Rob Anders

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, here we are again, another session of us giving the folks at home an update of what is happening in Ottawa.

To Henry and Martha in Rimbey, Alberta I say put your feet up on your chair and here we go. It is another lesson in what is happening with the EI fund. What it basically boils down to is a $15.7 billion surplus that is being collected by the finance minister. People are probably asking themselves where it is going.

It is not actually being set up in an EI fund. It is going toward general revenue, which means it is kind of being rolled along with everything else. Remember that Canada pension plan increase people are all feeling now. It is being rolled along with that as well. It is all really part of a tax grab. That is what it basically amounts to.

A lot of people will not qualify for employment insurance out of this fund. One, they are collecting too much money to even reasonably be able to pay it out. The other thing is that there are a lot of students who are paying into this fund who, because of the temporary nature of their work, will never qualify. Really it is amounting to a percentage tax on their income.

I ask for unanimous consent for this motion to be votable.

[Bps Call Centre, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, human resources bungling cost taxpayers $1 million and Newfoundlanders 124 jobs when the BPS call centre went belly up. Now we have learned that the $1 million earmarked for company salaries did not even get to the employees. The Newfoundland government is picking up the tab.

Since the minister is forcing taxpayers to pay twice for jobs that no longer exist, why will he not tell us where the money went?

[Bps Imaging, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development was asked about the job buying fiasco at BPS Imaging in Newfoundland and he said he had not heard about it.

Frankly, I am not surprised. Only years of shortsighted job buying scams from Ottawa can explain the dullness on the government bench. But the bungling incompetence at BPS Imaging is less disturbing, less troubling than the bungling incompetence in the government that approved it.

After spending a million taxpayer dollars to subsidize jobs at BPS, did the minister ensure the jobs he was buying would be permanent? No.

BPS shut its doors last week after only seven months in operation. Did he secure the taxpayer money with BPS assets before making the loan? No. There were a million valuable job training dollars wasted. Did the minister tell us how his department plans to recover the funds? No.

Canadians are on the hook and in the dark. Once again the federal government attempts to broker hope in Newfoundland and fails to deliver.

[Transitional Jobs Fund, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, how is this for a job buying fiasco? In October last year human resources development spent a cool $1 million of taxpayers' money from the transitional jobs fund for BPS Imaging, a call centre in Newfoundland. Now, a mere seven months later, BPS has closed its doors and 124 people are out of work.

Why did the minister not secure the funds with BPS assets or put the money into job training that actually works?

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Very undemocratic.

With that, I subside. Those are the reasons why the opposition enacted filibuster. I am proud to say I was probably one of the biggest pains in the government's side in filibuster and am proud to have been so.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Oh, indeed I do because filibustering is something that has been used by opposition parties since the beginning of parliament. It is one of the few tools that we actually have to be able to change government legislation.

As a result of the Reform filibuster, Bill C-19 was changed so that people who were offsite workers, contract workers would not be forced to have their names given over to union organizers. That way their home addresses would not be violated by union organizers along the lines of ding-dong, knock knock, the unions calling at their home addresses.

The opposition was able to get some amendments to Bill C-19 as a result of our filibuster in committee. However there are things that have not changed. Successor rights is indeed one of the things the government has not changed.

There are reasons we were enacting a filibuster and I am going to speak to this today. I would not have done so otherwise but I think it is important that people know why the opposition was doing that type of thing.

This is the way it works in this setting for the information of the folks at home. The opposition puts forward amendments, much like we are doing today, substantive, real amendments like successor rights, but the government most often turns them down and does not give them fair and due consideration. If the amendments are put forward in cabinet or if they are put forward by members of the government, whether they be in committee or privately to cabinet members or however that process may work, they are more likely to be considered and implemented.

We were given good information that there were people on the government side who had problems with successor rights as they stand in Bill C-19 and there were people who had problems with privacy concerns and there were people who had problems with the violation of the secret ballot as proposed in Bill C-19, along with a few other things. We were giving those members time to bring those concerns forward in committee and they failed to do so. Those members who said they had a backbone in the government caucus and said they had a backbone in the cabinet failed to have one and failed to bring forward those changes to Bill C-19.

To the Minister of Labour who said that he did not have the resources in his own office to fight his own departmental officials on those aspects of Bill C-19 that he thought were over the top, shame on him. To the Minister of National Revenue who had concerns yet did not bring forward these things in committee and did not actually get a change when push came to shove, shame on him. Shame on them. To the Liberal caucus members who sat in HRD committee and argued along with the Reform Party on some of these substantive changes that we wanted early on when we were questioning witnesses in testimony, shame on them for not having put forward those amendments.

