George Proud

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, no government in a long time has done as much for students as this government is doing with the bursary system and the tax deductions we have brought in, in the last four years.

Let me add to what the member said. There is no doubt tuition fees are going up. If we look at enrolment in universities it is going up dramatically as well.

I know there is an awful cost to going to university today. The prime minister just announced a program the other day for bursaries for students of middle and low income families. We will continue to do this with training programs and in other aspects of society such as high technology industries. We are doing very well in this regard.

Students are accepting it. They come to my office. I know the member gets letters from people who are having problems. Everybody has problems paying their way in society today.

As I read in the newspapers the other day, the increase in enrolment in universities proves that what we are doing by making student loans available, giving bursaries and giving more tax deductions to students will enable more students to go to university than ever before.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in light of today's opposition motion, I take great pleasure in speaking in support of the government's record.

Today the leader of the New Democratic Party has introduced a motion that attempts to chastise the Liberal government. But considering her party's platform, I believe it is quite obvious to Canadians why the NDP is the fourth party in the House.

The motion goes to great lengths to cover many aspects of government policy. I point out that the motion is a lot like the NDP platform that says that government can and should do everything. Likewise the motion tries to cover everything: job creation, monetary policy, funding to health care, education, training, culture and the environment.

I am not going to address everything in the motion today. I will concentrate on job creation, the priority of the government.

Unlike the NDP I believe the people in my riding of Hillsborough and the people of Canada as a whole need a balanced approach to government. The government believes that it can no longer afford to create jobs on its payroll. That is right. The government cannot afford grandiose make work programs. It cannot afford to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. What Canada needs are stable jobs created through long term economic growth, not temporary jobs created through short lived programs.

Having said that, I realize the opposition members are wondering about my views on the infrastructure program. It was a very successful program. There is a need for programs to upgrade our national infrastructure but we can rely on these programs only for short term jobs. We cannot rely on them alone to create jobs.

The infrastructure program and its extension was just part of our approach in the last Parliament. By implementing a balanced approach the government has created an economic climate that supports private sector job creation. It is this job creation that has created close to one million jobs since October of 1993.

In contrast let us look at the NDP platform. While it has commendable objectives, the cost is irresponsible. It pledged almost $8.5 billion over five years in capital investments for infrastructure, public housing and highways. The problem is that it failed to explain how it was going to pay for it.

The NDP election platform is filled with outdated, discredited ideas left over from a utopian era. It is an endless list of new and costly programs to be paid for by higher taxes for all, with the supposed goal of cutting the unemployment rate in half. What it fails to realize is that these policies would ultimately be very harmful to job creation.

I remind all members that the level of government spending is not the best measure of the effectiveness of action. We know that. Canadians know that. Obviously the NDP does not.

In total its platform contains $8 billion in tax increases and $19 billion to $20 billion in spending increases. That is alarming enough on its own but even more alarming is the $12 billion between the two.

Today during debate, members heard statements indicating the national debt was created not by program spending but by high interest costs and lost tax revenues. That is just semantics. It was created by overspending.

If I ask my constituents how the debt was created they would not say high interest rates, they would not say say by lost tax revenues, they would say by overspending. The more you overspend the more the associated interest costs.

The government is taking control of the finances. We will not let the government books fall back down the slippery slope of overspending. My colleagues know full well the impressive results the government has achieved over the last four years. Part of that is the support provided to innovation, science and technology. It is essential that Canada not only conduct its own research and development but that it be quick in applying that research to business applications. To remain competitive in a global market we must innovate.

Government can support and assist the realization of key discoveries, the implementation of new technologies and the financial requirements of Canadian entrepreneurs. Various measures have been implemented, including the network of Centres of Excellence to support the research and development activities of Canadian institutions. The Canada Foundation for Innovation has been created to expedite the jump from creating new technologies to their implementation.

We continue to address the financial needs of small business and entrepreneurs. Together with our partners we created the $30 million Atlantic venture capital fund. This fund is helping Atlantic Canadians to capitalize on their entrepreneurial spirit.

