Larry McCormick

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 2000]

It was not bike weather. That is for sure.

[Transport, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Since the inauguration of the St. Lawrence Seaway system 40 years ago, the creation of a marine transportation system became a shining example of international co-operation between Canada and the United States that is the envy of the world. Canada has maintained the option of building an all Canadian seaway system throughout this period. Can the minister please tell the House whether or not this option is still necessary?

[Greater Napanee, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a message in praise of the vigour and vitality of small town Canada. A shining example of that vitality is Greater Napanee, a town in my riding.

This is the eve of Walleye Weekend in Greater Napanee, an annual event that attracts more than 7,000 visitors to the region. The visitors will be coming to a town that Harrowsmith magazine recognized last month as one of the 10 prettiest small towns in Canada.

Members know Harrowsmith magazine as a national publication, but I also know it as the publication that had a start in a building a few doors from my home in Camden East.

Apart from its charm, Greater Napanee is alive with new economic activity. Among that activity is the construction of a large travel plaza that will include restaurants, stores, a service station and a hotel.

Greater Napanee is an old town with a new spirit. As part of that pride in the town, citizens are planting flowers to compete in the national Communities in Bloom competition.

I invite all members, and especially members from urban ridings, to stop by and smell the roses.

[Rural Development, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is committed to respect the unique perspectives and needs of rural Canadians. Can the Secretary of State for Rural Development tell the House what the federal government has been doing to respond to the unique challenges faced by rural Canadians?

[4-H Council, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today in our gallery we have a very special select group of young Canadians from across Canada who are attending their 2000 National 4-H Citizenship Seminar to increase their understanding of the function and structure of the Canadian political system.

The theme of this year's conference is “Canada: One Nation, One Heart, One Future” which features a comprehensive orientation of Canada's political system and culminates with a group presentation on the topic of “What I Want For Canada In The New Millennium”.

The 4-H Council is hosting a conference entitled “Celebrating Our Differences, Recognizing our Similarities” which includes rural and urban youth from Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

At the many summer and fall fairs in my riding and across Canada, 4-H members celebrate the heritage of rural Canada with their very successful projects and displays.

I invite all members of the House to join me in welcoming the 4-H Council to this Chamber.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the recent federal budget focused on creating better lives for Canadians in a rapidly changing world.

My question is for the Secretary of State for Rural Development. Could he inform the House on how the budget has responded to the specific concerns of rural Canadians?

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, there are members of the opposition Reform Party, such as my hon. colleague, the member from Yorkton, who did a lot of good work on the HRD committee. Members worked across the country on behalf of all Canadians. I challenge these other members to come forth and tell us how they also joined us in doing a lot of this good work on behalf of Canadians.

I have a question for the member of the Reform Party who just spoke. Members of the opposition have accused our government and our minister of political interference. How can the member explain the fact that several ridings held by the Reform Party received much more money than did any riding on this side of the House?

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, my colleague leaves a little bit of room in his questions. I guess it is very natural to point them in whatever way we would like to see them go. However, the audit in HRDC was brought forward by the HRDC officials themselves.

Members of all parties were present today when Mr. Mel Cappe, the previous deputy minister of HRDC, was before our committee. Questions were asked by members on all sides of the House. I believe that on Thursday of this week the auditor general will appear before us. I do not think we can have a more independent body than the auditor general's department. There are dozens and dozens of people there who are professionals in investigating this.

The audit that has been done so far did not point to any political interference. Today Mr. Mel Cappe said that he never saw any sign of political interference during the time that he was deputy minister in the department, and he was there during most of this time. If any member of the House wants to challenge that, I would suggest he or she had better say outside the House that Mr. Cappe, who has given his life to this country, is not a man of honour.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for York West, who is a very valuable and active member of our all-party human resources development committee.

I thank the hon. member opposite for bringing his motion before the House. It gives the government an excellent opportunity to explain to Canadians how our programs really work. The point of the HRDC programs is to help develop our human resources to help those Canadians in greatest need.

I totally reject the substance of this motion. Is the hon. member being constructive? Does he really care whether we are successful in working with Canadians to expand and build on their opportunities for the new economy?

If members opposite really wanted more effective grants and contribution programs they would support our ongoing work in fixing existing programs. They would let the auditor general do his work. They would let our all-party standing committee carry out its legitimate role and functions.

Something should be said about the public servants in the Department of Human Resources Development. Should we not allow the internal audit process to fulfil its mandate? Should we not allow the department to carry out its action plan and modernize its administration?

One thing that is sadly lacking in this whole discussion is an informed debate. For example, the reason for creating the transitional jobs fund in the first place was to assist those who needed help the most.

Members who were in the House prior to the last election, including my colleague who brought forth this motion, will recall that the government brought in much needed legislation to overhaul the 25 year old unemployment insurance system. The result was the new employment insurance, the EI system. It brought forth a series of measures to help Canadians adjust to program changes and, most importantly, return to the workforce as quickly as possible.

The goal of the transitional jobs fund was to support job creation in areas of high unemployment and generate new permanent jobs in areas where people were having a difficult time finding work. The TJF was designed to be flexible and to have buy-in from all important partners. It had four basic criteria: to create sustainable jobs; government partners must contribute at least 50% to the cost of the projects; projects must meet local development plans; and the provinces or the territories must support the proposals.

