TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 24, 1994
Bill C-251. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 4305
Bill C-28. Motion for second reading 4306
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4306
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4328
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 4332
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4338
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4339
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 4339
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 4339
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4340
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4341
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4341
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4342
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4342
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4342
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4343
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4343
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4344
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4344
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4345
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4345
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4346
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4347
Bill C-28. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 4349
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 4368
Consideration resumed of motion 4369
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 36; Nays, 169 4369
Consideration resumed of motion 4370
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4371
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4377
4305
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 24, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 47(1) of the
Public Service Employment Act, I have the honour to table
today, in both official languages, the second annual report to the
Prime Minister on the state of the Public Service of Canada.
This document should be referred to the Standing Committee
on Government Operations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to a number of petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-251, an act to provide that Remembrance Day
be included as a holiday in public service collective agreements.
He said: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure in this
new Parliament to introduce this private member's bill. I
introduced the same bill in the last Parliament and we almost got
it through. It passed second reading but unfortunately had some
difficulty in committee. It enjoyed all party support to some
degree.
The bill seeks to ensure that Remembrance Day is kept as a
statutory holiday under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It
does not in any way try to extend the bill into any of the
collective agreements that come under the Canada Labour Code.
It reaffirms that Remembrance Day is a holiday, it is a special
day of remembrance and it should not be traded away in
collective agreements.
The original intention two years ago in introducing a similar
bill was because there had been some negotiations in the public
sector in which both government and the unions put
Remembrance Day as a holiday on the table. We were told at that
time that Remembrance Day could have been traded as a
holiday, say in lieu of an extra day after Boxing Day.
Remembrance Day truly is not a holiday but a day to
remember those who have made the supreme sacrifice so that we
and others could be free. This bill seeks to regularize, statutize
and ensure that all agreements entered into under the Public
Service Staff Relations Act could not make it a tradable holiday.
It would have to take place and it would have to be observed on
the date, November 11.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1010)
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Madam Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to ask
the House if there would be unanimous consent to revert to the
presentation of reports by standing and special committees to
give the hon. member for La Prairie the opportunity to present
the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
4306
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present this morning the second and third reports
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
In its second report, the committee examined the estimates of
the Auditor General's office for the 1994-1995 fiscal year.
Committee members heard testimony from the Auditor General
concerning the role of his office and the funds allocated to it for
the purpose of carrying out its mandate. The committee is
confident that the Auditor General's office has sufficient
resources to carry out its mandate during the current fiscal year.
With respect to employment equity, women account for 17.7
per cent of the employees in the management category within
the AG's office, whereas the goal at the outset was to achieve a
15-per-cent representation. Therefore, the objective set has
been surpassed.
As a result of sound management and an improvement in
productivity, the AG's office has successfully reduced its
expenditures for 1994-1995 by 6.3 per cent. You will agree that
it has set an example for other government departments and
agencies to follow in endeavouring to provide cost-effective
services to Canadians.
The committee also examined and reported on vote 30 under
the heading Finance in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1995.
_____________________________________________
4306
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification) moved that Bill C-28, an act respecting the
making of loans and the provision of other forms of financial
assistance to students, to amend and provide for the repeal of the
Canada Student Loans Act, and to amend one other act in
consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, may I ask for the indulgence of the
House for a moment? I would like to provide a special welcome
in our galleries to the grades 3 and 4 class of Hopewell school
with which I have a family connection. It is very nice to have
them here.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Madam Speaker,
it is appropriate that I am here to introduce the bill on education
and student loans at a time when we have such a youthful
audience in our gallery.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to speak today
on the reform of the student loans program.
As you know, we were elected to create jobs, help the
economic recovery and give young Canadians hope again. That
is why I announced a youth employment and training strategy a
few weeks ago. I can tell you that we are moving ahead very
quickly.
Recently, senior provincial and federal officials met to
discuss the trainee program. We hope to announce the first
initiatives very soon, which will give 60,000 young people job
training in business within three years.
(1015)
[English]
As members of the House would also know-I have certainly
had many representations in this regard-we will be creating
over 60,000 jobs for young Canadians this summer. That will be
an increase of 20 per cent over last year. This program has
always been well received and is particularly appropriate for
young people.
Just last Friday in Winnipeg I announced the first 37 lead sites
under the youth service corps. We are already engaged in a
number of initiatives to try to give some new sense of hope and
aspiration to young Canadians.
Today I want to address the House on another very central or
key priority in the youth employment strategy and the major
reforms we propose for the Canada student loans program.
Over the years the Canada student loans program has been a
fundamental foundation of the entire higher education system.
We rank among the top countries in the level of public assistance
for university and community college students. We are certainly
much more generous and extensive than many other countries in
the OECD. Over 900,000 full time and more than half a million
part time students are pursuing post-secondary education to
make their futures brighter and to give them some sense of the
skills they will need for the future.
However, like many other social and educational training
programs sponsored at the federal level, our student loans are no
longer designed to meet today's needs. There are very serious
gaps in the programs which allow young people to fall between
the cracks or put barriers or disincentives in their way.
There are rigidities in the system which do not allow us to
provide for the flexibility that today's education requires.
Young Canadians, their families, the educational community
and student groups have repeatedly called for fundamental
reform in the area of student loans. The bill is the first attempt in
more than 30 years to try to come to grips with these necessary
changes.
4307
We propose in the legislation a much broader and more
inclusive system that will bring people in from the margins and
help those most in need. The result will be a system with various
components and greater access to funding. Support in school
and after school will facilitate employment, security and
opportunities for learning. In short, it will give young Canadians
the tools they need to achieve educational goals.
I tell members of the House that in preparing for the
legislation we consulted with a wide variety of people: the
Canadian Federation of Students, the National Educational
Association, disabled students, the Association of Universities
and Colleges, and the provinces. We all agree there are at least
three main reasons change is required.
First, the Canada student loans program has been greatly
underfunded. Full time loans have been frozen at a level of $105
per week since 1984. Yet education costs during that same
period have jumped by over 58 per cent. Every member of
Parliament has encountered students and former students who
have had problems obtaining enough resources to continue their
studies or who had difficulty repaying their loans. The proposed
bill would address both these problems by substantially
increasing the aid to students and by introducing measures that
would ease the problems of repayment.
A second major reason for the change is the changing
requirements of the labour market. The majority of jobs created
by the year 2000 will require a minimum of 17 years of
schooling. Yet approximately 60 per cent of our young people
currently enter the workforce directly from high school with no
further structured education or training. The great tragedy is that
close to 30 per cent of young people drop out of school before
they even reach the high school level. I do not think there is any
greater argument or any greater reason that we must
substantially improve access to our post-secondary education
system.
There are also very important changes taking place in the
population, especially with respect to those using our schools
and universities. Although the majority of students are young
people under the age of 25, increasingly Canadians born in the
fifties and sixties are also returning to school. There has been a
remarkable increase in the number of people who want to come
back to school. This means that we must provide substantially
better support for part time students or for adult returning
students. Let me now present what in concrete terms we propose
to do in the legislation.
(1020)
First, we will increase the loan limits by 57 per cent or to the
same level they would have been if there had not been a 10-year
freeze imposed by the previous government. As a result full time
loans will increase to $165 a week from $105 a week.
Second, the proposed act works for students with disabilities
whose numbers in colleges and universities do not come close to
reflecting their proportion of people in the population. Students
with disabilities confront many obstacles to full participation in
our economic mainstream. Learning should not be one of them.
It is believed that fewer than 3 per cent of Canada's full time
university and college students are those with disabilities.
The bill will deal directly with those situations by reducing
the barriers. A survey by the National Educational Association
of Disabled Students reported that taken together federal and
provincial aid to students is totally inadequate. It also reported
that $3,000 or less annually would help to meet the shortfall.
As a result we are providing in the legislation permission for
students with permanent disabilities to qualify for grants up to
$3,000 a year. This means that for the first time we will open the
doors for those with disabilities in a very major way. It means
that they will have more flexibility in their programs. They can
take fewer courses and have more time to complete their studies.
Students with permanent disabilities will also continue to be
eligible to apply for forgiveness of the loans if they run into
difficulties with repayment.
As many members of the Chamber will recognize, there are
inequities for women in higher education. Current imbalances
must be addressed. Although women are now well represented at
the undergraduate level of universities and colleges, they are
substantially under-represented in areas of post graduate
studies. One-third of doctoral degrees are awarded to women.
Only 9 per cent of doctoral degrees in areas like engineering and
applied sciences go to women and only 17 per cent of those are
in mathematics and physical sciences. This is a situation in
which positive intervention on the part of government can help
to correct these inequalities. Special opportunity grants of up to
$3,000 a year will be available to women taking doctoral
programs. Through this we will be able to substantially increase
their access to fields like engineering, physical sciences and
applied mathematics.
A third area of major change is the need to cope with the
increasing number of people coming in as part time students.
Part time students presently make up over one-third of all
college and university enrolments in Canada. Many of them are
helped by employers or work to finance their own studies.
Clearly they do not need a large amount of government support,
but there is a substantial minority of part time students who need
financial assistance to continue in school. Student groups and
educational associations have called for improvements in the
part time loans program.
As Canadians go through the cycle of lifelong learning there
will no longer be a question of simply being able to go to school
as a young person, graduate and work for the same employer
year after year. We are now in a situation in which they will be
changing their workplace perhaps four or five times during their
4308
working careers. To do so they will constantly have to go back to
school to improve skills, upgrade education and substantially
enhance their educational opportunities.
As a result we are proposing to raise the maximum loan for
part time students by almost 60 per cent from $2,500 to $4,000.
In addition under the new financing arrangements the repayment
burden on part time students would be reduced by allowing them
to pay only the interest on the loans while they are studying.
(1025 )
We also recognize that students who are single parents or
people on income support assistance may not be able to meet the
eligibility requirements for full time loans. These students need
special attention to top up their resources, and the bill will
provide it. Therefore special opportunity grants of up to $1,200
a year will be available to part time students with high financial
needs. That will allow the single parent with children a
substantial opportunity to go back to school. These grants will
be used for direct costs of education such as tuition, books, local
transportation and child care. It will provide a new foundation
for part time students, especially single mothers, to go back to
school.
At the present time the average student loan is around $6,000.
However about 7 per cent of students graduate with debts of
more than $15,000. Several provinces have recognized that very
heavy debt burden and have implemented systems of deferred
grants or loan forgiveness linked to the completion of studies.
In consultations on the reforms it became obvious that
increasing loan levels would also increase debt levels. To ease
the debt burden of high need borrowers we are creating a system
of deferred grants to equalize and put them on a parallel with
less needy students. Under the revised program individuals with
Canadian student loans in excess of $16,000 on graduation
would be eligible for a deferred grant. Under the new provisions
we estimate that up to 21,000 students beginning studies in
1995-96 would be eligible for deferred grants when they
graduate at the end of the decade.
Easing the transition from school to work makes eminent
good sense. Canada wants and needs young people to pursue
higher education. We are also urging all other Canadians,
middle aged or old, to improve their abilities through lifelong
learning. We cannot point to education as a key to success and
then deny support to people who want to go back to school. The
transition from school to work can be very difficult. Therefore
the deferred grants will substantially help students with high
financial need.
Under the present system the federal government can pay the
interest on loans for up to 18 months. Their unemployment may
be either as a result of their inability to find employment or
because of a temporary disability or illness. This interest relief
provision is effective in reducing the number of borrowers who
default after leaving studies. However former students in low
paying jobs cannot obtain this benefit. We intend to extend
interest relief to include those in part time or low paying work.
In other words, we will not penalize people for working at entry
level jobs which allow them to gain experience and show
employers what they can do.
A major problem with the existing program that has been
highlighted by the Auditor General is the default issue. The bill
would address the problem by authorizing agreements with
lenders based on the risk sharing approach. Under the new
arrangements the existing 100 per cent government guarantee
would be removed and lenders would assume the liability for
loans that must be repaid. Many loan defaults under the current
loan program occur because lenders do not have the incentive to
be diligent in servicing and collecting student loans.
The new financing arrangements are designed to provide
incentives for lenders to give better services to students and for
students to succeed in their studies. Lenders will help prevent
defaults by offering income sensitive terms of repayment. The
loan package was designed to meet the needs of students and to
ensure that each student is treated as an individual, not simply as
a number.
Let me stress that these new financing arrangements will not
limit the access of students to loans. The basic objective of the
program is to ensure students the credit and access they need to
pursue their studies. That is why governments have a role to play
in student assistance. The underlying objective of the student
loans program will remain and all eligible students will continue
to receive their loans.
I am sure there is a number of other major initiatives in the bill
that my colleagues on this side of the House will address.
(1030 )
I would like to make two additional comments which I think
provide some new flexibility. First, as it deals with provinces.
[Translation]
For example, as hon. members know, Quebec has its own
student loans system. Unfortunately, under the old system, there
was no cost sharing for students with special needs, as I said in
my speech. Under the new system, loans for students with
special needs in Quebec will increase. Also, there will be a new
cost sharing for student loans in Quebec.
I think that this is another example of co-operation between
the provinces and the federal government in this important
system for students and for education.
4309
[English]
I would like to point out another feature which I personally
think is very crucial. We are in a world where we have to rethink
much of what we are doing in education. In particular we have to
begin to look at how we can substantially increase private
participation, private investment in education. I said earlier that
in Canada we spend perhaps the highest percentage of public
moneys to assist in higher education but we have one of the
lowest records of private involvement, private participation,
private investment.
In order to ensure a brand new system of learning that will
encompass opportunities at all stages and all levels of life and
learning, we are going to have to give more incentive back to
individuals to invest in their own educational opportunities.
One way that has been explored in a few countries such as
New Zealand and Australia has been the notion of income
contingency repayment. It allows students who take a loan to
repay at the level of their income as opposed to a flat rate so that
the deterrent of having a loan or a debt at the end of your regime
does not provide a barrier.
We are proposing in this legislation to introduce an
opportunity to work with individual provinces to set up a series
of pilot projects to test out the notion of income contingency
repayment. I can say to members of the House that I have
already had several conversations with provincial ministers of
education who have shown an interest in this program. It will
substantially rewrite the way that we provide incentives for
individuals to invest in their own education without the fear of
having serious debts at the end. It will provide a scaled down
portion of repayment.
I think this is a sign of the future. It is the kind of building
block that we can put in place to make a new revision and reform
and renewal of our broad based higher educational programs. I
hope members of the House will take a look at these innovations
that we have brought in to provide these new opportunities and
see how they can act as a new framework through which we can
rewrite the blueprint for higher education in Canada.
