Joe Preston

[Legion Lord Elgin Branch 41, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this week of remembrance is a special time and there is no more special place to gather than at our legions.

The Royal Canadian Legion Lord Elgin Branch 41 in St. Thomas has even more reason for pride this year. It is its 80th anniversary, a milestone that should be celebrated.

Like most legions, Lord Elgin Branch 41 is more than a building. It is more than a location for dinners and luncheons. Although many meetings have been held there, it is not just a meeting hall. Lord Elgin Branch 41 is a community. It is a group of people who contribute greatly to St. Thomas not just as legion members, but as some of its most vibrant citizens. The work that the legion members have done over the years and continue to do is what has made this branch successful.

As was said at the anniversary dinner, it will be recognized for its 80 years as an organization, but it will be remembered for its contributions to St. Thomas. We salute Branch 41.

[London North Centre Byelection, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend best wishes for success to Dianne Haskett, the Conservative candidate in the London North Centre byelection.

A native of London, Dianne has been extremely involved in the community. From 1991 to 1994 Dianne served on the London city council. During this period she helped found Open Homes Canada, a program designed to promote goodwill, understanding and national unity.

Dianne also served Londoners as the city's mayor from 1994 to 2000. As mayor, Dianne successfully initiated a strategic plan for downtown renewal. Dianne successfully attracted to London the 2001 Canada Summer Games and was the first mayor in London's history to freeze municipal taxes two years in a row.

Dianne Haskett has a record of making tough principled decisions. Like the Prime Minister and this government, Dianne Haskett will get things done for Londoners. All the best, Dianne. We will see her here.

[Income Tax Act, November 1st, 2006]

I am glad to hear that the member opposite agrees with me.

Budget 2006 discards the previous $3,000 partial exemption and proposes to make all scholarships and bursaries received by students enrolled in post-secondary studies completely exempt from tax.

Budget 2006 also proposes to improve access to student loans by reducing the parental contribution required for students from middle income families for the purpose of student loans. It is estimated that this change will enable 30,000 students to gain access to assistance and 25,000 to have access to increased loans.

The government will also provide a one-time payment of $1 billion into the post-secondary education infrastructure trust, providing that the 2005-06 surplus is in excess of $2 billion. The trust will support critical and urgent infrastructure and equipment in colleges and universities.

Budget 2006 also included funding for research and development and measures in support of apprenticeships and trades.

Let me turn to the assistance that is already provided for education saving. RESPs are given preferential tax treatment to help parents save for their children's post-secondary education. Up to $4,000 can be contributed to an RESP in a year for each beneficiary to a lifetime maximum of $42,000 per beneficiary. Funds invested in the plan grow tax free until they are withdrawn. Contributions are not deductible, but can be withdrawn tax free. Investment income earned in the plan is taxed in the hands of the students when withdrawn for post-secondary education. In short, the tax benefits in an RESP come from two sources: the deferral of the tax would be investment income and the fact that this income is taxed at a low rate because students generally pay little or no tax.

In addition to the tax preferences I just described, RESP savings qualify for the Canada education savings grant, or CESG, which makes saving in an RESP even more attractive. Under this program, which is aimed at encouraging saving for post-secondary education, the government provides a 20% grant on the first $2,000 in RESP savings for each beneficiary in a year.

To illustrate how this works, assume a parent contributes $2,000 to an RESP for his or her child, the contribution would earn $400 in CESG and the income on both the contribution and the CESG would grow tax free until the funds were withdrawn to cover the cost of the child attending college or university.

Further, because it is more difficult for low and middle income families to save for a child's post-secondary education, the Canada education savings grant provides a higher grant rate on the first $500 in contributions by these families. Depending on family income, the grant rate could be as high as 40%.

In addition, since 2004, the Canada learning bond kick-starts education savings for children born after 2003 and who are in families entitled to the national child benefit supplement. Up to $2,000 in total Canada learning bond grants could be paid in a child's RESP by age 16. These measures were adopted with our support.

In fact, the current RESP limit, saving $2,000 annually into a child's RESP, means that almost $75,000 could be available for that child's post-secondary education by age 18, and about $95,000 would be available if the parent contributed $4,000 annually until the $42,000 lifetime limit was reached.

The combination of the generous tax treatment of the RESP and the CESG that tops up private savings has provided powerful incentives for parents to save for their children's post-secondary education. At the of 2005, these plans held almost $18 billion in savings for future post-secondary education, seven times their value nine years ago.

Since 1998, $2.7 billion in Canada's education saving grants have provided for over 2.2 million children. Over $440 million in grants was paid into RESPs under the program in 2005. In addition, the tax deferral provided by RESPs represents about $130 million per year in forgone revenue for the Government of Canada and about half that amount to the provinces.

In total, the Government of Canada devotes over $570 million annually to tax relief and grants to help parents save for their children's post-secondary education. I believe nobody would dispute that the current RESP regime has been extremely successful at promoting savings for post-secondary education.

Let us consider the impact of the measures under Bill C-253.

First, the bill proposes to provide a deduction for contributions to RESPs made in 2006 and future tax years, with contributions withdrawn being taxed in the contributors hands rather than tax free as is currently the case.

