Ted Menzies

[Agriculture, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are dealing with one of the most difficult years ever due to wet field conditions combined with the lowest grain prices in over 100 years.

Low commodity prices, slow grain sales and movement are at the root. The Canadian Wheat Board, the railways, the subsidies and domestic support programs in other countries, and our government's agriculture and trade policies, or lack thereof, are all to blame for the situation facing Canadian agriculture today.

Last week I met with the parliamentary secretary, as well as the Minister of Agriculture, and heard the same old responses: the CAIS program is in place, farmers have crop insurance and the Canadian Wheat Board has asked for an increase in initial prices. None of these will put money in farmers' pockets.

Producers still do not have the tools or the opportunities to add value to what they grow.

The government has failed to address this and many of the failures in CAIS and foreign subsidies. I will continue to push the Liberal government to reach an agreement at the upcoming WTO ministerial meetings that will help farmers. This is on the 12th anniversary of the government taking office.

[First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by recognizing the great amount of work that has gone into the drafting of this legislation and the advice that has come from the three first nations. They should be recognized for their leadership. The leaders of the three tribes have taken some flak at home from other treaty nations, but their forward-looking initiatives will pay off very well in the long term.

I would like to recognize the leadership of the White Bear nation in the Moose Mountains in southeastern Saskatchewan, the Blood Tribe and the Siksika First Nation as well. Two of these nations are resident in my riding and I know them very well.

The White Bear First Nation has one of the finest golf courses in Saskatchewan. I had a wonderful opportunity a couple of summers ago to play a round of golf there. There is a wonderful hotel and casino complex for evening entertainment. It is a great place to visit if one has the time.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-54, an act to provide first nations the option of managing and regulating oil and gas exploration and of receiving moneys otherwise held for them by Canada. The bill would give the White Bear First Nation, the Blood Tribe and the Siksika First Nation the authority to manage and regulate all their oil and gas resources and moneys currently administered on their behalf by Indian Oil and Gas Canada.

Although these three first nations are currently the only signatories to this, the bill would enable other first nations to similarly access their oil and gas resources and moneys providing they meet the legislative conditions. By doing so, the bill lays the groundwork for true economic independence and autonomy for Canada's first nations.

For generations Canada has recognized the unique situation of its first nations. I might suggest we have not always addressed them, but we have recognized them. Various measures have been taken over the years to improve the economic condition of first nations.

Some may say that past actions to address first nations economic needs have been overly maternalistic. Some may consider too encouraging of a culture of dependence. Others may feel that before autonomy is granted, complete self-sufficiency must be demonstrated. How can a group of people become more self-sufficient by continuing to rely on government funding?

The reality is, the years of allocating government funding has done little to encourage economic growth within Canada's first nations communities. While this approach was thought to be the most effective one, it has not worked. Without direct control over the resources that generate the revenue, true economic independence is not possible.

For all the millions of dollars that go into first nations communities in Canada, there are still many reserves living in abject poverty with a lack of adequate and proper housing and, as has been referred to very eloquently in the papers and in the House as of late, a lack of safe drinking water. There are still reserves with exceedingly high levels of unemployment and critically low levels of education. There are still reserves ripe with social problems and violence.

While this legislation is not a panacea, it is the next logical step in carrying out Canada's commitments to its first nations. It embodies the concept of sustainable development. It puts power in the hands of the resource owners, giving them the autonomy to develop and reap the benefits of economic self-sufficiency. It is a well known fact that the performance and accountability of aboriginal self-government is enhanced when those who receive services contribute to the cost of those services.

Bill C-54 would allow first nations to achieve greater self-reliance and to benefit from improved governance tools. It would provide the means for first nations to create a unique process and framework of laws within which to exercise full control of their oil and gas resources. It also would demonstrate the ability of first nations and the Government of Canada to address the issue of accountability. On this side of the House we put a lot of credence in accountability. That is why we recognize the value in the bill because it does bring accountability. As this relates of course to the self-management of resources, that is the accountability to which we are referring in the bill.