I very much appreciate the attention of the House in
introducing this important legislation. I believe it will be a very
major step forward in the immediate opportunity for
improvements in the level of loans. It will give a substantial
increase in opportunity for students with disabilities, women
attending graduate school and students of high financial need. It
will provide much broader access and will be new ground in the
notion of the income contingency repayment and a new system
of providing a lender based system using our banks and financial
institutions to provide the capital while we provide the backup
guarantee.
I do not pretend that this is the end of the reform. As members
of this House will know we embarked on a much broader process
of social reform in the country. I hope to be able to table for
members in several weeks the broad framework of what we
propose. This is a very important element. I think we all
recognize how crucial the necessity for better learning, for
better education, for better understanding of one's skills and
abilities will be. We are going to be a society based upon high
education and high skilled information technology. Therefore
we have to ensure that our educational system keeps pace and
stays relevant to those needs.
(1035)
With this I strongly recommend to the House the passage of
this legislation. I look forward to the discussions in committee. I
hope that we can have fairly quick and speedy assessment by
members so that this new program can be up and ready for
students by the school year beginning this fall. If we can do that,
I think this Parliament will make a very important statement to
all Canadians that we are concerned and committed to their
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, as the Official
Opposition critic for training and youth, I welcome this
opportunity to speak to Bill C-28 amending the Canada Student
Loans Act. However, before commenting the bill per se I would
like to say a few words about the presentation the Minister of
Human Resources Development has made. Just to say it seems
to me that he had much more to say about the programs included
in this education and work strategy for young Canadians and
what he planned to do with his bill than about the bill itself. As
far as I am concerned, this bill exemplifies the kind of vague
wording used as a smoke screen by a government which tries,
unsuccessfully, to hide its centralizing designs. The bill does not
say much. Unfortunately, we will have to wait for the
accompanying regulations to be able to fully appreciate its
impact.
One can wonder what the Liberal government's real
intentions are with Bill C-28. For example, by raising the
ceiling of student loans, is the government setting the stage for a
further reduction of its contribution to the funding of higher
learning institutions? As vague as are the wording and the
general statements with regard to amending the existing
legislation, one can nonetheless identify certain guidelines out
of this bill.
At a time student indebtedness has become unbearable due to
lack of available jobs, the government is taking measures that
will only put them further into debt and make it more difficult to
pay off their debts. Let us bear in mind that Bill C-28 is part of
the youth education and work strategy announced April 15 by
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
4310
On that very day, I denounced this strategy that I considered
as a further infringement in the area of education, an area which,
according to the Constitution of Canada, comes under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Must we remind the
minister that this goes against the fundamental interests of
Quebec, a position which was reaffirmed unanimously in the
Quebec National Assembly on April 14?
These amendments to the students grants and loans system is
but one element of the social programs reform on which the
Minister of Human Resources Development has supposedly
undertaken consultation with the people of Quebec and Canada.
What is the rush? The minister did not even have the decency to
wait for the results of the consultation held by the Standing
Committee on Human Resources and to secure the support of the
provinces before going ahead with this part of the social
programs reform.
Again, what the Prime Minister meant when he said during the
election campaign that he did not want to talk about the
Constitution is becoming apparent today. Reading between the
lines, we can deduce, as he actually invited us to do, that from
now on he will pay no attention to provincial jurisdiction and
impose such things as national education standards. As it turns
out, this government has not learned a thing. It is going ahead
with measures that can only increase duplication which is a
shameful waste of public funds.
(1040)
The most important question we should ask on Bill C-28 is
this: Why does the government want to change financial
assistance to students? The first reason is obvious. Bill C-28
gives more power to the Minister of Human Resources
Development. That is essentially the first and most important
reason in our opinion.
First of all, with respect to the appropriate authority, this bill
says that the Minister may designate for a province an
appropriate authority, which may designate educational
institutions that offer courses at a post-secondary school level
in or outside Canada.
Under the old Canada Student Loans Act, the appropriate
authorities were designated by the Lieutenant Governor in
Council of the province concerned. This will now be done by the
Minister of Human Resources Development himself because
Clause 3.(1) specifies that:
3.(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister may, by order, designate for a
province
(a) an appropriate authority, which authority may designate as designated
educational institutions any institutions of learning in Canada that offer courses
at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions; and
(b) an appropriate authority, which authority may designate as designated
educational institutions any institutions of learning outside Canada that offer
courses at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions.
(2) An appropriate authority may revoke any designation made by it under
subsection (1), and any designation made in respect of the province under the
Canada Student Loans Act and, in the case of a designation of a class, may
exclude any named institution from that designation.
4.(1) The Minister may enter into an agreement with an appropriate authority,
or with an appropriate authority and the government of the province for which
the authority was designated, respecting the exercise or performance of any of
the authority's powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations.
In this case, the Minister of Human Resources Development
is the authority in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction
recognized by the Constitution.
4.(2) The Minister-
-of Human Resources Development-
-may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or
performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the
regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority.
The minister could enter into agreements with the provinces
to harmonize the administration and financing of student loans
throughout Canada. Does abolishing the existing provincial loan
allocation formula mean that the minister can require the
provinces to respect a greater number of national standards in
order to receive the allocation?
What will happen to a province like Quebec, which respects
the Canadian Constitution by taking care of its own student
loans, which come under the area of education, an area, again, of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction? Will Quebec receive its fair
share of compensation?
We also notice that, in pursuing the centralizing and insidious
intentions of the federal government in matters of education and
training, the Minister of Human Resources Development may
now enter into risk-sharing agreements directly with lenders.
The enactment of these will abolish the existing provincial
loan allocation formula established by the minister.
Another question raised by Bill C-28 is the maximum amount
of loans. The act currently provides for a specific maximum
amount of student loans.
This morning, the minister talked about a maximum amount
but there is no mention of it in the bill. It may have been
announced but it is not in the bill. There is no specific maximum
amount. What the bill says is that it can be set by the minister.
Bill C-28 only says that, subject to the regulations, the lender
is required to make to a qualifying student who has been issued a
certificate of eligibility a loan in an amount not exceeding the
maximum set out. What is this amount? Is it the 57 per cent
increase in the maximum loan announced by the minister or is it
something else? The part of Bill C-28 relating to the repayment
of loans also raises questions. Clause 9 says that the borrower
4311
may be liable to pay a portion of the interest during the loan
period under certain conditions. What are these conditions?
(1045)
According to section 10 b) of the current act, the student
borrower simply does not have to pay interest during the loan
period while he is in school. That provision has been eliminated.
Clause 11. (2) of Bill C-28 provides that the termination of
the borrower's rights by reason of disability or insufficient
family income becomes effective if the borrower's condition
deteriorates after the first day of the seventh month after the
month in which he ceases to be a student.
Does that mean that a borrower who is the victim of an
accident or any other cause keeping him from working after the
first day of the seventh month after the month in which he ceases
to be a student will have to repay the loan, or will he have to
declare bankruptcy? Considering that 10 per cent of personal
bankruptcies in Canada are student bankruptcies, does the
minister want to see that figure go even higher?
Clause 12. (1) creates a major ambiguity. It states that a
certificate of eligibility will be issued to students who have
attained a satisfactory scholastic standard or who are in need of
financial assistance.
Can a student be refused a loan because of his marks? Who
will determine the amount required by the student? Will unpaid
parental contributions be taken into account? Will there be
national eligibility standards?
Clause 12. (7) reads:
The maximum amount of financial assistance in respect of which a certificate
of eligibility is issued, other than a loan to which subsection (4) or (6) applies, is
the prescribed amount, or the amount calculated in accordance with the
prescribed formulas.
How will this amount be calculated? We have no idea.
Will it be possible to give additional amounts through
scholarships once the ceiling for loans is determined? This
morning, the minister alluded to subsidies. We will see.
Also, clause 14. (7) of Bill C-28 states that amounts paid to
compensate a province which does not integrate the federal
loans program will be included in the calculation of the program
net costs only if the provincial government satisfies the Minister
of Human Resources Development, within a given period, that
the provincial program has substantially the same effect. The
provinces will have to convince the federal minister, in spite of
the fact that this is a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Will the minister base his decision on national standards
regarding education or education financing?
Clause 15. (i) reads in part:
-the circumstances under which a new loan- may be denied to a student, or
an interest-free period- may be terminated-
Which criteria will justify such action? We have no idea.
We believe that such measures may have disastrous
consequences on the future of some students experiencing
financial, personal, academic or other problems.
At first glance, Bill C-28 does not look reassuring to
borrowers. In my opinion, the government does not have a clear
idea of the true socioeconomic situation of young people. It is
worrisome to see that banking institutions have an increasingly
greater discretionary power. And what about the risk premium
which will probably be paid to them, given the profits they
make? Banks are in the best financial position; yet, a provision
is included to allow the minister to pay a premium and eliminate
risks for these institutions. This is not reassuring.
Clause 15. (n) of Bill C-28 provides for the establishment and
operation of a program to provide special interest-free or
interest-reduced periods to borrowers, according to pre-set
conditions. However, section 9. (1) of the current act provides
for exemptions, under certain conditions. Is the government
adding new exemption conditions, or is it amending the current
ones? We have no idea.
If so, it would be interesting to have more details. Finally, I
come to the most controversial clause of Bill C-28, namely
clause 18 which includes general provisions. This states that the
minister may enter into agreements with federal or provincial
departments to facilitate the administration of the act, or to
harmonize its administration at the various government levels.
(1050)
This is seen as a major improvement over the existing
legislation on student loans. It reflects, however the centralist
concept of federalism, a concept that ignores the specific
identity of the provinces. There is a desire to control everything
from the top, with no concern for the people who are trying to
get along on what they have.
After this brief overview of the main provisions of Bill C-28,
there is an important point that I feel should be made. The
government apparently wants to reform the federal loans system
by regulation, but these regulations, which undoubtedly would
shed more light on the matter, are unfortunately not available
today. The most immediate impact of Bill C-28 may well be to
increase student debt and thus compromise the future of our
young people who, in addition to getting deeper in debt, may not
get the jobs they want when they graduate. This will make it
4312
harder for them to pay back their loans and may increase the
number of personal bankruptcies.
Perhaps I may expand a bit on the subject of student debt. In
Quebec, for instance, university tuition fees almost tripled in
three years. In fact, the situation has been similar across Canada
since 1984. Since Quebec had the lowest tuition fees, there was a
certain amount of catching up to do, but the fact remains that the
increase was rather drastic, and more is yet to come.
As governments reduce their financial commitments to
educational institutions, these will have to raise the amounts
they charge students. In Quebec, the average amount of student
debt at the post-secondary level is $8,500. It is estimated that in
Quebec, 60 per cent of parents pay nothing towards their
children's post-secondary education, and since the parental
contribution is taken for granted by governments when they
calculate the amount of financial assistance to be given, these
students are actually losing quite a bit of money in the process.
As for personal bankruptcies, it is estimated that 10 per cent
of these are filed by students. That is a considerable proportion.
And these bankruptcies represent a major cost for governments.
As a member of the Human Resources Development Committee,
when we were analysing these particular budget items, I heard
officials say it was difficult to establish the cost with any
precision because there were tremendous problems with
recovery.
So what happens now? Because of a lack of effectiveness in
this respect among governments in English Canada-in Quebec,
the Government of Quebec has a withdrawal right-the
responsibility is transferred to the banks, and when you consider
the attitude of some banks, there is certainly cause for concern.
According to an article published on April 11 in Le Devoir, in
Quebec in 1993-94, former students who went bankrupt had
loans totalling $4.7 million. This is more than twice the loans
for 1990-91, which at the time totalled $2.2 million. That is a lot
of money.
We therefore believe that this bill will increase the number of
loans, and thus the number of bankruptcies, as well as the
amounts involved.
More and more students are obtaining loans and bursaries. In
Quebec, an estimated 175,000 students at the post-secondary
level are receiving financial assistance this year; in other words,
nearly 50 per cent of the students enrolled at this level.
In British Columbia, it cost the government $17 million in
1992 to reimburse the loans of 3,037 former students. In British
Columbia, 3,037 former students were unable to pay back their
student loans. Seventy per cent of the students were apparently
unable to pay back their loans because they were unemployed,
which seems pretty obvious, but I think we should realize that
unemployment was the culprit in 70 per cent of these cases.
According to an article published in Le Droit on January 10,
1994, 248,000 students received financial assistance directly
from the federal government in 1991-92, for a total amount of
$743 million. Although the vast majority of student borrowers
pay back their loans, we must realize that 13 per cent will not be
in a position to do so.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has tabled a
bill on student financial assistance which unfortunately does not
take into account recommendations made by the student
community and especially by student associations. So what do
students want?
(1055)
First of all, the associations which I contacted in Quebec want
a student assistance program to be developed, one which would
draw a distinction between tuition fees and living expenses. In
determining these expenses, consideration would also have to be
given to the true costs of the program or field of study in
question, because this can vary according to the field, region of
the country, family situation and associated costs.
Secondly, when it comes to calculating loans and bursaries,
parental financial assistance should not be a determining factor.
All students should be considered as independent. The amount
of the loan or bursary should not be an incentive for students to
continue living at home, but rather it should encourage them to
acquire a certain measure of independence as quickly as
possible after reaching the age of majority. Obviously student
associations in Quebec recommend that the federal government
withdraw completely from the field of education, in particular
post-secondary education.
The federal government wants to increase the amount of
student loans without taking into account the real ability of
students to repay the money. Precariousness is a concept used
with growing frequency in discussions about youth
employment. It is concept which the government does not seem
to grasp fully. So-called precarious jobs are the exclusive lot of
young people in Quebec and in Canada. Fifty per cent of young
Quebecers and Canadians are reported to hold down precarious
jobs.
Generally speaking, a precarious job is one that is
low-paying, often paying minimum wage, with minimal
opportunity for advancement. A precarious job is one with no
security, often non-unionized, one that can disappear overnight
for various, more or less justifiable reasons. A precarious job is
one which a person holds out of necessity and would willingly
give up for something better. Young people with precarious jobs
often hold many such jobs for relatively short periods of time.
Therefore, the definition of a precarious job stands in sharp
contrast to that of a regular job with a good salary, job security
and a pension plan.
4313
Why is it that the majority of precarious jobs are held by
young people? The primary reason for this phenomenon is the
growth of the services sector. Seventy per cent of all jobs are in
the services sector. Furthermore, 70 per cent of young people
who work do so in the services sector, that is the restaurant, hotel
and general services industry.
