Debates of Feb. 11th, 1999

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an announcement of a moratorium does not necessarily involve in itself legislation. That is a ministerial announcement together with the provinces. It is not the legislative agenda. I think the member knows that.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to tabling of documents under Routine Proceedings in order for me to table the third report of the Special Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees Of The House

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 123(1), I have the honour to present the third report of the Special Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations concerning section 68(1) of the Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.T. 1978, chapter 1041.

The text of the relevant section of the regulations is contained in this report.

[The Speaker]

We will now proceed to tributes for one of our members of parliament who served here earlier, Mr. Ron Huntington of British Columbia, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.

The Late Hon. Arthur Ronald Huntington

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and a sense of pride that I rise to pay tribute to the Hon. Ron Huntington who died in Vancouver on December 28, 1998.

Mr. Huntington served in this House from 1974 until his retirement in 1984. He was the minister of state for small business and industry during the administration of the Progressive Conservative government under the Right Hon. Joe Clark. My father was also a member of that administration and expressed that he was extremely proud to have served with a man such as Mr. Huntington.

Ron Huntington's parliamentary passion was to improve the public accountability of government to the House of Commons. He wanted members of this House to play a more effective role in holding to account ministers and public officials. He wanted better scrutiny of the expenditures of public funds and he worked diligently on the public accounts committee and on the Lefebvre committee to further those goals.

Ron Huntington came from a generation that believed that public service and duty to his country was of extreme importance. He served in the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war and obtained the rank of lieutenant commander in a very distinguished military career.

He was also very active in community clubs and committed to improving his community. This followed his parliamentary career where he then headed to the Canada Ports Authority and made even further contributions to Canadian coastal communities.

Simply put, Mr. Huntington was a model of a man and will be greatly missed.

To his wife Miriam, to his children and to other members of his family we offer our sympathies on their loss and also our thanks for making it possible for him to serve the people of Canada in such a superior way.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and as a fellow British Columbian member of parliament, I wish to pay tribute to a former member of this House, the late Ron Huntington, who passed away in December.

Mr. Huntington represented west Vancouver and British Columbians in this House for a decade. During that time, when in opposition, he served diligently on several committees of this House, making a substantial contribution.

Later when the Progressive Conservative Party under Mr. Clark took office he served as minister of state for small business.

As minister of oceans I should point out that Mr. Huntington was a man who knew the oceans well, serving, as was mentioned by my hon. friend, as a member of the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war, rising to the rank of lieutenant commander. He also served as chairman of the Canada Ports Corporation from 1985 to 1991. In recreation he enjoyed the waters of the Pacific coast as commodore of the West Vancouver Yacht Club.

On behalf of the government and all my colleagues, I would like to extend to his wife Miriam and to his family our most sincere condolences on the loss of Ron Huntington.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to the Hon. Ron Huntington.

A lot of honourable people have served this precinct. Ron Huntington is one parliamentarian who served this House with particular distinction and honour.

First elected in 1974 and re-elected in 1979 and 1980, Ron Huntington immediately became known to his colleagues on both sides of the House as a gentleman, respectful of the dignity and history of this esteemed institution.

Perhaps it was Ron's belief in hard work and what a diligence to task could bring to those who persevered. Perhaps it was Ron's parents, Sam and Winifred, who instilled in Ron what service to community and country meant. Perhaps it was Ron's naval career and his service in the Royal Canadian Navy from 1941 to 1945 that ingrained in Ron a love of this nation and a desire to maintain its honour by serving as a member of parliament. Knowing Ron as a colleague, I believe it was all that and much more.

Ron Huntington was a focused man. He once told me he came to Ottawa with an objective, a goal and a vision. He wanted to make this country a better place and he worked hard each day as a member of parliament for the riding of Capilano to realize these goals.

Anyone who knew Ron Huntington knew of his no nonsense approach to getting the job done. At the same time, anyone who knew Ron Huntington knew of his sensitive and caring side.

Many an employee of Ron Huntington, some who are still working in these precincts, can attest to his nurturing side and his genuine concern for the future of those who worked for him.

Forever humble, it was particularly difficult for Ron to accept the mantel of honourable when he was appointed small business minister in 1979. No one more than Ron deserved this acknowledgement for his contribution to this House and this country.

