Michael Savage

[April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on the Canada summer jobs program, the member said that his government had improved it. However, that is clearly not the case. It is so laughable because when it tried to put the Conservative mark on it, its own members came to me and said that I should keep the pressure up because their government made a huge mistake and they needed to go back.

Eventually we went back, as one of the officials said at committee, to the original Liberal program. The numbers were 128,000 less jobs for students last year from the year before. That trend will continue. Some 60% of students are worried about how to pay for their education. The Conservatives are boasting about $10 million. That is $10 per student in Canada. That will pay for lots of tuition. That is amazing.

The Conservatives have done virtually nothing for student unemployment. I am talking about creating jobs for students. That is one of the most important things that we can do. Helping organizations in the community is just as valuable. We have a win and a win. We help the community, the students and, more important, the country because we are educating Canadians. It is the best possible solution but the Conservatives chose not to do it. It is a shame for Canadian students.

[April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question that I asked regarding what can only be called a crisis in student unemployment in this country. Student unemployment is double the national average and the response of the government has been inadequate and really quite pathetic.

According to CASA, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, there has been a loss of $512 million annually in student earnings. According to an EPI report that came out this year, 60% of students are worried about having enough money to go back to school next fall.

The very simple answer for this is the Canada summer jobs, formerly known as the summer career placement program. This was a plan introduced by the former Liberal government and it works fabulously. It is a win-win situation because it employs students, like the bright young pages who work in the House here, and it provides them with the money they need in order to go back to school.

It also supports worthy community organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club, child care organizations, youth recreation like the Dartmouth United Soccer Club and St. George's Tennis Club and all the things that provide opportunities for our kids. The problem is that the present government changed the plan when it came in, thinking that it could get rid of a Liberal plan and bring in a Conservative plan. It butchered the program. There was an outcry and the government had to backtrack. It was because the Liberals in the House stood time after time and gave examples of how this program had worked for years in their communities but that it was no longer working. The government had to backtrack on that and it did so when Monte Solberg was the minister.

There is a reason that it is a good program now. What better stimulus could we have than a program that provides opportunities for students? Education and innovation are the things that will drive Canada's economy. A significant investment in Canada summer jobs would have done that but it also would have helped those communities at the ground level.

The government's response was pathetic. It is a $100 million program and the government added $10 million, a rounding error these days when one considers that the government spent $100 million just to put signs up to talk about the stuff that it did. What did $10 million mean? It meant an increase of 3,500 jobs this year. Last year, there were 128,000 less student jobs than the year before. We are losing 128,000 jobs for students, the people we need to go back to school so that they can continue to build this great country and make it even better, and the government offers 3,500 jobs.

Ninety-seven percent of students get nothing from the government. It was the perfect solution. I even made a suggestion to the minister at committee. The parliamentary secretary who will respond would have been there. I told him the minister to double it. The way the government is spending money and adding to our deficit, this is the best investment it could have made. The Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Boys and Girls Club would have thanked the government for it and it would have employed students. It could have employed almost 40,000 more students for a reasonably small investment by the standards of the government and the way it throws money around. Instead, it invested 10% and we have a crisis now.

We have students who cannot get work. Many of them may not be able to go back to school and will certainly have to scramble in order to do it. Those community organizations will suffer. There are all kinds of students who need work and all kinds of organizations that need help. It was the perfect marriage. The government ruined the marriage.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill this evening. It is a bill whose progress I have followed with particular attention and the opportunity to speak tonight is one that I am very appreciative to have.

I want to say at the outset that I will not be voting for this bill. I do not support this bill and I do not support its intent. I do, however, want to commend the member, who has proposed this bill and who has led this fight, for her diligent work on this file, her sincere and informed opinion and understanding of this issue, but I believe it is one of those issues where people who have equal interests can have different points of view. It is a sensitive issue and it may well be an issue that needs a more fulsome debate in this country.

I want to speak to this bill from two points of view. I want to speak to it from a personal point of view. Like most members of the House, I have had experience with people who have died with dignity. It has had a profound effect on my life and the lives of my family and it has certainly had a profound effect on how I view this bill. I want to talk personally in a way that I would not normally about my own situation. I want to talk about my parents.