Another factor responsible for the widespread precariousness
of jobs held by young people is the increase in unemployment in
all age groups. Clearly, young people are especially affected
because, as recent entrants in the job market, they often must
settle for the leftovers, that is the jobs no one else wants.
Another identifiable cause of job precariousness among young
people is the emergence in the past few years of a second wage
scale reserved exclusively for new job market entrants that
businesses can let go if necessary.
Furthermore, adolescence has long been considered a period
of transition between childhood and adulthood. The situation
has changed, however. Where once it was traditional for young
people to study full time before moving on, almost
automatically, to the job market and then starting a family and
buying a house, now the line between adolescence and
adulthood has grown somewhat blurred. Indeed, it is not unusual
in this day and age to see young people having children, working
and studying all at the same time.
Young people experience all kinds of situations that were
uncommon in the past. Their lives are far more stressful than
ours were when we were their age. They leave home later
because of their chronic inability to make it on their own.
According to the last two census reports, 41 per cent of young
people between the ages of 20 and 24 lived with their parents in
1981 compared to 50 per cent in 1991. If the trend continues,
this figure will hover around 60 per cent by the year 2000.
Furthermore, young people are heavy consumers. This
finding is consistent with what the social model suggested
during their childhood. However, the living conditions of
today's young people are vastly different than those of their
parents. Two major considerations dominate the relationship
between young people and employment, namely access to
employment and loss of employment. Young people must be
patient when it comes to finding a job, while at the same time,
they can only hope to hold on to the job they ultimately do find.
(1100)
In 1986-87, 60 per cent of young people aged 20 to 24
changed jobs; 45 per cent of this group changed jobs twice, not
counting those who simply lost their job and could not find
another one. In 1992, young people aged 16 to 24 were without
work for 17.6 weeks. The new realities of the labour market hit
our young people hard.
Nearly 40 per cent of those who work have a part-time or
contract job. Thirty per cent of employed young people work in
companies with 20 employees or less, which reduces their
chance of keeping their job because, as we know, small business
is very volatile.
In Quebec, 72 per cent of employed 20- to 24-year-olds are
not unionized; 85 per cent of these young people have no
pension plan and will not be eligible for one. This is very
significant for the long-term security of our young people,
especially since they enter the labour market when they are
between 25 and 30 years old, compared to 20 years old for those
entering the labour market in the 1970s.
Young people would also like to be able to save for retirement,
but as student debts increase, given the labour market and job
entry conditions we just mentioned, we may well wonder
whether the government has evaluated the long-term impact of
this action. Young people are increasingly aware of what they
have to do. They study more than their predecessors. They are
proud and fear both rejection and their difficult living
conditions. But young people also want to be independent. They
do not want to depend even more on governments and financial
institutions. But this government tends to consider young people
as a threat, as potential social problems to be contained.
Did the government seriously consult those involved in the
student community before it reformed student loans? No,
Madam Speaker. It proceeded in the same way as with
unemployment insurance reform. Education was one of the few
hopes young people still had to avoid unemployment, but what
is the situation now, since 50 per cent of the young unemployed
have not graduated? It is true, but 33 per cent have a high school
diploma, 17 per cent a college diploma and 8.6 per cent a
university diploma, and still they are unemployed.
The government must make it possible for young people to
study with dignity and without becoming too indebted. The
government must launch a real youth employment strategy.
Now I would like to say a little about education funding,
because as student debts are allowed to rise, we must see that the
federal and provincial governments throughout Canada are
spending less on education.
As a result, these institutions have no choice but to raise their
tuition fees. Under particular arrangements between the federal
and provincial governments, the federal government contributes
to post-secondary education through established programs
financing; 32.1 per cent of EPF transfers are for post-secondary
education. Of the funds allocated to education in Quebec in
1991-92, of course most came from the provincial government,
$10.1 billion or 82.4 per cent of the total; 7.7 per cent from
private sources; $913 million or 7 per cent from the federal
government and $302 million or 2.5 per cent from local
governments.
4314
Statistics Canada estimates total education spending in
Canada at $50.6 billion. In 1991-92, $14.3 billion or 28.2 per
cent of total spending was spent on post-secondary education.
For that period, Quebec spent a little over $4.2 billion on
post-secondary education, or 34.5 per cent of the total education
budget, compared to Ontario, which spent a little over $5 billion
on post-secondary education, or 25.3 per cent of its total
education budget.
Between 1973-74 and 1991-92, the average annual increase
in government spending on post-secondary education was
10.2 per cent in Quebec and 8.9 per cent in Ontario. These
figures may seem impressive at first glance, but upon analysis,
we can see that federal aid for post-secondary education has
been declining for years.
(1105)
In the beginning, the federal assistance introduced by a 1977
federal act was to be index-linked to general economic growth.
However, the federal government limited the indexing of
transfer payments for post-secondary education to 6 per cent in
1984 and 5 per cent in 1985. In the following years, other cuts
were announced limiting the annual indexing to the increase in
the gross domestic product less 2 per cent for 1986 and less 3 per
cent from 1989. The 1991 budget brought more cuts by freezing
subsidies for established programs financing until the 1994-95
fiscal year.
In constant dollars, the total federal envelope allocated to the
Canada Student Loans Program has fallen substantially since
1986-87. This reduction in resources at a time when the student
population is increasing has shifted to the provinces a
significant amount of responsibility for financial assistance to
students. The federal government's policies are reflected in its
alternative payments to Quebec.
Alternative payments have not increased since 1987-88
despite an increase in the student population.
I would now like to talk a little about the situation of
francophones outside Quebec. Again, the figures speak for
themselves. If we look at a statistical profile on the link between
education and labour force activity prepared in 1992 by the
Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development, we
see that the regions where francophones are the most
disadvantaged are those with the highest concentration of
francophones.
An analysis of recent data from Statistics Canada also shows
large disparities in education levels between francophone and
Acadian communities and the rest of Canada. For instance, 45.2
per cent of francophones did not complete Grade 13 compared
with 37.8 per cent of other Canadians.
Only 17.2 per cent of francophones completed high school
compared with 17.4 per cent of other Canadians. Only 20.2 per
cent of francophones have some post-secondary education
compared with 23 per cent of other Canadians. And merely 17.4
per cent of francophones have gone to university as compared to
21.7 per cent in the rest of Canada.
Based on the same statistics, the rate of illiteracy within the
francophone and Acadian communities in Canada is estimated
at 30 per cent. At the same time, the rate of assimilation in these
communities continues to grow, by 3.6 per cent per year on
average now, a 4.5 per cent increase since 1986. I can see a direct
link between the level of resources allocated to the education of
francophones and Acadians and their rate of assimilation.
To conclude, I would like to quote some figures from the
OECD. According to the OECD, between 35 and 50 per cent of
the population in developed countries is living on the fringe of
the labour market, not because they do not want to work, but
rather because in the world today, not everyone is expected to
contribute any more.
The fact of the matter is that the social fabric is deteriorating
very rapidly and an increasing number of people are being more
and more permanently excluded from work. It has got so bad
that many young people, our future, now see no point in going to
school and looking for a job impossible to find.
High drop-out rates in high school and unprecedented rates of
functional illiteracy among young people are alarm bells that we
can no longer ignore.
In view of the fact that all the experts agree that job creation
through economic growth alone is a dangerous mirage, one can
wonder what the Minister of Human Resources Development is
trying to do by making it easier for students to get into debt
while knowing that it will be next to impossible for them to find,
in the short term, a decent job to pay off their school debts.
With this bill, the Minister of Human Resources Development
proves once more that this government has no intention
whatsoever of dealing with the real problems or trying to meet
the real needs of the young people in terms of post-secondary
education.
Where are the positive measures to boost employment?
Certainly the minister does not expect to improve
post-secondary education in Canada with those contained in
Bill C-28.
This government is turning a deaf ear to the harsh realities our
young people are confronted with today and it is dismissing the
impact of the many changes which hinder their integration in our
society.
In the absence of any real job development strategy centred on
their needs, many young people have simply decided to quit
school and join the ranks of UI and welfare recipients.
4315
(1110 )
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on Bill C-28, the student financial
assistance bill.
We Reformers understand that in order to sustain our standard
of living the youth of Canada must be properly educated with the
goal of becoming net contributors to Canadian society. Money
wisely spent in this regard is an investment in the future. Our
looming debt load and increasing numbers of students however
have meant that for many years the funding of post-secondary
education has suffered from less money going to more people.
Strains to the system are increasingly evident. Cuts to funding
and overcrowding are diminishing the quality of education in
Canada and increasing the costs of education to students. Yet
these same students find themselves less able to pay back the
money they owe because of the growing gap between what they
learn in the school and what they need to know to find
meaningful, well paid employment.
The less able they are to financially benefit from their
schooling, the less able they are to pay back their loans, the less
money there is in the pot for future educational requirements
and the entire system spirals down toward new depths of
mediocrity.
That is the present system of post-secondary education in this
country. Obviously something needs to be done to address this
problem. Is Bill C-28 an adequate response? My answer is only
partially.
With apologies to friends in the medical community, I am
going to use a medical analogy to describe our position with
regard to this bill. When someone staggers into the emergency
room of a hospital haemorrhaging all over the place, the first
thing the staff has to do is deal with the immediate emergency,
stanch the bleeding and stabilize the patient. The next thing
which must be done is assess the reason for the damage and
determine what if any long term treatment is needed to bring the
patient back to full health. There is little point in doing one
without the other.
The way I view this legislation is that the government is
addressing the immediate emergency of post-secondary
education but has failed to operate anything but a band-aid
solution to what is really a more complicated problem requiring
radical treatment.
While Bill C-28 offers short term relief to those hurting most
from this system, it fails to treat the underlying problem.
Therefore our support for Bill C-28 is qualified. As Reformers
we want to offer as part of this debate the second half which is
missing from this legislation, an alternative to a system which is
demonstrably sick.
Before I put forth our position I would like to comment
specifically on the positive and negative aspects of this
legislation. On the plus side, Bill C-28 does offer a number of
improvements to the old system and for that the government
should be commended.
The increase in loan limits offers short term relief to students
who have had to pay for increasing educational costs with a
smaller purse.
The movement of responsibility for the collection of loans to
the banks to decrease the default rate currently at 25 per cent and
save the government considerable money, the revision of the
eligibility criteria to emphasize academic results and the
expansion of the assistance to apply to a broader range of
educational institutions are all welcome changes and again I
commend the government.
Finally, it has made some movement toward the area of an
income contingent repayment system although it is far too timid
in our opinion. I will return to that later.
To balance this assessment out, there are other parts of the
legislation which are not so commendable to us as Reformers
and in our opinion fail to serve the best interests of
post-secondary students.
The government has not changed or harmonized the needs
assessment criteria among the provinces. For example, students
coming from the family farm may find themselves disqualified
for assistance because the on-paper assets of the farm are
deemed too high. The fact that these non-liquid book assets
have nothing to do with the ability to individually finance one's
education inherently discriminates against a large segment of
our students.
This is further compounded by a reverse discrimination built
in to the new grant program whereby only specially designated
groups in our society will be eligible based on arbitrary
non-financial criteria such as gender. We understand and agree
with extra help for the disabled but surely a two-tier system of
financial assistance is discriminating against those who lack the
politically correct gender to qualify.
(1115 )
We also have serious problems with this legislation regarding
the minister's discretionary powers. In many areas they have
amounted to a blank cheque, specifically in clause 5 dealing
with any future negotiated agreement with the lenders, and
clause 15 which governs the regulations that flesh out the
principles in the bill.
Since the upcoming negotiated agreement with the banks is
fundamental to the whole issue of student financing-and I
think the minister would agree this is really so-why are the
conditions of this agreement not incorporated in the legislation
so that Parliament can scrutinize and, if necessary, amend it?
4316
With regard to the regulations, we would like the legislation
to specifically mandate that they be referred to the House
standing committee for review before coming into effect. Such a
directive would rightly transfer power away from the
department officials and toward the more accountable
Parliament.
The Liberal red book section on parliamentary reform
specifically states:
-a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation
through House of Commons committees. These committees will also be given
greater influence over government expenditures.
Now here is a perfect opportunity for the minister to make
good on his promise or conversely, demonstrate to the Canadian
people the emptiness of those words.
These are the types of improvements we would like to see
made to the bill at committee stage. We will certainly be
working toward that end.
As Reformers we believe our role as an opposition party lies
farther than just opposing everything the government proposes.
We believe we have the responsibility to offer to the Canadian
people a constructive alternative to the proposals put forth by
the government and that is what we will be doing today. It is
particularly important with regard to this bill since the
government has failed to show long term leadership toward the
issue of funding and providing post-secondary education in this
country.
With the present system fiscal transfers under the established
programs financing or EPF act have increased much more
slowly than the rate of inflation during the 1980s. This is despite
increased enrolment. Another flaw is that the federal
government is unable to target its transfers specifically to
education which means that the provinces have the ability to
divert some of their funds to other social areas.
Since the federal government transfers money to the
provinces based on population and not enrolment, what happens
when a province's universities are in such demand that they
attract large numbers of people from other parts of the country?
They are penalized in essence for their success.
Such is the situation in Nova Scotia where there are as a
proportion of the population more full time undergraduate and
graduate students studying in its institutions than those of any
other province, a whopping 54 per cent more than the Canadian
average. Yet under the present EPF system this amounts to a
financial penalty for building a high quality post-secondary
education system that attracts out of province students. Where is
the logic in that?
Given our fiscal reality it would be misleading to tell people
we can fix the problem by pouring in more money we do not
have. That is old style politics: promising the moon and offering
no means to pay for it.
The public demand more from their representatives today. If
we cannot promise to spend more, we can do better with what we
are able to spend. This is where our proposal comes in, what we
have called the advanced education voucher system.
Right now the federal government spends approximately $2
billion a year on transfers for post-secondary education. Under
our proposal this amount would be divided into 650,000
vouchers of $3,000 each. These vouchers would take the form of
grants to students which they could spend only on higher
education anywhere in Canada. Students would turn over their
vouchers to the colleges or universities in which they enrolled.
The institutions would redeem the vouchers for cash from the
federal government.
The reason for this reorganizing of federal funding for higher
education is straightforward. Under our new system the
effective choice and bargaining power of students will be
increased because they will now have the power to spend their
voucher where they can get accepted. Colleges and universities
will be encouraged to compete for students in order to get the
cash value represented by the voucher.
The focus of our institutions will shift from governments as a
source of funding to the students who will now be bringing with
them not only their tuitions of $2,000 or more but their vouchers
worth another $3,000.
(1120 )
We believe the federal voucher system would work in the
right direction by encouraging universities and colleges to
compete for enrolment. This would set up incentives for
universities to emphasize teaching and the other aspects of
university life which attract students, such as the rate of
employment for their recent graduates.
