Debates of April 15th, 2008

Income Tax Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill because, in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, we stated that we wanted to make some changes in this respect. I thank him for mentioning this in his speech.

Since the ceiling has not been raised since 1994, it is important that we make it easier for young couples to purchase property more quickly.

Would my colleague be open to amending the bill to allow for the indexing of the amount, so that we will not have to come back year after year to increase the maximum? This would avoid another situation like this one, where we want to increase the current amount, which was set 14 years ago in 1994.

Would my colleague be open to such an amendment if the Bloc Québécois or the committee decided to put it forward? I will repeat that we support this bill. We think it is a good idea, and the sooner it can take effect, the better.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we did contemplate putting the indexing factor into the bill. The reason we left it out was simple. It simplified the matter. We felt it was an issue that could be dealt with in this Parliament, for this Parliament and by this Parliament, so we left it at that one figure. However, philosophically, I have no difficulty whatsoever with agreeing to that sort of amendment.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. I think it is a very well-intended and needed bill to help young couples buy their first home. However, I have a question that I hope the hon. member can answer.

By increasing this limit, it might reduce tax revenue for the government. With the RESP bill, we heard the Minister of Finance say that it would have put us into deficit. Have any calculations been done? Will this bill put us into deficit or not?

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend raises an interesting point, and it is one which we addressed. We think the bill is revenue neutral. People contribute money to their RRSPs. It is an ongoing program. The government has every indication just how much money on average Canadians will put into the RRSPs and gain a tax benefit from it in any one particular year, and the bill would not alter that. All the bill would do is allow people to take that money out of their RRSPs and use that money to purchase a home.

The former prime minister, when he was finance minister, and Mr. Mazankowski, agreed that this would not be a net cost to the government. I see a former finance minister across the way who may concur with that notion, that the bill would not be a cost to the government. Therefore, I do not see how it could impact on the budget.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work on this file and, particularly, for bringing this legislation into the House.

Could he share with us some of the stories has heard with regard to the rising costs of housing in certain parts of the country, perhaps specifically in his region, the Lower Mainland of B.C.?

Finally, would my colleague comment on how certain measures that our government has brought forward help Canadians lower the cost of home ownership? I am thinking specifically of our cut to the GST.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, both the cuts to the GST and the savings account, introduced by the finance minister in the last budget, will help young people to acquire the down payment for a home. That is the bottom line on this bill.

In my area of the country, acquiring a down payment for a house is a very difficult for young people. I am sure it is a major challenge for young Canadians across the country. The bill would allow Canadians to do just that, to utilize the RRSP—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Sorry, I have interrupt the hon. member at that point.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill. It is an excellent idea. It barely keeps up with inflation since the idea was first introduced. It is good to take this action. I agree with the hon. member that there will be little, if any, implications for government revenue. It is the kind of action that is very helpful for first-time home buyers, particularly where the member comes from in Vancouver with the huge housing inflation. Indeed, across Canada house inflation has been much greater than the amount of the increase since 1992. It is a good bill and I am very happy to support it.

As well, if we look at housing more generally, I am concerned about other Canadians in the housing market. I am particularly concerned about lower income Canadians. Three programs were introduced by the previous Liberal government for which I gather the funding comes to an end on March 31 of next year.

Those programs include the rehabilitation housing funding program, which involves a subsidy paid by the federal government to lower income individuals occupying co-ops. It happens that the co-op people came to see me this morning. They expressed great concern that the funding for these lower income Canadians might come to an end on March 31 of next year.

Second, is the whole homelessness file. I understand that funding may come to an end as well on March 31 of next year. There is great concern on the part of those who are homeless, or who advocate for the homeless, or who care about the homeless that this funding might also end.

Finally, in budget 2005, funding was provided to provinces to help in the provision of affordable housing. I understand that too comes to an end March 31, 2009.

Under the former Liberal government, Claudette Bradshaw, in particular, took a passionate lead in favour of homelessness programs, in favour of support for social housing. She and all of us on the Liberal side would also be very disappointed and critical of the government should these three important programs, addressing lower income Canadians in need of housing plus the homeless, come to an end.

