Bonnie Brown

[Violence Against Women, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, every year since 1990 Canadians have commemorated December 6 as the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. This year is no exception.

This year, 1998, says that nearly eight full years have passed since the tragic deaths of 14 promising young women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. By remembering these 14 young women and acknowledging our collective laws we can be inspired to create a more peaceful society.

I wish to recognize today the important work accomplished by the men and women of Oakville and indeed those across Canada who provide a safe environment for those escaping violence in the home, as well as counselling, legal advice, education and support.

This year as in years past let us pause and reflect, ensuring that Canadians never forget this terrible moment in our history.

[Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a number of measures specifically to help lift people out of poverty.

Last July we began to put $850 million per year into the national child benefit. An additional $850 million will be added. By the year 2000 the total will be $1.7 billion per year going into the hands of low income families with children. This money is on top of the $5.1 billion we currently provide families with children that need financial assistance.

The long term solution to poverty lies in helping Canadians find jobs. Our Canadian opportunities strategy gives Canadians greater access to the knowledge and skills they need for the better jobs of the new economy. This strategy includes the $2.5 billion investment in millennium scholarships which will give 100,000 low and middle income students per year access to scholarships averaging $3,000. Up to 25,000 other students in financial need with children will benefit from the new Canada study grants.

Our youth employment strategy is there to help young people. We know that about 86% of participants are either employed or have returned to school six to twelve months after completing their program.

The employment insurance system is a vital part of our safety net. It gives workers the temporary support they need and the tools they need to get back to work.

Over 31,000 jobs have been created through the transitional jobs fund; $2.7 billion has been put into active employment measures to help people get back to work; and the family supplement also helped 350,000 low income families with children. A new federal-provincial program will provide $190 million to help disabled persons to gain better access to the workforce.

These efforts demonstrate clearly that we are committed to do as much as we possibly can to reduce poverty and create equality of opportunity for Canadians.

[Balanced Budget Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada shares the concerns of the auditor general with respect to the missing information on deaths in the social insurance register. He has already told the hon. member opposite that he is the lead minister, that he is in charge and that he has already established an interdepartmental working group for the purpose of assessing the accuracy and completeness of the personal information currently held in the register.

As suggested by the auditor general, the working group will try to determine how the department can use more fully the current sources of information at its disposal to update the register, sources such as the Canada pension plan, the old age security program and information from Revenue Canada.

In addition, the department hopes to investigate other sources of information such as provincial and territorial vital statistics, provincial health insurance information and Statistics Canada data.

We also hope to overcome any obstacles or stumbling blocks such as system problems which could prevent access to the information necessary to improve the integrity of the register.

I assure the hon. member that this government shares his concerns about any fraudulent use of social insurance numbers and we are taking action to address it.

Last year we investigated about 2,700 such cases and we intend to increase our investigations.

We are also taking a number of steps to improve our ability to prevent fraud. For example, we are improving our contract of service with the RCMP, which investigates the major cases of abuse and fraud, and we are creating a new investigations unit to improve our ability to prevent and detect fraud.

In addition, the parliamentary committee, of which the hon. member is a member, is investigating this phenomenon which the auditor general has uncovered.

The member can be assured the government will do whatever is necessary to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information within the social insurance register and to ensure the integrity of the social insurance number.

[Division No. 276, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the idea that instead of acting to address poverty the Government of Canada is simply trying to define poverty away is a grave misunderstanding of what the government stands for.

Rather, the government has consistently demonstrated its concern and commitment to low income Canadians and especially the needs of children and youth. For instance, the government, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments, has taken action in the area of child poverty and has made children a priority through the national child benefit. The benefit will help low income parents to improve their circumstances.

By the year 2000 a total of $1.7 billion per year of new money will be directed to low income families. This is over and above the $5.1 billion the government spends on families with children year after year.

The member opposite has made clear that this $1.7 billion on top of the $5.1 billion does not impress her. Perhaps this is because she arrived in this place at a time when the government had begun to reverse the fiscal situation that we all faced when we first came here in 1993. Had she been here at that time she might realize that any new money was pretty miraculous, considering we had been through years of doing nothing but cutting. We are pretty proud of the fact, and maybe we do overstate it, that the first new money we spent was on families with children who are in poverty.

The government is concerned with the measurement of poverty as well but not in the way she implied in her question. The fact is that among experts there is no consensus around the existing measures of poverty. Some think existing measures are too high and some think they are not high enough.

