Bob Nault

[National Diabetes Month, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as many members are aware, November is national diabetes month. We are all familiar with this disease and the impact it has on Canadians and their families. What many people are not aware of, though, is the alarming prevalence of diabetes in First Nations' communities.

A recent study of the Sioux Lookout zone population in my riding showed that the incidence of diabetes among aboriginal Canadians is far higher than the general population. Even more alarming is that over the five-year period there was a 45 per cent increase in diagnosed cases and that aboriginal people are affected at a much younger age than the general population.

Current efforts are proving inefficient to deal with the problem and the potential human and health care costs are staggering. In the light of this, I urge the Minister of Health and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to step up their efforts to combat diabetes in the aboriginal population.

[Disabled Persons, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for an important question to all Canadians.

First, this is a very important issue to the Government of Canada and to society as a whole. We think that people with disabilities should be active members in our society.

We just received the report that was made public this morning. We intend to make the recommendations a major part of our discussions with the provinces. I want to take the opportunity to thank the member who was responsible for the report, the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, for his fine work.

At the same time, I would say to members opposite that is about time in this House that we got a question that really meant something to Canadians besides the nonsense across the way.

[Competition Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, a fellow northerner from northern Ontario, on his private member's Bill C-266. It is important before we get into the substance of the bill to examine the historical context of why we are here today.

Madam Speaker, if you were a northerner from Ontario you would know that over the last number of years from the sixties through to the nineties a number of studies have been done. There have been discussions between northerners and southerners about the unequal treatment of consumers depending on where they live in the province of Ontario.

Those individuals have asked their governments, both provincial and federal, on a number of occasions to look at the fairness to consumers of gas prices in the south versus the north, to look at gas prices at the pumps at different times of the year and at different times of the week.

By looking at different studies, I know that every time one of those studies is completed its results and recommendations show that there is no proof that there is price fixing, but obviously something seems wrong with the system.

I will give an example from a southern Ontario perspective, which is hard to believe coming from a northerner from Kenora-Rainy River. When I drive to my residence during the week after I have finished my day's work in the House of Commons, the gas price will be fixed, at around 56 cents a litre. Lo and behold, come Friday night the price goes up. The price then stays up around 57 cents to 58 cents all weekend long. Monday morning the price goes back down again. It does this in unison at practically every service station all the way down Bank.

If the price changed every three or four months when there were fluctuations in oil prices around the world, I think consumers could buy the argument that because the price of oil was going up or going down by the barrel then the prices at different pumps at different service stations could be the same. The perception is that the prices are fixed but at least they could feel comfortable that it makes some sense to them as a consumer.

However, we do not like to drive down the road and see the price changes on a weekend. As consumers, we know there is more business, more travel, more tourism and more people coming and going because they have Friday, Saturday and Sunday off. Gas companies are going to allow prices to go up in order to make a bigger profit.

That is sort of the long and short of why people have some major concerns about the way prices at the pumps are arrived at. They wonder whether something needs to be looked at in depth by parliamentarians or provincial governments in their jurisdiction

which will make us feel more comfortable as consumers that we are getting a good price and a fair price.

Obviously my colleague's inspiration is gasoline pricing. People need the opportunity to have it explained to them as I have. As the ex-chairman of the natural resources committee who instituted the investigation a couple of years back, I had the opportunity to ask Mr. Addy in committee why these fluctuations occurred and whether there was an explanation for them. I also brought the industry in to explain it to us as well.

Even when I sat as the chair of that committee I never got an explanation that I could buy, that I could feel comfortable with, that I could go and tell my constituents: "Here is the reason". They were all over the map.

I will give another example. We buy our gas in northern Ontario from Winnipeg. It is shipped by Paul's Hauling. Paul's Hauling ships gas from Winnipeg right across my riding. It takes about two and a half hours to get to different points in the riding.

