Bob Nault

[Broadcasting Act, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say to the House and to the nation I am almost shocked that a Conservative member would stand in this place and criticize the government about EI and EI premiums.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall because you were elected in 1988, the same as I was, that during that period between 1988 and 1993 the government under Brian Mulroney, the party that the member now serves with, raised those premiums higher than any level in our history. In the middle of a recession no less it raised those premiums from $2.60 to $3.30, an insurmountable amount for any employer and employee to deal with. That is why I say to you and the people out there I cannot believe this member would even bring this subject matter up.

Let me make it very clear to the member that we are undertaking to reduce the premiums for employment insurance as rapidly as we can. In fact, we have reduced premiums in the employment insurance system four years running, the largest reduction in the history of the EI premium and EI system as a whole. There has never been any government that has reduced premiums every year for four years.

I will give another statistic. The reduction in the last budget for 1998 is the second largest since 1972. If the member does not understand that this government is fiscally prudent and if he does not understand what it means to have a surplus in the EI account for a rainy day, then he has a long way to go.

Before we are done we will continue to reduce premiums at a rate we believe is sustainable. We will make sure there is a surplus—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am getting to the question. If members will just quiet down, I will get to the question.

In the budget we have put a significant amount of emphasis on young people and their future in education. We all know in the new economy that for young people who have a university or college degree, unemployment drops to a low of 7%. Those at high risk have high school education or less and they bump right up to 15% or 17%.

We call this an education budget. All these improvements we have made in the education field are good news for Canadians in the long run and good news for Canadians in the short run. We also gave people the ability to do things with education part time. Does the member not think we deserve credit for our vision of where we must go for young people so they can get jobs, because that is where they lie only if they have the education level and the abilities to do it.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the reality which I think the member opposite should keep in mind is that his party has not gotten past the 1960s. It is so obvious that the New Democrats have no new policies as they relate to the new generation. They go back to the same old rhetoric I have heard for the last almost 10 years in this House, and we can tell why that party has now become irrelevant.

There are a couple of NDP leaders and governments in this country. Let us look at just two of them. We always like to remind the member and his federal party that those are the ones that have gotten past the NDP rhetoric of the 1960s. They have gotten back to the real basics of how a new global economy will work.

First there is Premier Romanow. He is one of the premiers who slashed and hacked and closed all those hospitals the member is so disgusted about. His government felt very strongly that it needed to make some changes because hospitals had become a political tool. There was a hospital and a clinic in every small town in Saskatchewan which was not necessary to meet the needs of the population. Obviously the government did some work to clean that up. Not too long ago Premier Romanow gave a little tax cut to the population of Saskatchewan. He felt it was a high tax area and it was affecting the economy of that province. Those are the two issues these people seem to be opposed to.

Let us consider Premier Clark who is closer to the member's home. Not too long ago Premier Clark did a complete 360 on NDP policy. He virtually said that his economy was falling apart because the assumptions the NDP had been making for years and years were not working. Taxes were too high, they were driving investment out of the province and the unemployment rate was up over the roof. The resource industry, which I am very familiar with being from Kenora—Rainy River, is right down in the tanks in British Columbia. The reason is the lack of policy of the New Democrats in British Columbia and they are now starting to realize where they are at.

I want to ask the member one other question because I know the NDP policies are so far from reality that we cannot expect too much from them. In Kenora—Rainy River we call the NDP the no down payment party because New Democrats do not understand that if you do not pay your way, somewhere down the line someone is going to have to pay for it. That is why they cannot seem to get anywhere in this country. They think you do not have to pay it back. You just throw it out there and somehow it just gets paid and everything is rosy at the end of the day.

The member said that this budget did nothing for the unemployed. He has been here a long time and he knows there are certain assumptions—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Reform Party bash Indian and northern affairs now for a number of years. I want to ask the member a question. Seventy per cent of all transfers from this government to native people go directly to native people and to their bands. We all know that is a fact, those of us who have first nations in our communities.