Statistics Canada has stated that its low income cutoff, a measure used by many—

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his compliment in thinking I am part of the progressive wing in this House, a wing that I think he also belongs to. He and I have discussed many issues and we often agree.

In answer to his questions, he was talking about the cutting that was done by the federal government. I think it is fair to say that if it was painful to him, it was painful to everyone. Actually the main pain was borne by Canadians, but they wanted it done because it was their general wish to get the nation's fiscal house in order.

I must correct the hon. member in that the cutting to the provinces was not $42 billion. That is definitely wrong.

I remind him that Quebec, in its attempt to get its fiscal house in order, an attempt which we applaud, in its 1997-98 estimates announced its intention to cut health and education spending by 3.2% and 5.8% respectively. This cutting exercise, which is very hard to do when you are in government whether it be the federal government or the provincial government, has to be done. Governments around the country know it and that is why they are doing it.

I agree with the principle of federalism and I do not agree with the member's interpretation that we are being heavy handed. We have done everything we can to seek partnerships with the provinces to work together on setting priorities. In the long run I think he and I would agree that the role of government is most important when it takes care of the sick and the vulnerable.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address today's opposition motion concerning the Canada health and social transfer.

There is no doubt that health care is a matter of very high priority for Canadians. It is an essential thread in our national fabric, a source of pride and security for Canadians from coast to coast, in every region, province and municipality. It is truly a unifying force, one that highlights the Canadian commitment to mutual support and the one that distinguishes us dramatically from our huge neighbour to the south. As such, it is always an issue that deserves the full attention of the House and I thank the hon. member of the Bloc for proposing an immediate $2 billion increase in provincial transfers provided under the CHST.

There is no doubt that the long term security of Canada's health care system is a timely and relevant subject for debate. However, I must caution the hon. member that the motion he has brought before us today may actually do more to obscure or misdirect this important debate than to advance it. How does this motion obscure the debate? The answer to this question lies in the assumptions on which this motion and the opposition rhetoric around it are based.

First of all, we must remember that the fact that health care is a major priority of Canadians, even the major priority, does not mean it is their only priority.

I am sure that most of my hon. colleagues have received the same volume of public input as I have on the issue of lowering taxes. This, too, is of importance and the finance minister has made clear our commitment to ongoing tax reduction.

What about employment insurance premiums? Across Canada labour and employer groups have targeted EI reductions as a critical step in encouraging business growth and new jobs. In other words, they see employment insurance premium reduction as a priority.

There is another fundamental priority that Canadians have made clear in two federal elections. That is the continuing necessity to good financial management of and by the government itself. I see few if any voices saying that increased spending is more important than maintaining a balanced budget. Most Canadians remember too well the price we pay for relying on deficit spending, higher interest rates, lower economic growth and jobs lost. To them a key priority will be to avoid getting back into that vicious cycle.

The issue of priorities is neither simple nor self-evident and any debate that attempts to focus on a single need in isolation risks becoming simplistic and self-serving.

Let me again emphasize something said by all my government colleagues. We are committed to boosting support for health care but we will not do so through knee-jerk decisions that ignore the fiscal reality, the world environment and the proper role of government.

This was something the finance minister addressed in his October economic update before the House finance committee. He pointed out that our work as a government reflects a basic recognition of a vital fact, that the days of governments trying to be everything to everyone at any cost were over and that the need to have clear priorities to realize where government could make a difference and where it could not was essential. These are principles that must govern all policy making and debates such as this one today in the House.

Again let me remind my colleagues of what the finance minister said in his update. Given the volatile condition of many parts of the world economy, we are in a situation that calls for great care and caution and we must be realistic about the resources at our disposal. Today some seem to believe we have mountains of money to spend. We do not. They seem to feel we are now in a position where we do not have to continue to make careful choices. We do.

The minister pointed out what has happened to the average forecast of economic growth by private sector experts since only the beginning of this year. In January they were estimating nominal income growth of 4.7% for 1998. That has now been revised downward to 3%. For 1999 they were projecting 4.9% growth. That too is down to 3.5%.

What do these revisions mean for the size of the dividend as projected by the private sector? The answer is those projections would knock over $5 billion out of government revenues in 1999-2000.

Only a few months ago these forecasters were estimating a 1999-2000 surplus before any new budget actions of around $10 billion. The recent downward revisions would lower their estimates to around $5 billion, or $2 billion once the $3 billion contingency reserve we are committed to is subtracted.

