Jim Silye

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Perhaps the hon. member who said that I do not know what I am talking about does not know the rules. The standing orders probably would help that member quite a bit.

The problem with the infrastructure program that the Liberal government has put forth is that there has to be a mechanism for accountability that it has created new jobs.

Our concern is that it is not really creating the new jobs, witnessed by the member's own evidence that at the end of the year the drop in unemployment is only one-tenth of 1 per cent.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the history lesson on municipal government. I would also like to comment that it is awfully nice to say how generous the Liberal government is with money and funding to help, but whose money is it? It is other people's money. It is borrowed money and we have to stop borrowing because we have to stop adding to this debt.

There are lots of income taxes around. Municipalities have lots of ways to raise money to sustain themselves. This infrastructure program is going to people who already have jobs, who already are skilled. We need accountability.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the opposition motion which reads:

That this House deplore the government's lack of vision and lack of concrete measures relating to job creation policies.

It is my belief that to stimulate the economy and to increase revenues for government, lenders, investors and consumers must possess a larger pool of disposable income. Jobs are created in the private sector, which the government readily admits is up to 87 per cent, which follows the laws of supply and demand. They would do a better job of creating long term meaningful jobs with $6 billion in cash than the Liberal government would do with its infrastructure program.

The role of government should be to do what government can only do: peace, order and good government. It is not job creation. It should regulate, administer, pass laws, defend borders but it should not enter the marketplace to create jobs. With regional development funds, grants and subsidies to busi-

nesses, governments distort the private sector, create temporary jobs and promote unfair competition within industry sectors. When will governments acknowledge that they are in fact part of the problem and not the solution.

I would like to educate this Liberal government on the reality of the private sector and not the perceived reality of the Liberal government.

Government overspending results in the raising of tax dollars. Higher taxation means that less capital is available in the marketplace which leads to a drop in demand. When demand drops, consumption drops, businesses close their doors and the cycle continues. This vicious circle is the main reason why 1.6 million Canadians are unemployed.

It takes money to create wealth but the government takes too much of it away from the people who know how to spend it. It takes it out of the system and then wonders why unemployment goes up.

The root of the unemployment problem in this country is the debt. The Liberals would have us believe that the debt is only one of many symptoms causing millions of Canadians to be unemployed. The fact is that the government is now adding another projected $41 billion-let us hope it is only that-to this debt which will take it to $550 billion at the end of this coming fiscal year. It is the debt and the interest to service that debt that is causing the problem.

Currently the unemployment rate is at 11.2 per cent. At the end of the year with the finance minister's own projections that he has defended in this House, including the $6 billion infrastructure program and the 168,000 short term jobs that it will create, the unemployment rate will drop to 11.1 per cent after 12 months.

This is one-tenth of 1 per cent. Is this what the Liberals call job creation? Are Canadians across the nation and especially in central Canada truly getting the changes that they demanded and were promised by the Liberal government? The answer is no.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has said in this House that capital creates jobs. So far he is right on. As a businessman I know this to be true. But what politicians on the other side of the House do not seem to realize is that there is a big difference between the spending of debt capital that is borrowed money and equity capital that does not have to be repaid.

The private sector understands the difference. It is time politicians did too. At risk money motivates; government money wastes. The government is going to spend $6 billion on infrastructure programs. Since it is going to spend the money anyway that money should be spent improving the kind of infrastructure that permits the productive sector of the economy, the private sector, to function more efficiently which in turn will allow it to create real long term jobs.

The government's role should be to develop an economic atmosphere, an environment, an infrastructure that facilitates investment, not to make the investment itself directly. The private sector will do that.

In his speech at the G-7 jobs conference in Detroit in the last two weeks, the Minister of Industry spoke of developing a national technology extension network to offer technological services across Canada. Sounds great. The minister stated: "Small business will be encouraged to work more closely with public sector research institutions to improve the commercialization of new technology, base products and services".

When will the government listen to what small businesses are saying: "Get out of our pockets, get off our backs, and get out of our way so that we can create the long term meaningful jobs".

Let me give a specific example of this. When the government talks about creating an information superhighway in conjunction with the public sector backed by the government with more government money, my suggestion is that it look south to the United States and see how it is addressing this need.

Two entrepreneurs, William Gates and Craig McCaw, have joined forces to build an extensive global communication superhighway. It is the marketplace that is addressing the needs in the states of consumers and not the government. I reference the article. It is in the Financial Post of Tuesday, March 22, and if anybody on the Liberal side of the House would like to read it, they may learn something from it.

The government need not build an information superhighway with taxpayers' dollars.