The member says we should help the poorest of the poor, first nations people. Can he tell me where the waste is that he seems to think he can trim? If he goes to first nation communities he will see the worst housing in the country, he will see that in some cases there are no sewers or water, that they have the worst health and that there is more poverty there than anywhere else across the nation. If he is so convinced that there is a bunch of waste going on in Indian and northern affairs, we would like to know from this member and his party exactly where that would be.

In the 51 first nations I represent, I do not see that waste. I do not see that there is some native chief or some band running around, going to Vegas or driving around in a Cadillac, as some of these people suggest. We all know that is not factually correct. I would like to know from this member just where that waste is because I do not see it in the 51 first nations I represent.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House.

Underground economic activity is indeed a problem in Canada which should be reduced. Representatives of the construction industry take this issue very seriously, so much so that they expressed concern about the growing problem of underground employment and its implications for the future of their industry directly to the Minister of Human Resources Development. In response to their concern the minister agreed to work with them and subsequently developed a joint industry-government working group to examine this important issue.

The report the member brought forth in his question in the House a number of months ago referred to the results of the working group's study. Its focus on labour market implications of underground employment in the construction industry is exactly what the member is asking about today.

Contrary to what the member is suggesting and suggested in his question not too long ago, there was no leak to the media. The fact is that over 1,000 copies of the report were made available to the working group members last December. The intention of that was to get some input from all those members as to what was the best solution to deal with the underground economy.

Because of the somewhat sensitive nature of the report—it describes in some detail how frauds are accomplished—the working group decided that its individual members could best determine how to distribute the report to their constituent organizations and concerned stakeholders. The report will be used by the individual working group members to create action plans to reduce underground employment in the construction industry.

Once that work is done I assure the member, the people at home who are watching and the House, that we will move very quickly on the underground economy.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Export Development Corporation, EDC, has been in regular contact with Davie Industries, Société de Developpement Industriel du Quebec, SDI, and the other participants in this transaction.

EDC has provided two separate financing options to the project sponsors in support of the Davie contract. The first was dated June 17, 1996 and the second, October 10, 1997. Both proposals, however, have been put aside by the project sponsors that would like EDC and SDI to participate in a structure which the sponsors have engineered.

Unfortunately, following a detailed review by EDC and SDI it was determined by both that the project sponsors were asking EDC and SDI to assume unacceptable commercial risks.

Regardless, upon the request of Davie Industries, in conjunction with EDC and SDI, we have continued discussions on this transaction. At the present time EDC and SDI are working on a viable financing structure in co-operation with Davie Industries and the project sponsors.

It should be emphasized that EDC is a self-sustaining crown corporation operating at arm's length from the government and is not part of the government per se. We also want to make it very clear that EDC could act quickly to implement the financing question once a structure has been agreed to.

EDC appreciates the urgency Davie Industries faces in having to secure financing for this project. We await an acceptable proposal.

[Business Of The House, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I find it very humorous. Those of us who were in this House in the last Parliament debated the EI changes in a very significant way. The committee—and my colleague from Malpeque was there—spent a lot of time talking about what the changes would mean. Of course when we implement changes of this magnitude, the largest changes in the last 25 years, there is going to be a period of adjustment. There will be a time when there are some unknowns.

In the legislation we committed ourselves to five separate reports, to monitor the system as it unfolds before Canadians to see if it has the right kind of effect on workers, if it has the right kind of effect on training and if it has the right component of insurance. There are both passive and active measures. This legislation is different from what we saw in the previous unemployment insurance legislation.

The first monitoring report which was tabled in Parliament last month obviously suggested very strongly that it was a preliminary report. Most of the information which the hon. member talked about cannot be forthcoming from the new legislation because it has just been implemented. We cannot get the data because people have not been under the new system long enough for us to make a judgment.

What that member and other members opposite are doing is basically playing with rhetoric, with words, because until we see the second, third, fourth and fifth monitoring reports and get the real data we will not be able to make a factual analysis of whether in fact the new EI changes are working or not working.

