Geoff Regan

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I certainly prefer it to grants. I am concerned about that size of a guarantee. I think we should see companies locating where they think is best.

Companies are coming to Nova Scotia. People like the quality of life we provide. They do not like having to sit in traffic for four hours on the 401 into Toronto, or what have you. Companies are coming for reasons other than government assistance. In fact we are seeing that governments at all levels are finding it harder to provide that kind of incentive.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real challenge, as the hon. member knows, to define exactly in a few words or a few moments what the role of government is in our economy because it is a complex question. Certainly my view would probably be for a little bit more involvement than his view. My view would be that government has a very important role in terms of consumer protection. I do not know if he would put the same emphasis or as much effort in that regard as I would, but that is for him to answer I suppose. However, it seems to me that is an important consideration.

In Atlantic Canada there is a need for government involvement. There is a need for investment capital. There is a great problem in Atlantic Canada with the lack of that kind of capital. Many business people come to me with the problem of getting capital to expand their businesses. Those businesses are doing well but they cannot quite get to the next level and cannot find the capital in Atlantic Canada to expand.

That is why agencies like ACOA which provides about 40 per cent of the business financing in Atlantic Canada are so important. In fact overall it has been very successful. We do hear about the failures which are sensationalized by the media, but the large majority of its programs and efforts in creating jobs and assisting businesses to expand and create more jobs have been very successful.

I gather sometimes there is the impression in the rest of Canada that all we do in Atlantic Canada is fish or collect unemployment and that is a great myth. It certainly is untrue in my riding where there are many businesses and people are hard at work doing a variety of things. Things are being done for example in high technology at Dynatek which produces computer memory systems. Pratt and Whitney produces some of the best aircraft jet engines in the world. There are Litton Systems and Farmers Co-operative Dairy and many others. People are working hard.

I agree that government cannot be the one to create the jobs. It is absolutely true that we have to rely on the private sector to do the main job creation. I also agree we have to make efforts and we have to reduce our debts so we can get off their backs, but we cannot do it overnight.

At the same time there is still a role for government to assist those companies in areas like R and D and international information. We receive information from our embassies about what is happening overseas, what opportunities are available for our companies elsewhere. There are many roles government can play.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-46, the Department of Industry Act.

Bill C-46 creates a remarkable organization with wide ranging responsibilities and a far reaching mandate. There are many tasks in the government's agenda for growth and job creation that it will perform. Not the least of these is the slate of initiatives the Prime Minister announced to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City on September 18, namely: to improve the climate for entrepreneurship; to help business profit from new technologies; to seek expanding markets; and to promote the tourism industry that is so important in Halifax West and throughout the maritimes.

The successful pursuit of that agenda requires a concerted effort of all major players in the economic development game. The Department of Industry created by this bill is well designed to rally that kind of effort. Incorporating within one organization the very functions of industry, technology, science, communications, foreign investment, and consumer and corporate affairs permits a powerful focus of related interests in the formulation and implementation of our economic development strategies. Some may fear that this new department will not do as much in individual areas like communications, corporate affairs or consumer affairs as under the old setup. An impression of that sort is just that first and last, a mere impression.

While titles are important symbolically, they must not be mistaken for substance. Bill C-46 could not possibly include the names of all the functions in its title. In substance we do have a department of industry, science, technology, communications, investment, and consumer and corporate affairs. To include all of its concerns we would have to add small and medium sized enterprises, tourism, sustainable development and many other areas. These are all key functions in the pursuit of an innovative economy and in the pursuit of growth and job creation.

However the essence of the this new department is not found in the title. We have a Department of Industry. What does that name symbolize? Industry is not merely heavy industry nor manufacturing. Industry is whatever provides wealth and well-being in our society. Teachers, accountants and fishers are as much an essential part of industry in this country as employers, for example Litton, Pratt and Whitney, Farmers Co-operative Dairy and Dynatek in my riding.

We have to consider the interests of consumers as well. We want to give Canadian consumers the assurance that although the word "consumer" does not appear in the department's new title, their interests are still central to the concerns of the Department of Industry.

Many of us will recall when the federal government in the seventies decided to create the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Many will recall there was much concern that putting the affairs of consumers under the same roof as corporations was a bit like putting the chickens in with the foxes. Those fears proved groundless, as we well know.