At the time of our last budget many criticized us for being too prudent, too cautious, and we are receiving the same criticism in today's debate when we are attacked for not moving to immediately to increase CHST transfers. But the dramatic downward revision in private sector forecasts illustrates more clearly than anything why this government must stick to its careful approach to budget planning and why we simply cannot afford the risks associated with changing planning assumptions so drastically month by month.

This is not academic, some arcane point from economic theory. Consider the result if we had followed the advice of some not so long ago to take $9 billion to $10 billion worth of tax action, action they claimed we could afford.

We would now be heading for a substantial deficit.

Further, while we have noted that the downward revision to economic forecasts could lower the private sector estimate of the dividend to $2 billion once the contingency reserve is taken out, with all the uncertainty that exists worldwide it may well be that further downward revisions will occur.

In any event, it is clear the dividend in the next two years will be modest, much less than would be required to provide sufficient funding for the size of initiatives, on taxes and spending, that many are calling for. Clearly, careful choice in allocating that dividend will be required.

In his appearance before the finance committee, the minister said some would throw caution to the wind, saying maybe we will have the money. Maybe the dividend will be larger than we think, that it is worth the risk to cross our fingers and pray that things will turn out that way. In other words, it is time now, acceptable now, to set aside the careful and cautious approach we have been following.

He said “In my opinion that is the financial equivalent of reckless driving. You may not have an accident, but if you do you not only hurt yourself but you can sideswipe a lot of innocent people. The very reason we have met our targets, the very reason we are now able to say that despite the global economic crisis we are still on track not only to balance the books but to have a dividend, all of this is anchored in the caution we have applied from the very beginning”.

Clearly the finance minister was anticipating challenges such as today's opposition motion on the CHST. I think his explanation of why we must be cautious was right on.

The update also provided Canadians with a telling example of the type of spending dilemma we could develop if we only looked at single issues, health or taxes or debt, in isolation.

For example, some are saying we should implement a major personal income tax cut of an average of $600 annually per taxpayer. That would cost about $9 billion per year, not just this year but every year.

Some are demanding employment insurance premiums be reduced to the so-called break even level. That could cost more than $6 billion per year.

The provinces are asking that cash transfers be increased. Their proposal would cost another $6 billion per year, not just next year but every year.

Still others are saying we should mount a larger attack on the debt. That could cost, for example, another $3 billion per year.

If all that is added up, the total bill is $24 billion each and every year, and that is a long way from a complete inventory of the demands being made.

Adding up all the proposals would very clearly put the country back into a situation of serious chronic deficits, and I for one am not willing to go back to that country full of deficit and pain for Canadians.

[Canada Post, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the minister for Canada Post but I can speak for the minister of HRDC who would be appalled to hear anything of this sort whether it is from the point of view of the employer or whether it is the investigation of fraud by our own employee.

I will take this information back to him and to the minister for Canada Post to investigate.

[Canada Student Loans, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to speak to the motion which calls upon the government to address the challenges facing many young Canadians as they seek to finance their post-secondary education.

To begin with, I commend the hon. member for her concern for the educational needs of young Canadians. I assure her and other members of the House that the government is concerned about the issue of accessibility to post-secondary education and is working hard to address it. We have made it a key priority from our first day in office since we know that having a good education and getting the right skills are key to the future of our youth and the economic well-being of the country.

However, I disagree with a number of points in the hon. member's motion such as some of her premises which suggest that we have privatized the Canada students loans program and that we want to turn students over to bill collectors. This is not true. Another premise is that we need to implement a whole new federal government student grant program presumably because nothing of any value is currently in place. A third premise is that we need to establish accessibility as a new national standard for post-secondary education because once again the member seems to feel we are not doing enough in this area.

Nevertheless I agree with the underlying motive in the motion, namely the desire to ensure full access to post-secondary education for all students who qualify, no matter where they live or what their family circumstances. I state unequivocally that this is also a priority of our government.

To make sure we got things right we consulted with students, their families, our provincial partners and officials in post-secondary educational and training institutions to find out what challenges students face and how we can work with them to address the issues they face.

One of the things students told us was that they needed better access to financial assistance. Families told us that they needed some help in saving for their children's education. As a direct result of these consultations the last budget contained 13 new measures aimed at improving access to post-secondary education for those students who might find it difficult to pursue this goal without financial assistance.