His work in public accounts, transport, finance, estimates and procedure remains as examples of enlightened and progressive thinking, and his authorship of “Closing the Loop”, a working document on how to make the spending of the taxpayer's money more realistic, is testimony to his deep passion for making things better.

When Ron decided not to run in the 1984 election, he was far from finished with the public service and served as chairman Ridley Terminals from 1985 to 1990.

Following that, Ron returned to Ottawa as chairman of Canada Ports Corporation from 1990 to 1995. Ron had something to offer and his contribution was welcomed by everyone.

Ron lost the woman he brought to Ottawa in 1974 to cancer. Those of us who had the pleasure of knowing Jean knew a woman of grace and dignity. She was Ron's pillar during the tumultuous and trying times and she never wavered.

In 1990 Ron married Mim and until ill health befell her, Ron and Mim resided in peace and serenity in White Rock, British Columbia.

Ron Huntington was a man of passion. His indomitable spirit for good and righteousness is unquestionable. If there was one spot he enjoyed even more than these precincts, it surely was at times aboard his yacht in Desolation Sound. It was his refuge and I will not tell any story or any tales about his times out there.

Ron Huntington left a mark on this institution. Let us work to ensure this mark is not erased and let us each day emulate this most complete and compelling gentleman.

On behalf of the official opposition, I extend to his family our sincerest condolences. We liked Ron and he will be missed.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Hon. Ronald Huntington, a former member of this House, who died December 28 at the age of 77.

Born in Vancouver, Mr. Huntington studied at the University of British Columbia. From 1941 to 1945, during World War II, he served in the Canadian navy, in the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic. He began his parliamentary career in 1974 as the Progressive Conservative member for Capilano—Howe Sound, a riding he would represent for 10 years.

During that period, Mr. Huntington served as minister of state for small business and industry from 1979 to 1980 in the Progressive Conservative cabinet and as president of the Progressive Conservative Party from 1982 to 1983.

On retiring from active political life, he was appointed president of Ports Canada in 1985, a post he held until 1991.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to extend my condolences to his family and friends.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words about the late Ron Huntington. I concur with what was said by the member from the Reform Party who is his successor for the part of Vancouver he represented in the House of Commons.

I remember very well when he first came to the House in 1974. He was re-elected in 1979 and 1980. I remember him very well. He was one of those members of parliament who were very outspoken. He spoke very directly. He spoke in a very straight way to what he believed in passionately. He was also a very dogged, determined person in terms of pursuing the ideals that he thought were correct. Obviously he was also very partisan and we often disagreed with him in terms of our ideology, but I always admire someone who will stand up and say what they believe in.

At this time I want to say that we will miss him. I say to his wife, to his son Ron and to his daughter Vicky on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada that their father and their grandfather and husband was a great member of parliament who was well liked and respected by all parties in this House of Commons.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Québec has seven minutes left.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Shefford, asking the government to “take steps to alleviate the burden of poverty in Canada by encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance”.

To that end, the government should “increase the basic Income Tax credit to $10,000, index the tax brackets and index the Child Tax Benefit”.

We will not support that motion for two reasons. First, we think the motion is unrealistic from a financial point of view and could generate another deficit, after we just got rid of one. The second reason is the restrictive nature of the proposed measures. Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois has more all encompassing suggestions to fight poverty.

The motion includes some elements found in the dissenting opinion expressed by the Progressive Conservatives in the December report of the Standing Committee on Finance. The Progressive Conservative Party proposes what are essentially good ideas. However, if all these proposals were implemented, it would surely create another federal deficit. We know that the Progressive Conservative Party has already largely contributed to the federal deficit.

The hon. member for Shefford proposes to reduce employment insurance contributions by $6 billion. We too are strong supporters of that idea. We want to reduce employment insurance contributions, but we also want to improve the program. This means more people eligible for employment insurance. We know that 40% of people now have access to employment insurance benefits. Three young people out of four no longer qualify. A number of men and women cannot draw benefits. We cannot agree with the first measure of a $6 billion cut, because this does not take improvement of the program into account.

Total indexation of the tax tables, at the cost of $2 billion, on top of the $6 billion for employment insurance contributions, brings us to $8 billion for these proposals.

