Peter Van Loan

[Grey Cup, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday all Canadians will be focused on Ottawa, not on Parliament, but on a great and unifying Canadian event: the Grey Cup. This year the remarkable Toronto Argonauts will play for the championship.

Bolstered by the committed ownership of Howard Sokolowski and David Cynamon and inspired by the positive and optimistic leadership of Mike “Pinball” Clemons, the Toronto Argonauts continue in a proud winning tradition. We anticipate the exciting on-field exploits of players like the explosive Arland Bruce, outstanding Canadian nominee Kevin Eiben and a team that wins through talent, discipline and determination.

Football is ultimately a team sport. The Toronto Argonauts embody the Canadian values of hard work, commitment and sportsmanship, values that will surely contribute to on-field success.

No institution is as uniquely Canadian as the CFL and no annual Canadian event is as unifying as the Grey Cup.

This Sunday, as always, I will be cheering for the blue team.

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians and people who do business in Canada think a little differently.

Transparency International surveys those trying to do business on whether they think one must exercise undue influence to get things done because a government is corrupt.

Canada is losing out on real decisions on investing, creating jobs, getting economic growth and prosperity all because of this.

The refusal of the Prime Minister to be transparent and answer simple questions on his involvement in the sponsorship affair is fuelling the slide in Canada's standing.

Why will the Prime Minister not just tell the House what he knew and when he knew it?

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister started out as finance minister, Transparency International, which ranked countries according to corruption, ranked Canada as the fifth cleanest. By the time he was finished as finance minister, Canada had slid to 11th place. Since he became Prime Minister, the slide has continued and Canada is down to number 12.

The Prime Minister said that he wanted to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal, but he is acting more like he wants to get to the bottom of the clean government index.

Will the Prime Minister help Canada and come clean by telling us when he first knew his office made calls seeking sponsorship funds for his Liberal fundraising friends?

[Sponsorship Program, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is developing a growing credibility gap. Now it turns out that the Prime Minister, the guy who initially said that he knew nothing about the sponsorship scandal, was actually in the thick of it with another contract to Claude Boulay of Groupe Everest who worked on his leadership campaign.

When the Prime Minister said that anybody with information should come forward, why did he not release his correspondence with Groupe Everest? Why does he still continue to hide what he knows from Canadians today?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, freedom and democracy are important Canadian values and ones we have enjoyed throughout our entire history. Our history is instructive to us when it comes to the question of defence. Canada was formed largely by the leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald, but in many ways in reaction to security threats that Canada faced at that time. There was a need for British North America to bind itself together in defence against threats from outside.

That has always been one reason for our military. However, we never believed as Canadians that all we worry about is ourselves, that our security lies only here in Canada. We believe that we have a worldwide obligation to advance freedom and to defend freedom because a threat anywhere to the free world, tyranny anywhere, is a threat to Canadians here and a threat to our world order.

I have heard people say we do not need the world's biggest military. If we look at Canada's history and our involvement in World War I, we came close to having one of the world's biggest military forces. Canada's nationhood was forged on the battlefields of Europe where so many gave their lives. That was when our country really reached its true status as a world player.

In World War II we fought unprecedented tyranny. Even after World War II, we have been key players. Korea was the very first United Nations action. It was not a peacekeeping action, it was a peacemaking action, advancing the cause of freedom and protecting against an authoritarian threat. In every case, our proud military tradition came to the fore. We had a military force that was able to step up to the plate.

Today, people are sometimes complacent about the freedom that we enjoy in Canada. We forget that role, duty and obligation we have to the future. In my view, Canada cannot forget that role. We have to work to advance the cause of freedom everywhere.

However, these days it is difficult. We have now had a series of conflicts where the Prime Minister and the government have stood up and said we cannot play our role, that we may believe in the cause but we do not have an equipped military capable of doing our part on the world stage to fight tyranny, to fight authoritarianism and to protect freedom. To me that is a sad reflection.

Does the hon. member think that we can see from this government the kind of changes that are necessary for Canada to once again play that role on the world stage, of advancing the cause of freedom and protecting liberty, not just here but abroad?

[Canada Education Savings Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the crisis was provoked by the Prime Minister himself when he was finance minister. With the efforts of balancing the budget back in 1995, it was done largely on the backs of the provinces. It is quite clear that was the case and that crisis continues today.

In fact, we had the vision last month of the Prime Minister claiming to be a hero for finally reversing some of the damage that was done. While it was only some of the damage, as the hon. member has pointed out, it continues to be the case that provinces are working to recover from that.

