Lynn Myers

[The Economy, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the government for creating the kind of economic climate which has built tremendous confidence not only in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington but across Canada.

Let us consider the most recent economic and employment evidence. Unemployment has fallen to 8.6%. Full time employment rose by 84,000 jobs in February. Almost one-half of this February increase went to youth between the ages of 15 and 24 and two-thirds of this gain was full time work. Adult women also benefited by the February employment increase. This trend has been sustained over the past 12 month period. In that period full time employment has risen by 470,000 jobs.

All this spells good news for Canada and all Canadians. While we still have work to do, we are on the right track and Canadians know it.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for the question. This is not about soup or salt and spices but rather it is about access to opportunity for all Canadians, especially our young people.

What we are talking about here is not about what is content in education, which is solely under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. We understand that, we know that and we respect that. What we are talking about here is access to opportunity for our young people who deserve that very first and important first chance. That is what this government is talking about, that is what we are proceeding on and that is precisely the kind of thing that Canadians from coast to coast want, demand and need. That is what this government is providing.

As an educator I have to tell hon. members that I am very proud of the fact that we can proceed on this basis and provide the kind of solid training and background and ability to our young people and in the process ensure that they get the kind of opportunities that are all important for their future.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in speaking to the motion I note there is a sad honesty about it. It exposes the shortsightedness in the provincialism that the Bloc Quebecois brings to all issues of public policy. It proposes to “censure any action by the federal government in the area of education”.

However, the Bloc is trying to run away and hide from a world where all levels of government have a duty to be concerned about the education of our youth. The reason is obvious. Canada is part of a fast changing, competitive and interdependent world economy that is increasingly knowledge based.

This is not only because of the new high skilled jobs in high tech industries. There has also been a steady rise in skill requirements in all sectors of the economy and in all types of jobs.

The facts speak for themselves. Since 1981 jobs for Canadians with a high school education or less dropped by two million, but more than five million jobs were created for those with higher qualifications.

Education and knowledge are the keys to personal opportunity, security and growth. This has become a fact of modern life. I know this firsthand as a former educator and secondary school teacher with the Waterloo County Board of Education.

It is also a fact of modern life that not all Canadians are in a position to access the knowledge and skills they need throughout their lifetime to find and keep good jobs in a changing labour market.

Barriers, most often financial, reduce access to post-secondary education for many. While the federal government cannot ensure that every Canadian will succeed, it can enhance the quality of opportunity.

That is what our government has done in the 1998 budget. It has introduced the Canadian opportunities strategy which builds on actions in the 1996 and 1997 budgets and introduces historic new measures. This strategy addresses a core reality of the 21st century life: to get a job, to keep a job, to move on to a better job. There is only one resource that will equip Canadians to succeed, and that is to develop the best skills they can.

Clearly the Bloc would rather see Quebec students, parents and educational institutions do with less rather than be part of the national strategy. By taking this stance the Bloc demonstrates clearly and brutally that it puts its own parochial politics ahead of the future of young Quebeckers and all other Canadians.

Our government will not retreat from the international challenge of our young Canadians and what they face. That is why we have launched the Canadian opportunities strategy. This includes the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation, the largest single investment ever made by a federal government to access and support post-secondary education. The government will fund the foundation with an initial 10 year endowment of $2.5 billion. This investment will provide over 100,000 scholarships to low and medium income students each and every year over the next decade.

The scholarships will average $3,000 per year. They will be awarded to Canadians of all ages for part time as well as full time students. Students at all public institutions, not simply universities but colleges, CEGEPs and vocational and technical institutes, will be eligible to apply.

The foundation will be a private body operating at arm's length from the government. It has been designed to be sensitive to provincial jurisdiction and differences. Once established, the directors will consult closely with provincial governments in the post-secondary education community. Their goal will be to award scholarships in a manner that avoids duplication in any province, to build on existing provincial needs assessment processes and to complement existing provincial programs. The foundation will have the authority, subject to mutually agreed criteria, to contract with provincial authorities for the selection of scholarship recipients.

