Denise Savoie

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his thoughtful analysis of some of the issues. Because I also believe that railway is the future, I want to talk a little bit about railway safety.

As some members might know, there has been a frightening increase in rail accidents in British Columbia. The former Liberal government's last attempt to deal with this matter was to ask CN to develop its own proposals, which was ridiculous, it seems to me. I am wondering if the member would now support the proposal to launch a public inquiry into Canada's sagging railway safety record.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for describing some aspects of this new bill, the principle of which is a very good one. He is establishing mechanisms that will encourage dialogue so that communities and transportation agencies will finally start talking to each other and also introducing measures designed to protect the environment and correct noise problems.

I know that there are problems in my part of the country, in British Columbia. So let us hope that this bill will help to solve them, or at least to open the way for dialogue so that these problems can be resolved.

I have a question to ask regarding the amendments, in relation to abandoning rail lines.

In my part of the country, in British Columbia and specifically on Vancouver Island, a rail line was to be abandoned by CP Rail and VIA Rail. I know our communities up and down the island spent years trying to arrive at some solution. The process was cumbersome. It was not transparent.

Therefore, I truly hope the bill will help in the future and will continue to help our communities, which are trying to make this rail line run better to serve our communities.

I have a question concerning one of the proposed amendments. There is a suggestion that it will extend the measures that relate to the transfer or the abandonment of rail lines that can be used for public transportation or transit.

Could the minister tell me whether he feels that this will also apply to the use of possible abandoned lines as cycle paths in the context of the Canada Trail?

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. As many members have already stated, a degree of cynicism has made its way into our Canadian democratic system. If I understand correctly, the purpose of this bill is to restore the confidence of Canadians and Quebeckers. However, I believe that Canadians are concerned about a party that is pledged to break up our Canadian federal parliamentary system. I put this question to the member: how does the Bloc propose to restore the confidence of those Quebeckers who see their future in a strong Quebec, but within Canada?

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the government talking about making our democratic process work better to serve the interests of all Canadians. However, there are many commonsense practices that exist now, outside of these legislative changes, that would also further that goal. One of them is to hold true consultation processes.

Recently the government supposedly held a consultation process on post-secondary education. The closing date happened to be the date when students returned to university. It was held during the summer and it failed to advise many of the stakeholders of this consultation process.

Would the government commit to a real consultation process rather than the kind of sham that was held this summer on post-secondary education?

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has indicated his support for electoral reform to restore the confidence of the people in our Parliament. I heartily support that as well.

During the summer I heard many of my constituents express some cynicism about what the government is actually doing through this electoral reform when they hear the Prime Minister invoke confidence votes whenever he has seen his numbers looking favourable.

Would the member opposite support the NDP proposal for an amendment to tighten the definition of confidence votes in the House?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2006]

With respect to the Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund for the whole of Canada and the Capital Regional District of British Columbia: (a) how many applications for projects have been received and are awaiting approval; (b) how many projects have been approved and are awaiting the first instalment of funding; (c) how many projects have been completed and are awaiting the final instalment of funding; (d) how many applications have been submitted and withdrawn, by fiscal year, since the inception of this Fund; (e) what is the shortest, longest, and average period of time between submission and withdrawal of applications in section (d), for each respective fiscal year; (f) does Parks Canada recognize any unusual or undue delays in the approval of projects or the release of funds to approved projects; (g) what explanation can Parks Canada give for any public perception of unusual or undue delays in the approval of projects or the release of funds to approved projects; (h) what is the average period of time between application and approval of projects; (i) what is the average period of time between approval and the first instalment of funding; (j) what is the average period of time between application and the first instalment of funding; (k) what is the average period of time between project completion and the final instalment of funding; (l) when was the last call for proposals or applications; (m) when will the next call for proposals or applications be; (n) what are the minimum, maximum, and average amounts awarded to projects from this Fund?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2006]

With respect to federal government funding for literacy initiatives, programs, and organizations; and to the National Literacy Secretariat (NLS): (a) what is the current status of the National Literacy Secretariat; (b) what is the status of the departmental reorganization in reference to the NLS; (c) what details can the government provide about the new national literacy program or secretariat that will emerge, or has emerged, in response to the mandated Treasury Board review and departmental reorganization; (d) how will the transition affect the level of literacy funding transferred to literacy projects and organizations; (e) what is the status of the 3-year, $30 million funding allocated specifically to the NLS in Budget 2005; (f) what is the status of the former NLS’ annual call for proposals for the literacy community; (g) how many grants or contributions agreements related to literacy have been distributed by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) since January 24, 2006; (h) how many proposals for funding for literacy initiatives, programs and organizations have been submitted to the NLS, or to any new national literacy program or secretariat under the department, or to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development since November 1, 2005; (i) of those submissions, how many have not yet been processed; (j) how much money will the government allocate to funding literacy initiatives, programs, and organizations between May 18, 2006 and the release of the next budget; (k) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for raising the level of literacy in Canada; (l) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for maintaining and raising the level of literacy in the French language in Canada; (m) does the government have an official or unofficial strategy for maintaining and raising the level of literacy in the French language in Canada outside of Quebec; (n) what is the government’s official commitment to funding and supporting literacy initiatives, programs, and organizations across Canada; and (o) what specific plans does the government have to fund local literacy organizations and initiatives between May 18, 2006 and the release of the next budget?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2006]