There are five nations within my riding of Macleod including, as I mentioned, two of the signatories to the act, the Blood Tribe and Siksika First Nation. Naturally the legislation is important to me and to my first nations constituents. I am confident that the first nations that have signed on to this act will be very successful and that they will be the example for other first nations to follow.

These two signatories already have embraced some very unique and promising economic initiatives. For example, the Blood Tribe in southern Alberta, which is under the direction and leadership of Chief Charles WeaselHead at this point, already is active in the oil and gas sector. Western Lakota Drilling, an Alberta based company, approached the Blood Band with an offer to partner on a purchase of a drilling rig. The Blood also has been very active in agriculture. Last year, for example, the Blood Tribe entered into an agreement to market their long fibre hay products to Japan and also to other Pacific Rim countries with a multinational corporation.

The Siksika First Nation is in the midst of creating a world class tourism and interpretive centre. The date has not been set, but sometime in January it is my understanding there will be a grand opening for this interpretive centre. This interpretive centre, called the Blackfoot Crossing, is the historic site of the signing of Treaty 7. It is of national and international historical and archeological significance, and I am proud to say that it is in my riding of Macleod. It has been designated as a national heritage site and is recommended also to be a world heritage site. As a matter of interest, if this is successful in its bid, it will put two world heritage sites on the map in the riding of Macleod, another item of which I am quite proud.

It is easy to see how the legislation is a natural progression for both the Blood Tribe and the Siksika First Nation. It gives these first nations the authority to manage both their oil and gas revenues as well as their money.

Statistics show that status Indians living on reserves represent about 61% of the status Indian population in Canada. That translates to 445,436 on reserve status Indians and 285,139 who live off reserve. In addition, the on reserve status Indian population is expected to increase by almost 58% from 2003 to 2021. This compares with an increase of about 12% for the Canadian population as a whole. About 40% of the status Indian population is under the age of 19 compared with 25% for the entire Canadian population.

As we can see from the numbers Canada's aboriginal communities are young and they are experiencing significant population growth. For this reason it is so very important that our aboriginal communities become more self-sufficient.

We need to ensure that our first nations have the capacity now for future economic strength in the Canadian as well as in the global marketplace. Bill C-54 would help achieve this.

I will now talk about the implementation of the act. First, the legislation is entirely voluntary, which is one of the most important features of this. Although three nations are involved in it at this point, it is through voluntary membership that other nations will be encouraged to sign on to this opportunity. Only those first nations who meet the legislative requirements can proceed with joining on to this program. It requires an affirmative vote by any first nation, a referendum of all eligible voters and an approval by a majority of the majority is required.

Accountability is a key consideration as well. Accountability measures will include annual financial statements in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Annual audits of the financial statements, in accordance with the generally accepted auditing standards, will also be required for those first nations choosing to opt in to the legislation.

A lot of other issues come to mind when we talk about the first nations. We have certainly heard a lot about the drinking water issues in Kashechewan and the negligence of the Liberal government in recognizing how dire a situation those people were put into. It is absolutely deplorable that this is actually allowed to happen in this modern age and in our rich country.

In today's newspaper we read again about the United Nations chastizing Canada once again for not resuming talks on a land claim settlement that has been in discussion for some seven years. It is amazing that we let something that serious drag on for so long. The people who inhabit these reserves deserve much more than what the government has been offering them.

I would like to recognize two colleagues of mine who have been very active in working on the legislation and helping to guide it through. Although it is a government bill, we need to recognize that our Indian and Northern Affairs critic has been very instrumental in making sure, before it was ever drafted, that it would actually acquire the support it needed and would address the issues that it was meant to address.

It is also interesting that we are hearing today about troubles within the first nations among their leadership. I would certainly encourage and hope that they can come together in some sort of agreement and be able to attend the first ministers meeting in Kelowna in the near future with a united front to help the government recognize how much it has forgotten about our first nations and how important they are.

I would like to talk a bit more about the two first nations within my riding. I spoke briefly about the Blood Tribe. I have become good friends with Charlie WeaselHead. He has been a wonderful host when I have been invited to the Blood Tribe for visits.

