Lynne Yelich

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from a Bloc member in the previous House debate on older workers. I would appreciate a comment from the member after hearing it. He said:

[Older workers] do not want to live on EI benefits and even less on welfare payments. They want us to support them so they can upgrade their skills, start a business, or find a new job.

In that respect, would it be more useful to expand the wording of today's motion to include employment supports?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that we are supposed to be talking about older workers and unemployment. If she wants to talk about literacy, I can tell her that we have a slate of programs and money dedicated toward literacy that will be effective. We are hoping that members opposite will help us with the older worker issue.

With respect to older workers, I want to talk about what is happening in other areas. Alberta and B.C. are desperately in need of workers in the construction and welding sectors. Recently, P.E.I. had to hire foreign workers to work in several fish plants. It is a well-known fact that Canada is suffering from a severe labour shortage.

How can the hon. member support a motion that would keep older workers, a valuable resource, out of the Canadian workforce? If we suggest a program that only targets older workers, how will we meet some of the labour shortages that we have as well?

I would like to bring the debate back to unemployment, unemployment insurance and older workers and ask the member to define what her debate is about today. If it is about literacy, then perhaps we could save that for another time. I would like to talk about older workers who would like to remain in the workforce. What would she do with those people who do not want early retirement? How would she fill the serious labour shortages?

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote what was said by the parliamentary secretary to the minister of social development in the past government. The particular Liberal minister at the time sat around the cabinet table and the parliamentary secretary stated:

In the course of his speech, he said that the government wants workers of a certain age to stay home.

The Liberals were being accused of wanting to suggest that women stay home and bake cookies, I guess as was talked about by the other member. The parliamentary secretary went on to state:

That is not the case at all. Quite the contrary....[the Liberal government] want people to work. We do not want them to stay home and cash cheques. We want to create opportunities for them.

In a past Parliament on June 9, 2005 that is how the parliamentary secretary to the minister of social development in the Liberal government responded to the accusations that are being made of the Conservative government by the member.

I would like a comment from the member, please.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-285, legislation that would require CMHC to transfer surpluses from its reserve to the provinces.

With some conviction, I can speak to a common belief among parliamentarians that Canadians ought to have a fair chance to own or rent their own home and that we acknowledge the importance of stable, affordable and good quality housing.

While the intent of Bill C-285 is commendable, in that it seeks to encourage the supply of affordable housing, it would, in truth, have the effect of negatively impacting on Canada's national housing system. It would make it harder for future governments to respond to the changing housing needs of Canadians.

Before discussing the specifics of Bill C-285, let me briefly provide some context regarding the role of CMHC. The main objective of CMHC is to assist Canadians obtain safe, quality and affordable housing. It accomplishes this through the provision of funding for affordable housing, as well as for renovations and repairs that benefit low income Canadians. It also accomplishes this through mortgage loan insurance.

CMHC mortgage loan insurance allows consumers to buy a home with as little as 5% down at interest rates comparable to those reserved for homebuyers with a down payment of 25% or more.

Since its initial offering in the 1950s, mortgage loan insurance has been used to facilitate the financing of nearly nine million homes. This helps many Canadians realize home ownership.

This brings me to why Bill C-285 is so problematic. The mortgage insurance business is characterized by long term, cyclical patterns. During strong housing markets, mortgage loan insurance sales rise and claims paid out decline.

However, the reverse is true during economic downturns, which was the case in the 1980s and the early 1990s. In order to manage the risks inherent in the insurance business, CMHC follows the prudent business practices set out by the Office of the Superintendent for Financial Institutions.

CMHC has earnings set aside for capitalization of $3.4 billion against the $274 billion worth of outstanding mortgages insured as of December 2005. These earnings set aside for capitalization represent 1.2% of its portfolio. This is consistent with OSFI directives.

CMHC's reserves provide a cushion to ensure its mortgage loan insurance business will not have to rely on additional taxpayer dollars to meet its obligations, even in bad economic times. This is why it is essential that CMHC continue to have adequate reserves. This will allow its mortgage insurance business to remain commercially viable and sustainable over the longer term rather than dependent on government subsidies.