The millennium scholarship has drawn the most obvious attack in today's motion, but let me remind the House of the other components of the opportunities strategies that I am confident are being supported by the majority of Canadians including Quebeckers.

For example, the opportunities strategy recognizes that the cost of study can be particularly acute for people who have a family. To help them, Canada's study grants of up to $3,000 per year will be made available to over 25,000 students in financial need who have children.

The second thrust of the Canadian opportunities strategy takes bottom line action to help address student debt. The need is pressing. In just eight years the average debt load after a four year program has almost doubled to $25,000.

The budget announces that for the first time ever all students will be given tax relief on interest payments on their student loans. This will be provided through a 17% tax credit. For a student graduating with a $25,000 debt this will mean more than $500 less in taxes in the first year alone. Over a 10 year paydown tax relief could be as high as $3,200.

For individuals who still face difficult circumstances the government will extend up to five years the period in which it will pay all or part of the interest costs of student loans. This will benefit up to 100,000 graduates in financial hardship.

Our third action is responding to the fact that in today's information age, ability to continue earning depends on ability for new learning.

The educational credit is a major form of tax assistance to students. So far it has been available only to full time students. Now part time students will have access to the credit as well. This will assist 400,000 students.

The 1996 budget enabled full time students who are parents to claim the child care expense deduction against all types of income. Part time students will now become eligible to do this, which will benefit as many as 50,000 students.

What about working Canadians who want to upgrade their skills through full time study but do not have reasonable access to the financial resources this requires?

The Canadian opportunities strategy meets this challenge as well. Effective next January, Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs to support full time education and training. This can be repaid over 10 years.

The Canadian opportunities strategy is not just concerned with today's immediate needs. It also looks ahead to the students of tomorrow, assisting parents to prepare and plan for their children's future education.

We will provide a Canada education savings grant to supplement new contributions made to RESPs. For every dollar contributed, up to an amount of $2,000 a year, the government will provide a grant equal to 20% of the total which will be paid directly into the child's plan.

Last year's budget created the Canada foundation for innovation to provide facilities at our hospitals, universities and colleges which will support world class research, underscoring our strong commitment to research and development and the culture which that cultivates. That is very important for Canada and for the jobs it creates for Canadians.

This year we are providing new support for researchers themselves so that the best and brightest can fulfil that promise.

Effective immediately the budgets of the three research granting councils, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, will be restored to their 1994-95 levels. By the end of the year 2001 they will have received $400 million in additional resources, bringing their budgets up to their highest level ever.

A further element of the strategy reaches beyond the lecture hall and the lab to address another problem confronting young people, the dilemma of no experience, no job; no job, no experience.

We are introducing two measures to support the private sector and others in the challenge of hiring and training youth. First, over the next two years employment insurance premiums paid by employers will be eliminated for new jobs they create for Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24. Second, the 1998 budget doubles the resources devoted to the youth service Canada program to assist those particularly between the ages of 20 and 24.

Computer skills have now joined reading, writing and arithmetic as one of the basics of learning. Having access to a computer puts the world literally at your fingertips.

To bring that goal ever closer for Canadians and communities the government is boosting the resources available to both SchoolNet and the community access program.

In addition, the Canadian opportunities strategy is based on a very straightforward proposition that people, regardless of their income level, who are serious about getting an education should have that opportunity.

Of course there will always be a political issue here. There always is. Education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We understand that. The budget makes clear that we respect that profoundly. As the Minister of Finance said in his budget, we are not talking here about the content of what is being taught. What we are talking about is equal access to opportunity.