I want to make this very clear. The commitment of the government is very clear on this issue. If there is a need for changes, if the monitoring shows that there are certain areas which are not working properly and require modification, this government is prepared to make those changes. That is the obligation and the commitment of this government.

[Business Of The House, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time but the second time in the last week that I have been asked to speak on behalf of the government as it relates to child poverty based on a question that the member from Vancouver East has asked.

I am quite frankly appalled that the member continues to suggest that this government and in fact all governments in Canada do not think that child poverty is a priority. Two years ago this June governments of all persuasions, not only Liberal, Conservative but in fact NDP governments, came together at a premiers' conference, with the Prime Minister chairing that particular conference, and made it very clear that the number one priority of Canadians was child poverty and that we would put in place in a partnership kind of scenario, certain programs that would help children and, of course, help their families at the same time.

We started that off with an $850 million down payment on a program that is going to be one of the most far-reaching programs that this generation has ever seen. I cannot for the life of me understand why this member continues to suggest that not just this government but all governments are not committed to this very important issue.

Let me emphasize that this particular question is one which we have taken very seriously. The Campaign 2000 organization, which we all know, of course, is not a Conservative think tank, has said this is the first time that both levels of government have acknowledged the need for a plan to jointly address child poverty. I again emphasize a plan.

Yes, of course there are problems. We are working toward it. We are going to put programs in place and we will see them roll out as that plan starts to unfold in the weeks and months and years to come.

[National Head Start Program, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

I can inform him and the House that through the government wide youth employment strategy we are creating nearly 280,000 work experiences for youth over three years. This year alone the strategy will create over 93,000 work experiences for young Canadians.

We know that our programs are working. A November 1997 survey of Youth Internship Canada and Youth Service Canada programs show that 85% of Youth Service Canada participants and 88% of Youth Internship Canada participants are either employed or in school 6 to 12 months after completing the program. This year alone these two programs will help over 30,000 youth get valuable work experience.

Today the Minister of Human Resources Development launched student summer job action 1998. This program with a total budget of $120 million will create over 60,000 summer jobs and help 350,000 students across the country in their search for summer employment. These are but a few of the initiatives we have undertaken to help young Canadians find work.

Much remains to be done. A 15.8% youth unemployment rate is still much too high. That is why the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues confirmed during last December's first ministers meeting that helping our youth find employment was a national priority. They reiterated the need to work together.

Consequently the Minister of Human Resources Development will continue to work with his provincial and territorial colleagues to put in motion an action plan on youth employment. The plan will recognize that governments, the private sector and communities have roles to play to help young Canadians get and keep a job.

Madam Speaker, stay tuned on Tuesday when the budget is released and you will see even more priorities of the government.

[Poverty, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the hon. member's motion. In the words of her motion the hon. member for Vancouver East is asking that the Government of Canada “set targets for the elimination of poverty and unemployment and should pursue those targets with the same zeal it has demonstrated for targets to reduce the deficit”.

I would like to assure the hon. member and all members of this House that the Government of Canada is responding to the challenges of poverty and unemployment with innovative and effective policies.

I am sure the hon. member realizes that reducing the deficit, as Canadians say we should do, is helping to create a stable economic environment for private sector growth which in turn helps create jobs and reduce poverty.

The Minister of Finance has made it clear that future dividends from deficit reduction will be distributed to reduce the national debt, to reduce the tax burden and to invest in new programs.

We know that too many people are unemployed and struggle to make ends meet. We are sensitive to the plight of Canadians who are doing their best to provide for their families. In this regard we do have a number of effective programs that are designed to move on in the right direction toward reducing points of unemployment.

That being said, I believe it is important to stress that shared responsibility is the key to helping people return to the labour force and alleviate poverty. The Government of Canada cannot shoulder this responsibility on its own. Provinces, businesses, individuals, the labour movement, community agencies, everyone needs to contribute.

We emphasized shared responsibility once again in last fall's Speech from the Throne. We are prepared to work with the provinces and territories to develop a Canada-wide mentorship program. We are prepared to work with the private sector to better forecast the number and types of jobs available in the future and then jointly develop a plan to ensure that young Canadians are qualified to fill those jobs.

