Dick Proctor

[Tax Credit, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and speak about and in favour of the motion, which states that in the opinion of the House we should consider introducing a tax credit based on the repayment of Canadian student loans to a maximum of 10% of the principal, per year, for the first 10 years after graduation, with the important proviso that the individual remain in Canada.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Fundy--Royal. As my colleague from Vancouver East said when she spoke on the bill, it is important that we do talk about post-secondary education, and we do not often have an opportunity in the House to do so. I think we all agree, regardless of which side of the House we are on, that in this information world in which we now exist, post-secondary education is important and indeed will become much more important in the years ahead. We have all heard it said that every future job in this knowledge based economy will require post-secondary education and, indeed, life-long learning.

The second reality is that we do have a growing crisis in our post-secondary institutions. Tuition fees, for instance, have gone up by more than 120% over the past 10 years. The average student debt load has tripled in that time from about $8,000 on average to more than $25,000. Indeed, we hear horror stories of student debt loads in the range of $40,000, $50,000 and even higher.

How did this crisis come about? How did it develop so rapidly? I think members can look at a couple of reasons, including the end of the Canada assistance plan, the beginning of the health and social transfer program and, indeed, the social union that was instituted a few years ago. As a result of the end of CAP and the beginning of CHST some $7 billion has been removed from federal transfers in the area of post-secondary education. That amounts to a drop of more than 17%. This has to be met by provinces and territories that have post-secondary institutions and also has to be absorbed by the students themselves in the form of higher tuition fees. That is why there is a crisis at the moment.

One part of the consequences of this crisis is that we are eroding accessibility for low and moderate income students, as the member from Calgary noted in his remarks. Documentation provided by Statistics Canada shows that high income families are now more than two and a half times more likely to send sons and daughters to post-secondary institutions than low income Canadian families. The reason given most frequently is that households with perhaps $30,000 or less of total income lack financial resources with which to send their sons and daughters. It amounts to discrimination, pure and simple.

Education must be a national priority and the federal government must be an equal partner. This means that long term, stable funding is essential. We need a national grant program, something that the Canadian Federation of Students has advocated. In fact, at the moment Canada is the only industrialized country without a national grant program.

We also need the bankruptcy law repealed. Changes were introduced by the government against students simply on the basis that they were students. It is regrettable in the extreme that this has happened.

As I indicated, this is a good motion as far as it goes. It is not a panacea, as the mover has acknowledged both publicly and privately. We believe, he and I and others, that we have to go further. We believe that education is a right and that the federal government has a responsibility to provide leadership on funding and establish national standards.

The motion before us would allow students to deduct up to 10% of the principal of their student loans for up to 10 years if they stayed in Canada. This would permit loans to be repaid more quickly because the economic stimulus would be there. It may also reverse the brain drain if one exists.

The real catch 22 in the current dilemma is that with tuition fees 126% higher than they were 10 years ago many students are unable to choose post-secondary education. This in turn threatens our competitiveness in the international arena. Tuition fees have gone up to $3,400 a year, double what they were 10 years ago.

The manager of the Canada student loans program, Claude Proulx, says federal efforts have missed the target. He says people are not qualifying in the magnitude that had been anticipated. It would therefore be debt forgiveness in name only. In the meantime some 350,000 students rely on federal loans worth a grand total of $1.6 billion.

Fifteen years ago there was virtually no difference between low and middle income earners who planned to send their children to post secondary institutions. By the mid 1990s, eight years ago, pollsters could discern a 7% gap between low and middle income earners in terms of their ability to send their children to post-secondary education.

The gap has continued to grow. Some 80% per cent of parents with household incomes of less than $30,000 a year hope their children will go on to post-secondary education. However the sad reality is that less than 20% of them are able to save to assist their children in this worthwhile endeavour. In contrast, virtually all parents with a household income of $80,000 or more not only hope to send their children on to post-secondary education. More than 60% of them are able to put money aside for the opportunity.

The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, introduced after the 1997 election by the current Prime Minister, has not been a great success. It has often gone directly to provinces. It has been applied to existing debt. It has not assisted cash strapped students in the way that was envisaged when it was announced.

We need to make post secondary education a national priority. Lifelong access to training and education must be a right for all. Public investment in this is crucial. However Canadian industry is lagging behind in investment. Colleges, universities, professors and especially students are suffering as a result.

We need to work toward eliminating college and university tuition fees altogether. We need to establish a national grants program and national standards for accessibility. We need lower tuition fees; interest free student loans; and a ban on private, for profit universities. We need to insist on affordable education and research in the public interest. They are an important part of developing a better Canada.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let us cut out the rhetorical nonsense. Western Canadians know the score. That party over there can continue to win elections without support from western Canada. It has zero to do with reciprocal obligations, rights, fairness or justice. It has to do with rewarding those regions of the country that the Liberals need to continue to stay in office.

As the Prime Minister stated in the last election campaign, he likes to do politics with people in the east. Would the minister of agriculture concede that this is the real issue?

