John Harvard

[Canadian Curling Championship, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Manitobans, I take this opportunity to extend sincere congratulations to Manitoba's very own Jeff Stoughton rink on winning the 1999 Canadian Curling Championship on Sunday. They were crowned Canadian champs after defeating Quebec by a score of 9 to 5 at the Labatt Brier in Edmonton.

The Manitoba rink hails from the Charleswood Curling Club in my riding of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. It is composed of skip Jeff Stoughton, third Jonathon Mead, second Gerry Van Den Berghe, lead Doug Armstrong and fifth member Steve Gould.

Not only was this the second Brier victory for Jeff Stoughton, it was also the 26th time that a Manitoba rink has won this prestigious event, far more than any other province. The Stoughton victory again shows that Manitoba is the curling capital of Canada.

All Manitobans are very proud of the accomplishments of Jeff Stoughton and his teammates and wish them the very best in their quest for the world crown in Scotland next month.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Who do you trust?

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Why does the hon. member not address the question?

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the contradictions.

The member for Prince George—Peace River has found conditional sentencing wanting. He is basically saying that judges and all the officials of the courts cannot be trusted with this tool of flexibility. According to the Reform Party member, since the courts cannot be trusted, the judges cannot be trusted, the prosecutors cannot be trusted, the defence lawyers cannot be trusted, this matter has to be returned to the legislators in Ottawa.

According to the Reform Party member, it is up to the legislators who will have the responsibility of getting it right. But, and this is where I get to the contradiction, who is more denigrated by the Reform Party? Who is more mistrusted by the Reform Party than legislators?

We cannot win with the Reform Party. The Reform Party does not trust the judges. It does not trust the prosecutors. It does not trust the defence lawyers. It does not trust the law makers. It does not trust the politicians.

It might be worthy to ask this particular Reform Party member whom do the Reform members trust? Whom will they turn to? In all their presentations they denigrate everyone in every part of the chain. They denigrate everyone. It does not matter what one does in this country, they will denigrate, they will show their absolute disdain for officers of any political institution.

Canadians understand this talk from the Reform Party. It really is grating on members of the governing party. We have a responsibility not only to the justice system, but to the whole country. Yet all we hear from the Reform Party is let us see if we can denigrate one more Canadian citizen.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I find more offensive, the sanctimony of Reform Party members or their contradictions. If I were to use something more precise like the word hypocrisy, I would be declared unparliamentary so I will not use that word.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-299, which was introduced by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois.

Bill C-299 would give the Employment Insurance Commission the sole authority to determine the rate of premiums for employers and workers.

The commission would be required to hold hearings every two years as the basis for establishing the rates and it would credit any surplus of premiums over benefits to the EI account and presumably leave that money there.

This proposal is seriously flawed, however, and would not at all serve the interests of workers or the general Canadian public. Let me explain why.

First of all, a totally independent commission would be accountable only to its constituents, in this case workers and employers. As it now stands, the commission makes recommendations to the government which is accountable to all Canadians.

It is precisely because the government is accountable to all Canadians that we have taken steps to ensure that employment insurance offers unemployed Canadians more than just income support.

Under the current system, EI provides for $2.1 billion a year in active employment measures to help unemployed Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find work.

Under the Bloc's proposed amendments to the act, there would be no assurance that such an active system would have been established or would be maintained by the proposed commission.

Further, neither Bill C-299 nor the later Bloc proposal states whether the proposed commission would be given responsibility for establishing EI benefit levels or for policy and regulation of benefits.

During a recession, increased numbers of unemployed could place greater demands on the fund, necessitating higher premium rates. This would happen at the very time when sound fiscal policy would keep premiums stable rather than raising them.

Surely only a single body responsible for both premiums and benefits and accountable to all Canadians could effectively deal with such a situation.

The fact is that the Employment Insurance Act is set up the way it is for very good reasons. The act sets out the process for determining premium rates and the existing commission is bound by that process.

The commission includes one representative for workers, one for employers and the deputy minister and associate deputy minister of Human Resources Development Canada. It sets premium rates which the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance recommend to the governor in council.