The gas prices in Kenora, which is about two hours from Winnipeg, let us say for the sake of argument are 63 cents or 64 cents today. I have not called so it may even be higher. It might even be 66 cents. Fifteen miles outside of town close to Winnipeg gas prices are five cents less. For people who are listening in major centres, this is in the middle of nowhere. It is small tourist place called Clearwater Bay. All the folks in Winnipeg come to spend their holidays in their cottages at this particular place. We have a little wee liquor store, a convenience store and two little gas pumps which have gas prices at five cents less. Drive to Kenora and the price goes up five cents. Drive to Dryden, an hour to an hour and a half away, and it goes down two cents from the price in Kenora. Dryden and Kenora are almost identical in size. I have asked the competition bureau and the people who run these companies to explain this. Members would like a fair explanation of how those prices could vary like that.

You cannot say "it has to be the transportation cost " as my colleague has said. We are not buying that answer because I am told it is about a half cent difference, in the neighbourhood of 300 or 400 miles on a litre of gas, based on the cost of transportation if you are hauling a huge semi. They said that is not the real reason. There are differences in the local competition. Local competition means that different gas stations have prices that they build in, therefore, the prices will naturally be different in a different community.

We spent time blowing holes in that argument and they switched gears on us again. They said the reason why the gas prices are high is because there is no competition. Now we do not have any competition, transportation is not the problem and the different gas stations have different mechanisms of coming up with what their expenses are. Therefore the cost would be different but everybody's price is the same in the same community. At this point we still do not have a legitimate explanation of why those prices are the way they are.

Madam Speaker, you can understand why we have difficulty when politicians from either the provincial or federal level tell us everything is okay.

My colleague from Nickel Belt has taken the bull by the horns and has said that if what the corporations say is true and if what governments say is true, then let us put in a mechanism to make it very easy for people to give us information if they believe there is something wrong with the industry. If the industry is clean and its explanations are solid, it should not have any problem with whistle blowing legislation.

We have whistle blowing legislation in other jurisdictions, for example, in different acts, labour codes and labour protection acts. We have mechanisms where employers will be fined for breaking the law and helping employees. All these arguments are legitimate arguments that should be looked at.

For the sake of my colleagues thinking it is a wrong term, this is a very simple bill. It is not complicated at all. All it asks is that the Competition Act have built into it a way for the competition bureau to make sure that there will be anonymous information given by employees or contractors without them feeling they are putting their livelihoods at risk.

Some of the members I have listened to this evening suggested there may be individuals who will put in frivolous complaints just for the sake of getting back at their employers or a competitor. I doubt that very many people will realistically get into that kind of scenario where they are going to phone the competition bureau and suggest that there is an illegal act, if it does not have some legitimacy, for one simple reason. Can you imagine the hassle that would incur once they start putting forward these potentially illegal acts into the system? What could they incur if it was found to be nothing more than a frivolous act?

We have waited as consumers-I put myself in the position of a consumer-for 30 years in northern Ontario, to have someone explain the best way to deal with this perception that things are not right. At this point we still have not had a government willing to look at this in a comprehensive way.

If we continue to ignore the wishes of Canadian people and consumers, then what you will get is a process that is driven in a much more radical fashion. For example, in Quebec just lately, a process was brought into play where that government is going to pass legislation that which will be much more severe than what my colleague is suggesting. It is less competitive in the sense of having free market forces deal with how prices will be set.

They are now getting into and going down the road of setting limits and monitoring the price of gas in such a way that it may hamstring fair competition.

What a lot of people who believe in capitalism in this country would suggest is it is not good overall for the economy or for the consumer in the long run.

That is what they get when they continue to ignore consumers and good solid pieces of legislation and ideas like those of my colleague from Nickel Belt.

Another issue is that this is a very cheap way to deal with difficult problems. In times of financial difficulty, in times when there is financial restraint and we are looking for ways to improve the efficiency of the system, we ask members to come up with innovative solutions.

My colleague has done that. He has come up with a solution that we all could live with financially and which may just help us with the problem we are trying to solve.

I have said this in my constituency and I will say it here on the floor of the House. If governments are not willing to be reasonable and act in the best interests of their constituents, they will be surprised with radical ideas like those we see coming from the third party which are a simplistic way of solving problems.

It will eventually catch fire and be worse for a lot of individual Canadians because people get very frustrated when they know there is a problem, they are waiting for a solution and they are not getting one.

In the last few seconds I have, this is a very good private member's bill, a very good start. In the next two hours that we have at this reading, there will be other members talking about examples in their regions saying how difficult it is to show that there is nothing wrong with the way the pricing of gas is arrived at. We need to look at mechanisms to be sure that it is fair.

