House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was education.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to listen to members opposite in this debate. I just heard a comment which is absolutely incredulous. The comment was that it takes time for sound, long term economic policy to have an effect. I believe that is what the member opposite said.
In nine years of what the member opposite would like to call sound long term economic policy, each and every year—
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Sure you can talk about the free trade that you brought in. You can talk about the GST, which was brought in by the Mulroney government.
However, each and every year, the Conservatives ran a deficit and a deficit is an overdraft. If they want to talk about sound, long term economic policy, they do not run an overdraft every year and then at the end of the year pile it on top of the mortgage and then run another one and do that every year for nine years. In the last year when the Canadian people finally had had enough, the overdraft was $42 billion. Each year that you pile that overdraft on to the mortgage of this country, you wind up increasing the debt. Figure it out.
For nine years, we had overdraft financing by the Conservative government and the Conservatives are now trying to lecture this government. I would ask the members to look at a graph. If they looked at a graph of the nine years of Mulroney government, and the member for Sherbrooke was in that government I might add, the graph on the overdraft would go straight up I say to the former mayor of Halifax. It would go straight up and out of sight.
Since 1993, what has happened under the leadership of the present Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is the graph has been turned on its ear. The graph has gone straight down to the point where finally we are not continuing to run overdrafts.
Now that, I would submit to the members opposite, is what one would call, to use their terminology, sound, long term economic policy.
With regard this motion, it is also rather incredulous. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should lower the tax burden on Canadians and offer interest relief to student loan holders—.
The example they continue to use, as does the Reform Party, is the provincial Tories in the province of Ontario. They talk about how the economy has grown and jobs have grown. I would admit they have. In fact, revenue has increased in the province. There is no doubt about that. Why? Imagine that just by chance the policies of the federal government in ensuring that inflation is eliminated, ensuring that interest rates are at 20 year lows and ensuring that we have restored the funding in the transfer payments to the provinces might have something to do with the economic turnaround in the province of Ontario. I am sure members could.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
And he is a good Liberal at that, I say to the member.
The reality is that even the members would have to look at it and say that Ontario is not an island unto itself. It relies on the policies of the federal government. Indeed it relies on international policies and international relations.
The province of Ontario, were it a sovereign country, which I do not advocate, would be the ninth or tenth largest economy in the world. It is quite remarkable. It was also strong in the 1980s when I had the pleasure to serve under David Peterson, who balanced the budget I would add. It was the first time in 40 years that any provincial government eliminated the deficit and balanced the budget. That was the legacy of David Peterson.
Bob Rae took over and we all recall why. We can all recall the battles around national unity and how David Peterson stood strong and paid a horrendous political price because he stood up for Canada. I remember that day. I remember with pride being a member of that caucus and a member of that government. Tragically, I admit, it cost David Peterson the job as premier.
However, the economic realities were that we were booming under the David Peterson government. It was then that Bob Rae came to power and he did almost verbatim what the Conservatives did here in Ottawa. He intentionally ran $10 billion deficits, overdrafts each and every year. Remember what I said, a deficit is an overdraft. When government pays off its overdraft it piles it on to the mortgage which becomes the debt.
When we left office in 1990 in the province of Ontario the total debt for the province was $39 billion. In five years under the NDP, whose members stand here and talk with pride about their ability to govern, that debt in the greatest province in this country went from $39 billion to over $100 billion. It continues to grow because today the Mike Harris government is continuing to run a $6 billion deficit.
Why have they not cut? There is no question that they have cut dramatically and yet we hear members in the Reform Party saying how revenue has increased in the province of Ontario. Please help me with this. We have people lined up in emergency wards. Just read any newspaper. We have replaced the level of transfer payments to the provinces. Why were they cut in the first place?
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
I will admit to the member chirping why we cut them. We cut them because after nine years of Brian Mulroney and Jean Charest we wound up with an unmanageable—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I am sure the hon. member means Brian Mulroney and the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I am sure he would want to use that kind of nomenclature.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking in the past tense so I thought I could do that.