However, the NDP platform pales in comparison. Buried among the vague promises it wants to restrict the science research and economic development tax credit. This credit alleviates a portion of the enormous R&D expenditures Canadian firms make.

Without this credit, considerable research and development might not occur. That would be a sad state of affairs for Canada. Canada would not remain competitive for very long. Since R and D supports thousands of jobs across the country, such a move would be short-sighted and very detrimental to Canadians.

In Atlantic Canada, especially in Prince Edward Island, we are striving to improve and enhance the high technology sector. It is this sector that will allow Atlantic Canadians to regain their former economic importance within North America.

Back at the time of Confederation the maritimes were an economic engine running on substantial international trade. Over the last 130 years their strength has been overshadowed by the sheer numbers of central Canada. However, with the knowledge based global economy the maritimes are again in a position to resurrect that engine.

The advantages are there: low labour costs, a skilled labour force and a high quality of life. In short, Atlantic Canada leads Canada in low business costs. This was clearly illustrated in the recent KPMG study which listed four Atlantic Canadian cities with the greatest cost advantage relative to the U.S. four-city average. I am proud to say that a city in my riding, the city of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation, is ranked second on this list.

These cities rank much higher than major centres across the country. The advantages of Charlottetown are almost double that of the city of Ottawa, more than double that of Toronto and triple that of Vancouver. To earn that ranking Charlottetown had four top 10 rankings for lowest costs. Among those was the number one ranking in total labour costs.

These Canadian cities ranked so well because the federal government created an economic environment which encourages job creation. We lowered interest rates by wrestling our spending under control. We introduced programs which will support key sectors of our economy. In short, we restored confidence in Canada and regained our economic sovereignty. Canadian business is no longer penalized with high interest rates because of a crushing federal deficit.

I wish to end my speech today by informing members of the House that like many of them I have unemployed people in my riding, in fact too many people who are unemployed. Practically not a day goes by that someone does not come into my office looking for help in finding a job. Neither I nor my party is satisfied with this situation.

However, we have to ask ourselves if we use measures from the past, measures which together created part of the problem we are trying to fix today. Do we use huge make work programs which add to the government deficit and create only temporary programs? Or, do we look forward and put into place the fundamentals for stable, permanent jobs for Canadians as we enter the 21st century?

The answer is clear. Canadians do not want a party which promotes old programs that no longer work. Canadians want programs that work. Canadians want a government that works, and the government they want is a Liberal government.

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions.

Yes, I believe it is the role of government to provide stability within a country. I have grown up in this country and I believe, as others do, that it is the greatest country in the world.

I also believe, along with government, that the individual members of society have a role to play in ensuring that we have a safe country in which to live.

One of the problems we have in society today is that too many things over the last number of years have been foisted on to government and the roles of family members and other organizations have gone by the wayside.

I believe this government should and will continue to look after the main interests of society, that being one very important interest.

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you and the other Speakers who will occupy the chair and rule on our debates to ensure that we conduct ourselves with the level of decorum that Canadians expect of their parliamentarians.

I would also like to ask for the patience of the members in the House to thank the people of Hillsborough for returning me to this place as their voice in the House of Commons. It is a great pleasure for me to serve my constituents and I plan to serve them well.

I wish to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne, but I also wish to speak of this Parliament.

The throne speech was very up beat. It spoke of the great opportunities that await us in the new millennium. It also set the stage for how we as Canadians will prepare our nation to enter the new century as a strong and united country.

I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. The only reason the throne speech took such a positive tone is the successes of Canadians over the last four years. The Liberal government with the help of all Canadians turned the country's financial books around.

It has been said many times that a healthy economy leads to a healthy society. This government also believes that a healthy society contributes to a healthy economy. And it is obvious after hearing the throne speech that the government plans to deliver both to Canadians.

