Herb Grubel

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like raise a question about the role of a Senate in an ideal world. Most countries have found that the idea of a totally sovereign legislature in the form of a House like ours is not adequate in protecting the interest of the people as a whole.

What we have at the moment costing $27 million a year is not the ideal kind of chamber that we see around the world. This was brought out by hon. members today and I agree. It is essentially a chamber which is serving the purpose of a sober second thought. We should not be too harsh on it because it has done a very good job.

For example, the amendments it has proposed recently to the bill on redistribution served a useful function. There was some partisanship which served the country in bringing out debate over the GST, over free trade. These served useful functions.

However, $27 million a year may be a bit expensive. The role we should strive for is that the Senate take the other functions that we see in similar chambers around the world, namely the protection of regional minorities and for senators who have a longer election-

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply. I wish the hon. member would read what I said when I had an opportunity in a systematic way to outline my views on the matter.

I am in full agreement that the maritimes at a time when the world's wealth was determined by the availability of natural resources was one of the most prosperous regions of the world. The people of the maritimes were working very hard then and they are working very hard today. They would be most prosperous today, I am saying, if the government had not made the mistake of saying to the people of those regions: "You can stay there as long as you want to. We will always maintain your income at a certain level".

The world has changed. Wealth today is no longer a function of natural resource availability. Singapore today has moved into the league of industrial countries and Singapore does not even have its own water supply. The source of income and wealth today is human capital which functions, unfortunately for the resources of the countries of the world, only in big cities. That is why income is so high in large cities.

We would not have today the difficulties we are seeing in the maritimes, in my considered judgment, if we had not had a program motivated by the charitable instincts of Canadians, which I appreciate. That is the only point I wish to make.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

I know you do not call it charity but that is what it is.

The other side of charity is now showing up in every country of the world that has gone too far with charity. I am not against charity, just how much. It has another side. With charity we also create dependence. Until the program of regional redistribution was enacted the income in the maritime provinces was a bit behind that of the rich centre.

The problem of economic development was solved by slow outward migration. Chances were that outward migration would have maintained income in the regions equal or near equal to that in the centre.

However, what did we do? We instituted in the name of charity a program which when exposed turned out to have been a disaster. It told the people of the maritimes to stay where they were and, if they fell behind, they would be given money. They would be given charity. What happened? They became so dependent on it that when the fish disappeared, when an economic crisis developed, they ended up having the worst possible kinds of problems.

We do not give money to our children after a certain stage because we know if we keep giving them money they will never become independent. Yet here we have a state institution which continuously says: "Stay poor, we will take care of you".

This is the long run perspective on those kinds of programs which I believe has to be brought out in our discussion of where we are going into the future.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great troubles we have as economists is that people always see their narrow, tiny little piece of the world. The world does not work that way.

A month ago I gave a speech on the damage done by the economic policies of the government on what they call charity to the regions.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to people like the hon. member who just spoke, they should get a lesson in listening. There are so many things I am supposed to have said which I never said. I will let Hansard stand for that.

I never supported Quebec separation. However I believe it is not in the interests of the people of Quebec or Canada for us to refuse to think about what policies they might adopt if they do decide to become independent. I will justify that any time.

Also, I never mentioned the people of China. If you go to China you will get shepherded around by a guide like I did. I have been to China. You see what you want to see. In the 1930s people came back from the Soviet Union saying: "There is no unemployment. The Soviet Union is a model for economic development. Let's go that way". The NDP for a long time pushed that line until finally somebody said what Stalin had done and what lies had been perpetrated on us.

Since we have begun to intervene strongly in our economy in the 1960s with all the programs the hon. member's party is so proud of, the rate of economic growth in this country has decreased. It has gone from one of the biggest in the OECD down to the middle.

Before Sweden started its massive programs of the sort members wish more of, it was the country with the highest per capita income in the world. However, it went to where it is now, which is in the middle. In the last 20 years it has had the smallest growth in per capita income. History speaks clearly that the model of maximum involvement of the government in economic development has failed. The empirical evidence is in.