We should be under no illusions. I refer members back to the “Advantage Canada” booklet, which came out with one of the government's previous budgets. It talked about federal-provincial jurisdictions. The government has a very narrow definition of federal and provincial jurisdictions. There were two examples given in the booklet of areas which were entirely provincial, according to the government. Perhaps not coincidentally the two areas mentioned were precisely housing and homelessness. According to the government's budget documents, these were considered provincial areas, not federal areas. The implication being that it would be just fine if the federal government washed its hands of any kind of support for social housing, or homeless, or low income Canadians in co-ops. I would not be terribly hopeful as to continuation of support for these programs on March 31, 2009.

On the Liberal side, we believe in these programs. We were the ones who initiated them. This is not to say that the federal government should necessarily be involved in the construction of new houses, but we think the federal government should be there to support cross-Canada initiatives, possibly led by the provinces, to deal with issues of homelessness, social housing and housing accommodation for lower income Canadians.

While I support the bill and I congratulate the member on bringing this forward, and it is very appropriate, as worthy as the bill is, there are far more pressing needs in our country by lower income Canadians, by desperate people who are homeless and by those agencies which have come to expect some funding from the federal government to support housing initiatives for low income Canadians.

Given the government's very narrow interpretation of the Constitution and its disdain or disregard for homeless or lower income Canadians, whom it does not see as its voting core, I think all of us in the House, at least on the opposition side, should be very concerned that these funds for these three important programs may be allowed to lapse on March 31 of next year.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Delta—Richmond East for introducing this bill, which will increase the amount of money people can borrow from their RRSPs to buy a house from $20,000 to $25,000. For a young couple, that means the limit will increase from $40,000 to $50,000.

I think there was a need to fix the existing situation. This is a good program, and this measure helps give people access to property. In my riding in particular, many young couples will have a greater incentive to become homeowners thanks to this measure. They will vacate housing that can be occupied by other people, because in some of the municipalities in my riding, there is a real housing shortage. This change will have a positive ripple effect.

I would also like to thank my colleague for the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance's prebudget consultation report recommended doing something like this. The Minister of Finance did not follow that recommendation this year. However, let us hope that the situation will be improved by the progress of this bill, its adoption, or some other measure.

In its supplementary opinion, the Bloc Québécois explained why it supported this measure and why the party thought it was important to make the proposed improvements to the program.

It is clear that this whole issue is also about encouraging people to save money. I think that adopting this bill will solve the non-indexation problem that has been around since 1994 and will also create a ripple effect to improve access to housing. I think we will all benefit by making this happen.

Following my colleague's speech a few minutes ago, I also got the impression that he would likely be open to the possibility of an amendment so that in the future, that amount can be either fully or partially indexed so that in five or ten years, the amount will still be realistic with respect to housing prices.

These types of actions, which have already been around for a number of years, as well as the other conditions under which homes are being built, have certainly helped Quebec and Canada avoid experiencing all of the difficulties being faced in the United States, where interest costs are fully deductible. I think that the actions that were taken in Canada were the right ones, and this bill only improves the situation. That is why the Bloc Québécois will certainly support this bill.

As I was saying earlier, the maximum amount for the home buyers' plan has not been increased since 1994, and is set at $20,000 per individual and $40,000 per household. Bill C-520 would increase that to $25,000 per year, to a maximum of $50,000 per household. Thus, individuals who have contributed to their RRSPs will have be able to have a larger down payment and therefore a smaller mortgage payment. This is a real and direct incentive for home buyers.

We know that couples often put a large part of their expenditures towards rent. With this measure, couples will have financial security while they are getting older and establishing a family.There is definitely a positive incentive in the existing program and even more so in the improvement provided by the bill.

This increase is justified by the spectacular rise in the cost of homes over the past years. Paradoxically, the cost of homes is not rising only in large cities. In my riding, along the shores of the St. Lawrence, the baby boomers are arriving, wanting to retire in the country with nice surroundings. And this has increased the costs of homes all along the St. Lawrence. This often means that young couples who have just moved to the area do not have access to these properties. However, in a number of towns not on the river, houses are becoming available. Often, as is the case with young couples, while two people work in a factory or in their first job, they have student debt to pay back.