Since 1986 the EI account has been integrated with the accounts of Canada on the advice of the auditor general because it is, after all, the Government of Canada which establishes EI policy and legislation and it is the Government of Canada which makes up any deficit in the account.

Under the current system, accumulated surpluses are used temporarily by the government which credits interest to the account.

Also under the current system, premium rates are set at a level that responds to the needs of workers and employers, but they are also established with the broader perspective of the account's role as an economic stabilizer. In fact, our government has reduced premium rates in each of the past five years from $3.07 per $100 earned in 1994 to $2.55 in 1999.

Our intention is to continue to reduce rates at a gradual pace as long as economic conditions permit.

In the final analysis, the greatest flaw of Bill C-299 lies in what it does not address. The bill is largely beside the point in that it completely ignores the conditions that led up to redesigning the old unemployment insurance program in the first place.

The current employment insurance program is a response to the very different labour market we have today compared to when unemployment insurance was first introduced. Certainly we still need a sound income support program to assist people who find themselves temporarily out of work. However, nowadays we need much more than that.

Indeed, one of the objectives of the new employment insurance program is to reduce regular dependence on EI by giving people the tools they need to get back to work. In today's labour market very few people start a job straight out of high school and keep at it for a lifetime. They now change jobs quite often. Many work short term or on contract. Many are self-employed. Many young people juggle several part time or short term jobs to gain experience and the skills they need to get a job. Many people need different types of help: people with disabilities, young people trying to get their first job, aboriginal people and others trying to adjust to changing working conditions.

Giving people a little income support while keeping them on the economic sidelines will never make a real improvement in their lives. What we have to do is give them the tools they need to get and keep good jobs. That is the purpose of part II of the employment insurance regime, an array of active measures beyond mere income support. Those measures fit into a much broader plan of action.

As I mentioned earlier, through the EI system Canadians invest $2.1 billion a year in active measures to help unemployed Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find employment, be it through wage subsidies, job partnerships, self-employment assistance or earning supplements. Every year hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians benefit from these measures paid through the EI account to get the experience they need to get good jobs. Furthermore, much of these measures are delivered by the provinces and territories in an effort to ensure that they are tailored to meet the needs of Canadians wherever they live and work.

These are the ways in which we can really help the unemployed, ways that work and can address the problems of the unemployed. But it is unclear if such efforts could be maintained through the EI account if parliament adopted the legislation proposed by the hon. member across the way.

So far the new system seems to be working as it should. It is too soon to tell if further amendments to the EI program are required.

For all of the reasons I have just mentioned, the House should oppose the bill proposed by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the way I read the budget, it is pretty simple. It is $11.5 billion over five years, but upfront, the very first year, it is a payment of $3.5 billion.

In other words, provinces can access not only the $2 billion over each of the next five years, but they can get an advance of $3.5 billion upfront.

For my province of Manitoba, that means a total of $425 million, which is not bad.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to point out to the hon. member that I am not his shadow. I think we do have an arrangement. It is called twinning. I am sure he understands what twinning is in political jargon, but I am not his shadow. I am not going to watch him very closely. But if I can help my fellow Liberals in his riding, one way or the other, I will do exactly that. That is what twinning is all about. It has nothing to do with shadowing.

With respect to the question on the budget, was Rome built in a night or a day? I do not think so. Was the economy rebuilt in a day? Did the budget cover every possible avenue? Did it cover every possible issue? No. There is always work to be done.

I am very aware of how controversial EI is, particularly in his part of the country. I know the intensity rule is under question, as are many aspects of EI. What do I say to my hon. friend? Keep on raising those questions. If we do not hear those questions from the member and his colleagues, we hear them all the time from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. There is genuine concern about EI, as there is about a lot of the issues.

If the member wants to throw this into the budget process, we have done something that no other government has done in the past, which is to have very wide open budget consultations. In fact we are into the pre-budget consultations for 2000 right now. If the member has something to submit, I am sure the finance minister and the rest of us will be all ears.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not satisfied with that, I can find another quote to settle her down. “They have no excuses left. There is every reason why the Manitoba government must take immediate action. Hospital and home care services in Manitoba have deteriorated too far”. Who said that? Dr. George Kelly, president of the Manitoba Medical Association.

