House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was education.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Progressive Conservative MP for St. John's West (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 44% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply February 18th, 1998

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely the most silly frivolous point when we are talking about student debt and future employment problems.

One of the problems in this country is that little reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Liberal Party of Canada wants to create separatists that is one of the great ways to do it. It has caused the constitutional crisis of this country. It is devoid of ideas of how to deal with Quebec. It is devoid of ideas of how to create employment.

To use this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to try to brand our leader, the federalist who saved Canada in 1995, as a separatist because he does not agree with the government resolution is wrong. It was wrong when the government sent it to the supreme court. It is still wrong. It will do nothing for the good of Canada. If it creates unemployment or it creates separatists, it is because the Liberal government did not have many ideas to begin with.

Supply February 18th, 1998

Madam Speaker, in answer to the question, very often in debating in the House of Commons or any other place we want to say the same things, we agree on the same things and we take different approaches to them.

I am a very strong believer that free trade helped this country. Free trade created those million jobs that the Liberals take credit for now and say what a great economy we have. In Canada, with so many interprovincial trade barriers, our domestic economy has not grown at all like our export economy. That is very easy to prove.

In future it will not be free trade that will create jobs in this country. It will be free brains that will be developed in the minds of our young people in our universities and post-secondary institutions. That is where the future is. I am really not interested in sitting down, listening and talking about what happened to free trade, GST, 1984 and 1991. In 1998 we have 1.5 million students who are heavily indebted. Their future, if they can get an education, is going to be a good education at a reasonable cost.

Supply February 18th, 1998

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss this issue, although it is not a very pleasant issue. I was the seconder of this motion and I was a factor in convincing our caucus to use our supply day to discuss what we consider one of the great problems in this country and one of the great pending tragedies for the next generation of Canadians that will help to contribute to our economic growth.

The problems of student debt are way greater than a student problem. It is a Canadian problem. It is the Canadian taxpayer's problem. We must deal with it as such.

The cost of having student debt in Newfoundland in particular and in the rest of Canada is reduced access to education. Education becomes an elitist kind of approach where individuals can get educated only if they have significant personal wealth. In many families that is simply not going to happen. Many students in many parts of the country are being discouraged from getting an education.

We all know that job opportunities and education go together. It is really a penny wise and pound foolish kind of policy to have a situation where we effectively discourage people from getting educated. The future growth of Canada is definitely at stake if we do not do something with this student debt problem. Again, I say this is one of the reasons that our caucus has made this one of the most important policy matters that we want to deal with.

We know we have to try in opposition to influence the government to deal with real problems in Canada. This real problem in Canada seems not to be fully understood by the Government of Canada. Our job in opposition is to bring it to the attention of the Government of Canada and to see if we can find solutions to the problem.

The problem is horrendous and huge. There are 1.5 million students presently enrolled in Canadian post-secondary institutions. Collectively these are the youngest and brightest people who are trying to get ahead in Canada, who are doing the most for the future of Canada and for themselves and for their future families. Those 1.5 million students now owe collectively $6.9 billion. Most of them do not have anything but a part time job, working on an education.

There is a tragedy brewing in this country if tuition fees and education costs continue to rise. This country cannot grow into the next century. This new millennium we all want to talk about is going to be an apprehensive place for a lot of those students once they graduate.

One of the other problems we have, besides having tremendous student debt, is that we have tremendously high student unemployment. We can brag about the employment rates in this country that may be 8% to 9% for adults. The Stats Canada figures for the real unemployment rate below 30 years of age is 16.5%. In Newfoundland where I come from it is 23.5%, statistically proven. In real terms in Atlantic Canada if the truth were known for those students and young people who are still in Atlantic Canada we probably have an unemployment rate well in excess of 30%.

That causes the other great problem which Atlantic Canada and in particular Newfoundland have been all too familiar with, the problem of out-migration.

The member for Kamloops is wrong if he thinks that Canada has a net brain gain. We have more people leaving Saskatchewan, we have more people leaving Newfoundland. Where are they going to? There was a time when we could export some of our most uneducated people out of Atlantic Canada, out of Newfoundland to parts of central Canada.

Central Canada is going to find out and British Columbia is going to find out that a lot of the job opportunities for our new students who have tremendous debt, who need to go to areas where there is lower taxation, higher rates of pay and greater opportunities, when they want to visit their children or their grandchildren they better have a passport to visit them because they are not going to be in Canada.

