Bob Nault

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

This is due to the referendum.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not deny it. Quite frankly I welcome it. Any worker who understands a global economy, any worker or any parliamentarian who has spent time looking at our major competition in the world, will know that every labour adjustment program in the world is funded by its workers and its employers; every major labour adjustment program in the world is very progressive, not passive, not a straight insurance program where somebody is just given a cheque to stay home.

They are given a helping hand to try to retrain, to prove themselves and get back into the workforce. If the member calls that some kind of slush fund for friends of the Liberals, he should talk to the people about how they feel about that part of it.

I know Reform members have made a couple of suggestions. I heard them today: straight insurance program, nothing else to it; take it out of the hands of the government, give it back to the employers and the employees; government should have nothing to do with it. As a unionist I can say that I would be scared to death if it was taken out of the hands of the government and given to the private sector because there would be no insurance program if that was ever done.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer quickly so my friend from the Reform can ask his question.

The Bloc continues to perpetuate a myth. First, we all know that the UI fund is not general revenue. It does not go into the general revenues of the government. In fact last year it was in a deficit. When the Tories were defeated, the fund was in pretty rough shape and was in deficit by some $3 billion or more. This year finally that deficit has been turned into a surplus. It is projected there will be a fairly large surplus this year.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall because you were here-I am sure some of these members that were not here would not have read the Hansard as closely as they should have-that premiums had to be increased significantly during the last recession because there was no surplus in the EI account. It is our intention not to let that happen this time.

There is no interest or legal capability of the government to take that money and pay off its deficit. It is used as a benchmark for how the EI account is doing, whether it is in a deficit or a surplus position.

For the Bloc to continue to say that the government is paying off the deficit on the backs of the poor is completely false and erroneous.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph-Wellington.

I want to first thank the opposition for an opportunity to talk about something I consider a very important issue. That is, of course, the reality and honesty of making laws and going forward with decisions that affect a lot of people.

It is a pretty curious scenario we find ourselves in. The Bloc members say that they are sovereignists. They talk about how everything needs to change and how the status quo in Canada is a failure. At the same time, there is a motion before us that argues, in most cases, for the status quo. They do not have a proposal but they want the government to withdraw the bill. They do not want to put proposals on the table because they would just like us to listen to the people who will come before the committee.

As a member of the committee, we are certainly going to be listening to the witnesses. However, we are also asking the people across the way to give us some ideas and proposals of their own. The minister said that he looks forward to members of Parliament doing their jobs and putting forward proposals.

I find it quite curious that the Bloc wants to break up Canada because it does not work, but, on the other hand, does not seem to have any ideas about UI reform.

We have seen all sorts of polls and results from the department and people who have gone across the country asking Canadians about the proposals and what they reflect. The consultations, of course, do reflect a consensus in the country.

I am not a big fan of polls, as one might imagine, because they are just a snapshot of what people are thinking. However, these polls are so overwhelming that I thought I had better lay them out for the House this afternoon. For some reason, members across the way seem to suggest that 90 per cent of Canadians are opposed to UI reforms, when in fact some 77 per cent are in favour of UI reforms and in favour of major changes.

I have mentioned in the House many times that I come from rural northern Ontario where there is a very high unemployment rate. It is as high as that of some places in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada. We have not had any of the demonstrations that the people across the way talk about.

I asked myself why that was. There are as many seasonal workers in Ontario as there are in Atlantic Canada. As a matter of fact, there are more. We have to ask if the people of Atlantic Canada are different from those in Ontario. Are they different in Quebec than in Ontario? Are they different in B.C.? Quite frankly the answer to that is probably, yes. We are all different because we have different needs, objectives and different economies.

I can understand why the minister would bring up one of my old friends, Bob White, who is a unionist. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a unionist and have been one for many years. I worked in the railway industry and I had a lot of friends in the union.

The problem with the Bob Whites of the world and one of the reasons I get very distressed about the role of labour in Canada is the fact that people like Bob White have moved the union movement into a corner from which it cannot escape.

People have stopped listening to some of the union leaders because they are now involved heavily in political parties. There are groups in Quebec which are supposed to be representing workers but are more interested in representing the separatist movement and its cause than about whether individuals have jobs.

