Bonnie Brown

[Tax On Financial Transactions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker is always talking about fewer people being on unemployment insurance. He always interprets this as being bad news because in his riding there seems to be fewer people on it and therefore fewer benefits. He interprets that to mean there are fewer dollars being spent in the economy of his constituency.

Take a piece of news and the NDP will make it bad news. As a Liberal, I prefer to make it good news.

There are fewer people on employment insurance, that is true. However, does anyone think that maybe that has something to do with the fact that there is a lower unemployment rate in the country and more people are working? I think that is good news. It is good news that more people are working and have actual salaries and wages to spend in the constituencies and they are not dependent on employment insurance.

The member speaks as if employment insurance is the only industry in his riding and that the benefits are the salaries his people are making. Nothing could be further from the truth.

He also accuses the government and the administration of this department as having quotas to try to catch people. Nothing could be further from the truth in that case as well.

It is obvious he does not know a great deal about the skills of management. Every manager has to make a prediction about the coming year. He has to predict how many workers he is going to need, what kind of production they are going to have, et cetera. That is good management. This government is trying to follow that model.

The officials within the HRDC department who are charged with the very serious responsibility of identifying fraud are also asked to predict. That does not mean they are trying to reach that number. It simply means that they are managing and taking care of the assets of Canadians as best they can and catching people who are fraudulently using the system.

[Employment, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member refers to what is called the B/U rate and suggests that it is down around 40%. The correct number is 78%.

He fails to realize that not all Canadians are automatically meant to be covered by EI. For example, if people have never worked a day in their life they are not entitled to EI, but we do have other programs for them. If they decide to quit their jobs so that they can go back to school, they are not entitled to EI.

[Child Poverty, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the member has not been paying attention over the last couple of years, as we have been preoccupied with poverty on this side of the House and have delivered the national children's benefit which will put $1.7 billion into the hands of poor families. That is on top of the $5.1 billion we already spend on that group.

We also think the best way is to get people back to work. That is the best solution to poverty and we have introduced many programs such as the transitional jobs fund and the youth employment strategy in order to accomplish that.

[Division No. 307, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the government is very concerned with the situation of unemployed Canadians and wants to help them to make ends meet while they are between jobs and then to get back into the workforce.

My colleague on the opposite side of the House starts off tonight with his statement that there are $13 billion in the fund and that is enough to finance 1998-99. He fails to mention that the recently announced reduction in the premium rate of 15 cents from $2.70 to $2.55 will save workers and employers $1.1 billion a year.

He also fails to mention that the EI fund has been in deficit seven out of the last ten years. During those years average taxpayers in Canada paid out EI benefits through their taxes, in other words from the general revenues. Average taxpayers in Canada shared their ability to pay into the general revenue fund through taxes with those who were less fortunate and found themselves unemployed.

Now that the EI fund is in surplus, it sounds as if the member opposite does not want that fund shared with other Canadian taxpayers who may have priorities other than benefits to EI recipients. That is why we took on the difficult task of modernizing a 25 year old system which no longer met the needs of today's work environment.

We believe that getting Canadians back to work is the only real long term solution to high unemployment. That is why we shifted the focus from reliance on benefits to active re-employment measures, for example, the 31,000 jobs that have been created in areas of high unemployment because of the transitional job fund. Thousands of other Canadians are benefiting from the $2 billion we reinvested in active employment measures. We believe that helping people to help themselves is the key to their success.

The recent analysis of EI coverage clearly concludes that—

[Poverty, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that a report from a standing committee is one of several advisories that is put forward to the finance minister.

The finance minister knows that it is a very high priority for this government and many members on this side to keep the poorest in Canada in mind. That is proven by the fact that we will have $1.7 billion in the national child benefit by the year 2000.

We believe that the best social policy is a job and we are proud of our record. There have been 103,000 jobs created in the last month alone, with more than half—

[Poverty, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I said on Friday, the government is always appreciative and respectful of the research work done by outside agencies commenting on the social policies of the country. We try to learn from those reports.

