Wayne Easter

[Supply Management, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The minister is no doubt aware that in Canada's second submission to the NAFTA panel there is reference to the fact that Canada should have been more specific on whether tariffs for supply management are a GATT or NAFTA issue.

Could the minister assure the House this admission in no way compromises our position with respect to our commitment to protect supply management?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time because of what I see are points raised by members opposite which are off the mark especially relative to manpower training. I want to set the record straight as it relates to Bill C-12.

The Government of Canada does recognize that labour market training is a responsibility of provincial governments, linked to their responsibility for education.

The proposed employment insurance act, Bill C-12, provides for a range of employment measures which opposition members well know are to help unemployed Canadians find and keep work. These measures could include: wage subsidies, income supplements, support for self-employment, partnerships for job creation and skill loans and grants. In line with the government's commitment to training, skill loans and grants will only be implemented with the consent of the province concerned, including Quebec.

This bill is a major step beyond the path of the UI program of the past. It focuses on jobs in providing unemployed workers with the tools they need to get back to work. One of the great strengths of the bill is that it clarifies more than ever before federal responsibilities in this area. It commits the federal government to work in concert with the provinces and territories to help people find jobs.

With employment insurance, the federal government will phase out training purchases, apprenticeship programs, co-operative education and workplace based training. Any employment measure that involves training such as skill loans and grants to individuals will only be used in a province with the province's consent.

The Government of Canada will seek formal agreements with each province on the design and delivery of the new employment benefits to harmonize these with provincial programs and eliminate overlap and duplication. These agreements might take many different forms depending on the priority of each province. If a province wants more control, the bill allows the federal government to delegate administration of federal employment measures to a province or even to fund provincial programs in place of federal ones if they achieve the same results.

Results are what really matter to Canadians, no matter who delivers the employment benefits. Flexibility, co-operation and partnerships are the key to getting results.

Employment insurance through Bill C-12 allows new partnerships to develop and evolve for the future. It will lead to a more effective labour market development better matched to local market realities. It will get rid of wasteful overlap and duplication. It will focus all our resources and energies on the real challenge at hand, helping Canadians find and keep jobs. That is the important purpose of manpower training. It is to give people the skills so they can have the skills in place to attract business to their province and

regions, and then have the opportunity to take on those new jobs in the marketplace of the future.

Canadians want their governments to work together. Employment insurance reflects the commitment of the Government of Canada to work with the provinces, a commitment to a federalism that will work for all Canadians.

[Farming, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize a P.E.I. farm leader who has given much of his life to the farm movement.

Urban Laughlin of Sherbrooke, P.E.I. was elected last week for his 20th one-year term as district director of district one, region one of the National Farmers Union.

Urban's dedication and that of his wife Mary to the concerns of primary producers and the family farm in my opinion is unsurpassed.

Mr. Laughlin has always taken a very principled position on farm issues within his organization and in farm policy circles. The motto "Farmers are Important" is emphasized time and time again. His voice has been important in providing focus to debates and alternatives to the open market approach to marketing, thereby forcing policymakers to keep farmers in mind in their decision making.

I offer my congratulations and his continued success as a farm leader.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that was quite a long winded question.

We are trying to find a better balance in the budget by having a fairer taxation policy and that shows throughout the budget papers.

I always enjoy the member's questions concerning the agricultural area. As I mentioned, because of concerns the member and some of his constituents raised, we have moved to address the concerns of the Crow benefit payout. We moved up the time frame it would be paid out so that producers would have the capital up front to do what they have always wanted to do in western Canada: get into a more diversified economy.

The bill also increases the ability of the livestock sector and makes it more competitive because there is cheaper grain as a result of the transportation changes.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the remarks by the hon. member. It makes one wonder if he has even read the budget.

The facts are that we have been moving forward in step while reducing the deficit. We have not been reducing the deficit on the backs of people.

It is very important that there is a surplus in the UI fund. The last thing we want is what previous governments have done and not build up a surplus in the EI fund. When you are in a recession you have to increase premiums in order to cover the unemployment insurance benefit payments and as a result you start to kill the economy. It is very important to build up a surplus in the EI fund.

The hon. member says the government is not creating jobs. The most tremendous potential of the country is its youth. The budget has set aside funding for increased summer employment of youth. It looks at measures for training. It looks at new technologies. It sets up a new agency to try to increase spending in those areas where youth will be gaining jobs in the future. It is trying to build on that potential so that Canada has a sound economy in the future. I would suggest that the member re-read the budget.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter the budget debate and I congratulate the minister for the progress he has made in getting the deficit under control.