While there are many ways the government can work to improve our way of life, it has targeted priority areas such as our youth, health care, innovation and national unity. These areas represent the greatest potential for Canada.

As the prime minister said, our children are our most precious resource. The Liberal government will continue to create more opportunities for our youth, opportunities for better education, more employment opportunities, a healthier lifestyle and a secure public retirement income system. In short, our government will secure Canada's future through our youth.

At the same time, we must maintain a public health care regime. There is no escaping the needs of a growing population. This is why the Liberal government introduced public health care 30 years ago and that is why the Liberal government will secure it for another 30 years and beyond.

Another chief priority of the government is supporting innovation in Canada's economy. Similar to the theory of continuous learning for workers, Canadian firms must continually strive to improve and update their processes. Our international competitors are not standing still, so neither can we.

The federal government has a role to play in supporting research and development and its uses within the business world. That is why I am glad to hear that this government will build on its prior achievements of maintaining innovation as one of its main priorities.

Recently we have seen a slight evolution of the federalist approach to the issue of Quebec's secession. Yes, we must illustrate to all Canadians, especially the people of Quebec, the benefits of living within Canada. But we must also bring frankness and clarity to any debate on the unity of Canada. I want to make it known that I support the recent initiatives of the federal government and the provincial and territorial leaders.

As I mentioned before, I want to discuss more than just the Speech from the Throne. As we can all see, the make-up of this Parliament is unlike any in Canada's history. It is unprecedented for the House of Commons to have five official parties.

Since 1993 Canadians have wanted a change in the federal system. The presence of so many regional parties is evidence of that desire. Some change has occurred but I think the results of the June election illustrate that Canadians are not yet quite satisfied.

Just like our industries must be capable of innovation, so must our Parliament be ready to change. By improving our Parliament we may better serve Canadians. In consequence, Canadians may better respect this institution and its members.

With such an extraordinary mix of political parties in the House I believe the time for change is now. I say to my hon. colleagues there will never be a better time than now to change this system.

Most of this change concerns increasing the role of an MP. A member who is not in cabinet usually has little opportunity to influence legislation and other measures of policy. But if a group of members band together, then perhaps influence can be achieved because the rules of the game are stacked against us.

Of particular importance in this Parliament is the role of committees. There are now 14 committees with each containing 16 members. Many of us know from previous experience that all too often there is insufficient time for each member to probe the issues with questions to the witnesses.

As well, there is always the fear that the committees are viewed as rubber stamps for the government. The committees should be a second defence for Canadians to be protected from unintended implications or oversights, but committees need a sufficient amount of time to conduct an effective analysis of government policy.

Along the same lines is the issue of resources available to committees. Currently each committee must apply for funds for each individual study. A number of committees share a clerk with other committees or parliamentary associations. Researchers from the Library of Parliament are assigned to various committees. I do not believe this is good enough.

In my opinion we should take some lessons from our neighbours to the south. Committee chairs should have the resources to arrange his or her own experts on staff. They should be in addition to research assistants available to other committee members.

Having more resources would allow members time to conduct a more thorough study of the issues that come before them. But we cannot provide more resources without allowing the committees to actually use them.

The government must change its approach and be more open to change. We have here a wealth of knowledge. The collective knowledge of all 301 members of Parliament can be a force of benefit for Canadians. As it stands now only the few in cabinet have any real opportunity for input.

In addition, I believe there should be more business referred to committees. In recent years it appears that more measures which should be in legislation and debated here on this floor are bypassing the House by being included in regulations.

Any legislation the government introduces is debated here, but often it seems that the real meat of the legislation is contained in the corresponding regulations.

I realize that this approach provides more flexibility to the government because it is easier to amend regulations. I admit there are times when it is justified, but this approach can easily be abused. Putting the meat of the legislation in regulations does not allow Parliament a direct opportunity to investigate government policies.

There is a balance that can be obtained by referring all regulations to the appropriate committees. This will allow them to be studied and improve the impact of services to Canadians. As well there have been a good number of issues over the years that could have been avoided if committees of Parliament were given more matters for analysis.