In the Brian Mulroney government the leader of the fifth party in this place was clearly a member of that cabinet. He was a driving force in that government. I presume he would sit at the cabinet table and talk to Mr. Mulroney. He would talk to his colleagues around that cabinet table and they would make a decision.
Their decision would be whether to increase the deficit or not. Bob Rae did it for five years and incredibly damaged the finances of that province and so did this government led by Brian Mulroney and strongly supported by the leader of the Conservative Party today.
I will admit that many of the people in that party here today, in fact all but the leader, were not there. So they are new to this place. They went from 160 down to 2. Some would call that a brain drain. I think I would call it a brain strain. In any event, it was a dramatic impact and obviously a reduction in the size of that caucus and there was a reason. The people were fed up.
What do they do now? They come back and say “we can solve the problem, we will just cut your taxes and this is the model”. Mike Harris said in 1995 “I'll cut your income tax by 30%”. He has delivered 22.5%. He has absolutely done that. That is what he and Mr. Eves said they would do. They have cut the taxes. How have they done it? They have cut funding to health care. They have cut funding to education dramatically.
We do not mean to pick on him, but the member for Markham continues to talk in support of Mike Harris but he is not really sure. He has terrific ideas. I will give the House one of his ideas. This is a quote from the member for Markham: “The Liberals should use surplus funds from employment insurance to help save the CPP”. Is that robbing from Peter to pay Paul? This is from the same party that increased employment insurance premiums by 77 cents. It has no credibility, none whatsoever on this issue.
We will be strongly speaking and voting against this motion.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again with this member because the last Liberal member was not too good on figures. I guess I am going to have to work quite slowly for this chap too, him being a Liberal.
I would like to talk about this millennium fund. We will not get into the rhetoric about it being monuments and so on and so forth. Let us just deal with some simple math.
We know that the government is in debt almost $600 billion as a result of the Conservatives and the Liberals, the two old parties, but that is another story. The reality is that Canada owes almost $600 billion. Every dollar of the money we owe has to have some interest paid on it.
If we have $3 billion of the $600 billion that is not paid down it costs money. We will have to pay interest on that $3 billion. I think the member would have to agree with that.
If this is not smoke and mirrors, if we are not just saying we are going to take $3 billion and put it into a fund, and indeed that money should be going to debt repayment, where is the money going to come from that they are suddenly going to say it is spinning off so much? I will use some numbers just so that we are talking about some hard numbers.
If we were talking about 5%, if the government said we are going to put $3 billion into this millennium fund and we are going to be spinning off 5% of that or $150 million a year, will this member admit that the $3 billion is going to cost an additional $150 million in interest payments alone?
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Madam Speaker, one of the reasons I believe in my heart that the Reform Party will never govern this country is it simply does not understand that you have to continue to govern. You have to invest in our young people.
I admit quite clearly that the debt must be attacked. Our finance minister has committed to that. We have put out what we believe is a balanced plan which says 50% of our surplus will go toward debt reduction that the member goes on about as well as selective tax relief.
At the same time, are we to simply shut the lights out and go home or are we to say to the Canadian youth that they are on their own? They need our support and we need to invest in our youth. That is what the millennium fund will do. It will invest in the education of the people who will run this country in the future.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Mississauga South referring to the Progressive Conservatives when they were in power. I want to say that when they were there, we had the trees, we had the planes, we had all modes of transportation.
I practically have to thumb to get to Ottawa these days with the cuts that have come from the government side. It is a serious situation where we have our young people who are hurting like never before.
When the Conservatives were in power they knew there were regions of Canada with different needs and they addressed them. This government has not done that and we have never hurt like this before.
What does he see? Has he been to New Brunswick? I thank him for calling me the mayor of Halifax, but the mayor of Saint John I was very proud to be for 12 years.
Has he been to New Brunswick? The people across Canada when they come find it the most wonderful place in the country. They want to help us. We had shipbuilding. We had marine. We had everything going until these people took power and within the last three and a half years devastated it. What will they do for the maritimes?