I am going to quote a very prominent Liberal on this problem because sometimes I think the Government of Canada does not really take into account where this problem came from. This is a letter from one of our well known Liberal premiers who was a Liberal cabinet minister. When asked by my colleague from St. John's East the premier of Newfoundland answered: “The rising cost of post-secondary education is due in part to the reduction in transfer payments that was particularly targeted to post-secondary education”.

It is not a coincidence that over $6 billion in transfer cuts have happened since this Liberal government took office in 1993. It is not a coincidence that there is also $6.9 billion worth of debt for students in this country. It is not a coincidence that the provinces of Canada took the cut in federal transfers and simply transferred them to somewhere else. The federal guys transferred the cuts to the provinces, the provinces transferred them to the universities and the universities did what? They transferred them to the students. That is where the $6.9 billion of debt comes from.

As I said, with the effects of that transfer to students across this country some have taken the most terrible of all courses.

In Newfoundland they have actually chosen not to go to universities or colleges. They have chosen not to get educated. They see examples in dying rural communities where people are saying what is the point of getting educated. What is the point of my degree if I owe $30,000 and there are no jobs? I might as well not have gone at all.

For Canada that is the most expensive and tragic alternative. We all know there is a direct correlation between education and employment. If you choose not to get educated you will live on the social welfare system of Canada for the next 40 or 50 years of your supposed working life.

Another terrible tragedy from this terrible debtload is bankruptcies. Almost 8,000 bankruptcies are from students. These are not people who went into business. These are not people who have mortgages on their homes. These are not people who have travelled extensively and who have wasted money. There were 8,000 young Canadian declaring bankruptcy in 1996-97. It was because they went to school.

Another tragedy is the collection agencies, which this government should do something about. I know one of those agencies is based in the U.S.

Talk to parents who are trying to help their children pay off their loans with their savings. Some become targets of collection agencies when their children who cannot pay the loans themselves move within or outside of Canada. It is nothing short of mafia style collection tactics. I could give song and verse about some families in Newfoundland that are digging into their meagre savings accounts.

I have a letter from one parent whose daughter owes $19,000. The mother has $16,000 in savings and the collection company will not take it. Unless you pay it all, it does not want anything from you. The out-migration is unbelievable.

If we do not educate students at a reasonable cost we will have another great problem. Where is the source of future economic growth in Canada? In the year 2006 of the new millennium who will buy cars and houses? Who will have the money? Who will have the money to pay into the Canada pension plan to keep members of our age group reasonably content? Where is the economic growth? It comes from well employed, well paid people who pay taxes to this country. That is not going to happen.

The finance minister has solved our deficit problem for the late 1990s but I think he will create a huge economic and social problem 10 or 15 years from now when a large number of people cannot work and cannot spend on consumer goods.

Entrepreneurship and small business is such an important part of Canada's future growth. Small business creates most of our jobs. We all know that if you are going to get involved in a business you had better have some net personal worth when you go to the bank. I met a young lady the other day with a masters in engineering. She wants to start a business but she owes $57,000. Go down to one of our chartered banks and say that you have this great business idea. Guess what it will say? No business loan, no job creation, no real constructive place for you in Canada.

As the member for Kamloops said, it is all a matter of making choices. There are choices. We can decide to freeze tuition. We can decide to lower student debt. We can forget this millennium fund which will help somebody somewhere in the future. Instead we can help students in our universities today who will graduate this year.

I know. I went to a university in Newfoundland and I had free tuition. It works. A whole generation of us who went to university in Newfoundland in 1965 to 1970 had free tuition. Guess what? There was a whole generation of us who got educated, never had to draw unemployment insurance over 30 working years and contributed to the economy.

The investments that countries like Ireland are making into free tuition, the investment that Newfoundland made into free tuition from 1965 to 1970 are bold, visionary and they work. That is what this country needs when it comes to student debt. It does not need something called a millennium fund for some scholarships for some students. It really needs to get a handle on the cost of education and the idea that if we do create an educated workforce we will have jobs into the future and we will have a very successful country. I can only urge the Government of Canada to start paying attention to this very tragic problem.

Education February 18th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister believes that this millennium fund will be his government's legacy. I say that his education legacy is one of shame.

Today's students have paid for this future fund by shouldering massive cuts to education. Today's students do not need a legacy fund, they need an education fund.

Instead of repackaging his cuts of the past, he is trying to create a personal legacy. What is the Prime Minister prepared to do for today's students?

Education February 18th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the government promises to put in a spring in the steps of students, to let them leap forward and see the dream in the new millennium fund.