In retrospect it was wise to incorporate the concern for consumer interests into policies and decisions affecting corporations. It is now recognized by governments and corporations more and more that attention to consumer interests must underpin sound corporate strategies. Increased consumer awareness, increasing competition and the relentless demand for ever higher quality of goods and services are leading businesses in the direction of more attention to consumer needs and consumer service.

This bill on the Department of Industry is built on that principle of common interest. The bill extends the same logic to the consideration of all economic development strategies.

By making the Department of Industry responsible for consumer policy, the government guarantees that the voice of consumers will be heard and considered when policies affecting the Canadian market are discussed in cabinet.

The Minister of Industry has a clear mandate to act as the advocate for consumer issues at the cabinet table. To do that effectively he has to seek input of consumers and advocacy groups across the country on all issues affecting growth. The Consumers Association of Canada for example plays a strong leadership role in consumer education and in raising concerns about products.

With advancing technology, consumer issues are becoming ever more complex. Issues like the access and cost for consumers to the information highway, the protection of privacy, electronic funds transfer, and biotechnology and genetic engineering are all new complex issues that require close examination from the point of view of consumer interest.

In the light of these complex issues an integrated process is needed to ensure that consumer concerns are incorporated as early as possible in policy development. In this way consumer protection efforts can focus on preventing problems before they happen instead of exposing them after the fact.

The government's priority is growth and job creation, but these goals must depend on efficiently functioning markets. Our consumers share with the business world a common interest in achieving that kind of efficiency. Both should welcome initiatives that help our businesses to be more efficient, effective and competitive.

The recently announced internal trade agreement which will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of trade in goods and services and the movement of people among provinces and territories will save businesses and governments millions of dollars. It is good for consumers.

All of us who take part in the economy have an interest in the actions of government directed toward consumer protection and promotion of competition. These actions not only right wrongs, they also enhance our overall economic performance.

We should all be glad the twin pillars of consumer and corporate affairs are under the same roof at Industry Canada. This bill in my view is well designed to help guide the efforts of Team Canada. I recommend its speedy approval.

[Employment, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House of the government's strong commitment to job creation for Canadians and ensuring that Canadians get first crack at opportunities.

A case in point is the Nordic Challenger , a shuttle tanker which moves oil from offshore Nova Scotia to Canadian and foreign ports. It is operated by Lasmo Nova Scotia Limited. In past years the crew aboard this vessel consisted solely of foreign workers. In April of this year the exemption for the use of foreign workers aboard the vessel came up for renewal.

In spite of Lasmo's attempts to justify the hiring of only 12 Canadians, the government stood firm and refused to extend the exemption. The previous government routinely renewed the exemption, claiming it was acting for the benefit of the economy.

The government's major priority is jobs for Canadians. That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stood up for Canadian workers and refused to allow foreign interest to carry the day.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. I thank the hon. member for his question.

Next time I will try to listen more carefully. I tried to listen in French because I wanted to make sure I understood, but I was trying to translate. I apologize for that.

It is an interesting idea that we should transfer this whole responsibility to the province, but I think we have a joint responsibility. People from my part of the country believe very strongly that we need to have a strong education system all across Canada, that we have an interest across this country, whatever province one is in, in having students coming out of post-secondary education who are well educated and have had access to education all across this country. They look to the federal government to be part of that system, to be part of providing and ensuring that access.

To relegate it entirely to the provinces is not what people are asking for in my view. In fact, they are asking for us to be involved and to play a role. For instance some of the provinces lack the financial wherewithal to overcome these problems if they did do it on their own.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not able to hear entirely what the member said as I had a problem with the translation. However I want to point out that I know there has been a lot of-

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. I am glad to see he is so aware of the situation in Nova Scotia. We do have a large number of universities and it is a concern. With so many universities per capita we are providing so much brain power for Canada from Nova Scotia.

The question of funding of course has been an issue in our province certainly because of the fact that we have a large number of universities producing excellent graduates. With the funding coming per capita it is a problem and a concern.

I have talked with students in my riding of Halifax West who have been very involved in their universities and have been involved in looking for improvements to the student loans program and student financial assistance. They have strong objections to the idea of this voucher system. They do not feel that it is workable.

The first and most important step is to give students the loans and the kind of financial support that will give them real access to university and this bill does that. By substantially increasing student loans for the first time in 10 years this bill finally takes that major, most important big step of moving us toward a situation in which people can actually gain equitable access to universities and post-secondary education. That is the key and it is very important.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak on the issue and in support of the government bill.