Certainly there will be upcoming discussions that hopefully will give the government an opportunity to advance that exercise. That crisis is an example of how the government has continually operated. It creates the crisis, causes the problem and then comes up with legislation, such as the bill before us, Bill C-5, which would never have been necessary if provinces were not faced with those cuts to post-secondary education.

The problem is being addressed now and I think that is a positive thing for Canadians.

[Canada Education Savings Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am loath to get into a discussion on tax cuts at this time, but the member has invited me to do so.

I can certainly say that for the people in the constituency of York--Simcoe, and I think for all Canadians, the best way the government can help them is by letting them keep their money to pay for things like post-secondary education rather than collecting it, skimming off a whole bunch to process it along the way and then giving them back a small fraction of it to pay for post-secondary education. Philosophically that is ideal. Philosophically we think self-reliance is ideal. I believe most individuals think that is good. However, we recognize that there are those who are genuinely in need. As a compassionate society we need to help those people.

What is wonderful about the proposal before us is that it combines the best of those values, the value of self-reliance and the value of lending a hand to those who are genuinely in need. Those tax cuts and the tax cuts that have been undertaken by Conservative governments across the country had a lot to do with the economic prosperity that has been generating those record revenues for the government.

The fact is when people have more money in their pockets, there is more money to spend, which creates jobs and all around there is more revenue for government. The facts are indisputable. When the NDP was in government in Ontario, it increased taxes repeatedly and every time, the revenues to the government went down. When the Conservatives were in government, they decreased taxes and the government revenues went up massively.

The result was huge investment in post-secondary education in Ontario in terms of the accommodation of the double cohort and in terms of the construction of new buildings on university campuses all across Ontario. That was all the fruits of the policy of giving people more money. All of society became wealthier, including the government as a result.

[Canada Education Savings Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister very much for that tribute. I know that the legislation is not perfect. There are things that could be improved. There is no doubt that the amounts we are talking about are quite modest but we also have to be fiscally responsible. The one aspect of it that I find most heartening is it creates an opportunity for people who have never saved before to take that first step. When we create aspirations, we create hope.

I remember when I was about four years old and my family walked me through the campus of the University of Toronto and told me that one day I would go there. That registered with me. I remembered that. There is someone who has worked with me loyally for years who is the first person in her family ever to go on to post-secondary education, first to community college and then to university. To see that growth and fulfilment in a personal way is a great thing.

Whether people come from backgrounds like mine, where it has gone back generations, or whether they are the first generation, seeing people improve their lives is one of the positive things that we can all rally around.

[Canada Education Savings Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to deliver my first address in this chamber. I am particularly fortunate to be able to do so on the subject of post-secondary education and the establishment of the Canada learning bond through Bill C-5.

I am pleased that this bill has the support of the Progressive Conservative Party. We feel that further education is a priority if we are to have a prosperous future for each and every Canadian, and for our society.

That is why the Conservative Party supports Bill C-5.

The Canada learning bond is an initiative that I expect will be welcomed by the residents of my constituency of York--Simcoe. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for the confidence they have expressed in me by sending me to represent them in this great chamber.

York--Simcoe was the place my grandfather chose to make his home after a remarkable life journey, one that figures greatly in my reasons for getting involved in public life.

My grandparents lived in a small country, Estonia, which asserted its nationhood and became a free and independent country for the first time out of the chaos of World War I. In that new freedom people prospered.

My grandparents prospered too and enjoyed the opportunities that came with higher education. My grandfather worked his way from a farm boy to the respected position of county agronomist. My grandmother became a lawyer, a career that few women had the courage to choose in that time, the 1920s. They made a better life and gave back to their community.

However, with World War II came successive waves of Soviet and Nazi occupation and the ultimate annexation of Estonia into the U.S.S.R. My mother and grandparents had little choice but to flee. Paradoxically the education that they possessed made them a threat to the occupying Soviets and they faced an otherwise certain fate at their hands if they did not leave. In fact many family members did face that fate in Soviet Siberian camps or otherwise at the hands of the Red Army.

My family as refugees in search of freedom ultimately chose Canada. The agronomist went to work in a paper factory in Riverdale and the lawyer went to work on the order desk at Sears. They found what they were looking for: freedom, hope and opportunity.

One of the things that often comes with a higher education is a recognition of the possibilities that exist to improve one's life and that of one's family and to build a better community, regardless of the barriers that may be faced, the hurdles that may be encountered and the setbacks that come along the way in life.

