Andy Scott

[Formal Systems Inc., September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to your attention the major expansion of a leading edge Fredericton company.

Formal Systems Inc. has announced it will create 100 new jobs. These jobs are being created with the help of a $750,000 repayable loan from ACOA as Formal Systems undertakes activities leading to the development of new technologies. These technologies will address the date change at the turn of the century which is less than 1,000 working days away.

Computers are set up for a two digit date and when the clock turns to the year 2000, the computer will read the date as being the year 1900, resulting in obvious disruptions in everything from billing phone calls to calculating interest. Most computers are not set up to adapt properly to the date change. Formal Systems will develop an automated conversion tool set to remedy this problem.

New Brunswick companies are once again showing they have the solutions, the technology and the drive to lead the way in meeting worldwide information technology requirements.

[Literacy, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again to your attention an innovative tool for promoting literacy.

I had the recent pleasure of participating in launching a new Canada Post Corporation stamp in Fredericton. The new stamp is a partnership effort between CPC and ABC Canada, a non-profit organization that helps raise awareness of literacy and promotes private sector involvement in supporting the cause.

The new stamp costs 50 cents, with five cents from every stamp going to ABC Canada.

I wish to commend Canada Post for this novel and creative way to support literacy in this country. It is once again helping us raise funds on a community basis. New Brunswick has been a leader in the promotion of literacy and I hope it continues to lead by supporting the use of this new stamp. If all 10 million stamps are sold literacy groups across the nation will benefit to the tune of $500,000. If one in three Canadians buys just one booklet of stamps they will sell out.

[Petitions, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by 78 constituents and nearby residents of New Brunswick.

The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code to the effect that a mother or father without serious cause not be able to place obstacles between a child and his or her grandparents, and failing agreement between the parties that the modalities of the relationship would be settled by the courts, and further to amend the Divorce Act so that it would give grandparents access to information about the health and well-being of their grandchildren.

[Fredericton-York-Sunbury Economy, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, most recent Statistics Canada figures note that the unemployment rate in Fredericton, New Brunswick is the lowest in

Canada east of Hamilton at 8.5 per cent. This is a 2 per cent improvement in the rate since this government took office.

Credit must go to the small businesses that more and more create our wealth and jobs, and those agencies such as the Fredericton and Oromocto chambers of commerce and the Greater Fredericton Economic Development Corporation which have distinguished themselves regionally and nationally in the area of community driven economic development initiatives.

It is fitting that these numbers come out during tourism week, the basis of many jobs in our region. That, together with the high tech sector, has resulted in our region benefiting from the more than 600,000 jobs that have been created since October 1993.

Congratulations to the federal government for meeting its campaign commitment to jobs, and the province and my community for making that prosperity work for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and its citizens.

[Regional Development, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the secretary of state responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

As the government continues to redefine its role in regional economic development, and as the emphasis of ACOA broadens from providing funds to other kinds of support, could the minister tell the House what is being done to enhance Atlantic Canada's opportunities with regard to federal government procurement?

[National Access Awareness Week, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Access Awareness Week. Citizens with disabilities are just that, citizens first and foremost, not somehow less than those of us who can walk around without the aid of a wheelchair or go to work without the aid of an attendant.

The only difference between those of us who are disabled and those of us who are not is that those of us who are not have been lucky.

There have been many gains with respect to awareness in many areas of society. Differences in race, religion and sexual orientation are becoming more and more accepted and actions are being taken to mitigate injustice.

We need to afford persons with disabilities the same consideration. It needs to become a matter of course that access is built into every program we design, every course we put on, every announcement that we make and every incentive that we offer.

We must be committed to being accessible to all Canadians and this is the week that we are to be reminded.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to go into a little more detail about the question which I put to the minister responsible for the federal public service in mid-April.

I asked a question regarding the downsizing of the public service because I believe that there is an area in this exercise where we as a government can address a situation that would benefit those involved. In short, I believe there are things that we can do.

First, we must recognize that during the beginning of this three-year program the attraction to packages being offered was easy to manage. There were many individuals who were quite willingly accepting them. As we move closer to the end of the exercise it must be getting more and more difficult to find workers willing to accept the offer. I want to urge the department to invest as much discretion as possible in local managers so that they will have the opportunity and the flexibility which they need to treat people in as humane a fashion as possible.

I am aware there are those who accepted packages in the initial stages. That was done in good faith. However, we must be prepared to reassess our own rules if we are going to continue to attract people at the same rate as we have in the past.

We must be motivated to find the fairest possible solutions to the many problems that may arise and the local managers are in the best place to do that.

Also we must realize that funding for non-governmental organizations as one possible employer has been reduced along with many other areas where federal public servants may have found alternate work. It is therefore incumbent on the government to be as open as possible to alternatives suggested by local managers on adjustments to the federal public service work week or any other ideas which would generate more jobs. They must be considered. I believe that is our contribution in this exercise.

In conclusion, I want the government to recognize that the public service has participated quite graciously in this exercise and we must be willing, as a government, to listen to them and to give the local managers the flexibility they need to do the downsizing properly.

[St. Thomas University, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate St. Thomas University's graduating class which held its convocation this week in Fredericton. The day was the culmination of many years of hard work and dedication by those students who received their degrees. I wish them success in their chosen career paths.

I would also like to congratulate this year's honorary degree recipients: Dr. Louis Dudek of Montreal, Dr. Eric Garland, Mr. Frank McKenna and Mrs. Julie McKenna, as well as Rabbi David Spiro, all of whom have contributed tremendously to their communities.

All of this week's graduates worked hard to reach the goal they set for themselves and I commend them. I applaud St. Thomas University on its selections for honorary degrees. The choices do credit to the university, to our communities and to the recipients themselves.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I now sympathize with my friend from Edmonton when my friend from Lévis suggested I should be on the other side. We are always saying he should be on the other side. I have an understanding as to how confusing that might be.

