Ron MacDonald

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I know the clock is ticking but very quickly I would like to ask the member a question. He is a new member who canvassed on a platform of parliamentary reform as some of us on this side of the House did. Does he not believe that some of the initiatives which have been undertaken by the new government have been positive?

An example is the fact that we have had so many free debates in the House on major issues. In the early days of this Parliament the government put forward some initiatives to start the reform of the political process.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague from the Reform Party. The concept he puts forward is an interesting one on recall.

I have been a member here for five years, in the bad old days when we were perhaps in greater disrepute than we have been at any time in the history of the country. I have never had a constituent in the riding of Dartmouth, or any riding I went to in my capacity as a critic, come up and talk to me about the need to

recall or to have a provision within our rules for recall. Many of them came forward and indicated to me that other things should be done such as freer debates in the House of Commons.

Does the member believe this is an issue created by the Reform Party in the pre-election period, or does he really believe it is a grassroots movement? If it is, I certainly have not seen it in my travels.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put forward a number of points of view about how he thinks the interests of his constituents, residents of his province and all Canadians would be better served by this type of review.

Normally when you deal with wholesale restructuring any institution, any group of programs, any fundamental policies you would normally start out with certain parameters in mind, certain givens.

I do not want to say sacred cows because there are no such things.

We heard from the Reform Party earlier that what it wants is to cut, cut, cut and it is not so terribly concerned about the impact of those cuts. I have listened intently to members of the Bloc Quebecois, who are not interested simply in cutting, that is not what they are saying. They want to build a better system to ensure that those individuals needing help the most get it.

I would like to ask the member if he could give me a few ideas as to the parameters that this review should take place in and what should be the starting point. What should be the givens as to what we are trying to attain.

Is it to make sure that income security for seniors is maintained? Is it to ensure that transfers to the provinces are maintained at a level that would allow the provinces to have services of equal quality no matter what the fiscal situation of the province is? Is it just to maintain transfers to provinces such as Quebec to administer provincial social assistance programs?

I just throw those ideas out. If he could give me some sense about what he would like to see maintained and built upon in this review it would be helpful to me.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

I am happy that the hon. member has asked the question.

If I listen to the policies of the Reform Party it does not believe that government should try as part of a national objective to ensure that no matter where one lives in this country that one has access to quality post-secondary education. Perhaps many members on the Reform side, if those policies and programs were not in place, would not have been able to attain the seats that they have. They would not have been able to find themselves in a position to get the education that has allowed them to work in their communities and to find a seat in this House.

Just maybe, without those darned Liberal policies that the member seems to be so intent on criticizing during this debate, some individuals would not have been able to access a health care system that ensures that people do not go bankrupt if they have a ruptured gall bladder in this country.

Just maybe, if the members of the Reform Party are so intent on supporting a system where there is no sense of collective ownership of wealth in this country, then some of their colleagues from Saskatchewan and some of their colleagues from the other provinces in western Canada would not have been able to get the basic services delivered to them in their home province that Canadians and members of the Reform Party have come to expect.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his complimentary comments.

I fundamentally believe that. We have to be very careful in this country.

The poor and the disenfranchised, and that includes regions not just individuals, are all too often easiest hit when it comes time for government to redirect finances or to cut program expenditures.

I always believed in opposition and I will continue to believe it in government that the role of individual members of Parliament is to speak up for those that lack a voice.

When necessary cuts come forward the debate will continue I hope about who bears which part of the burden of those cuts. We can speak here for decades about who caused what to happen. The reality is that our present circumstances must be addressed.

I believe that any cuts in budgets, any reworking of the social safety net must first and foremost look after the needs of the most disadvantaged in society but also the disadvantaged provinces like Nova Scotia and Quebec that have to rely on equalization payments from the federal government unfortunately.

We all want to contribute. We do not want policies from any level of government that stop our individual citizens and our provinces from developing to the fullness of their potential. That really is the challenge of government after all.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are able to have this type of a debate on such a major item as social policy reform in Canada. It is time we sat down and recognized where we have come from and the evolution of social policy in this country.

Most of the social programs and policies we have today which make us distinctly different from almost every country in the world have come about because of Liberal policies. In the past, Liberals, as a government and a country that is liberal, we believed in the collective ownership of the resource that is Canada. We believed fundamentally that it did not matter where we lived, in Alberta, northern Ontario, Newfoundland or in Ottawa, somehow we had a right to expect to share in the greatness and the wealth that is Canada.