The Blood Tribe is doing something very unique. For many years its farmland has all been leased out to other farmers. This year it has pulled back about 2,500 acres and it is being leased to some of the members of the band. The band has an irrigation project with somewhere in the neighbourhood of, and correct me if I am wrong, over 50 pivot irrigation systems. More and more of these will be under the control of the band itself.

It is only fitting that the band is strengthening its position in agriculture as a way of providing resources to fund the health projects and the education projects that the band wants to put together on its own reserve and Bill C-54 would provide the band with the resources it needs.

I spoke earlier to their partnership on a drilling rig. My understanding is that this drill rig is not very far from being completely paid off, so there will be great profits not only to the company that they are in partnership with but also to the band itself. I applaud the Blood Tribe for its efforts to ensure that it will some day be self-sufficient. I think that is fundamental to its success and its future.

The Siksika Band, which is just east of Calgary on the Bow River where Treaty 7 was signed, had an incredible issue with flooding this past spring. A lot of the houses on the reserve were, if not destroyed, certainly damaged badly. We are still working with the band and helping it to get these houses back in shape.

However I understand those are not the only first nation houses at issue. I heard my colleague talk about some of the ones in northern Saskatchewan and other places. It is a common problem, not only the flooding but the lack of funding and direction from the federal government.

Another colleague of mine from southeastern Saskatchewan, who is part of the White Bear Nation, which is, as I mentioned, another very forward thinking first nation, has played a pivotal role in helping to put this together.

I would like to sum up by saying that this bill reflects 10 years of consultations with first nations and it follows a very successful pilot project. It is time for the aboriginal government to be given the power to raise its own revenues to reduce the cycle of dependency. Bill C-54, in my estimation, would achieve that.

Bill C-54 would build stronger and more self-reliant aboriginal communities. Bill C-54 would enhance the accountability of band councils through requirements to develop and ratify both an oil and gas code and an environmental code. That is something we have not talked much about but there are environmental requirements and very restrictive environmental controls within this.

I think it is pretty clear that I support the bill and I encourage other hon. members to do the same.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Paul Tellier, the international trade minister's now former advisor on softwood, said that “the file is idle and nothing is happening”. More damning, Mr. Tellier says that “nothing is going to happen until the end of the election campaign”.

With Tellier and Ritchie off the file, is it not true that the government has given up on Canada's softwood industry and plans to drive up anti-American trade rhetoric to gain cheap political points in the upcoming election?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I only wish I had time to repeat my speech because not once during my entire speech did I ever say that these investments were the wrong thing to do. I said they were not enough. I would like to hear the comments from the B.C. premier who put forward a far more aggressive gateway initiative. The member's government has missed the point.

When we speak of opportunities, we have failed in the last 12 years. It has only been in the last three months that the Prime Minister has spoken publicly about the fact that we should look outside our largest trading partner, the United States, for those opportunities. The hon. member suggests that I do not understand that fact. It is absolutely critical to not only grain producers in my riding. Beef producers and manufacturers of all sorts of products would benefit from having expanded trade to the Asian market. However, we need a way to get it there. That is where the government has missed the point.

We are still going to be plowing through a two lane road in the Kicking Horse Pass. When I say plowing, it is literally plowing four months of the year. The two lane road, snowplows and freight trucks do not mix. One simply has to take a drive through there in the wintertime, sit for hours on end and wait for the avalanches to be cleared. This has not been addressed in the gateway proposal. We realize we will be unable to double track CP or CN rail lines immediately. However, putting sidings in where we can increase the capacity of those rail lines would help. Those issues are not addressed in the bill.

There are a lot of failures in the legislation. I never suggested we were not doing the right thing. I am very adamant that we are not doing enough.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia

I am happy to rise to discuss Bill C-68, the Pacific gateway legislation. I will be speaking in support of this legislation, but I take exception to what was said earlier about how it may be enough. I say it is actually too little and too late, but let us hope that we can salvage something out of it. We certainly do not want to stop what could be a productive move.

Across party lines, investing in Canada's trade capacity with Asia through a strong Pacific gateway should be a rallying point for us to all come together, but this legislation does not answer that call. The legislation is about delaying commitments, passing the buck while trying to take credit for simply talking about this issue.

