George Proud

[Social Security Programs, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this important debate today.

I can honestly say that during my time in this House and in other Houses in other jurisdictions social reform policy is one of the most important issues I have debated. We have known for a long time that this situation was coming to a head. It is now time, as is often said, to cross the proverbial bridge. I speak for myself and for others in saying how pleased we are that we have a person of the calibre and the social conscience of the minister heading up the question of social security reform in this country.

Canadians are aware now and have been for some time that our social security system must be changed. We have come through a difficult economic period over the past number of years, fueled by recession and high rates of unemployment. High unemployment has caused a tremendous strain on Canada and has presented new and difficult challenges. As I said earlier, we are fortunate to have a person in place who is strong enough in his convictions to address these challenges.

We have reached this point only after having consulted Canadians. As we know last year the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development held hearings across the country to seek the opinions of those who would be affected by changes in the social safety net. They were told that there are disincentives built into the present system and that those who need help the most simply are not getting the assistance they require.

All Canadians know at this time that change is inevitable. The difference with the change that this government will bring about is the heart and the compassion that will be shown for the average citizen of Canada. The weakest and those least able to defend themselves will be protected by any change initiated by this government. The deficit will not be fought on the backs of the poor.

We have heard a lot over the last few years about the global village and the new world economy and how we must be trained to face a changing economic situation around the world. That is why this is not a hack, slash and burn economic recommendation but rather a constructive reform which will help Canadians get back to work.

It is an accepted fact that training and education are the keys to economic development. We must see that Canadians are trained in the most efficient and most effective manner. The money that is to be spent on education must be directed toward those people who need it the most. The people who come out the other end of the system as graduates must be trained second to none because they are competing with people from around the world and must be prepared to do that.

In the last three years as statistics show, 17 per cent more jobs were available for university students but there were 19 per cent fewer jobs for those who did not complete high school. That says it all: education equals opportunity. We must educate more people and we must provide better access to education and training throughout their lives.

We in the part of the country that I come from believe that if we have trained people we are better able to attract enterprises to our area of the country because these companies by and large are looking for a stable, well trained workforce.

At the present time the federal government is providing more than $8 billion a year to post-secondary education across Canada. The time has come to sit down and ask ourselves if we are doing this in the most appropriate manner. Under the current arrangement if the status quo were continued the cash portion of the federal contribution to education would decrease proportionately and could disappear within 10 years. Therefore we must find ways to help more people finance their higher education so that they will be prepared to compete on a worldwide basis.

We believe that investment in learning makes good economic sense but we must deliver the training to our people in the most efficient and effective manner possible. We must therefore ensure that access is available to all young people regardless of their economic situation.

As I am sure others in this House did last year during the election campaign, I visited learning institutions in my riding. Students in my riding indicated they were not satisfied with the arrangements that are there now for student loans. They want changes made to the system. Proposals are out now. I say to those students in my riding and others: Tell us what you think of them, come forward with different and better ideas and we will certainly look at them.

The other item in the minister's statement that has caught the most attention especially in the part of the country I come from is with respect to the unemployment insurance program. It is a chilling fact to think that 13 per cent of people have been out of work for a year or more. That is three times the level of long term unemployment that this country suffered in 1976. Forty per cent of claimants have claimed for unemployment benefits at least three times in the last five years. This indicates that we do have a problem.

Coming from a region that has a high rate of unemployment I can assure my fellow members of Parliament that those who are on the unemployment treadmill are not there by choice. They are there because of the economy and because the level of training does not permit them to have jobs year round. We must continue to look at these people who form our greatest asset in the diverse regions of this country. We must provide them with the basic skills necessary to be employable year round.

I believe there is some responsibility for government through economic or trade policies to see that the opportunities are afforded to Canadians wherever they live.

I am glad to say that the minister has appointed a working group to study the effects of unemployment insurance in areas of the country where seasonal work is the dominant work. In the province I come from 50 per cent of the workforce has seasonal jobs. This is part of our history. This is the way tourism, agriculture and the fishery industry work, on a seasonal basis.

The discussion paper released by the Minister of Human Resources Development asked Canadians how we can address these problems in a spirit of co-operation and compassion. This government is not interested in fighting the deficit on the backs of the poor and the unemployed. Nor is it interested in the system collapsing, serving no one.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a time of great challenge. It is a time that challenges government. It challenges members of Parliament and it challenges the people of the country. We are not arrogant enough to believe we are the only ones who can meet these challenges. Canadians know what is in their best interests. Between now and January the human resources committee and individual members of Parliament will be talking to Canadians, seeking their advice.