With respect to government spending on post-secondary education: (a) is the figure cited by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development in the House on May 3, 2006, specifically “the $16 billion for education that is included in the Canada social transfer,” a precise figure; (b) if so, what is the breakdown of that spending, if available, allocated to (i) direct student financial assistance in the form of loans, (ii) direct student financial assistance in the form of non-repayable grants, (iii) indirect student financial assistance, (iv) post-secondary institutions for operating expenses, (v) post-secondary institutions for research expenses and (vi) post-secondary institutions for capital expenses; (c) if the response to (a) is not yes, what is the precise proportion, in dollars and in percentage, of the Canada Social Transfer dedicated to post-secondary education; (d) what mechanism exists to guarantee that the funding for post-secondary education included in the Canada Social Transfer ensures high-quality, accessible education for all Canadians; (e) what is the precise amount of federal spending on post-secondary education outside of the Canada Social Transfer; (f) what is the breakdown of that spending, if available, allocated to (i) direct student financial assistance in the form of loans, (ii) direct student financial assistance in the form of non-repayable grants, (iii) indirect student financial assistance, (iv) post-secondary institutions for operating expenses, (v) post-secondary institutions for research expenses and (vi) post-secondary institutions for capital expenses; and (g) what mechanism exists to guarantee that the funding for post-secondary education outside of the Canada Social Transfer ensures high-quality, accessible education for all Canadians?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie, I cannot claim that my riding of Victoria is the centre of North America, as the city sits right on the Pacific Ocean. However, I do appreciate the wisdom of the amendment to require that the federal government consult with local government. As Victoria is a port of entry for many ships, I have seen the increased requirements for security and the costs that those involve.

I am wondering if my colleague would explain to us how he sees the consultation will improve the situation that municipalities, local governments and cities are facing with respect to some of these issues.

[Income Tax Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this bill. I think all members in the House certainly concur that we must make access easier to post-secondary education and skills training for our young people and that government has an important role to play.

Recently, an OECD study of countries stated that one of the most effective things that governments could do to facilitate this access was to concentrate first of all on families of low income revenues. This would begin to help address a very serious skill shortage in many countries including Canada.

Recently, in British Columbia a survey done throughout the province has shown that for the first time the private sector has indicated that skill shortage takes precedence over tax cuts by government as an action that needs to be taken. This is something that we should all consider in these questions.

However, I have concerns and questions about the bill. Some of them were raised earlier by members opposite about the effectiveness of the bill. There were also some technical questions and the cost that it would represent.

As I said, we must facilitate access for students in underrepresented groups, students with disabilities, aboriginal students, students of low income families and from rural areas. We know that they are not accessing post-secondary education and training as easily as others.

We also know that the RESP has been effective in attracting families who earn over $80,000. However, as for the other underrepresented groups a recent study has said that the RESPs, including the Canada education savings grants, while providing enhanced incentives to lower income families to increase their contributions to RESPs, they do not appear to solve the more fundamental problem of insufficient family income which prevents some families from contributing to RESPs and taking advantage of the CESG program.

Approximately six in ten future saver and non-saver parents in the 2002 survey gave no disposable income or insufficient money as a reason for not yet or never saving.

Therefore, this is a very serious problem in considering this particular bill. It seems like a little bit of tinkering rather than the major overhaul of the learner assistance program that we would need to consider.

The Conservatives, in their recent budget as a solution to the problem of increasing student debt, have offered to raise the ceiling that students can borrow. That is their solution. I believe they even offered $80 for a book.

The Liberals, while they were in government, cut transfers to education and that sent tuition fees spiralling upward and with that student debt.

The Liberal post-secondary education critic yesterday called on the government to invest in students and not tinker with the tax system. I am wondering if this bill is a little bit of tinkering. The bill by the member from the same caucus seems to do just that instead of ensuring genuine investment in lower tuition fees, lower debt, and needs-based grants for students.

Liberals talked about investing in students when they were in opposition and that was great to hear. Yesterday I heard the post-secondary education critic claim credit for a $1.5 billion investment in lower tuitions from Bill C-48 which I think we are all clear was the NDP money that was conceded after negotiations with the Liberal government. This was basically money that the Liberals were forced to put into post-secondary education after years of cutbacks.

In considering this bill, I looked at what the various stakeholders were saying about the existing system of loans and various types of assistance for students.

La Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec said that the federal government must completely review its national registered education savings plan and Canada education savings grant which amounted to $125 million and almost $500 million respectively. It felt that instead of eliminating financial barriers, the system has become so complex and convoluted that it is very difficult for students to access it.

Similarly, the Canadian Federation of Students said:

We therefore recommend that the federal government transfer the money now spent on the RESP program and other tax credits to the low-income grant. We estimate this transfer alone, a revenue-neutral transfer, would reduce student debt by 41%.

These are just some of the comments from stakeholders who are themselves paying for tuition. They are advising us on solutions that they feel would begin to address the problems they are facing.

The NDP has never opposed the RESP. We think it is part of a solution, but as students associations and federations have indicated, the system requires a major overhaul, not just tinkering. We feel there is a need for a comprehensive learner assistance program that would create a clearer, simple path for students, one that would be more flexible and more transparent.

In the last election we clearly indicated to everybody that we believed there was a need for the re-establishment of a single transparent transfer to provinces to re-establish adequate levels of funding for post-secondary education and training. The previous Liberal government failed to do that. We are still waiting to see how the present government will respond to this situation.

We are still considering many of the concerns that I have raised about this bill. We will see how it evolves through the House.