The Pacific gateway concept has received much attention, and rightly so. Years of hard work by the British Columbia government, including the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development and the Ministry of Transportation, as well as the BC Progress Board, a provincially nominated blue ribbon panel of experts, resulted in a comprehensive plan with detailed recommendations.

Instead of trusting the hard work and recommendations of British Columbians, the federal Liberal government has announced its own advisory council to help decide how to spend the $400 million announced in support of the Pacific gateway initiative.

This falls well short of the priorities identified by Premier Gordon Campbell's government. The B.C. plan recommends a $4.9 billion investment in British Columbia's transportation system over the next 10 years. The province is asking Ottawa to contribute on a fifty-fifty basis. The federal Liberals are once again late to the table and about $2.1 billion short. Also, the real work that needs to be done was once again ignored in this Liberal plan.

Let me speak of a few of the recommendations that were ignored. One is the Kicking Horse Pass project. Anyone who has driven through the Kicking Horse Pass realizes what a slowdown it is for freight, especially anyone who has driven through there behind a transport truck and ends up down at about 20 to 25 kilometres an hour. The recommendation was for $730 million to improve this corridor through the Golden and Yoho National Park area. The Liberals decided to ignore that, which is a very crucial part of moving not only people but freight through this pass.

The North Fraser Perimeter Road, at a cost of $250 million, was another recommendation. The B.C. government wanted “to improve the competitiveness of the region's integrated intermodal freight system”. This is essential. The province stated that this would be essential to expanding containerized freight in the lower mainland. There is a tremendous clustering of primary industries around there, but the federal Liberals forgot to recognize that this perimeter road is an integral part of that.

The Port Mann-Highway 1 primary east-west transportation route is another one. The recommendation was for $1.4 billion to improve this route. This is very critical to the freight related truck traffic that goes in and out of that very highly congested area.

Another one is the South Fraser Perimeter Road, at a recommended cost of $800 million. This also was forgotten. This was recognized as a primarily new, four-lane, high standard transportation corridor along the south shore of the Fraser River through the municipalities of Surrey and Delta.

Another is the New Westminster rail bridge, at an undetermined cost. The province has identified that this bridge, being 100 years old, is probably in need of repair. Once again, that recommendation was ignored.

Instead of all these real and important investments that British Columbia and Canada's exporters need, another advisory council of political patronage appointments was put in place, and probably the last thing we need is to discuss something that we all know is broken.

Canada's gateway to the Pacific does not need more bureaucracy. It needs action today.

Federal action needs to be consistent with its international trade strategy. That would be easier, of course, if there were an international trade strategy. What is the point of a gateway to nowhere?

Whether we travel by cargo ship, airplane, rail or road, the fastest way to get between two points starts with knowing where we want to go, but the federal government has not committed to a blueprint or a strategy or even a train of thought on Asia-Pacific trade in the last 12 years.

Canada has had to watch Liberals bounce from country to country, spouting the cliché of the day, trying to suck up to or aggravate the trading partner du jour. The long anticipated international policy statement was more of a rambling question on the issue of Asia.

There is passing recognition of China and India, only an acknowledgement of Japan, and then the ill-conceived selection of South Korea as Canada's entry point into Asia. This will be pursued by a free trade agreement that Canada's trade department is working on as we speak.

There are a few significant concerns in regard to the selection of South Korea. By their own admission, the Liberals have agreed that Canada's shipbuilding sector will be negatively hit.

Canada's auto industry also could be left reeling, as import controls on cheap Korean cars could bring unwelcome pressure on production and foreign investment.

So far, these seem like significant concerns for a free trade partner.

The trade potential with Japan far outweighs that of South Korea and Japan is a more complementary partner that builds on the shared commitment to democracy, human rights and free market economics.

The international policy statement described Japan as follows, “Japan remains the region's largest economy by a substantial margin, the most important investor in Asia, its financial hub, its leading industrial power, and a world leader in R&D”.

Why did we not think about a free trade agreement with Japan?