They need more time to save the money they need to purchase a home. This program makes it easier for them to become homeowners.

In a way, the program aids regional economic development. In many communities where the population is aging, more homes are coming on the market as seniors leave their homes to live in residences or, sadly, die. The program encourages young people to settle in these towns and villages. Ultimately, families with children will justify keeping schools open. Obviously, this is not the only factor to consider, but it is one of the reasons we support this bill.

The assistant chief economist at RBC said:

Nationwide housing affordability deteriorated in every quarter throughout 2007 to end up at the worst level since...1990. Back then, soaring interest rates and a recession sparked much of the trouble. Today, however, a long upward trend in house prices, driven by sounder macroeconomic fundamentals such as job growth, is primarily responsible.

Passing this bill will send a clear message that legislators have the will to tackle the negative effects and move forward with a positive measure. Many people have asked why this situation has not already been indexed. If it had been, we would not have had to take this step now. The hon. member must be congratulated for taking the initiative to move forward to correct it.

Nonetheless, as I was saying, the Bloc Québécois would like the indexing to be incorporated into the bill during review in committee. Depending on the testimony we hear, we could study the possibility of doing so. Ultimately, we should have seen this type of measure in the last budget, but that was not the case. The hon. member's initiative can help correct the situation. Let us hope this bill is passed quickly.

During this economic downturn we are currently experiencing, this is a small tool that could be used to help maintain growth through domestic consumer spending, which we are in great need of to respond to the decline in consumer spending in the United States and the huge number of homes available in that country. We are all aware of the ripple effect, the domino effect this situation has on the economy and the entire forestry industry.

Since this bill introduces such a tool to correct the situation, at least partially, the Bloc Québécois will support it in good faith. In the presence of positive and constructive measures, we are indeed capable of working together with the government or with other hon. members of this House to pass such bills that will improve the situation, especially for our young families.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate tonight in the debate on Bill C-520, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan), a private member's bill from the member for Delta—Richmond East.

As we have heard a number of times tonight, this private member's bill seeks to increase the eligible amount for the home buyers' plan from $20,000 to $25,000. That is the amount one would be able to take out of RSP savings to put toward a first home purchase. For couples who both have RSPs, that would mean from $40,000 to $50,000 to put toward their first home.

The money borrowed from the RSP has to be repaid over 15 years. If the yearly minimum is not paid, that balance has to be added to one's taxable income in that time. Also, if one defaults on the yearly repayment, that money cannot later be repaid into the RSP. It is lost to the RSP if there is default on the repayment plan.

The current limit was established when the program was created in 1992 and has not been adjusted for inflation since then. The $25,000 proposal is almost the adjustment for inflation. It would have been slightly higher than $25,000, but that is the overall intention of this legislation.

I have to say that it seems to be a reasonable proposal from the member and it is supportable. Over its existence, this has been an important program for millions of Canadians. It has helped many people enter the housing market for the first time. In fact, the Canadian Real Estate Association has reported that 1.8 million Canadians have used this plan since it was first created. That has resulted in over 900,000 home purchases.

One of the concerns that has been raised, and the member from Delta—Richmond East raised it as well, is that upon analysis of the home ownership rate, one can see that it increased between 1991 and 2001, the year statistics are most readily available, from 62.3% to 66.1%. However, when one looks more closely at the statistics, one sees that it is older folks who benefited most in terms of moving into home ownership. People aged 55 and older benefited most from being able to move into home ownership in that period.

Therefore, it is hard to say that a program like this actually increased the ability of younger folks to purchase a first home, since the rate of first home ownership in all the other age groups actually went down, most significantly in the lower age group. It is of concern that this may not have addressed one of the intended purposes, which was to ensure that younger Canadians were able to enter the housing market for the first time.

There were concerns raised about this program when it was first implemented. A number of analysts saw it as a regressive program and said that it was in fact more helpful to wealthy Canadians, to people who are most likely to be able to set aside money for their retirement in an RSP, than it was for other Canadians of more modest incomes or low incomes. A lot of those folks are not able to put money aside in an RSP. A lot of those folks do not qualify for mortgages as easily as wealthier Canadians and therefore would not have the ability to access this program.

