that in a way we are parents to all children and to accept the responsibility that has been demonstrated by the Weeses to make others aware of the danger. We need to alert the Minister of Industry to bring forward legislation to amend the corporate act so that the purpose of the bill can be realized.

I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the House. I am going to support the effort, the spirit and the intent of the bill. I hope that all of us will become more aware and accept responsibility to make our playgrounds safer both on school grounds as well as parks and other recreational facilities.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question. Perhaps I did not explain as clearly as I might have. The intention here is that under the Established Programs Financing Act cash is given to provinces from the federal government. The intention here is that money be given in the form of vouchers to students.

That is where the funding would come from. That is why there is no increase in federal funding over what exists at the present time. That is one point. The second point is in terms of provincial recognition. Absolutely, education is the responsibility of the provinces. This would allow that kind of flexibility to be retained and recognized.

In fact the voucher system could be strengthened immensely if the provinces would do that as well. Then the true freedom of the individual can be expressed to meet the needs that should be there. That will also increase the job opportunities for graduates. Then the programs would be tailored to meet the needs of the job market and at the same time the interests and skills and particular aptitudes of the students.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate on the discussion paper on social policy review.

I wish to take a slightly different approach than has been taken so far and concentrate on a particular section of the policy paper that has been presented. I would like to indicate how clearly that discussion paper misses the opportunity for leadership and new thinking for a new economy and for a redirected social policy program.

I recognize that the government has set for itself a major task of tremendous significance that will affect our financial, social and personal well-being in this country.

There is a desperate need to change our social policy. There is a recognition in this particular paper that our economy has become technology oriented and that it is critical for Canada to find a way to capitalize on the technology of tomorrow.

How can we all benefit from this recognition? By recognizing that the world is rapidly changing we have taken the first step in making the transition toward a productive future. But it is only a first step, a very, very tiny one. In real terms this means that the workforce in Canada must change. This too is included in the discussion paper.

Canada must develop a workforce that is well educated, capable and skilled and above all that is primed to participate and anticipate the changes that are coming with respect to the economy in general, their specific jobs and to prepare themselves for the transition that is about to come. A workforce that has those characteristics will indeed be successful in competition.

It requires lifelong learning. Learning I believe is at the basis of a dynamic economy. Only through education and ongoing training of a workforce can that force be equipped to meet market demands.

However, like all the other components in our economy education itself is under tremendous stress. It has become inefficient. It has become too expensive and it is failing the very people it was designed to serve. Canadians are lagging behind, no matter how well educated they are. They are not equipped to tackle the jobs of the market requirements.

Canadians are paying the price for post-secondary education that is out of date, a system that was designed primarily to serve the needs of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We are in the 1990s. Higher education must be reviewed and must change to reflect today's requirements. That means universities, colleges and technical institutes and other deliverers of educational services and courses. Every avenue of education must be taken to be part of the plan and must be utilized.

I pose this question to the House this evening. What should the federal government's role be in post-secondary education? In particular, how should post-secondary education be funded?

As an educator with 25 years experience and as a provincial politician and now as a federal politician I have witnessed the relationship between education and government in the post-secondary process and throughout Canada. It is from this point of view that I wish now to reflect upon one of the government's proposals.

The proposal is to expand student loans. Student loans are not a new idea in Canada. They have been used to finance education for many years. As a result many graduates have racked up substantial debts and upon graduation, despite the investment, many of them cannot get jobs. The jobs they had and were well paying and looked secure were not. Graduates are underemployed on a part time basis and often on a very short contract basis. Despite the investment in education through student loans there has been no guarantee of employment for graduates despite the fact they have been left with massive debts and no way to repay them.

The key is jobs. There is some suggestion that maybe the government should guarantee these loans. It does not help if the loans cannot be paid back and it adds to the cost of government.

