House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Canada-U.S. Relations March 14th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, that is no answer, so let me make it specific and easy for the government. Article 41.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says of relations between nations that the government has “a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State”.
That seems pretty clear. Has the minister even sought a legal opinion as to whether Michael Wilson's involvement in the NAFTA leaks constituted a breach of this international convention?
Canada-U.S. Relations March 14th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs continues to hide behind his so-called investigation into the leak of confidential diplomatic information, which continues to interfere in the U.S. presidential election. He will not release any details. He will not give us any facts. He expects us to trust him on this one.
Unfortunately, when it comes to trust, the government's record is miserable and Canadians know it. Will the minister ask Ambassador Michael Wilson to step aside during this investigation to prevent any further leaks and any further damage to our relationship with the United States?
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the parliamentary secretary on committee.
There is nothing more critical for this country than to maximize its human resource potential, and the Conservative government is not taking that seriously.
It killed the millennium scholarship foundation. The foundation was supported by every province and territory. It ignores the needs of the most vulnerable. Its vaunted review of the student loan program ignored the major suggestions of students and advocates.
Let me be specific. To whom were the Conservatives listening? Let me be more specific. Did they talk to the Canadian Federation of Students? Did they talk to CASA? Did they ever meet with the Coalition for Student Loan Fairness? If not, why not?
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak tonight to a question that I asked of the minister shortly before the budget came down. It had to do with students and the important need that Canada has to educate young Canadians.
I asked specifically about student grants and I talked about loans. My question had two parts. One part had to do with the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. I had guessed in my question that the government might be trying to get rid of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. I asked the minister if his government was going to get rid of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation or rebrand it some way in Tory blue. One did not have to be Kreskin to know that the government was going to get rid of a program that worked, a program that the Liberal Party had brought in.
What the government did with the program is no improvement at all. I think it is much worse. What is even worse is the justification. The budget indicates that the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation is also a significant intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Every province and territory in Canada loved the Millennium Scholarship Foundation and advocated for its renewal but the government killed it and, I suspect, we will have another Canada summer jobs fiasco like we had last year.
However, I want to talk about student loans because every time a question has been asked about student loans in the last little while we have heard that there is a great review going on in the Canada student loans system and we should wait because we will love it. The minister and his department would not have had to go very far to get some great ideas. It could have done a lot of stuff.
The student organizations in Canada, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Coalition for Student Loan Fairness, which is headed by spokesperson, Julian Benedict, who I had a chance to visit with recently in British Columbia, came out with eight points and I just want to talk about a couple of the really important points that were in their plan, which was made quite public.
The most significant thing that could be done with student loans to make it a better system for Canada and the one that they highlighted as their number one need would be to reduce or eliminate the interest rates on student loans. A number of countries are doing interesting things with student loan rates. Some countries do not charge rates on student loans. Some charge cost of borrowing.
The Canadian student loan program charges between 8.75% and up on student loans. It does not make any sense. In the economic update of 2005, brought in by the member for Wascana, then the minister of finance, pledged a complete overhaul of the student loan system. One of the things we would have done, I am quite sure, is to have looked at that and asked if it made sense, because I do not think it does. Why would we not reduce it to the cost of government borrowing, which could be just over half of the rate we are charging? Why would we want to squeeze money out of Canadian students or have a disincentive for kids to go to university?
How about their recommendation on a student loan ombudsman so that students could actually navigate the system better? Again, in the budget some $123 million were provided but it was very vague as to what it would do. It would have been a very simple positive step for Canadian students and former students who are debilitated by this debt, who get out of university with a mortgage but no house. If we had given some signal to them that there would be an ombudsman or commissioner of student loan fairness, that would have been particularly helpful to them.
Enforcing collection derivatives and increasing the interest relief period. Here is another one, not necessarily from the coalition but that all parliamentarians have heard. Medical students should not have to repay their loans with interest while they are still residents and not making a full family income.