The discussion paper is a road map from St. John's to Vancouver. Through our consultations Canadians will tell us how to get from where we are to where we want to be. This exercise is about finding better ways of doing things. What worked fine in the sixties and seventies is no longer working properly. In fiscal times such as these it is possible to do better with less. By working with all Canadians this government will deliver what it promised during the election: a vibrant, prosperous economy and a country where the needs for social programs will decline.

[Social Policy Reform, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to commend the Minister of Human Resources Development on his discussion paper on social policy reform.

We made a promise last fall that there would be a different way of doing things in Ottawa. This week we proved that. The road to social policy reform will be navigated by the entire country, not just by politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa. This government, unlike the previous one, is not interested in fighting the deficit on the backs of the poor and the unemployed. Nor are we interested in the system collapsing and serving nobody. By working with all Canadians we can deliver what we promised, a vibrant and prosperous economy in a country in which the need for social programs will decline.

[Infrastructure Program, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the national infrastructure program which was promised by the Liberal Party in the election last fall promises to be a catalyst in the fight against unemployment. At the same time it will provide much needed improvements to our basic facilities and will prepare our towns and cities for a more prosperous future.

In many provinces of Canada, mine included, the municipalities, construction companies and the unemployed are eagerly awaiting the approval of projects so that planning and construction can begin. We must always be mindful of the fact that we live in a country which has a relatively short outdoor construction season. We must, to use an old farm term, make hay while the sun shines.

The infrastructure program which is just one component of the program to make Canada work again will surely give our economy a kickstart.

I am sure all hon. members look forward with great anticipation to the day in the not too distant future when the infrastructure projects are under way in every part of this country.

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the minister of defence and veterans affairs for bringing this resolution forward tonight to be debated and to say to Canadians that we again in this House are seeing democracy working.

We also see the laying aside of partisan politics as we debate the very important issue that hopefully will resolve some terrible situations that abound in the world. I want to congratulate our colleagues who have spoken earlier on this matter.

Originally today I was going to go to my riding. The finance committee is meeting there tomorrow morning. I was going to appear before that but when I saw that this situation was coming here tonight, the resolution and the emergency debate, I felt that having served some time involved with matters of defence with a lot of great people on all sides of this House, I should be here to take part in this very important issue that we are dealing with.

We watch with horror the situation that has developed in Bosnia over the past number of years and this is now truly a global village because every night the true extent of what is happening around the world is brought into our homes. It shows us just how thin the veneer of civilization is. The basic humanity in civilization which we all take for granted has been stripped away and we are left with the barbarous acts perpetrated on people by their fellow human beings.

Unfortunately the horror of these events in what was once known as the cockpit of Europe, an area of conflict through the centuries, shows that we must always be vigilant to ensure that we remain at the level that we think we have attained. Reality dictates that our society must always remain on guard to see that the things we hold as basic rights of humanity and citizenship remain in tact.

When communism died we felt that a better world would take its place. I and others were told the other day by the vice-president of Bosnia that when that happened there was a vacuum left, that perhaps something else could have happened. Perhaps democracy and those who know democracy could have been in these places to fill that vacuum by teaching people the ways of democracy. That did not happen. Ancient hatreds and ethnic conflicts have come to the forefront and have led us to these situations.

Canada has for many years enjoyed an enviable reputation as a peacekeeper. Of course we all are concerned for the safety of our troops wherever they may be. What we always have to remember also is that Canada, which has gained this reputation as a peacekeeper, has the capabilities and has been involved in other types of military actions. We stood second to no one in this in two world wars and in the Korean war. We never backed away from anything. We are not a military country. That is not what

we were built on. When we were asked to go, no one ever reneged on that.

Canadians do not go around bragging very much about their military prowess. Any time Canadians were asked to be part of a conflict that was in the interests of the world, we were there. Now we are saying should we in other nations change our role from peacekeeping to that other mode. This would entail a new set of priorities and actions.