As far as the charge about the national children's benefit not helping the poorest of the poor, we have found out through our statistics that there are many children in low income working families who have fewer resources than those in welfare families.

We are therefore trying to help low income working families have access to at least the same resources as those on welfare and we make no apologies for that.

[Poverty, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government appreciates the research work of the United Nations and we are anxious to read the details of this latest report. But I must point out to the House that the figures on which this report was based were collected prior to 1995.

We have always been very concerned about poverty and that is why we have committed $1.7 billion by 2000 to the national child benefit.

We believe the real solution to poverty is finding people paid work. That is why we are very proud that 1.5 million new jobs have been created since 1993 and especially proud that last month alone 103,000 new jobs were created.

[The Economy, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is good news this morning. November 1998 marked the fifth consecutive month of economic growth in Canada.

In November 103,000 new jobs were created, the unemployment rate fell to 8% and 60.3% of Canadians were employed. This marks the first time since 1991 that the employment rate has been above 60%.

So far in 1998, 425,000 new jobs have been created, more than were created in any full year in the 1990s. The vast majority of these jobs were in the private sector or in self-employment.

The government's well balanced approach to getting the fiscal house in order, creating the environment to grow the economy, while at the same time providing help to those who are struggling is paying off with a brighter future for all Canadians.

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, there is one more point that I would like to make and I will take advantage of this bit of extra time. I am speaking about the point raised by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve when he suggested that this government wanted to take away Canadian women's maternity rights. I believe if we check Hansard that is what the member said.

I want to assure the member and all Canadian women that this is the last thing in the world this government would ever intend to do. Every woman has the right to be a mother and we would never, ever take away her maternity rights.

I am sure the member can rest easy knowing that we are not trying to change human nature in this country. We are trying to support those women and men who wish to be parents and raise their children.

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the private member's motion introduced by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

Let me say at the outset that I applaud my colleague for his interest in the matter of support for families. Last month we debated his previous motion on this issue.

Few issues matter more to the government than nurturing Canadian children, both for their inherent value and for our collective future. There can be no debate that we need to support all Canadian families if they undertake the important work of raising the next generation of workers, artists, parents and community leaders.

This government shares my hon. colleague's concern for Canadian families and the challenges they face. However, I am not convinced that the best way to address those challenges would be by providing a salary for stay-at-home parents with pre-school aged children.

It is important to recognize that the Income Tax Act already includes a number of provisions to assist parents who choose to remain in the home. The spousal credit reduces income tax when one spouse earns little income and stays at home. This measure allows the taxpayer supporting a spouse to reduce the amount of federal tax paid by $915.

As well, the Canada child tax benefit is based on family income and provides a special annual supplement of $213 for each child under the age of seven for families where one parent stays home. This benefit is provided to three million Canadian families.

There is also the caregivers tax credit which offers a credit of up to $400 to individuals who care for either elderly relatives or disabled children.

The child care expense deduction available to working parents is designed to provide assistance to families who must incur child care expenses. Without this support many would not be able to earn an income, attend school or take a full time training course. Eight hundred thousand taxpayers count on this deduction to help compensate them for the additional costs they must bear for child care.

This debate should also focus on the crucial consideration of the needs of children. While we must ensure that parents receive credit for the task they are doing, our overriding concern ought to be the health and welfare of the next generation.

It is precisely because this government is committed to ensuring a good start for all of Canada's children that we launched the national child benefit system with our provincial partners. It will help millions of low income Canadian families with children, regardless of their child care arrangements.

With the additional $850 million committed in the 1998 budget, there will be a total of $1.7 billion each year in new income support for Canadian families. This is in addition to the $5.1 billion in existing benefits and will bring federal income support for families with children to just under $7 billion.

Our innovative and progressive programs, such as the national child benefit system, will get Canadian children off to a good start in life by improving benefits and helping parents re-enter the job market so they can better meet their own children's needs.

Even though Motion M-486 is obviously well intentioned, our government remains convinced that the best course is to build on the programs we have and that is why I am unable to support this motion at this time.