[Agriculture, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker:

...if Canada is to work as a country, Canadians have to see themselves as belonging not to a society composed of isolated individuals or of competing interest groups, but to a society of reciprocal obligation, in which each of us is responsible for the well-being of the other.

With that red book Liberal commitment, would the Deputy Prime Minister please explain why the party that brought it in and was elected on it refuses to support a trade injury compensation program for grain and oilseed farmers?

[Criminal Code, May 9th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate today. I will begin by congratulating the hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley for a laudable effort to bring to the attention of parliamentarians and Canadians the difficulties we have with regard to the selling, killing, capturing or possession of wildlife. The issue is not unique to Canada but she has confined it to that.

We have heard the view of the government and the justice department. We have heard the view from Quebec and it does not auger well for the bill's success at the end of the day. However it is laudable and important to bring the matter to the floor of the House of Commons. Perhaps as a result provinces and territories will significantly increase sentences, fines or both when there are convictions under the law.

I am not trying to sound like the hon. member for Elk Island who often talks about his travels around the country and the world. However some 20 years ago I was travelling through Australia where I read occasionally about people capturing wildlife there or bringing it in from elsewhere and transporting it to other countries. The fines for smuggling cockatoos and similar exotic birds, at least exotic in our part of the world, were effectively a slap on the wrist.

I often thought about the dangers of smuggling drugs from country to country and the stiff penalties people incurred if they were captured or convicted. I compared this to the slap on the wrist one would get for capturing and bringing in wild birds via suitcase, birds that would fetch a high resale price on the open market.

We need to pay attention to what is happening and preserve wildlife in Canada. We are losing it at a great rate. That is why the government is concerned and has brought forward legislation. It is not effective enough in our opinion but nonetheless it is important.

There was some talk about provincial wildlife laws. In her speech the hon. member indicated she did not want to replace provincial and territorial laws but rather complement them. She said it would be similar to the way parliament has placed some of the most serious motor vehicle offences in the criminal code instead of relying solely on provincial legislation.

I listened intently to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who raised some interesting arguments about why the bill would be difficult to incorporate. He said there would exemptions and the indictments would be inconsistent. At the end of the day the justice department is of the opinion that the bill cannot be supported.

Nevertheless I fully congratulate the hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley. It is a private member's bill so each member in our caucus will decide whether to support it as it is now or abide by what was said by the previous two speakers who spoke in opposition to it.

I would like to take a brief moment to thank the World Wildlife Federation. As the hon. members know, all members in the last House were linked with other animals, fish or wildlife. I had the great good fortune to be linked with the grey wolf. I do not know whether it is the grey in my beard, which appears more every day, but it is a privilege and an honour and I take it very seriously. Again, I congratulate the member.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House of Commons. Today we are dealing with an important matter, Bill C-55, which the government introduced late last month.

This is an improved package of public safety initiatives. They are in support of the government's anti-terrorism plan. The bill that is under discussion today known as the public safety act, 2002 replaces Bill C-42 which was introduced in the wake of September 11 last year. The government sat on it for more than four months and then dropped it quietly from the order paper and came back with Bill C-55 on April 29.

It will come as no surprise to people who follow politics and know the proud history of the New Democratic Party when it comes to standing up and speaking out for civil liberties. We will be opposing Bill C-55 vigorously because it amounts to nothing short of a sneak attack on human rights and gives virtually Orwellian powers to certain federal cabinet ministers, particularly the Minister of Transport.

We are appalled at the powers the government wants to give itself to spy on passenger lists of people travelling on our airplanes to domestic and foreign destinations. The government introduced the anti-terrorism Bill C-42 and it was widely criticized at that time as being too draconian and dangerous to the freedom and liberty of Canadian citizens. That may have been why the government did not proceed with it.

We do not know that but the new version has not been improved. It is still heavy-handed. Some people have said it is draconian and that is unfortunate. It is understandable when bills are formulated quickly with a knee-jerk reaction in the aftermath of a tragedy like September 11. However, having given time to reflect it is unworthy for this to come back in this sleight of hand way.

It is not just New Democrats who are speaking out. The privacy commissioner has deep concerns about the legislation, so much so that he took the relatively extraordinary step of releasing publicly the letter that he wrote to the transport minister on the topic and he was dealing specifically with clause 4.82. His concern was that the bill's provisions could fundamentally and unnecessarily alter the balance between individuals and the state that exists and should exist in a free society such as Canada's.

In other words, what he was saying was that he feared deeply for the privacy and civil rights of Canadians. The privacy commissioner is not alone in his concerns. There is a backbench Liberal that irrespective of party policies all of us listen to with great interest. The member for Mount Royal, a prominent civil rights lawyer, says the bill gives undue power to cabinet ministers over the civil liberty of Canadians and he too has expressed his deep concerns. The privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, has called on the government to go slow on the legislation because of its importance and its ability to invade the privacy of Canadians.

