Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should recognize that we took on the reforms in 1996 to make the system fairer, reduce dependency, assist claimants in low income families with children, reduce program costs and emphasize active measures, all the while leaving the core elements of employment insurance intact. Perhaps this is not his view, and I doubt that it is.

These are facts. These are not my opinions. These goals are just as important today as they were in 1996. This is what we aspire to. I am sad and sorry that the members opposite do not feel the same.

Let us look at the changes. In 1997 we saw an inequity and created the small week pilot project. In the 2000 budget we extended parental benefits. These are all changes. Today we talk about clawback and intensity. These are very specific. Do the hon. members not recognize that these are changes?

I do not know how we can convince them. I am sure that with more time we can, because they will come to their senses and realize this is the thing to do.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member should reflect on the fortunes of his party and consider the whole issue of reform and review. That is where the reform needs to be.

It is undeniable that we are living in a world of change. We have high technology, mechanization, digitalization and a shift from a resource based economy to a high tech, innovative economy. We have challenges to face and one of the challenges is adjusting to change.

The hon. member's comments serve to remind many Canadians that his party is unwilling to change, unwilling to meet the challenges and unwilling to make tough decisions in the short term for long term gain. I think that is what it is all about. The hon. member should consider those comments.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think members understand that these are very specific reforms. These changes are not a panacea to all the woes, problems, hardships and challenges that face women. There are many other opportunities that we have to look at.

Some members in the House cannot distinguish between the issue of guaranteed income and a specific program like employment insurance. We need to have a different set of discussions on whether or not there are other issues we have to look at to perhaps enhance the economic well-being of women. It is a fact that women are benefiting from our economy as a whole. There were 31,000 new jobs created for women in December. Employment for women increased by 1.1 million jobs since 1993.

No, we cannot resolve all the issues because these are specific reforms. Look at the benefit repayment clawback, the re-entrance provision and the retroactive fishing regulations which ensure that women in the fishing industry can access the same parental benefits as other women. This is progress and the hon. member should recognize that.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents of Western Arctic and on behalf of my government in favour of these changes to the employment insurance legislation.

I have been with HRDC since 1993, when EI was still UI, as it was known then. It was under the leadership of former Minister Axworthy that the initial discussion on review and reform began. It was an attempt to look at the inequities in the system, at the issues and at the long outdated problems that had occurred within the system and needed to be changed. The ensuing debate was on those issues. Subsequently we went through successive ministers, four to be exact, the most important to date our current minister, who has undertaken to complete the file on the changes for these particular sections.

The changes we are bringing forward under this bill are important and necessary. As members of the House know, this bill was introduced in the House last fall and debated in second reading. That is why we are reintroducing this bill. The changes herein reflect the mandate that Canadians gave us in the last election. They also follow from our government's ongoing monitoring and review of the EI system and our belief in fairness.

There is always an effort made to ensure that the best results come from any reforms or reviews of legislations, programs and services. This monitoring has led us to recognize that some of the changes brought in then have caused unanticipated difficulties, especially some of the impacts that they have had on seasonal workers and parents who take extended absences from the workforce to care for young children.

We want to provide a program that is fair and that Canadians can count on for support when they are out of work or when they are preparing for work. We have continued to monitor the process. By and large we can say that all the core elements of the reforms undertaken in 1996 are working well. However, we also recognize that some improvements need to be made. That is why we are doing this legislation reform.

I see the legislation as good news for families and their children. By eliminating the intensity rule, for example, we will improve the situation of workers and their families who often have to rely on EI more than they would like to because job opportunities may be limited. For many people in situations like this the existing legislation may be perceived to be punitive, especially in regions where jobs are scarce. This is something that is recognized by these changes.

Remember the intensity rule was put in place to discourage the repeat use of EI. Unfortunately, it has not achieved the desired results. Looking at my part of the country, for example, we do not have the same job opportunities as some other areas of the country. In some regions of my riding of Western Arctic, jobs are very scarce or at best very seasonal.

Not everyone is in the same situation across the country. Take for example the individuals employed in the transportation industry, the ferry workers and the longshoremen of the Northwest Territories. These men and women ensure the transportation of vital goods to many small communities in the western Arctic. Many people would not know but we do not have a complete highway system. We do not have 100% of the transportation grid in our area, neither does Nunavut and some parts of the northern areas of provinces. These jobs are at best very seasonal. These men and women, try as they might, cannot always work year around. The weather simply makes it impossible. Should they be penalized by the intensity rule?