Japan is Canada's second largest export market and our largest source of foreign investment from Asia. No lasting success can be achieved in China or other dynamic Asian economies without involving Japan. As a result, this Liberal Prime Minister went out and started free talks with, let us guess, South Korea.

The Conservative leader, supported by his caucus, has repeatedly presented a bold vision for Canada's future economic relationship with Japan. Securing a free market access agreement with Japan will create jobs in Canada, bring the prosperity of trade back to our communities and increase our ability to share this wealth with the world.

The absence of a strong Asia-Pacific strategy has left our trade partners to question Canada's priorities and commitments.

Japan's ambassador to Canada was recently so mystified by the Prime Minister's trade plans that he felt compelled to go public with his country's frustrations at a press club speaking event. The ambassador publicly questioned the Liberal government's priorities and expressed disappointment in the failure to expand trade between Canada and Japan.

Said the ambassador, “it's important to see things in perspective. China and India are emerging economies, yes. At the same time in terms of the relative sizes of the economy, Japan's gross domestic product is three times that of China, five times that of Canada...”.

Once again, Liberals are hurting job creation and prosperity in Canada. We know that employment rates rise to the tune of about 11,000 new jobs for every billion dollars' worth of exports and it is shameful that export opportunities and jobs are being lost due to the Prime Minister's lack of perspective.

Despite the promise of export trade to Japan, Statistics Canada reported in May that Canadian export trade to Japan has dropped by 11.4% since the same month last year, a trend that has seen Canadian exports to Japan decline steadily since the 1990s.

There are a couple of points I would like to make very quickly. The government is not addressing the agriculture crisis. We have an opportunity to address one of the issues that impacts my producers, and that is a very slow system of exporting grain. We have congestion in the lower Fraser Valley. One rail line goes to Prince Rupert. The terminal in Prince Rupert works seasonally.

We think the government could have addressed some of these issues through the gateway legislation, but once again it has missed the target. We will not see improvements made to rail transportation or truck transportation that could benefit my producers.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, we have heard a lot of commentary from the other side of the House in this debate and indeed in the last few question periods about how hard they are working to find a solution and how serious the issue is.

I have a copy of a news release from the Minister of Finance who has chosen a patronage appointment for the associate assistant deputy minister of trade, policy and negotiations with the federal Department of International Trade. The reason I raise this is that this individual has been responsible for the management of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.

If the government decided to give that person a patronage appointment, how much credibility, how much importance does the government place on softwood lumber?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I want to commend my hon. colleague on his obvious tremendous understanding of the issue and all the years he has put into this debate. It is unfortunate that it must continue.

I also would like to express frustration on this side of the House and the will to get this solved. It is unfortunate that we are not government. I think we would have had this fixed a long time ago. It seems to me that the most common sense solutions and the deepest understanding of this issue comes from my colleagues and not from the other side of the House.

Following that, I would like my hon. colleague to comment on something we talked about a little earlier and that is the proposal that our leader put forward about envoys, which would get this above the political rhetoric, the letter writing from senators back and forth and the name-calling from the other side of this House to what the Americans have done.

Could the member please comment as to how effective he thinks the envoy proposal might be to reach some sort of a solution?

[Income Tax Act, October 25th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will refer back to some of the research that was done by the hon. member from Westlock—St. Paul. I once again commend him for the tremendous effort that he put into this. We are looking at 400,000 people involved in the present program. I would not want to speculate how much that number would grow, but in 10 seconds I think it would grow immensely.

[Income Tax Act, October 25th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we look at this as a wonderful first step and we are not suggesting this should be the end. Unless I am mistaken, this Liberal government has been in place for almost 13 years and we have not seen this type of forward moving, encouraging legislation for young people. I guess we need a private member's bill to do the government's work. It is interesting to note that those members stand up and criticize a good step like this when they have had 13 years to bring it forward.

I would put this as step number one. We would certainly like to take it further, but one step at a time. If we can get the members on the opposite side of the House to support this, and I certainly hope they do, then we would be encouraged enough to bring some other forward looking legislation before the House again.