In a sense, then, as an affordability measure of increasing the availability of Canadians to participate in the housing market, it is not well targeted. It does not target the folks who are most in need in terms of ensuring they have a home and a roof over their heads. Other programs, such as tax credits or homeowner grants, would work much better in terms of targeting people and ensuring an affordable housing approach to this kind of program.

We also need to point out that younger Canadians, the original target group for this program, face significant student loan issues because student loans have risen dramatically in recent years. I think the average debt of most students after they graduate from university is $24,000, which increases their difficulty to take advantage of an RRSP.

Similarly, child care expenses for young families are rising. Many young families need to put significant resources into child care, which limits their ability to put money into an RRSP.

We also need to look at how people's ability to make repayments affects their retirement savings. Some of the information that I saw, albeit early on in the program, showed that almost one-third of the participants in the program failed to make their yearly required repayments and, by defaulting on the amount, the amount went into their taxable income. I think one-fifth of the total amount due was defaulted on back in 1995.

When people default on their repayments, that money in their retirement savings is lost and it cannot be backfilled. People cannot go back years later and put that money back into their retirement savings. Their ability to contribute is lost for the year they defaulted on the repayment. That is something else we should look at. We should get more up to date information on the failure to make repayments and find out how that affects people's retirement income generally as a result of their participation in the homebuyer's plan.

Housing prices have skyrocketed, particularly in some urban centres. We have already heard that there is relatively more help for people who live in an area where the real estate market is not as hot as it is in a place like Burnaby. There is significantly more assistance to people in a real estate market that is a little calmer than the one in metro Vancouver for instance. This might be another issue for us to take a look at when we are examining this program and how it has worked.

The homebuyer's program has been important for millions of Canadians. Many people have been able to buy their first home partly because of the assistance they received through the homebuyer's plan and the fact that they were able to use some of their RRSP savings to purchase their first home.

This is only a piece of the puzzle when we are looking at the housing crisis in Canada. There is a significant problem with finding affordable housing. Far too many Canadian families are spending too much of their income on housing. Thousands of Canadians are homeless and many more are in danger of becoming homeless.

A measure like this, while it is important, does not address those needs in particular and certainly does not replace the need for a national housing program that would actually build affordable housing for people already spending too much of their income and who are at risk of becoming homeless. Nothing can replace that kind of participation by the federal government.

I was disappointed to see in the most recent budget that the federal government made no new commitment to a national housing program. The only measure in the budget is a very limited pilot project.

I am also very concerned that the government has made no commitment to extend the residential rehabilitation assistance program beyond next year, a program that helps people upgrade their homes and ensure they are still liveable.

As these programs are significant to Canadians, we need a commitment from the government that these programs will be in place in the coming year.

Nothing can replace those commitments: the commitment to build homes for the homeless and the commitment to programs that help Canadians stay in their homes now. We need to ensure those commitments are not forgotten as we address this specific measure that, undoubtedly, has been of assistance to many Canadians as they enter the housing market for the first time. This program is an important piece of the puzzle around housing in Canada but it is a small piece. We also need to ensure that other important and critical issues are addressed when we look at housing policy in Canada.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-520, introduced by my Conservative colleague, the member for Delta—Richmond East.

Before I continue, the member has long been recognized as a strong advocate on behalf of his constituents, effectively bringing their concerns to Ottawa since his initial election back in 1993, a stellar record. We applaud the member for Delta—Richmond East for his longevity and his ongoing contributions to Parliament.

We now turn to his latest initiative, a private member's bill that proposes an expansion of the home buyers' plan through amendments to the Income Tax Act.

For those unfamiliar with the home buyers' plan, this program allows a first-time home buyer to withdraw up to $20,000 from an RRSP tax-free to purchase or build a home, as long as the amount is repaid within a specified timeframe of the plan in equal amounts over 15 years. No tax is paid on the amount withdrawn.