The same is true in a number of other industries in northern communities, such as commercial fisheries. Our communities also depend on firefighters to prevent and extinguish forest fires. Sometimes they work in very remote locations and sometimes they go abroad and assist because they developed the expertise and are asked to make a contribution nationally and internationally outside of our region. Nonetheless, their work is seasonal work. Should these workers be penalized by the intensity rule?

Oil and gas workers, as well as mining industry workers, are other groups who are a vital part of the communities of the Northwest Territories. This work is highly seasonal for the very fact that we do not have permanent roads. We depend on winter roads which have a very short window of opportunity because of the environment. We are not allowed to continue with the transportation of goods once the ground softens. This really has an impact on the livelihood of many of those people. Once again, while they would like to work year around, the reality of our weather, climate and winter prevents this. The intensity rule has caused hardship for many people in circumstances like this.

We all agree that the emphasis should be on encouraging people to gain long term employment. I know that is what people in the north want to do. That is the long term strategic goal of the north, to become self-sustaining. With the opportunity of now having two diamond mines in full swing, we anticipate camps that have 800 people.

All the same, many of the people who transport fuel and goods are seasonal workers because of the very nature of the climate and circumstances that our environment entails in the north. It is not a government device. We report the weather but we do not create the environment that makes the weather. That is the way it is. Once again, while they would like to work year around, the reality is their circumstances prevent it.

We have to be realistic and we are. We want a system that is fair to all Canadians including those whose incomes depend on seasonal employment. We can do that by eliminating the intensity rule and backdating the change to October 1, 2000, as the legislation proposes.

I know all members want this. We want to restore the basic rate of 55% for everyone. This is good news. I also see good news in the proposed legislation for those individuals and their families whose income includes special benefits under EI. By this, I mean benefits paid under EI for maternity or parental leave or in cases of illness.

Under the current system special benefits can be subject to the clawback. Under the legislation before us, that will no longer be the case. When Bill C-2 is passed, people collecting maternity, parental or sickness benefits, will no longer have to repay their benefits.

First time claimants will also get a break from the clawback. A first time claimant has often paid premiums for many years without ever drawing on their benefits. At the same time, the government proposes to raise the income level at which the clawback kicks in for repeat claimants, from $39,000 to $48,750 net income.

After the legislation is passed, only higher income Canadians who have repeatedly received EI will face the prospect of paying back their benefits.

I note the legislation proposes we make this repayment adjustment apply starting from taxation year 2000. In other words, the change will provide benefit for all of 2000 and from that time forward.

The bill also proposes changes that will help parents of young children to more easily qualify for regular benefits after they have re-entered the labour force. If the bill is adopted, parents would require the same number of hours as other workers to qualify for regular benefits, between 420 and 700 hours depending on the unemployment rate where they live.

The new rules will recognize the strong workforce attachments these parents had prior to taking an extended period away from work to raise their young children. For example, we have heard about women who felt they had been penalized for taking time away from work to care for their children and that existing regulations did not give them adequate credit for past participation in the labour force.

The throne speech gave a flavour of the kind of care, and previous budgets have also indicated the care, that we give to young children, to families and to the youth of the country. This is a reflection and an extension of that. We want all young children to have a good start. Any legislation that we have put forward has dealt with early intervention and prevention programs. We will ensure that there is compatibility between these changes and the results that we desire.

We are extending the look back period used to determine eligibility for EI regular benefits by four years to make sure re-entrant parents are not treated unfairly. This is an important amendment for my constituents.

Members of the House may not be aware that the Northwest Territories and its neighbour Nunavut have one of the highest birth rates in Canada. In 1999 the birth rate for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut combined was 22.7 births for every 1,000 residents. This compares to an average of 11.2 births for every 1,000 residents in Canada as a whole.

The changes will benefit many people in my riding and neighbouring ridings in the north. I see this as another positive change for Canadian families, particularly in light of the new extended parental benefits. It will remove the penalty these parents, and especially women, could face when applying for EI after an extended absence.