My parents both had cancer. I do not believe that cancer beat them. I think they beat cancer even though cancer took their lives. My father was diagnosed with inoperable cancer in July 2001. The prognosis was very bleak but he started an aggressive treatment of chemo. He had chemo treatments 24 hours a day and it worked. My father entered a remission period and had a remarkable period of remission in his life. While on remission, he visited Africa and Russia. He did the social development work that mattered very much to him. We felt as close to my father in that period as we ever did.

In November 2002 the cancer returned, and a few weeks later my mother was diagnosed with bowel cancer, one week before Christmas. I am one of seven children. My two sisters became full-time caregivers for my parents from Christmas 2002 onward. By mid-January, my mother was in palliative care, although she was at home, and our family was honoured to care for her. We cared for her in her home. On March 31, 2003, she passed away. Three days after her funeral, my dad was told that his chemo treatments were no longer advised and he came off chemo and entered palliative care as well. He passed away on May 13, six weeks to the day after my mother.

I tell this story because my parents died at home, in peace and sure that they were headed to a better place. We knew as their children that they were ready to leave this world. They both fought cancer with great courage and neither one of them were people to give up without a fight. They felt entirely in control, not only at the end of their life but in control of their death.

It is hard for anybody who has seen people they love die, like so many have, and not be impacted by that. I want to speak to how that impacts my view on this bill because my parents both made a decision. I can recall the conversation with my father when he said that he would no longer be eating. He was at home and he had decided that he would no longer eat. He knew he was ready to go. I do not think he ever actually said to us that he was going to die in two or three days but he was in control of that part of his life and he knew it was time. Likewise, my mother made those same decisions. The opportunity for us as family to be with them in those circumstances was an opportunity I cherished.

When I think about people my age with parents, it seems that one of two things happens. They either die in circumstances quicker than we would like or sometimes they take longer in their passing than they would probably like for the sake of their own family.

However, I do not believe that we needed this legislation to allow my parents to have control of their death. T go to a place that they were ready to go to was a decision that they made, were comfortable making and were able to make under the laws that existed and under what they considered to be the God that they were prepared to join.

I also do not like this bill because a number of people I represent in my capacity as the critic for human resources, particularly in the disability community, are very concerned about this bill. They do not know exactly where it will lead. At the very least, they think there should be a more serious debate about this before final decisions are made. It should be something that is consulted widely and taking into account the various levels of palliative care.

I do not think anybody here would say that our palliative care system is as strong as it should be. My parents went through this process in Nova Scotia. My father, as a medical doctor, had pioneered some of the palliative care back in the 1970s. He was at the bedside of many people when they passed away and was a big believer in palliative care. When he passed away we were very fortunate in that we are a reasonably well off family. We are not rich but we are comfortable. There are seven kids. Every day, every one of us would go and talk to our mom and dad and be with them when they needed help. We had a prayer session three times a day with a great gospel from the Benedictine monks called the The Glenstal Book of Prayer: A Benedictine Prayer Book.

We took great comfort from all of those things, but the palliative care system is not strong enough. Many people in Nova Scotia and in the rest of Canada simply do not have access to palliative care or even, in some cases, home care that we need to have. That is where I believe our efforts should be.

Let us look at what other nations are doing with the issue of euthanasia. Let us consider what supports we have for people in the community. The experience I had with my parents led me to believe that if there is one thing that we should all strive to have in Canada, and that we as parliamentarians should fight for, it is the opportunity for people to die at home if they wished to. Most people cannot afford that because its costs money to have night nurses and day nurses.

For us, because there were seven children and because we had parents who made it easy, we were able and in fact honoured to provide that service to our parents, perhaps as some small, tangible appreciation for all they had done for us.

Let us focus on palliative care and home care. Let us provide the supports that people need in their time of need. Let us be very mindful of people with disabilities, particularly people who are not always able to make decisions on their own and who rely upon others for support, guidance and the everyday aspects of their lives.

I do not support this bill. I truly do commend the member and I commend all people who have expressed their views on this debate. My view comes from my personal experience and my concern for people who are concerned that this bill might impact negatively upon their lives. For those reasons, I cannot support this bill.