These are not new ideas. These are things that could have been enacted. This student loan review was not sufficient. It did not get the job done. I think it could have been a lot better for Canadian students and they are disappointed.
Post-Secondary Education March 4th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, today members of the Liberal caucus met with representatives from polytechnic schools across Canada. We have seven polytechnics with 37 campuses and approximately 94,000 full time students, and many more part time.
These are unique institutions that offer students a wide range of educational options, including undergrad degrees, diplomas, apprenticeships, postgrad certificates and complete student mobility. They partner with industry to address skills shortages and quickly develop solutions.
These schools help keep Canada at the forefront of the business and technology sectors by using a combination of theoretical learning and applied research targeted at the most dynamic areas of our economy.
We need more research funding in Canada, including the applied research offered by the polytechnics.
Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national credential framework, which would help students transfer between universities, polytechnics and colleges and increase international recognition.
I want to acknowledge and thank our polytechnics for the excellent programs they provide to students across Canada. I urge all members to visit these campuses and experience the great work they do.
Income Tax Act February 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to and support the bill put forward by my colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East.
This is a bill that addresses a specific need that Canadian students as well as Canadian families have in trying to get the most out of their children and to maximize the human resource potential not only of individual students but of Canada as a whole.
This probably has been my number one issue since I have been elected. It is my belief that the number one public policy issue facing Canada domestically is how we harness the human resource capacity of all Canadians from all segments of society. It is very important that we do this. A number of solutions need to be employed. This is one instrument that can be used to ensure that Canadians have a better chance of reaching their human potential, so it is very important.
Why is it important? Canada is a very well educated nation. We do very well in the world. We have a history of educating our people. Canada has been a fortunate nation overall, but in the last few years other countries have started to invest very heavily in education.
The OECD nations and of course the emerging nations of China and India, many nations that used to send a lot of students to Canada, are now starting to invest in their own universities much more and those students are being educated at home.
I believe it is the federal government's role and responsibility to take a leadership position in assisting students to get an education. Our federal Liberal government did that. It is just not right to say that post-secondary education was not a priority for the Liberal government. After we cleaned up the economic mess we inherited in 1993, our government invested very heavily.
The Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which met its untimely demise two days ago, was a hugely important measure for helping students, particularly in a needs-based system, get an education. The Canada learning bond was another measure one as was the reform of Canada student loans. There were a number of those things.
Because we often hear about the cuts to the CHST of the 1990s, it is very important to understand in fact that in the Conservatives' first budget of 2006 they specifically had an analysis which showed that the federal government contribution to post-secondary education had stayed constant over the decade. Yes, there had been reductions in transfers, but other initiatives had made up for those cuts. People can say they do not like the fact that it did not go directly to the province in the form of a transfer, but the fact is that the money went for education.
Let us talk about research. Ten years ago, we could not pick up a Globe and Mail or the Halifax Chronicle-Herald without a story about the brain drain. The federal Liberal government of the late 1990s and the early 2000s addressed that, pouring $13 billion into research. It was not because it was a politically sexy issue. Frankly, it was not, but it has turned the brain drain around to the point that Canadian researchers and other researchers are coming to Canada to do work now. That is very important. We made huge investments.
As MPs we get to travel. When I get to go around Canada to talk to students, I also look at the difference that research money has made for Canada. We have the synchrotron in Saskatoon and the new Life Sciences Centre at UBC. Last week I had a chance to go Victoria to look at the NEPTUNE and VENUS projects. This is work being done under the oceans. I had a chance to see how important that is for the future environment of the Earth. This stuff is very important.
We made huge strides, going from near the bottom of the G-7 to the very top of the G-7 in public investments in research. However, now the other nations have caught up and we have lost that momentum in the first two years of this government. So what are the needs and how does this bill fit in? I want to address that.
In my view, the number one need for students is to make sure that those who are under-represented in our universities, community colleges and polytechnics get there. That means needs-based grants. There is no question in my mind that we need this. The millennium scholarships were doing that.