These measures included, first, the millennium scholarship fund that will provide grants to 100,000 students annually based on their financial need and academic merit and, second, changes to the Canada student loans program that help students repay their loans. For example, we included a 17% tax credit on the interest they are paying on their loans each year. The borrower can also ask the lending institution to extend the loan repayment period for 15 years, which can lower monthly payments by nearly 25% at current rate. Third, there are Canada study grants to help those in need. Fourth, we are also encouraging families to save for their children's education by providing a Canada education saving grant of 20% on the first $2,000 of annual contributions made to a registered education savings plan for children up to age 18.

On the last point, even if they set aside $30 per month each year, they will get a grant of 20% of the total contribution each year from the Government of Canada. If they contribute the full $2,000 they can receive the maximum grant of $400. This has already proven to be a very popular savings vehicle.

As members are aware, some special students face special challenges in pursuing their education. For example, students with disabilities face multiple issues relating to access.

To address these special needs the government is trying to make sure they get the assistance they need to enjoy equal access. Some of these involve financial considerations while others relate to long outmoded ways of thinking which emphasize disability rather than recognition of special ability. For instance, students with permanent disabilities such as deafness, blindness or other physical or learning disabilities are eligible for a Canada study grant of up to $5,000 a year to cover exceptional education related costs that might result from the disability. That amounts to an increase of $2,000 or a 67% increase in our support for these students.

These funds may also be used to cover such exceptional expenses as the cost of a tutor, an interpreter, attendant care or any other special assistance required by students with disabilities to allow them to undertake or continue their studies.

I might add that this is not just a one-shot effort but is part of an ongoing commitment by the government to assess the needs of students with disabilities in order to help them take their rightful place in post-secondary education and training. There are also grants for high need part time students, students with dependants and women wishing to pursue certain doctoral studies.

This shows the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring the widest possible access to post-secondary education. Contrary to what the motion claims, the Government of Canada has not privatized our system of student financial assistance. Rather we are working in partnership with students, families, educational and financial institutions to make sure that every student with the qualifications, ability and desire can get the help they need to continue. It shows that our loan and grant programs are opening up learning opportunities to the full spectrum of Canadian students.

We have put a clearly defined action plan in place which is helping to improve the accessibility of post-secondary education for all students, no matter what their family circumstances or special needs.

Because of this the motion before us today, while well intentioned, is unnecessary and could actually harm the progress being made in helping students. For this reason I intend to vote against it and I would urge other members to do likewise.

[Agra Incorporated, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the counterfeiting of money is a worldwide problem that leads to billions of dollars of losses each year.

A company in my riding of Oakville is working with the banking industry, including the Bank of Canada, to create a more durable and more secure currency.

AGRA Incorporated, headquartered in Oakville, is the international engineering and technology company responsible for this technological advance.

It is the genius behind the reflective security patches for the $20, $50, $100 and $1000 bills. It is now working on a more durable plastic based bank note, one that would offer enormous cost saving potential to government and would act as a strong barrier to counterfeiting.

AGRA's success is a shining example of how Canadian companies are successfully competing in today's global economy.

[Merit Principle, October 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the minister has been travelling across Canada and has been listening to all Canadians regarding their views on employment insurance.

The old employment insurance system was 25 years old and needed updating. We had to find a balance between giving workers the temporary support they need between jobs and giving the people the tools they need to get back to work.

So far we think the new program is having some success.

Over 31,000 jobs have been created in areas of high unemployment because of the new transitional jobs fund program. In New Brunswick this initiative has helped to create over 2,300 jobs.

Through the labour market development agreement we are transferring $228 million over three years to New Brunswick to deliver active employment measures tailored to the needs of the people in that province.

In addition, under the new EI system seasonal workers who work long hours in the high season get credit for all time on the job. The hour system is enabling many seasonal workers, up to 45,000, to qualify for benefits for the first time. It also helps seasonal workers to qualify for more weeks of benefits.

Take the tourism worker in Gaspé who works for 15 weeks and puts in 45 hours each week. Under the old system he or she qualified for 29 weeks of benefits. Under the new EI that worker could collect the equivalent of 31 weeks of benefits.

Because EI represents such a fundamental reform of the system we are monitoring its performance constantly. This monitoring demonstrates the government's accountability for its decisions to Canadians.

Is the hon. member advocating a return to the old system of dependency on passive income support? Surely not.