We have developed a lot differently than our counterparts to the south. We believe in a free market system but we also believe that the state has a responsibility to redistribute wealth. We believe in a free market society but there are larger overriding priorities of our society than the accumulation of personal wealth. It is why we are different. It is why we have developed differently. We manifest our beliefs in social programs that make us the envy of the world.

We believe that nobody should have to live in poverty in a country as rich, as prosperous, with the future that Canada has. We believe as a nation that those individuals who are elected to govern should be able to find a policy mechanism to ensure that nobody should have to worry about whether they have food on their tables when they retire, when they are old and in their twilight years.

We believe we can come up with programs to deliver these policies to ensure that no matter where we live we have a right to expect quality health care that was accessible to everybody free of charge.

The federal government put in policies which by and large worked very well. Those policies ensured that in time of economic collapse or dislocation nobody starved to death. It made sure that we somehow allowed the free market system to work but at the same time discharged its collective social responsibility.

Times have changed. We find ourselves in a situation where government is no longer able to deliver these principles in the same way. Some people, such as my colleagues in the Reform

Party, might say the principles are no longer valid. I would disagree with them strongly. What may no longer be valid are the delivery mechanisms that have been put in place. They may not be delivering the programs as efficiently as we might like. In fact, to argue that the vehicles must be maintained may jeopardize the principles and the programs.

This is not just a Liberal philosophy. It is, I believe, a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. It is part of the fabric of this country. Who better to redesign the social safety network than the party that put it together in the first place, the Liberal Party. Who better at this point in our history to reach out and start it here than this new Liberal government.

We have sought input and debate from all sides of the House. However there are certain things we have to remember in the debate. It is very easy if we are just looking at the fiscal concerns of the state. It is very easy to get rid of the deficit. I listened to my Reform colleagues opposite during the campaign and they presented through their leader and their candidates a way to get rid of the deficit in three years. I could get rid of the deficit in 12 months, but it would be a vastly different Canada.

It would mean that the poor and the disenfranchised would be living in parks like they do in the United States. I am sorry but that is not the type of Canada I was born in and that is not the type of Canada I am going to work toward. It means that transfers to the poorest provinces would be cut, such as to Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. We can say: "Well, we have done our bit as federal legislators. We have done our bit to reduce the deficit". However, the human carnage that would remain after those actions would be unconscionable and unacceptable. So we are not going to follow the Reform pattern of slash and burn on social programs.

As a government we want to have a full debate about what principles of social justice we believe are still applicable and whether we can develop the vehicles to deliver that social justice through programming.

We have to remember a number of things. One is that even in the wealthiest country in the world, and the country that the UN says is the best country in the world to live in, in spite of the multi-layered social programs that we have across Canada, we have over 1.5 million children who live in poverty. Obviously the programs and the goals we set out through our program structure has not hit the mark. The country has changed. Things have changed forever. We can no longer protect certain industries. We are into the globalization of trade.

We have to get back to the basics. If we still believe in the principles that I talked about at the beginning of my address, that of collective ownership of the resource and of social responsibility, then we will start from that basis and rebuild a social services delivery system, one that will have excised from it the abuses, or as much as one can excise from it, and one that ensures at all times we look at the dignity of the individual.

I cannot think of anything more undignified than somebody who has to live on welfare. I cannot think of anything as undignified as a man or a woman who has to go to bed knowing there is no food for their children to eat the next morning before they send them off to school. I do not think that is what we want as Canadians no matter what our political beliefs may be.

It is time to sit down and re-establish those fundamental principles. Maybe we will find they are not going to be vastly different from the principles that were laid down by this party after the Kingston conference in the Pearson era. We will probably find the fundamental principles of liberalism are still a basis on which to build. We will invite people from across this country, of various political beliefs, to help ensure that the systems brought forward deliver the type of assistance to those who need it the most in a way that is not a hand out but is a hand up.

Single parents in our ridings are coming in and saying: "Look, I am receiving $828 a month on welfare and I don't feel good about it. I feel kind of soiled. I want to contribute. I don't want to be a burden on society. But the circumstance I find myself in right now is one that I have had to go to a social service department". They then tell us that they want to work but the only job they can find pays $6 an hour. If they work for $6 an hour and have to pay child care costs out of it then effectively they have lost $200 to $300 of an $850 income. Those are the realities of the circumstances that are out there today and they have to be addressed. I believe we can do this together collectively.

It is important, however, to remember a couple of things. We have created a multi-layered bureaucracy to deliver the dollar. By the time I go to one member and take a dollar out of his or her pocket, run it through the system and then drop it back down to the individual, the individual who needs the hand-up not the hand-out, there is not enough money to do anything but keep them on welfare and stuck in the cycle of poverty.

