Michael Savage

[Post-Secondary Education, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this week students are on the Hill meeting with MPs to talk about education. The Conservative record is appalling, whether it is the miserable $80 a year tax credit for which most students do not even qualify, the government's complete lack of vision for dealing with the rising student debt loads or dithering about whether it should even reinvest in the Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

The Speech from the Throne passes over students completely, hardly mentions education, and provides nothing for those most in need.

When will the government realize that we cannot tax cut our way to an education, we have to invest in it? Why is the government ignoring the needs of Canada's students?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the Canada summer students job program. We fought for it in the House, largely by the Liberal opposition but also, to some extent, the other parties, and changes were made, but they were not significant.

We heard from the government that big corporations received all the money previously. It turns out that this past summer it was Conservative ridings that received most of the big money grants.

Could my colleague tell us of a few organizations that did not get money in the end that should have received money?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have shared with many people in my own riding concerns about child poverty, but we have to be realistic. When we took over in 1993, there was a huge deficit and spiralling debt. We had to make some changes. When we had the opportunity, we brought in the child tax benefit.

More recently, under the former minister of social development, the member for York Centre, we brought in child care, so that people who did not have the opportunity for child care would have it. We had taken positive steps with the Kelowna accord. We are going backward now. We are going in the wrong direction now and it is a concern particularly for those who need help.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not come from Winnipeg and I cannot feel that need quite as strongly as my colleague, but one could not be in the Liberal caucus with the member for Malpeque who has stood up for the Canadian Wheat Board from one end of this country to the other and has convinced us all of the need of that institution.

We believe in the Canadian Wheat Board. We support the Canadian Wheat Board. We think there is a role for the Canadian Wheat Board and it is wrong to try to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board by the tactics the government has used.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think I was pretty clear. Let me be as clear as I can be.

I will support changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act because I think they are necessary. I support the changes outlined by Justice Merlin Nunn in his document which came out last December. I reference it again for everybody: www.nunncommission.ca.

I will support changes because people in my community are concerned and afraid. I have talked to principals in high schools. I have talked to police on the streets. I have talked to lots of people who want changes. I have also talked to people promoting child care, people who are talking about the lack of mental health services and the infrastructure that helps to prevent crime.

Let us not just do a little bit of the job. Let us do the whole job. Let us fix the problem as it exists now. Let us fix the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which otherwise is a good piece of legislation, but not when it comes to repeat offenders. Let us not think that we have solved all the problems once we have done that.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about what was not in the Speech from the Throne.

My point, very simply, is that Canada is a wealthy country, possibly now more wealthy than ever. This is not the time to abandon the social infrastructure of which Canadians are proud. We should be enhancing that social infrastructure.

Yesterday, the YWCA, hardly a political hotbed of radicalism, said that the Speech from the Throne virtually ignores the legitimate concerns of Canadian women and their families. It said that women were all but shut out of the government's plans and that there were no concrete provisions in it to deal with women and children living in poverty.

We should be addressing poverty. In 1997, a much less affluent time in the history of this nation, we brought in the child tax benefit, which was a major innovation. That was a huge step forward for children, but we need to do more.

This Speech from the Throne is disappointing and it is disappointing for a number of reasons. It might even be frightening. It is short on specifics, not enough to prompt an election that Canadians do not want, but another signal that we are on the wrong track in this country and we are particularly on the wrong track for those who need help the most.

[Youth Justice, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I had an open meeting in my riding last Tuesday evening. I invited constituents to come in and tell me what their priorities were for this Parliament. We talked about a lot of things.

At that meeting, two parents whose sons had been severely beaten spoke about their situation. They did so in a very even-handed and personal way. They want changes made to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and they have a right to expect those changes. My community has had more than its share of violent incidents involving youth and I support that changes should be made.

Justice Merlin Nunn last year released a comprehensive report on youth justice. In that report he called for changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act as it refers to repeat offenders. The government should listen and act accordingly. It should also take into account that Justice Nunn believes that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is, on the whole, a very sound piece of legislation.