We surely cannot tolerate scenes any more like those we saw a few days ago when Canadians were held hostage, which has been mentioned here tonight. We have a saying on the east coast and it is time to use that saying. We either have to fish or cut bait. We have come to that situation in the country we are talking about here tonight. As unpalatable as it may be, if we are going to be involved we may have to become involved in a differ manner, one which may see young men and women from Canada involved in these military operations which I speak about. That may be the choice facing this House.

The request for more air strikes according to military experts should be supported by more people on the ground. According to people who have long military careers this is the way these things are most effective.

Are members of the United Nations, members of NATO prepared to do this? The topic has been debated here this evening on what happened after the bombings, after the air strikes at Sarajevo. We did not really go into it because they were successful. It is hoped that if this has to take place, if we have to go to the line, to the limit, cooler heads will prevail and those people involved once again will know that the United Nations and NATO mean business and we are not going to see these atrocities go any further.

I say to all members of the House right here tonight that we stand on the threshold at a pivotal time in our history, the history of the world. What the United Nations and we the representatives of the people here in Canada decide over the next few days, indeed probably over the next few hours, will set a tone for world affairs for years and decades to come.

I fully agree with the proposal put forward by the ministers and from what I hear in the House tonight everyone else does also. I believe we have to show these people, as someone said earlier, who are thumbing their noses at the rest of the world that the allied countries in the United Nations and in NATO mean business, that we are there to stop these atrocities.

If air strikes have to be used, then we must be prepared to go along with that. I am sure that tomorrow morning at the NATO meetings a lot of negotiating, a lot of thought will go into the final decision.

Madam Speaker and members of the House, I speak to those involved in the negotiations and those on the ground, in the air and on the sea in that country. I hope that by our decision here tonight we will help to bring this terrible conflict to an end.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to participate in a debate that has gone on for some time now about the right or wrong of suspending the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. As one who comes from the smallest province in Canada whose seats have been enshrined in the Constitution and where the numbers can neither go up nor down, people might ask me: "Why would you want to participate in this debate?"

I believe what we are proposing to do here is very worthwhile at this time. We have decided to suspend the act and have the committee look at what way we can change the distribution system to make it better. As my colleague from Vancouver Quadra alluded, I believe personally the change should be in line with the way it is done in the United States.

At this time we are all talking about slowing down the spending of money and other things. The talk going around indicates that we have already spent $5 million but it is going to cost a lot more money if we look at the outcome of the redistribution.

I am not necessarily saying that we should not redistribute the numbers or redistribute the seats, but I do not believe at this time in our history there is any justifiable need to add more seats any place in Canada.

All kinds of institutions are looking at holding the line, reducing numbers or not going ahead with other plans. I notice new provincial electoral reform has just come forward in my own province. I have not spoken on what I think of it. They are reducing seats. The ridings in Prince Edward Island are held by two members. There are 16 ridings and two members for each. This is a throwback to the days when there were two houses. It was 100 years ago that one of the houses was eliminated but two members per riding were retained. They are now talking about changing to one member per riding. I do not know what the end result will be in the number of seats.

It is not the best time for us to go forward and increase seats in the House with the added costs. The provinces that would gain are well represented in the House right now. This can continue. After the committee makes its recommendations we can look at the readjustments.

At this time the whole process needs to be re-examined. It has been many years since it has been looked at. We have been using the same formula for approximately 30 years. Everything is up for review in Parliament, everything in our country. It is not such a terrible thing to do so.

Many people have said that we should expand the number of seats or that we should go forward with redistribution. Again I agree with my colleague from Vancouver Quadra. Maybe the way in which the electoral system has operated for the last number of years has not been the best.

For instance, we should have an automatic formula that kicks in after a census is taken and ridings need to be readjusted. Many times over the years ridings have been readjusted to make it better for some members and make it worse for others. This has always been a trend in our electoral system. As a member for some years now in this House and in the provincial legislature I have indicated that it should be done fairly for every person and for every riding. The people who should be getting the best arrangement are the voters. I do not think that has always been the case.

When we conclude debate, vote on the bill and it goes to committee I trust it will be studied seriously. I am sure the committee will do so, with members from all parties in the House. Then the committee will report back to us and recommend that some changes need to be made.

I am sure, as we go along in the governance of the country, there will be many more important issues that need to be tackled than whether we should change the boundaries and add more seats to this institution. There are now 295 seats. As I said a few minutes ago, the men and women who represent the provinces across the country and the two territories give good representation. Of course one would always like to see more members on his or her side of the House depending on what is at issue. I do not think that is what is intended by the motion although we all know that has happened in many cases in the past.

