Derek Wells

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-10, the borrowing authority bill. The government is asking this honourable House for $18.7 billion of borrowing authority for the 1996-97 fiscal year. As in previous years, the amount of borrowing authority requested in the bill is directly connected to the financial requirements set out in the 1996 budget.

The budget which was presented on March 6 was good news for Canadians. It focuses on many important areas that need the attention of government. The areas being addressed that I am especially pleased with are the deficit, the economy, social programs and young Canadians. Bill C-10 will allow for the implementation of these initiatives.

I would like to applaud the Minister of Finance for keeping the government on its deficit targets with no new taxes. It is reassuring to see that it is possible for a government to make a budgetary plan, as was outlined in the Liberal red book, and then stick to it budget after budget. Our deficit targets are not only being met, they may be exceeded. This provides us with the confidence that our deficit target for 1996-97 of 3 per cent of GDP is secure, as well as our new interim target of 2 per cent for 1997-98.

The main objective of the Liberal platform during the election was job creation. That is exactly what we are aiming to do through creating the proper economic climate by getting our fiscal house in order. There is a direct link between deficit reduction, interest rate reductions and job creation.

The government has not only kept its promises, it has made new ones.

A very important focus in the budget is on children, youth and the future of our country. The budget provides an additional $165 million over three years to help students and their families deal with the increased costs of education. The budget will increase education tax credits, raise the limit on the transfer of tuition and education credits and increase the limit of contributions to RESP, the registered educational savings plan. That is a small price to pay to open up new educational opportunities to the younger generation. I welcome these measures.

Also announced was an additional $315 million of funding over the next three years to create new youth employment opportunities. There was a real need for government action in this area.

This country has a 16 per cent youth unemployment rate. That is unacceptable to me and it is unacceptable to the government. It is important to provide young people with new challenges and their rightful place in the workforce. That is why the government has committed to doubling the funding for the summer career program to provide students with the work experience needed when they graduate and seek their first full time job.

I am also pleased with the government's new domestic Team Canada style partnership approach between business and government to create entry level jobs for our youth. The government is also on the right track when it devotes funding to involving youth in the Internet. That has happened in several ways.

The SchoolNet program will eventually connect all schools throughout Canada to the information highway. This is vital in keeping Canada globally competitive. It provides youth with the technological skills which will soon be considered mandatory to doing business throughout the world. This also provides schools with a link to the rest of the country which promotes the exchange of information and allows students to learn about their country in new and creative ways.

I applaud the innovative plan announced in the budget by the minister to provide jobs to 2,000 computer students to connect 50,000 small businesses to the Internet. This not only provides valuable work experience for youth but will give small businesses the competitive edge they need to succeed in today's economy.

The financial security of children was also an important focus of the budget. I was pleased to see that new child support measures will be introduced. Fairer tax treatment has been called for by custodial parents for some time now and the government has acted. The new tax system will be simpler for parents. To be fair, the increased tax revenues received will be reinvested to support the implementation costs of the federal child support guidelines.

In addition to this, children will be directly aided by a two-step doubling of the working income supplement. This increase from a maximum annual benefit of $500 to $700 in 1997 and to $1,000 in July 1998 will help low income families cope with such increased costs as child care and transportation to work. This supplement is an added incentive to work rather than to collect social assistance.

This type of incentive is vital to break the cycle of financial dependence that many Canadians face. These changes will affect

upwards of 700,000 families by increasing their benefits an average of $350 a year. It is important to note that one-third of these families are headed by single parents.

A major focus of the recent budget which we are implementing with Bill C-10 will be helping Canadians who need it the most. This has been exemplified by the government's new initiatives for children and youth, which I have discussed, and for seniors with the new seniors benefit which will begin in the year 2001.

Along these same lines, the government has taken measures to protect those Canadians who need medical services, post-secondary education and social assistance. These services were secured in the last budget when the government created the Canadian health and social transfer.

The government in the budget announced a firm commitment for five years starting in 1998-99. For the first two years funding will remain constant at $25.1 billion. For the remaining three years funding will increase each year. This is good news for the provinces and for all Canadians.