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Madam Speaker, I stand corrected on the city the member was the mayor of. I have respect for the member and if she really is thumbing I will make sure to give her a lift.
I know this member was not part of the Mulroney days. I just find it incredible the legacy that was left, what we had to inherit in 1993.
If the members opposite would simply do a mea culpa and admit they were wrong, admit they ran a huge deficit then maybe they would have some credibility.
They will not admit the truth. They have no credibility whatsoever.
Stéphan Tremblay Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, my first comment would be that, if I were a single mother or a student owing $20,000 listening to the debate this evening, I would go to bed pretty discouraged. There is all this finger pointing going on, with charges that the Liberals did this and the Conservatives did that. Could we not focus a bit on the future?
The Progressive Conservative Party's motion today reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should lower the tax burden on Canadians and offer interest relief to student loan holders in order to address the brain drain crisis which is forcing Canadians to move to the United States where unemployment rates, income tax rates and student debt levels are lower and the standard of living is 25 percent higher than in Canada.
This morning, when I read it and learned that I was to speak to it, I found the motion strange, although there are a lot of good points in it. It covers so much. It talks about tax burden, student loans, and the brain drain, and praises the United States as though it were the best place to live. I am going to look at each element in turn.
First, there is the brain drain. I did some research this morning. The chief statistician of Statistics Canada recently declared that, between 1986 and 1996, approximately 50,000 people with various levels of education left the country, while 200,000 came here to work. So we are somewhat ahead. The fact still remains, however, that there is a brain drain problem.
In this regard, a study on the behaviour of 1995 graduates shows that, two years after they obtained their degree, 24% of those with PhDs had left Canada, compared with 10% of students who had obtained a master's, and 3% of students with a high school diploma.
I would like to draw members' attention to a survey done by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. This survey showed that the main factor in leaving for the United States was the salaries there.
The tax burden could be a factor, but according to the study, it is primarily the phenomenal salaries the Americans can pay in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
One thing bothers me, however. They say the United States is a great place to live. In this regard, the Liberal Party said some interesting things today. As a country we have choices to make. If our taxes are so much higher than in the U.S., it is in large measure because of our societal decision to provide universal education and health services. That has to be paid for somehow.
On the subject of the American dream, the information I have indicates that, between 1973 and 1995, the per capita gross domestic product increased by a third and gross salaries for people in management positions decreased by 10% to US$258.
It all looks fine there, but what choices do they make as a society? Their crime rate is one of the highest in the world. Child poverty is the highest in the world. Choices have to be made, and in many instances, to my great regret, they strongly resemble the choices the Reform Party wants us to make, although I would like to hear their remarks should they change their minds.
That concerns the first two elements. The third element is student loans. Here I am going to have some fun. I am going to have fun because there is a lot to say on this subject.
We should have a quick look at the history of student debt. Students go into debt because it costs a lot to go to school. Every year tuition fees go up. Why? We have to start at the beginning.
The federal government gives large sums of money to the provinces for education. In fact, this money comes from our taxes. We must remember that. The federal government distributes our taxes to the provinces, which pay the education costs. Then for whatever reasons, the federal government makes huge cuts, leaving the provinces stuck with the problem. Fees increase, student debt increases, and the song goes on.
The federal government finally took notice of the problem. It should be praised for noticing that the student debt load is very high. Faced with the problem, the federal government said “We are going to create a scholarship fund. We will provide assistance for students because now we are rolling in surplus dough”. But we still need to see them put their money where their mouth is.
I will speak of the situation most familiar to me, the situation in Quebec, where we have the most efficient system of loans and bursaries in Canada. Don't take my word for it. That is what the president of the Canadian Student Association says, and he ought to be well informed about the situation throughout the country. He has said “If I were in Manitoba, I would be a bit jealous of students in Quebec, because they have an excellent system of loans and bursaries”. Recently, however, we have had to cut back on the system because of certain cuts in transfer payments.