This is a good time to tackle the issue of setting it aside, reviewing it and at the end of the day coming forward with a mechanism that will make it a better way of deciding on how we raise or lower the number of seats in given areas.

As I said, in my own special case perhaps I should not be the one speaking on it, but I come from the smallest province in Canada. We have four members of Parliament and those seats were enshrined in the Constitution. That was one of the arrangements made in 1873 when the province of Prince Edward Island came into Canada. It was enshrined again in 1982 when the Constitution was amended and brought home to Canada. This is given to the smaller provinces so that they will not go below a certain level. It is the same in the United States. Every state is guaranteed that it will have representation in Congress.

As we head to question period, I say that I had great concern about the way we were rushing into this matter. There were certainly representations made by many members across the country to put a hold on the process for the present time, let the committee have a serious look at it and let us see what needs to be done. I am sure all constituents in the country who are represented here will decide at the end of the day whether or not we do the right thing.

As we look at what is to take place in the country over this period of time I am sure there are issues that can well be addressed just as easy as electoral reform. I am sure all members of the House will join with us when we vote on laying the matter aside and letting what is to happen in the future be determined. I know that Canada will be well represented by this action.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments and his questions.

No one feels great about an unemployment rate in the double digits. I said that during my remarks. The member says it is only going to go down by a certain percentage point. It is better to have it going down than what was going on in the last number of years when it continually rose.

The government has come forward with an infrastructure program which we predict will create as many as 65,000 jobs. Along with that the Liberal government is committed to working with the private sector, the banking industry, to make sure that capital is there for small business to do the things they have been

trying to do for a number of years. If the hon. member has not already had them calling at his door, he will have the small business people coming to his door looking to get funding made available to them. They are not asking for it for nothing. They are willing to pay the going rate, but they are asking to have capital loosened up so they can get working capital and put people back to work.

This is the jobs, jobs, jobs creation we talked about during the 1993 election. This is what is going to happen. The infrastructure program is a short term program. The small business sector is the one that is going to pick it up and really bring the jobs into creation.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance put forward his budget, as has been said here many times today, it was put forward after many consultations with the people of the country.

The program we put forward in the fall that everybody refers to as our famous red book said that we would be fiscally responsible. We have said that the formula just alluded to would be one we were going to live with. I believe the minister is doing this. He has laid down his plan and it is not a program adopted by the former government. This is a Liberal program which will lead the country-it is not going to be easy at first-back to the time when unemployment was down. We will see government spending decrease and we will see less government. We will also see an economy that is much more healthy than in the last decade or more.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to enter into the debate today, after listening to all of the eloquent speeches that have gone before I have had the opportunity to take part in it. By taking part in this debate I am taking part in a process which marks the beginning of a new era.

We were presented with a budget document on February 22 which shows a fundamental change in the attitude toward the future of the country and shows the government means what it says and says what it means. The address was a triumph of reality over rhetoric and it laid out in clear and concise terms the direction the minister and the government wishes to take the country.

As has been said in the last couple of hours that I have been listening, everybody knows the state of our financial affairs. They showed in the October election their belief in us by the majority they gave this party in the House. Now that that issue has been settled for a good many years to come, it is time for a realistic and pragmatic approach to the governance of Canada and a time to turn away from the ruinous economic policies which brought us to the state we are in today.

Canadians told us during last fall's election that the first issue we must address is jobs. The unemployment rate is completely unacceptable. Canadians are a proud, industrious and hard-working people who will not accept a continuing double digit unemployment rate.

The national infrastructure program will create jobs in the short term. The measures announced in the minister's budget will contribute to a more positive environment for businesses to create jobs in the future. The $800 million budgeted for strategic initiatives will test new ways for social programs to help people get back to work and will reduce duplication.

In my own region more emphasis will be placed on training and getting people and communities back to work. In my province of Prince Edward Island, and in my region, one of the greatest problems faced over the past few years has been the uncertainty faced by provincial governments with respect to what they could expect in federal transfer payments.

I know that many people in the House are opposed to the system of transfer payments. Many people believe that they should not happen. However, as one who comes from a part of the country that has been devastated over the last few years with various disasters-the latest in the fishery-transfer payments are a must. Under this budget there will be a period of stability so that provinces can rationally plan for the future.