I graduated from university about 11 years ago, in 1983. Since then or over the past 10 years there has not been any increase in loans for students. The bill is about our future. It is about our young people. It is about education and access to education for people so they can go to university and take part in our society.

From 1990 to 1993 people with lower than high school education saw a loss of 17 per cent in the number of jobs they could have access to. For those who had a high school education there was a loss of about .5 per cent. Those with beyond high school education, with post-secondary education, there was an increase of 17 per cent in the number of jobs available for them.

We can see the impact and the importance of education. We can see the need for us to have access to education and the need for a bill that finally remedies the problem we have seen over the past 10 years of erosion of student loans because of inflation. It is very important that we support the bill.

The reforms being made to student aid are an essential part of the government's broader strategy. We want to work with the provinces and interest groups to revitalize learning and training in Canada. To compete in the global marketplace and to respond to increasing technological advances we have to ensure that our education and training systems are relevant, effective and accountable. We have to take action now so that tomorrow's graduates are able to compete and prosper.

It has long been a hallmark of Canadian society that every person should have access to educational opportunities to develop to his or her full potential. It is well known that education and training have two important goals: to prepare individuals for

fulfilling social and cultural life and to prepare them to contribute as productive members of our society.

Provincial jurisdiction over education in Canada is clear. The provinces have already begun to implement reforms which seek to make Canadian learning systems more productive and accountable for results. Canadians in all provinces are well aware of the importance of ensuring that education meets the challenges of modern society as we approach the 21st century.

Their recognition of the need for new visions and new approaches is shared by the federal government. As education and training are crucially linked to the economic health of any nation, the federal government would be remiss not to facilitate and support all efforts which seek to prepare young Canadians for the future.

It is recognized that the concept of lifelong learning requires the involvement not only of governments but of parents, teachers, business, industry, labour and communities. Substantial financial support is provided by the federal government for education at the post-secondary level. Over $6 billion a year is provided to the provinces under the established programs financing arrangements, the EPF program.

The federal government has always maintained a strong interest in fundamental values relating to quality education and training which are shared by educational jurisdictions across the country. In this regard the government remains committed to assisting the provinces in providing whatever support it can to ensure the efficiency of our learning systems.

The new Canada Student Financial Assistance Act is an important part of efforts being made in this area. Our youth employment and learning strategy announced on April 15 committed the federal government to support along with the provinces a number of other key initiatives. These include the development of clear national goals and expectations, updating and improving existing measurement tools, promoting technology and innovation in learning, and facilitating the dissemination of information on important learning and labour market issues.

We are confident that all these measures will contribute to improvements in education and learning throughout Canada. They will greatly assist Canadians in developing, acquiring and maintaining the skills and knowledge they need in today's world. Our citizens must be able not only to enter the workforce successfully but to be able to adjust to changes in the labour market. For that they need education.

Indeed it is important to recognize that education and training processes are seldom if ever constant. While it would obviously be much easier and less costly merely to maintain what is already in place, it is not good enough. In view of rapid unwilling changes in today's global economy, we must always be alert to ensure that our learning systems are relevant and current. Modifications and new initiatives must be introduced to address emerging issues and new realities. This is what the government intends to do. While we do not dispute that these challenges are formidable we must not be fearful to act.

Canadians do not lack the initiative or desire to compete. We have every confidence in the ingenuity and commitment of individuals who are endeavouring to get ahead by pursuing post-secondary educational opportunities either full time or part time. Canadian students must have the right tools to enable them to undertake their studies and produce results that are meaningful and positive. This is why the government has introduced the bill before us.

Obviously one of the major barriers standing between students and post-secondary education is the lack of significant financial resources. Students have repeatedly indicated over the years-I heard this during the election campaign and since-that they need more financial aid to meet the rising cost not only of their education but of their basic living expenses. And our pages know it well.

We should make clear at the outset that students are not asking for a handout. They are seeking financial support for the time while they are in school. They are well aware of the expectation that they will repay what they borrow as the great majority of former students do and as I did about three years ago when I finished paying off my student loan. The great majority of students pay them off once they begin to work.

Student aid reforms therefore seek to increase the maximum amount that students both part time and full time may borrow. While it may seem to be a big increase, let us not forget that loan levels had been frozen for the past 10 years. The new loan levels the bill proposes merely reflect the realities of today's costs. These measures will also make grants available to students with special financial needs, including those with disabilities, women in certain doctoral programs and high need, part time students. Deferred grants will also assist borrowers with significantly high debt loads.