If we include raising the basic personal exemption from its present $6,500 to $10,000—we know that every $100 increase costs the treasury $250 million—the total cost would be $9 billion.

She is also calling for a $2 billion increase in the Canada social transfer. While in agreement with some of these measures, we believe her proposals total $21 billion. If we had one criticism to make of the Progressive Conservative Party, it would be its failure to provide figures for the proposals made here today.

There was no provision made for the surplus, which, according to a very conservative estimate, will be in the vicinity of $15 billion. More idealistically, it could be around $19.13 billion.

Obviously, we are a few billions short of meeting the expectations of the hon. member for Shefford.

We know that the Conservative Party is in the habit of passing its deficits on to the next government when it is no longer in office, but there is still a need to remain realistic and think about the budget, which must be taken into account. The Bloc Quebecois is proposing measures that are better suited to the real budgetary situation.

As I said earlier, there is some merit to what our colleague is proposing, but there is also a lack of vision due to the restrictive nature of the motion. Obviously, we are in favour of indexing tax brackets and tax benefits, but that is not enough. We feel this should be part of a comprehensive antipoverty strategy.

By refusing to index the child tax benefit, the tax brackets and the GST credits, the Liberal government is picking the pockets of low income earners to the tune of billions of dollars. By not indexing tax brackets, GST credits and the child tax benefit between 1993 and 1997, the federal government took $5 billion out of the pockets of low income earners. By not indexing these things, the whole structure of transfers to individuals was left to change according to the cost of living. This in turn resulted in a complete distortion of the tax system, which affects the effectiveness of tax policies and makes the system unfair.

Let me give members an example of the type of distortion resulting from this decision not to index credits. A person earning between $32,000 and $33,000 paid $821 more in income tax between 1994 and 1997. However, a person earning $92,241 paid $752 more in income tax during that period. We can see the unfairness in the system and its unfair effect, a tax bias.

Which of the government's measures actually caused the impoverishment? For the Bloc Quebecois it is surely the reduction in provincial transfers, reductions of $6 billion annually for a total of $42 billion. That affects education, health care and social assistance.

People in vulnerable situations, living below the poverty line, need more support for help with children. They need more health care. They often need social assistance. It is sad to say, but it is the truth. When the federal government cuts transfers to the provinces, it impoverishes the public too.

Then there is the employment insurance reform. Six out of ten unemployed individuals are excluded; 32% of unemployed women received benefits in 1997; 15% of young people are eligible for benefits. These two government measures could have been effective in the fight against poverty. The Liberal government could have decided, with $20 billion in the employment insurance fund, to help part of the population without employment and often without financial assistance.

These people are often not eligible for social assistance for other reasons: because a partner is working, earning a bit, they have to give up their possessions, their small savings. This is how poverty grows.

I do not, unfortunately, have time to continue. It is always a shame when a speech is split in two with one part delivered earlier and one later. It is never fair in terms of time.

I respect the Chair. Since I am told that my time is up, I will stop here. I hope I will have other opportunities to speak of all the measures the Liberal government could implement to stop poverty. I hope I will have the opportunity to do so in the weeks following the tabling of the budget and I hope you will give me more time to address this issue.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Paul's.

I would also like to thank the House for this opportunity to speak on the motion as put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party. I will take the opportunity at this point to read the motion into the record:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take steps to alleviate the burden of poverty in Canada by encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance and, to that end, should increase the basic income tax credit to $10,000, index the tax brackets and index the child tax benefit.

My first observation is that this is a bit of a jumble. We are dealing with tax credits, we are dealing with poverty, we are dealing with indexation, we are dealing with a variety of tax credits. Frankly I have even heard members speak about homelessness in this whole debate. About the only problem that is not here is that of original sin.

If we eliminate from the motion the concept of poverty, I think the motion starts to make a little more sense. Really the motion does not deal with poverty. It deals with the person who cannot find enough money from month to month to make ends meet.

In order to make any sense of this motion, I believe it should simply deal with the efficacy of tax credits, the efficacy of the child tax benefit as a means by which fairness can be introduced into the tax system. If I may be permitted, I would like to restate the motion along those lines and address that issue.