We wanted to see those things brought forward. We will be speaking about them today at report stage and we will be speaking about them at third reading. Shame on the government for not having brought those things forward. We know that is the only way those things would have been given proper and due consideration. The fact that the government put the 40th time allocation since it has been in office shows that government members have had little will or little backbone to stand up to the department.

Bill C-19 basically amounts to a departmental official being shuffled off for many years into a sideline of the labour department. Mike McDermott finally had his glowing chance and I talked with him many times in committee. To him I say, I guess you finally have your chance to leave your glowing mark on Canadian labour legislation by going ahead and embedding successor rights, going ahead and violating the secret ballots in workplace democracy, going ahead and not allowing final offer selection arbitration, but shoving through instead more cabinet power.

Rather than trying to achieve peace in the workplace, they are going ahead and giving the power more thumbs down control over the worksites which does not promote labour peace.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but respond to some of the criticisms that were levelled from across the way.

The reason the Reform Party was filibustering in committee—

[The Senate, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can send us a press release.

On June 11, 1990, Stan Waters was appointed to the Senate after being elected by the people of Alberta. That did not require constitutional change.

In 1993 the Prime Minister had this to say about the Senate: “The Liberal government in two years will make it elected. As Prime Minister, I can make it happen”.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister whose leader promised us an elected Senate. How does he plan to make it happen?

[Canada Student Loans, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the folks at home who may be watching this debate I will read once again the motion that we are debating. The motion was brought forward by one of my NDP colleagues and it reads: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reverse the privatization of Canada Student Loans, reject proposals for income contingent loan repayment, and should instead implement a federal student grant program and establish accessibility as a new national standard for post secondary education”.

Let us address this motion section by section.

First, the motion is calling for us to reverse the privatization of Canada student loans.

In my assessment the government moved toward privatizing Canada student loans because it had a bad track record on defaults.

In the period 1990-91, 25.78% of student loans had default problems. In the 1991-92 fiscal year 27.23% of student loans had default problems. In fiscal year 1992-93, 28.84% had default problems. Notice that each year the figure is going up. In 1993-94, 29.79% of student loans had default problems. In fiscal year 1994-95, 31.1% of student loans had default problems. According to our numbers 1995 is the last year for which these figures are available. The amount of student loans with default problems crept up each year during the period 1990 to 1995.

There is a combination of problems. There is some form of remission, or there is some form of granting, or there is some form of actual bankruptcy, or there is some form of late payment. There are probably other scenarios that wind up in a default complication.

We are not talking pennies. They are pretty substantial sums of money. Last year it was estimated that student loans in Canada would cost about $643 million. That was the estimate, but the government exceeded that. As a result more people qualified and it wound up costing taxpayers $743 million. That is just for one year.

As of last year there were outstanding loan guarantees of up to $3.5 billion. We are talking about some pretty substantial assets. If we are dealing with close to $4 billion in outstanding assets on student loans we cannot treat this lightly. If the government did not do a good job from 1990 to 1995 in terms of the stats we have seen, maybe privatizing student loans is a worthwhile option to explore.

The government has loaned this money and it has turned the loans over to the private institutions, the banks, because it was not doing a good job. Thirty per cent of the loans were going into default with the government looking after them, so the government finally got them out of its back pocket and gave them to the banks to see if they could do a better job. In order for the banks to pick up this responsibility they wanted a 5% premium.

The government gave out $743 million in loans last year. It was projected that the premium would be $16 million. However, because the government went way over budget with the loans, the premium rose to $29.4 million. Last year the Government of Canada paid the banks in Canada roughly $30 million to look after Canada student loans. That is based on approximately $700 million that was given out in student loans.

The government is looking to loan this money out, but by paying the premium to the banks it is hoping to have the banks pick up the problems of chasing people who default on their loans.

That is one of the problems associated with post-secondary education in this country.

Another problem underpins everything. It is one thing to have a loan, but if the borrower cannot find a job when they graduate they have a real problem.

I remember a party either in the 1993 or the 1997 election. If I remember correctly it campaigned on jobs, jobs, jobs.

Let me think now. It was the Liberals. That is who it was. They campaigned on jobs, jobs, jobs. But those students who got those loans, loans, loans came out of the universities and post-secondary institutions and they could not find those jobs, jobs, jobs. They had debt, debt, debt. As a result we have all sorts of massive default, default, default. There is a serious problem on our hands.