Bill C-285 ignores the need for prudent business practices and would transfer CMHC's retained earnings that are set aside for capitalization, thus jeopardizing mortgage loan insurance's availability for future generations of Canadians. Parliament should not erode this cushion.

Another consideration is that all of CMHC's income is already included in the accounts of the Government of Canada. It is public money; that is to say that CMHC's net income has been recognized in the government's revenues dollar for dollar. CMHC is a federal crown corporation so its financial results are accounted for on a fiscal year basis and consolidated with the government's financial statements.

As I noted earlier, the federal government, through CMHC, provides approximately $2 billion each year for the ongoing support and management of assisted social housing for over half a million households. Through its mortgage loan insurance and assisted housing programs, CMHC helps respond to market circumstances as well as Canadians' evolving housing needs.

By taking the CMHC reserve out of the federal fiscal framework, Bill C-285 would tie the hands, not just of future Parliaments but also this one. Reducing the flexibility of both CMHC and Parliament to respond to developments in the housing market does not appear to be a wise way to secure the future of Canada's housing system.

I would remind the House that the former Liberal government echoed these sentiments in the previous Parliament by voting against a nearly identical private member's bill, Bill C-363. Speaking for the Liberal government, the current member for North Vancouver noted that legislation would tie the government and Parliament to an inflexible formula. The member further noted that CMHC's capital reserve helps ensure this crown corporation remains self-funding with no need for government subsidies.

As I alluded to before, Bill C-285 seeks to ensure funds transferred from CMHC to the provinces are utilized for both social and affordable housing purposes and to contribute to the creation and development of housing co-operatives.

However, Canada's new government is already taking concrete actions to strengthen our housing system. Budget 2006 contains several concrete examples of that commitment. The budget aims to support families, build safer communities and, indeed, a stronger country, including, by necessity, housing.

Accordingly, in Budget 2006 our new government made a one time strategic investment of up to $1.4 billion. This was for the establishment of three housing trusts with the provinces and territories for affordable housing, northern housing and for aboriginals living off reserve.

In addition, the budget announced an immediate one percentage point reduction of the GST, a measure which is already putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians and stimulating the economy.

The reduction is also having a positive impact on the overall housing industry by making housing more affordable to Canadians. As Stephen Dupuis of the Greater Toronto Home Builders Association remarked, this reduction will have a tangible impact for prospective new homeowners. “On a $300,000 home, it could be as much as $2,000 in the buyer's pocket”.

Likewise, Dave Benbow, president of the Canadian Home Builders' Association called the GST cut a major benefit to new homebuyers, stating, “This action improves housing affordability for many Canadians”.

These measures complement existing Government of Canada initiatives to maintain the existing affordable housing stock. In that respect, funding for the residential rehabilitation assistance program and several related housing renovation and adaptation programs have been renewed for the fiscal year 2006-07, an extension which represented our commitment to $128.1 million.

Additionally, at a cost of almost $135 million, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development also extended the national homelessness initiative, including the supporting communities partnership initiative until March 2007.

On top of those measures, the government is in the process of delivering on the $1 billion affordable housing initiative in collaboration with provincial, territorial and local partners. Thanks to this funding, new affordable housing is being created in communities across the country.

As I think all hon. members will realize, Canada's new government is moving forward on the objectives set out in Bill C-285 without embracing the flawed manner proposed in the legislation. Consequently, I call upon the House to consider the prudent course of action and reject the inflexible formula proposed in Bill C-285.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment acknowledging the member opposite for her concern about the housing needs of all Canadians.

I do have some reservations regarding the underlying assumptions regarding CMHC's surplus. I want to note that when asked about this issue, the former Liberal minister of housing and the former member for London North Centre, Joe Fontana, stated, “I not think CMHC's surplus is scandalous”. Why? Because CMHC retains its insurance net income to meet adequacy guidelines set out by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions for mortgage insurance companies. Following prudent business practices, as of December 2005 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation sets aside $3.4 billion against the $274 billion in outstanding mortgages that are insured. This represents 1.2% of its portfolio and is consistent with the OSFI directives.