We need to invest in community support for child care, mental health services and other pieces of our social infrastructure, and we should not abandon rehabilitation, but I do believe that citizens have a right to feel secure in their homes, on their streets and in their schools.

Youth justice can work. We need to recognize its flaws and get them fixed.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the back end of the ship with my colleague from West Nova. His speech reminded me of a time when Nova Scotia had a regional minister who actually stood up for our interests and put Nova Scotia's interests ahead of Canadians' interests.

I want to talk about the Speech from the Throne. Some of the things that my colleague spoke about I may touch on, but for me it was a disappointing document, a leaflet really, more for what is not in it than for what is in it.

We just had a question from a western Canadian about the Atlantic accord saying that there was a lot of miscommunication. I remember when I was in the House back in the spring when it was apparent to most people in Canada, and certainly to all people in Nova Scotia, that the Atlantic accord was torched. A member from Ontario asked a question saying that it had not been torched and it was still there. That was obviously not the case. I pointed out to the member at the time that he would not know the difference between the Atlantic accord and a Honda Accord, and that is still the case. There is a lot of confusion.

The Atlantic accord is gone. If it were not gone, we would not have seen the scrambling to try to fix it. The fix is not a fix that Nova Scotians would stand up and give any resounding approval to. It is not a fix at all. If it were, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley would be back on that side of the House from where he was kicked out not too long ago.

It is one issue that all Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will stand up to be heard on.

Last week I had a public meeting in my community. I invited people to tell me as their member of Parliament what they wanted to see in the throne speech. The government had prorogued Parliament and would bring in a throne speech. Whether I agreed or disagreed, we discussed a number of things. We discussed poverty, Afghanistan, the Atlantic accord, as we might expect, students, seniors and veterans.

One issue that came forward, as one would expect, was the issue of crime. In my community of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour we have had more than our share of violent crime, which is a big concern.

At that meeting, two people whom I had not known before spoke at that meeting in a very personal way about their experiences with two sons from two different families. They had been beaten up and bullied and they did not feel safe in their community. They came with an open mind about what could be done, but they wanted to see changes in the Youth Criminal Justice Act to address their specific case.

When members of Parliament hear these stories, they want to do the right thing. In Nova Scotia last December Justice Merlin Nunn came forward with a report on youth crime in response to a specific incident in Nova Scotia, which was quite appalling. The report was long, detailed, well thought out, well argued and well presented.

When the Minister of Justice came to Halifax, he referenced the Nunn Commission report. All members should go to www.Nunncommission.ca and have a look at this report. In the report it refers to problems with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It indicates particularly that repeat offenders are not dealt with effectively enough and makes recommendations. It also suggests that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is sound legislation and that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

When the Minister of Justice refers to the Nunn Commission report, I hope he does not just take a little piece of it, on which I agree with him, but looks at the who report in context and adds into that the need for mental health services for kids in our community, boys and girls clubs, breakfast programs and stay in school programs as well, which will also do more to reduce crime.

Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development spoke on the throne speech. He was one of the first government speakers. It was an amazing spectacle. He gave a 20 minute speech without talking about human resources. He talked about one specific issue, and that was the crime issue, which the government is pounding away trying to get people to believe that its members are the only people who want to act on it.

The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development stood in the House of Common, and he is a good guy, but he did not talk about human resources. Why? Because there is nothing in the throne speech on human resources of which to speak. We heard about employment insurance. It states:

Our Government will also take measures to improve the governance and management of the Employment Insurance Account.

There are people across Atlantic Canada whose knees are shaking when they read that piece. Does that mean the government will make it better, as my colleague from West Nova optimistically points out?

If the government wants to make it better, it could look at some private members' bills that have come from all parties in this Parliament: Bill C-269, Bill C-265 or Bill C-278 that my colleague from West Nova referenced, which would extend sick benefits under EI from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. Who could oppose that?

It is a reaction to a very significant issue in Canada, which is that people who used to die of heart attacks, strokes and cancer in a lot of cases now are surviving. That is good news. The bad news is they cannot go right back to work and the EI system is the perfect way to address that need.