There are unionists who spend half of their time at NDP conventions and less time negotiating with government and business in trying to help solve some of the problems.

No wonder people such as myself and the Minister of Human Resources Development become frustrated with the union movement.

Of course, now Bob White and his friends have organized a demonstration which suggests this bill is not good, that we should scrap it and start all over. That is the furthest from the truth. There are some improvements which need to be made. However, when we asked the majority of Canadians: Do you think we need to make these changes, their answer was overwhelmingly, yes.

The issue that concerns people the most is increasing the qualifying period for new entrants. Youth are a major concern. Hopefully the committee will receive proposals, not only from the folks across the way but also from government members, on how that issue might be dealt with.

Sixty-seven per cent of Canadians agree with reducing benefits for frequent users. Seventy per cent of Canadians believe it would be a good thing to move from weeks to hours. Seventy-four per cent of Canadians believe that part time workers should be allowed to qualify.

Then there is the question of implementing job transition funds. The suggestion was made this morning that it was not a big issue and that we were just trying to buy people's silence by putting forward a transition fund. Try telling that to the 80 per cent of Canadians who believe that a job transition fund is a a very good idea.

With respect to low income Canadians, 82 per cent of people say that assisting low income families should be a priority. That is reflected in the bill.

I am having a difficult time, not only with what the Bloc is suggesting, but also with the lack of ideas from the Reform Party. The only Reform suggestion so far was that it should be a true insurance program. In the survey results we have received from the majority of Canadians, that is not what they want. They want a progressive package which helps Canadians get back to work in one fashion or another.

I can understand why the Reform Party is so low in the polls. It is far away from the reality of what people really want. Every time the Reform Party brings a suggestion to the House it is basically refuted by Canadians who argue that it does not make any sense.

For the first time 500,000 part time workers will be insured. Is that a bad thing?

The Bloc leader suggested today that first hour coverage, which would be for part time workers, is a bad thing. I am quite surprised. The unionists are trying to protect part time workers. Society is revolving around part time workers more and more every year. I am surprised that they would be opposed to that. I wonder who they are representing: their union bosses or the people who are going to be stuck in the situation of working part time.

Two hundred and seventy thousand workers will receive, on average, three extra weeks of benefits. The Bloc does not care about that. Bill C-12 will create up to 150,000 new jobs because of behavioural changes within the bill. Again the Bloc does not seem to be concerned about the unemployed whether they are in St. John's, Vancouver or Rimouski.

Bill C-12 reduces premiums by $1.3 billion this year alone, money that can be used to create jobs. The Bloc does not seem to care about that either. Bill C-12 allows women who have left the workforce to raise families to access employment benefits for the first time. The Bloc does not seem to care about these women either.

Quite frankly, I am amazed at how little Bloc members seem to care about the important aspects of this bill. Bill C-12 will refund premiums for $1.3 million low income workers, including 920,000 who pay premiums today. The Bloc does not care about increasing their take home pay either.

In the few minutes I had, I wanted to mention these issues. The minister has said publicly to all members of the House that there are areas of concern with the intensity rule, with the gap, with low income Canadians, with the divisor rule. All those issues have been targeted as something to which the government is prepared to find better solutions or answers if people can come up with some proposals.

I ask the members opposite this. Instead of playing political games for the sake of trying to break up Canada for their own political gain they should come up with some proposals that can be looked at in committee and will hopefully improve the bill even further than it goes already.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Question.

[Petitions, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by some 700 constituents across the country. They are very much interested in bringing to the House of Commons the importance of mining in Canada as well as the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Canadians working in and serving the mining industry.

The petitioners are looking for a system that will deal with the overlapping regulations and investment climate making sure that this industry remains in Canada. This is part of the Keep Mining in Canada campaign. I am very much a large supporter of it and urge the government to pay attention to their interests.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind remarks.

One of the things that has intrigued me the most about some of the comments members of the third party have made is that they keep saying the government did not cut taxes. Why did it not? They say it would stimulate the economy.

