Bob Nault

[Criminal Code, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, let me begin, as I have on a number of other occasions, by reminding the hon. member that education, including the establishment of tuition fees, is the responsibility of the provinces.

The Government of Canada cannot intervene directly in this matter. That is not to say, however, that this government does not recognize the financial difficulties of students. We do and we are taking action. The Government of Canada has been listening to concerns of young Canadians who are anxious about job prospects and about the level of student debt.

In addition to supporting post-secondary education through fiscal transfers, the Government of Canada provides support of $1.4 billion to 340,000 post-secondary students through the Canada student loans program.

In terms of student debt, the government took a number of important measures in the last budget to help ease the debt burden. One was the interest relief that was extended from 18 months to 30 months. Education credits have been enriched. The registered education savings plan has been increased from $2,000 to $4,000 to help parents save for their children's education.

Students will also benefit from greater opportunities to pursue research careers in Canada through the creation of the $800 million Canada Foundation for Innovation.

In the throne speech the government also promised to continue to reduce barriers to post-secondary education through further changes to the Canada student loans program, increased assistance for students with dependants and new scholarships to encourage excellence and to help low and moderate income Canadians attend university or college.

On Tuesday the budget will be before the people of Canada. Obviously we would not be talking in the Speech from the Throne of ways of helping students if we had no intentions of following through on our commitment. The member opposite should wait until Tuesday to see where this government goes.

[Employment, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear to the hon. member that the member to whom he talked that was in his place last term is also in his previous profession a health practitioner and one who has a significant amount of experience in this field.

For the member to besmirch this man's reputation is uncalled for, based not only on his education but his background in this field.

[Youth Employment, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. I am quite surprised the NDP would be opposed to this particular initiative in the new EI reforms.

The objective of making the entrance requirement higher for youth is to make sure they do not get caught in the trap of taking the easy way out. For example in the summertime they get a construction job and thinking they are making big money they stay in that field. They quit school because they can make some money in the short term. Then they find out down the line when they get a bit older that they do not have the education they need.

The intent is to have young people go back to school. It is a very important initiative. All members of the House should support that.

[Youth Employment, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can make this very clear to the member opposite.

We have on a number of occasions already made it very clear that we recognize that student debt is an issue. We recognize that youth unemployment is an issue. This government has made improvements for youth relating to jobs, education and their skills. That is our first priority. We have also put a number of initiatives in place to deal with that.

If the member would like us to send a copy of all those—

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the Atlantic groundfish strategy was designed to cope with an extraordinary situation, a crisis of major proportions. It had to be implemented within very tight time frames at a time when the government was facing severe fiscal constraints.

Under the circumstances, the Minister of Human Resources Development's first priority was to ensure that basic human needs were met, so we directed our efforts at ensuring that individuals who had lost their livelihood and source of income received income support.

On this score TAGS has been successful. More than 40,000 clients were able to count on Human Resources Development Canada to provide them with income support in a timely matter.

Having said that, it is very clear that TAGS was far from a perfect program. With the benefit of hindsight, many things could have been done differently but TAGS has helped Atlantic fishery workers. Some 14,800 TAGS clients have adjusted outside the groundfish fishery and found employment outside the industry. Over 16,000 TAGS clients received job counselling and over 10,000 TAGS clients had the opportunity to improve their job skills through various types of training, including literacy and basic skills improvement.

TAGS is expected to end in August 1998 and the Minister of Human Resources Development has just received a post-TAGS review report prepared by Mr. Harrigan. The objective of Mr. Harrigan's report was to get a sense of how the end of the TAGS program would impact on individuals, families and communities.

This is a very good report that brings out a number of important factors. For instance, it confirms that we cannot have a one size fits all solution. The end of TAGS will have a great impact on some families but very little on others.

As I said, the report gives the government a useful basis for discussion. We look forward to the discussion with the stakeholders in order to come up with a solution for the long term.

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government is quite concerned with the social well-being of Canadians and believes in stimulating public discussion on this very important issue.

Indeed this was the very purpose of the study mentioned by the hon. member. The member should note, however, that there was no consensus on how to best measure social well-being. In fact, the study itself explicitly rejects the idea that the index on social health is the only or even the best way to measure social well-being.

Nonetheless, as the hon. member suggests in his question, the Government of Canada has a key role to play in social areas and in levelling the playing field for all Canadians. Canadians demand that we live up to this responsibility and it is a challenge we will gladly meet.

This is why, in the Speech from the Throne, it was clearly stated that budgetary surpluses would be split on a 50:50 basis over the course of the second mandate, with half going to investments in social and economic priorities and half going to a combination of tax reductions and debt repayment.

The fact is this government has brought order to the nation's finances. We have put our fiscal house in order and in this way we have regained the ability to address the priorities of Canadians, that is, our children and youth, our health care and education, our communities and our knowledge and creativity.

We will continue to make social investments responsibly and with vigilance in strengthening the economy and working with our partners to solve the problem of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, building a better future for our children by working with the provinces on a new national child benefit and a national children's agenda, ensuring Canadians get the education and skills they need to find jobs and work in new industries and ensuring that persons with disabilities have the tools they need to fully participate in society.

This government is committed to working effectively and efficiently with all its partners to modernize social programs for the 21st century.

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked this question on a number of occasions. He knows very well that the government is concerned about the situation of Black Lake miners and that it was among the first to come to their aid.