I want to applaud the member for Sydney—Victoria, who brought forward Bill C-278, costed it and did a lot of work on it. He got the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Cancer Society to say that it was the kind of legislation we needed, and the government refused a royal recommendation.

This document has one very brief mention about education, saying families worry about the rising costs of higher education. That is not a stunning revelation. They do. We all hear that as well. We need to help them. One does not tax cut one's way to a better education. One invests, particularly for low income Canadians, persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians. We should be investing.

In the late 1990s, when the government wrestled the deficit under control, we invested in things like the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which is now at a precipice in terms of whether it can continue if it does not soon get a nod from the government that it will put money back into it, Canada access grants, learning bonds and a number of other things.

If we are to address productivity, there are a number of ways we should do it. We should be reducing taxes, not throwing $6 billion out the window on a GST cut, particularly for Canadians who need it the most. As a start, we should go back to the Liberal cut of the economic update of 2005, which the government reversed the following year. That is a start, raising the personal exemption.

I am fully in support of lowering corporate taxes. The countries in the OECD that have done that are doing very well. The lowest economic groups in those countries are doing very well also.

There are things that we can do, such as replenishing the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. The Canada summer jobs fiasco, which we dealt with last year, was pretty clear. It was a mistake by the government. It tried to rectify it. Some organizations, due to pressure from this side of the House, got their funding but many did not. There are things we can do now to ensure that fiasco does not happen again next year.

I want to talk about manufacturers and exporters. There is a crisis in manufacturing in Canada. We need to have mechanisms in the employment insurance system through Human Resources Canada to deal with that.

In my riding the Hershey Moirs plant announced in the spring that it would close in December. Six hundred people will be out of work. There is a program designed to help those people through Service Canada. I have been at transition team meetings with the union, which is working very hard. It is not happy about it at all, but realizes it has to now ask what it will do with the people. It is working with the plant and with Service Canada on a program that provides assistance to people who will lose their jobs.

Guess what? There is a limit of $100,000 per project. I asked Service Canada if it had implemented this project somewhere else and it said, yes, that it was great. I asked how many employees were affected and it said one. One person gets laid off and it can spend $100,000, 500 or 600 people get laid off and it can spend $100,000. Surely the funding should be by person, not by project.

I want to mention that I spoke directly to the minister about that. I appreciate the fact that he took the time to talk to me about this case. I am very hopeful he will intervene to make sure that what needs to be done gets done. However, there was no mention—

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister and I thought she spoke quite well about a number of issues in which Canada is involved.

Canada is a wealthy nation. We are more wealthy now, conceivably, than we ever have been with the surpluses that we have racked up. I want to ask her about a specific private member's bill that has passed the House and has gone to the Senate, Bill C-293, the ODA act, the purpose of which is to make poverty the focus of overseas development assistance.

Many other nations in the world have gone this route. It seems like a no-brainer to many Canadians. It has the support of all kinds of NGOs and organizations that think Canada could do a lot more and that we actually should be hitting some of our millennium development goals. There are people who believe, as I do, that we should hit the 0.7% of GNI for overseas development assistance.

I want to ask the minister specifically whether she thinks that Bill C-293, the purpose of which is to make poverty the focus of overseas development assistance, is a bill that she could encourage her government to support. Is there something wrong with that bill? Does she believe that Canada should hit our 0.7% target out of the millennium development goals?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my very learned colleague for his comments. I agree with everything he had to say about the environment.

I would like to ask him a question about something else that I know he has some interest in, which is post-secondary education. He is a former president of King's College, one of our most august liberal arts colleges in Canada.

The Speech from the Throne, which talks allegedly about productivity, mentions education once when it says on page 10, “families worry about the rising costs of higher education”. I hope it did not take a lot of researchers in the Prime Minister's Office to figure that out. We know that. The question is: What is the government doing about it? What is the government doing to improve access for low income Canadians, persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians who cannot get post-secondary education?

We cannot tax cut our way to an education. We must invest in education. The Millennium Scholarship Foundation is one way. I will ask the member specifically whether he would support the reinvestment in the Millennium Scholarship Foundation and whether he has any faith that the government will do anything to improve access to post-secondary education.