The shift from weeks to hours will be beneficial to our region. With our amendments to fix some of the mechanical problems in the bill I believe it will be good for our region.

I recognize we will be taking a net $1.2 billion out of the system. I know the member is aware that there are many people who regularly draw benefits. I am not talking about fraud or misuse. I am talking about the fact that a program was put forward which allowed people who could not make enough money in a year to live on to supplement their income. That is what a part of the program is about. There are people who draw on the system who cannot make that argument. We may disagree on how many.

As the member knows, $800 million is going back into employment programs which will affect the income levels of people in the system. Therefore I believe we can take $1.2 billion out of the system and not negatively affect the program.

I have been engaged in the debate to make sure it happens at the top, not at the bottom. That is what the amendment is all about.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, before I get into my own comments, I want to commend you on the many interventions you have made on this bill on behalf of the people in Madawaska-Victoria. I did not want that to go unstated.

Every time I get up to speak to this bill and talk about some amendments we have proposed I seem to get distracted. I must admit to being distracted again.

My colleague from Gaspé in putting a question to my colleague from Thunder Bay asked what this bill does for seasonal workers. Very specifically, the bill puts value on their work rather than on their week. Someone who works more than 35 hours a week benefits from this bill. Even the CLC, which has not been an ardent supporter of this piece of legislation from the beginning, acknowledged that.

I am sure the economy in the riding of my colleague is not significantly different from that of the province of New Brunswick.

I am prepared to acknowledge and have acknowledged weaknesses in the bill where they exist. However, I would also expect that we have to acknowledge the existing strengths in the bill.

I believe the member specifically asked whether the government expected to extend the seasons. No. What we need to do is to extend the value of work. People who work 70 hours in a week because they work in a seasonal industry should get the benefit of those 70 hours of work. Those hours of work are very common in the kinds of industries in the communities we represent. With this bill, a 70 hour work week, based on conventional applications of UI, is worth two weeks. It is that simple.

In my own constituency generally the result will be that someone will get in with one and one-half fewer weeks of work because the value will be on hours and they will get as much as two weeks more of benefit. I accept the fact that if someone has not been a part of the labour force it is going to be tougher. However, we have to recognize where the value is.

I have mentioned the value of the shift from weeks to hours. In our case I believe that 85 per cent or 87 per cent of the labour force in the province of New Brunswick works more than 35 hours a week. That speaks to how many people will be advantaged by this.

Another benefit is the low income supplement. Very specifically, if the family income is less than $26,000 the benefits that will go to that family will increase by up to 13 per cent. For a single person that will not happen and I accept that, but let us recognize the strengths in the bill where they exist.

Finally, with the human resources investment fund, people who have not had access to programs before will have access to programs because there is a reach back. I am sure the member for Gaspé knows exactly what I am referring to. In the past, people who were not eligible for benefits were not eligible for the program. Now if someone has been on UI for the past three years or on sickness or maternity in the last five years they will be eligible for employment benefits. That is a significant improvement in the program.

I would like to get back to some of the comments by the member from Edmonton. He spoke of the need for an honest debate. He very nicely positioned himself and his party in terms of this debate. Basically he said if one cannot find work in Cape Breton or northern New Brunswick or in Quebec, move. They should where the work is.

I find that an unacceptable solution. We have a larger obligation than that. I have a lot of respect for the member from Edmonton and we share similar views on many things, but we do not share similar views on that.

He spoke of the need for a national guaranteed income. I have supported that concept for many years. What would he say to those people who say a national guaranteed income will create dependency? Basically they will throw his argument right back at him on that question. I would not throw that argument back at him. I agree with those concepts. I agree we have a larger collective responsibility to each other.

The hon. member referred to the fact that very often people take UI just because they do not like their job. It has been my experience that it is not the case. People on UI would much sooner be contributing premiums than drawing benefits. As an Atlantic Canadian, because from time to time that argument is thrown back at us, I take great exception with the suggestion that people for the most part are on UI as a choice. I do not know of very many people who would not prefer to pay premiums than draw benefits.

There was a reference by the member about water running up hill and something to the effect that there is no point in trying to impose our political will on the natural order of things which would see Canadians move to those places where the jobs are and that is a natural law and cannot be affected. I draw a different analogy.

Essentially what the member was saying was that people are on their own. Basically we have equal opportunity. They can go to school and they can do all of these things. Fundamentally when all is said and done they make their own way in this world.

I see it as the same analogy as throwing a baby off a boat into the ocean as a way of teaching them how to swim. I do not see it that way. I accept the challenge of the member that we should have an honest discussion about this. I am certainly prepared to do that, for that is not the way I see a country proceeding in a civilized way.

There was a reference to the fact that some parts of the country do not have the economic base. They do not have the jobs. They do not have the same economic viability as other parts. The reference was they never have, they do not and they never will. That is not the case.

Our part of the country which right now benefits from these programs at one time had one of the most booming economies in the world. We joined Confederation. Early in Confederation our part of Canada was very affluent, very successful and by being part of the broader country and buying into national policies basically changed our trading patterns from north-south to east-west to help develop the country. Consequently we paid a price for that.

For anyone to suggest somehow we are inherently non-viable, I have a great deal of trouble with that. It is very shortsighted. New Brunswick right now is on a bit of a roll. It is recognized in Canada for getting its act together. Its economy is starting to grow.

However, if the government moves too quickly on these programs it will close down the economies of the region. That is why I felt so strongly that we had to pursue the amendments we were able to accomplish. We cannot close down the economies of our regions by moving too quickly on these programs. That is the reason for the amendments.

I thank those who have contributed to the honest debate.