The student debt load is increasing, and now the federal government is turning up as a Johnny-come-lately. The Minister of Human Resources Development said once in committee, and I was there to hear it: “The federal government is giving enormous sums to Quebec and other provinces, but has no visibility whatsoever”. Is that what the purpose of the policy is, to gain some visibility?
It has therefore created a system of loans and bursaries with its own money, to be administered at the federal level. It is not concerned in any way about whether this creates duplication, about whether it decreases efficiency, about whether it is throwing a monkey wrench into a system that is working perfectly well at the moment.
All these questions have to be asked, and they are things that bother me a great deal.
There are many things that could be done to help students. During the last election campaign, for instance, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a registered education savings plan. That could be one solution. The tax credit for tuition fees could be another. The education credit, the transfer of education credits to a spouse or parent, not taxing the first $500 of a bursary, all these could be yet other solutions. In this regard, there is a consensus in Quebec, as representatives of the Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois, student associations and university presidents all agree with what we are saying.
Yesterday, Mr. Bouchard sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada asking for an emergency meeting. Since there is a consensus in Quebec, could a way not be found to take these huge amounts of money and let Quebec administer them as it sees fit, in its own jurisdiction?
It is really a shame to see this sort of petty politics. Other ideologies may be better, but I say that, on this issue, the logic is obvious.
Another point mentioned was the tax burden. In fact, many issues have been mentioned today, given the wide variety of issues covered in the motion.
I am interested in the tax burden, as it covers quite a range of things. Today's debate on the tax burden prompted the NDP, which often says things I find relevant, to speak about child poverty, and poverty in general.
I have a great deal of difficulty understanding, and I keep up on this area, how it is that, in a period of full economic growth that has gone on for several years, poverty continues to grow.
When the topic is child poverty, and it is said that one child in five is living under the poverty line, I find this frightening. As a politician, I ask myself what will be the consequences of the measures taken, or very often not taken, here in 15 or 20 years. You will tell me I am being very egotistical, because I am thinking of what will become of me in 20 years—I will be only 44—in what sort of society we will be living, when I see the steady increase in the rate of poverty. This is an up-to-date statistic, but it is also a persistent trend. We are looking at a steadily growing gap.
Four years ago, there were one million children living under the poverty line in Canada; today there are 1.5 million. That is a huge increase. If this keeps on, where are we headed? These children living below the poverty line, who have a hard time studying since they are not properly fed, and who have a hard time finding a job because of their poor education, and who have trouble making their way in the world, are much more likely to get involved in crime. All of this makes me wonder about the kind of society we will end up with.
When I see“tax burden”, I think of taxes. When I think of “taxes”, and I see more wealth and more poverty, I can see there is a problem somewhere. I am not alone in saying this. But what are we doing about it? I do not see anything happening.
In terms of tax, wealth is being created, but it does not appear to be going into government coffers. In 1950—I was not around—businesses paid 50% income tax, as did people.
People are overtaxed as they say, and I agree. It is truly hard for a single parent to pay tax on a salary of $20,000 a year.
What I am wondering is where is the money? The money stays in the bank vaults or the coffers of big business. I have, in this regard, a long list of companies that made huge profits and paid almost no income tax. I will not show it to the House, because unfortunately am not allowed. I will name some of the companies. Barrington Petroleum made profits—not revenues—in 1994 of $11 million and paid $194,000, or 1.7%, in taxes. BCE Mobile Communications Inc., with $66 million, paid 4% in taxes.
Let me continue. In 1993, the Nesbitt Burns Inc. group made profits of $50 million and did not pay a red cent in taxes. The money is there. It is in the pockets of the rich.
From what I read when I am doing research, the attitude seems to be that we should not lower the taxes of the rich, of corporations because they are the ones creating jobs. This might well seem logical at first. But their taxes have been going down for 20 years, which means less revenue for governments. Taxes have to be raised somewhere. So personal income tax is raised.