The real question then becomes as to what this government has done in order to alleviate the working poor, the person who really cannot make it from month to month and is forever in danger of slipping into poverty.

At the outset it is not really rocket science. The first thing we should do is move up the threshold at which taxes get paid. When means were available this government at the first opportunity moved up that threshold. The last move on the threshold was $500 which eliminated about 400,000 Canadians from the tax rolls. That is a great number of Canadians to remove from the tax rolls and alleviate them from paying any taxes at all.

The other measure that was introduced in the last budget which will alleviate poverty was with respect to another 13 million taxpayers who no longer have to pay the 3% surtax on incomes below $50,000. Hopefully the 1999 budget will go the entire route and eliminate that surtax in its entirety. It was after all a surtax that was introduced for the purpose of deficit elimination. The deficit is now eliminated and has been eliminated for two years running now, and it is appropriate to eliminate that tax.

The 1998 budget also helped families with child care expenses by significantly increasing the limits of the child care expense deduction from $5,000 to $7,000 for children under seven, and from $3,000 to $4,000 for children seven to sixteen. These measures will add to tax relief for approximately 65,000 working families in Canada.

May I say as a point of general observation that I for one am not as thrilled about that particular child tax expense credit because it has two flaws as I see it. First, it has Revenue Canada preferring the arrangements that families might make with respect to children in one manner over another which I do not think is any business of Revenue Canada. Second, one has to have a very decent income in order to maximize out on this particular benefit.

While I support the government's initiative in this area, it seems to me in some respects a bit of a crude instrument in terms of achieving certain benefits to taxpaying families which might otherwise be done in another fashion.

The government introduced other initiatives to assist low and middle income families as well. Effective July 1, 1998, $1.7 billion per year was introduced in the child tax benefit. It provides $1,625 for the first child and $1,425 for each child thereafter.

When those cheques started to go through the system in July of last year I received quite a number of telephone calls at my constituency office. The calls were to the effect: “Thank you for that cheque. It really helps. This month my family and I will not have to go to the food bank. This month we will catch up on some of our bills. This month we will be able to avoid the embarrassment of being so close to continually slipping into debt”. I received quite a number of calls along that line.

About two weeks later I received an additional set of calls. This time it was calls from the people on social assistance. The people on social assistance in the province of Ontario were cut back by an equal amount of money.

We had the worst of all possible worlds. We had raised expectations. We had met expectations with money and by another branch of another government had taken those moneys away. Those expectations and that reality were dashed. I can still hear those conversations in my constituency office. People were literally crying on the phone that they had to go back to the food bank for another month and saw no hope.

The Liberal caucus put a lot of political capital into that initiative. As a Liberal member on this side of the House I am very proud to see that initiative adopted by this government. However I am very frustrated that initiative was in some respects defeated by a government that has no commitment to the reduction and alleviation of child poverty in the province of Ontario.

That is why I take some encouragement, though I must admit some skeptical encouragement, from the social union discussions. I am hopeful that kind of undercutting will not occur in the future once this government takes a particular initiative in an area to relieve child poverty or any other kind of poverty which is perceived to be in the national interest.

I do not think the government wants to micromanage a provincial economy or a provincial government's priorities. It does not want to be in the position of backfilling tax cuts, tax cuts which are ideologically driven, tax cuts which are a priority to all other priorities. It also does not want to be in a position of having its initiatives in the national interest being defeated simultaneously. I am skeptical but I am hopeful these social union talks will go in a direction so these kinds of initiatives are not defeated.

In summary, the motion does not deserve to be supported. It is poorly drafted. It looks like it was a bushel basket that everyone got around and threw a whole bunch of stuff into. It is not a coherent motion. It tries to connect tax credits and poverty. When one is in poverty and not filing tax returns and has no income, tax credits are the least of one's worries. One certainly is not terribly interested in indexation and all of the ratcheting up that might be going on simultaneously.

Moving up the threshold by $500 was a smart move on the part of the government. It simply eliminated 400,000 taxpayers from the roles. It gave additional relief to something in the order of 4.6 million Canadians just by moving up $500.

Tax credits, be they for children or poverty or otherwise, are limited in their usefulness because one needs to have an income in order to use them. They are also limited in their usefulness because provincial governments ideologically driven in other directions can defeat them by their own policies. Partially eliminating the 3% tax on $50,000 incomes is worth $1.4 billion and is a relief to 90% of all tax filers. Hopefully the budget will see it completely eliminated.