The New Democratic Party is making the same call for caution and prudence in the protection of civil liberties just as its predecessors did when the War Measures Act was introduced in this Chamber some 32 years ago. People like Tommy Douglas and David Lewis stood up and spoke out against what was a heavy-handed piece of legislation. That was at a time of emergency. This is on reflection and it is unworthy of the government to proceed in this way on this bill at this time.

It has waited for months to introduce the bill and now all of a sudden we are told that we must rush this through the House of Commons. We must get it through before the House adjourns for the summer recess probably in about a month's time. What is the rush? Where has the government been since September 11 when the bill was introduced in November and then sat for four and a half months?

Since then we have been dealing with relatively miniscule items. All members are seized with the fact that we have not been overwhelmed with heavy-duty legislation. There was ample time to come back and discuss this. Now all of a sudden after months of inaction we get the bill and we get the charge that we must rush it through in short order without ample consideration.

The New Democratic Party believes that it is our duty as parliamentarians to give the legislation the kind and depth of scrutiny that it deserves and requires. We are asking the questions that Canadians want answered, and in doing so we want to give them time to hone in on exactly what the government is doing with Bill C-55.

We oppose the legislation. We call upon the government to reconsider the tight timeframe that is indicated and give us the space necessary to consult Canadians and parliamentarians on Bill C-55. Perhaps a way that this could be done, that would give it the in depth scrutiny it deserves, would be to have a special subcommittee of justice, or perhaps transport if that is the case. A group of experienced politicians could look specifically at the legislation in depth, deal with it and bring it back modified to protect the civil liberties that we are concerned about here, particularly with airline passengers.

I want to read into the record some of the comments that Mr. Radwanski made in his extraordinarily transparent letter to the Minister of Transport regarding any initiative that would infringe on the privacy rights. He talked about four criteria:

It must be demonstrably necessary to address a specific problem or need. It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in addressing that problem or need. The limitation of privacy rights must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.

After studying that with care Mr. Radwanski concluded that this particular bill did not meet that criteria. He ends by asking in his open letter to the Minister of Transport the following question:

What considerations lead you to the view that this very serious limitation on privacy rights would be proportional to the benefits to be derived?

The privacy commissioner is signaling to members of parliament on all sides of the House that we need to be extremely concerned about this piece of legislation. We cannot rush it through the House in the dying days of the parliamentary session. We must give it the time and serious reflection that it needs and deserves. That is why we are calling upon the government to amend its decision, perhaps send it to a committee, and not deal with it in this last moment rush before the House rises for the summer.

[Automobile Industry, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago the Canadian auto industry ranked as the fourth largest in the world. It is now seventh and falling fast.

The reality is that the automobile companies can pick and choose between whether they go to the United States to states there or to Mexico. We are being outbid because there are incentives in place.

We have ignored this bidding war up until now, but the Oakville truck plant is proof positive that the competitiveness we once enjoyed is no longer there, so I ask, what are going to do? Are we going to get into an incentive arrangement so that for our plants we can ensure that this industry remains strong in Canada?

[Automobile Industry, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the past four decades the auto pact was a proactive agreement that built a hugely successful auto industry in southern Ontario and Quebec. As a result of a negative WTO ruling a couple of years ago that pact is history. With its demise this prestigious industry is in crisis and the trend line in Canada is disconcerting. By next year, Canadian auto assembly will shrink by 30%.

I ask the government what plans it has to revitalize this hugely important industry.

[Agriculture, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the new U.S. farm bill that has just been handed out means further subsidy payments that would drive down international prices of grains and oilseeds even further, and to that would be added pulse crops.

That could deal a fatal blow to many Canadian farm families. Saskatchewan's agriculture minister says the cost to farmers in his province alone would be $500 million to $600 million, money the province does not have. The federal government has an abysmal record when it comes to helping our farmers, but let us concentrate on solutions.

Canada's agriculture ministers have just wrapped up a two day meeting in Ottawa. They are asking the federal government for a minimum of $1.3 billion to offset the trade injury Canadian farmers would suffer from this newest subsidy program. The federal agriculture and finance ministers say they cannot help, but Canadians know there is at least $10 billion of unexpected surplus in our revenues this year.

The government can help and it must before thousands of Canadian farm families are forced off the land.

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Wheat Board reports that conditions in southern Alberta north to Red Deer and areas in Saskatchewan from Saskatoon through the whole southwest area of the province remain extremely dry with no soil moistures. Meanwhile all the money for drought relief under the PFRA has already been allocated. It is only May but the money is all gone. This has nothing to do with the US farm bill.

Will the minister of agriculture commit to increased funding, immediately and significantly, to help increasingly desperate farmers and ranchers?

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture will tell his American counterpart today that the Bush administration is wrong in signing the insidious U.S. farm bill. We agree. They are wrong, we are right; another moral victory. However at the end of the day after all the huffing and puffing, the U.S. farmers have the dough and Canadian farmers have Doha.

What besides rhetoric does the government have to assist Canadian farmers?