How serious is this problem? One might say that is not that big a problem. In November 1992 the total default in education debts or loans if you will was $1 billion. That is the equivalent of 100,000 students defaulting on a $10,000 loan. That is a significant problem. Many students are not only deep in debt, they are without a job and have very little to show for that debt that they have incurred. Canada has very little to show for that debt. It is unacceptable and it must change.

We are looking for a legitimate role for the federal government in this kind of funding. Leading economists and Canada's leading authority on educational finance or finance of higher education, Dr. E. G. West of Carleton University in Ottawa, says that what we need is a voucher system not a heavier burden on the backs of our young people, a voucher system that would see the federal government distribute its higher education money to students themselves directly in the form of vouchers that would be accepted by universities, colleges and technical schools. These institutions in turn would convert those vouchers into money by redeeming them with the federal government. This voucher system is direct, single, simple, effective, flexible and deals with the individual-talk about decentralization-a legitimate approach for the funding of higher education at least in part.

What are the advantages of such a system? There are many. In the minds of my colleagues and those who are in authority, such an arrangement would encourage healthy competition among institutions to attract students. It would be a preferable arrangement for students too because an arrangement like this would enhance individual choice and make it an effective choice. Students would have more leverage to seek out institutions to meet their needs and the federal cost would be no higher than it is today.

The voucher system would work better for students. It would ensure a higher standard of post-secondary education through competition and would cost the government no more than it costs today.

The voucher system would do much more than that. It would put into the hands of the students consumer power. The students would decide what kind of program, who would deliver it and at what price. It would recognize the diversity of choice of those who seek to learn and those who provide the educational services. It would allow the post-secondary education institution to fine tune the system and like government itself, avoid the expensive duplication and overlap that exists at the present time.

Under this system students would benefit from institutions competing for enrolment between themselves and the students would feel strong and well about their particular decisions. Would they make good decisions? I have dealt with many of these students at the post-secondary level and the post-graduate level and they are very capable of making decisions. They know exactly what kind of program they want and need. If the universities would listen, if some of these services that are provided would listen to the needs and demands of the students and have the wherewithal to give them money needed for their education they would do so.

Students are not only the young. There is a much larger proportion of Canadians who are older adults in various age groups who need further education. These too could be served with this voucher system. It would create a large, political and powerful force at the federal level for higher education if we adopted this voucher system. That force would consist of students, their husbands, their wives, their parents and all those others who would benefit and participate in the decision-making for higher education.

Advanced education would then compete on a much more equal basis in terms of the power that they need so that government supplies those services that we actually have to have in our society.

Finally and most important, it could be expanded beyond simply education to include the training programs under UI and welfare instead of having the turf war that exists between the various departments.

I strongly urge the government to think very seriously not about expanding the loans to students but rather to institute a voucher system and give the student consumer power.

[Registered Retirement Savings Plan, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, every year through RRSPs many Canadians manage to put aside a small portion of their income for retirement.

This nest egg does not mean they are wealthy. But it does represent their hard work and gives them some assurance about their future. Today that nest egg is in jeopardy of being taxed because of a government which cannot find a better way to balance the budget.

Instead of encouraging Canadians to provide for themselves, taxation of RRSPs in effect says, do not earn, do not save, do not invest and do not plan for retirement.

To tax our RRSPs is to tax our future. It is a short-sighted solution that will provide for the migration of Canadians and their money out of this country.

On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan Centre I urge the government to listen to Canadians. They are tax weary and they are angry.

Today the debt of Canada stands at $532.8 billion.

[Government Appointments, September 29th, 1994]

I stand corrected. My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

How can the public trust be restored when this government continues to blatantly make patronage appointments to reward their loyal Liberals?

[Government Appointments, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal promise to restore trust and public confidence in the government has been broken. The Liberals criticized the Conservative government for the appointment of its political friends. They said they would appoint people only on the basis of competence. There are many very competent people who are not high level Liberals, yet once again yesterday or the day before we saw that this government has appointed one of its own.