[National Volunteer Week, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize National Volunteer Week in Canada and honour the millions of Canadians who make Canada better by giving back to their communities.

Two weeks ago I visited Holy Trinity Emmanuel Parish in Dartmouth, which holds a clothing depot every Wednesday. It is run by a remarkable women, Doris Makarder who, along with Dot, Marilyn, Connie, Eddie and others, gather used clothing, display it and give it to those in need for free and with a smile. It is a wonderful operation and very time consuming, but Doris and her colleagues do it without complaint, thankful for the opportunity to serve.

She is but one face of volunteerism, one of over 12 million volunteers in Canada. Food banks, seniors centres, child care organizations, cultural groups, kids recreation, support for the disabled, the list is endless of those organization that simply would not exist without volunteers.

As a father to children who play organized hockey, soccer, tennis, paddling and are involved in Guides, I am indebted to the coaches, the managers and the organizers. If we think kids sports are expensive now, we should try doing it without volunteers.

Most members of the House have volunteered, but all members of the House have benefited from volunteers. Those who work on our campaigns, and our opponents campaigns, honour us and the democratic process.

Thanks to GPI Atlantic, we do have an economic measurement of the value of volunteers. In its 2008 Nova Scotia Genuine Progress Index, it tells us that volunteers in Canada contributed the equivalent of $64.9 billion to Canada. Volunteers contributed $1.8 billion worth of volunteer hours in Nova Scotia alone. The budget for the province of Nova Scotia is $8.4 billion.

These are staggering numbers, but there is a warning. That number I mentioned is $370 million less than it was in 1998, as volunteers struggled to find the time and the mechanisms to volunteer.

A sector worth $65 billion is worth investing in. We need to recognize exceptional volunteers. Governments also need to partner with the voluntary sector to encourage volunteerism.

The spirit of volunteerism is alive, but today's demands are great and we must do everything possible to encourage and support volunteers. They are irreplaceable. They are the heroes of our nation.

This week we say thanks to the 12 million Canadians who make communities better, who offer their time to others and keep Canada better than ever. Thanks very much to the volunteers in Canada.

[Points of Order, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on something that was raised in question period.

A few minutes ago the member for Burlington, in his fiction about the Leader of the Opposition calling for more taxes, invoked my name, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, suggesting that I had suggested we should have higher taxes. I am not suggesting that we should have an incredibly high standard such as truth from the government side. I never did that.

I did an interview where the Tory war room put out a quote suggesting a whole bunch of things that journalists have pointed out were totally inaccurate and untrue. I never said that. I do not expect an apology from that side because I do not know if it is capable of it, but I would ask the member for Burlington to check those little notes that he got from the apparatchiks in the back room and see if it is true before he stands up and besmirches himself.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have friends in all parties and I have friends across the country who would share the concern of a Conservative majority government. But if we had formed a coalition, I think the country could have survived with better EI enhancements, better investments in education, better investments in the environment, and better investments in health care. Those are things that would have been positive.

I also believe that our leader made the right decision when he said we had just had an election in October 2008. There was a potential of a coalition government, which probably would have definitely given more progressive legislation than the current government. But on the other hand, our leader was wise to say that we are going to let the government go for a while.

We supported the budget last year. We did not like some of the things that were brought in last fall. We are not in love with this budget, but on the other hand we do not think that Canadians want an election. But a coalition government would have offered a lot of progressive policies that could have benefited Canada. That is probably the only time in the history of Canada that the leader of a political party in Canada turned down a guaranteed opportunity to be prime minister because his first view at that point in time was not for himself but for his country. That continues to be his view and continues to be the view of the Liberal Party of Canada, that people come first.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks a very good question which is what would the government do if it had a majority? I am probably not as equipped to answer as someone like my daughter who is a specialist in horror movies. She might have a better idea of what this country would look like. She is a beautiful little girl, 13.5 years old, but she likes horror movies, so she might have seen something that would resemble a Conservative government because I do not think we would recognize Canada.