On poverty we are already working with the provinces on the national child benefit system.

Let me first address the issue of unemployment. The government's contribution is to help by setting the right fiscal environment, supporting learning, making available up to date information and facilitating sectoral based partnerships. Our strength is in giving Canadians more options to pursue employment. I am thinking of the ways in which we promote labour mobility so workers can take advantage of job opportunities across the country.

Hon. members will be familiar with the saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. That is the philosophy behind the formation of sectoral councils that bring together employers, workers, educators and governments to address human resource needs before they become problems. These initiatives are showing concrete results.

Some 370,000 new jobs were added to the economy in 1997 and the unemployment rate declined steadily in 1997. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada is expected to have the fastest growth among G-7 countries in 1998. Since this government was first elected there are over one million more Canadians working.

I believe our new employment insurance program is designed to get unemployed workers back into the labour force. As part of the new employment insurance we are investing $800 million more in active employment measures for a total investment of $2.2 billion by fiscal year 2000-01. As well we have a $300 million transitional jobs fund designed to create 40,000 permanent jobs and productive partnerships in areas of high unemployment.

All members of this House are concerned about the high rate of youth unemployment. Again in co-operation with our partners the government is tackling that challenge with renewed vigour. Our youth employment strategy builds on some $2 billion in Government of Canada programs. It helps Canada's young people make the often difficult transition from school to work and land that all important first job.

For example, perhaps the hon. member has heard of the youth employment strategy project in Vancouver where this past spring a number of young people created a healthy living space for both seniors and youths. For over six months the group constructed a rooftop garden at the Vancouver General's Banfield Pavilion which is a long term care facility for seniors. As well they designed a rooftop garden at VanCity Place for Youth. When the project was completed, several participants began providing horticultural therapy for residents at the Banfield Pavilion.

In the future we will increase funding and expand programs under the youth employment strategy. Since a sound education is crucial in today's knowledge based economy, we will ensure that post-secondary education is accessible and affordable. For those young people who lack education and have inadequate skills, we will assist them by further developing community based programs.

Of course in a changing economic environment it is essential that we all upgrade our skills and think in terms of lifelong learning.

The hon. member's motion also calls for the elimination of poverty. The initiatives I have just mentioned, which result in sustainable employment are the most effective way to eliminate poverty.

The government is also addressing the horrendous problem of child poverty. For the member to continue to suggest that this government has not made this a priority, the fact is it has been made a priority. The provinces are now working with our government very closely in order to deal with this blight on our society. We are determined to do everything possible to eliminate it.

In the February 1997 budget the Government of Canada committed $850 million to create an enriched child tax benefit. The new investment will give much needed support to 1.4 million Canadian families and will help more than 2.5 million children. In June the Minister of Human Resources Development and his provincial and territorial counterparts reached agreement to establish a national child benefit system.

In the Speech from the Throne we promised to at least double the $850 million investment over the course of our current mandate. This will bring the total Government of Canada investment in the well-being of our children to almost $7 billion per year.

The government's commitment to provide more income support for low income families will enable our provincial and territorial partners to redirect savings in social assistance. Those savings can go into complementary programs and services with the goal of helping welfare parents become employed. This is the basis for the national child benefit system.

Building on this collaboration last January, we agreed to work with the provinces and territories to develop the national children's agenda. This will be a broad, comprehensive strategy to address the developmental needs of Canada's children.

As part of the agenda the Speech from the Throne announced three new federal initiatives. In addition to the national child benefit system, we will develop indicators to measure and report on children's readiness to learn. We will expand the aboriginal head start program for First Nations children on reserves and we will establish centres of excellence for children's well-being to help us better understand children's needs.

In closing, I would say to the hon. member that there is no magic means of eliminating poverty and unemployment. What is needed are concerted efforts from all concerned, including members of this House. I encourage the hon. member and her party to work with the government on constructive ideas to meet these challenges. In that manner we will be serving all Canadians.