Somebody somewhere has to be paid to take the money, to process the money, to drop it down to a program directorate, down to the province and down to the municipality. We have three levels of government taking that $1 and leaving as much as possible intact to deliver some assistance to somebody who needs at that moment. We have to look at that. We have to take a very strong lead, in my view, in trying to ensure that the dollars are not spent administering the program but the dollars are spent on a well thought out program that will allow people to maintain

their dignity, to retrain if necessary, to give the type of support so they become a taxpayer instead of a tax taker.

I am intrigued, and have been for years, with a proposal that has been put forward by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood. He has put a lot of thought into it. I have polled my constituents on it over the last number of years. It is called a single tax system. It seeks to address the real problems in this country. The problem is not just expenditure, it is also revenue generation. Unless we address both problems in tandem we still have a big problem.

To say we have economic problems because too many people are ripping the system off through social programs is wrong. I have addressed that. However, to turn a blind eye to the fact that we now have a growing underground economy and a tax system that simply does not work because it does not generate enough revenue, in a way that it is not a disincentive to industrial development and wealth creation, is wrong as well.

In the proposal put forward by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood we looked at a number of ways to have a single layer of delivery so that those who need assistance the most get the most assistance with a properly thought out program to raise them up and reintegrate them into the workforce and allow them become productive.

I have never met an individual who wanted to be on welfare. I have never met an individual who wanted to be poor. I have never met an individual who wanted to feel they could not give their children the basics of life. I simply have not met them and I have met a lot of people in my life.

This is an ideal opportunity for us to be bold, to go back to the principles that have made this country great, but also to allow in this debate a broader application of how we deliver our programs. I firmly believe that the proposal put forward by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood on the single tax has some merits about how we can deliver on a single tier, how we can cut out layers and layers of government and bureaucracy so that the limited dollars that come from the same source called the taxpayer are focused and targeted to achieve the social and economic benefits on which I think all members of this House would agree.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the spirit of cordiality that we started off with was evident in the member's speech.

I would hasten to say at the outset that this government does not believe it is business as usual. We have suffered through nine years of Tory mismanagement of the economy. We have seen a government induced recession. All of the policies of the last government were supported by the current leader of the Bloc Quebecois who is now the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Some of the new members on this side the House find it very difficult to listen to lectures from the Bloc Quebecois about what is wrong with Canada. They talk about how the economy has been mismanaged and that if they had their way things would be better.

I would like to indicate to the member opposite that many of his colleagues, indeed the only colleagues he has who have any experience in the House with the exception of one, sat as members of the Conservative government. Time after time when debates took place in the House those same members, when they were members of the Progressive Conservative Party, supported the very policies that have got us into the mess that we are in today. I understand he is a new member here. He has some very forceful points of views and I am pleased he put them in debate today but he has to recognize that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

The individuals in this place that are the biggest proponents of the Bloc Quebecois are the same ones that ran on the Tory ticket in 1984 or 1988. Indeed some were in the cabinet of the previous government that voted for all of those measures, that saw not just the province of Quebec's economy go downhill but the economy of every province in this country go downhill.

I want to tell the hon. member it is not business as usual. This government was elected because it offered some hope and it offered some hope for every province in Canada.

I can speak quite eloquently about the problems in Atlantic Canada. They are tough and they are bad but I know that the vision, the policies and programs we have heard from this side of the House, and indeed the way we are approaching governance by open debates like this, show that times are different.

This is a different House. It is a different government. We have support from nearly 70 per cent of the electorate even in the province of Quebec.

I would suggest to him that this is the beginning of a productive time. If he listens long and hard I think he will find out that the processes and policies that are in the best interests of Quebecers are the same processes and policies that are in the best interest of Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders, people from the Northwest Territories and British Columbia. They are policies that are good for Canadians.

I would close by asking the member why he believes, and I am sure that he believes strongly in his views on separation for the province of Quebec, that the pursuit of separatism, because it is not sovereignty association, it is separatism for the province of Quebec, is in the best economic interest of the people of Quebec when he knows full well it will lead to international instability in the investment market and it will probably lead, at least in the short term, to job losses for Quebecers as well as other people in Canada.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.

In the last number of years he contributed a great deal on our side when we were in opposition. He ensured that there was a sense of realism in the debate we were having on economic matters specifically dealing with taxation reform, fundamental restructuring of the economy and things like unemployment insurance changes. He also ensured that when we led off that it was not just a lot of bravado coming from the opposition.