My question is for the Prime Minister. I notice the Prime Minister is not here but it is directed to him.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Yes, $26 million out of a $3 billion budget. I submit it is a minuscule amount. I agree it is the right direction but it is not enough.

There is no leadership. There is empowerment, though. There is entrenchment of bureaucracy through repositioning people and cost centres. They are in different places. There are new people with new titles who make the same decisions under the same philosophy, the same principles and the same policies of those who preceded them, in this case the Conservatives.

To be able to distribute money without accountability or demanding accountability is to encourage dependence, irresponsibility, the possibility of misappropriation of funds, political patronage, the abuse of power and the corruption of officials and politicians.

It is no wonder the people of Canada say that governments come and go, politicians come and go and nothing changes. With the bill we see no plan for change. To administer change is difficult. It requires a goal. It requires a vision. It requires a plan to get there. It requires a strategy and tactics to achieve it. In short it requires leadership. The bill does not provide that.

The bill concentrates on centralized planning, an interventionist strategy and the preference of one region over another. It denies the equality of persons, entrepreneurs and provinces. It is deceptive in its presentation. It purports to be a housekeeping piece of legislation but it displays no leadership or change in direction which the department so desperately needs and which was promised to Canadians in the red book.

Let me become a little more specific. The government is simply following the changes as instituted by the Tories. The Tories did nothing to fix some of the more glaring difficulties with the department as it existed in its previous form. The bill only perpetuates centralized power, more interventionism in the marketplace and in individual lives, and the government knows best attitude: the government will decide what is in the national interest. It divides and subjects.

Regional development in the two largest provinces of the country, Ontario and Quebec, is lumped together and as a consequence separated from the rest of Canada. Under existing law an order in council gives the minister of finance responsibility for FORD-Q, the Federal Office of Regional Development, Quebec. We are told there is about to be the same kind of order in council under the new changes in the new act. Nevertheless the act empowers the minister of industry to be the special minister for the economic development of Ontario and Quebec.

How can the minister of industry have a national overview and responsibility, or the minister of finance for that matter who has the same kind of overview? How can these people exercise their duties as minister for the whole of Canada and balance the special interest? It seems to me there is an obvious conflict of interest when he is responsible for all of Canada and then pays special attention to a particular region of a province. It maintains the inequalities that exist at the present time. There is no attempt at level and fair treatment for all whether individuals, industries or regions.

I submit this is wimpy and kindergarten style tampering with government structure. Very far reaching effects are taking place. They have wasted a lot of time and what has it achieved? We have been told in our briefing sessions that they have reduced by 230 people the staff of 6,000 and they have reduced the $3 billion budget by $26 million. That is in the right direction. I commend the government for that but it is not good enough.

There is no evidence of them realizing the efficiencies necessary in putting together these four government departments.

If that is all that can be done to save $26 million and reduce staff by 230, is it worth the effort, the dislocation, the stresses that will be involved for the people who are going to be relocated?

It was like getting a parcel beautifully wrapped in nice red paper, the colour of the red book. As we unwrapped it we found that this big box had four smaller boxes in it. On the big box one could still see the Tory label in spite of the fact that it had been changed to read Liberal. It is nothing new, just new packaging and a new label. Our hopes were dashed, our expectations frustrated and our anticipation ignored.

Enough of criticism. Do we have any alternatives? Yes, we do. We believe that the Department of Industry like all of government needs a set of guiding principles and policies, a mission statement, if you will. Reform proposes to bring its philosophy and principles to this department as it would to all others. Here are some of those.

We believe in the value of enterprise and initiative and that governments have a responsibility to foster and protect an environment in which initiative and enterprise can be exercised by individuals and groups.

We believe that the creation of wealth and productive jobs for Canadians is best achieved through the operations of a responsible, broadly based free enterprise economy in which private property, freedom of contract and the operations of free markets are encouraged and respected.

We believe that public money should be regarded by government as a sacred trust or of funds held in trust and that government should practice fiscal responsibility, in particular the responsibility to balance expenditures and revenues.

