George Proud

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that I am very pleased with the budget presented here on Tuesday. I know that the people of Canada will be very pleased with it and that the government has done many things Canadians have been seeking for a long time.

In my short time here, getting on to 10 years, this has been a budget that I was glad to follow and to wait for. I knew it would be a budget that would satisfy many Canadians. As a person from the east coast of Canada, I know that the education budget, as I call it, will be one where students have more access to education. People who have been out of school for some time will have more access to education. Part time and full time students will have more access and more money made available to them. I believe that Canadians are going to be very pleased with what this budget does over the next period of time. We have given tax breaks. As I have said, we have made education more accessible and we have done a lot of things that are going to make Canadians very proud.

The Canadian economy is going along very well. We have created over a million jobs. We are creating jobs for the future by putting in place areas where we can train more people for the millennium and train people to go into the new industries.

I am very pleased with this. I know that Canadians are in general. I will close by saying that the rest of my time will be taken up by the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will wait until the wind goes down.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I am very happy to finally see that a balanced budget has arrived. Canadians have been adding to the nation's mortgage for 27 years and now, because of our collective efforts, we are actually starting to pay it off and to pay off the debt. I will admit that it will take quite a few years to do this, but at least it is a start and we are now out of the blocks.

Before I comment on the initiatives contained in this budget, I want to briefly point out that we have not forgotten about job creation. In fact, the focus of this budget is on jobs, future jobs. We already have a proven track record of job creation and now we want it to continue by increasing access to the knowledge and skills required in the new economy.

Over the last four years, the number of jobs have grown by over one million. From 1997 alone, 372,000 new jobs were created, all of them full time and in the private sector. The unemployment rate fell to below 9% in December, and while that is not near a satisfactory number, the improving trend is clear and it will continue well into the future.

The federal government cannot ignore global pressures. Canada is part of a fast changing, competitive, interdependent world economy, an economy that is increasingly knowledge based, but this is not only because of the new high skill jobs in the high tech industries. There has already been a steady rise of skill requirements in all sectors of the economy and in most types of jobs.

We know not all Canadians are in a position to access the knowledge and skills they will need throughout their lifetime to find and to keep good jobs. Barriers, most often financial barriers, reduce access to post-secondary education for many. That is why this government has created this education budget. This budget is about enhancing the equality of opportunity in gaining the knowledge and skills for today and tomorrow.

The centrepiece of our increased support is the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation. Through an initial endowment of $2.5 million, the arm's length foundation will provide scholarships to over 100,000 students each year over 10 years, starting in the year 2000.

However, the most important aspect—and I know this is important to all Canadians and indeed to all Prince Edward Islanders—is that Canadians of all ages, studying full time or part time in publicly funded universities, community colleges, vocational or technical institutions and CEGEPs, will be eligible for these scholarships.

Moreover, the foundation will have the authority and the discretion to include privately funded institutions. This has a much broader scope than any existing support.

In recognition that many students' needs are not fully met by scholarships and student loans, the government is also introducing Canada study grants. Beginning in 1998-99, grants will go to over 25,000 needy full and and part time students who have children or other dependants.

Student debt has become a very heavy burden for many Canadians.

Last December federal and provincial first ministers agreed that something must be done to reduce the financial burden on students. They asked the federal government to take action in this budget and it is.

First, all students will get tax relief, a 17% federal credit for interest paid on their student loans. Second, we are increasing the income threshold used to qualify for interest relief on Canada student loans by 9%, making more graduates eligible. Third, we are introducing graduated interest relief which will extend assistance to more graduates further up the income scale.

Fourth, for individuals who have used 30 months of interest relief we will ask the lending institutions to extend the loan repayment period to 15 years. Fifth, if after extending the repayment period to 15 years a borrower remains in financial difficulty, there will be an extended interest relief period. Finally, for the minority of graduates who still remain in financial difficulties after taking advantage of these measures, we will reduce their student loan principal by as much as half.

Together these new interest relief measures will help up to 100,000 more borrowers and over 12,000 borrowers a year will benefit from debt reduction when this measure is fully phased in.

Many Canadians who are already in the workforce want to take time away from work to upgrade their skills through full time study. We have introduced measures to help them overcome financial barriers. Beginning in January of next year Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs for lifelong learning.

To preserve the role of the RRSPs in providing retirement income, the amounts withdrawn will have to be repaid over a 10 year period. In many respects this plan resembles a successful homebuyers plan.