For those who may want to lament these proposed changes
and the pressures they will place on our universities to compete,
it is worthwhile to refer to a recent Globe and Mail editorial
entitled: ``University heal thyself''.
While not recommending any particular solution, it very aptly
presents the problems in our current system that our voucher
system would address. The facts are that financial and other
pressures are forcing our post-secondary institutions to review
their mandates and in many cases work smarter with less money.
Here is a quote from the Globe and Mail article:
Over the past generation Canadian universities have succeeded in being all
things to all people. Governments financed the creation of new institutions and
programs to serve a vastly expanded and more diverse clientele, all reaching for
the middle class dream.
For the next generation, for financial and other reasons universities face a
tougher job to choose between what they do well and what they do less well. They
4317
will either have to make the changes themselves or allow these changes to be
forced upon them by governments.
Increasingly, universities will have to be more inventive about carving out an
area of expertise and delivering it in ways that are transparent to students, faculty
and the public. If Canadian universities are to move beyond the rhetoric of
excellence and quality in post-secondary education, they will have to become
less homogeneous than in the past. Universities will also have to become more
transparent in deciding what programs to save or drop in the name of quality.
Our voucher program changes the way funding is delivered to
the universities and colleges and allows them more freedom to
adapt themselves so as to meet these goals.
There is another immediate real world advantage of vouchers.
Federal support for advanced education is in serious danger of
being eroded down to almost nothing-and this may sound
cynical but I must put it forward-because federal politicians
derive few political rewards from providing it. They transfer the
money to provincial politicians who then reap the political
rewards of building campuses, providing programs and
appointing their faithful to boards of governors. In today's age
of austerity there are few powerful advocates in Ottawa
compared to those who lobby for medical care, aboriginal land
claim settlements, or subsidies to business.
At one stroke the advanced education voucher system would
create a large and powerful political force for higher education
at the federal level. This force would consist of students,
parents, husbands and wives, all those who receive the vouchers
and participate in decisions about how to use them. Advanced
education could then compete on more equal terms for its proper
share of what government could afford to spend.
That is our constructive alternative to the present system of
funding post-secondary education, but this would only partially
address the financial pressures of our students. We would also
change the current financing system so that every student was
eligible for loans under an income contingent repayment, or
ICR, plan.
ICR is not a new concept. There are currently different
elements of ICR implemented in three countries, as the minister
pointed out, in Australia, New Zealand and Sweden. Simply put,
it is a program which allows a student to take out a loan
regardless of whether they are dependent on their parents.
Students are not penalized on the basis of their parents' wealth
or more accurately, middle class status.
Under the current system it is often those coming from the
middle income level who find it most difficult to go to school.
Their families do not have the funds to pay for the schooling
directly, yet the government says that they are not poor enough
to qualify for assistance.
Under the ICR plan everyone would be eligible because it
would become the student's total responsibility to assume loan
payments commencing when they graduated and had a job.
Their repayment would be based on a flat percentage of what
their salary happened to be.
Under one proposal, if the student had a job with an annual
income of $10,000 to $12,000, then the loan payments would be
approximately 3 per cent, or $350 a year. As an individual's
income increased toward say, $50,000 the rate of pay back
would increase 4 per cent and then 5 per cent until they were
paying approximately $2,500 a year, until their debt was paid
off.
(1125)
With ICR, if the graduate became unemployed then the
payments would be deferred until their annual income rose to
exceed the set threshold. If they were unable to pay off the debt
in 15 years, then the remaining sum would be forgiven. Also, if
the graduate were to die or become permanently disabled, the
debt would be forgiven. Since forgiven debts would have to be
paid off somehow under ICR, those graduates with the higher
income would be charged with an interest rate higher than the
government's borrowing rate to offset the forgiven debts.
This system would eliminate the complicated, arbitrary and
often uneven eligibility process for financial assistance across
the country. ICR would not have any eligibility processes due to
the fact that the payments would become the sole responsibility
of the student during the 15 years following graduation.
The repayment schedule would eliminate the current situation
of students with very low paying entry level jobs being forced
into default simply because their loan repayment rates are too
high for their salaries.
Under ICR the amounts of money they would pay would be
determined by their annual income as determined from their tax
return. This system however could only run smoothly if the ICR
recipient had entered a proper and accurate income statement.
Safeguards would have to be built into the system to prevent
fraud or misuse of the funds borrowed.
How would we initially fund such a system, especially since
the federal government's cupboard is bare? One way would be to
raise funds through the current sources, the commercial banks.
Under the current system if a person defaulted on their loan
then the bank would have to hire a private collection agency to
collect the owed money. The collection costs were nearly $11
million in 1987-88. In the ICR system the lending program
could be administered by an independent agency which could
raise funds from the issue of bonds while a stock exchange for
second-hand bonds, similar to the Student Loan Marketing
Association in the U.S., could subsequently be developed.
4318
Another government saving would be the significant
reductions in write-offs and the new ability to charge compound
interest according to the full duration of each loan.
With the ICR program it would be possible for the universities
to become independent from the governments by allowing them
the freedom to raise and set their tuition fees as they felt
necessary. It makes sense that medical school tuition rates ought
to be significantly higher than a post-graduate arts program,
since a doctor's earning power is much greater. Therefore the
medical school graduate ought to be able to afford a higher
school debt load and loan repayment cost.
I realize that any increase in tuition fees to bring them more in
line with the actual cost of education is bound to be met with
howls of protest from certain areas. Student leaders in Canada
have stridently opposed any increases as unfair to lower income
students and a deterrent toward attending school.
However, we believe that under our ICR program the opposite
would be the case. The argument of a deterrent factor simply
fails to stand up to the facts. If these were the deterrents to
schooling they claim they are, student leaders must have
difficulty explaining why Canada with its fee structure has twice
the percentage of university age people in school compared with
France where fees are zero, or why the United States with the
highest fees also has the highest percentage of its population in
universities among the leading industrial countries.
Another criticism to this ICR proposal is that universities
could poach each other's students especially when the market is
so unstable. I would suggest this is not necessarily bad. If
poaching took place, either by a university reducing its fees
while keeping quality constant, or increasing its fees and
offering more than a proportionate increase in quality via new
courses, programs or facilities, the beneficiaries would only be
the students in particular and our overall quality of
post-secondary education in general.
These are the proposals we as Reformers would like to put
forth as a creative alternative that would offer high quality,
affordable, post-secondary education to our students.
Under Bill C-28 we may stabilize the patient and it is a slight
improvement to the status quo, but that does not mean the
patient is cured.
(1130 )
While for the benefit of our students in the system today we
may support in principle the emergency procedures of this
particular bill, we believe our responsibility goes much further.
We owe our future students a better system than that which
exists today, a better system that delivers an affordable, quality
post-secondary education.
We believe these two goals can be achieved through our
advanced education vouchers and an income contingent
repayment plan. The options for our youth are either improving
on a poor system or designing an entirely new system. As a long
term policy we Reformers favour the latter.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Madam
Speaker, before I begin my speech I would like to tell you that
we are going to be splitting our time on the government side.
I am pleased to say a few words to the House to summarize the
Canada student financial assistance bill. I am excited by this bill
because I think it will bring positive change to the lives of many
students who have been shut out in the past 10 years by the past
administration.
As we have heard, the Canada student loans program which
was established in 1964 has provided $8.5 billion in loan
guarantees to over 2.1 million students enrolled in colleges,
universities and vocational courses. It supplements students'
own financial resources from their earnings, awards and their
families. It exists to meet a pressing need on the part of many
young Canadian women and men seeking to better themselves.
The reforms provided in this bill enhance assistance and
target those in need, ease the repayment burden, emphasize
results, provide for new financing arrangements, set the stage
for harmonization of federal and provincial student aid
programs, provide flexibility to explore income contingent
repayment for education and training.
Hon. members should remember that not only will the student
loan arrangements be modernized but new forms of
non-repayable grant assistance will be introduced. These
improvements will ensure that the program better serves the
needs of students.
The youth employment and learning strategy stresses the
importance of a well educated, skilled and adaptable labour
force for the 21st century. Post-secondary education and
training reduces the probability of unemployment and increases
the possibility of higher individual income.
Both the Canada student loans program reforms in particular
and the youth strategy in general are signs of the government's
strong commitment to the young people of our country.
The Government of Canada is embarking on an employment
and learning strategy in collaboration with provinces and
industry that will help young people prepare for the 1990s
labour market and the new global economy. It will seek to
improve existing school to work transition measures and
introduce new approaches for the education and training
systems.
4319
The strategy will start to turn things around for young people
by offering them more opportunities to learn, to work, to
contribute to society. It builds on the strengths of what has
worked in the past and sets the stage for new, innovative models.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development has stated:
``We know the status quo is not working when we see too many
young people sidelined in society''. The government is now
laying the foundations for improved education and training
systems. We will test new models to help young people make a
successful move from school to the workplace.
Revitalized education and training systems represent some of
the groundwork for the social security reform process now under
way. Social programs are redesigned to restore security, offer
employment and hope, and create a more productive economy.
The strategy will ensure that the basics are in place to assist
young people in becoming productive and self-reliant.
(1135 )
Further changes to education and training programs will
depend on the outcome of the social security review. Clearly we
need to give young people the opportunity to fulfil their
potential, to contribute to society and to help build a brighter
future for our country.
The central objective of the Canada student loans program
will remain to provide financial assistance to students for their
pursuit of post-secondary studies. The government and its
partners are committed to a student loans program which
provides for subsidized loans for full time students in school and
for reasonable costs and terms in repayment.
The challenge we face is to improve our effectiveness in
providing access to post-secondary learning in a climate of
continuing fiscal restraint. In order to succeed, in a nutshell, we
must do better with the resources at our disposal. Enhancements
to student aid must go hand in hand with measures to reduce and
control program expenditures on defaults.
The reforms have been the subject of extensive consultations
with the provinces' student associations such as the Canadian
Federation of Students and the National Education Association
of Disabled Students, educational institutions such as the
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the
Association of Canadian Community Colleges and financial
institutions.
There is consensus among the public in general, the provinces
and interest groups on the pressing need to proceed rapidly with
reforms to this program. There is widespread agreement that we
must increase and diversify our assistance to students.
Assistance therefore will be enhanced and targeted to those most
in need. This will be done by increasing the loan limits for both
full and part time students.
Loan levels will be raised by almost 60 per cent and restored
to where they would have been had they not been frozen since
1984. The full time weekly loan limit will go up to $165 from
$105, meaning that a student could receive a maximum of
$5,600 per academic year.
For example, Gregg Byron, a student from a middle income
family of four earning around $65,000, living in my riding in
Aurora and attending the University of Guelph would not have
been eligible under the past system for loans. However today
that middle class family member can have access to $2,040 in
federal student assistance.
That is positive change for middle class families. They are no
longer going to be shut out of the process, shut out of learning
and educational opportunities. That to me is the type of change
that Canadians have been calling for and that we have acted on.
The part time loan limit will also be increased. A part time
student attending the University of Saskatchewan was
previously eligible for up to $2,500 in assistance but had to
begin repaying the loan almost immediately. That same student
under this bill may be eligible for loans up to $4,000 in
assistance and will only have to commence repayment of the
principal six months after completion of studies.
In total, the value of aid will increase by $2.5 billion over the
next five years compared to the previous five years. The reforms
also address concerns about the student debt load, loan defaults
and the exceptional needs of some students. Some graduates
have been hampered in the past by their inability to repay their
student loans. The reforms will reduce the repayment burden for
high need students, recent graduates as well as facilitate the
transition from school to work.
A national program of deferred grants for students in need
will be set up to maintain their debt loads at reasonable levels.
This will mean that a student with a student loan debt of $22,400
may be eligible for a deferred grant up to $6,840 to write down
the actual debt load of that student to $15,600.
(1140)
Interest relief will be expanded to include low income
borrowers. For the first time in the history of the program,
borrowers who are employed but do not make enough money to
cover their entire student loan payment each month, may be
eligible for full or partial interest relief for up to 18 months
following the completion of studies.
4320
Special opportunities grants will be provided to meet the
exceptional educational costs of students with disabilities,
women pursuing doctoral studies and high need, part time
students.
I think we have brought some very positive change to this
legislation. I look forward to debating this issue in the House
and in committee.
Let us remember that when we look at the big picture of
Canada student loans and financial assistance, when we look at
the issue of a learning continuum and getting our people ready to
compete in the global economy, when we speak about providing
opportunities to individual Canadians who have previously been
shut out of a system that did not bring everyone in, this
legislation really brings about positive change to students'
lives.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased this morning to have the opportunity to
speak on this very important bill. I commend the parliamentary
secretary for his remarks and his fine ability in bringing forward
many of the points. This bill will enhance our student loan
program. I may well repeat some of these issues as they are
important.
The issue of accessibility to student loans is one of particular
interest to me. In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants I have
the honour of representing students from Acadia University,
Hants Community College and King's Tech Community
College. I have also had the pleasure of teaching at Acadia
University for the past 25 years.
I know from personal experience that providing greater
accessibility to finances for students is one of the most
important commitments we as a government can make. The
purpose of the student assistance program is to enable people
who wish to pursue higher education to do so without
encountering restrictive financial barriers or incurring an
unreasonably heavy burden of debt.
Over the past 30 years successive federal governments have
played a leading role in financing post-secondary education.
The federal commitment to the Canada student loans program
has been crucial in the overall economic and social development
of our country.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development stated in
his remarks, Bill C-28 delivers on a commitment made by the
government in our youth and learning strategy. I believe that this
legislation will ensure that students assistance will better serve
the needs of the present and future generations of students.
Our efforts to amend the current Canada student loans
program are based on two key principles. First of all we realize
that having a well educated, highly trained population is
essential for our future economic and social well-being.
Second, this bill reaffirms our commitment to ensure that the
federal assistance is distributed in a fair and accessible manner.
A person should not be denied access to higher education on the
basis of not having adequate financing. An increased investment
in our student loans program is vital in order for our
government to fulfil the main commitments it made in the red
book. Whether we are discussing job creation, the information
highway, the promotion of environmentally sustainable
technology or the fostering of international trade agreements,
our future economic success hinges on having a highly educated
and well trained workforce.
(1145)
Canada cannot afford to maintain a system which excludes
groups of people from full participation. When we deny access
to social benefits such as higher education, we cheat our citizens
and we deprive our country of future wealth.