I notice the parliamentary secretary is nodding his head. I certainly hope the Minister of Finance will see that and that the Prime Minister will agree to that and that they will change their goal which says 3 per cent of the GDP will be the deficit in perpetuity or that it will continue. It is time we recognized the principle that we need to balance our budget.

Reform also supports the depoliticizing of economic decision making in Canada through the gradual elimination of grants, subsidies and the pricing policies and all federal taxes direct or indirect on the natural resources of the provinces other than income tax of general application.

Reform also supports the gradual removal of all measures which are designed to insulate industries, businesses, financial institutions, professions and trade unions from domestic and foreign competition.

We support a vigorous measure to ensure the successful operation of the marketplace through such means as promotion of competition and vigorous enforcement of competition and anti-combines legislation with severe penalties for collusion and price fixing.

We support orienting federal government activities toward the maturing of human and physical infrastructure and to support giving greater priority to the development of skills, particularly those that provide future job flexibility.

As well, such training should be made flexible in terms of the type of institutions providing the training. We would encourage co-operative training in industry. To that end my colleagues and I have developed a statement for this department we think we should all observe. The role of the Department of Industry should be to establish and maintain a culture which rewards entrepreneurship, innovation and research and ensures a level, competitive and honest marketplace.

To that end there are many opportunities for improvement in this bill which we would seize on: to curtail the centralized control that is proposed in this bill; to emphasize reducing the ability to interfere in the marketplace; to emphasize improving the ability of the marketplace to self-regulate. Serious intervention in the marketplace should be in emergency or extreme cases only.

The national interest must be clearly defined by the people of Canada through Parliament, not by cabinet; in extraordinary circumstances by referendum. It should not be in the hands of cabinet where it can be made to mean anything it wants it to.

With regard to regional development, some fundamental problems exist with this form of government intervention in the economy. Many scholars and former senior mandarins in this department and other departments of government have noted that a national industrial strategy and regional development strategy are mutually incompatible. They often work at cross purposes to one another and become self-defeating.

We believe that the federal government should treat all regions of this country fairly and as a result should do away with all regional development programs. Fair treatment would eliminate the need for a minister to decide between the national interest on the one hand and the regional interest on the other.

Regional political patronage and, just as important, the temptation to engage in it would be removed to a great extent if the instrument of regional development were done away with. Better efficiency within the department should then be realized and other areas would benefit as well.

I note with satisfaction, as I referred to earlier, the review that is taking place on science and technology policy by the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development. I commend him for that and wish him well. I hope that he will question the presence of the many and varied scientific bureaucracies and funding agencies that fall under his purview. They need to be the subject of rigorous and continuing scrutiny. It appears that much of their work duplicates that being done by universities and various research enterprises. The fewer the hands that research funding passes through the better. I hope his review is complete and thorough.

We need to expand private sector partnerships with direct profitable spinoffs which would strengthen the research and development establishment. We need research and development as never before. In that regard we need to be efficient, cost effective, profitable and domestically and internationally competitive.

In conclusion, when we look at the history of the department and couple it with the proposed reorganization it is clear that the minister has chosen not to exercise the leadership that was his in this instance. He has only chosen to perpetuate the confusion and the lack of solid and visionary direction that have been the hallmark of the industry department throughout all of its history and all of its reincarnations and incarnations since the fifties.

We hope that the minister would have taken this opportunity to enunciate a comprehensive national industrial economic strategy and reorganize his department accordingly. It is clear that is not the case. What we have is a clear demonstration that this government has no vision for Canada's economy, a vision from which it could so clearly benefit.

The opportunity to regain public confidence has been squandered. The government could have done away with the pork barrel of regional development and the odious spectre of its centralized economic planning. It did not. This bill perpetuates the status quo. The system needs to be changed to let the market function freely within a framework and direction that reflect the democratic will of the people.

Because this bill is elitist, centralist and interventionist I cannot support it.