There are numbers of ways the changes in Bill C-2 will benefit unemployed Canadian workers and their families. The bottom line is that by addressing some very real concerns which have been brought to our attention, concerns of my constituents and of the government itself, we are moving to ensure that northerners and all Canadian families are treated fairly under EI, and that they have more money to meet the needs of their families.

However the bill is not the end of our work to ensure fairness under EI. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that we are committed to an ongoing process of review, that we will continue to monitor and access how EI is working and to ensure that the EI system does the job we want it to do. That is why I am pleased to speak in favour of the legislation for northerners and all Canadians.

[Poverty, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac on his election and his first question.

In the Speech from the Throne the government recognizes that too many aboriginal children live in poverty and too many aboriginal youth do not have the skills they need to enter the labour market. It also recognizes the fact that we invest $25 million for youth at risk through the aboriginal human resources development strategy.

We realize we have to do more. We have to expand the programs that are available in aboriginal communities for early childhood development. We have to expand the aboriginal head start program. We have to continue to work to reduce the number of newborns with fetal alcohol syndrome. We will continue to work together to ensure that every child gets a good start in life.

[Children, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on September 11 the Government of Canada entered into a $2.2 billion agreement with the provinces and territories. The agreement reached covers four areas: promoting healthy pregnancy and infancy; improving family support; strengthening early childhood development; and strengthening community support.

Public reaction has been very positive. This new partnership approach is social policy that will make a difference and will bring hope to all children of the country.

[Youth Employment, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a number of measures in place.

Overall this year we will spend $120 million in our attempts to hire students. Last year we hoped to achieve the hiring of 60,000 students. We exceeded that number by 10,000 last summer. We are hoping that employers who have not taken advantage of this program will do so and hire a student.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I note that I too have a very great concern, as the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, and being an aboriginal woman, about the rate of consumption of tobacco products by different sectors of society.

In particular, it should be noted that Quebec has a 30% higher intake of tobacco products than the rest of the country. It is an extremely huge problem. Inuit women also have a very high rate of lung cancer and very high intake.

There is a pervasive influence on young people across the country.

In recent months it has been stated that Quebec has $500 million in a bank account in Ontario. Would it not be wise or at least appropriate for it to make use of that money for such purposes? Would that not make sense? I am sure that all Canadians watching us today would want to know how we could tolerate this situation, with that surplus or money not being used for these means.

I would like to hear the explanation the member would give, not to me but to Canadians on this issue.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today at the second reading stage of Bill C-25, the 1999 income tax amendments act.

Last fall Canadians were promised, in both the speech from the throne and the Minister of Finance's economic and fiscal update, that the government would set out a multi-year plan for further tax reductions.

Budget 2000 delivered on that commitment through a five year tax reduction plan that indexes the tax system against inflation, reduces the middle tax rate and overall cuts taxes by at least $58 billion by the year 2004, an average annual tax cut of 15%, with even greater relief for families with children. It is a plan that will provide further real and lasting tax relief for all Canadians. It is also a plan that had its foundations laid in previous budgets, including that of 1999.

Bill C-25 deals with the measures announced in the 1999 budget. The measures in Bill C-25 demonstrate the following principles of tax fairness: tax relief must be fair and we must start with those who need it most, low and middle income Canadians, especially families with children; priority must be placed on personal income taxes where the burden is greatest and where we are most out of line with other countries; ensure that Canada has an internationally competitive business tax system; and, tax relief must not be financed with borrowed money.

Bill C-25 goes a long way in addressing these issues. Many of these measures are the result of consultations with the industry or clients affected, a process to which our government is dedicated in any major policy change. Each measure addresses an inequity, inconsistency or a discrepancy in the tax system.

I want to focus on the measures that deal with the concerns of low and middle income Canadians and those who need it most. In particular, I want to speak about the following measures: tax credits for individuals, the Canada child tax benefits, medical expense tax credits and tax co-ordination with first nations.

On the issue of personal tax credits, which will bring tax relief to all Canadians, with the high cost of living in the north this will go a long way to alleviating some of the strain on families, especially those with children. Women will also benefit greatly as they remain among the poorest of the poor in Canada. Nearly half of the retired widows live below the poverty line.