The Canadian labour market and the world economy have
changed and our social programs must also change as we move
toward these challenges. When people become unemployed
these days they may be out of work longer. Often they need
retraining for a new kind of work. Higher education and training
is one pathway out of the unemployment maze.
Education is one of the best guarantees anyone can have in
terms of finding meaningful long term employment. Yet, despite
the obvious spinoffs of a well educated population, long term
economic stability, less reliance on a social safety net, a skilled
labour pool and an increased tax base for government, the old
student assistance program is not meeting the needs of a
changing society.
While the Canada student loans program remains a major
source of financial aid, student loans have been frozen since
1984. At the present time steadily increasing tuition fees are
adversely affecting those who want access to higher education in
Canada.
This problem is a particular concern in the province of Nova
Scotia. Recently the student union executive at Acadia
University forwarded to me information regarding education in
Nova Scotia. I would like to share with my colleagues in the
House some of the details of the information package.
At a time when the fishery and resource industries are in
transition, we risk leaving a whole generation of young people
behind. In many cases their parents cannot afford to help them
finance post-secondary education. Furthermore, many
communities can no longer offer stable employment which does
not require a post-secondary credential.
Under the old program most students qualified for $3,360 of
assistance per year. Since the loan limits have been frozen
tuition fees in Nova Scotia schools alone have risen by 11 per
cent. This is 5 per cent higher than the national average. The call
for substantially increased student loans, non-repayable grants
for those with special needs and deferred grants to keep debt
loads manageable have been unanimous. Hard pressed students
and parents along with educators have long pushed for increases
in these areas. The bill demonstrates that our government is
listening.
4321
In order to address this serious problem we have put forth a
series of concrete and rational solutions. These include the
increasing of loan limits for students up to 57 per cent to
$165 per week, raising the ceiling on part time loans to $4,000
from a current level of $2,500 and allowing students to pay only
the interest during their studies.
We have made a commitment to offer deferred grants to high
need students in order to reduce their debt load to reasonable
levels while expanding interest relief to low income borrowers
experiencing temporary repayment problems. We are further
promoting greater fairness and accessibility through the
creation of a program of special opportunity grants to meet the
education costs for students with disabilities, high need part
time students and women in doctoral studies.
(1150)
I have already received positive feedback from students'
organizations in my riding over the increases in student loans. It
is clearly an initiative that is long overdue.
One area that I would like to touch on in my remaining time is
that of the new financing arrangements proposed in this bill.
As a result of discussions with interest groups, our
government realizes that we must find newer and more efficient
methods of providing financing for student loans. For instance,
the government will proceed with an income contingent
repayment loan program on a trial basis. I understand that this
type of program has been the subject of much debate and a
certain amount of controversy.
In my discussions with various educational organizations I
have learned that support for this program is mixed. Concerns
mainly exist around the fear that over a period of time block
funding through established programs funding will decline,
thereby shifting a greater financial burden on to students who
would then require further increases in their student loans.
As my colleagues and I have outlined today, our government
recognizes the importance of having a well educated population.
We also realize that the federal government has an opportune
role to play in ensuring access to education and training. Our
interest in the program reflects a greater commitment to making
the entire student loans program more efficient and more
effective in offering students income sensitive solutions to
repaying loans. In no way does our willingness to look at these
new methods of financing detract from this government's
commitment to post-secondary education.
Private lenders have often been reluctant to lend funds to
students with poor and non-existent credit histories. That is why
our government will continue to have an important role to play
in the area of student assistance.
Finally, the new financing arrangements will enable us to
significantly reduce payments for default loans.
In closing, the changes we are proposing in this bill will
enhance the program's objective. While we wish to update and
modernize the program, we will fully share the goals of those
established by the student loans programs: a strong and
prosperous Canada, a country where everyone can make a
contribution.
I believe that the implementation of this bill will help greatly
as we attempt to achieve these objectives.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Madam Speaker, further
to what was said by the Liberal member on Bill C-28, I welcome
this opportunity to make a few comments, which will be
followed by a question for the hon. member who just made his
speech on Bill C-28.
This morning, I listened to the Minister of Human Resources
Development discussing Bill C-28, the new legislation to help
students. Well, it is about time. It is about time the government
improved the system to help students who are studying away
from home and students who are doing postgraduate work. But
unfortunately, in the last budget brought down by the Minister of
Finance, with its projected deficit of $39.7 billion, and I say
projected, because unless there is some degree of economic
growth and job recovery in the near future, I think the deficit
will be well over $39.7 billion.
My point is this. I would like to remind the hon. member that
in his last budget, the Minister of Finance announced a $7.5
billion cut in social programs, spread over the next three years,
and this will have an impact on social programs. For instance,
the government is talking about programs to keep students from
dropping out of school and to help them go on to university,
which means some students will have to leave home, because
not all municipalities have a CEGEP or university.
(1155)
Obviously the minister's bill will get students even deeper in
debt. They will have easier access to loans and bursaries, and
while they are still taking their courses they will only have to
pay back the interest. Today, if you want to get a bachelor's
degree, it takes at least three years of CEGEP, often away from
home, and four or five years of university. It all adds up every
year, and not all expenses are eligible for the program. I am
thinking of accommodation, transportation costs, food and
4322
clothing, all of which are not necessarily eligible for the
program. Here again, the parents must foot the bill.
In a previous speech on taxation, I asked the government to
introduce some income tax measures to help parents who
indirectly subsidize their children and pay for the education of
those who go to school away from home. A person who lives in
Charlevoix, Baie-Comeau, Baie Saint-Paul, or la Malbaie and
sends his children to Quebec City or Montreal, or even farther
away, spends a minimum of $8,000 to $10,000 annually on
transportation, accommodation, food and clothing. I would
suggest that the government make it possible for the main earner
in a family where a child is sent to school away from home to
deduct part of the cost involved from his income tax.
[English]
Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the
member for his non-question. I know he was trying to get where
he was trying to get from.
I believe the program that we are putting forward combines
three things. It combines our whole program, not just the
educational program here. Deficit cutting, economic
development and the other aspect of our total program in the red
book talk about education and getting a better educated society
to meet the growing economic development that we say is going
to happen in this country and I believe will happen.
We cannot take on too much of the responsibilities that he is
talking about because we do not want to increase that debt that
he and we are concerned about. I think we have made a fair
program that will access the availability for all students.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Madam
Speaker, it is a real pleasure to have this opportunity to
participate in this debate on Bill C-28 to implement reforms to
the Canada Student Loans Program. In all conscience, I cannot
condone this new attack of the federal government on provincial
areas of responsibility.
I am a teacher by profession and I am familiar with this kind
of manipulation the federal government has been exercising in
Quebec for so long. It is imposing national standards while
knowing full well that they do not meet the specific needs of
Quebec. We are wasting a great deal of time harmonizing
curriculums, again at the expense of the students.
(1200)
Since the beginning of this 35th Parliament, the Liberal
government has been showing puffing self-centredness in
granting its ministers broader and broader discretionary power.
Just a little while ago, members of the Official Opposition
vehemently condemned provisions of Bill C-22 giving the
minister the power to compensate friends of the Liberal Party of
Canada following the cancellation of the sale of Pearson
International Airport in Toronto. It seems that the government
did not get the message the first time around, given it is caught
scheming again to manipulate power. Once again, unreasonable
powers are being granted to a minister.
In my speech before the House on the cancellation of the
Pearson Airport contract, I compared Bill C-22 to a scorpion.
This government initiative appeared harmless enough until the
Bloc Quebecois uncovered the government's true intentions.
The venom of the beast was skilfully stored in a tiny little clause
which granted the minister excessive powers to compensate as
he considered appropriate companies and investors with close
ties to the Liberal Party. Charles Bronfman and his buddies had
just seen major profits slip through their fingers, and the Liberal
Party could not let such generous contributors to its election
fund suffer.
Bill C-28 falls into the same category. It is as poisonous as
Bill C-22 in that it insidiously gives outrageous powers to a
minister. However, it goes much further in its obscene attempt to
pervert provincial education systems, particularly in Quebec.
The federal government simply does not have the courage to
admit what it is doing openly. It prefers to attack in a roundabout
way the integrity of provincial education systems. It
shamelessly exploits an already difficult aspect of student life,
that is the loans and bursary system. Once again, the end
justifies the means. Regrettably, this saying is well known by all
Liberal governments worthy of the name.
Several provisions clearly demonstrate the pernicious nature
of this bill. Allow me to quote a few excerpts from clause 3
which states the following:
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister may-designate for a
province (a) an appropriate authority, which authority may designate as
designated educational institutions any institutions of learning-that offer
courses at a post-secondary school level-;
One question immediately springs to mind: What does the
legislator mean when he speaks of ``appropriate authority''? To
what or to whom was he referring? Again, we are confronted
with the same old expression, one which I would readily qualify
as diabolical, namely the infamous ministerial discretion. There
is nothing more dangerous than putting too much power in the
hands of one individual. I know what I am talking about, having
spent over two years in Haiti working as a teacher and school
principal. I know very well the damage these discretionary
ministerial decisions can do to an education system.
Our concern for economy and efficiency must not make us
forget principles as fundamental as the transparency and
democratic integrity of the entire decision-making process. But
what are this government's real intentions in giving such powers
to the minister? The government's allegations in this respect
sound a little false. A May 9 press release from the office of the
Minister of Human Resources Development states that the bill
4323
will allow the government to enter into agreements with the
provinces to rationalize the financing and implementation of
student assistance programs.
(1205)
The press release goes on to say that this initiative shows how
this government prioritizes public spending to better serve
Canadians and promote the rational use of public funds.
All these arguments sound a lot more like nice excuses
invented by the Liberal government to interfere even more
deeply in this area of provincial jurisdiction.
The Canadian Constitution is especially clear on this.
Sections 92 and 93 of the British North America Act clearly
specify that education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the provinces. I urge the members opposite to refer to this
section often in order to benefit from one of the few clear and
non-ambiguous provisions of the Canadian Constitution.
This is quite an unusual phenomenon, especially since this
provision is strictly in favour of the provinces. However, the
federal government does not see it that way and does not seem to
care at all about the provisions of its own Constitution. In fact, it
has never hesitated to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction and
the Liberals hold most of the records in this regard,
unfortunately. They are indeed past masters in the art of always
surrounding their usurping machinations with high-sounding
rhetoric, thus creating the illusion that the federal government is
acting with noble intentions.
In fact, we have the feeling that the present Prime Minister is
only perpetuating the invasive doctrine of his mentor, who left
us the constitutional mess that we are in today, the memorable
Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
In this case, the minister can conclude agreements with
financial institutions for the new Canadian student loans
program. Negotiations have already begun with the Royal Bank
of Canada, among others.
Do you see the absurdity of the situation, Madam Speaker?
The Royal Bank made itself ridiculous in the 1992 referendum
by predicting a financial disaster for Canada if the ``no'' side
won. This same Royal Bank would be made responsible for
administering the federal student loans program. How can the
Liberals seriously think that Quebec could be interested in a
project which is so clearly intent on domination?
However, the very prestigious Toronto daily Globe and Mail
devoted the front page of its May 20 edition to constitutional
power sharing between the federal and provincial governments,
from a specifically Quebec point of view. In that issue, the
Globe and Mail gave us the results of a Léger & Léger poll on
how Quebecers see a fair distribution of powers between Quebec
and Ottawa. It is important to mention that this is not an internal
report by the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society or the movement for a
French Quebec.
The figures which I am about to give come from a poll ordered
by what is probably the most federalist daily newspaper in the
country. So this is what the Globe and Mail reported last Friday
following a survey of 1,000 Quebec taxpayers. Only 10.9 per
cent of those questioned think that the federal government
administers public funds better than the provincial government.
(1210)
A majority of people would prefer to see Quebec, rather than
the federal government, have full power regarding issues such
as manpower training, health, justice, energy, the environment,
etc. In fact, 62.1 per cent of respondents feel that education must
fall under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The results of this
survey are very telling. People are well aware that the federal
government has absolutely no business in a field of jurisdiction
as important as education is for Quebec's socio-cultural
development.
They are also well aware that national English Canadian
standards are not compatible with the specific needs of Quebec's
education system. Any federal interference in the field of
education constitutes an attack on our cultural integrity. I am
concerned by the fact that these national standards will be set by
English Canada, considering that it did not even recognize the
mere principle of a distinct society in Quebec.
I have spent close to 30 years as a teacher and my experience
can help shed some light on the issue being debated today. All
stakeholders in Quebec are currently holding consultations to
implement a series of reforms to improve our education system.
We certainly do not need federal involvement to complete this
delicate exercise which is so important for Quebec to blossom
out as a nation. In fact, Quebecers have clearly said so in the
Globe and Mail survey, and I am proud to act as a spokesperson
and report this display of collective insight.
I have seen a lot of things and I feel it is my duty to openly
condemn this latest attempt by the federal government to
interfere in a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In doing
so, I speak on behalf of all my former colleagues who still work
in the education sector. I also speak on behalf of all those who
voted for me last October 25 and asked me to defend Quebec's
interests as best as I can. I also speak on behalf of all students
attending a school, a college, a CEGEP or a university. But,
mainly, I speak for future generations, who certainly deserve
better than what the federal government is proposing with its
Bill C-28.
I would have liked to conclude by giving an outline of this
legislation, but it is absolutely impossible and the reason is very
simple: most of the provisions contained in Bill C-28 will be
implemented through regulations to be made public later. When
exactly will that be? It is hard to say since that, too, I imagine,
will be subject to a discretionary decision from the minister.
4324
Out of respect for the public, it would be in the interest of this
Liberal government, which has been stressing the virtues of
integrity and transparency for months, to take a serious look at
these nice principles before tabling a bill in this House. I
therefore ask the government to be a little more honest and frank
with Quebecers and Canadians. In this bill, too many measures
will be taken through regulations. Why will the minister not
table at least a draft of these future regulations?
The minister responsible also gives himself way too much
power with this legislation. Why is the government trying to
muzzle opposition members by granting excessive discretionary
powers to the minister? Bill C-28 seems to be an attempt to hide
from us important elements and the government is doing its best
to ensure that no light is shed on this issue. I remain convinced
that if the Liberal government is going to the trouble of playing
hide-and-seek with its legislation, it is because its intentions
may not be as noble as it claims.
Quebecers are not as uneducated as the federal government
seems to think.
(1215)
Those awful separatists are not the only ones who are
concerned about the integrity of our education system. We saw
an instance of this today in the newspaper La voix de l'Est,
where Valère Audy, a highly federalist editorial writer, made
some comments that were particularly relevant to today's
debate. I will quote what he said, since it is a clear indictment of
the federal government's ulterior motives in all areas connected
with education.