I do not have all of the dollars and cents on the credits. As I said in my remarks, it is very minimal, almost nonexistent. It would be offset by the tax credits and the taxes collected by the teachers who have more jobs.

[Income Tax Act, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand this evening and support a private member's bill put forward by my colleague who, unfortunately, is unable to be here. The hon. member for Westlock--St. Paul has put a tremendous amount of effort into the proposed legislation and it is most unfortunate that his health will not allow him to be here to actually speak to this tonight. Therefore I will attempt to fill that spot.

Bill C-271 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act to do with tuition credits and education credits. It amends the act by extending the tuition credit and education credit to individuals who follow a formal course of instruction given by a qualified music teacher for students 16 years of age and older.

At first blush, one might say that this is a bit of a narrow focus but when we do the research on this, as my hon. colleague has, we find that it is a very important issue. Many studies have been done on the value of this sort of encouragement for further education specifically in this field of music.

Bill C-271 would level the playing field for students who wish to pursue music education and also for the music teachers industry. In doing the research we find that it is quite a large industry. A good number of individuals are involved in this.

A constituent of mine provided me with some information on this. There are currently 20,000 private music teachers in this country with an average studio size of 15 to 20 persons per week. We are talking about potentially 400,000 people, so it is much larger than at first might be suggested.

I would remind the House that constituents in my riding of Macleod are impacted by this and concerned enough about it that they have written letters to me and I am sure other members of the House have received those sorts of requests for us to give serious consideration to the bill.

The Income Tax Act currently allows for a tax deduction for individuals who are enrolled in an education institution that is certified by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to be providing courses, other than those designed for a university credit, that furnishes a person with skills for or improves a persons skills in an occupation.

Bill C-271 would extend this same tax deduction to individuals pursuing an accreditation in music from a qualified music teacher, and that is an important part of this. It is only from qualified music teachers.

The formula for calculating the tuition credit and education credit for students pursuing an accreditation in music, as provided in Bill C-271, is simply the same formula that is used to calculate the standing current tuition credit and education credit for students who are already enrolled in post-secondary education.

This of course is certainly under the certification of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and provides courses other than those designed for university credits and it furnishes a person with skills for or improves a persons skills in an occupation.

Bill C-271 has several accountability measures that are very important to the Conservatives in the House because we are always concerned about accountability. We have seen such a lack of it in the House and in the government that accountability is very important. We do not support anything that does not bring accountability into it.

This accountability measure would protect against tax fraud, which also is important. Individuals can only claim a tax deduction for music lessons if they are enrolled in a course of instruction that leads to a diploma. There is an end to this that has to culminate in a diploma before any tax credits are allowable.

The course must be given by a person who is certified by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to be a qualified music teacher and is in the business of giving music instruction. It is very specific in the accreditation of the teachers and of the roles of the students.

In addition, individuals must prove their enrolment by filing a certificate issued by the qualified music teacher with the government. We are never too excited when we see more government interference but if we are going to provide accountability then this is a necessity in this case.

Bill C-271 sets out criteria for the Minister of Human Resource Development to apply when determining eligibility for qualified music teachers. Under the bill, the minister must certify any person who holds an associate or licensed diploma in music, teaching or as a solo performer and that is granted by a designated educational institution, holds a bachelor of music degree or higher in instrumental music, voice or theory, or is a member of a provincial music teachers association.

I am sure a lot of members of the House are not aware that there are provincial music teachers associations. In fact, the author of the bill has consulted very closely with these music teachers associations to ensure they are i comfortable with this and understand all the implications. They were all very supportive of it and are looking forward to seeing it happen.

The Conservative Party believes in greater accessibility to education by eliminating as many barriers to post-secondary education as possible. The transfer will be distributed to provinces and territories on the basis of the numbers of enrolled students. We believe strongly that provincial jurisdiction must be respected. I am sure there will be some people who would suggest that certainly this is provincial jurisdiction but it is important to remember the overarching role of the federal government in this. It does have to play a role in addressing tuition and standards.

Analysis conducted by the Library of Parliament suggests that the costs associated with the bill would be negligible. It makes everyone on this side of the House quite happy when we can actually accomplish something without a burden on the taxpayers.