The plan's intended objective has been to make home ownership easier for the first-time buyers, while still encouraging long term retirement savings. Since its introduction in 1992, it has helped approximately 1.6 million Canadians to purchase their first homes.

Bill C-520 would modify the plan by increasing the maximum amount a first-time home buyer would be permitted to withdraw from an RRSP tax-free to $25,000 per individual.

We all recognize that the Canadian housing market is extremely robust, especially in British Columbia and the rest of western Canada. Indeed, the number of new homes started in Canada was at the second highest level in nearly two decades in 2007. That trend is expected to continue into 2008. More relevant to the discussion on Bill C-520 is that since 2002, the average selling price of an existing home has risen by almost 10% annually.

I believe all parliamentarians would agree that encouraging a robust, free market economy, including the acquisition of private property, is a basic tenet for a healthy democracy. As the revered economist, F.A. Hayek, asserted “private property is the most important guaranty of freedom”.

The most important piece of private property for the most number of Canadians is a home. Additionally, for most, buying a home will be the single largest investment Canadians will make throughout their lives. For these and other reasons, encouraging widespread private ownership is a goal that we should all share. Make no mistake, the Conservative government has introduced noteworthy measures to ensure home ownership is more affordable for more and more Canadian families.

First and foremost, we did something the previous Liberal government refused to do. We cut the GST, reducing it down to 5%. This one measure alone is having a major positive impact for those who have purchased or will purchase newly built homes. The Canadian Home Builders' Association heralded the GST cut as “great news for both home buyers and owners”. The Canadian Real Estate Association cheered the lowering of GST as “savings to new home buyers”, adding it would also “help Canadians pay for their home renovations”.

Indeed, our GST cut will translate into more than $1 billion in annual savings for the housing sector, returning money back where it belongs into the pockets of Canadians. For instance, an individual or family looking to buying a new $250,000 home will now save $3,200 because of our GST cut.

A lot of Canadians, especially new home owners, are very happy with the GST reduction because it is making a big, positive difference in their lives, people like the newlywed couple building a house in the riding of Fredericton, or that young professional woman who just bought a condominium in the riding of North Vancouver, or that family of new Canadians purchasing their first home in the riding of Oakville.

Unfortunately, each and every one of those individuals and families is currently represented by a Liberal MP in the House, an MP who is not really happy that those people are happy as the Liberals are strongly opposed to our GST cut. What is worse, all of the Liberal MPs support a Liberal leader who keeps saying he might raise the GST.

In effect, Liberal MPs want to go to those new homeowners, that newlywed couple, that single professional woman, that family of new Canadians, and reach right back into their pockets, grab the money that they saved through our GST cut and funnel their money back to Ottawa to pay for the boondoggles and scandals that would inevitably result from another Liberal government.

To those Liberals who say to Canadians that the Liberals would never raise the GST, I ask them to explain the words of their own leader who, when asked if he would raise personal taxes like the GST, said, “We will consider that”. I would ask them to explain why the Liberal finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, when asked specifically if the Liberals would raise the GST, revealed, “It's an option. All I can say is that it is consistent with“--the Liberal--“approach”.

What has Canadians nervous, especially present and future new homebuyers, is the current Liberal leader and Liberal Party who subscribe to a tax and spend philosophy, including advocating for a huge hike in the GST. Even some--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. This is private members' business, which is about this particular private member's bill. I would just caution the parliamentary secretary to try to stay relevant and not bring too much government versus opposition stuff into private members' business, as this is not what it is for, or we will be moving on soon.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some of the suggestions that I was referring to were simply reiterating what has been said. I would like to continue, if I can, and I will try to bring more relevance to it. There are other Liberals I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, but having been chastised by you, perhaps I will leave some of those quotes to another day. I am sure they will be raised as reminders.

I am proud to belong to a Conservative government that does not support the pro GST stance of raising the GST. We also do not care for the tax and spend philosophy. Indeed, that is why our Conservative government has slashed the tax bill for Canadian families and businesses by nearly $200 billion since forming government just two short years ago.