I am prepared to wait and see what the government does with its new Canada student grants system. My concern is that it has reduced the amount of grants that go to the students most in need, but it also allows more students to apply, so they will be middle income students. We will have to wait and see what happens on that. The government generally has treaded water when it comes to assisting students, with the $80 tax credit being the sort of poster boy of tax foolishness to try to assist students.
The bill is a much more effective measure. I think all members of Parliament hear from their constituents. People come to our office and tell us that they do the best they can to get their kids through university. When the people themselves went to university, the tuition was $1,170. Acadia now is $8,000 and Dalhousie is $6,500 a year, first year arts and science. These parents are asking for a vehicle, something they can use. They want a chance to make it more affordable for their families. I think people would look at this and say “hallelujah”.
The RESP has been a good vehicle. The problem is there is no taxable benefit for people paying when they have an income. Students get it when they do not have to pay taxes generally anyway, so this reverses that process. It makes post-secondary education less of a dream and more of a reality. It gives students and their families a chance to say that they have something that makes a significant difference to them, and they will use it.
I believe the biggest need and the biggest gap in our universities is among aboriginal Canadians, low income families and persons with disabilities. We need to directly invest in this to ensure those people have an opportunity to get post-secondary education.
However, it makes no sense to me to oppose a measure for a whole bunch of families who are struggling, who are working, who are doing everything they can to pay the bills and try to put a little away for their children's education. This makes it more attractive, more approachable, more affordable and makes it a realistic goal for families. It makes post-secondary education a possibility for some of those people who would not have it.
I applaud my colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East. I think an awful lot of families will wake up some day, if this is implemented, and say that they can now do it what they could not do before.
I am pleased to support the bill. I encourage all members of the House to do likewise.
The Budget February 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, to listen to the NDP one would think there were mass rallies happening across Canada, filling town squares and church halls demanding that there be an election right now.
Has my colleague had a lot of calls in his area saying that there must be an election? Maybe he needs to get a bigger constituency office to handle all the protests of people coming in to ask that we have an election right now. How big an issue is it in his riding?
The Budget February 28th, 2008
Instead of the member for Hamilton Centre yelling “shut up” and every other kind of ignorant thing across the House, he should listen to some of this because he could learn a few things.
The millennium scholarship worked with the provinces. The provinces wanted it renewed. It worked for students. It was killed because it was a Liberal initiative. I do not think I am telling tales out of school here. It worked and it was a Liberal initiative, and that made it zero for two in the government's books. That is a shame.
We should have a provision for medical students, those who have a long, extended period of time in university and are actually paying back loans before they are making medical salaries that allow them to pay those bills more efficiently. That is a good program. We should do that. I wish we had done it, but we did not do it. The government should do it.
On the millennium scholarships, it is too bad. We should give our thanks for a job well done to Mr. Norman Riddell and the people who worked on the millennium scholarship. It is too bad that this government is throwing it aside and trying to create a whole new bureaucracy, wasting all kinds of money in creating a new bureaucracy, but that is democracy.
The Budget February 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the millennium scholarship foundation was a very good program for Canadian students. It worked very well with the provinces. The Canada student loan program does not even exist in Quebec and the territories. The millennium scholarship worked with the provinces.
The Budget February 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I think the people who have the least credibility in this House are the people who yammer from a corner of the House against everything that comes forward. They have all the answers. They do not have to answer to anyone.
What that member should do is go out on the streets of Hamilton. He would probably find the same thing that I find in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Nobody has called my office saying: “Mike, please, I want an election. I haven't had one for so long. I've got to have an election. I need a fix”. Nobody wants an election.
We will have an election. That time is coming. When that time comes we will bring our plans to the people of Canada and the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, but the NDP will be irrelevant in that discussion, as they are in this House. The time will come for an election and it is coming pretty quickly.