Joe Volpe

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that there is no such program and that my department offered labour market opinion. I gave an indication last week that HRSD would no longer be providing a blanket opinion. The matter is closed.

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 2nd, 2004]

I guess the hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, want to know whether we still will provide labour market opinion. I gave an indication that the answer was no. I do not know how many ways they would understand that language. That is pretty definitive. No, there is no such program.

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, being a lawyer, the hon. member would probably already know the answer to that question would be self-defeating. There has never been such a program, and he knows it. I have indicated that any illusions at all to the existence of a--

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the members subscribe to the opinion that if an accusation is thrown out, it will stick. There is no such program. There is no such requirement. Under a temporary workers program for Immigration Canada and HRSD, if there is a request for a labour market opinion or in fact for a visa that would require an indication of validity in Canada, my department will provide a validation on labour market opinion.

I have just given an indication that is not the case. Under a temporary workers permit program, if someone wants to--

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member would have liked to have done a bit of research before asking the question.

There was a labour market opinion provided for such cases by my department and in consultation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We looked at whether we wanted to continue to provide labour market opinion, and the answer was clearly no. The program is finished.

[Canada Education Savings Act, December 1st, 2004]

moved that Bill C-5, as amended, be concurred in.

[Canada Education Savings Act, November 30th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the amendment speaks to the purpose of the bill. Virtually everything is in order, but most important, if the amendment is to delete the purpose of the bill, nothing else functions unless we can justify this purpose.

To call this bill a bogus bill is to go to the heart of the intention of all hon. members in the House, which is to promote education and encourage low income families to engage their children in education, which we all recognize is the vehicle for upward mobility in our society and the vehicle for addressing the shortages that we will have in qualified skilled labour in the future.

We are being proactive in this matter. We are talking about the students of the future, the families that find themselves in a position today that might not be able to address the needs of their children tomorrow.

We also recognize that the member's view may have some merit with respect to those students who are currently in the system. For those students we have already indicated in our budget 2004 a series of measures that will aid them in their pursuit of higher learning, whether it is in community colleges, in universities, in learning centres, in trade schools, whatever the case may be. We have taken some very important measures.

For example, some members may recall that one of the measures in the 2004 budget tries to address the difficulties that some students may have in their first year. For those lower income and middle income parents, we said that we will give them a one time $3,000 grant or 50% of their tuition, whichever is less.

If I might bore the member who made these motions which go to the heart of this bill and which I think could be ruled out of order, she will probably recognize that we already spend $1.6 billion annually in Canada student loans programs to assist some 330,000 students and that the Canada millennium scholarships are awarded to another nearly 90,000 students and that there were some $285 million a year for those who are in financial need. We do that on an annual basis.

If she complains that there are not enough funds to help students in need, let me point out as well that we have Canada study grants for those students who have demonstrated some merit. These grants are issued to approximately 56,000 students, totalling a value of $75.5 million annually. The Canada education savings grant program rewards all those people who begin to save for their children or for themselves in an RESP by the government putting in some $2 billion.

The member who just spoke to the purpose of the bill may object to people making money on investing on behalf of students but I am proud to say, quite frankly, that this initiative has already generated some $12 billion of additional investment for the education of young men and women. I do not know why anybody would be such a curmudgeon to say that is bad.

We believe in post-secondary education. I am not sure that the members over there quite fully understand the dynamics associated with preparing for lifelong learning. If the House were to, even in a moment of absent-mindedness, consider this motion and the amendment by the member for Halifax in a serious way, it speaks to coming under examination about whether they are serious or rational. I do not know if the two are synonymous but if we are going to talk about education and lifelong learning then we need to consider that all of those members had an opportunity in committee to take a look at all of the measures and there are several very good amendments that I think the committee accepted.

I am pleased to say that I will be accepting all those amendments that came from the committee because in a moment of sanity the committee members said that this could be improved and they showed us how. They did not say that we should throw the whole thing out because it was bogus. They did not say that this would widen the gap.

If there is a learning bond for kids who come from families that are in receipt of child tax benefits and that fund is built up on a year to year basis, the gap is not being widened. Everything that can be done is being done in the realm and the authorities of government to ensure that the gap is narrowed.

Some people over there do not understand the difference between broadening and narrowing. We are trying to narrow the gap and provide our future citizens with an opportunity to engage in lifelong learning. We are providing them with an opportunity to reach out to that Canadian dream to be productive, competitive, flexible, adaptable members of a thriving, booming economy. That is what all of our citizens demand. That is what they deserve. That is what Canadians get with citizenship. They do not get negatives. They get an opportunity to share in that dream and that ambition.

[Canada Education Savings Act, November 30th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am little perplexed by the position taken by my hon. colleague.

For the benefit of all those who are listening or watching, the purpose of the bill is to encourage the financing of children's post-secondary education through savings from early childhood in registered education savings plans.

What we are trying to do is encourage parents to begin, immediately upon the child's birth, to consider the ambition of a lifelong approach to studies, and the way to do that is to begin to save from the moment of birth. We encourage that by putting in a $500 learning bond. That $500 learning bond can be matched, but more important, we encourage continued savings by putting in an additional $100 per year for 15 years.

Here is the catch that perhaps members have not understood sufficiently. This is a measure designed for the future: the students of the future and the parents who want to encourage their children to study in the future. This is especially directed to those parents who are unaccustomed to some of the sophisticated instruments of investment. We put them in a position where they can take advantage of those instruments in the way that those in the middle and upper middle classes are accustomed to doing.

Why do we do that? We do it because we recognize that those families that are in receipt of a child tax benefit, those whose income thresholds are below the norm that we feel is sufficient for some people to fit into that middle class or upper middle class, need additional assistance.

I am absolutely surprised that my colleague from the neo-socialist NDP would think that this was a bad idea, that the Government of Canada would encourage people from such a background to actually contribute to their child's own future learning potential.

I do not know how we could possibly be more direct than to say that we want to partner--

[Housing, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, affordable housing comes under provincial jurisdiction. The ministers are meeting today to determine the next phase of this program. We will be continuing. We have already done some good work with Quebec. We are trying to do the same with the other provinces. However, we must continue to dialogue and negotiate.

[Employment Insurance, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche for his question and comment. My colleague is well aware that, last spring, the government improved the employment insurance program by adding five weeks of benefits in those regions where the unemployment rate exceeds 10%.

However, the hon. member will agree with me that employment insurance is but one part of the overall solution to seasonal work. This is why we are working with local agencies to reach—