The government would be smart to enact this as part of an overall package of reforms to the Competition Act to make sure that Canadians are protected not just now but of course in the future.

[Child Care, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, again I can only say to the member that when we announced the CHST we made it quite clear that there was a tremendous amount of flexibility within the program in the delivery of finances to the provinces. That flexibility does not suggest one particular child care initiative over another, but does give flexibility to the provinces to allow parents to choose the child care facilities or areas which they think are best suited to their location.

I disagree with the member when he says that we are suggesting one over the other. In fact, we are giving the flexibility and the choices which parents need in this modern era.

[Child Care, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the Reform members asking questions in the House.

If they read the whole red book they would know that it deals specifically with the collaboration of the provinces. Once we have an agreement with the provinces on some sort of child care initiative we will certainly announce it in the House. I am sure when we do, if we get the co-operation of the provinces, those members will still disagree with us on child care spaces. However, we will do a lot of hard work and try to get that done for them.

[Child Care, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the interest of the hon. member in the child care issue. It is a matter of great concern to all parties in the House. Whatever our political stripes, many of us have had to confront the challenge of assuring quality care for our own children.

For all his concern, I cannot support the member's motion which suggests that the government should not spend public money on non-parental day care initiatives. This measure would restrict rather than improve child care choices for Canadian families. Such a proposition is not only unreasonable but unrealistic in today's world. I emphasize unrealistic. It seems to me that the member and his friends are still operating as if they were in the 1950s and not in the world that we live in today.

Before debating the merits of this motion I am obliged to point out that the delivery of child care services as well as the regulation and licensing of child care falls under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government indirectly funds social service programs such as child care through the Canada health and social transfer.

Unlike its predecessor, the Canada assistance plan, the CHST does not attach conditions about the way those federal funds are spent. Each province has the discretion to determine the level and nature of funding for child care. Most provinces ensure that subsidies are directed to those in greatest need, particularly low income families.

Federal involvement in child care includes: the child care expense deduction; under the Employment Insurance Act part II, funds can be directed toward supporting child care expenses; the First Nations and Inuit child care initiative; and finally, the child care visions research and development program.

In areas where the federal government does have influence, it has taken a very flexible approach. Canadian parents are able to decide how best to meet their individual family needs. This government strongly supports parental choice, not some sort of weird interest in telling people that they have to stay at home whether or not they would like to. If that was their choice, a lot of people would, but obviously in today's environment that is not always the case.

The family of the 1990s is very different from the traditional two parent, stay at home mom variety many of us grew up with. Clearly a one size fits all approach to child care could not begin to meet the many demands facing dual income families, single working parents or adults trying to move off social assistance and into the labour force. Accessible and affordable quality care outside the parental home is crucial to these people.

This government recognizes the challenges facing Canadian families. That is why there are no stipulations as to the type of care that can be declared under the child care expense deduction. Families can claim any form of non-parental child care so long as they provide receipts for their expenses.

The federal government has introduced a number of new measures that support families with children. Changes to child support regulations in the Income Tax Act will protect the interests of children by ensuring that non-custodial parents live up to the responsibilities and provide child support payments.

The maximum annual level of the working income supplement designed to help low income parents meet the extra costs related to working will double over the next two years from $500 to $1000. Starting on January 1, 1997, an innovative family income supplement will increase employment insurance benefits for low income claimants with children. These measures complement the child tax benefit which is specifically targeted at low to middle income families.

Nowhere, and I stress nowhere, is the need for federal support greater than among Inuit and First Nations families. The Government of Canada is providing $72 million over three years for the First Nations and Inuit child care initiative which will lead to the development of 6,000 new or improved spaces in these communities.

We have also invested another $18 million over three years in the child care visions research and development fund. This fund will seek new solutions to balancing work and family responsibilities by supporting studies into the adequacy, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of child care practices and offering insights into the most appropriate types of care.

No one denies that in an ideal world probably the care of children would take place by one parent in the home. In reality that is not always possible. I stress reality.

In 1993, 70 per cent of families have two earners compared to 30 per cent 20 years ago. Labour force participation of women with children under six has increased from 47 per cent in 1981 to 63 per cent in 1993. Whether by choice or of necessity, these women and their families depend on having access to quality, affordable care for their children outside their homes.