It is in this sense that I find the Progressive Conservative Party's motion interesting. When it says that Canadians' tax burden is much too high, there is no denying that. But there is also the other end of the scale, the corporate tax burden, to consider. I am not talking about SMBs nor about businesses just starting up. I am talking about healthy companies, multinationals making millions, even billions—we see the banks paying heavy taxes, but that is another debate—and not paying any taxes. I have to wonder about this, particularly when I see poverty on the increase.
I heard what my colleague from New Brunswick had to say. In New Brunswick, poverty is steadily increasing. Something is not working, and I have to really wonder. At some point, people are going to have to stop arguing and trying to blame one another. I think people will have to sit down and try to solve this serious problem. In my opinion, the first step toward solving a problem is admitting that there is one.
In his next budget, the Minister of Finance will be announcing highly laudable measures to help students, but what is needed are measures that are effective, not political. Where are things headed with measures like these? Where are things headed with one and a half million children living in poverty? And I am not talking about the parents, or the delayed impact of poverty, what I call people's inability to save.
You know, ten years ago,—and I am not talking about 20 years ago here—the savings rate was much higher than it is now. I think that the average savings per household is 1% annually. This may not be poverty right now, but that is what it will become. When we speak about future poverty, that is where I get worried. In 10, 15 or 20 years, these people will stop working and will have almost nothing set aside. There is a certain degree of income security, but it is just delayed poverty, and that is what is the cause of concern.
I think that the taxation system needs to be revamped. I am not the first one to say so, either. The last major review of the personal income tax system dates back to the work of the royal commission on taxation in the 1960s. The last time they saw fit to review the taxation system was in the 1960s. Now, instead of revising the tax laws for shipping companies belonging to the Minister of Finance, and instead of passing legislation that will benefit the rich even more, would it be possible, at some point, to sit down and look at what is not working properly in the system?
The Liberals should be aware of the inequalities in the present federal system. So should everyone. I think that, with a subject as serious as the increasing gap between rich and poor, we must stop playing politics and get moving.
In a document by the Department of Finance, it is stated that there are three factors which explain the extent of the advantages high income taxpayers enjoy: first of all, these taxpayers have the necessary resources to make better use of tax advantages; second, some of the major tax expenditures relate to investment income, most of which is earned by this group of taxpayers; third, the higher the taxation rate, the more advantageous the exemptions or deductions. So, like just about everywhere else, it takes money to make money.
It is like the 1980s, when the interest rates were raised to incredible highs. It is at such times that people get into debt. They run up debts and that enriches the—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.
It being 7.30 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
All those opposed will please say nay.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, February 17, 1998 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 23, 1998, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should 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.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion I have introduced in the House. I would like to spend a moment to tell the House why I introduced this motion.
The reason for bringing this motion forward is to open up debate and critical thinking on this issue. If we are truly serious about poverty and unemployment in this country then we have to set a real plan and we have to set real targets in order to ensure that we do actually reduce and finally eliminate poverty in this very wealthy country.
I represent the riding of Vancouver East which has the lowest income community in Canada. My riding has been particularly hard hit by poverty and by unemployment.
For the last two decades Canadians have heard many promises about reducing unemployment and eliminating poverty in ridings such as mine and right across this country. The reality is that none of these promises has been fulfilled, not by a Conservative government and certainly not by the current Liberal government. Instead, the number of people living in poverty in this country has increased and unemployment has remained unconscionably high.
I would like to go back into history for a moment to the year 1989 when the House of Commons unanimously supported former NDP leader Ed Broadbent's motion to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. That was in 1989.
Now here we are in 1998 and despite what might have been at the time very good intentions of all the members of the House from all parties represented, nothing has changed. In fact, the situation has worsened.
Since 1989 there are now 538,000 more children living in poverty. The number of poor children has grown by 47%. We must recognize that children are poor because their parents are poor. Their parents are usually poor because they are unemployed or they are in a low wage ghetto because our minimum wages are so low or because the jobs that have been created have been part time jobs that cannot support a family at any decent standard of living.
