Bonnie Brown

[Sheridan College, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, job creation and training have been a central part of the government's agenda since 1993. The latest employment figures speak to our ability as a government to create the proper framework for Canadians to experience the dignity of work.

In Oakville, co-operation between government and the private sector has led to the creation of an innovative partnership among Sheridan College, the Gross Machinery Group and the Government of Canada.

Designed to meet the needs of the 21st century, Sheridan's computer numerical control centre offers industry based training for programmers, setters, operators and technical staff. This program is a highly efficient way to prepare individuals to meet the skills level required by today's job market. The college's new centre of excellence demonstrates our government's willingness to help Canadian manufacturing companies in their quest to compete on international markets.

By doing so, we also contribute to the creation of a dynamic and productive future for all Canadians.

[Employment, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, only members of the Reform Party can take a piece of good news like the research report and turn it into bad news.

When it comes around to this project to which she refers, I must assert that all cases have the same criteria applied. The project must create sustainable jobs, the department's contribution must not exceed 50%, and the project must be consistent with local and regional economic priorities. This project, as with all others, did measure up to those criteria.

[Employment, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, no one is in denial on this side. We have a research and evaluation report on the transitional jobs fund which is very positive.

For example, it says that by the time the program ends more than 30,000 new jobs will have been created, most of which would never have been created without the program. The report says that the program was creating real sustainable jobs and that the majority of the partners were impressed with the rigor and partnership approach of the program.

In terms of the reference about political presence in the program, there is a difference between legitimate political presence—

[Skating, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Oakville the pursuit of excellence is alive and well not only in industry, science and technology, but also on the playing fields and in the arenas.

Last Sunday, February 7, the Oakville Ice Expression Novice Synchronised Skating Team competed in the Central Ontario Championships and won a berth to represent Ontario at the Canadian Championships in March.

I want to congratulate these Canadian girls, age 12 to 15, for their dazzling performance.

Their success has been made possible by the support of parents, volunteers and corporate citizenship. I wish to recognize and thank all these people for their hard work and dedication.

I believe that the pursuit of excellence when begun early through sports or the arts sets the pattern for adult life that benefits the individual, the community and the nation.

[Division No. 317, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member's dedication to and illustration of poverty in this country. Certainly many members on this side of the House share that concern.

However, I do not think it is helpful to anyone in this House to always target and blame the actions of this government. Nowhere in her remarks did I hear any recognition of some of the other social phenomena which exist in the 90s and indeed sometimes interact to exacerbate poverty.

For example, the technological revolution of which we are in the middle is putting us in a period of transition, a transition between the industrial age and the information age. Historically, social revolutions of this sort actually impede some people from moving forward. Some people adjust quickly and prosper. We are finding that today with the information workers who are training themselves upwards and are getting the good jobs with the high salaries.

Often in these periods other people find it difficult to adjust. It might be because of where they live or because of the level of their education. They fall behind. This is simply part of the period of history we are in.

The member often talks about the change to our EI system and calls it a national disgrace. Nowhere in her remarks have I heard an analysis of the new labour market and understanding that the work people do is changing. All I hear is a nostalgic wishful thinking to go backward in time and bring back a system that was suitable for the 70s, not for the 90s.

This government is attempting to eliminate poverty. We are moving forward step by step as we have the dollars to afford the actions necessary.

[Division No. 317, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked the question in the past and asked it again tonight about people waiting for their claims to be processed in Prince Edward Island. He claimed that 4,000 people had to wait for six weeks.

We went back and looked at the records and in Prince Edward Island from April to October 1998 the average number of claims filed was about 2,000 per month. Ninety-seven per cent of those entitled to EI received their first payment within 28 days. In my lexicon 28 days is not six weeks and is pretty good service to people who apply.

His second point was about gappers. He forgets to mention that seasonal workers or workers with irregular working patterns face particular issues with regard to accessing EI. Some gappers are unable to find enough work so that the combination of work plus EI gets them through an entire year. This problem is most prevalent in his province.

We are sensitive to the plight of seasonal workers, and a change to an hours based system benefits many who work very long hours during the work season. The member has to understand that EI is not intended to be a regular income supplement and the Government of Canada prefers to put emphasis on creating additional employment to address this issue.

We have invested $2.1 billion in active employment measures and have renewed funding for the Canadian jobs fund which provides the most direct response to the gapper issue.

In New Brunswick alone the federal government has made $5 million available directly for the gapper issue in partnership with that province.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-65, which renews the equalization program, is renewing one of the cornerstones of this country.