For example, I am sure that if the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs had studied the helicopter procurement initiated by the former Conservative government, any controversy could have been avoided. Then we would not still be dealing with this issue so many years later.

One final point concerns private members' business. I believe there are many improvements that can be made to allow private members more opportunity to introduce and pass meaningful legislation.

Part of our role here should be to act as legislators. Currently really the only legislators here are those in cabinet.

Unfortunately I do not have time to expand on all the issues I wanted to cover. Suffice it to say I believe the time for change is now.

[Petitions, April 16th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by 84 people in the Montreal area concerning the unity of Canada.

The petitioners ask Parliament to declare that Canada is indivisible within its boundaries, that the provinces, territories and territorial waters may be modified only by a free vote of all Canadians, including the amending formula stipulated by the Constitution.

[National Volunteer Week, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Volunteer Week and communities across the country will pay tribute to their volunteers and the countless ways in which they help individuals, organizations and causes.

Volunteer week exemplifies the motivation and dedication of the millions of people across Canada whose efforts improve the quality of life for us all. Volunteers are a crucial component of every community.

This year's theme is "Volunteers, our greatest natural resource". I invite all members of Parliament to help make National Volunteer Week a success in their constituency by donating a few minutes of their time to a local organization or cause. In doing so, we are helping to ensure that volunteerism in Canada will continue to survive into the 21st century.

Congratulations and a huge thank you to all our volunteers.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the motion put forward by the member for Wetaskiwin.

Canadians have many things of which to be proud and our labour relations history is just one of those things. In my short time as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour I have seen many aspects of our labour relations that are truly quite impressive.

We have achieved a system that balances the rights of workers and employers and that recognizes both the importance of labour and the right of management to conduct business.

Keeping this balance takes adjustment as times and needs change. That is what the government is doing. Last week, with no thanks to the third party, of course, Bill C-66 passed third reading. The amendments contained in Bill C-66 will improve the Canada Labour Code far more than what my colleague opposite is proposing in his motion.

I will be talking about those shortly, but first I want to address Motion No. 308 and explain why something that sounds so sensible at face value in fact threatens the very delicate balance on which Canada's industrial stability is based. Motion No. 308 proposes that employees be permitted to vote on any restructuring offer put forward by the employer.

Technically, of course, they already have that right. A union can always present a restructuring offer to its members. What the member for Wetaskiwin seems to find objectionable is that this vote is called by the union rather than by some other body.

He may mean from the literal words of the motion, that even non-unionized employees will have the right to reject restructuring packages. We must presume that Motion No. 308 is meant to encourage governments to over-ride unions and bring restructuring packages to a vote no matter how much the union may object to the package.

In last December's crisis at Canadian Airlines, this may have seemed like a power that government needs. However, as the minister showed, there already exists a similar power. Granted, it is not as high-handed as what we are presented with here today but in fact the Canada Labour Code has several provisions that already allow the Minister of Labour to intervene in exceptional circumstances. Under section 105, the minister can appoint a mediator. Under section 106, the minister can order an inquiry. Under section 107, the minister can secure industrial peace by referring a question to the Canada Labour Relations Board.

Last December, five of the six unions representing Canadian International employees decided to accept a restructuring offer put forward by the employer.

The sixth union, the Canadian Auto Workers, was not in agreement and, for a few tense days, there was fear that their opposition would cost 16,000 workers their jobs.

Members of the House may remember that it was section 107 in Part I of the code that the Minister of Labour invoked but later withdrew when the Canadian Auto Workers and Canadian Airlines reached a deal. It just goes to show that even in those exceptional circumstances, dramatic measures like these may not be necessary.

Muddying the collective bargaining waters with arbitrary government actions jeopardizes the very stability of the system we should prize. Used too often, it says that a collective agreement, a signed agreement made by both sides in good faith, is worthless if

a company can convince the Minister of Labour that it should be over-ridden.