The sad state of the federal financial scene has significantly contributed to problems being faced by the provinces where, without exception, they too are forced to look at many long term policies and programs with a view to reform.

The Liberal Party has always been at the forefront of reform and this time we are showing that fact has not changed. There have to be changes made to some of our social programs. We know that and we are working on it because they are not working as well as they should be. They are getting older and it is time to change them. In making changes though, the minister has, as always, remembered to protect the weaker and more vulnerable members of our society.

It is no secret that unemployment insurance is an extremely important factor in the economy of my province. The interim changes announced recently are causing a great deal of discussion. I can assure everyone that last week when we were out of the House that the topic was brought to my office and to my house, through phones calls and by personal contact on many occasions.

The changes will better protect low income earners and will strengthen the link between work history and unemployment insurance. They will continue to provide assistance to regions such as mine of high unemployment, but they do foresee the day when we must become less dependent on unemployment insurance and other government programs.

I firmly believe that the residents of my province would gladly forgo the benefits afforded them by UI if there were more opportunities for them to work. Our unemployment rate approaches 20 per cent during some seasons and this is indicative of the challenge facing each of us. It is also facing the minister.

No one thought unemployment insurance would become a guaranteed annual income and very few people thought the unemployment rate would be as high as it is today. Nobody ever thought that. That was never planned for, certainly by the people who are drawing unemployment insurance.

Another major problem in my region has been the total collapse, as I have mentioned, of the groundfishery. Close to 50,000 people are potentially affected by this disaster and new, innovative solutions must be found to the problem. The government must, in consultation with the Atlantic provinces, find a solution based on sustainable development and restoration of the environment. I hope Canadians realize the magnitude of the problem and how vitally important it is that long term solutions be found.

The other issue of great importance in Atlantic Canada has been the closure of some military bases. The adjustment assistance promised will help the affected communities set up redevelopment plans and fund alternative economic activities. The closure of a base is a traumatic event for a community, but it does open a window of opportunity for the community to get involved in economic activity which will grow and develop in the years to come.

As we all know, this was only the first step in the process of rebuilding the economy. There will no doubt be changes in our social programs over the next few years, but they will be changes which will come about as a result of careful and compassionate planning. Those people who most need the facilities and services to be provided will be treated even better in the future than they have been in the past because the government cares and will see that all Canadians regardless of where they reside receive equal services.

The challenges faced by the minister are huge. The economy of Canada and indeed much of the world is going through a very difficult period. News reports this morning said that world-wide unemployment is at its highest rate since the 1930s and it is the most pressing problem facing the G-7 nations.

I feel we are most fortunate to have a Minister of Finance and a government prepared to squarely face the problems and dedicate themselves to finding solutions. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Canada is entering a new era with the presentation of this budget. It is not an era which will be easy. It is one which will see the country grow and develop and finally reach the full potential for which we have been striving.

No one expects the answers to our problems to be found easily. No one expects to have a free ride. Canadians have always been ready to put their shoulders to the wheel and get the job done. The challenges facing us are many. The first step has been taken. Under the guidance of the Minister of Finance, the other ministers and our leader we will move along very quickly.

I support this borrowing bill. I thank you, Sir, for allowing me these moments to put forward my case.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his remarks and his interest in this very specific task we are taking on.

We have heard many interventions here in the last number of weeks regarding our defence policy as it stands, our peacekeeping role and the costs that of course are always involved in any major undertaking we get into in this country, be it military or anything else.

I have my views, as does everyone else, on what the role of the military is in the future of our country. There are those in society as I said in my speech who perhaps do not believe we need any participation. Then there are those who believe we should spend the whole budget on it.

I assume somewhere down the line we are going to have to make a decision as to what our future is going to be in this area. There are many situations out there. In the peacekeeping roles we are involved in today the majority of our troops are land forces. We have a navy and an air force. I just want to ask the hon. member his view on what he sees coming out of the machine at the end of the day when we have completed this study and the government makes its decisions. What does he see from his constituency and from his national perspective as to where we should be going.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this committee was struck by the House. The committee is in place, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to study the policy. It is a joint committee of both Houses.

The idea that we are going to spend more money on it is ridiculous. We are given a budget to go forward as a committee and that is what we are going to do. We are going to determine the future defence policy of the country for some time to come.