In budget 2008, moreover, we introduced the new landmark tax-free savings account, TFSA. This has a lot of Canadians very excited, regardless of political affiliation. Indeed, even the well-respected and non-partisan C.D. Howe Institute has called it:

--the most significant advance in Canada's tax treatment of personal savings since the registered retirement savings plan.... TFSAs will become a mainstay on the Canadian financial landscape, providing new savings options and flexibility for people of all ages and incomes.

Indeed, the TFSA will be a new tax efficient savings vehicle that provides an additional way to meet the challenges of home ownership, allowing Canadians to put more money aside, an additional $5,000 every year, and watch their investments grow tax free to use for whatever purpose they wish, including the purchase of a new home.

While TFSA contributions will not be deductible, there will be no tax on investment income earned in the plan or on withdrawals. These new savings accounts will give Canadians full flexibility in terms of how they use their savings and how quickly they replenish them.

Take, for example, a young woman who begins to save $100 a month in her TFSA as she starts working.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you admonished my hon. friend about the partisan nature of his speech, which has little relevance to his colleague's bill, which many of us think is a very good idea. I wonder if it might be time to move on, like you said you would do.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It seemed to me the parliamentary secretary was trying for a while after the admonition, but he has only a few seconds left, in any event.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sum up by once again recognizing the hon. member for his private member's bill. We are looking forward to getting this bill to committee. We will be able to study it, understand its real financial ramifications, and we look forward to that.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in favour of Bill C-520, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan).

Prior to my election to the House of Commons in 1993, I worked for many years as a real estate agent in the greater Toronto area. During that time I remember the introduction of the home buyers' plan in 1992.

My work in real estate helped give me insight into the importance of home ownership in Canadians' lives. That is why I spoke in favour of extending the plan in one of my first speeches in the House of Commons on February 1, 1994.

The Liberal government made the home buyers' plan permanent in its budget three weeks later. Since then the program has helped hundreds of thousands of Canadians purchase their first home. It has assisted thousands of Canadians with disabilities in finding a home more suited to their needs.

The home buyers' plan seemed like a good idea when it was first introduced and over the years has proven to be a great success.

The program has minimal cost to the government and because participants must quickly repay the money they take out from their RRSP, in most cases it has no negative long term effect on retirement savings. In fact, due to the importance of home ownership in the retirement plans of many Canadians, it could be argued that the plan adds to participants' financial security after they leave the workforce.

Thus, it seems that the only major problem with the home buyers' plan is that the $20,000 allowable amount is set in the Income Tax Act and therefore has not increased since it was first created.

Bill C-520 aims to fix that problem, at least for the time being. It raises the allowable amount to $25,000, a more appropriate amount given today's financial realities.

The need for this increase is great. In the past 16 years real estate prices in Canada have risen at historic rates making the home buyers' plan an even more important incentive, especially for urban Canadians.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reported in February 2005:

It is interesting to note that the proportion of participants in the HBP in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Gatineau, and Quebec, was higher than the proportion of these cities’ population in the Canadian population. In other words, the Home Buyers’ Plan take up is more heavily concentrated in Canadian urban centres.

It is not hard to see why that might be the case. Since I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1993 the average multiple listing service sale price of a home in Toronto has risen from $196,000 to an incredible $352,000 in 2006.

Prices in some other cities have grown at even faster rates. According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, the average sale price of a home in Calgary was $415,000 in February of this year--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member at this time. He will have five minutes and fifty seconds remaining when this bill comes up again.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address an issue that I brought forward to the minister on February 7 about the First Nations Technical Institute. I welcome the opportunity to expand on the question that I had for the minister at that time.

One of the things that I want to raise is that the First Nations Technical Institute is an important avenue for providing first nations an appropriate control over education.

“No higher priority” is a report that was presented by the aboriginal affairs committee. It identified the importance of appropriate funding for indigenous controlled educational institutions.

As well, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in article 14 talks about the fact that indigenous people have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions, and providing education in their own languages in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning, and it goes on.

The fact that the federal government has reneged, essentially, on its responsibility in terms of funding indigenous post-secondary institutions is a very good question for the House to consider.