I would like to reiterate what I have said and the advice I can give as a 30-year student of economic development. Quebec demands for decentralization of this process of economic development. Keep more of the money there and let them do with it what they want to. This would be in the interests of the people of Quebec. Similarly this kind of approach might very well be the solution to keeping the country together, a looser federation modelled after that of Switzerland. Nobody can say that Switzerland is not a country. We can achieve that here, but we have to have it as a goal.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have studied economic development for the last 30 years of my professional life. I would like to put some historic perspective into this discussion.

In the post-war years in the 1950s and 1960s there were two economic development models floating around in the academic world and in the world of reality. On the one side we had the Soviet Union. It promised to solve all problems of economic development through deliberate central government action of planning and strict control over the lives of its members.

On the other extreme we had the market liberal model of the 19th century which believed that economic development was essentially the responsibility of individuals and that the role of the government was limited to setting down rules that protected and set up property rights, law and order, protection of individuals from both foreign and domestic interference. It essentially believed that minimal government was best to set free the energies and entrepreneurship of the individuals.

There was a lot of discussion during this period as to which was the best model, which would best succeed in raising the welfare of people in this world. It was largely a theoretical model because we never, ever have had any experience with the kind of planning model which was used in the Soviet Union.

We now know differently. We have now learned that the alleged success of the Soviet Union was all a big lie, that after all planning does not work.

At the same time we have the very great success of the Asian tigers, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, which in a very short time by using basically the model of the libertarian 19th century market oriented philosophers succeeded in bringing unprecedented rates of economic growth to their people.

I believe that the recent experiences are directly relevant to what is going on in Canada and what I believe Canada should do. Unfortunately in my judgment in the post-war years the Government of Canada travelled a great deal toward the model that is exemplified by the experiences in the Soviet Union and Cuba. I do not wish to say that we have become totalitarian. I merely wish to say the government has taken on the role of a major agent in economic development. This is in contrast to the idea that the government should merely facilitate economic development through some basic rules.

We heard from a couple of representatives from the government ministry this morning. They still believe they can do essentially what has failed in so many other countries around the world. They believe they are responsible for the export success of some industries which they have mentioned.

If there really is a project in Canada which can demonstrably be successful in exporting products to China which it now cannot do, many greedy capitalists in New York and elsewhere would love to put money into such a project. If it is worthwhile it should be done by the private sector.

When there is a government agency which says: "Fill out 15 forms and subject yourself to all kinds of hearings and then we will give it to you", no wonder they all come to the government and say: "We will do it your way. It is much easier than subjecting ourselves to the rigours of the market". Then the minister can say: "Oh, what a great success this was".

If it had been anticipated to be a great success, why did the private sector not do it? The private sector would have done it, but one of the problems in Canada is that the government is constantly stepping in and removing the incentive for the private sector to engage in this kind of development.

The future of Canada can go in either of two ways. One is the vision of the present government, which is continued government involvement in regional development projects. In the rest of the world it is almost a totally discredited approach to economic development. There is hardly an economist in the world who will disagree with the proposition that the government cannot pick winners. The government is not good at picking winners for economic development and which of the industries should be supported. The failure rate is extremely high.

Remember that every time the government supports an industry and then fails, it has taken away money from the rest of Canadians. They are therefore less able to do the kind of economic development projects which traditionally were within their abilities.

My vision for Quebec and Canada is let us make our country and Quebec after the model of Switzerland. Let us have free trade. Let us have a federation where all of the policies for economic development and social development are undertaken at the lowest level possible.

The minister said that unless we do it from Ottawa we will not have a country. Switzerland has a very strong sense of country, but a very weak central government. The government in Switzerland is doing what the 19th century model says it should do: provide security, internal rules, freedom, property rights. That is what the Swiss government is doing. To say that unless we take money away from the rich provinces or cantons and give it to the poor there will not be a country is obsolete. That model has failed. Just look at the countries which have pushed it to the extreme.

In conclusion, I support the position of the resolution that is before us today. The government should generally support decentralization of function. It should go back to the function it had in the first place up until the end of the second world war.