Would the member opposite please inform the House why she believes that CMHC should not follow these prudent business practices?

[Petitions, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. On behalf of the residents of my riding and Canadians across the country, I present to the House a petition that calls upon the government to raise the age of consent. Raising the age of consent would offer our children more protection from sexual predators. They are the most vulnerable in our society and we must do everything in our power to protect them from such horrible crimes.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present on behalf of my constituents and the people of Saskatchewan a petition which calls for Parliament to reopen debate on the definition of marriage, and to take all necessary steps to ensure that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-284, a proposal to extend the Canada access grants for students from low income families from one year to all years of students' first program of study. Additionally, Bill C-284 would repeal the Canada access grant provisions in the Canada student financial assistance regulations and incorporate them into the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

Before I begin I would like to acknowledge that there is a common consensus in the House, indeed among all Canadians, on the tremendous value of post-secondary education, for a high quality education represents a crucial stage in tapping the potential of future generations of Canadians. Not only will it provide them with the knowledge, skills and experiences to acquire well paid jobs and fulfilling careers, but it will provide Canada with the skills and the imaginative human capital we need to succeed in the increasingly competitive global economy.

As Sir Winston Churchill so accurately forecast over half a century ago, “The empires of the future are the empires of the mind”. In this spirit, I join with the member for Halifax West in recognizing the need to support students from low income families in access to post-secondary education.

However, as we endeavour to pursue these objectives, we must ensure that we do so in a manner that achieves the desired results through the most effective and efficient methods possible. As a result, I welcome the opportunity to engage in today's discussion on Bill C-284.

Before getting into specifics, I believe it is important to frame the discussion in the larger context of the Government of Canada's current support for post-secondary education. It is important to recall the substantial overall investments the Government of Canada makes in post-secondary education in a variety of interrelated ways.

First, it should be noted that we cooperate closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts in this area. For instance, in the last fiscal year the Government of Canada transferred $15.5 billion to the provinces and territories for post-secondary education and social services.

Furthermore, the government provides another $1.8 billion through various grants and loans to help students obtain a post-secondary degree. For instance, through the Canada student loan program, we provide $1.6 billion annually in loans to nearly 340,000 students.

Moreover, in addition to this direct assistance, the Government of Canada also has a range of other incentives to help Canadians finance their post-secondary education. These include tax measures such as the student loan interest credit, the tuition tax credit and the education tax credit, all of which help cover non-tuition costs.

We also have incentives to help Canadians save for post-secondary education, such as the Canada learning bond and the Canada education savings grants.

The ongoing support, in all of its many forms, reflects a broad commitment to post-secondary education, but Canada's new government is not content to stop there. In budget 2006, we brought forward tangible measures and made a substantial investment to help Canadian students and their families meet the rising costs of post-secondary education.

These measures included the introduction of a new textbook tax credit, the expanded eligibility for students seeking Canada student loans by reducing the amounts parents are expected to contribute toward their children's education, and the creation of a tax exemption for all scholarship and bursary income.

What is more, our government is acknowledging the groundbreaking research on Canada's university campuses, and to support further breakthroughs and innovations, budget 2006 provided an additional $100 million on top of the $1 billion the Government of Canada already provides for post-secondary research and technological development, including $40 million per year for the indirect costs of research programs, $20 million per year for the leaders opportunity fund of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, $17 million per year for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and $6 million per year for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

These measures are concrete examples of our new government's recognition of the importance of research to increasing Canada's productivity and our standard of living. Claire Morris, President of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, stated:

We are pleased with the budget’s support for university research, as well as the government’s recognition of the important role that research plays for Canadians. These increases in research funding underline the government’s commitment to promote a more competitive, more productive Canadian economy.

Even more, budget 2006 strengthened the entire post-secondary sector with an allocation of $1 billion to the provinces and territories for pressing investments in post-secondary education and infrastructure such as libraries and laboratories.