Freeing up the marketplace from government intervention creates opportunities, incentives, and real long term meaningful jobs. It generates real revenue and sends a message to investors and to all Canadians that this country wants a future based on prosperity not on government handouts and high debt.

The Liberal government must encourage the spending of equity capital from the private sector and not debt capital as is the current situation. For too long our governments have relied on the spending of borrowed money, not equity capital, in the funding of short term job creation programs that benefit specific groups and not society as a whole.

In a speech at the G-7 conference the Minister of Industry stated: "Well planned infrastructure spending offers a potential for immediate job creation in the short term", that is, while it is being built. "As well, there will be a payoff in the longer term through the support of higher levels of economic activity when it is operational".

Let us put this theory to the test. The Calgary city council just last night at a marathon meeting agreed in a 9 to 6 vote, this is at the municipal level, to use part of the infrastructure program of the government to renovate the Saddle Dome. For those members in the House who do not know what the Saddle Dome is, it is a hockey rink, a facility used in Calgary to house the Calgary Flames, the major tenant, and other programs and events throughout the year.

Is this infrastructure money being well spent? Does this benefit the city as a whole or just a select few?

In my opinion, there are a multitude of roads, bridges and buildings that urgently require immediate attention that would make it better for investors and businesses to live in Calgary. This is not the proper use of infrastructure funds. Only a few taxpayers will benefit at the expense of all taxpayers. Few if any new jobs will be generated in this instance because most jobs will go to contractors and workers who are already employed.

Federal funds will once again be used to interfere in a private sector matter. This issue is between the Stampede board and the Calgary Flames hockey club. With the Liberal program it now involves all the taxpayers. The federal government has no business allocating taxpayers' money to influence the outcome.

If the infrastructure program is intended to create jobs with the benefit being an improvement to the nation's basic infrastructure, then how can this be justified? The maintenance of basic infrastructure has always been the responsibility of governments which leads one to ask: What have they been doing for the last 25 to 30 years to bring about such negligence with regard to the basic responsibility?

The answer is instead of using taxpayers' dollars to take care of the fundamentals such as roads, sewers and bridges, the government has been squandering the nation's wealth on inefficient, expensive social programs. Those programs in many ways encourage people not to work, that is high UIC benefits and generous welfare payments that all started with the Liberal government in 1968 under Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Once again it is a vicious circle. Government ignores its basic responsibility with respect to infrastructure in order to concentrate on an extensive and expensive social agenda. It increases the tax burden to finance that agenda, kills jobs through the tax burden, declares job creation as part of the social agenda, then spends more tax dollars to create jobs, working on the very infrastructure it ignored in the first place. Have fun, Liberal government.

I would like to conclude by quoting the hon. member for Calgary Southwest who has stated many times, and in my opinion is worth repeating many times: "A dollar in the hands of a lender, taxpayer or investor is much better than that same dollar in the hands of a bureaucrat, a lobbyist or a politician".

[The Economy, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government's failure to seriously address Canada's deficit and debt problem directly contributed and contributes to the increases in interest rates and a drop in the dollar.

On behalf of business people and Canadians who want real jobs, when will the Prime Minister recognize the real problem, the high cost of financing the national debt? When will the government begin to lower its spending so that we can lower taxes and really help the economy?

[The Economy, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that the business community reacted positively to the recent budget. I believe he is overstating the case. The fact is that the business community gave qualified acceptance based on the finance minister's promise of a second round of spending cuts. The Prime Minister has publicly contradicted the finance minister, saying that all the cuts for the next three years are in this budget.

What assurances can the Prime Minister give business people that promises made by the finance minister will be kept by this government?

[Small Business, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister has been a politician for 25 years, I have been a businessman. While I can take lessons from him on how the MP pension plan works, perhaps he might listen to a word or two about people who have worked in the real world for 25 years.

Government programs to help small business are more likely to impede rather than to help private sector job creation. Why then is the government considering another such impediment, a subsidy that will interfere with the business decisions, ultimately raise taxes and further impede private sector job creation?

[Small Business, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

As we heard earlier, the government is considering a human resources tax credit to subsidize hiring. As a small businessman I can assure the Prime Minister that business people do not want more government subsidies to stimulate employment and do not want to be told how to run their businesses.

The Prime Minister has stated repeatedly that he is counting on small business to create the majority of jobs so desperately needed by 1.5 million unemployed Canadians.

Why then does he not listen to what small business people are telling him about job creation: "Get out of our pockets, get off our backs and get out of our way so we can create the real jobs in the new economy".

[Canada Oil And Gas Operations Act, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the National Energy Board Act.

In the interest of reducing the duplication of comments and overlap of debaters I will speak on behalf of the Reform Party which in principle supports Bill C-6 in the spirit has been put forward by the Department of Natural Resources and the National Energy Board.