The following personal tax credit measures will be of great assistance. First, the 1998 budget raised the amount of money that low income Canadians could receive on a tax-free basis by $500. The 1999 budget extends this relief to all taxpayers and increases that amount by $175. As a result of these two measures, all taxpayers will benefit from a basic personal credit sufficient to allow the receipt of up to $7,131 of tax free income. That is an increase of $675 over what was available in 1997.

The amount upon which the spousal credit is calculated will also be increased by $675 to $6,055. The threshold where the spousal credit begins to be reduced will increase from $538 to $606.

The 1998 budget began the process of eliminating the 3% surtax that was brought in by the previous Conservative government. The surtax was eliminated for taxpayers with incomes of up to $50,000 and reduced it for those with incomes between $50,000 to $65,000.

The 1999 budget completes the process by eliminating the 3% surtax for all taxpayers, so all Canadians will no longer have to pay the 3% surtax. This is a very significant amendment.

In addition there is the removal of 600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls. Together the 1998 and 1999 budget measures removed 600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls and reduced taxes for all 15.7 million Canadian taxpayers.

While all taxpayers will benefit from these measures, low income earners have the most to gain. A typical one earner family of four that receives an annual income of $30,000 or less will pay no net federal income tax. A similar family earning $40,000 will enjoy a 15% federal income tax reduction.

The next point is the Canada child tax credit. The 1998 budget announced a further $850 million under the child tax benefit for the national child benefit system. The 1999 budget sets out the design for the increased assistance agreed to by the federal, provincial and territorial governments targeted at low income families with children.

Effective July 1, 1999 the national child benefit supplement is $785 for the first child, $585 for the second and $510 for each subsequent child. As of July 2000 the supplement will be increased to $955 for the first child, $755 for the second child and $680 for each subsequent child. The increases are quite evident. This will be an increase of $350 for each eligible child.

For both Canada and the Northwest Territories the percentage of lone parent families has steadily increased over the past 15 years and slightly faster in the Northwest Territories. They have faced greater challenges in terms of income and labour force activity. Some 57.1% of single parent families led by women with children under the age of 18 live in poverty based on the 1997 statistics. The child tax benefit will be of benefit to these families in particular.

Turning to tax relief for Canadians with disabilities, hon. members are aware of how this will affect those individuals. They are aware of the government's continuing commitment to help these Canadians by building on the assistance that is already available.

In the last two years additional assistance has been provided through such measures as a caregiver tax credit, a refundable tax credit for low income earners with high medical expenses and the addition of new eligible expenses under the medical expense credit known as METC.

The METC is being extended further to cover expenses for the care of people with severe disabilities living in a group home, therapy for those with severe disabilities and tutoring for the learning disabled with severe disabilities.

In addition talking textbooks for individuals with perceptual disabilities who are enrolled in educational institutions will be included on the list of eligible equipment for persons with disabilities. This will make the lives of those people immeasurably easier. It will help. It will not be the total solution but it will help. This measure will be of great assistance to those who need it most in our society.

The first nations taxation co-ordination measure was not announced as part of the 1999 budget. It is designed to help implement taxation agreements with the first nations providing for a reduction in federal tax for individuals who are subject to the income tax legislation of certain first nations. This amendment puts the federal government's tax sharing agreements with self-governing Yukon first nations into force.

With respect to the personal income tax collected from residents of these Yukon first nations settlement lands, the federal government will vacate 75% of its tax room for the Yukon first nations government to occupy. The bill will also ensure that the tax burden of an individual subject to first nations taxation is the same as in its surrounding jurisdiction. This is an example of great progress on the issue of first nations taxation and self-government.

As hon. members know, the government remains committed to providing substantial tax relief to Canadians on an ongoing basis. Bill C-25 and budget 2000 deliver on this commitment.

I conclude by saying there are many measures here that are going to help the average Canadian and which will help those people who need it the most. We must not forget when we as government take certain steps to alleviate pressure on those impacted groups that we do it with the sensitivity that is needed and in a universal manner that reaches all those people who need it the most.

[Youth, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very positive suggestion by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

We have to recognize the positive contribution made to this country by youth. We also have to recognize that they should maximize the opportunities that are there for them. At the same time we have to recognize there are desperate needs that young people have regarding suicide, tobacco reduction, unemployment. These are challenges that youth face which we have to assist them with.

It is a very good suggestion and we will undertake to review it and get back to the hon. member.