These are not motions, not even poorly drafted motions. These are concrete measures which the government has achieved. That is why I am urging all members to speak to the motion and to defeat it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I remind the hon. member that we are on one minute questions and one minute answers so we can get the maximum number of questions in.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with that good plan, not that you need my concurrence.

I listened carefully to the member's statement. He talked about eliminating the surtax, which is a great idea. The fact of the matter is that the surtaxes apply mostly to higher income people.

The motion as amended deals with increasing the tax credit or the basic exemption which would primarily reduce to the greatest percentage the taxes paid by poorer people. In other words, a person with a family income of $12,000, which is a pitiful amount by today's standard, would pay taxes. If we increased the limits and applied the same kind of exemption to spouses they would be eliminated from the tax roll. Surely he would be in favour of that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure that I understood the question, if in fact there was a question. I apologize to the hon. member. I was listening carefully.

We could do one of several things. We could move up the bottom. Once in the tax system we could put some credits on and eliminate the taxes in the system. Or, we could reduce from the top and presumably make more moneys available.

Our response has been to initially move up the bottom. When we can take 400,000 people off the tax rolls we are doing something right. That is and of itself one of the most effective means by which to eliminate poverty. It is a substantial cost to the treasury but I think it is worth paying.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how do we get to zero poverty? I will read a resolution passed by all members of this House. It was supported by all parties in 1989.

[That] this House ... seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

This resolution was passed in 1989. Today, there are 1.5 million poor children, 500,000 more than in 1989. What has this government done since 1993 to put into effect what the members voted for in 1989?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question and I appreciate it. In my view that is a worthwhile motion and a worthwhile goal. It is something that the government has attempted to move toward. It is always put in the context of realism. The first realism is limitations on government revenues.

Another concrete reality is that the government role in society is a diminishing factor of GDP. As the government role in society reduces, its ability to address the concern the member has, that is eliminating child poverty, is reduced as well. We cannot be increasing government and increasing the ability to eliminate child poverty as well.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. member think should be done with the EI surplus? Should it go to balance the deficit and other programs? Or, should it go back to the workers so they can look after their families, especially those in remote communities?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I had my way I would entirely separate out the EI account just like we handle it off books and deal with it that way instead of getting into this whole fictional exercise.

The hon. member opposite does not appreciate that if there is a surplus of $13 billion, $17 billion, $20 billion or whatever the number is, it is ratcheted here and ratcheted there. That revenue will need to be replaced on the books somewhere. If the member can tell me how it will be replaced somewhere then we can deal with the other issue.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, poverty, in a country as rich as Canada, is very disturbing for this government and for all Canadians. Unquestionably, we should not tolerate even one Canadian living in poverty.

As members of the House well know, poverty is and continues to be a major preoccupation of our government. We are particularly aware of the importance of addressing child poverty, recognizing that giving children in Canada a good start in life is one of the most important investments Canada can make for its future.

I assure the hon. member for Shefford that we are working aggressively to achieve this goal. I remind the House that as of last July we began to invest $850 million per year into the national child benefit. These new funds are over and above the $5.1 billion we already invest in families with children. By July of the year 2000 that additional investment will reach $1.7 billion per year into the national child benefit. That more than compensates for inflation.

We will clearly need to sustain and enhance the benefit over a number of years, something we have committed to do. We do not pretend that this first phase of the program will solve child poverty. Nor do we suggest that a single program can be expected to reduce poverty on its own.

As part of our comprehensive plan to fight poverty we have provided a range of supports to low income families such as the family income supplement for roughly 200,000 low income parents on unemployment insurance and increased deductions for child care. We have also strengthened the community action program for children as well as the Canadian prenatal nutrition program for children at risk.

No one on this side of the Chamber would disagree that there is still much more to be done. However, my hon. colleague must not overlook the government's track record in endowing the country's children with a legacy of greater opportunity.

Neither can the opposition ignore the fact that money is not the entire answer. The fact is the share of government transfer payments to Canadians such as child tax benefits, goods and services tax credits and old age pensions has doubled over the past quarter century. In 1995 these transfers contributed 14 cents of every dollar of income compared with 11 cents in 1990 and less than 7 cents in 1970.