Canadians oftentimes study part time to upgrade their knowledge and skills. We are proposing two new measures to help them. Beginning this year the education credit will be extended to part time students. This will benefit 250,000 Canadians.

In addition, for the first time parents studying part time will now be able to deduct their child care expenses. Currently only full time students are eligible. This new measure will benefit some 50,000 part time students.

Any long range plan to acquire knowledge and skills for the next century must look ahead to the students of tomorrow. The best way to help ensure children's future is to save for their education today. We want to establish a new partnership to help parents save for their children's future. That is why we are introducing the Canada education savings grant to make registered education savings plans even more attractive. Beginning in January we will provide a grant of 20% on the first $2,000 up to a maximum annual grant of $400 per child.

I want to point out that this does not take much to save for a child's education. For example, if a family contributes $25 every two weeks for a total of $650 a year for 15 years, their child will have $4,700 available each year for a four year period of education. Of that amount almost $800 a year would be as a direct result of a Canada education savings grant.

The Canadian opportunity strategy also addresses the urgent problem of youth unemployment. The actions we are taking will give young Canadians the job experience they need and provide support for those who have dropped out of school and face particularly tough challenges. First, the budget provides—

[1998 Winter Olympics, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend one of P.E.I.'s most famous and most loved athletes struck gold in Nagano, Japan.

Dave MacEachern, Eli as he is known to islanders, and his teammate Pierre Lueders from Edmonton entered their names in the history books when they tied for gold with Italy in the two-man bobsled competition. After four runs both teams had the exact accumulated time. Although a tie is rare, it is not the first time.

However, the importance of this medal is not missed by Canadians. This is the first gold in 34 years for Canadian bobsledders and Eli is the first islander ever to win an Olympic gold medal.

Just to show how supportive islanders are to their athletes, last week over 17,000 islanders put their signatures on a 400 page fax sent to Dave in Nagano.

On behalf of all islanders I want to congratulate Eli for his outstanding performance. At the same time I want to wish him and his team mates the best of luck in the four man bobsled scheduled for this coming week. Good show, Dave.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood.

It is the second time in the House that I have risen to speak in a debate relating to the same individual and whether not Canada should participate militarily in the situation in Iraq. We did this in 1991 and we are doing it again tonight. I have not changed my mind since then. I believed then that we should have gone further and I believe tonight that if all else fails we have to participate.

Since the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 the Canadian forces have played an increasingly important role in promoting international peace and security around the world. They have participated in an unprecedented number of peace supported operations during this time. It appears we may be entering into one more operation.

As we all know, Iraq has been refusing to let American officials and then later the whole United Nations team conduct weapons inspections. The importance of this refusal cannot be understated.

As a condition of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and coalition forces in the gulf war the UN special commission, UNSCOM, was formed to supervise in part the destruction of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

In addition to that initial destruction of Iraq's arsenal, the force was to develop a long term plan for monitoring and verifying Iraq's continued compliance with the commitment not to use, develop, construct or acquire prohibited weapons or equipment. These envoys have been taking place right up until the present day, or at least until Mr. Hussein refused their entry.

Iraq must continue to allow weapons inspection teams to conduct their investigations. Saddam Hussein has shown in the past his disrespect for the norms and laws of the global community. Clearly his refusal to permit the required inspections is a test of our resolve to keep peace in that region.

If he can escape reprimand in his refusal he will continue to secretly rebuild his military. This is not the first time he has tried to obstruct inspections. Personally I do not think it will be the last time. That is why we cannot allow this to continue. A man of his ethics cannot be allowed to create weapons of mass destruction. Kuwait is proof of his intentions.

The potential for human devastation is great. A man like Hussein does not create these weapons only for deterrence purposes. He intends to use them.

Our options are simple. We can do nothing. The world can lay back and let Hussein rebuild his military, but we cannot then be surprised when he again attacks another country. It will be our own fault.

Let me say that next time there will be countless casualties and fatalities. The death toll of the innocent will be extreme. His next engagement will make the gulf war look like a walk in the park. I suspect that if he does not use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons during what will be his initial attack, he will undoubtedly use them in retaliation to a counter attack on his forces.

To do nothing is not a viable option. By acting now we can save possibly millions of innocent lives down the road. While there is always the chance of civilian casualties or even fatalities, I am sure there will be fewer now than if no action is taken.