I want to quote a politician that the opposition knows very well, Premier Klein of Alberta. He has given advice to another friend of ours, the premier of Ontario, on the issue of making major tax cuts as part of his overall game plan.

I want to put it on the record because I think this must be the only group in Canada that thinks you can make these tremendous changes and reduce the deficit and get it under control while at the same time cut revenues by 30 per cent, as Mr. Harris has suggested.

Let me read the advice that Mr. Klein gave to Mr. Harris the other day, as quoted in the Toronto Star . ``Harris is wrong to be planning to cut taxes at the same time as he is cutting government spending. I think he is going to have real difficulty doing both. Here in Alberta we never even contemplated a tax cut. Our focus was entirely on eliminating the deficit''.

I concur with that. I believe that anybody who thinks that Mike Harris is going to give Ontarians a 30 per cent deal with his fiscal problems is smoking something that is illegal in Canada.

I cannot believe that the members opposite keep suggesting to us that we have not done a good job with our budget because we did not give a tax cut. I just thought maybe the members would keep in mind that their friend in Alberta disagrees with them.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the budget tabled by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

In the 1996 budget we have tried to reflect the commitments we made during the 1993 election. To the House and to all those listening in Kenora-Rainy River and across the country, it

continues to put our fiscal house in order and promotes our job and growth agenda.

We all know and have to continue to emphasize that when we came to office we inherited a deficit of $42 billion, 6 per cent of GDP. We stayed firm in our commitment to reach an interim goal of 3 per cent of GDP within three years.

To meet this goal we embarked on the most thorough review of government programs and spending ever seen in Canada. As the Minister of Finance pointed out yesterday, it would have been quite easy to balance the books in one year. We could have taken the Reform Party's approach and simply hacked away at the most vulnerable in society.

Fortunately, though, we are not the Reform Party. It tries to hide its lack of ideas by irresponsibility and spouting out simple solutions to complex problems. We take our responsibility to all Canadians very seriously. We do not try to offer easy answers because there are not any.

We have met our commitments to Canadians. Through our balanced approach we have brought government spending to its lowest level of GDP since 1949. At the same time we have maintained vital programs like health care which some members across the floor would be happy to abandon.

We have not only met our deficit targets, we have exceeded them. This budget sets out a 2 per cent deficit target for 1997-98. We are on the way to a balanced budget. We will not stop, I assure the House, and the finance minister has reiterated this, until we get there.

Cutting is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. We on this side of the floor recognize that. Our management of the economy has seen interest rates fall dramatically, a vital component of job creation which some people seem to forget. As a result, more than half a million full time jobs have been created during our mandate.

Some of us who are little bit younger may not be as wealthy as some of the folks across the way, but just think about this for a moment. If the average homeowner with a $100,000 mortgage were to factor in the changes in the interest rate for the last two years that have been possible by the changes that this government has made, the savings would be $2,400 a year. That is a significant amount of money for someone who has a mortgage. That is as good as any tax cut, the ability to say to the millions of people who have mortgages that they have saved a tremendous amount in interest payments because of the good fiscal management and policies of this government.

We recognize that we can and should do more. The budget sets the wheels in motion after the first two budgets cleaned up the Tory mess. We are going full steam ahead to provide opportunities to Canadians.

I do not have the time to go into the full details, but I want to touch on some of the key points in the budget that was presented to Canadians yesterday. The first point is youth. Young people today face great challenges both in financing their education and in finding their first job. The budget marks a major commitment to youth. Tax benefits for full time students are being increased. By doubling federal funding for summer jobs, an extra 30,000 young Canadians are being provided the opportunity to finance their education.

The government is building on the successful youth internship program and committing an extra $315 million to work with the private sector to create youth employment. Some people across the way might think that is small potatoes and something to sneeze at, but for young Canadians who know how difficult it is to get their first jobs that kind of help is welcomed news. By investing in our youth I can assure hon. members that the government and most Canadians believe we are building a stronger future.

We are also helping Canadian families, especially the working poor. Parents who want to upgrade their education and find better jobs will now be able to claim child care expense deductions. This includes parents who show the courage to return to high school. By changing the child support system, we are doubling the working income supplement of the child tax benefit. This will benefit more than 700,000 working Canadian families. This support for the working poor is one of the values that makes me proud to be a member of the government.