The Minister of Human Resources Development indicated in the House on several occasions that he has set aside nearly $3 million to help the miners remain active members of the labour force. The member across the way has repeatedly asked the government to help the miners through the program for older workers adjustment. The fact is, and the hon. member knows this, POWA no longer exists. POWA ended last March because it was not fair or equitable to all the workers in Quebec or elsewhere.

This cost shared program was only offered in some provinces and contained so many restrictions that many older workers simply could not qualify. Furthermore, POWA offered only passive income support and did nothing to help workers adapt to a changing labour force.

Instead of continuing to offer such ineffective support, forward looking governments like ours are focusing their efforts to offer Canadians active measures which will help workers improve their skills so they remain in the labour force and can adapt to a changing work place and a changing economy.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is very sensitive to the needs of these individuals, so much so that he met with their representatives on October 29, 1997. The workers informed the minister that POWA did not meet their expectations and asked that special measures be taken along the lines of those adopted by the Government of Quebec in similar situations.

Our government is ready to work with the province and the employer to help these workers, but it cannot help them through a program which no longer exists. The government is offering the workers $3 million worth of active measures including target late subsidies, self-employment assistance and skills development.

These are the kinds of improvements and the kinds of issues that we would like to bring forward. We ask the member to bring that back to the people in his riding.

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me first explain that the B.C. community development program the member mentions does not refer to a Human Resources Development Canada program.

The Community Fisheries Development Centre is a non-profit organization which aims to improve existing skills in fishing communities and support the development of new skills so that people displaced from fishing can find new or supplementary work.

The CFDC has delivered many of the government's programs and services to the fishing industry and industry workers in British Columbia. Local human resources development officials work closely with the CFDC on the design and implementation of both employment assistance and a job creation project. HRDC will continue to use the services of the centre as the need arises.

From the beginning, the role of Human Resources Development Canada has been to assist west coast fisheries workers adjust to the structural changes to their industry and the poor fishing seasons of the past two years. HRDC has used a strategic approach to address the challenges of the industry. Together with local community and industry partners in the fishing sector, the government has ensured that services offered met the individual needs of affected workers.

Over the past two years the government has committed over $22 million, funding 129 projects to assist over 3,600 people. While some of the reasons employment assistance is needed have changed from the previous two years, the government will continue to work closely with industry associations to develop and deliver both short term and long term interventions to help individual fishers and coastal communities.

Human Resources Development Canada will build on the work of the past two years to ensure that helping fishing industry workers remains a priority.

Let me assure the House that all projects have helped improve the employability of individual workers. Local officials have received very positive feedback from workers, unions and local communities about the value of the assistance offered by the Government of Canada. This was reflected in the recent report of the Community Fisheries Development Centre summarizing its work with Human Resources Development Canada.

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last spring the government acknowledged the concerns of the organizers of the Grand Prix of Canada in Montreal and the Molson Indy in Toronto and Vancouver. These concerns were about the potential impact of the Tobacco Act's restrictions on the promotion of motor sport events that receive support from tobacco companies.

The former health minister committed to finalizing before the end of 1997 consultations with motor sports promoters and to present amendments that will respect the international standards concerning the use of logos on cars, drivers, pit crews and transport equipment. The former minister also stated that this could be done in a manner consistent with the charter and our health objectives.

The Tobacco Act gives the government authority to regulate the production, promotion, labelling and sale of tobacco products and the access by minors to tobacco products. The act is part of the federal government's broad strategy to reduce the use of tobacco in Canada. This strategy includes legislation, research, public education and tax policy.

The government took the direction of the supreme court with respect to the freedom of expression that must be accorded the tobacco industry to communicate with adult consumers. The government also listened to the concerns of arts and sports groups and we incorporated a transition period to allow these groups to find alternative sponsors.

The Minister of Health has been involved in consultations with affected parties on both sides of the issue. An amendment will be prepared that will meet the commitment made last spring.

There are three criteria any amendment to the act must be weighed against: international standards, the charter of rights and freedoms, and our health objectives. The charter and our health objectives are fundamental considerations and the issue of international standards is also important. We must ensure that any change to the act reflects these considerations and we will see that this is done.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed the member's speech because it verified what I have been saying in the House all along. The Reform's program is pretty general. It does not get into specifics. I want to ask the member one specific question to see if he can answer it.

If the Reform Party removed the Canada pension plan and replaced it with a super RRSP, I want to know what the member proposes to do with the $600 billion liability that exists today. What does he intend to do with the disability benefits which would not be there under a super RRSP? What will he do with the death benefit?

There is a social component to the Canada pension plan which is different from what my friend is advocating. He is advocating an RRSP system which would be based on income replacement but would have no social component in it.

I would like him to answer those two questions. So far all he has given us is the Chile example. I do not want to talk about the Chile example because quite frankly it is not a good one. It is not our system.

I was referring to countries which have a public pension plan. Not one of those countries has gone from a public pension plan to a private pension plan. When the two plans are put together side by side, it is obvious that the public pension plan is better for Canadians.

The member says that we are increasing the clawback by 80%, but that will only affect one out of ten people. Nine out of ten people will benefit from the seniors benefit. One in ten will see a reduction.

I do not know who the people are who the member is looking at. They must be those in the $100,000 to $200,000 range. They certainly are not the people in the $15,000 to $25,000 range.