I am very pleased to see that he will be making a major contribution as we set out to restructure social benefit programs as outlined by the minister.

I want to pick him up on a point. It is very clear that there are two problems that face the government today. One of the problems is in expenditure. If one looks at the graphs over the past 20 years, one will see that the percentage of dollars spent overall by the government on programs is actually decreasing.

Contrary to what members of the Reform Party and others may think, government spending is not out of control. Government spending seems to be well in control. The problem appears to be the second problem, that is revenue generation.

Over the last number of years we watched as successive governments, even Liberal governments a few years ago, tinkered with the tax system. It seems that every single time that we try to make some modest changes to the tax system we end up by downloading on to the middle classes.

Many would believe that the recession is stubborn and that we are not coming out of it very quickly because the tax burden has been shifted too heavily on to the consuming classes. I would like to support what he said about the efforts of the member for Broadview-Greenwood to put forward at least a proposal that seems to go in the right direction with the single tax.

I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that type of program without any tax increases would lead to the federal government taking in the amount of taxes that it currently does with the economic activity that is going on. Does he believe the single tax system would lead to less tax evasion which we have now seen by witness with growth of the underground economy?

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague who has outlined a number of proposals that I think would be very constructive and I am sure that they will be considered by the Minister of Finance.

I have known the hon. member for a number of years. He has worked diligently over the years in trying to be productive and positive and constructive in this place and I think that he has contributed a great deal in his pre-budget debate that we are having in the House of Commons.

However, I just want to throw out a couple of other things that I think would aid not just the region but aid nationally in our two pronged approach. One is, obviously, to create jobs and to stimulate the economy through the budget that will be coming down. Another is to try as best as we possibly can to tame that demon that is called the national deficit and spiralling debt.

One of the things that I think clearly could be done, and my colleague here who is chair of the Atlantic caucus might wish to comment, is to have the Minister of Finance address the real problems affecting the competitiveness of the port of Halifax. That will impact on the entire Atlantic region and will create jobs all throughout the economy.

The problem with the port of Halifax and its competitiveness is not the port itself, it is the rail line which goes up through Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick and into Quebec. Over the last number of years we have seen that rail link become less competitive. The rates have not gone down, they have gone up. The on time delivery, the length of time that it takes have all impacted in a very major way on whether we have competitive businesses in Atlantic Canada and whether the port of Halifax would be poised to take advantage of the new global trade routes.

In the past I have raised in this House, and it was supported by members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus in opposition, that the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport of the day could look at two very simple things that would have a major impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of rail transportation in Atlantic Canada.

After all, if we do not have viable modes of transport in Atlantic Canada we will not have industry. It is as simple as that. We are not close enough to our markets.

One of the things that we have suggested is that the Minister of Finance look at the possibility of accelerating the rate of depreciation for new rolling stock. That would put Canadian railroads on an even footing with American railroads. It is budgetary. It is a fiscal measure that can be taken that does not really cost money but which could have a major impact on the competitiveness of products travelling over the rail lines in Atlantic Canada.

The second thing we could do, clearly, is to look at the avoidable costs of rail transportation. We need viable rail service in Atlantic Canada to be competitive. One of the things that has been suggested by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission is that the federal government remove the excise tax on diesel fuel used for the transportation of goods by rail in Canada.

Those two measures alone, which we begged the previous government to look at, would increase in a substantial way the competitive movement of goods through the Atlantic provinces, not just into Quebec and central Canadian and western Canadian markets, but down into the midwestern markets.

I would ask the member who has just given his speech, and a very good address, if he could comment about those types of things, those regulatory changes which in a major way could have an impact on the viability of competitive industries, not just in Halifax, not just in Dartmouth, but in his area as well in New Brunswick.

[Port Of Halifax, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue of utmost importance not only to my own constituents but to all Atlantic Canadians.

The port of Halifax is the economic hub of the region injecting over $400 million per year into the local and regional economy. This is a great deal of activity, yet traffic at the port is more than 30 per cent lower than what it was in 1990.

It has been argued that a rethinking of some federal policies, specifically rail fuel taxation and capital asset depreciation, would greatly enhance the competitiveness of the port, increasing traffic and also creating badly needed jobs in the region.

I know the new finance minister will not ignore Atlantic Canadians like his Tory predecessors and I urge him to seriously consider these policies in his budget deliberations.

We in the Atlantic are confident in our ability to compete and prosper, if only we are given the tools and the footing to do so equally with our competitors.