Such an atmosphere would certainly be corrosive for labour peace. If a company could freely ignore a union and, in effect, renegotiate terms with individual workers, then we have made a mockery of the collective bargaining system.

We have created a situation where powerful companies can threaten workers with lay-offs, where they can scare workers into shredding the agreement their unions bargained very hard for. If the bargaining agent is no longer the exclusive bargaining authority, if the union duly elected by workers is no longer allowed to represent those workers, then we have put an end to a system that has worked so well for so long.

I am sure that the hon. member across the way would not want to see that happen. Moreover, we have added the complication by mixing apples and oranges. Section 108(1) talks about unions being asked to take an employer's final offer back to union members. That is a powerful tool already, but today's motion would drastically increase that power by tossing in the unrelated question of restructuring packages. Surely it belongs in an act dealing with restructuring rather than in an act dealing with collective bargaining.

Just how exactly does the hon. member propose to define restructuring proposals? Will it be a sincere attempt to reorganize the company's structure and function or is it simply a way to claw back wages and benefits gained through collective bargaining?

That is not to suggest in any way that the Canada Labour Code is perfect. Unfortunately, very few things in this world are so. However, Bill C-66 will improve and modernize the Canada Labour Code so that it continues to ensure stability, fairness and balance.

Bill C-66 is heavily influenced, as was said earlier, by the Sims task force. The Sims task force travelled the country, listening to the best ideas from labour, business and other interested parties.

When the subject of section 108.1 came up, all unions wanted it repealed. Employers wanted it modified to require a last offer vote on the employees' request. As the title of the Sims report says, it was seeking a balance. It saw no convincing evidence to change section 108.1 either way. What the task force did do was to suggest a broad range of amendments which would greatly improve and modernize the Canada Labour Code.

Time does not allow me to go into Bill C-66 in any detail, so I will simply pick one aspect of it. Bill C-66 speeds up the bargaining cycle, improves flexibility and allows disputes to be settled more quickly. It does this by extending the notice to bargain period.

Bill C-66 also replaces the two-stage conciliation process with a single 60-day stage.

The code will now expressly recognize the right of parties to agree to submit collective bargaining disputes to any kind of binding settlement.

There is much more to Bill C-66, but I have given the House a taste of how carefully considered amendments can do more good than the single heedless motion we have today.

I urge the House to soundly reject Motion No. 308. The motion would tilt the balance of power too far toward one side of the collective bargaining equation. It would encourage the reckless use of a provision of the code that should be and has been rarely used. It is in sum a hasty reaction to a problem that Canada simply does not have.

Just as the CAW and Canadian Airlines resolved their differences, a stable labour environment encourages even the bitterest of opponents to trust each other's word.

Canada's labour relations environment is too valuable to toss away for the sake of a quick political point.

[An Act To Amend Certain Laws Relating To Financial Institutions, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member over the last few minutes speak on many issues. Sometimes he mentioned the bill we were debating.

However one part of his speech concerned centralization and decentralization. I understood the member to say there were things the federal government should be involved in and some it should not be involved in. We are talking about financial institutions in this debate.

Could the member give his views on what the role the federal government should play when dealing with provinces? What other things should we give to the provinces? What areas should we deal with in the governance of financial and other institutions?

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Employment Insurance, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion over the impact of the new employment insurance system. I just want to set the record straight.

The government has acted in a responsible and prudent manner. Seasonal workers have not been compromised. The Atlantic Liberal caucus ensured that seasonal workers were protected.

Unfortunately after EI went fully into effect in January a problem surfaced which affected all Canadians. Again the government acted on recommendations that would protect seasonal workers.

The solution will work. Small weeks are counted for eligibility but are bundled for calculating benefits. This change gives claimants the best of both worlds.

I doubt there are many who would argue that reforms were not needed. The changes implemented help Canadians. Every hour counts. More people will be covered and many will qualify quicker. More important, they are better active measures to get Canadians back to work. The new system is good news.