Recently I met with representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They told me that they are very supportive of this on behalf of the municipalities. They feel it will provide them with the stability they need as they do their planning. That was very encouraging to me.

There is security in knowing that funding will remain the same or higher for the five-year period beginning in 1998-99. The government has made several other long term commitments such as the new seniors benefit. Not only does this allow Canadians the opportunity to plan ahead, but it demonstrates to business that the government has a long term financial plan that will promote a stable economy. They can therefore feel secure doing business in Canada.

I fully support Bill C-10 and the budget it is implementing. The budget contains much needed programs and additional spending in the areas I have outlined. We have met our deficit targets and will continue to do so with no new taxes in 1996-97. I urge all members of the House to vote for Bill C-10.

[Fisheries, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans responded to recommendations coming from recent meetings between representatives of Scotia-Fundy fisheries organizations and senior DFO officials in Dartmouth. As a result, I am happy to report that all offices in southwest Nova Scotia have now been vacated.

I would like to commend the minister for endorsing the consensus recommendations and his commitment to seeking resolution where agreement was not reached.

The minister has shown that he is willing to listen to the concerns of fishermen and to continue to work toward resolution on the more contentious issues.

Because of concerns expressed to me by fishermen, I have been recommending for months that the core criteria be revised to include fishermen who have 75 per cent of their earned income from fishing which will include many small handline fishermen. The minister's commitment to this change is very important.

While not all of the issues were resolved, I am pleased by the amount of consensus coming from the meetings. It shows that a free flow of dialogue between the fishermen and the department can lead to new agreements and a better working relationship. I commend all who were involved for their patience and flexibility.

[Fisheries, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

This week an unprecedented meeting was held in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia by a coalition of inshore fisheries groups from the Scotia Fundy region with senior officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Along with other hon. colleagues from the region I worked diligently to ensure this meeting took place, that fishermen's concerns were listened to and that a positive outcome could be achieved.

Would the minister please inform the House of the results of this three-day meeting.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been very critical of some of the things he says are in the budget. He has not recognized the programs for youth.

The theme of my speech when I give it next week is to compliment the government on two main things: the government has maintained its deficit targets and there are no new taxes. In my opinion it is reassuring to see that it is possible for a government to make a budgetary plan, as was outlined in the Liberal red book, and then stick to that plan budget after budget.

I did acknowledge the member opposite saying the government did have a plan. That plan projected certain deficit targets. Not only will we meet those targets, we will exceed those targets.

The main objective of the Liberal platform, the point I want to make, was job creation. There is a recognition of that. That is what we are doing by creating the proper economic climate.

The member would acknowledge that there is a direct link between deficit reduction, interest rate reduction and job creation. That is the aim of the government. That is what it will continue to do as it not only meets its targets but exceeds its targets on its way to a zero deficit over the next number of years.

[Fisheries, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for the past several months I have been meeting with fishermen's organizations at round tables to try to reach a consensus on many of the major issues facing the fishery today.

I expressed to them my deep commitment to the inshore fishery and to the small coastal communities that rely on the prosperity generated by this sector of the fishery.

For the past month fishermen in my riding and adjoining ridings throughout Nova Scotia have participated in demonstrations and have occupied Department of Fisheries and Oceans offices across the province in protest of new policies they feel will be harmful to the inshore fishery.

Unfortunately since the occupation of DFO offices which began in Barrington in my riding of South Shore, the lines of communication between the fishermen and the department have not been open. I have met and will continue to meet with the leaders of the fishing organizations.

Last week I attended two round tables in order to maintain an open dialogue. I urge those involved to move beyond the present impasse so that the issues causing this conflict can be resolved by dialogue in a productive and rational manner.

[Lunenburg, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House today to acknowledge the designation by UNESCO of old town Lunenburg in my riding of South Shore as a world heritage sight.

There are only 12 such designated areas in Canada. It is a great honour to have Lunenburg as one of them. Lunenburg's unique historical architecture and its traditional settlement pattern are known to everyone who has visited the town.