The importance of education was impressed upon my mother, who would do her undergraduate and graduate degrees at the University of Toronto, and upon her children, who both followed their grandmother's footsteps into the career of law.

My grandfather thought that an important part of education was to see what real life was and in his opinion that happened on a farm. So, after I was born, he marshalled his resources and bought the farm in Georgina which anchors me today.

Freedom, hope and opportunity are to me what my contribution in public life should be about, what all our contributions should be about. In Canada we are often complacent about the freedom that we enjoy and the opportunities which present themselves, but among many new Canadians these things are immediate and important. Education plays a crucial factor in all three.

It is not a coincidence that new authoritarian governments and occupying forces target the educated in society, for with that education often comes the ability to organize and to fight for freedom. Education is a companion of liberty. Higher education also gives us hope to understand our world better and to improve health, security and the quality of life that we enjoy.

As the economists and educators continually remind us, education brings with it opportunity for personal growth, career advancement and economic prosperity. When the citizens prosper, all the country prospers.

For the people of York--Simcoe the opportunity for all, not just those who have the resources and the means, but the opportunity for all to send their children to post-secondary education is an important objective. For too many it is a challenge that creates anxiety, that is daunting, that is a big mountain to climb.

The typical family profile in York--Simcoe is a young couple, both working hard, trying to pay their mortgage, get ahead and make a brighter future for their children. It is not easy for them. They are good citizens with solid Canadian values that we believe in as Canadians, values that we believe in as Conservatives.

Like those families, we believe that hard work should be rewarded. We believe in self-discipline and responsibility for individual actions and for our families. We believe in honesty, that a promise made should be a promise kept. We believe in property rights and the rule of law. We believe in compassion and support for those who are genuinely in need in society.

They are time tested values that have built civil society. They are the values that have underpinned the advance of humanity. They are values that are all too often ignored by this government through its policies. In that way, the government does not reflect the interests of my constituents in York—Simcoe.

For the people of York--Simcoe the opportunity for them is a frustration. It is something they are grasping at. At every turn those hardworking families are met with heavy taxes and a government that does more to intrude into their lives than to help. They do not understand a federal government that tells them they are not good Canadians if they do not want to pay higher taxes. They would dearly love to save for a child's post-secondary education, but how?

For them they face real choices. Will they give up sending the children to play hockey this year, or will they tell them they cannot have a new bike in the spring? Those are the kinds of choices and sacrifices some of them have to make in order to save for a post-secondary education.

The government could help them most by letting them keep more of their own money. That would give them greater freedom, more hope and genuine opportunity. I hope ultimately the government will do that.

We also believe that Bill C-5, by giving modest income families the means to establish registered education savings plans with an initial $500 contribution, not from the government, but from the taxpayers of Canada, we will help more Canadians achieve their dreams of a higher education. The increased matching grants from the taxpayers of Canada for contributions that those families themselves make to RESPs will also build for that brighter future.

The riding of York--Simcoe can become an even better place if more young people succeed in school and achieve post-secondary education. An educated workforce means more jobs and more prosperity.

An educated population in York--Simcoe can use those skills and ability to improve the quality of our treasured environment. We have a beautiful landscape and environment in York--Simcoe, especially Lake Simcoe. It is our playground. Many take their drinking water from that lake, but it is a lake whose health remains dangerously precarious.

An educated community will mean a richer cultural experience in a community that is already proud of its theatres, its art galleries, its historical sites ranging from the famous Red Barn Theatre to Sharon Temple, a national historic site.

A more educated York--Simcoe will be a better place to live, to work and to raise a family.

Just as York--Simcoe can benefit from encouraging families to save for post-secondary educations for their sons and daughters, so too will all of Canada. Canadians want change and the Canada learning bond represents a change for the better.

In this minority Parliament I am pleased to have been able to stand in a spirit of cooperation to welcome the government's finally taking this initiative. Our party made the Canada learning bond part of our platform in the last election. We are pleased that the government in this case is following our advice and moving forward. Let us hope that that constructive spirit can be an example of how we can work together. If we focus on areas of common ground, we can really see true and genuine benefits for all Canadians.

[Employment Insurance, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, half a billion dollars lost is a failure rate, not a success rate. The minister's department now has a dramatic history of waste and mismanagement from the infamous billion dollar boondoggle onward. Yet there seems to be virtually no interest in addressing the bungling and incompetence as millions of dollars flow out the door unaccountably.

Can the minister tell us if he is aware of any other examples in his department where tax dollars are flowing out the door that should not because the government simply has not managed the programs properly?