Monte Solberg

[Employment Insurance, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister must have trouble sitting down these days with $15 billion in his back pocket.

The Premier of Ontario calls his EI tax grab stealing from Canadians. How much longer will Canadians have to wait—

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-36, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 80 with the following:

“133. (1) Sections 2 to 46 shall not come into force unless, on a day following the day this Act receives royal assent, the amount referred to in section 46 is, in accordance with objective accounting standards recommended by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund as a liability for the fiscal year 1998-99, in which case those sections shall come into force on the day that amount is so credited.

(2) Sections 127 to 132 come into force”

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 52 the following:

“(11) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, where the total amount of monies expended in a year to pay benefits is less than fifty per cent of the total amount of monies paid in that year by any of premiums, the Minister shall, in the next year, reduce the premium rate by the amount of unexpended monies that exceeds the amount of those monies that is equal to the amount of monies expended to pay those benefits. The Minister shall, by regulation, carry out such calculations as the Minister deems necessary to effect the reduction.”

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-36, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 29 the following:

“45.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under this Part, the council shall maintain books of account and other records in respect of all such taxes that have been collected and expended and the nature of those expenditures.

(2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare an annual report in respect of the taxes referred to in subsection (1) that were collected and expended in that year which shall include

(a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year;

(b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year;

(c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and

(d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation.

(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made public and a copy sent to the Minister of Finance.

45.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit of the books of account and records required to be kept by the council under subsection 45.1(1).

(2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister department to carry out an audit under subsection (1).”

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-36, in Clause 71, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 31 the following:

“53.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under this Part, the council shall maintain books of account and other records in respect of all such taxes that have been collected and expended and the nature of those expenditures.

(2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare an annual report in respect of the taxes referred to in subsection (1) that were collected and expended in that year which shall include

(a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year;

(b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year;

(c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and

(d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation.

(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made public and a copy sent to the Minister of Finance.

53.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit of the books of account and records required to be kept by the council under subsection 53.1(1).

(2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister department to carry out an audit under subsection (1).”

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 26 the following new clause:

“59.1 (1) Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under this Division, the council shall maintain books of account and other records in respect of all such taxes that have been collected and expended and the nature of those expenditures.

(2) The council shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year, prepare an annual report in respect of the taxes referred to in subsection (1) that were collected and expended in that year which shall include

(a) the total amount of taxes collected in that year;

(b) the total amount of taxes expended in that year;

(c) a detailed account of the nature of the expenditures; and

(d) any other information the Minister prescribes by regulation.

(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be made public and a copy sent to the Minister of Finance.

59.2 (1) A person authorized under subsection (2) shall, as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year carry out an audit of the books of account and records required to be kept by the council under subsection 59.1(1).

(2) The Minister shall authorize a person in the Minister's department to carry out an audit under subsection (1).”

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-36, in Clause 60, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 25 on page 26 with the following:

“60. Where the council has made a by-law imposing a tax under this Division,”

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek consent for the following motion. I move:

That all motions at report stage of Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be deemed moved, seconded and read, and that a recorded division be deemed requested for each such motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the Group No. 1 motions respecting Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. In particular I want to speak to the three motions being brought forward by the Reform Party and explain why we think it is important that the House consider them seriously and give serious thought to accepting them. We feel very strongly that they will improve greatly what is being proposed in the budget.

The first motion I want to speak to is Motion No. 3. This amendment would ensure that an eligible institution for a millennium grant would be any institution that currently is eligible to receive a student loan from the federal government. In other words, what we would do with this motion is spread the eligibility from the current proposal which is just for students who attend publicly funded institutions to all institutions, including institutions for instance like Trinity Western University in British Columbia.

We feel very strongly that publicly funded institutions do not have the monopoly on good education. The federal government in the past has seen that these institutions, like Trinity Western, provide a good education which is why it allows student loans to be used to go to school there. We think it just makes sense if the government is going to be consistent that the millennium fund should apply to those sorts of institutions.

We are suggesting that the government should hear what we are saying. I also believe that this was supported by witnesses who came before the committee. We hope the government will hear what we are saying and adopt this as part of the budget implementation act.

The second motion we want to address, Motion No. 42, deals with the establishment of an appeal process whereby a student who was turned down to receive a scholarship fund would have some way of appealing the decision. Governments are notorious for making bad decisions. They do it all the time. They get information wrong and based on that information they may make a faulty decision.

We think it makes sense to have an appeal process so if somebody is turned down because of a bureaucratic bungle, a problem at the government's end, there is some way for the student to come back and say “these are the facts, you have it wrong, you made a mistake, let me have another chance to apply and have access to the grant”. It is a mechanism that will ensure fairness for students.

The final motion we want to discuss and the one that is most important is Motion No. 67. It is a motion to allow a provincial government to opt out of the millennium scholarship fund and enter into an agreement where the foundation pays the province the amount that would have been spent in a particular province. The province would then use the funds for its own priorities.