There are some words that are far more powerful than my own that talk about the importance of the situation. In a letter to the Belleville Intelligencer the writer, Dave Wilson, says:

FNTI was founded in 1985 with the active support and encouragement of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)...They recognized the need in the Ontario Region for innovative, culturally relevant post-secondary training for First Nations students.

He goes on in his letter to say:

Over the past 20 years, FNTI has demonstrated how to provide culturally relevant and academically sound programs in an efficient manner.

He said that the federal government needs to be a partner with FNTI, not an impediment, and he goes on to talk about the fact that on one hand the federal government talks about how it has invested, but he actually puts some numbers to this.

He refers to a member of this House when he says that by his reckoning, cutting the federal funding to First Nations Technical Institute by $2 million and then offering $500,000 to help it shut down is a reprieve to FNTI. It boggles the imagination that cutting funding by $500,000 is actually a reprieve to any institution.

This institution was literally lurching from week to week, wondering if it should lay-off staff and give notice to students that their programs would be finished.

In a second letter from Richard Johnston, he says:

I was absolutely blown away by [the] assertion that the federal government had helped save the First Nations Technical Institute. It is the best case of double speak I have heard recently. Reality is just the opposite; it was the lack of vision and commitment by the federal government that has systematically withdrawn funding from FNTI and placed it in danger of closing... For years governments have hidden behind the skirts of jurisdictional responsibility--

He goes on to talk about a few more things. Then he says:

--realizing that a successful aboriginal post-secondary model like FNTI is a rare treasure that needs to be fostered, not killed by continual bureaucratic cuts.

What we have is a case where the federal government acknowledges that education is important, but fails to fund it. I wonder if it is not time that there be a recognition that leadership should be demonstrated by the federal government and that it actually invests in aboriginal controlled post-secondary education institutions.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions that have been raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Our government truly appreciates and recognizes the fine work done by post-secondary aboriginal educational institutions. There is no debating the value that they provide to aboriginal learners throughout our country.

Though the provinces have primary responsibility for post-secondary education, including for aboriginal students and for post-secondary institutions, whether they are located on or off reserve, the Government of Canada plays a supporting role.

Through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's Indian studies support program, we provide funding support to institutions for post-secondary curriculum design, development and delivery of aboriginal-specific programs.

Under the ISSP, the First Nations Technical Institute, or FNTI, is eligible for approximately $530,000 in 2008-09. Further, FNTI remains eligible to submit proposals under the same program through which it received additional funding in past years.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada must, and has treated FNTI as it does other aboriginal post-secondary institutes, by providing proposal-based funding.

Let me reiterate that we remain committed to working with FNTI and the province of Ontario to help the institute evolve into a fully self-sufficient, sustainable educational institution.

To this end we have offered to fund a strategic business consultant to work with FNTI to assist in developing a sustainable business plan. FNTI has accepted this offer and INAC officials are working closely with FNTI to get this in place.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention, but the reality is that the aboriginal affairs committee did an extensive study on post-secondary education and one of the factors for success was a core-funded, aboriginal-controlled, post-secondary education institution.

We know there are other institutions in Canada that the government does contribute to, so this is my question. Given that FNTI has a long track record of successfully graduating students, and we know that first nations will be critical to help address the serious labour shortages in Canada over the next couple of decades, why will the federal government not take some responsibility, demonstrate some leadership, abandon the jurisdictional disputes, and come to the table and truly provide some core funding so that these educational institutes can operate with some level of certainty over a number of years?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the aboriginal affairs committee, I did take part in that education study at the post-secondary level. A number of important issues were raised during that study and, thankfully, our government has received that study from the committee.

I would like to reiterate some of my points. Under the Indian studies support program, FNTI is eligible for over $500,000 in 2008 and 2009.

With respect to post-secondary education, more generally, our focus has always been on transferring tuition dollars to individual post-secondary students. In 2007-08, this student support amounted to $73 million in Ontario alone. In 2008-09, this amount is set to rise to $75 million for these same Ontario students.

This funding will allow them to attend the Ontario post-secondary institutes, colleges and universities of their choice. This support increases the employability of these students and, in turn, contributes to the Canadian economy--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry, but the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:38 p.m.)