I would like to finish my remarks by looking back 35 years when two Canadian writers, an anglophone and a Quebecois, published a series of letters addressing issues of Quebec and Canada. One of the issues was education. Gwethalyn Graham wrote to Solange Chaput Rolland: “If French Canada is going to continue to insist that matters of education are exclusively the business of the provinces, then it will indeed be arguing that the rules are more important than the game”.

Our government knows that the rules are important. We are confident that our measures do not violate these rules and that they do not infringe on or jeopardize provincial responsibility and authority. However, we also recognize that helping young Canadians to master and win the knowledge game is even more important. That is what the Canadian opportunities strategy is designed to do. To censure such an initiative is to censure our government for putting people's future ahead of the Bloc's political grandstanding.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. This government has created the kind of climate for the economy that will enable all our young people to excel and proceed into their futures with not only confidence but also knowing full well they will have an opportunity we used to take for granted and now they should too.

We have been able to do that in a way that is commensurate with the kinds of dreams young people have. It is important that we proceed accordingly and carve out that kind of opportunity for all Canadians and especially our young people.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as a former educator, I can say that I was absolutely elated in terms of the kinds of initiatives that we see for our young people especially, for our youth who deservedly need that kind of assistance.

The reception not only in my riding but in Ontario and across Canada has been overwhelming in terms of the kind of reception people, and especially our young people, have given. They know full well this was an important historic budget that will sustain them into the year 2000 and the 21st century. It is very important that we give our young people those all important first chances and opportunities to enable them to carve out the kind of thing they require in terms of their lives and futures. I am proud to be part of a government that has been able to do that.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to look at the budget and read it very carefully so that he understands fully that low and middle income Canadians have in fact benefited from the kind of progress that we as a government are making. The member should consider the evidence. We have some of the lowest interest rates in historical perspective. We have generated an incredible amount of activity which has created the kind of climate that Canadians not only want but deserve.

The member makes reference to the G-7. We are leading the G-7 in terms of the kind of economic activity that we are doing. We have selectively noted that there will be tax reductions for low and middle income Canadians which is a good move and one that is very much deserved. We will see more of that. As time progresses there will be an opportunity for those kinds of initiatives to kick in. I look forward to that because it is important that we as a government move on that front.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Miramichi.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's budget debate and to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for leading us and all Canadians into the era of balanced budgets.

To me it is not the applause of economists and accountants that makes our first balanced budget so historic. It is the fact that our fiscal progress allows us to begin an equally crucial journey and that is to relieve the heavy tax burden which Canadians must shoulder. The residents of Waterloo—Wellington are grateful for the very steady course which has been taken by the government.

I am also very proud of the way the budget has launched this journey with reasonable prudent steps. The increase in the basic exemption and the elimination of the general surtax for Canadians earning under $50,000 a year will benefit 14 million citizens. They also ensure that our hard won fiscal progress is not put at jeopardy.

Of course we have already heard the squawks and the screeching that our tax initiatives should have gone further. As opposition parties it is always easy to advocate broader based tax relief, but this government has come too far in the fiscal battle to let that type of political grandstanding jeopardize the progress we have made to date and for which Canadians have worked so hard.

The challenge we must continue to meet and master is clear. We can only begin moving to even larger tax cuts when the attack on the fiscal mess left by the previous governments is truly over. That means not just continuing to run balanced budgets but also ensuring that the debt itself is set on a real downward course.

I am confident that most Canadians know that wider tax relief today would have been paid for in one of two ways: either by pushing us back into a deficit, or by cutting back on our investments in vital social programs. The increased funding we are providing to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer as an example, or our funding for the Canadian opportunities strategy as another example would have been cut.

What about that funding, especially the Canada millennium scholarship fund? I know it is tempting for critics to look at this $2.5 billion endowment and suggest that it might better go toward augmenting our $1.6 billion personal revenue tax relief for low and middle income people. However, the fact is that the scholarship fund is a one time investment. Its payouts will be spread across the 10 years in which we will be providing the scholarships. The general tax relief announced by the minister is much more permanent.