We must remember that we value human life above all else. We are not so sure Saddam Hussein holds that same value. If he is allowed to strike, who knows how many innocent lives could be at stake? I truly believe that acting now is fully justified by his violation of the ceasefire agreement.

Another point that must be stated is that military action is not always the best response. This issue has been simmering for quite some time. In fact, some would say that it has been simmering since the ceasefire was signed on February 27, 1991. Every effort possible has been made to settle this very difficult problem. It is imperative that every diplomatic avenue be exhausted prior to resorting to force.

Unfortunately diplomatic efforts have failed thus far to resolve the issue. While a diplomatic solution is always possible Hussein's refusal must not go unchallenged. That is why military action must not be ruled out. That is why we are here tonight debating Canada's involvement in a potential military action against Iraq.

The next question is whether a U.S. led attack is justified or whether we should wait for the United Nations to sanction an attack. My response is that Iraq is violating the agreement signed under the auspices of the United Nations. That agreement must be upheld. In that sense we already have the authority.

The need for action also presents Canadians with other questions than just if action is necessary. We must also ask ourselves whether our forces are ready and capable of participating in such a mission, and to what extent. The most important question is not just if they are ready and capable but should they be. It is not enough to say our forces can participate in foreign missions. We must be able to say that our forces are combat capable at all times.

This is an important point. There is a significant distinction between a peacekeeping force, which some people believe is a desire of Canadians only, and being combat capable which is what Canada needs.

Traditionally peacekeeping involved sending troops to keep a pace that had already been established. Originally peacekeeping missions did not involve more than land troops and perhaps air supply support. They did not involve all three components of our forces.

Combat capable forces entail a force which has the ability to react quickly to any type of military threat, a force that can integrate all three components of forces to mount a formidable counter attack. That means we need to maintain our air force, our naval force and our land force. This includes necessary equipment to fulfil their assigned tasks.

Even peacekeeping has changed dramatically over the years. In modern day missions each component has become vital to the overall mission. At various points throughout our missions in the former Yugoslavia, we had all three components of our forces engaged. So even peacekeeping requires more of a multipurpose combat capable force.

I would like to highlight the achievements of our forces. Our troops reached out to help and spared no effort in responding to humanitarian crises in Rwanda. While they could not stop the bloodshed, our tiny force was able to save thousands of lives.

They continued to assist the international community in dealing with the tragic conflict in the Balkans. Their military contribution, as I said earlier, has included land, sea and air capabilities, as well as a wide range of humanitarian activities.

They helped stabilize the volatile situation in Haiti and initiated a wide range of humanitarian projects throughout the country. They led a multinational response to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance in central Africa, thereby serving as a catalyst to help break the impasse that kept refugees in camps for two years.

At the same time, Canadian forces personnel have maintained their traditional roles here at home including search and rescue, and during the Saguenay region floods, the flooding of the Red River and most recently in the ice storm in eastern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Through all types of challenges like I have mentioned, the Canadian forces have proven themselves ready and capable of responding to the needs of their country and to whatever international peace support operations they are assigned. To me that is a multipurpose combat capable force.

The present situation in Iraq needs to be resolved. If diplomatic efforts fail, we must not only consider military force but ensure that through the use of force Iraq complies with the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

When all else fails, Iraq must be stopped and Canada must be part of it.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his questions.

The hon. member referred to what the finance minister said. However, I for one, along with everybody in Canada knew that over the last number of years that the plan was having problems. We stabilized the problem with Bill C-2 in consultation with Canadians who told us clearly, without any question, that they wanted this Canada pension plan and that they wanted it brought into line so that they, their children and grandchildren would have pension benefits.

We can use all kinds of ways to skirt around this. The fact of the matter remains that Canadians believe in this Canada pension plan. Yes, it has to be managed in such a way that there will be money there for people in the future. I am convinced that we are doing this today with Bill C-2. I am not only convinced, but the people of Canada are convinced because they have demanded that we do this.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Everybody has their own opinion on what would do for a pension plan. Let us look at the realities of this. The reality is that this Canada pension plan was brought into being because of the fact that a lot of people cannot or do not contribute to their own pension plan. A lot of them cannot for various reasons and it is not their fault.

Therefore, back in the 1960s this plan was devised to take care of those people at the end of their working time when the company did not provide a pension, or maybe they were self-employed and there was no pension plan available and they had nothing but the old age security.

This was a terrible situation for people to be in. I have seen that happen to people on the street where I lived. To make matters worse, when the person who received the old age security passed away, the spouse was left with nothing. This is why this type of plan is necessary. I believe it is necessary and obviously the majority of Canadians believe this type of plan is necessary.