The millennium fund is for future students. At a current undergraduate degree cost of over $25,000 our current students are drowning in debt. Will the Prime Minister throw today's students a lifeline or just another line?

Federal Transfers February 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, my question was about student debt. So far this government has only offered band-aid solutions like the millennium fund. This fund will address only a limited number of students somewhere in the future.

My question addresses the 1.5 million students presently enrolled and the forgotten students who have already graduated and cannot find work: $6.9 billion in total debt. What is the minister prepared to do for these students who have absolutely no prospect of sharing in the millennium funds?

Federal Transfers February 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, in many ways the government has reduced the deficit by transferring its problems to other jurisdictions, namely the provinces, municipalities and individual students.

This government has slashed transfers to the provinces by over $6 billion while the students of Canada have now picked up a total of $6.9 billion of debt. This is no coincidence.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Before any minister receives a pay raise, will he be removing this crushing debt on the shoulders of our young citizens?

Toy Labelling December 4th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a few moments on this very proactive piece of legislation.

I commend the NDP member from Acadie—Bathurst for bringing in a piece of legislation which is very proactive and tries to protect the most innocent in our communities, young infants that may be susceptible to disease when they are exposed to some of these chemicals. So I say I commend the member for bringing it in. If nothing else today, we are discussing and informing certain parents of new children, babies and infants, that there may be a health threat.

One of my workers and his wife have a new baby. I am sure anybody would want to know of any possible health threats to their new child. I am glad the member brought it to my attention and I am glad we are discussing it in the House of Commons.

I am a little surprised at the government's approach. I cannot believe that the government would not be proactive as well and want to give this advice to anyone who may be at risk. We are not asking for any new huge piece of legislation. We are not asking the government to cause the manufacturers to invest huge amounts of money to change machinery and that type of thing. We are simply asking for legislation that would force companies to put on their packaging that something contains a chemical that may be dangerous to a child.

The government approach reminds me almost with what we did on the smoking ban. We could never convince the tobacco companies or convince governments that smoking was hazardous to people's health. Eventually when there were enough conclusive studies done, we used to put on the packages that smoking might cause cancer and other illnesses. We have long passed that stage now. We say yes, it does cause cancer. It is proven that if you use cigarettes as directed, they will most certainly kill you. It is a known fact and now it is accepted.

Why would the government not want to support labelling these toys so that maybe somewhere down the road some family does not have to go through a tragedy simply because we did not have all the studies on time.?

As I say, I commend the member and I am a little bit surprised at the government's approach to this. Much has been said about the studies that have been done throughout Europe, so I will not bother to repeat it. Albeit they may not be conclusive, but there certainly is an element of risk. There is an element that these things can cause problems, otherwise they would not have banned these chemicals in certain parts of Europe.

Even in Canada I understand under our Canadian Environmental Health Protection Act that phthalates are still registered as a toxic or carcinogenic substance. If in one part of Canadian law we have it registered because it is toxic and carcinogenic, why can we then not make sure that manufacturers put it on children's toys so it can be seen?

Those are my comments. There is no need to repeat what has been said. I think it is an excellent piece of legislation. Anything that we can do which is not going to cost taxpayers a lot of money or not going to cause any great deal to the manufacturers and will give some added protection to parents of newborn children I strongly support. We in the Conservative caucus will very strongly support this proactive legislation.

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy November 25th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Human Resources Development defended in the House a $350,000 training program to help his employees deal with “life threatening, explosive, dangerous situations after the end of the TAGS review”.

Does the minister really believe that he is dealing with terrorists or criminals? These fishers and plant workers are honest, law-abiding citizens. These are people who due to no fault of their own have been cut off prematurely from their primary source of income.

Why are there no programs to train fisheries and oceans employees on the west coast to deal with the Pacific salmon demonstrators? The Government of Canada has not proposed similar measures for Canada Post management.

Does the minister believe that fishers and plant workers are more prone to violence? This call for extra security is an insult to all people of Atlantic Canada. As a Newfoundlander I am offended by the proposal. As a federal member of Parliament I am ashamed of the minister's plan.

I call upon all my colleagues in the House to urge the minister to withdraw his proposal and apologize to all Atlantic Canadians.

Hibernia November 18th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday was a great day for Newfoundland and, indeed, all of Canada as Hibernia oil flowed for the first time. A new industry was born which will produce billions of dollars for the Government of Canada.

On October 18, 1994 the Prime Minister stated in the House in response to a question on Hibernia financing “If we had to do it all over again, perhaps we should have not gone ahead”.

Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that the Hibernia project was a great project for all the people of Canada?