This is what Mr. Audy had to say: ``Education is already a
provincial matter, and Quebec does not intend to relinquish any
part of that jurisdiction, but it must be careful because the
federal government is constantly trying to encroach on that
area''.
This comment reflects how important it is for Quebec to
maintain its jurisdiction over primary, secondary and
post-secondary education.
The carrot concept does not work any more in Quebec. The
federal government may think that when they see a red maple
leaf at the bottom of a cheque from the Royal Bank, Quebec
students will become ardent federalists and spend the rest of
their lives thanking their federal benefactor. It would hardly be
in character for Quebecers, but it would not surprise me if the
Liberal Party of Canada were to make that assumption.
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Madam
Speaker, I take great exception to the remarks of the member
across the way. He used language to suggest that the government
was devious and underhanded. If the member does not agree
with the federal government's being involved in training
programs, what is new? Let us call a spade a spade. Let us not
use deceptive language to try to put down someone else because
we hold a different view. I find that very difficult to accept. We
are working as a House of Commons, as a body, to try to pursue a
better Canada for all Canadians.
I take note that the member did not touch on the bill; he had
another agenda. I have a question to put to him. Does he or his
party find anything worthwhile in the bill? Or, is he only
interested in the issue he talked about, that is Quebec and
Quebec independence? I would like the hon. member to respond.
[Translation]
Mr. Péloquin: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that as long
as the federal government tries to intrude in jurisdictions that
are strictly provincial, I will never be able to accept, I will never
be able to vote in favour of this legislation. If the other
provinces in Canada are satisfied and can live with this because
it suits them and because it is what anglophones want, that is
fine. But the hon. member seems to forget that Quebec is French
and that Quebec has very specific needs that relate to its culture
and its language.
All things considered, the federal government has no business
intruding in a matter under provincial jurisdiction, and that is
why I cannot accept the bill as it applies to all of Canada.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like
to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development. He has introduced an extremely progressive bill,
one that is very important for young Canadians because, Madam
Speaker, as you know this bill will rejuvenate legislation which
was left untouched by the former Conservative government for
ten years.
(1220)
One of the most important provisions of this bill is the
proposed increase in student assistance of 57 per cent per year.
Students across Canada, whether they live in Quebec, Alberta or
another province, will be able to benefit from a 57 per cent
increase in financial assistance.
As for the question raised earlier by my colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois concerning provincial deductions, I would point
out to him that this bill gives provincial governments the choice
of opting out. As my hon. colleague knows, the province of
Quebec and the Northwest Territories have already exercised
their right to opt out of the existing legislation. The federal
government reimburses the equivalent of $72 million to them.
4325
Therefore, as far as the question of provincial jurisdiction is
concerned, the argument really does not wash.
[English]
We have to move away from jurisdictional bickering and
focus on the whole issue before us. The proposal by the minister
calls for an increase in grants and student loans. We have to
commend the minister for coming forward with the proposal and
for amending an act which has not been touched for over
10 years. It goes back 20 or 25 years. It is an archaic act that
does not reflect the reality of today.
My colleague questioned why the federal government was
trying to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. My answer is quite
frank. In Canada there are over 300,000 people between the ages
of 15 and 24 who are unemployed. These figures do not include
people who have given up looking for work. They live in the
Atlantic provinces, Quebec and elsewhere across the country.
We have reason to be concerned.
Also across Canada on an annual basis in excess of 100,000
students are dropping out. We have reason to be concerned. It
does not matter which province or territory we come from. Over
33 per cent of our youth are dropping out before they finish high
school. We have reason to be concerned. It does not matter
which province or which territory we come from.
In excess of 38 per cent of Canadians are considered to be
functionally illiterate or have difficulty reading or writing. We
have reason to be concerned. It does not matter which territory
or which province we come from, especially when the cost of
illiteracy is in excess of $10 billion to the economy as a whole. I
would suggest colleagues on both sides of the House should be
very concerned about it.
The minister is to be commended when he proposes
amendments to the act and comes forward with tangible
propositions to deal with a situation of national proportion, a
situation which I personally call a national crisis.
My colleague from St. Boniface worked very hard along with
other colleagues on this side of the House to reform the act, to
make a tangible proposition so that we would have an act to
reflect the reality of the nineties. My colleagues and the minister
must be commended for consulting people from all walks of life,
special interest groups, educational institutions and so on, to
bring forward an act to reflect the realities of the nineties. They
must be commended.
(1225)
If there are complaints about certain aspects of the act let us
put them on the table in the form of amendments. It is the
responsibility of government to look at those amendments and
to deal with them in a positive and fair way.
I cannot for the life of me give up on the issue of education in
Canada. If we look at the needs of the nation, at the way we are
going, at the international situation and at the national situation,
we cannot help but say we must do something now. Sixty-five
per cent of all jobs in the 1990s and beyond the year 2000 will
require at least a grade 13 education if not more.
We can look at the figures to find out that between the ages of
15 and 24 years only 9.8 per cent of our youth actually have
university degrees. If we look at the same figures between the
ages of 15 and 24 years only 17.7 per cent of them have high
school diplomas. This is a national crisis that needs a national
plan or a national strategy.
The Minister of Human Resources Development must be
commended for beginning the dialogue. Ultimately we should
have national norms or national standards across Canada for
education with the provinces having the right to opt out if they
so choose. The minister has proposed a provision for provinces
to opt out. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with that
provided they fulfil the commitment to quality education.
Education is already under the jurisdiction of provincial
governments. There is no need to be nervous about the issue.
The federal government is not trying to grab more
responsibilities from provincial governments. It is the opposite.
We are saying and putting in writing that education is a
provincial responsibility. We want to work with the provinces.
We want to enter into dialogue with the provinces to progress
with the agenda, not block the wheels of the car that so far has
not been moving as fast as we would like it to move.
There should be national standards across Canada provided by
the provinces in the core subjects of mathematics, grammar and
the sciences. There should be a national strategy for the training,
recruitment and retention of well qualified and motivated
teachers at all levels of education: primary, secondary and
university.
Also educators should have regular professional development
programs made available to them to be kept informed of new
training methods, technology and developments in the subjects
they teach, in particular the core subjects we spoke about. There
should be closer links among the different elements of the
educational system, industry and employers, the co-operative
programs the minister included in his proposal and spoke about
over and over again.
A colleague in the opposition mentioned that many people in
the province of Quebec did not have as much access to education
as they should have had. I agree with him totally. It is a shame
that we still have disparity in terms of access to education and
the educational system as a whole across the land. For example,
in Newfoundland we find the illiteracy rate is rampant at 40 per
cent to 45 per cent. That is a national shame that must be
addressed. In Quebec the figure improves a bit but is still not at
an acceptable standard. Ontario and the western provinces show
4326
more improvement in terms of the illiteracy level, but it is still
not satisfactory. Everybody should be working together.
(1230)
Nowadays when you finish high school in British Columbia
do you think you can transfer your credits to a high school in
Ottawa, in Quebec or in Newfoundland?-no. They do not
recognize them. There are no norms, no standards, nothing. The
educational system is in chaos.
Madam Speaker, I see you signalling me. I hope somebody
will ask me a question. A long-winded debate is raging about
jurisdiction when the debate should be about responsibility of
the different levels of government to deliver a quality service.
The minister is to be commended.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Madam Speaker, I am to
understand from what the hon. member who just spoke said that
the bill before us this morning is meant as some kind of
compensation or at least something to remedy the federal
government's inability to create jobs? In other words, are they
saying: ``Seeing that we are unable to create jobs, let us keep
students in school longer and let them get deeper and deeper into
debt just so that they do not make statistics worse''? Is that what
this bill is about? That is what I gathered from the hon.
member's remarks.
Regarding national standards, I think that English Canada can
develop its own, and it is not my place to intervene in that. In the
case of Quebec however, it is a different story. I am an elected
representative of Quebec and the standards this gentleman
imposes on the rest of Canada leave me rather cold, but when he
wants to impose standards upon Quebec in an area of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction, no way!
So, this was my question: Does the bill before us confirm that
the government, being unable or incapable of creating jobs at the
present time, will cause students to stay in school
indeterminately, perhaps causing further indebtedness, just to
defer the problem a few years? Also, in view of the present lack
of skilled labour in various trades in Canada, does this bill on
student loans apply to these trades as well? I would like a brief
comment on that.
Mr. Harb: Madam Speaker, I would recommend that the hon.
member read the bill, because it does deal with the issue of
access to education for young Canadians. Ultimately, the
purpose of the bill is to facilitate access to the education system
for young Canadians. This is not a bill to resolve all social and
economic problems in Canada, but I can tell you that it is a very
progressive step toward resolving the present economic crisis in
Canada. This is a most progressive proposal. All my hon.
colleague has to do is ask university students in his area; they
will tell him that Canadian students are living under the poverty
line.
I have spoken with several students and I was myself a
student. I remember how many times a week we had hot-dogs
and macaroni. I am not saying that it is not good food, but the
point is that students live under the poverty line.
I think of all those dropping out these days. A great many
students are quitting school because they cannot afford the costs
involved. This bill will help them by providing them access to
education.
If my hon. colleague does a little research, he will find that at
the university level, nearly 50 per cent of students do not
complete their degree because, unfortunately, they have to work
to support themselves. That is why what the minister is
proposing is very important for Canadian students. I hope I have
answered the hon. member's question.
(1235)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services):
Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this
debate today. In fact, I have nothing but praise for the efforts of
the minister who is responsible for this initiative. There is
nothing political about this bill. We are trying to respond to the
needs of Canadian students who wish to continue their
education, and that includes students from Quebec.
This bill has a built-in flexibility which allows people from
Quebec, the Northwest Territories or anywhere else to either
participate or opt out. So why make this bill a political issue
instead of seeing it as a bill that deals with a number of very
important issues? I do not understand this attitude. I wish hon.
members opposite would discuss specific points and tell us how
to improve the proposed legislation, and I wish they would drop
the political references. Look at the bill and tell us how you
would improve it, if you have any useful suggestions.
As you may recall, I was in the House during the last
Parliament, and the hon. member who just made the
presentation was there, and many times he and I and a number of
other members condemned the Conservative government's
failure to act on the student loans issue. There were many
problems, and they did not deal with any of them. This
government has listened and reacted very positively.
[English]
We heard and we acted, and we acted in an extremely positive
way.
4327
What did we do? We need to look at it from two perspectives:
the perspective of students generally today and what
government has undertaken to try to make life more appealing,
more accommodating for them as they pursue their education or
work in the workforce; and the specific item in front of us today,
the legislation with respect to student aid.
What have we done generally for students, in what kinds of
situations do they find themselves today? I am referring to the
number of initiatives that the government has recently
announced. Let me briefly review them because I want to spend
most of my time on the specific elements of the legislation.
[Translation]
As you will recall, there were two components. The first was
Youth Employment. It covered a number of programs that
encouraged youth employment, including Youth Service
Canada, which was an attempt to ensure that young people
would be able to acquire job experience that would make it
easier for them to enter the labour market. We also have youth
internship programs to help young people acquire the training
they need to find good, well-paying jobs that will contribute to
Canada's prosperity.
Within the same component we had summer employment
programs to help young people find summer jobs and acquire
job experience relevant to their future education or to the skills
they will need in a full-time job. As you will recall, there was
also a second component.
The second component was called: Learning Strategy. This
component embraced a number of initiatives, including the
reform of the Canada Student Loans Program.
(1240)
What I want to discuss in depth in a little while is that we also
had initiatives on learning. They were mostly aimed at setting
national objectives whenever possible, not to supervise or
restrict any province or territory but to try to agree so that the
young and the not-so-young could work in any province or
territory.
We also had the partnership-based Stay-in-School Program
to reduce the drop-out rate.
These are important initiatives.
[English]
These are important initiatives for young Canadians. I believe
that most fair minded people would say that there has been a
tremendous effort on the part of the government and a number of
the ministers, including the minister responsible, to respond to
the needs of youth, whether it be for educational or work
purposes.
Let me talk briefly about some of the more important
components of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.
Most people recognize that it increases the loan limits by 57 per
cent, $265 a week, which is still not a fortune. One still needs to
budget very carefully. It raises the ceiling on part time loans to
$4,000 from $2,500. This was a serious weakness in the last
program. These are two problems that were really very serious.
It creates a national program of special opportunity grants for
special target groups; students with disabilities, high need part
time students, women, and doctoral studies. We recognize that
these groups are under represented. We need to make a special
effort to make sure they are represented.
It establishes a regionally sensitive approach to assessing
student need. This was a need and continues to be a need. I am
delighted that we have responded to it.
The bill also addresses the whole question of the repayment
burden on recent graduates. This will be alleviated by offering
deferred grants and by expanding interest relief. These measures
make sure that students who have debts can pay them back in a
way that responds to their unique situations.
It also addresses the whole issue of consistency and fairness.
This would be reinforced by revising eligibility criteria and by
using a common approach to the decimation of educational
institutions. These were great weaknesses and they have been
addressed. That is not all.
It goes on to address new financing arrangements for student
loans based on lender risk sharing and access to loans and
income sensitive terms and repayment. This will also reduce
costs to taxpayers.
For some members the opting out provision is very important.
It is maintained. I find this totally supportive, sensible and
sensitive. It also addresses the question of provisions which
would be made to harmonize federal and provincial student
assistance programs by streamlining financing and
administration. It also addresses new approaches to providing
aid and is prepared to explore income contingency repayment of
loans. In fact, there will be some pilot projects on this.
[Translation]
As I just mentioned, this bill raises many questions which
should have been addressed a long time ago. Unfortunately, it
has not been done. I am not saying that this bill is perfect. After
all, what bill ever is?
But I believe that if we look at this bill, at the situation
students now find themselves in, at our labour-force initiatives,
at the various programs put in place by this government; if we
consider this bill in the light of today's situation; if we recognize
that there was not enough money for students to continue their
education, that there were major weaknesses with regard to
part-time students, that we were often insensitive to the
problems of students who had trouble repaying their loans; if we
recognize all this, Madam Speaker, I believe we will agree that
this commendable initiative should be encouraged and
supported.
4328
(1245)
[English]
I hoped that we would take the politics out of this bill. I hoped
that people would look at it for what it is, a serious and
comprehensive attempt to respond to students and their needs
across the nation.
If members have specific suggestions to make in order to
improve this, we welcome them.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam
Speaker, this bill is of personal interest to me. Before getting
into my present line of work I was a teacher.