I do not pretend that my values represent all Canadians. One of the great things about this country is that people have different points of view, different understandings and values. What is a common thread of citizenship in this country is that we take care of those who need help. That is a fundamental responsibility of government. That is the area, taking care of those who are most vulnerable, those who need the government's help, where the government has fallen down the most. If there were a majority government, which I do not believe would happen, people would be divided into the haves and have-nots, the winners and the losers, and there would be a lot more losers than winners.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do ask your indulgence and the indulgence of members but in light of the terrible tragedy in Poland, I want to acknowledge the Poles in my constituency of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. St. Anthony's Church in my riding has a Polish mass once a week. It is the home of St. Faustina Kowalska Polish Mission's Rev. Jan Grotkowski. Like other members, my heart goes out to the people of Poland and the people of Polish descent. We offer our prayers and our best wishes.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the budget. I have had the opportunity on other occasions to speak to an issue that matters a lot to me, which is the issue of poverty. I will not focus on that today but I take every opportunity I can to commend to members reading the Senate report, “In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness”. I commend Senator Eggleton and Senator Segal for the work they did leading that group.

The human resources committee of the House of Commons is doing the same kind of work. I see a colleague of mine from B.C. who is on that committee. The work has gone on for a couple of years and I am very hopeful that the committee will be coming to a conclusion and issuing a report. This country needs to do more about poverty and the Government of Canada needs to follow the lead of the six provinces that have anti-poverty strategies. I do not think the government has done anywhere near enough for the people who are most in need in this constituency, and I hope we can do much more.

I also do not like the fact that we have frozen our overseas development assistance. I think that is a huge mistake. Canada is abdicating a place that was head in the world, which may not have been enough but which was better, which was a symbol of peace and democracy and also a symbol of support and partnership for developing countries.

The budget is very weak on the environment and has been criticized for its lack of action. After the embarrassment of Copenhagen, we need to do more.

I want to talk about three specific things, the first being on the research and innovation side with the Canadian Council on Learning not having its funding renewed. This is a travesty. The Canadian Council on Learning was set up in 2004 and was set up to help develop a coherent vision for education, particularly post-secondary education in Canada. It has done amazing work. It has received plaudits, not only in Canada but from outside agencies as well who have said that the work of the Canadian Council on Learning must on, and everybody assumed that it would go on. I think even the Government of Canada assumed that.

I have a copy of a letter here that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development sent in May 2009 to Robert Giroux, the chair of the board of directors of CCL, where she says, “I agree the Canadian Council on Learning has played a key role in supporting efforts in this area of knowledge and skills”. She also says, “I understand the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada officials began discussions with CCL in the summer of 2007 about stabilizing strategies for the organization”.

CCL has put out some fabulous information, which is what Canada needs. When we talk about research and innovation and about where Canada is, we have always been a very educated country but we are losing the edge that we had as we focus less on research and innovation and education and other countries focus more on those things.

In fact, CCL has produced, as part of its composite learning index, a chart that looks at a number of countries, Australia, EU countries, Germany, U.S., Switzerland, U.K., New Zealand and Canada, and looks at a number of areas where education can be measured. For example, has there been a major review in the last five years? Every country, yes, but Canada, no. Has there been system-wide goals and objectives? Every country, yes, but Canada, no. Is funding aligned with national priorities? Other countries, yes, but Canada, no. Are quality assurance agencies in place? Other countries, yes, but Canada, no. These are the things we need to have. We need to have accountability in education. We need to know where we are. We need surveillance. We need to know where we are in terms of having a national post-secondary education strategy, and we do not have that. It is my view, and I think the view of many others, that is just totally and completely foolish.

When people heard that the Canadian Council on Learning was being shut down or that the federal funding, which provides almost all of the funding, was being shut down, they could not believe it. Arati Sharma, the national director of CASA, said:

Without the research of groups such as the Canadian Council on Learning, Canada will continue to lack the knowledge needed to improve access, persistence and quality in our post-secondary institutions.

A Toronto Star editorial stated:

But without the council's work, it will be more difficult for us to know how we stack up as a nation.

Cary Brown, an associate professor at the University of Alberta, said that the loss of funding to an organization like CCL is shocking and short-sighted.

Even the Secretary-General of the OECD sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada saying that we need to keep CCL in place. That is how important this work has been.