Also, if I may be so bold as to suggest, although I am not supporting it, but if it were to take place unhappy as I would be that Quebec became independent, I do hope it would take the model of Switzerland and not that of Albania in deciding which policies it would adopt with respect to trade and economic development. If Quebec were to become like Switzerland then many of the fears which have been voiced about the consequences for the rest of Canada, even the consequences for the people of Quebec on independence would be unwarranted and unjustified.

I wish I could be optimistic about the people of Quebec and the Government of Quebec accepting my advice. Unfortunately from what I have heard in this House we will not have much support for a market Liberal type of policies. I am afraid the indications are and it makes me very sad that we will move closer toward the model that has failed.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to enact a law which will protect the lives of all innocent human beings from conception until natural death.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to uphold section 241 of the Criminal Code which makes euthanasia illegal.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents have asked me to submit to the House three duly executed and signed petitions.

One calls on Parliament to refrain from making changes to the human rights code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

[Voluntary Firefighters, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise to praise the motion placed before the House today by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I share totally his views about the great job done by volunteer firefighters. They are a dedicated, hard-working group of people to whom all of us owe a great debt.

In my riding of Capilano-Howe Sound several communities rely heavily on the work of volunteers. In Squamish, 55 volunteers complement a core of six full time firefighters. Pemberton and Lions Bay rely entirely on 20 volunteers for their protection from fire.

In the beautiful resort community of Whistler, 11 professionals rely on the help of 36 volunteers. I feel particularly close to this group because I have attended their annual ball. These people not only know how to have fun, they also show their dedication to public welfare by using the occasion to raise substantial funds for charity. I feel closer also to these Whistler firefighters because I have seen them in action when they took care of a chimney fire in the house of one of my neighbours. Hearing the roar of such a fire in the stillness of a snowy winter evening is an unforgettable experience. Seeing their professionalism in dealing with this inferno has made me an eternal fan of theirs.

I would also like to tell you, Madam Speaker, that Whistler is a very dry and hot place in the summer. Trees and bushes grow between the many wooden houses. I have often descended into the valley on the chair lift and was very uneasy thinking about the scene before me, how easily a small fire could spread through the community, leaping from house to house through the low brush, fanned by the famous Squamish winds. The property damage would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. There would be great risks for people and animals. However I find myself reassured by the knowledge that the large contingent of very competent firefighters is there, quickly and at all times, to deal with any small fire before it erupts into a major conflagration.

At any rate, I hope that they will forever be able to maintain the enviable record they have established during the 30-year history of the Whistler community. No fire has ever gone out of control.

The professional and volunteer firefighters in my riding can be counted on, not just to fight fires, but to provide valuable services in all kinds of other emergencies. Just a couple of weeks ago they had to use the jaws of life to free from a car a severely injured motorist and two others. Their efforts came too late for the two who died in the accident.

The Whistler firefighters are superbly skilled in their task. Last year they won first place in a provincial competition testing their rescue skills. They are about to enter this competition again and I wish them the best of luck.

I support the idea that the federal government should make a solid contribution to the well-being of these dedicated people. They save citizens local taxes which would have to be raised if they were to be replaced by professionals.

Therefore It seems very fitting that the private member's motion being discussed should urge the government to raise the amount of fees which are freed from taxation. However, given the government's current financial conditions, members must be very vigilant not to add to the deficit. In this spirit, I therefore suggest that the proposal be modified to make it less costly. I propose that the government raise the allowance annually by the increase in the consumer price index, using the $500 limit in 1980 as a base. In my view this approach would be fair and I am sure that it would be acceptable as such to the volunteer firefighters who make such great contributions to public welfare.

The sentiments which I have expressed are not just mine. They are also shared by my hon. colleagues from the Reform caucus, in particular those representing the following ridings: Prince George-Bulkley Valley; Kindersley-Lloydminster; Fraser Valley East; Kootenay East; Nanaimo-Cowichan; Okanagan-Shuswap; Macleod; Saanich-Gulf Islands; Lisgar-Marquette; Yellowhead; Athabasca; Surrey-White Rock- South Langley; Okanagan Centre; Surrey North; Calgary Southeast; Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt; Wild Rose; Lethbridge; Red Deer; and Calgary Northeast.