As a result of the two measures, the increase in the basic exemption and the elimination of the surtax, single people earning $30,000 a year will see their tax burden reduced by 3%. For single people earning $50,000 a year, they will see a 2.4% reduction. For families this is an important measure. Taxes will fall by 3.3% at $50,000. This means that a family with an income of $30,000 will receive a 31% reduction in taxes, with its total federal income taxes falling to about $300 or 1% of income.

Let us look at the saving to the total number of taxpayers. The combination of the increase in the basic exemption and the elimination of the general surtax will deliver $880 million in savings in the first year. As the economy and incomes grow, that saving will increase to almost $1.7 billion by the year 2000-01. In fact in over just three years the bottom line saving to taxpayers will exceed $4 billion. It will continue to grow year after year.

That is the fair and honest comparison which critics should make: our scholarship endowment with its one time $2.5 billion cost, equal to $250 million a year; and our tax relief, saving consumers $1.7 billion year after year.

To me this reflects the fair and balanced strategy which has become our hallmark since coming to office. We are not the party which tries to play Canadians off against each other. Our philosophy centres on acting where the need is greatest and where the government can do the most good. Surely taxpayers and students meet those criteria.

Let me emphasize, as the minister did in his budget speech, that this government's goal continues to be lower taxes and lower taxes even further. That is a pledge that Canadians can trust as our track record clearly shows and makes clear.

Remember, from our first days in office we have understood the economy and the social problems that are caused as a result of Canada's high taxation levels. That is why we did not increase personal taxes in any of our budgets.

You would probably have to go back a long time to find any comparable period when personal tax rates stayed unchanged, much less dropped as with this budget.

From the start, where we could afford it and where it could do the most good, we have implemented targeted tax cuts. These are cuts that this budget also builds on.

For example, it is our government that in 1998 lowered the employment insurance premium rate for employees from $2.70 per $100 of insurable earnings from the previous $2.90 rate. For workers, this means paying up to $78 less in premiums in 1998 than in 1997. For employers, it means paying up to $109 less per employee.

In fact, the 1998 premium rate reduction is the second largest drop in EI premiums since the 1970s. It will reduce premiums paid by employers and employees by an estimated $1.4 billion.

It was our government that in the 1997 budget proposed a two-step enrichment for the current $5.1 billion child tax benefit to create a new $6 billion Canada child tax benefit by July 1998.

Overall, more than 1.4 million Canadian families with 2.5 million children will see an increase in federal child benefit payments as of this July.

Also, it was this government that took concrete actions through the tax system to assist Canadians with disabilities. For example, a list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit has been significantly broadened and the customs tariff amended to provide duty free entry for all goods designed to use for persons with disabilities.

It was this government that acted through the tax system to enhance initiatives for charitable giving. These are already before this House in Bill C-28.

Once passed, this legislation will reduce the income inclusion rate on capital gains arising from charitable donations from 75% to 37.5%. This puts Canadian charities on an equal footing with those in the United States.

Let me highlight just a few more tax reduction measures we have implemented over the last four years to help Canadians and sectors most at risk or in need.

We have eliminated the seven-year limit on unused RRSP room so that Canadians who face short term economic problems do not have to feel that their retirement saving is in jeopardy.

We have raised the annual limit on the transfer of the tuition fee and education amounts to those who support students from $4,000 to $5,000. We have increased the annual limit on contributions to registered education savings plans from $1,500 to $2,000 and the lifetime limit from $31,500 to $42,000. Through Bill C-28, we are increasing the annual limit another $2,000.

We have broadened the eligibility for the child care expense deduction to assist parents who undertake education or retraining. We allowed most charitable and public organizations to raise funds without collecting and remitting GST on sales. We have provided a 100% GST rebate on books purchased by public libraries, educational institutions and other specific bodies.