Second, contribution limits would be raised to be the same as those applying for registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs, that is 18% of the earned income up to $18,000 for 2006.

The bill is supposed to encourage parents to save more for their children's post-secondary education, but I suggest that the measure proposed in the bill would be ineffective and would be expensive.

For these reasons and many others, I am unable to support the bill and invite my colleagues to do the same.

[Income Tax Act, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to engage in debate today with my fellow colleagues on Bill C-253, sponsored by the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

The bill proposes two major changes to registered education savings plans, or RESPs, that would affect contributions made in 2006 and future tax years.

We all agree that post-secondary education is important for the future of our children and for the future of this country. A well-educated workforce is a critical factor to improving Canada's productivity and raising our standard of living. In a knowledge based economy, our young people must have the skills to compete successfully in an increasingly sophisticated labour market.

More than half of the new jobs created today require post-secondary education. We can only expect education requirements to increase over time. We want our children to have access to post-secondary education and we want that education to be second to none.

The bill before the House today proposes an increase in support for post-secondary education by providing additional tax preferences for RESP savings. However, I believe this bill is not the best way to promote post-secondary education.

First, I will give a brief overview of the considerable support the Government of Canada provides for post-secondary education; second, I will explain the significant support that is already provided for education saving; and third, I will explain why measures proposed in the bill presented by the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East would not be cost effective ways to support post-secondary education.

The Government of Canada provides significant support for post-secondary education. In addition to transfers to the provinces, the Government of Canada provides over $5 billion annually in direct support to post-secondary education. Of this amount, $1.7 billion is provided to educational institutions for research to help ensure our brightest researchers stay in Canada and contribute to maintaining Canada's edge in innovation. Also, $1.8 billion is provided in grants, scholarships and loans to improve access to post-secondary education for low income students and rewarding those who attain academic excellence. We also provide $1.7 billion in tax relief to students and their families in recognition of the cost of post-secondary education through measures such as the tuition tax credit and the education tax credit.

This government's commitment to post-secondary education was evidenced in the 2006 budget presented in the House on May 2, 2006. The budget follows through on our platform commitments by proposing to create a textbook tax credit. The credit will be provided of $65 per month for full time study or $20 per month for part time study.

This government also recognizes that post-secondary students need to be supported in their hard work in the pursuit of academic excellence.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave a strong intervention, but I have a couple of points to make. As he recognizes, it was this party, in cooperation with others, that put together the provisional Standing Orders in the 38th Parliament.

The spirit of cooperation in the House is the lubricant that gets things done while partisanship is the friction that causes it to come grinding to a halt. If we remove the lubricant of cooperation, how can we get the job done? We agree with him that the provisional Standing Orders need to pass.

I guess the point being made was that there were some slight and small changes to them. He brought up the one about the amendment. He agrees that it probably should not change, but does he agree that, in their entirety, the provisional Standing Orders are exactly how he would like them or is there a small amount of work that still needs to be done to fix a couple of them?

Apparently, that was the spirit of cooperation at the House leaders' meeting, when it was agreed they would be put off and looked at by staff in order to fix some of the small pieces that needed to be fixed. Could the member tell us whether they are perfect or is there a small amount in the provisional Standing Orders that even he would still like to see fixed?

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

It should be the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member opposite that we agree with the provisional Standing Orders. I will repeat it again very slowly: we agree with the provisional Standing Orders. In fact, we helped write most of them in the 38th Parliament, when they were originally created.

The point is not whether we want the provisional Standing Orders implemented permanently, because we do. The point is keeping one's word. The point is lying in one meeting and going to another and doing something different.

I hope the member opposite now can give us a little response as to whether he thinks this place could work if every time we meet we tell a lie.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the purpose. The question is will it accomplish what the member would like it to accomplish, or are we looking at a cross-Canada approach to this, or trying to fix it in a way that may not fix it?

As I said in my remarks, the statistics tell us that as older workers are displaced from their jobs, they may be unemployed for a longer period of time. Support would certainly need to be there as one of the mechanisms. The true mechanisms are getting back to work. We have to look at the labour shortages from a pan-Canadian point of view as to what is the best solution.

We recognize that these workers share skills, mindsets and life skills that are so valuable to other employees out there. We certainly would like to put those to the best advantage.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the efficient operation of labour markets will continue to be central to what the government will do to help in the area of market flexibility.

Canada has well functioning markets and, in particular, the labour markets. We have looked at what we need to do so we can be flexible so workers can move from one sector to another. The days of one job for one's life are perhaps gone. The flexibility needs to be there.

We are also exercising leadership to secure the efficient operation of the national labour market. The federal government is uniquely positioned to facilitate a cross-Canada approach. We must be able to look at this as the federal government from a pan-Canadian point of view, rather than simply looking at it in regional or community situations. We must, as the government, react as the Government of Canada.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will discuss those issues with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

We certainly appreciate the hardships being faced by older workers who face unexpected changes in their employment, environment and communities. We are focused on providing the tools needed for retraining and helping them move on to other jobs.

We should not forget, though, that we need to encourage older workers. They all possess a set of skills, even life skills, that they can share with other workers. They can help us with labour shortages and with regional difficulties, as mentioned by the member.