The old town's historical integrity is depicted in its streets, public spaces, buildings and daily life. The Lunenburg Academy, which is still operational, celebrated its 100th birthday last summer and has been featured on a commemorative stamp.

Lunenburg's popularity as a tourism destination is constantly growing due to its role in history as home of the Bluenose and the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic as well as the continuing efforts made by residents and businesses alike.

This designation is an honour to South Shore and depicts the pride our people have in Lunenburg.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today we remember the tragedy that occurred on December 6, 1989. It has been six years since 14 young women at École Polytechnique in Montreal lost their lives. The pain of that day is still fresh in our minds.

Although much has been done to improve public awareness with respect to violence against women, we have only to read the papers to see that it is still happening every day. One look at the statistics demonstrates that women continue to be the target of violent acts.

Steps have been taken by the Liberal government over the last two years to curb violence against women and to promote women's equality both within Canada and internationally. Within Canada, the federal plan for gender equality was announced while internationally, Canada played a leading role at the United Nations World Conference on Women. However, we still have a long way to go.

Today, on the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, take a moment to remember the 14 young women who died, as well as countless others who have suffered, both here in Canada and around the world.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, that comment is very much like the motion, a distortion of the true facts. That is certainly not what I said or implied. To even suggest it to me is an insult. I did not say that. I will not suggest it. The member should not even think it.

We all recognize that people who are out of work are not out of work by choice. At the same time the present system is not helping them. We are trying to bring in employment measures that will assist these people to get the tools and that will help industry and business create the jobs these people badly want.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I did an interview in my riding last week. Some people who discussed the issue were in favour of some parts of the program and against other parts. To suggest that we can bring in this substantial change without there being some negative comment is not possible. Certainly when people will be affected there will be some negative comment.

However, on balance it is clear to me from discussions with the business community and others in my riding that the change from weeks to hours is very positive. Every hour of work will now count in the seasonal industries. In many of the industries in Atlantic Canada people do not work a 35-hour week during peak periods. They work 40, 50 and 60 hour weeks. Now they will get credit for

all the extra time, whereas in the past they would only get credit for the week regardless of the number of hours. That is a very positive aspect that has been accepted and endorsed by Atlantic Canadians.

As I stated earlier, there will be at least 45,000 additional people in Atlantic Canada who will now qualify for benefits. They are not getting benefits now because in most cases they are working less than the 15 hours presently needed to qualify.

In addition there is the new family support benefit, a family income supplement for low income families with children. This provision will allow claimants to earn up to 80 per cent of their insured income.

Those are just three points but there are others. I could perhaps cite six or seven other provisions that are very beneficial to Atlantic Canadians which will offset some areas where without question some adjustment will be needed. We all recognize that we need to make structural changes to make the system an employment program as opposed to an unemployment program.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the Bloc motion on the subject of unemployment insurance reform. I can only begin by saying how astounded I am that such a motion could have been drafted, let alone introduced at this time.

What is the source of the motion? What unemployment insurance reforms are the hon. members of the opposition thinking about? I presume it is not the same reform that was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development last Friday.

I heard the Prime Minister's announcement a little over a week ago. I read the documents. What I and millions of Canadians heard was a statement from the Prime Minister that the federal government respects and recognizes the jurisdiction of the provinces in education and training. Millions of us heard him say that the federal government is therefore withdrawing from the direct purchase of training, from apprenticeship training, co-operative education programs, and workplace-based training. We heard him announce that agreements with the provinces will be sought on the design and delivery of proposed employment benefits in order to harmonize them with provincial programs. We heard him explain that in some cases the provincial government or a provincial agency could be responsible for delivering these federal measures. Indeed, he was at pains to point out that in other cases provincial programs could be used instead of the proposed federal measures.