Each region was allotted funds based on two specific criteria. Seventy-five per cent of the funds were allocated to areas where unemployment was at or above 12%. Twenty-five per cent of the funds were allocated to a province or a territory based on a decline in UI benefits resulting from the implementation of the new EI fund.

This process ensured that every province and territory received program funds.

The TJF was designed to recognize that regional officials, working with partners, were in the best position to assess the needs of local communities. Built into the program was the need for regional decision making and flexibility. The goal was to meet the overall program's objectives and have a positive impact on the community in terms of job creation and job opportunities. Specifically, regional officials were encouraged to work with our partners to identify strategic priorities that would benefit the local communities. These partners included provincial and territorial governments, community groups, the private sector and local MPs.

Let me clarify the meaning of an unemployment rate at or above 12%. Human Resources Development Canada, which administered the program, used the 12% figure as a guideline for TJF eligibility. Based on the 1995 Statistics Canada regional rates of unemployment, 18 of 62 regions were eligible for TJF funding. Yes, to be fair, northern B.C. and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia were also included because their rates of unemployment were 11.9% and 11.5% respectively.

However, the opposition and the media have raised a hue and cry that the transitional jobs funds went to areas where the rate of unemployment was under 12%. True, but within those regions were pockets of high unemployment that exceeded 12%. Provided the province or the territory agreed, those pockets of high unemployment met the criteria for funding TJF projects.

There was a process for determining those pocket areas within regions where the rate of unemployment was under the 12% guideline. Data was compiled from various sources, such as the Statistics Canada census, labour force participation surveys, as well as labour market information developed by the local HRDC offices. Decisions as to where transitional jobs funds were allocated were based on a real need to help hard-working Canadians adjust to the new EI program. After all, hon. members will agree that the goal of government programs should be to help those who require help and to help Canadians help themselves.

That is what the TJF did. Funds were allocated to regions or pockets within regions that met the greater than 12% unemployment rate percentage or met the program's overall objectives for supporting areas that lacked a strong labour market.

For example, community projects were approved in regions with under 12% unemployment. They were approved because there was a higher rate of unemployment amongst aboriginal persons or persons with disabilities or within the visible minority populations. The TJF also helped regions with economically depressed industries, such as forestry, mining and fisheries.

As I said, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify this issue. However, it is not as if this information was not readily available to all members of parliament at the time. At the time this program was announced and implemented, in fact as early as December 1, 1995 when the minister of HRDC announced the TJF program, the backgrounder to the news release said: “The regional allocation of the transitional jobs fund will target high unemployment areas across Canada. Allocations will be determined through discussion with provincial governments and other relevant partners”.

In the summer of 1996 brochures were distributed to HRDC centres in Canada explaining to people who had an idea for a project how to apply for TJF funding.

As for the pocket issue, it was made abundantly clear in both the 1997 EI monitoring and assessment report and in the 1998 “Services for Canadians” binder, which was distributed to all MPs in the House. Both the report and the binder stated: “TJF projects are targeted to areas of the country and to geographical areas within communities that have unemployment rates of 12% or higher”.

The bottom line is simply that Human Resources Development Canada distributed plenty of information on the TJF and involved MPs and community leaders as much as possible. I hope hon. members now have a better understanding of how the TJF worked. It was an enormously successful program that funded nearly 1,100 projects and created some 30,000 jobs between July 1996 and March 1999. Instead of unduly criticizing the grants and contributions programs, hon. members should be explaining those programs to their constituents and helping those who qualify make use of them.

I want to take this brief opportunity to talk about some of the investments of HRDC in my riding of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

In my hometown of Napanee, Ontario, the county seat of Lennox and Addington, money was invested, partnering with the town, the county and the business improvement association. Small amounts of funds were invested in many facets of our town.

Recently Napanee was named one of the 10 prettiest towns in North America. Some of the funding involved local partners. As we cleaned up our town and planted flowers with the Communities in Bloom program, it made a great difference.

Other money invested in the riding went into literacy programs, museums and historical sites, and a lot of money was invested in our youth. In my office today I have more requests from the municipalities for funding of these programs than ever before.

I do not like to see the politics that are played during Oral Question Period. The same party that has been attacking our minister is going around behind the cameras, asking us to get the programs into their ridings.

As you know, Madam Speaker, more money went into many of the ridings of Reform members than went into those of government members. It is not justice; it is politics. They are picking on the people who are unemployed, and I detest that.

[National Farm Safety Week, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, next week, March 8 to 15, is National Farm Safety Week. It is a time to renew the message to Canada's farmers and their families that they can take steps to protect themselves from injury on their farms.

There is a high risk of on the job injury and death in the farming profession. Farming accidents are often a needless tragedy for families and the communities affected, creating emotional financial hardship and significant loss to farming communities of valued contributors.

This year the theme is “Use ROPS and a Seat Belt”. Accidents with tractors and self-propelled vehicles are the leading cause of death and injury to Canadian farmers. We encourage farmers to equip their tractors with a rollover protective structure and to buckle up. It is a small effort to keep a loved one safe.

The government's rural caucus is well aware of this issue. It commends the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Rural Health, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Farm Credit Corporation and others for their support of National Farm Safety Week.

Please farm safely. Do it for you, for your loved ones and for your community.