It is very easy to say cut and slash until the budget is balanced. However, we all know and I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, that in your riding there are many poor people who could not survive the kind of quick action that some parties in the House advocate.

We are also showing a dedication to seniors now and in the future by introducing the new seniors benefit. By targeting resources to those most in need, benefits for seniors with incomes below $40,000 will be maintained and increased. Our seniors built this country and the government will fight to protect their independence, their benefits and their dignity from those across the floor who want to leave them twisting in the wind.

I come from a relatively lower than middle class riding in northern Ontario. These kinds of changes are going to improve the positions of the vast majority of seniors who I represent. I would have thought that people across the House would have been quick to get up on their feet and say that this is a welcome change and something of which all parliamentarians should be proud, that we have made seniors more secure in their golden years.

I am also proud that we have set out a plan which will not only stabilize but will increase transfers to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education. After all, our party created medicare and will not see it destroyed. That commitment is what differs members on this side of the House from other members.

I would also like to touch on aspects of the budget that will directly affect rural Canada. As a rural member of Parliament I have spoken many times in the House and in caucus about rural Canada and its unique problems, as opposed to the problems some cities have.

The community access program helps rural and isolated communities develop and expand Internet access. In northwestern Ontario it is a real opportunity for us to overcome our isolation and compete with the world. This program has already benefited several communities in my riding, including Ear Falls, Ignace, Sioux Lookout and Dryden. The budget provides an extra $30 million to the vital program and I applaud the Minister of Finance for this.

Sometimes the very basics of infrastructure that people from major centres take for granted do not exist in the rural parts of the country. For us in rural Canada to compete not only with our friends in some of the major centres in Canada but around the world we must have the tools.

Private sector companies like Bell Canada will not put that kind of investment into rural Canada because there is no return on the investment. Therefore the government has a very legitimate role to play. I applaud the Minister of Finance and the government for recognizing that without government help these links would never take place.

Another vital sector that members have heard me speak about on several occasions is mining. The rural caucus my colleagues and I belong to has spent many afternoons and evenings in meetings with various ministers trying to convince them of the need to help the mining sector.

The new tax provisions concerning flow-through shares and capital cost allowances will spur exploration and investment. Rural Canada has been asking for these measures and the government has responded to the need.

Finally, the budget allows a 2 per cent increase for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I know the members of the Reform Party are going to criticize that increase. Before they do, they should learn a little history. They should visit some First Nation communities and have their blinders removed.

There are 46 First Nations in my riding, more I believe than any other riding in Canada and I am proud to represent these First Nations in the House. I have seen firsthand the poverty and despair brought on by decades of neglect and mistreatment by governments of all stripes. I have also seen the determination that First Nations have to take control of their destiny and break the cycle of despair.

We cannot rewrite history, but we can and must help toward a better future. Through our commitment to aboriginal Canadians we are writing a better future. I quite frankly applaud the government for recognizing the poorest of the poor in our country.

In conclusion, we have listened to the Canadian people. We have reduced spending. We have held the line on taxes. We have protected and enhanced the programs and benefits that provide opportunity for Canadians.

The Minister of Finance has lived up to his commitment and I want to congratulate him. Once again, I reconfirm that I support the budget and the government. We are on the right track and we are going in the right direction.

[Petitions, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present some 600 signatures on a number of petitions dealing with the Keep Mining in Canada campaign. One of the most important issues in Canada is the one of mining. It is a cornerstone for the betterment of Canada.

The petitioners ask the government to look at overlapping regulations and the investment climate. They hope that in reducing the overlap they can get the mining industry back to the number one position it held in the past.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Yes, I have my pension. Quite frankly, I am proud that I have earned it. I will be here for a long time before I get to collect it. At least I pay tax. A lot of the boys across the way do not pay any tax. There is an individual there from Ontario, our multi-millionaire friend, who does not pay any tax.

If this regional fringe party can articulate its vision of Canada and get higher than 10 per cent in the polls, then maybe we will start to look at some of its ideas. To date it is so far down that no one in the country is taking it seriously, including the people in my riding.