He made it perfectly clear to millions of us that funding for training will only be provided by the federal government with the consent of the province concerned. Depending on the agreement reached, it could be provided to individuals, to the provincial government, or to a third party. He stated clearly and ultimately that this arrangement can allow a province, if it wishes, to assume full responsibility for these employment measures, subject only to the proviso that the federal government's responsibilities to ensure the needs of the unemployed are addressed and that the measures that allow them to return quickly to the workforce are met.

The employment insurance reforms specifically and deliberately seek to eliminate overlap and duplication. The reforms will mean that even more than ever a province will be able to develop a comprehensive labour market strategy and policy. It is surely a distortion to maintain otherwise.

It is always difficult to bring about true reform. In the case of a program as well ingrained in the economic and social fabric of Canada as the unemployment insurance program, it is doubly difficult. I am concerned that factual distortion of the sort presented by this motion will damage public understanding of the reform package, especially in Atlantic Canada, where a sound understanding of the new system is of paramount importance.

I believe it is important for Atlantic Canadians to know the facts so they can be aware that the reforms provide much needed structural adjustments, which are absolutely necessary and which over the long term will be good for Canada and for Atlantic Canada.

The opposition members should also take note of the fact that these reforms will help high unemployment regions like Atlantic Canada. In fact this reform package will create 100,000 to 150,000 new jobs, and 45,000 part-time workers in Atlantic Canada who are now not eligible for benefits will qualify under these reforms.

Unemployment insurance was never a solution to the Atlantic regional unemployment, nor was it meant to be. We are now facing the fact that it has actually become a cause of unemployment. In other words, it is part of the problem and not the solution. Many

people are better off collecting UI than accepting the work that is available. In a recent survey of small businesses in Atlantic Canada, 45 per cent of respondents said they want to hire but cannot compete for workers with the social programs, particularly UI.

The new employment insurance legislation is a balanced package that improves work incentives, reduces dependency, and increases fairness while helping Canadians get back to work.

Specifically what does this mean for the Atlantic provinces? It is true that we are cutting overall spending. There will be impacts on Atlantic Canada. We should remember that when reinvestment is taken into account the overall reduction in the region will be no more than 7 per cent. On the whole each of the four Atlantic provinces currently receives more in benefits than it pays in premiums. Although the ratio will be lower they will still be net recipients after reform.

Another important impact for Atlantic Canada is that during the transitional period regions with high unemployment will receive more in terms of job support programs. About $800 million in savings from the new system would be reinvested in proven job support programs to create opportunities and to help more people get into the job market.

By fiscal year 2000-01, $214 million or 27 per cent of that amount will go to Atlantic Canada. Further, to stimulate the economy in high unemployment areas transitional job funds will provide $300 million for job creation over a three-year period. This is in addition to the $800 million being invested in job support programs.

On the benefit side, people in high unemployment areas will need fewer hours of work to qualify for benefits and will be able to receive benefits for a longer period.

There are other provisions affecting seasonal workers and as we all know Atlantic Canada has more than its share. Under the new system, although some seasonal workers in industries like fishing, forestry and agriculture will receive lower benefits, they will nonetheless get more out of the program than they pay in premiums. They will have more incentive to work outside the peak season because additional work will now not only increase earned income but provide increased benefits as well.

Workers, employers and communities have to be able to cope with the substantial change the employment insurance scheme will bring to the Atlantic region, so the new system will be introduced gradually over several years.

The new employment insurance system will bring essential change to the Atlantic region. We believe the employment insurance active employment measures will lead to stronger labour markets and a more skilled workforce, which in turn will attract investment and jobs.

In the Atlantic region the federal government already works in partnership with the provinces, municipalities, community organizations and the private sector to design and deliver re-employment programs. There are education and training initiatives, personal and business counselling, wage subsidies, self-employment assistance and special programs for women, youth, aboriginal people, individuals with disabilities and members of racial minorities.

Whenever possible both individuals and local communities are encouraged to take responsibility for their own development.

The old UI system trapped people in a cycle of dependence. The new system is designed to help people help themselves. I want Atlantic Canadians to understand that fact and not be distracted by the naysayers. This is why I say the motion before us should be viewed in Atlantic Canada and across the country as the distortion it truly represents.