New financing arrangements with lenders, revised eligibility criteria, improved need assessment and greater flexibility for new federal-provincial approaches to student aid are part of the reforms being provided in the bill. All these measures are aimed at establishing a fair, consistent and accessible student aid program. The government is confident the reforms will contribute significantly to achieving the overall objectives of the youth employment and learning strategy.

The emphasis of our strategy is toward greater effectiveness, inclusiveness and accountability. A learning system shows its true value if the end results are clear, meaningful and relevant.

The federal government will also contribute to support the efforts of provinces, the private sector and community groups to develop initiatives designed to reduce dropout rates. That is absolutely a critical part of this bill and of our government's program.

Canadian youth must be made aware of the vital importance of education and training in terms of their own futures and be encouraged at every opportunity to develop their skills and abilities to full potential. That is what life long learning is all about.

We must ensure access to learning systems based on excellence and relevance in terms of providing people with the skills needed to be productive and self-sufficient members of our society. We must ensure a smooth transition from school to the workplace.

Many people today are understandably disillusioned if their education and training does not enable them to move into the workforce. It is only natural that students expect their hard work and commitment to yield positive results and it is most discouraging when this does not happen.

In fact, I have students in my riding who have graduated in various areas and are looking for jobs. They are having a tough time and for them it is discouraging. I see that in people when I meet them in my riding. Not only does the individual suffer in this case but the loss in terms of wasted resources and untapped potential hurts the educational system, the labour force and indeed the Canadian economy and society as a whole.

Accordingly, a number of key elements of our youth employment and learning strategy relate to the important goal of providing young Canadians with practical labour market skills and meaningful work experience, like the co-op programs at Mount Saint Vincent University located in Halifax West. These programs are a key element in moving into the workforce.

Our initiatives are aimed at addressing specific problems which prevent Canadians from participating fully in society, including high dropout rates, limited access to post-secondary education and lack of work experience. We are certainly not willing to nor would we need to begin from scratch. There are many positive features of our education and training systems and we intend to build on what has worked well in the past.

It is imperative however that we also consider new approaches to meet today's realities. We are seeking to build solid structures which will help to eliminate problem areas associated with the transition from school to work.

It is important to recognize that our reforms and initiatives relating to youth employment and learning are not meant in any way to offer anyone a free ride or an easy way out. Individuals have a responsibility to take advantage of the opportunities available to them and to apply themselves to the fullest extent possible.

If governments can ensure that world-class education and training systems are in place and that access is maintained through viable student assistance programs, we are confident that Canadians throughout the country will provide the determination, hard work and commitment which are all necessary components for success.

Basically, what all Canadian students are saying is: "Give us a fair chance. Give us the support we need as we pursue learning and training opportunities".

Canadians from all walks of life and from all regions of the country recognize the vital role education plays in their lives. They are willing to make sacrifices and to do what it takes to achieve their learning and employment goals.

Canadians are not expecting guarantees. All they really ask for is access and opportunity. They have the confidence it takes to succeed. We must build upon that confidence by providing all citizens, including those with special or exceptional needs, with a chance to develop and show their talents and abilities.

We cannot expect individuals to contribute to society in a meaningful way if they believe they have received unequal or unfair treatment or have been excluded from opportunities.

[South Africa, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when Nelson Mandela cast his ballot Wednesday morning at the Ohlange High School north of Durban, people around the world watched and cheered. Nobel Peace Prize winner and democratic pioneer, Mandela stands as a pioneer of integrity and dedication in our chaotic world.

Canada played an active role during the 1980s mobilizing world opinion against apartheid and supporting sanctions. Our effort in South Africa includes the participation of some 57 Canadians in the observation groups of the UN mission. We have sent electoral experts, NGO sponsored observer missions as well as the Canadian bilateral observation mission led by the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa.

These observers come from all walks of life and all regions of our country. Nova Scotia is represented by her provincial Chief Electoral Officer, Ms. Janet Willwerth, and a few others.

Neither bigotry nor bombs can deter the democratic spirit in South Africa. The secretary of state told the Cobourg Star that the international community must continue its support for South Africa after the election. The problems that lie ahead are formidable, but when the results come out on Saturday, Canadians and people all over the world can share in this victory for equality.

[Income Tax Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing today is a 1942 tax law which defines the regulations for child support payments following a divorce settlement. I am

pleased to join the debate because I believe that a wise society should strive to give its children the best possible start in life.