Why would the government cancel the funding for CCL? It is not a huge amount of money. The best thing we could say about this decision is that it is stupid. The worst thing we could say about it is that it was a deliberate attempt to hide the inadequacies of the government. When we have a decision that the best thing we can say about is that it is stupid, it does not speak very highly of where we are going in post-secondary education, at least in coming to terms with where we need to be to compete with other nations.

We also had the example in this budget of the cancelling of the tax exemption for post-doctoral fellowships. This is something that not a lot of Canadians may understand but it will have a big impact on research and innovation in Canada.

The Minister of Finance, in defending that decision, had come up with the idea that the average salary of a post-doctoral fellowship student was $70,000 a year. In fact, the average salary is less $40,000 a year. It is nowhere near $70,000 a year. We have 6,000 post-docs in Canada, a large number of whom will be hit, in terms of taxation, to the tune of $4,000 or $5,000 a year. If we look at that, it does not make any sense. We are supposed to be encouraging research and innovation. In this move, we are telling post-doctoral fellowship students to go look at the United States where the tax regime is better and the funding is stronger. We do not have strong graduate or post-doctoral investments in Canada. We cannot afford to lose people who are doing this kind of work.

One specific post-doctoral student, David Davidson, has put on paper what he is actually earning and he talks about his four children. He must make some decisions now that will mean he may not be able to put his children into some of the programs that they were in. He needs to look at how they are being schooled. He even needs to look at how they are being fed. He also may possibly need to look at leaving Canada like other of his colleagues have done to do their work. This is a short-sighted decision that makes no sense.

At the very least, the government should have reviewed that decision. Probably some clarification would have been good because we do have some post-docs in Canada who were entitled to the exemption and some who were not getting it. However, it should not just come out in a budget and tell people, who we want in Canada and who in many ways epitomize the research and innovation agenda that this country is seeking to achieve, that it will penalize them by making decisions that may not be good for them and may not be good for Canada either. That is another decision that does not make any sense.

The budget also announced the extension of the enabling accessibility fund. At page 131 of the budget, it states:

Budget 2010 builds on the success of this program by extending the Fund and providing an additional $45 million over the next three years.

When the enabling accessibility fund was announced originally, with funding of $45 million, people looked at it and wanted to know what it was made of. It turned out that of that $45 million, $30 million would go to two projects. So, of all the needs in Canada, two projects were to get 66% of that funding. That never made any sense to people in the disability community. Right away they recognized that the program was tailored specifically for two projects, one of which would be in the Minister of Finance's riding for a project that I believe he and his wife were on the board of, and that I think his constituency assistant is still on the board of. The disability community did not think that made any sense.

The kicker to that is that the money was never even expended and the program never got off the ground. It may be that it is a wonderful facility, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, but we have facilities like that across the country. We need to ensure that any program that comes forward serves the needs of the people who are most marginalized in this country, and when we talk about poverty we talk about people with disabilities. They deserve, at the very least, to be treated to a standard of fairness and dignity that would allow them to have equal access across the country to the services provided by the Government of Canada.

We have seen decision after decision that does not make any sense, that does not take into account the needs of Canadians. For that reason, I do not like everything in the budget; there are many flaws. We do not believe that Canadians want to have an election, but Canadians deserve a lot better than this budget and deserve better than the current government.

[Canadian Council on Learning, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is the government wants billions more in corporate tax cuts, but gives peanuts for students.

Youth unemployment has skyrocketed during the Conservative recession. Last year, Statistics Canada told us that there were 128,000 less student jobs than the year before and the government increased Canada's summer jobs by 3,500, less than 3% of the jobs lost.

The government has turned its back on students, on child care, on literacy and the CCL. The results are going to be clear. Is that why it is trying to kill CCL, to hide its own incompetence?

[Canadian Council on Learning, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council on Learning has lost its federal funding and will be laying off 50 of its 72 employees tomorrow. Nobody in education in Canada understands the government's decision and, ironically, CCL will survive due to foreign foundations who are baffled by the ignorance of the government.

At a time when Canada faces the dichotomy of “people without jobs, yet jobs without people”, we need CCL to shine a light on our investments in education. Instead, the government continues to stay in the dark.

What exactly is it about facts, research, and truth that scare the Conservatives so much?