As a result of this, the reality faced by a growing number of Canadian families is that the number of food banks in Canada has tripled and the proportion of the population relying on food banks has doubled. The number of Canadians filing for personal bankruptcy has tripled, which is something that affects small businesses as well as lone business operators. The number of low income persons in 1996 was 40% higher than it was in 1989. That is the tragic record of what has happened in our country since the motion was passed in the House of Commons in 1989.
We must ask ourselves what the root of the question is. At the root of the growing number of people living in poverty is the high level of unemployment. We have heard statistics many times that unemployment is at 9% or higher for 86 consecutive months. We talk about it a lot but it in no way describes the tragedy that is faced by individuals and families, by working people when they feel the devastation of unemployment. This is felt in the family, in the local community, by business, in the school yard, in our community centres, and on and on it goes.
There are 1.4 million unemployed Canadians and 5 million Canadians who live below the poverty line as established by the low income cut-offs. Of those who are employed, 18.5% have only been able to find part time work.
When it comes to youth the situation is even worse. The official unemployment rate for youth is 16.5%. That does not include young people who have given up looking for work. Even if we use the official statistics, youth unemployment is almost double the unemployment rate for adults. The reality is many young people who manage to find work are trapped in part time jobs that pay minimum wage.
I believe, as do all members of the New Democratic Party, that Canadians who are living in poverty or coping with unemployment should be able to expect support and assistance from the federal government and provincial governments. Instead, we have seen a growing trend of inequality and poverty in Canada. The most disturbing growing trend is poor bashing where government policies zero in and target certain sectors of the community. These policies say in effect you are undeserving, you are going to be put on a work fare program, you are going to be put back on the unemployment roll. That is the kind of mentality that has developed through policies we have seen from the Liberal government.
We have seen cuts to transfer payments for health care, education and social support. The programs announced by the government have only been skin deep and have done little to alleviate high unemployment especially among young people.
Many of the government's own policies contribute to growing inequality, poverty and unemployment in our country. The Bank of Canada's obsession with fighting inflation ahead of all other social issues has cost us thousands of jobs. We have lost something like 100,000 jobs in health care, environmental protection, education and public services as a result of the slash and burn approach of the Liberal government.
This government has gutted our employment insurance system. Unemployed people have a right to expect they can receive a decent income while unemployed.
The reality is that our current unemployment insurance system is now pushing more and more people into poverty. Eight years ago 87% of Canadians who lost their jobs and had paid into UI received benefits. Reports have been tabled in the House and the stories are horrific and shocking that now only approximately 37% of those people who pay into UI will actually receive a benefit.
People who are no longer eligible for employment insurance must now depend on social assistance. Unfortunately that too is becoming more and more of a tragedy. Social assistance as well has not been immune to the savage and violent cuts that have been perpetrated by the Liberal government in terms of transfers to the provinces.
The Conservative government's cap on the Canada assistance plan payments cost B.C. and Ontario alone $9.7 billion. While in opposition, the Liberals criticized the cuts as penalizing the poorest of the poor. Now that the Liberals are in office, they have simply continued the same old story with the same old policies that served to harm and penalize the poorest of the poor.
Between 1995 and 1997, the Liberals used the introduction of the Canada health and social transfer to slash federal funding for social programs by $2.8 billion.
Let us turn to education for a moment as another example of the growing inequality we face. We have heard a lot of debate in the House today about the announced millennium fund. However, the amount of money that is being cut from post-secondary education, more than $2.29 billion by the Liberal government in transfer payments, has had an incredible impact and is a growing crisis within our post-secondary educational facilities.
Under the Liberals post-secondary education has become a debt trap for students. The average student debt is now $25,000. Even the prime minister, in speaking to the Canadian Club, acknowledged that too many young people cannot afford to attend university or college anymore. Tuition fees have increased by 45% since the Liberals took power. Again, much of this is due to the cuts in federal funding.
Mr. Martin and his so-called fiscal responsibility has been carried out—
John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON
Madam Speaker, it is the tradition in this House to not call members by name. I would ask, in your vigilance, Madam Speaker, that you not allow people speaking to call members by name but only by riding.