Canadians were appalled when in 1993 the United Nations committee on social, economic and cultural rights blasted Canada for the fact that half of all single mothers and their children live below the poverty line. In conclusion the report stated that Canada has not outlined any new or planned measures to remedy the situation.

The question we are debating today is whether the tax laws should be altered in the interest of fairness where child support payments are concerned. As our system stands presently, payers of child support are given a tax break, whereas recipients of child support, the mothers who have the custody of the children, are required to treat those payments as taxable income.

I ask the public, my colleagues and the bureaucrats who defend this 1942 regulation to clarify in their own minds whether it is the principles of the income tax system or whether it is the rights of children that must be defended?

Fifty-two years ago when the policy was developed there were 10 tax brackets for Canadian citizens. The parent paying support was usually in a higher tax bracket than the recipient parent. As a result it was determined that providing the donor with a tax break while taxing the recipient in a lower tax bracket would reduce the total amount of taxes paid on this sum.

At the same time these bureaucrats reasoned that allowing the non-custodial parent to deduct payments from their taxable income would provide an incentive to maintain regular payments. While this is convincing in theory, it fails miserably in practice.

The speakers today have waxed eloquent on the outdated basis of the child support taxation policy. In 1942 it was likely that by giving the non-custodial parent at tax break and taxing the custodial parent more money would end up benefiting the children. Today it is much more likely that both parents fall into the same tax bracket.

We must decide, given the 1990s setting, which parent will benefit from this subsidy. I believe that the mother who is in 98 per cent of instances the recipient of child support should not have to pay taxes on her child support payments.

Although it is true that women still on average earn less than men, they are much more likely than before to be in the same tax bracket as their former spouse. As pay equity legislation takes root we hope women will reach parity with men's wages in this country. Therefore a child support system which assumes that women make less than men is anachronistic and must be revised.

The revisions we seek are those that will divert moneys from the tax system to the children. In Nova Scotia one in five children lives below the poverty line. These proposed changes would be one small step to help those children.

One alternative that has been proposed and that is currently before the courts offers that income be considered the child's income and be taxed accordingly. Another option is for the parents of the children to negotiate among themselves the tax break they generally receive to ensure this is channelled toward the children's expenses.

Discussion of the intricacies of the tax system or tax reform should not sway us from the larger issues at play here. A report by Ellen Zweibel and Richard Shillington for the Policy Research Centre on Children, Youth and Families stated that the basic pre-tax child support amount being awarded is stunningly low.

Our government will prove its commitment to youth by following through with the promises in the red book.

Apprenticeship programs will ease the transition from school to work. We are establishing a youth services corps and we are restoring full funding to the national literacy program. But we must start earlier. We must invest all available resources in our children during their formative years.

A House of Commons resolution in 1989 to abolish child poverty by the year 2000 was adopted by the entire Parliament. We must recommit ourselves to this challenge and redouble our efforts.

In 1991 more than 1.2 million Canadian children were living in poverty. I was involved for five year in the metro food bank society in the Halifax-Dartmouth area and I know that sustainable and systematic changes are needed.

In 1992 an estimated 900,000 children were fed by one of the 436 food banks across this country and these numbers are growing. As a matter of fact in 1980 there were no food banks in Canada and now we have more than 400 food banks. That is astounding and appalling.

To reverse this frightening trend we must make the required changes to the Income Tax Act so that children are not financially devastated by their parent's divorce or separation. We must ensure that fathers, and in 98 per cent of cases it is the father who is the payer, keep up with their child support payments.

Some insight into the breakdown of the whole system can be derived from statistics from the legal world. In Nova Scotia the family court system administered maintenance payments for about 13,000 families. In 1990-91 that court issued 7,000 summonses to individuals who had failed to pay court ordered

support. These are not meaningless numbers. For each summons there is a story of hardship.

I mentioned earlier that the tax break for non-custodial parents was meant as an incentive-some incentive. Fifty-two years later child support dodgers are rampant in our society. We have made some inroads in this area. There is legislation in every province to garnishee wages from defaulters. That is not enough. A lot of work is needed to standardize child support levels and enforcement mechanisms across this country.

Loopholes abound in our system of taxation with no clear rationale for who benefits and who does not. Commons sense tells us and groups that have coalesced around this issue insist that women despite gross-up payments should not be paying tax on child support payments. Adopting this resolution as the shared opinion of this House is a positive step, one that makes sense.