There is a large segment of society that for one reason or another do not contribute to RRSPs. That is a fact. There are RRSPs and they will be there in the future. I think they are a tremendous thing for people who have the ability to contribute to them. However, I also believe that there has to be some kind of social safety net that we are always talking about. This is a social safety net. This is a big part of it and Canadians want it. I believe it is very necessary, along with RRSPs.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my comments on Bill C-2 as we take part in this very colourful and hotly debated third reading today.

In my remarks I want to emphasize how we are earning the confidence of Canadians in the Canada pension plan that will be there for them. I want to talk about how this bill is a comprehensive package that will maintain the security of our citizens.

First, it should be made clear to all of us that the Canada pension plan is a defining feature of the quality of life in Canada. In the three decades since the plan was introduced by the Liberal government of the day, the Canada pension plan has become firmly established as a the cornerstone of our social policy.

This is not just some monument to enlightened thinking in our past. It is a key part of the planning for tomorrow's retirement for virtually all Canadians outside of Quebec and with its Quebec counterpart provides a very uniform portable protection from coast to coast.

In the last few years, however, concerns have been expressed about the viability of the Canada pension plan. A leading magazine, Maclean's , put this in sharp perspective a few months ago. It polled Canadians and found that two-thirds of our fellow citizens were not confident that the Canada pension plan would be around when they needed it.

Canadians heard statements like the one made by the Canada pension plan's chief actuary and they were concerned. I believe we all know that he projected that at current ratios of contributions to benefits paid, the Canada pension plan would be exhausted by the year 2015. Their concerns were rooted in more than finances.

Expert analysis showed us that the rules of the plan had to be updated to reflect the realities of today's world as well as tomorrow's. The facts were clear, the need for action obvious.

This government has acted to preserve the Canada pension plan for all Canadians. The changes to the plan that are before this House in Bill C-2 are not the product of tinkering in Ottawa. They are the result of a long and wide-ranging process of public consultation that began during our last term in office. They represent a complete and balanced package.

This process of consultation was jointly conducted with our counterparts in the provincial and territorial governments and professionals in Canada's actuarial and insurance professions. The consultations reached out to the representatives of social planning organizations, seniors, youth and persons with disabilities as well as interested private individuals.

In short, these consultations involved a large number of Canadians who had views and concerns about building a stronger Canada pension plan. One of the clearest messages that Canada's governments heard during the consultations was that Canadians want and need the Canada pension plan.

To hear some people talk, you would swear that the Canada pension plan was an anachronism, a throwback to the sixties. Those people should get out of their ivory towers and listen to Canadians. People on the streets of this country would tell them something quite different.

Canadians told us in no uncertain terms to preserve the Canada pension plan, change it if necessary, but preserve it. We heard them. We listened and the result is this Bill C-2.

This bill is more than an effort to address today's valid concerns. It launches a plan for the future. Bill C-2 recognizes how different our economy and our society have become since the year when the plan began. It makes the changes necessary to sustain the Canada pension plan.

Three-quarters of those changes are on the financing side of the ledger. They respond to the gap between the contribution rates and the benefit payouts. In fact, I am sure that members recall that the chief actuary in the Canada pension plan projected that contribution rates would have to increase to 14.2% of income covered by the plan by the year 2030, that is unless changes were made.

This government and our provincial partners agreed that 14.2% of income was too high. We knew that it would be more than Canadians would be willing to pay. Therefore, we went to work.

We looked at what experts and at what ordinary citizens alike told us as we set out to rebalance the relationship between the Canada pension plan income and expenses.

One key part of the response is addressed in Bill C-2 through the proposals that would increase contribution rates over a seven-year period.

In this way, contributions will increase each year and reach 9.9% of covered income by the year 2003. Then, we will hold the contributions at this rate indefinitely.

Some hon. members have been quick to leap to their feet with shouts of tax grab. The reality is quite different, and I want to set them straight.

Canada pension plan contributions are not a tax. They are contributions toward pensions. They are an investment by Canadians in their own future. That is hardly a tax. It is planning prudently for tomorrow.

Let me add more information on this point. Canada pension plan contributions will not go into the government's general revenues. Canada pension plan contributions will not go to anything other than the Canada pension plan.

Let me make another point to show how hollow tax grab claims are. Are contributions to company plans taxes? Of course not. In fact, both the Canada pension plan premiums and company pension plan contributions reduce the taxes we pay.