The equalization program has played a major role in defining the Canadian federation. It ensures that all provinces have the resources they need to provide reasonably comparable services to Canadians no matter where they live.

Equalization is an unconditional federal payment. Provinces can use it as they wish. That is a basic outline of what the equalization bill is about but over the years and this year as in other years many questions have been raised about the system. Let us look at some of these questions.

Some have asked if there is not a simpler approach by which to measure disparities among provinces. Some have suggested for example a measure based on gross domestic product of each province. One has to go back to the concept of the equalization program. All provinces are to be brought up to a standard to enable them to provide comparable services at comparable levels of taxation.

The calculation is based on a legislated formula that models typical provincial tax systems. This formula is called a representative tax system. The complexity of the program arises as a result of the complexity of provincial tax systems that are being modelled. The representative tax system has proved to be a reliable and stable measure of provincial fiscal capacity, a measure that has widespread support as a fair and comprehensive approach.

The representative tax system uses around 30 tax bases to measure a province's relative capacity to raise revenues. It might be possible to construct a simpler equalization formula that works satisfactorily and the federal and provincial governments will continue to evaluate and investigate alternative methods.

One suggestion for a simpler approach has been to use GDP per capita as a measure to measure the provinces' fiscal capacities. But a great deal more research is necessary before considering an equalization based on a new approach.

Another question is whether equalization creates disincentives to growth. The government would respond that when a province's ability to raise revenues increases due to growth in that province equalization payments decline. This was how the program was designed to work in the first place, but the equalization program is not a disincentive to provincial economic development. It would be difficult to imagine that a province would turn its back on opportunities to increase incomes and jobs for its people just because its equalization payments might decline.

The Reform Party has raised the question of whether the proposed changes in Bill C-65 address all the recommendations on the topic made by the auditor general. The auditor general's report discussed the design and operation of the equalization program and made a number of recommendations.

During the course of this renewal the federal government discussed all these recommendations with its provincial counterparts. Many of those recommendations are being addressed through this bill such as those involving the resource tax bases and the ceiling design.

But other recommendations were more complex and it is felt by both federal and provincial governments that it needs more research and discussion, but both levels of government will continue this research and discussion once the program has been renewed.

Some people have asked why not move to a ten province standard. This program is based on five provinces. The purpose of equalization is to ensure provinces have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

The current five province standard fully meets the federal government's constitutional commitment to make equalization payments and fully achieves the intended purpose. The five province standard was introduced after the significant volatility in the resource sector in the 1970s. These fluctuations generated large fluctuations in equalization entitlements.

Now the risk of volatility is lower with the five province standard than with the ten province standard which increased the potential for volatility. If implemented again, the ten province standard would add considerably to the cost of the program, an anticipated $1 billion each year.

Some people are confused by the terms floor and ceiling. The floor protects individual provinces against large declines in their equalization payments from one year to the next. Some provinces criticize the current floor because the protection it offers could fluctuate by large amounts with relatively small changes in a province's economic situation. The proposed new floor in Bill C-65 provides a similar level of protection to the current floor but will not be subject to the same variations which have been criticized.

What about the ceiling? The purpose of the ceiling is to protect the federal government from unsustainable large increases in equalization expenditures. The current ceiling limits the total size of the program to an amount equal to the 1992 equalization entitlements increased each year by the growth of GDP between 1992 and the year in question.

Whenever the size of the program exceeds the ceiling the program standard is reduced, lowering each province's entitlement. In 1998-99 the ceiling is about $10.4 billion, about $1.2 billion higher than the entitlement. The proposed new ceiling would be set at $10 billion in the years 1999-2000. Like the current ceiling, it will grow in subsequent years by GDP growth rate. Receiving provinces have argued for the removal of the ceiling. The federal government has indicated that the ceiling is essential to ensure the program remains affordable and sustainable.

Some have asked why the lottery and gaming revenues base is changing. The current measure of a province's ability to raise revenues from this source of revenue is based solely on lottery ticket sales in the province. However, significant changes have occurred over the years in the lottery and gaming area. The federal government is proposing changes to the equalization program that will take into consideration all types of gaming activity and their revenue. The proposed changes will recognize provinces' abilities to raise revenues from new and rapidly growing sources, for example casinos, video lottery terminals, break open tickets and other games of chance.

Some have asked why the equalization formula does not take into account the different expenditure needs. The answer is that the federal government has undertaken a number of studies to examine various measures of expenditure needs. Both levels of government concluded that there were too many issues that needed to be resolved before expenditure need could be incorporated into equalization such as how to decide what expenditures are needed. The federal and provincial governments will continue to study the issues surrounding the measurement of need and the inclusion of such measurement in equalization.