I support the approach of the minister in setting short term targets and meeting them with a gradual, well executed plan. It is clear that the approach has increased confidence in the economy.

In Atlantic Canada, the unemployment rate decreased from December 1994 to December 1995 from 14.1 per cent to 12.3 per cent. Domestic exports from January to October 1995 over the same period in 1994 have increased by 18.8 per cent. Manufacturing shipments have increased by 11.6 per cent.

In P.E.I., tourist data show that total visitor spending increased from $121.5 million in 1993 to $177.9 million in 1995. That is a clear indication of a healthier economy because most of the visitor spending statistics show the spending came from Canadian visitors in the main.

No doubt that is due to the better economy brought on by the successive budgets of the Minister of Finance. People want to come to see the beauty and the wonderful hospitality of Prince Edward Island. I encourage members in the House to come and see for themselves. Because of the improving economy and because we have a provincial Liberal government in Prince Edward Island, that province last week announced its second surplus budget. Certainly the Minister of Finance in Prince Edward Island should be congratulated for his performance.

Quite a number of my colleagues have talked about major advancements in the budget to address the needs of people. Measures are targeted at youth employment. We certainly welcome that endeavour. The increase in the working income supplement is a major move forward which I support, as I do securing seniors' pensions into the future.

In all our budget measures, finding the balance is always difficult. Since I came to this place, I have tended to lay out the facts, the good and the difficult. I intend to do so again today.

We must recognize the impact the federal budget will have on rural Canada and the economic activity on which rural communities are based, especially when the budget is combined with previous budgets.

We have to be cautious when looking at investing in the new technologies. It is the natural resource industries: agriculture, fishing, mining and forestry that have been the mainstay of the country over the years and will continue to be the mainstay into the future. In our quest to expand into the new service and technology areas, we should not draw too far from those basic natural resource areas that have built this country to what it is today.

This is my key point today. The government must recognize the necessity to continue to pursue its initiatives of deficit and debt reduction but with a key proviso that if the initiatives currently under way begin to have a negative impact specifically on the economic well-being of rural Canada, the federal government will be prepared to respond quickly, adjusting those policies should they have a negative impact.

I ask specifically that the government monitor the impact on rural Canada and be prepared to address negative impacts should they occur. Rural Canada has done more than its fair share in meeting our deficit needs. These have included transport policy changes, cost recovery and marine policy, cost recovery in Agriculture Canada, reduction of subsidy programs in the farm community. In the main and from what I hear from rural Canadians, they are

willing to accept the new responsibilities and shoulder on. But should the burden become excessive, I expect the government to be there to back them up.

I view the throne speech in part as being that kind of commitment. The throne speech said in part:

The Government is committed to the economic renewal of rural Canada. The Government will address the problems facing rural Canadians in a way that is tailored to their needs. Rural Canada is rich in natural and human resources and faces different challenges than urban areas. The Government will move forward in the coming session to make sure that all Canadians benefit from economic prosperity.

Let me take a moment to outline one of the areas that is the foundation of wealth in the country, the agriculture sector. Agriculture accounts for 8 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product. It accounts for 15 per cent of Canada's total employment, 1.8 million jobs. In 1995 agriculture products accounted for $17.3 billion of exports, a 30 per cent increase over two years.

As I have already mentioned, we have to be careful not to undermine the goose that laid the golden egg, the agriculture sector. Over the past couple of years it has absorbed some hits and has lost programs.

I do not mind admitting that I am a little worried about the new and increasing use of user fees throughout the agriculture and supporting sectors that add to costs. In fact, in agriculture and agri-food alone we could face, I believe, 42 such user fees. One in and of itself is not a problem but the domino or multiplier effect could be serious and we need to monitor it to ensure that does not happen.

Another point I would like to make about user fees is that not only does the government have to monitor and control its deficit, it also has to keep in mind that other trading countries, our competitors, do the same thing and cut back on their subsidy programs and increase the costs to their agriculture sector. We do not want to find ourselves in a position of undermining the competitiveness of our producing sector in our gusto for deficit reduction.

There are all kinds of examples where the government, differing from previous governments, has responded to unexpected and serious happenings. For example, the recommendations with respect to the feed freight assistance has enabled the federal government to change the timeframe within which compensation is to be provided from the initial 10 to 3 years. That was a change recognizing the concerns of farmers.

The effort to sell the government owned hopper cars to the railways at a discount of 75 per cent of market value with farmers picking up the remaining 25 per cent through increased freight charges has been delayed, allowing a producer based coalition to come forward with an alternative financing arrangement in which maybe producers could take control of those cars. Those are good, positive moves.