It is important to keep these substantial investments and incentives in mind when assessing the merits of the proposals contained within Bill C-284. It is also critical to remember that any legislation affecting education by definition involves a cooperative approach with the provinces and territories. It is also important to recall the bleak record of the defeated Liberal government after 13 years in power.

Listen to the Canadian Federation of Students which noted it was the Liberal government that was:

--responsible for cutting funding for post-secondary education...and driving up tuition fees...trying to give the impression of responding to students and parents, while delivering no serious commitment to accessible post-secondary education.

Or better yet, listen to Liberals themselves. Listen to their aspiring leader, Bob Rae, bemoan that even after 13 long years of Liberal governments:

Our education system is not nearly what it could be. The cost of post-secondary education has been rising rapidly for years and shows no signs of abating.

Or listen to another aspiring Liberal leader, the member for Kings—Hants, who slammed a Liberal government that:

--slashed transfers to the provinces to such an extent that it created a tremendous vacuum in funding for universities throughout the country. As a result of the deficit that existed in the funding...we saw, for instance, the doubling of the average amount of student debt after a four year program in Canada.

Notwithstanding such realities, today's discussion is about moving beyond the squandered promises of the past 13 years.

Bill C-284 in that spirit merits an objective assessment. To begin with, it has been suggested that due to the fact the grant under discussion is merely one year old, the availability of comprehensive data to inform our decision is somewhat lacking which as a result may hinder our ability to properly determine whether additional measures are needed. We must be mindful that such proposed changes would require consultations with provincial and territorial governments.

An additional issue that merits mention is the fact that Bill C-284 proposes to repeal the Canada access grants provisions in the Canada student financial assistance regulations and integrate them into the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. This amendment essentially means that Parliament itself would have to make future changes to the program through legislation.

What is more, since other grants under the Canada student loans program would still be governed through regulations, the proposed bill would create a two tiered approach to governance. As a result, the management of the Canada student loans program may not be as efficient as we would consider appropriate.

I believe the issues I have highlighted today should be important considerations in our discussion of Bill C-284.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a statement that the member for Halifax West made about Canadian students and budget 2006, which he called rhetoric and said would be helpful to only a few students. Does the member realize that this government has indeed put forward good, concrete measures? What does he think about the measure to assist Canadian students with the textbook tax credit? We also did an expansion of the Canada student loans eligibility. As well, we have the exemption from taxes of scholarship and bursary income. We also have the post-secondary education infrastructure trust. I am wondering if the member recognizes that this new government has in fact been working hard to make education a priority.

We have had good reaction from across Canada on our measures. An editorial in the Newfoundland media called the exemption of scholarship and bursary income good news that was long overdue and also praised the expansion of the Canada student loans program. It noted that many families that do not qualify for such loans could easily take exception to the member for Halifax West thinking that the budget helps only a few students.

I would like to have the member comment on our positive measures and ask how he can be so negative in some of his comments and not realize that we put together some very good, constructive measures.

[Vern Gessner, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a multitude of things make Saskatchewan the special place it is, but none more than its people. Its motto “from many peoples, strength” is demonstrated daily through the industrious and compassionate nature of its residents.

This summer the town of Outlook, Saskatchewan lost one of those people. Vern Gessner was eulogized as a “big man, and the biggest part of him was his heart”. Behind these words was a lifetime in the service of others, a lifetime making the world around him a little brighter. Whether it was his involvement in his church, the Knights of Columbus, fundraising for the Special Olympics or the Outlook Canada Day celebrations, Vern epitomized what it meant to be a people person, to love life.

Vern was recognized as Outlook's Citizen of the Year and a recipient of the Saskatchewan Centennial Medal for his efforts. He left behind his beloved siblings, stepchildren and friends, but is again with his beloved wife Joyce.

I was lucky enough to have the privilege of calling him a friend. It is because of people like Vern, I am proud to be from Saskatchewan.

Thanks Vern, and God bless.