We could go ahead and as the NDP says allow the government to take over the student loans programs again but that would not solve the problem. The real underpinning problem is that there is a lack of jobs for students when they come out of post-secondary institutions. That is the real problem. There has not been a delivery on the jobs front. That is why they are having problems.

If students after their post-secondary education step into jobs, they do not have problems repaying their student loans. As a matter of fact, students in this country only pay a little over 10%, and one of the figures in a Diane Francis article is about 11% of their education. The government covers close to 80% of their education costs and there is the private sector funding which is arranged through alumni associations.

When everything is taken in, students are not paying that much. They are paying around 15% at tops 20%, or a sixth of the cost of their education. If they are able to get a subsidy of five-sixths for their education, as long as they are able to find a job, repaying the student loan is not a problem. The problem is that there are no jobs for them.

The Liberals say they are going to promise jobs and it does not happen. The NDP says we should have the government look after student loans. Unfortunately the government has an abysmal record on student loans. Students are therefore left between a rock and a hard place. And there comes the Reform Party.

In the second aspect of Motion No. 132, the NDP wants to reject proposals for income contingent loan repayment. Let me give a thumbnail sketch for the folks at home and all those Liberals across the way because I know they are paying attention. Education is a big priority for all of them.

An income contingent loan would allow students when they come out of an educational institution and if they get a job right away, the ability to link their salary to their ability to repay their student loan. If students find work when they graduate, they repay the student loan. On the other hand if they cannot find work, or they find only part time work, then they link the amount of money they are making to the loan repayment. As a result they may not be making full repayment, but they are making a partial repayment. This is better than what we have right now.

Right now it is a simple on and off switch. If a student graduates and is able to pay, they pay the full shot whether or not it makes sense according to their budget. If they come out and cannot afford the full amount but can afford a partial amount of the student loan, rather than being able to pay that partial amount, it automatically defaults because of the on and off switch mechanism with regard to student loans. They do not pay any of it. That is not fair to the taxpayer and it is not fair to the students.

As a result, income contingent student loans would allow students who have the ability to pay, to pay. Those who do not have the ability to pay would be able to push repayment on to a later period of time when they finally find work.

One of the ways to make sure the loan is repaid is to take the income out of an income tax refund if they have one. I have encountered examples of students who are not fairly reporting their income to the financial institution holding the loan, or in some way are trying to skirt the process. If it is linked to their social insurance number, we get rid of the default problems and make sure that the loans are being repaid. Therefore with income contingent student loans we take care of both problems.

If a student cannot find a job promised to them by the Liberals, then they are not having to make full repayments. If defaults are a problem, and the NDP is not going to be able to explain that the government cannot do a decent job of collecting on student loans that are legitimately owed by students to the government or to the banks if they may be privatized, then a system is set up where it is linked to social insurance numbers and these things can actually be traced. There is less of a problem for students who are honestly repaying their student loans and we can actually get repayment from those who are defaulting sometimes in spurious circumstances. That addresses two of the big problems.

I would like to address the lack of spending priorities. You will have to help me out again, Mr. Speaker. There was a party which campaigned in 1993 and in 1997. It said it was the party of health care and it said it was the party of education. Its members said that those two things were fairly sacred social institutions and we would have to almost torture them for them to in any way impact the funding for programs in health care and education.

I remember who it was. It was the Liberals. They said they were not going to cut health care and education but they actually did. It was massive amounts of money. In education alone it was $1.5 billion. They cut huge amounts of money out of education.

What about the money we spend on foreign aid? Are students not more important? What about subsidies to profitable corporations, the CBC? I could go on, Mr. Speaker, you know I could.

In any event income contingent student loans are the way to go.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member across the way with his hockey analogies and what not.

We have really sunk low in the House when the Liberals are comparing our economic situation and our health system to that of Russia, a country that has gone through an economic and political meltdown.

The Liberals say we have the best health care system in the world. Who are they kidding when they dare to compare it to Russia? They say that our compensation on hep C is better than what the Russian people are getting. What type of comparison is that? That is stooping as low as they can go to draw an analogy between what Russia has done for hep C victims and what Canada can do for hep C victims. The difference is we have not had an economic and political meltdown. We have a budget surplus. These are things Russia could only dream of in decades.

As well, they had the audacity to talk about this not being a solution that the lawyers came up with.