There is a bit of history required in order to understand why Motion No. 67 is so important. In the 1993 leadership debate the current Prime Minister was questioned by the current Leader of the Opposition about transfer payments for health care and higher education. The Leader of the Opposition asked the current Prime Minister if he would keep them at the current level. The Prime Minister replied: “I said yesterday in reply to Mr. Bouchard that I promised that they will not go down and I hope that we will be able to increase them”. That was a few days before the election.

What happened after that is history. I think we all know what happened. There were $6 billion in cuts to the provinces for health care and higher education. After the Prime Minister promised they would not go down and in fact might even go up they were cut by $6 billion. That means the provinces have $6 billion less to give to their health care systems and higher education.

The impact was devastating. It meant that tuition costs had to go up dramatically. We know as a result of tuition costs going up dramatically all of a sudden students had to bear more of the cost for their education. That is why we have student debt levels of around $25,000 today. But that is not in all provinces.

Quebec provides more money for its university system and education is much more heavily subsidized. Student debtloads are much lower, about $11,000. We heard that over and over again from witnesses who came from Quebec. They said their student debtloads are not nearly as high. They said they do not need the millennium scholarship fund to address those things.

Once the federal government created the problem it then stepped in with the millennium scholarship fund, this great monument to the Prime Minister, and said “now that we have created this problem and the provinces are taking all the heat for it we are going to step in and be heroes and get all the credit for fixing it”. It is like the arsonist who starts fires so he can come back later to put them out and get credit for putting out the fire.

So we are saying let us not let the federal government get away with that. Let us ensure there is a clause that allows the provinces to opt out and if they so choose to take the money that would come to their province through the millennium scholarship fund and use it to lower all tuition costs, not just for the select few who have access to the millennium scholarship fund.

I think what the government did was duplicitous.

It set out in 1993 to convince Canadians it would somehow fix all their problems without having to make any cuts of any kind and then turn around immediately and slash funding to the provinces for health care and higher education. Then it steps in with a fund that is clearly in provincial jurisdiction and wants to get credit for fixing the problem it created.

We do not want to let it get away with that. We want to ensure the money gets back to the provinces so they can use it in a way they choose. They may choose to stay in the millennium scholarship fund and if they do that is fine, it is up to them. But they know their own priorities a lot better than the federal government does 2,000 miles away.

Let us give the provinces that option. In a day and age when the federal government is talking about co-operative federalism it would take a giant step toward healing rifts if it would adopt Motion No. 67.

All we are asking is to give provinces the options. The federal government needs to have some faith in the people of Canada. If the people of Canada do not want their provinces to use this money for something else, they will send a strong message to their provincial governments.

The federal government should have some faith in the people. That is exactly what they will do. We are encouraging the House to seriously consider adopting Motion No. 67. I am very sensitive to the issues raised by my colleagues from Quebec that over and over again we had witnesses coming from Quebec saying they did not necessarily need this for scholarships in Quebec. Student debt levels in Quebec are only about $11,000 compared to $25,000 elsewhere.

I urge colleagues to consider the good this motion would do in terms of building bridges with the provinces, in terms of uniting our country and strengthening the union. I urge members to support Motion No. 67 and the other motions Reform has brought forward.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 20 the following new clause:

“46.1(1) Where the Foundation enters into an agreement with the provincial minister of a province whereby

(a) the Foundation shall not carry out its objects and purposes in the province;

(b) the Foundation promises to pay to the government of the province the amount that the Foundation would otherwise have spent in the province in carrying out its objects and purposes; and

(c) the provincial minister promises to use the amount referred to in paragraph (b) to address the particular needs of the province in terms of post-secondary education the Foundation shall cease to carry out its objects and purposes in the province.

(2) Within ten days after the signing of an agreement referred to in subsection (1), the Foundation shall pay to the government of the province the amount specified in the agreement.”

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-36, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 16 with the following:

“appropriate but no scholarship may be granted unless a person who meets the requirements mentioned in paragraphs 27(1)(a) to (d), or a person described in subsection 27(2), makes an application to the Foundation for a scholarship.

34.1 (1) Where the Foundation does not grant a scholarship to an applicant referred to in section 34 who meets the requirements mentioned in paragraphs 27(1)(a) to (d) or who is a person described in subsection 27(2), the applicant may appeal the Foundation's decision in accordance with the appeal process established by regulations made under subsection (2).

(2) The Minister of Finance shall, not later than 90 days after the coming into force of this section, make regulations establishing an appeal process for the purposes fo subsection (1). The regulations shall come into force on or before the expiry of those 90 days.”

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-36, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing line 19 on page 1 with the following:

“certificates or diplomas and that is a specified educational institution within the meaning of section 2 of the Canada Student Loans Act,”

(b) by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 1 with the following:

“certificates or diplomas and that is a specified educational institution within the meaning of section 2 of the Canada Student Loans Act,”