In addition, the cost to the treasury of extending the tuition credit, an education credit to individuals who follow a formal course, would be partially offset by the tax collected from the music teaching business as a result of increased enrolment. That is a strong argument for supporting this because not only will it encourage students to further their educations but it will expand on an already existing and vibrant music industry. We all know that it will help make the world a much happier place if we have more people who actually know how to play musical instruments.

I would take myself as the exception because I am not much good at playing any instrument but I envy those who can and, especially for those who have the talent, we need to provide them with the opportunity to take part in this at a reasonable cost. We also need to encourage those teachers to continue their business. Lots of these teachers have had wonderful careers in the music industry and can impart some good information, knowledge and advice to the students. Any way we can encourage that I think would be great.

This would create greater access to an alternative form of education. Not everyone fits in the mould like we all think they should. I know some very talented young people who would benefit if we were to extend the tuition credit and the education credit.

We must also be aware that Bill C-271 is a job-creating bill. It is designed to help the students but it is also designed to help the teachers. It would serve to not only create more and better paying careers for music teachers as a result of increased enrolment but it would also provide individuals who receive music accreditation with better paying careers. Hopefully it would increase their musical talents or at least help them to take advantage of that.

The music teaching industry has started a letter writing campaign in support of this legislation. I am sure that hon. members have been aware of this and I certainly hope have answered in the affirmative that they are going to support this bill. The Conservative Party believes that greater access to education is an essential component to creating a more productive economy.

Further to that, I might remind the House that it was only a few weeks ago that our leader actually put forward a very positive education proposal to help those who are not necessarily going to pursue a university education. We very much require more tradespeople. We will never see a more glaring example than in my province of Alberta. We are so short of labour in Alberta right now, with the booming oil industry, that we cannot find enough tradespeople to build the facilities that we need to help produce the oil and gas that heats the homes all across this country and also in the United States of course.

We are very much encouraged with the support we have of continuing the unfettered flow of oil and gas across the border, much to the surprise of some of the members opposite who might suggest we use that as a tool. That cannot happen. It is not a federal jurisdiction. We do not want to see that happen.

I am getting a little off topic. The issue is that it is not only the music industry that can benefit from looking outside the box. Not everyone needs a university education. Our leader put forward ideas to encourage tradespeople by helping them buy their equipment, encourage instructors to add to their programs to help students get the required trades skills that will be needed in the future, and to encourage the industries to develop apprenticeship programs. This bill very much fits into the mindset that the Conservatives have of encouraging education not only for youth, 16 and older, but for all those interested in contributing in other than just university roles.

Canada is very rich in musical talent and I envy people from the Maritimes. They seem to have much more talent. Albertans seem to be quite talented at extracting oil and gas from the earth, but we see the talents that the folks have in Atlantic Canada. Maybe we can teach more of these young Atlantic Canadians and they can impart some of their talent on those of us in western Canada. That is not to say we do not have a lot of talent in that part of the country.

I found some other interesting notes that I would like to share with the House. According to a benchmark study done for the Coalition for Music Education in Canada, funding for music programs is not keeping pace with demand and, hence, the need for this new piece of legislation. Quebec and Ontario have seen the largest decrease in the size of music programs, and time and financial resources are the biggest impediment to implementing these programs.

Other studies have found that the benefits of musical instruments are numerous other than giving us a lot of entertainment value. We all enjoy listening to those who are talented. Students involved in music programs actually show an increase in their IQ. I will not go into any further comments about how much music is needed in the House, but I think we all know that it would certainly help.

Music increases SATs, and the ability for students to retain more knowledge. It lowers their stress levels and increases their enjoyment of school, and goodness knows we could use more of that.

I will wrap up by quoting a researcher from the University of California in Irvine which stated:

Taking piano lessons improves specific math skills in elementary school children, according to a study by UC Irvine researchers. Piano instruction is believed to enhance the brain's “hard-wiring” for temporal reasoning the ability to visualize and transform objects in space and time. Music specifically helps with fractions and proportional math.

I support this bill and urge my hon. colleagues to do the same.