I notice that the New Democratic member for Winnipeg North Centre has suddenly fallen silent. I hear nothing but silence from that side. The testimony hurts does it not?

The fact is in the budget we provided health care dollars to the tune of $11.5 billion. Most people in my province of Manitoba are very pleased. I got a letter today from a constituent who said that he hoped this money would be well spent. Just a few minutes ago I was in the process of replying to that constituent pointing out the fact that the spending of that money falls within the ambit of the provincial government. It is up to the provincial government to spend that money wisely. I trust the provincial government will do that because it is answerable to the people of Manitoba.

If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not like the message on health care, maybe I could please her a little on the question of taxes. Again we had some good news regarding taxes. In the last two budgets, the finance minister, who probably will go down as the finest finance minister in this century, the finance minister, with the support of the Prime Minister, with the support of cabinet and with the support of the entire Liberal caucus, has been able to provide in a gradual incremental way tax relief of over $16 billion. Is it enough? I suppose it is never enough but we are on track and we are on track toward further tax cuts. Relief last year, more relief this year. If everything goes according to Hoyle, if everything goes well, there will be more tax relief next year which is exactly what Canadians want.

I say that because we got into this deficit and financial pickle over a long period of time. Most Canadians understand that if it takes a long time to get into it, it will probably take some time to get out of it. The finance minister knows that; we on this side know it. We cannot do it overnight, but we are doing it. We are doing it with purpose and the job will be done. I know it will be very hard to convince the people on that side of the House, especially the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but we are going to get the job done.

I want to quote another Manitoban. This was on health care. It is by Dr. Gary Glavin, associate vice-president of research at the University of Manitoba. By the way, he is a constituent. He stated “This is the first time that I have been excited about a federal budget”. How do you like those apples? That is coming from people who normally do not say great things about federal budgets.

The hon. Harold Gillishammer who is the new minister of finance for Manitoba spoke very highly of the budget when he said “This budget was billed as one with tax reductions and increased expenditures in health care. Certainly the federal government came through”. Those are the operative words, “came through”. He went on to say “They have balanced the budget, they have reduced taxes, and we believe in that to make this country more competitive”. Imagine, that was said by a Conservative, who is hardly a Liberal flag waver. These are not bad comments from opponents.

Perhaps I will quote one more individual. This is certainly not from a normal Liberal flag waver. The fellow's name is Victor Vrsnik of the Manitoba taxpayers association. They are usually very critical of anything that Ottawa does. This is what he said about the budget: “The Canadian Taxpayers Association is delighted the finance minister is tuning into the message of tax relief. He is eliminating the 3% surtax and he is raising the basic personal exemption, which will mean that poorer or lower income Canadians will only start paying income tax now after $7,200 as opposed to $6,500”.

There we have it. I think that is pretty good testimony. But we are not going to stop at that. Even if we have silenced many of our critics, even if many of our opponents are saying good things, we are going to continue to do a good job because Canadians want better health care and they want lower taxes.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

I know the member for Winnipeg North Centre finds the budget very difficult, but then I am not too sure whether there is anything we could do that would make the hon. member happy. However, those are the things we have to put up with.

I want to talk about health care, which is a real passion for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is also one of my passions. I am very proud of the fact that the government has restored health care funding to the tune of $11.5 billion.

I am quite sure that if we asked any of the hon. member's New Democratic friends whether we would have come back with $11.5 billion, they would have said no. I am sure most New Democratic Party members, if they were honest and straightforward, would say thank you very much to the Minister of Finance and to the government. That is what Manitobans are saying.

I will quote a woman the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might even know, Lynda Kushnir Pekrul of the Canadian Nurses Association. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would love to hear what this woman said. She said: “This budget is a victory for nurses”. Shall I repeat it again in case the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not hear? This budget is a victory for nurses.