I graduated from the University of Saskatchewan. Two of my
daughters are presently attending the university and I have two
more at home who also plan on going to the university. You can
see I have a deep personal interest and understanding of
university and for how much an education costs. I know that 25
years ago the cost was high and I know what it costs today. I am
deeply concerned about the cost in the future.
I have spent much of my working life preparing students for
university. Some of them have chosen to go directly from high
school into the work world, but some have gone to other
post-secondary institutions, including universities.
Since statistics consistently show that individuals with
university degrees have considerably larger lifetime incomes, I
tried my best to convince as many of my students as possible to
go to university. I often explained to them that for every day they
spent in high school they could expect to earn $200 extra in their
lifetime. In that way, by getting that higher education I hoped it
would provide some incentive for them to continue on with what
they were studying. Unfortunately not all of my students wanted
to go; they just could not afford it.
Even though this bill will increase the amount of loan money
available to students by 57 per cent, the fact remains that the
discriminatory aspects of the Canada student loans program still
remain.
This bill, as in the past, will require students and their
families to take a means test. This means those students whose
parents are well off are ineligible for student loans. Even if those
students receive no assistance from their parents and have to go
it alone, they are ineligible.
Low income taxpayers are especially discriminated against as
they are less apt to send their children to university. Yet their
taxes are used to pay for post-secondary education, including
the government's share of the student loans program which is
$479 million this year alone.
By 1990 two-thirds of the adult population did not possess
post-secondary credentials. This means that two-thirds of the
people are helping to pay the post-secondary education costs of
the other third who, as stated before, earn considerably higher
incomes. We have the poor subsidizing the rich. To put things in
plain English, this bill will perpetuate a problem which has
existed since 1964. We always have had this kind of thing, the
poor subsidizing the rich for their education.
The most serious area of discrimination is in the repayment of
student loans which we find onerous and rigid. The current
program discriminates against the poor and unemployed by
forcing them to pay back their loans at the same level as those
who are gainfully employed and/or those students who end up
earning far more money.
The repayment plan is inflexible because it forces former
students to begin repaying their loans six or eight months after
graduation, irrespective of the borrower's income. This is not
only unfair but it also results in unacceptable default rates on the
loans and increased collection costs, all of which cost taxpayers
more and more money.
Reformers maintain that the government cannot just look at
one part of the problem of funding for post-secondary
education, namely student loans, without looking at the problem
of total government support for post-secondary education in its
entirety.
(1250 )
Total university enrolment has grown by 42 per cent between
1980 and 1991. In 1980 the government invested an average of
$7,700 per full time student to cover university operating
expenses. By 1992 this figure had fallen in constant dollar terms
to under $6,700, a 13.5 per cent drop. Some provinces have
recently announced some absolute cuts in operating grants for
universities.
At a time when we need to become more competitive in the
international community, when we need to upgrade our skills,
when we have to exploit those areas at which we are better at
providing well trained people for the workforce, it is not the
time to be cutting back on university funding. In fact we should
be doing the opposite. We should be trying to take advantage of
our global economy.
Suffice it to say with higher budget deficits, with the
increasing debt load we are experiencing and a higher and higher
percentage of tax revenue needed just to pay the interest on the
debt, the budget squeeze for our universities is going to get
worse before it gets better.
We need to decide what is important in this country. Higher
education is important and we need to preserve that. We need to
preserve health care. There are certain priorities we must
maintain. We cannot do it all for everyone. This government has
to decide what its priorities are and higher education should be
one of those.
4329
With declining income from federal and provincial
governments, universities have sought other sources of revenue.
While revenues from gifts and donations and non-government
grants increased an average of 42 per cent during the 1980s, they
still account for less than 1 per cent of the general operating
income. All of those areas account for less than 1 per cent.
Tuition fees have played a considerably more important role
in helping to offset the decline in government revenue. Tuition
fees have increased 60 per cent since 1980. In 1980 tuition fees
accounted for 13 per cent of general operating revenue for
universities and in 1992 they were a source of 22 per cent, a
substantial increase.
In 1991 the Smith Commission of Inquiry on Canadian
University Education concluded: ``A preoccupation with
underfunding pervades every campus. The effect is extremely
negative''. It concluded that: ``There is room for increasing
tuition fees, provided there is an effective proper student
assistance plan''-and here is the key phrase-``with automatic
income contingent repayment''.
The previous speaker asked for positive suggestions. We are
going to give him one of those positive suggestions at this time.
What I would like to explore in more detail is this whole
concept of student loans with a built in, automatic income
contingent repayment plan. The Reform Party supports a move
in this direction for three basic reasons: there would be a
reduced cost to the taxpayer if we implemented this; there would
be greater flexibility and fairness for students; and the
maintenance of high quality educational services would take
place. Those are three very strong arguments as to why we
should consider income contingent loans.
The reduced cost to the taxpayer is really an important one at
this time because we cannot load down our taxpayers with more
debt. There is also greater flexibility and greater fairness for our
students. They would have more choices. They would have
access to funds which they previously did not have. It would
allow them to get into fields they would like to pursue. With this
increased, or this change in funding, the educational institutions
would also have more flexibility.
(1255 )
In fact on April 29, Motion No. 291 was introduced by the
leader of the Reform Party which asked the government to
consider amending the Canada Student Loans Act to include an
income contingent repayment system for the very reasons I have
just mentioned. The hon. member for Medicine Hat outlined
some of the details of how an automatic income contingent
repayment plan would work but I think it bears repeating.
Simply put, an income contingent loan repayment scheme for
post-secondary education would allow students to pay back
their student loans over a period of time based on their annual
income and using the income tax machinery to monitor and
collect student loans. That is already in place.
Here in a nutshell is how it would work. All students would be
eligible for a student loan. The means test would be eliminated.
Upon graduation a student would begin to pay back their student
loan. The loan repayment plan would be linked to the student's
earnings or the ability to pay. Precisely how much a former
student paid back would vary from year to year, depending on
his or her salary level. That seems to me to be a very fair way to
collect the money. The specific amount would be set as a
percentage of income. It would be paid back through the income
tax system. We would not have to set up a new collection system.
If a person's income did not reach a specified amount, the
payment would be deferred until their earnings came up.
This repayment system depends entirely on the supply of
accurate income statements long after the individual has left the
institution of higher learning. Revenue Canada would have to
supply the necessary data automatically. It could be done
cheaply through the whole income tax system and through
statements those people would supply. This would necessitate
the recording of student borrowers with the tax department of
course, and the inclusion of social insurance numbers on student
loan forms.
With the full details of each student including future incomes
and movement within Canada, the income tax authorities would
act as the primary monitor of subsequent loan collections.
Income tax is already doing this now in the case of defaults on
student loans when they apply tax refunds toward the student
loan debt. That is a positive suggestion and I hope the
government is listening.
Income contingent repayment would save taxpayers money. It
would save money by drastically reducing the number of
defaulted loans. It would save money between the simple
interest paid by student borrowers and the accumulated or
compound interest paid by the government. It would
dramatically reduce the collection fees on defaulted loans.
Between 1985 and 1990, $44 million in student loans were
written off for a total write-off proportion of nearly 5 per cent.
The value of the defaults accumulated on the federal books since
1984 is rapidly approaching $1 billion. Collection agencies are
now being hired to collect the money which in itself involves
substantial costs.
With the total value of default now over $900 million the
potential earnings for the collection agencies is estimated to
range from $135 million to $170 million. Those are the fees just
to collect these. Income contingent repayment could be imple-
4330
mented immediately at far less cost, thereby improving the
collection success rate with less frustration and aggravation for
students and for government.
In 1993 the Association for Universities and Colleges of
Canada developed a proposal called ``A New Student Assistance
Plan'' based on a concept of income contingent repayment. It
recently made a presentation to the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development as part of the phase one
consultations the minister has on his review of social programs.
The materials provided by the association list the benefits of
its proposed student loan income contingent plan. I want to go
through three areas of benefits that it lists. I hope the
government is listening because this is a key group that has put
these forth.
First of all, there are the benefits for students. Students would
have increased accessibility and increased availability. It would
not depend on many factors that are now put into this whole
system. They would have increased access. It would be for all
students. That is a very key advantage.
(1300)
Second, there would be a more fair method of repayment. The
student loan would emphasize the student's ability to pay. It
would not automatically come into effect six or eight months
after they graduated from university. It would depend on their
income level. That is a much more fair method.
It would provide student assistance to individuals who do not
currently qualify for means tested student assistance. It would
be available for everyone. It would provide improved benefits
for students in the face of rising educational costs. That is a
reality. We must face the fact that costs are increasing.
The second area explained as being of benefit is a benefit for
the universities. It would allow universities more flexibility in
setting tuition fees, including differential fees by programs. For
example, someone in medicine who could expect a higher return
after graduation could have higher tuition fees. Another benefit
for the university is that it would assist universities in
maintaining accessibility in the face of declining government
funding. Government funding continues to go down. It would
help the universities in that area. It would help universities to
meet their mission of providing high quality education for all
qualified students.
Of course the third broad area of benefit would be the benefit
for government. It explains it this way. It would provide an
avenue for the federal government to continue to invest in
higher education and to support equality of opportunity across
Canada.
Second, it would largely eliminate the problem of loan
defaults since students repay only when they reach a specified
income level. Right now 70 per cent of loan defaults occur
within 12 to 18 months of the students completing their studies.
It would address that problem.
It would eliminate the need for and the cost of collection
agencies to collect delinquent student loans by using the income
tax system to collect loan payments.
It would also be of benefit to government in that it would help
the government meet its objectives of encouraging life long
learning.
Finally, it would permit more fairness in the way governments
provide student assistance.
There are those who oppose income contingent repayment,
but I do not think their arguments hold up under serious
examination. For example, the Canadian Association of
University Teachers made a submission to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development. It dismissed
income contingent repayment without even attempting to
compare it to the status quo. It said that under income contingent
repayment, the total cost of education will be greatest for those
who take the longest time to pay and that wealthy students will
pay the least. It failed to consider that both of these statements
are also true under the present system.
Another complaint is that income contingent repayment
would serve as a disincentive for the federal and provincial
governments to maintain their grant levels once tuition fees
begin to rise. This assertion completely ignores the reality of the
past 15 years during which students have assumed a greater and
greater share of their education costs as a result of financial
constraints imposed by both the federal and provincial
governments on these institutions. That is reality. That is the
status quo.
These increases in tuition have taken place in the absence of a
single income contingent repayment plan and for reasons which
have nothing to do with student loan programs. With increasing
enrolments the government deficit, debt crisis and declining
financial support from both levels of government, it is obvious
we cannot just bury our heads in the sand and hope that the
money genie is going to appear and save our schools of higher
education. Let us face reality.
The problem is serious and the problem has to be addressed
now. This bill does not really address the problem. I call on the
government to embark on a complete overhaul of the financial
support system now serving post-secondary institutions and
students.
(1305)
This government continues to tinker with programs. We need
a complete overhaul. We cannot continue to just make small
adjustments. I believe the federal government's established
programs financing should be completely replaced with the
voucher system as described by the hon. member for Medicine
Hat. The student loans legislation should be amended as moved
by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest to provide for
automatic income contingent repayment. We do not need
another pilot project, we need an income contingent repayment
plan for students now.
4331
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Madam
Speaker, one must congratulate the Minister of Human
Resources Development on Bill C-28, an imaginative approach
to updating and modernizing a measure that has been on the
books for some years.
We work in an area of some constitutional doubt. That has
existed since the immediate post-war period when Prime
Minister St. Laurent and his successors ventured into the field of
higher education in the knowledge that without a national
presence, a national leadership, we might fall behind in the race
to achieving and maintaining world standards.
That remains the situation today. There are limits to
constitutional power. They necessarily condition what it is
possible to do at the federal level in the field of higher
education, although with imagination and some civil courage
governments are doing their utmost in that area.
It is also important to remember that we live in the era of
budgetary restraint now with us. There are limits to what you
can do in any area without taking away from other priority areas.
What this legislation does is change something that has not
been fundamentally changed in 30 years. It is very noticeable in
terms of the financial provisions, the benefits available to
students, which were frozen by the preceding government at
1984 levels. It is very much to be welcomed that the minister has
taken the lead here with the substantial increase in the loan
limits, a figure of 57 per cent, reflecting the growth in education
costs borne by students over the intervening 10 years.
In fact, if you examine the projections for the next five years,
the value of aid for students from the federal government would
be $6 billion, an increase of $2.5 billion compared with the
previous five years. That recognizes the commitments made by
the Prime Minister during the election campaign to bring our
standards of education in line with the best of the world
community, that we would meet the standards of Japanese
education, German education, education for society on the
leading edge of technology. This is without derogating from the
necessary provision which we all respect for the arts and other
areas apart from the natural sciences.
Investing in students in higher educational institutions is an
investment in Canada's future. The government is honouring its
commitment made during the election campaign.
I think there is merit in examining the sensitiveness with
which federal-provincial relations have been handled here. For
provinces which for their own historic reasons, related perhaps
to different views of the role of education, want to opt out of the
program, provision is made for compensation so that the
students in those provinces can benefit from the increases in
federal provisions.
The other measures in the bill relate to rationalization,
streamlining and updating the legislative scheme in existence
for the past 30 years, increasing the loan limits for full and part
time students and special opportunity grants to meet exceptional
education costs of students with disabilities, high need part time
students and women in doctoral studies, and establishing
objective but regionally sensitive approaches to assessing
needs.
(1310 )
The issue of repayment of student loans is one which all
candidates in the last election who have institutions of higher
education within their constituencies or who themselves have
experienced education in higher institutions are aware of. It is a
matter of extreme concern in a period where summer
employment has largely dwindled away and where the economic
opportunities and the times of the affluent continually
expanding society are no longer there.
Many of us in the last few months have been concerned with
approaching the minister or the officials in charge and arguing
on a case by case basis the merits of flexibility and adjustment of
the terms of student repayment of loans. I must report, although
this has been a certain amount of work for my staff, that we have
been delighted to assume the burden and that we have had a good
success record.
This raises one of the issues which is always true for students
of law and society. How much do you try to do by legislation?
How much do you try to produce in your legislation an
exhaustive code of many many pages? How much must you
leave to administrative discretion with proper controls over the
discretion to ensure that it is exercised with flexibility and
compassion where that is needed?
I believe in amelioration of the conditions of repayment of
these student loans. In particular I noted the repayment terms
become income sensitive. Borrowers are able to choose between
floating and fixed rates of interest based on lender to prime. I
think these are measures from which we can take great
encouragement.
I would suggest more flexibility in the timing period. There
are ways of doing this administratively and, as I said, on a case
by case basis. I and I am sure many other members on both sides
of the House have experienced a warm response on the part of
education officials when we raised the cases with them.