While my hon. colleague's motion is undeniably well intended, it is highly doubtful that simply raising the tax threshold would make a meaningful difference in the war against poverty. Poverty is a deeply entrenched and complex challenge that defies easy solutions. It will take not only money but time and a lot of hard work on the part of all Canadians to turn this situation around. There is no magic formula, but we can work to provide more opportunities by creating the right conditions to fight poverty through a strong labour market.

The reality is that reducing poverty ultimately depends on putting underemployed and unemployed Canadians to work. That has more to do with the individual's age, skills, experience and personal motivation than it does with tax brackets.

Very obviously addressing these difficult issues extends beyond the purview of the finance department or any one level of government. Alleviating poverty requires the concerted efforts of federal and provincial governments along with the co-operation and support of the private and voluntary sectors as well as individual Canadians themselves.

I am pleased to see that the opposition motion acknowledges the need to foster self-sufficiency and self-reliance. Canadians have always striven to maintain a successful balance between taking responsibility for themselves and sharing responsibility for others.

We believe strongly in compassion and fairness as we value individual independence and achievement. This philosophy is reflected in many of the initiatives our government has brought forward aimed at addressing the root causes of poverty and empowering people to help themselves. We have focused much of our efforts on equipping Canadians with the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed in a changing working world because Canada's economic prospects and the eventual elimination of poverty increasingly depend on a highly trained and highly educated workforce.

Anyone doubting this fundamental fact of life in the new economy need only look at the employment numbers. Since 1981 jobs for Canadians with a high school education or less dropped by two million while jobs demanding higher qualifications grew by more than five million.

Clearly Canadians with more education have better job prospects, greater job security and higher earnings. Just as clearly this is key to narrowing the gap between the haves and the have nots. That is why the government introduced the youth employment strategy which helps young people make the transition from school to work, especially those youth at risk.

There are active employment measures under employment insurance which provide opportunities for skills upgrading, wage subsidies and job creation partnerships, financial assistance to those who want to go back to school and self-employment assistance.

Canada jobs funds create sustainable jobs in areas of high unemployment.

The employment assistance for persons with disabilities initiative, a federal-provincial partnership introduced last year, is helping increase the participation of Canadians with disabilities in the workforce.

The aboriginal action plan is to ensure the integration and the equality of aboriginal people in the economy and all sectors of society.

The Canadian opportunities strategy helps Canadians upgrade their skills and knowledge whether they are still in school or already in the workforce to improve their prospects for employment.

The overriding objective of all these initiatives is to help ensure that Canadians, especially those at greatest risk of exclusion, have better and more opportunity to participate in the demanding new economy and to share in its benefits. The evidence to date indicates that this strategy is working. Unemployment is now at the lowest rate since 1990. Since we took office 1.6 million new jobs have been created, 449,000 last year alone. Of those 449,000 new jobs, 143,000 went to young Canadians and some 299,000 women found work in 1998, the majority in full time jobs.

Tinkering with tax brackets as the opposition proposes will not result in numbers like these. Ensuring more Canadians receive the supports they need to help themselves to better jobs and better futures will.

I believe the hon. member for Shefford is truly committed to bridging the divide between rich and poor. I encourage her to work with the government to help us as we prepare young children to get off to a good start in life and as we prepare Canadians for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century economy. I am convinced that together we stand a much better chance of helping all Canadians shake off the shackles of poverty.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague of what is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 50th anniversary of which was just celebrated. It includes the following statement “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”.

It seems that this is not the case here in Canada, a country said to be very rich. When children do not get enough to eat, when they are not dressed properly because their parents are waiting for the last week cheque, I wonder just how motivated the government is to help them.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with this question in that it is the reason when we are held accountable to international standards that we need the kinds of national standards that have come part and parcel of our new social union negotiation. It is only when we have strong national standards that we will be able to ensure that the provinces are not able to let down Canadians in the way I think Ontarians feel has happened in the government of Michael Harris.

I am delighted that the hon. member understands that when we sit on the international stage with the Canadian flag before us that we as a federal government need a way to ensure that all Canadians are able to achieve their visions and values of this country.