We still have no illusions that these measures are more than very small steps in addressing a very large problem but they are real steps, steps designed to do the most good with the resources we have available. Most important, most of them are steps that reflect our national values, providing mutual support for Canadians in need or who face real disadvantage.

That is why our 1998 budget keeps our red book II promise to further enrich the Canada child tax benefit. This enrichment will be made in two steps, an increase of $425 million annually beginning in July 1999 and a second increase of $425 million annually commencing in July 2000.

Next, as the Minister of Finance told us to help working Canadians with children, the 1998 budget proposes to increase the limit on the child care expense deduction.

Beginning in 1998, the limits for the child care expense deduction will increase from $5,000 to $7,000 for children under age seven and from $3,000 to $4,000 for children between the ages of seven and sixteen. This measure will benefit some 65,000 Canadian families with children.

We have also been a government that recognizes the challenge of the aging population. We have had to address this in connection with the Canada pension plan. We will be addressing it further with the seniors benefit, but this budget takes it a further step.

There are other tax measures in this budget that I could highlight and other examples of actions in previous budgets that we can be proud of but I think my point is clear. Our performance on behalf of the average taxpayer is concrete, credible and consistent. I look forward to our future budgets as our fiscal strength expands, when this government will further broaden and deepen the tax relief that Canadians not only deserve but also desire.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a recent report was prepared for Human Resources Development Canada based on an 18 month study into underground economic activity, the $92 billion a year construction industry. The report was prepared by the consulting firm, KPMG.

The study which ended last fall was conducted by a working group headed by a consortium of consulting firms and involved a half dozen federal departments and agencies including Revenue Canada, Finance, Statistics Canada, Industry Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Government suspects and those in the industry claim the construction workers operating in the underground economy are padding their untaxed earnings with EI, welfare or workers' compensation. Governments fear that underground activity in this area is undermining their ability to fund those same social programs, as well as the Canada and Quebec pension plans.

The abuse and undermining of social programs are only two of the disturbing findings of the study into an industry long suspected of being a major player in the underground economy where otherwise legitimate activities are hidden and not taxed or regulated.

When the untaxed wages of workers in the underground economy are added on to social program payments, they often earn more than workers on legitimate construction jobs, according to the report, and it so notes. Those workers are also putting their future financial security at risk.

Workers are being pressured into accepting less than legitimate working arrangements under which employment insurance premiums are not deducted, workers' compensation is not provided, and there is no protection against dangerous or unhealthy working conditions.

It would appear that while economic factors are the largest factor in driving the underground economy, the picture is complicated by other factors including politics, an inverted sense of self-righteousness, various forms of sociocultural motivation and the role of EI, workers' compensation, social assistance and other benefits. The underground economy therefore is not only flourishing, it would appear, but it is also growing.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to outline exactly what the government plans to do to correct the abuse and what the government plans to do to stop the undermining of our social programs as a result of this underground activity.

[Eli And Lauretta Martin, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House of Commons today to pay tribute and congratulate Eli and Lauretta Martin who recently celebrated their 70th anniversary.

Mr. and Mrs. Martin, both in their 90s, reside in their own home in Elmira in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington.

Mr. and Mrs. Martin have a long and distinguished career in the retail and service sectors. In addition both have done extensive volunteer work in their community. They have taught their children the importance of hard work and the value of give and take in a relationship.

I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating Eli and Lauretta Martin on their 70th anniversary. We wish them many more years of happiness together.

[White Cane Week, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the white cane means freedom, and communities across Canada celebrated freedom during white cane week recently.

This awareness week, organized by the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, aims to raise awareness about the significance of the white cane.

A person using a white cane is no different from anyone else. Their white cane is an essential tool for travel so that they can get around safely.

There are thousands of Canadians who know firsthand the significance of the white cane. All across Canada people are learning more about blindness and vision loss. I encourage all Canadians to find out what is happening in their community in this regard. Canadians can do so by contacting their local Canadian Council of the Blind office or the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in their area.