The simple fact is this. Both are investments in the future and I think it is important that Canadians understand that. Bill C-2 is very, very clear. These contributions will not get mixed into some government coffers. They will become part of a separate investment fund. An independent body will manage and will invest this money on behalf of a plan and its contributors.

Those investments will go into a diversified securities portfolio and should earn higher rates of return than the status quo. That improved investment performance should help us lower the long term contribution rate by providing more income to help pay the benefits for future generations.

Opposition parties in this House have consistently avoided providing a comprehensive alternative. Each is unable to say how they would meet our obligations to people receiving benefits today, those who expect to do so soon and those who have many years to go in their working lives.

This government and our counterparts in the eight provincial capitals have a plan. It is called Bill C-2 and it is right on the agenda. Bill C-2 is about ensuring a sustainable, affordable and fairer Canada pension plan. It is about giving peace of mind to Canadians who are getting pensions now and for those who are looking ahead to receiving pensions in the future.

This bill is about ensuring fairness between the generations in our country so that our children and grandchildren do not have to pay as high as 14% of their earnings.

As I hear the comments about this or that aspect of Bill C-2, I find nothing that shakes my conviction that this is a sound piece of legislation. It is balanced. It is fair. It is the right direction for us to go. It represents the complete package that Canadians told us they want.

[Search And Rescue, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate members of the Canadian forces search and rescue team along with coast guard members as they were recognized this week for brave efforts at sea.

Two of them, Ken Power and Greg Smit, were awarded the Star of Courage, our second highest honour for bravery in peacetime. In September 1996 they and other members risked their lives to hoist four people off a sinking sailboat in the stormy seas off Sable Island.

Most recently the heroism of search and rescue teams was demonstrated during the rescue off St. John's, Newfoundland of the Vanessa where 10 lives were saved.

Two members of the Canadian forces team, Darryl Cronin and Marques Reeves, received the search and rescue commander commendation for their contribution to that rescue. They parachuted into the north Atlantic to provide medical treatment to the survivors.

The dedication and selfless commitment of these individuals is a reflection of all the men and women who provide on a day to day basis search and rescue.

[Korean War Veterans, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this year's Remembrance Day poster honours our Korean War veterans. Today on the first day of Veterans Week I think it is appropriate that we pause and give some thought to the sacrifices made by these veterans.

For those who fought in it, the Korean War was as bloody and dreadful as the two world wars that preceded it. Perhaps, happening so soon after the second world war, Canadians just wanted to put the war out of their minds and so Korea has not had the same attention as other wars.

We should remember that when we joined 15 other nations to resist enemy aggression, Canada was the third largest contributor to the multinational force. In all, over 26,000 Canadians served in Korea, 1,558 became casualties, of whom 516 died.

In the Memorial Chamber in the Peace Tower hon. members will find the names of those 516 Canadians in the Korean Book of Remembrance. It is our great loss that they did not make it home. May they rest in peace.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been working to assist the affected workers of the British Canadian mining plant for quite a while.

When the mine temporarily shut down in 1995, representatives of HRDC did everything possible to help affected workers, including becoming involved in the implementation of a joint reclassification committee.

At the time, approximately 50 workers took advantage of this work stoppage to start their own company and to avail themselves of training opportunities, thus improving their employability. These workers have not returned to work at the mine.

Even though the plant closure is imminent, representatives from the department have been working to address this for a long time now and are meeting the needs of affected workers.

This government appreciates that losing one's job is not easy, especially when someone has held their position for decades, as is the case for most of the British Canadian Mining plant workers. However the Government of Canada wants to assure them that everything will be done to help them get through this difficult time.

To prove this, an important meeting between representatives of HRDC and those of the company and the union was held at the end of September to clarify what we intended to do. Particularly, HRDC has assured concerned mine workers that it would show flexibility in the delivery of the following active employment measures.

One is using targeted wage subsidies. Thanks to self-employment, employment insurance eligible participants who have a viable idea to start their own business can be eligible for financial assistance, planning assistance and for continued support while they set up their business. The mesures uniques de formation consolidates all the training purchase measures, including the fee payer component.

As members can see, the Government of Canada has not let the British Canadian mine workers down. For example between 1990 and 1992 HRDC provided funding assistance of almost $3 million to help maintain employment at this mine.

I want to assure the House and all others that the government is and will remain sensitive to the needs of the workers.