In conclusion, the Atlantic region in particular has long faced unique challenges in its economic development. One key role the federal government has performed is to assist those provinces and the region through the sharing of national resources and wealth. This has been the hallmark of the Canadian federation.

It will be important that where financial transfers are being reduced over the next number of years that the federal government ensure that essential services are maintained. Should there be problems those changes should be monitored and the government be prepared to meet the challenges to assist the producers and the communities should they find themselves in unexpected need.

[Canada Post, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recently I participated in a public hearing held on Prince Edward Island regarding the future role of Canada Post.

This meeting was organized to provide province-wide input and discussion on the review of Canada Post, in part because P.E.I. is being ignored by the review committee set up by the former minister.

Participants stressed the importance Canada Post plays with respect to our Canadian heritage when we as a country are struggling to redefine ourselves. Canada Post is an institution that operates in many communities throughout Canada. Its continued existence is essential, especially in rural communities where it shows the presence of the federal government and provides services which must be accessible to all Canadians.

I will be sending a summary report to the mandate review committee but at this stage participants reinforced their support for the continued existence of Canada Post and all the services it provides.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the remarks of the member opposite it is no wonder people in society are showing their disrespect for MPs and for government. I am surprised at how the member downgraded the members of Parliament in the House by saying that they are basically not intelligent enough to present good ideas.

To quote John Ralston Saul: "People become so obsessed by hating government that they forget it is meant to be their government and is the only public powerful force they have purchase on". He goes on to say: "My point is that the individual and the government are linked together by an artery. If we act to sever that artery by replacing or opposing a central role for government, we cease to be individuals and revert to the status of subject".

One of the things we are seeing promoted by the Reform Party is to get government out of everything. I would like the member to be more specific than he was in his remarks. Does he see a role for government at all?

The unemployment insurance program he talked about is very important to this country in terms of ensuring that we do not have the same situation which happened last year when people from Atlantic Canada competed for jobs in London, Ontario because there were no jobs in Atlantic Canada. This country needs a program such as UI, or EI as this government is proposing, which allows people to live in the off season and keeps them in their regions as full time workers in seasonal industries. Those programs are needed.

Could the hon. member tell me specifically what he is saying the role of government should be? Could he be specific in terms of what he is asking us to get out of and to stay in?

[Finance, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to speak following the slash and burn speech I just heard. Let me say to the hon. member that this government instead of just listening to the IMF and taking its direction, listens to the Canadian people and tries to meet their needs through the budget that we propose.

I will begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Finance for their efforts in terms of holding prebudget consultations across the country. On November 27 the finance committee conducted prebudget hearings in my province of Prince Edward Island. That gave the opportunity for many island groups and individuals to present their views on the direction the government must take when designing the 1996 budget. Their views will certainly assist the committee in preparing its recommendations for the minister. I want to thank those islanders who took the time and the effort to think through the briefs and to present them.

There is no question about it the round table in Charlottetown put forward many views and recommendations from all sides of society. It is crucial that the government listen to what those presentations said. We had to find a balance between the massive job of deficit reduction and our social obligations to all Canadians. I would like to quote a couple of remarks from those presentations because they do differ from the left to the right of the political spectrum.

The Charlottetown Chamber of Commerce put forward its position that "the deficit must be reduced more rapidly with tough but attainable targets being clearly set out and achieved". They do go on to say though that "the entire program could take over 25 years. Given that we have had 20 years of overspending to arrive at our present position, such a time frame for debt elimination is both appropriate and manageable". As well, the chamber of commerce suggested four points: continuation of privatization; harmonization of the GST and PST; doing away with jurisdictional overlaps; and changing the annual filing system to perhaps two or three years in order to save money.

A different presentation from the opposite side of the spectrum came from John Eldon Green. He said: "I am not one of those who believes the new disentanglement can be achieved according to the rapid schedule of the finance minister or those around him, or indeed of the entire financial community in Canada. I would get out of debt the way we got into it, slowly, gradually and over the long term. What is now being attempted is entirely counter to the creation of an environment for jobs and growth", from his point of view.

Mr. Green went on to say: "The issue for me is: How much money is there in Canada and what is an appropriate amount to be left with the people, allocated to governments and devolved to other countries? Our borders have to remain open to business, but I have trouble seeing the jobs and businesses of people around me being sacrificed in the cause of global business and undertaxed profit. However I do not know the numbers but then no one in Ottawa these days seems to know anything but". I think it is a valid point.