These parents want the assurance that they are putting their little loved ones in the hand of trained child care providers who can nurture the social, physical and emotional development of their young children.

Reformers would like to turn back the clock but we cannot. In 1950 just 30 per cent of couples with children were in the workforce. By 1990 the number of families with both parents working had increased to 70 per cent. This is today's reality. The majority of Canadian families want and need access to quality child care, often community based centre care or regulated home care.

I suggest to the hon. member that what is really important is not who is getting paid, but ensuring that whoever provides the care is offering the best quality of care for Canada's children.

At the first ministers' meeting last June there was broad support for governments to work together to develop a national child benefit. The federal government is collaborating closely with the provinces to determine how such a benefit might be implemented.

I hope the hon. member will be a part of this important process. I encourage him to set aside his unnecessary motion and instead work with the government as we try to improve the well-being of Canadian children.

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, for the record, the member was not willing to verify whether he or his party agree that a single parent with children is a family. He skirted around it and said they were good Canadians and the whole bit but he would not say whether he thought they were truly a family like every other family which happens to be in Canada.

I want to ask the member about this whole issue of intrusiveness in the family and the whole issue of the Income Tax Act.

I will refer to what has been taking place in the provincial legislature in Ontario in the last few days. Members on the other side like to talk about their great friend the Mike Harris government and how close it relates to the Reform Party. That government just introduced a child support payment bill. I want to bring to the member's attention a couple of areas in the bill and ask him if he agrees or disagrees with what the Ontario government is doing. It is important if in fact he believes that our bill is so intrusive.

In the new bill that was presented to the legislature this is what the Ontario government is proposing to do. Parents who default on payments under the government's family support plan could have their driver's licences suspended and their names could be reported to credit bureaus.

Also included is obtaining financial statements of defaulters and making support orders against third parties who shelter the defaulter's assets; seizing 50 per cent of any funds in a joint bank account with the delinquent parent's new partner; and seizing lottery winnings of more than $1,000. Keep in mind that 77 per cent in default owe more than $1 billion in the province of Ontario. In fact, 97 per cent of those defaulters are fathers of that family the member talks about.

I want the member to answer one question. Does he think this is too intrusive? It sounds similar to what we are proposing to do when he talked especially about obtaining financial statements. I would like to know whether he agrees or disagrees with the Ontario government's move in relation to trying to deal with what is called in this article, deadbeat parents.

[Divorce Act, October 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I truly enjoy rising when a member of the third party is done because it is easy to ask questions of his intervention in the House. I have a few questions. I will make them quick because I would like to get up on my feet again to ask another series of questions if I get the chance.

I listened very carefully to the member's speech as to where the Reform Party stands. In all that rambling I heard in the last 20

minutes he never once told us what the Reform would do as it relates to individuals who, as the member put it, are not capable of reconciling whether it be through mediation or one process or another.

The member was unclear but he was suggesting in his remarks that an individual who happens to be divorced, in most cases a mother who has one, two or three children, is not a family. Can the member explain to me why he seems to think the only definition of a family is someone that has two parents and a number of children, whether he agrees with the reality of the situation that in Canada it is a pretty close even split that there are many families that have only one parent either because they decide to through divorce and cannot reconcile or a parent passes away and they carry on as a single parent.

I would like those two questions answers. The one that is the most important is the definition. The other one, and I am not surprised, is what is Reform suggesting in that it does not like this bill? That is acceptable I suppose to us on this side. That means it must be a pretty good one. What would Reform do to replace it?

[Canada Pension Plan, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is yes, we will continue to consult.

When we are done consulting we will have the best program we possibly can within the financial means of all the governments, both provincial and federal.

[Status Of Women, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where members of the opposition have been. We of course in this Parliament have talked about jobs and the economy over and over again.

Quite frankly, if they look at the results of the government they will know we have created over 600,000 jobs by the improvements we have made to the economy and by making sure we keep our eye on the ball.

If the member is not aware of the information and the improvements we have made to the economy and the improvements we will continue to make, all she has to do is ask for a briefing and we will give her the information that shows the government has done a good job and will continue to improve on that. We will show the results with other programs we have already put in place in the past.