The new bill addresses most of the questions that have been raised. It must be remembered by all members that the agreements reached at these five year renewal periods are agreements that have taken a long time to hammer out between federal and provincial representatives. They have agreed. Before us in the House now is the result of much of that work. Each amendment reflects an agreement that has been concluded between representatives of all levels of government. I hope the House will respect the work our colleagues in the provincial houses have put into this and which our own representatives have agreed to.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would resist the temptation to draw the same conclusion as the questioner. He said that all the person could do was apply for welfare.

It seems to me that if a young person who is 23 years old can only find part time jobs and part time work that will not add up to a sufficient number of hours to qualify for employment insurance, then there is one answer. This young person should be being trained or be back in school and we have measures to assist such a person to do that.

Certainly the idea of qualifying for EI is not a sufficient goal for a young Canadian today.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not question the goodwill of the mover of the motion and I do not question the compassion that has been very well expressed by pretty well all the speakers on the opposition side today.

I admit that some of the social ills that have been described by the members of the opposition do exist. But I reject the basic premise of their arguments that suggests all the social problems are based on the actions of the government. Nowhere in any of their remarks did I hear mention of the changes that have been happening all around the globe. The whole world is in the middle of something called the technological revolution. Some people view this as a period of transition and turmoil between the industrial age and the information age. Historically such revolutionary periods are periods of social dislocation. Some people who live during those periods adjust quickly to these changes and they prosper, but others find these periods of change difficult and they experience economic insecurity.

To govern during such a period of economic revolution is both a privilege and a challenge.

Unlike the opposition, this government is not looking nostalgically backward to a safer time and wanting to revive and apply the solutions of the past. We do not want to go back to a time, for example, when unemployment insurance was mainly a passive income support system, a system which encouraged people, generation after generation, to languish in semi-poverty with little hope of a better future.

We want to motivate and actively support Canadians to enter the labour market of the 1990s. For example, our youth employment strategy and our Canada jobs fund are helping young people across the country and workers in areas of high unemployment to get on board the train that is rushing us forward toward the 21st century.

We are proud of our post-TAGS program for fishers and our package for Devco miners because these packages prove that we are not abandoning some people who are in trouble; our family supplement for families on EI; our national children's benefit; our removal of 400,000 low income Canadians from the tax rolls, our recognition on our part that some Canadians are struggling and that we want to help them.

At the same time, though, it must be recognized that this government has created the right climate of no deficit, low interest rates, low inflation and lowering taxes, the climate most conducive to job creation and, I might say, a climate the previous government tried to achieve and failed.

We are also proud of our ever decreasing unemployment rate, another phenomenon the previous government failed to achieve.

There is no purpose in being outraged at poverty. It is far more intelligent to be looking at its causes to understand where we are in the historical evolution of the country and to apply measures to alleviate that poverty as we are doing. We want to bounce people back into the labour force because a job is the best economic security we can provide and we are doing those things.

However, we are not denying that there are social problems out there, poverty and homelessness. We approaching them one by one because they are tasks of work to be done. This government has its shoulder to the wheel. It has its intentions in the right place. As we have sufficient money to tackle of these problems, one at time we will tick them off the list that the opposition has provided us with today.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has criticized our reduction of the EI premium rate from $2.70 to $2.55, but we feel the new rate provides a moderate reduction for both employers and employees and still provides money to help Canadians find jobs.

The premium rate reduction does not jeopardize benefits to the unemployed. We will spend an additional $800 million per year on active employment measures under EI, bringing federal funding to more than $2.7 billion annually by 2000-2001. We will create even more jobs by using the $3 million transitional jobs fund now in place and by using general revenues to serve high unemployment regions.

On December 14 the minister announced the Canada jobs fund, a permanent program which will build on the highly successful transitional jobs fund initiative. This annual commitment of $110 million will help a greater number of regions across Canada and will help create approximately 10,000 new jobs each year.

We also recently announced that we will be injecting another $465 million over three years into the youth employment strategy to help young Canadians enter the workforce.

The employment insurance system is about making sure people who are laid off or quit with just cause get help in between jobs. A recent study of the system determined that 78% of such people were eligible for benefits. We believe our approach is working and Friday's employment figures bear this out.

We have to remember that the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8% in January, the lowest level in nine years. Last year 143,000 jobs were created for youth, the best performance in 20 years. Last month alone 87,000 jobs were created and 44,000 of these were for youth. Since October 1993, when we came to office, 1.6 million more Canadians are working.