As the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre, I need only look out the window of my constituency office to see the importance of the oil and gas industry to the people, the city and the province of Alberta.

When the government, especially a Liberal government, begins to change legislation that regulates this industry, people and companies alike get nervous and express their concerns, especially when it involves giving power to a federal board where it may overlap in the future with an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Having consulted with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the National Energy Board our party is confident that Bill C-6 deals primarily with the centralization and the consolidation of technical and regulatory functions to the National Energy Board from the ministerial level of the department of natural resources and in some cases the judicial system.

According to the National Energy Board, this process of streamlining will save the government $5 million. This is a positive step but remains just the tip of the iceberg when one considers the overall amount of government waste that has existed over the years.

When I spoke in this House on Bill C-2, I encouraged the Department of National Revenue to initiate line by line, item by item reviews of the department to find out exactly where money is being spent.

Today, while discussing Bill C-6, I want to ask the Department of Natural Resources to do the same. These results should be made public in their entirety in the form of an annual report which could then be distributed to all parties for review.

My party wants the federal government and all its departments to be fiscally responsible and exercise restraint wherever possible. We believe strongly in the streamlining of government operations like those in Bill C-6 and encourage the federal government to do more of the same.

Less government bureaucracy in the oil and gas industry means quicker decisions so that more time can be spent by businesses exploring for new resources and/or building new pipelines.

Freeing up the marketplace from government intervention creates opportunities, incentives and real jobs, long term meaningful jobs. It generates real revenue and sends a message to investors and to all Canadians that this country wants a future based on prosperity and not on high unemployment and high debt.

The Liberal government must continue to cut red tape and encourage the spending of equity capital from the private sector and not debt capital by the government as is the current situation.

For too long governments have relied on the spending of debt capital versus equity capital in the funding of megaprojects that have wasted billions of taxpayers dollars, Hibernia and the Lloydminster upgrader, for example.

My party supports a free market system, one in which supply and demand regulate the industry, not political agendas. Government should facilitate and not hinder the production and efficient delivery of exports.

We support the fact that Bill C-6 will also provide the National Energy Board with the authority to ease the regulatory burden for small pipeline companies that do not have the resources for drawn out hearings and application processes. It enables them to participate in the process without being hung up in months and months of delays and waiting for hearings.

Small businesses like these play a large role in job creation and need to be free to compete in the marketplace.

These significant changes cannot, however, come at the expense of the environment. Bill C-6 takes some positive steps concerning industry safety and environmental conservation. For example, by increasing the power for National Energy Board inspectors to make immediate decisions in the field on safety and environmental violations, potential disasters can be avoided.

Decisions in the past had to be made by the full board which caused delays and proved to be an inefficient way to ensure companies meet high safety standards.

The NEB plays a large role in the oil and gas industry and is held in high regard. We commend and encourage it to continue its high standards of work.

The consolidation achieved through this act eliminates the need for courts and politicians to be involved in the daily operations of frontier activity. The new power given to the NEB should subsequently encourage continuity, consistency and expediency within the department.

Having said that, there are still certain members of the oil and gas community that have expressed concern with the fact that Bill C-6 will eliminate the oil and gas committee which was an independent appeal board.

With no impartial appeal process the National Energy Board could in effect become judge, jury and sole executioner for companies that may disagree with the decision that it hands down. Therefore, the precedent setting decisions that are made will subsequently be extremely important for politicians to monitor, ensuring there are no destructive precedents set.

I would like to conclude by reminding the House that previous Liberal governments played a significant role in crippling the oil and gas industry in Alberta with their national energy policy. We do not wish to see this happen again.

We encourage this new Liberal government to be different and continue to improve the regulatory environment in Canada, discourage red tape and the size of bureaucracy and promote free and open competition in the private sector and leave the industry alone. With respect to discriminatory grants or subsidies, it does not need them, nor does it want them, with new environmental taxes like a carbon tax and wasteful job creation programs.

That is my submission on Bill C-6.

[National Debt, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I might have to check some of those facts.

The minister has seen interest rates in the United States begin to climb. In fact he recently mused that interest rates in Canada could soon be lower than in the United States. If the minister believes that Canadian interest rates can remain stable in the face of increasing rates in the United States, would he be so kind as to tell us when he thinks the American interest rates will actually exceed those of Canada?

[National Debt, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister's budgetary forecasts were based on two assumptions, that revenue would increase by 8 per cent and that interest rates would remain at their current low levels for the next three years. Less than three weeks after this budget was delivered we are already beginning to see signs that these assumptions were overly optimistic.

What alternative provisions does the finance minister have to meet his deficit reduction targets if interest rates continue to climb?