The view of priorities that governments should set for themselves is not disputed. We as a government must also recognize

that if they are achieved at the expense of social programs on which all Canadians depend, then this quick fix is much too high a price to pay.

There are basic programs that benefit all Canadians as well as the business community: educational programs, medicare, et cetera. Yes, these programs do cost money but we can have a debate on whether it is a cost or an investment. I see these kinds of programs that this government is pursuing as an investment in the people of this country to ensure that they have the means by which to work in the job community in the future.

In fact many of these programs that we have as a Canadian government today are an asset to the business community in terms of its members being able to compete abroad.

We must maintain the level of social programs we currently have. They are one thing that unites us as a country and why this country is recognized as the best country in the world in which to live.

The approach taken by the minister to date has been a reasonable one. The minister's statement last week showed the progress we are making. Some, like members of the third party we just heard, like to blow the deficit out of proportion. Somehow they disregard the needs of people. They like to blow the deficit out of proportion and negate the progress we have made. Clearly, we have made progress.

The 1994-95 deficit was $400 million lower than predicted. We are on track to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 in a timely and reasonable way. In my province in November 1995 the unemployment rate fell to 12.2 per cent, down more than 6 per cent from the 18.5 per cent when this government took office. Retail trade has strengthened through 1995 and outperforms by far the national level.

Given that kind of progress, we now must undertake and make a much greater effort to better balance the social side of the equation. Yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Human Resources Development is a move in the right direction in terms of increasing child care spaces in the country.

In terms of the social and tax balance on the tax expenditure side, a loss of tax due to a tax break either to corporations or to the wealthy is as much a cost as the direct expenditure of dollars under government programs. To date, governments at all levels have tended to target the direct expenditures and too much have ignored the tax expenditures. It is very important in this budget to try and balance that.

I know it is not easy in the face of the current attitudes that are prevalent throughout the country and throughout the world. I want to quote from Peter Newman's book, The Canadian Revolution :

"The values of the marketplace have infiltrated every institution in Canada: the family, the church, the legal system.... Anti-human, commercial values are dominating every sphere of life. Now that we're coming into economic hard times, the sense of each man for himself-save your own skin, get whatever advantage you can-is going to sink public spiritedness and make it much more difficult to preserve our sense of obligation to community".

I make that point to stress the kind of attitudes that are out there at the moment. Those are the kinds of attitudes that are coming from the Reform Party. Real leadership by the government in the face of that hard nosed attitude is required. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance mentioned earlier the action necessary which the government is taking to address the concerns of people.

The employment insurance proposal was one that was mentioned. I do want to point out that I hope two measures in that bill can be changed. One is the intensity of work rule and the other is the calculation of the benefit base. We must ensure coming out of this budget and the policy objectives of the government that the seasonal industries do have the opportunity to grow and prosper.

In conclusion, let me quickly list some of the initiatives I would like to see furthered in the next budget.

We must start to develop a program that deals with child poverty. Expansion of the infrastructure works program should also be considered. That has been an excellent program. In fact, it has put in place a base for businesses to develop and grow.

The major industries in Canada are still the natural resource industries. Although we hear much about the knowledge based industries and the technological highway, it is important that we not ignore those natural based industries: agriculture, fisheries, forestry and mining.

As well, we need to enhance and strengthen the ability to market products internationally. We need to renew our commitment to the great marketing institutions across this nation, the Canadian Wheat Board and the supply management boards which have brought prosperity to communities and continue to contribute to the balance of trade.

We need to continue to maintain and strengthen our regional development programs and, in my area, specifically, ACOA. I will make one point on ACOA. Since 1993, ACOA's programming and partnering with the provinces and the private sector has created and maintained over 46,200 jobs. It has assisted 5,300 businesses. It has a proven track record in small and medium size business development.

[Employment Insurance, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to say that as part of the democratic process I will be conducting a public town hall meeting tomorrow with respect to the employment insurance proposals.

This is a very important process for me and every member of Parliament to undertake. We as elected representatives must listen to our electorate and the concerns about legislation that will affect their lives directly and indirectly.

I recognize there is some concern over the intensity of work rule. We as a government must show that we are willing to listen to new options and amend legislation accordingly.

Public meetings also give us the opportunity to gauge what we are doing right. For example, the introduction of insurance benefit clawbacks for high income earners has been initially accepted and supported by various groups.

I invite all my colleagues to hold hearings to get the input of their electorate. I look forward to reporting back to the House on the results of the public meeting on this important issue.