The importance of this is that all eligible students across
Canada continue to have access to Canada student loans whether
it is directly through the federal government or through their
own provincial governments in the case of those provinces that
4332
have opted out or may wish to opt out in the future from the
national plan.
The costs of the reform are controlled through development of
a consistent method of assessing student need. This is being
developed jointly with the provinces. The federal aid sharing
approach is caught up with the larger inquiries now being made
for harmonizing and improving federal-provincial relations and
administrative machinery in the areas where the federal
government makes grants-in-aid to the provinces.
On this particular aspect I think the government has already
made considerable progress. What is here essentially is a
program of updating, modernization, with more flexibility,
more compassion, more understanding, if you wish, of student
needs that is related to the realities that there are limits to
federal power in the field of education. This government and
preceding Liberal governments have done their best to interpret
federal powers flexibly in the light of the higher policy needs.
There is also the recognition in a period of genuine budgetary
restraint that if you grant in one area you cut in another. What is
very impressive here is the high priority that this government
gives to education. Higher education is the key to our future. It is
the key to the job strategy at the beginning of the 21st century.
Education that is put forward now trains people with the
technology that is necessary to build our industrial recovery and
expansion in the next century.
(1315 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Madam Speaker, during
the election Liberal members talked a lot about allowing
committees to have more power in Parliament.
One of the concerns with this bill actually comes from the
Association of Universities and Community Colleges. It is
worried that any agreement with the banks that would allow the
banks to lend money and collect might be so restrictive that it
would not allow income contingent repayments to come into
being. It has been suggested that the standing committee might
be the appropriate place for any agreement with the banks to be
vetted.
I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to suggest to the
minister that the standing committee would be the appropriate
place to have the agreement with the banks reviewed and
whether the government still holds to the commitment of
empowering the committees to do that type of vetting.
Mr. McWhinney: I thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat
for his thoughtful question.
The cases I was referring to-that I have handled personally
in the last few months-in fact a species of income adjustment
has been reached in the administrative disposition of the cases
with flexible responses on the part of the administrators.
Whether this should be generated into a general rule is a matter
that could be referred to a House committee. I must say I am not
familiar with the activities of the committee in charge of this
bill, but it seems to me it would be a thoughtful and helpful
suggestion to pass on to the committee. As I say it can be
reached through administrative arrangement.
Members should not underestimate their ability in raising a
case for their constituents with administrators to get an
appropriate response. However a more general rule through a
committee would be helpful.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Madam Speaker, I want to make a few comments and to
commend the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra on a very
thoughtful presentation.
My comments refer to my other colleague from Medicine Hat
and I make them as chair of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development which as he knows since he is a
frequent attender to our committee is carrying out on behalf of
the government an extensive consultation on Canada's social
security system, including provisions which are being made by
the Government of Canada to assist students. The whole student
aid and student loans program come under the mandate that we
have been given as a committee in connection with the social
security review.
As well, it is to the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development that this legislation will be referred. I want to say
by way of comment that I think the whole matter of income
contingent repayment and other features of the student loan
system fall very much within the purview of either of the
mandates that the committee has in order to review that part of
the work of the human resources development department.
Regardless of what the government proposes in terms of
broader social security reform, the points that have been made
by my colleague from Vancouver Quadra and by others on this
side of the House as to the need to update the loan limits, to
make the student loans provisions more flexible, to assist
targeted groups that are under represented in the student
population, such as women, persons with disabilities and others,
and to present that package in a way that is fiscally responsible,
has got to be a direction that we as Canadians have to go when it
comes to assisting students to pursue higher education.
(1320 )
I believe members on all sides of the House would agree with
me that the key to Canada's economic prosperity in the future is
a well educated workforce. The key to providing hope for our
young people is to provide access to higher learning.
The Canada student loans program which languished and fell
behind under the 10 years of the Tory administration needs to be
brought up to date quickly and that is really what the Minister of
Human Resources Development is doing with this legislation.
4333
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to be taking part in this debate. I am particularly
delighted to follow my colleague from Cape Breton
Highlands-Canso who is an important part of the human
resources team. I want to underline and echo the words that he
spoke with regard to the updating of the Canada student loans
program.
I represent the riding of Halifax. Within the boundaries of my
riding are Dalhousie University, St. Mary's University, the Nova
Scotia College of Art and Design, the Technical University of
Nova Scotia and the University of King's College. We also have
the Atlantic School of Theology and just outside my riding in
Halifax West is Mount St. Vincent University. Halifax is very
much a university city. Students in Halifax are very much a part
of our culture, if you will, and they certainly are very important
to our economy.
In my nearly six years as a member of Parliament one of the
things I have been concerned about, particularly representing a
university town in Atlantic Canada, and I have said this on many
occasions previous in this House, is the fact that in Nova Scotia
we have the highest tuitions, the lowest salaries for both faculty
and administrative staff, and the oldest physical plants.
However we still manage to provide probably, indeed not just
probably, indubitably, the best university education that can be
received in the country. Of course I include not just the
universities in Halifax. I include St. Francis Xavier University,
with a bow to my colleague from Cape Breton
Highlands-Canso, Acadia University, the University College
of Cape Breton and Université Sainte Anne at
Pointe-de-l'Église.
We have gone a long time without an update to the Canada
student loans program. Certainly over the last six years I have
met frequently with students. They come to my office in
Halifax, they come to my office here in Ottawa as part of their
national lobbying process. My house is on the edge of the
Dalhousie campus and I meet with students on a regular basis
just doing my grocery shopping or walking around in my riding
on the weekends.
One of the unfortunate hallmarks of the last several years has
been the fact that university students have been very much
afraid. Certainly in my riding of Halifax they have been afraid.
Their tuition rates have risen enormously because of rising costs
and because the Canada student loans program was not keeping
up with their needs.
Add to that the problem with getting jobs, with trying to
balance studies and part time jobs, and you have a fairly stressed
out population among students. These young people worked
hard but they saw problems everywhere they turned and they
saw unfortunately in the past a government that was not very
responsive.
In consequence I am absolutely delighted that this bill
delivers on a commitment made by the government in its youth
and learning strategy. That commitment was to improve student
assistance to better serve the needs of present and future
generations of students.
(1325 )
We talk a great deal in Nova Scotia about the brain drain.
Perhaps we can be pardoned for reiterating the statement but
Nova Scotians have travelled right across this country. They
serve in legislatures. They are on the faculties of universities.
They are on the boards and in the management offices of large
and small businesses. Many of these Nova Scotians who have
fanned out across this great country of ours are a product of
Nova Scotian education.
We are delighted to make this contribution to the national
effort. We are proud of the daughters and sons of our province
who go farther afield to make their futures. For a long time we
have been concerned that this tremendous outpouring of the
educated was going to be stifled because young Nova Scotians
just were not going to be able to take advantage of the
opportunities that our great universities give to them.
It is important to note that loan levels had been frozen for 10
years while tuition fees were rising at an alarming rate. It is
important to note that this legislation sets the stage to modernize
the whole Canada student loan program which has not been
fundamentally changed in 30 years. This means effectively,
while I hate to admit it, that prior to this bill the Canada student
loan legislation was exactly the same for the students starting
university last year as it was when I started university-perish
the thought-30 years ago this September. I could say I was two
but it would not be true. The need for change and the time for
change clearly had come.
A number of us within the caucus, as we worked on the policy
plans that led to the red book, had lobbied very long and very
hard with the Minister of Finance, as he is now, and with
Chaviva Hosek, who was then head of the research bureau and is
now chief policy adviser to the Prime Minister, for changes. I am
delighted to see that those changes have come about through the
presentation of this bill.
What is particularly edifying about this legislation is the
increasing of the loan limits for full and part time students and
the providing of special opportunity grants. This is something
that was long overdue. Special opportunity grants are in this bill
to meet the exceptional education costs of students with
disabilities, high need part time students and women in doctoral
studies, and to establish an objective, regionally sensitive
approach to assessing student need. I will address the last point
very briefly by saying that life can be very different for a student
in Nova Scotia than for a student in metropolitan Toronto and
different again for a student in the prairies or in Vancouver. It is
4334
time that the Canada student loan recognized those regional
differences.
I want to say that the special opportunity grants are a
tremendous addition to the Canadian student loan program.
I attended as an undergraduate Mount St. Vincent University
in Halifax where I later taught. I was fortunate enough to be a
member of both the board of governors and the senate and I was
also president of the national board of the alumni for Mount St.
Vincent.
Mount St. Vincent has special programs for women. It has
special programs for students with special needs. However for a
long time those of us involved with Mount St. Vincent knew that
it was necessary for the Canada student loans program to reflect
and be sensitive to these particular needs.
I am particularly delighted that this is being looked at and
taken care of in this bill. I sincerely hope that no one thinks that
the moneys being expended through this legislation are a waste.
(1330)
I hope we will not hear that this investment in the future of
Canadians, young Canadians, Canadians with special needs,
Canadian women and so on, is something we should not be
doing. The need to invest in our students, in the next generation,
in those who are to carry on nation building and ensuring that
this remains the greatest country on earth, is never a waste. I for
one sincerely hope that no one in the House would suggest
otherwise.
I conclude my remarks by congratulating the Minister of
Human Resources Development for bringing forward the bill.
The students of Canada, particularly the students of universities
in my riding, will rejoice that the government has taken its duty
to heart and has fulfilled another promise from the red book. It is
taking to heart what is in the best interest of Canadians,
particularly young Canadians, making it law and making sure
that we as a government represent and put forward the very best.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the hon.
member, especially since she hails from the Maritimes. I would
like to ask her a question about the decision to abolish the
special 18-month deferral given to students who have graduated
but have failed to find a job.
The previous legislation stipulated that any student who could
not find work after graduation, something that happens often
enough due to the current economic recovery situation, was
given an 18-month deferral, which meant that the student could
continue looking for some work without having to pay back his
or her loan.
I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to suggest to
her government to reinstate the deferral period in this bill,
through an amendment, at committee stage or any other way, so
that, given the economic situation, someone who is looking for
work will not be penalized and thrown out in the streets merely
because society cannot provide him or her with a job.
I am asking hon. members, and especially those from the
Maritimes who will have to address unemployment issues, like
the increase in eligible weeks and the reduction in benefit weeks
following the social reform, would it not be possible to ease
things up for students by maintaining the previous provisions
which gave an 18-month deferral to unemployed graduates?
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question but ask for a clarification. In my experience it was not
an 18-month deferral under the previous student loans
legislation. It was a six-month deferral and if there were special
circumstances the time period could be extended. Before I
became a member of Parliament, I acted several times for
students who were given longer deferral periods.
Perhaps it was different in Quebec because Quebec had the
opting out. There may have been something different in the
province of Quebec but, as I understand it, it was six months. As
I also understand it, if circumstances warrant deferrals can
continue. Given that we have to be very responsible fiscally, if
students are working and can pay back they should pay back as
soon as possible. Most of us who have bank loans do not get
deferrals if we are working. There is flexibility if there is a
problem; if the student is not working a deferral can be made. It
was not at any time 18 months, but as I say there may have been a
different situation in the province of Quebec.
(1335)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Madam Speaker, I have
a quick question about the affirmative action part of the
program.
Could the hon. member tell us roughly what percentage of
women are currently undergraduates in the physical sciences
compared to men? What would be the difference between male
undergraduates going on to graduate school and females?
The second part of the question is if the government goes
ahead with the legislation what steps will be taken to ensure that
men still have access to all the spots in graduate school so that
there is no discrimination against men through legislation by the
government?
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I will defend to my dying
breath the rights of men to get into graduate school. I reassure
the hon. member for Medicine Hat that while I do not have at my
fingertips the percentages of women in the physical sciences and
the other programs he mentioned, at the moment members of the
4335
male gender are not in any danger of losing their superiority in
numbers in graduate schools in the country, particularly in the
sciences.
I merely tell the hon. member there is a fairly strong men's
group working on the matter. It is called western civilization.
However, if he is worried about it, he should get deeper into the
whole area of affirmative action to discover that women have
been discriminated against most strongly in these areas for a
number of years. Any program that comes along to ensure more
women in these areas is obviously going to be supported by the
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-28
regarding student loans and other forms of financial assistance.
I would like to start with a brief historical background. In
1964, Quebec decided to opt out of the student loans legislation,
and this has allowed us to develop a different model, more suited
to the various regions of Quebec and the different forms of
education we have. For example, at the college level, we have
one extra year before entering university, something which does
not exist in English provinces. We are proud of the model we
have developed over the years and, even though there have been
a few glitches from time to time, we have something which
answers the needs of our students. This is particularly important
in regions like the one I represent where we have two CEGEPs,
one in La Pocatière and one in Rivière-du-Loup.
There is also one university, the Université du Québec à
Rimouski, which serves the riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and one vocational training
centre which you enter after high school. They are all important
for the region, not only from an economic point of view because
of the students they attract from elsewhere, but also because
once they graduate these people can contribute to the economic
development of the region.
It is important that the provisions be an incentive to study.
The example I was giving earlier to the hon. member is a case in
point.
When you remove the possibility for students who have
completed their studies to benefit from an exemption period
should they fail to find employment, you introduce a
disincentive to education. This is particularly so in areas where
unemployment, especially seasonal unemployment, is high and
where the likelihood of finding employment a few months after
graduation is remote. We would have liked to see in this bill a
more decentralized approach. Unfortunately, what we see
instead is more of the same as in the UI reform where the
Minister of Human Resources Development announced an
increase in the number of insurable work weeks and a decrease
of the benefit period, which is a direct attack against those
economies which rely heavily on seasonal employment.
(1340)
In the same vein, we find the kind of offensive you would
normally not expect from a Liberal government, especially
given its electoral promises. For instance, you will find that
when a former student becomes disabled, for him to claim his
permanent disability as a reason for not repaying his student
loan, it has to occur within seven months of the end of his
studies. Currently, this period is much longer.
Under the guise of making it easier for students to have access
to the Canada Student Loans Program, in fact the government is
setting stricter limits. It is making it more difficult to invoke
conditions beyond someone's control. Becoming disabled is
usually beyond one's control. If, for example, a student is
disabled as a result of a car accident, during the winter, nine
months after the end of his studies, the course of his life is
altered forever, and on top of that he has to assume the burden of
student loans and grants he was hoping to pay back as soon as he
had a job, which he finds himself unable to do because of his
new disability.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was just talking
about compassion. I think that the government should show
more compassion and treat former students who are in a difficult
situation more humanely instead of the opposite.
Another aspect of this bill that we representatives of Quebec
find totally unacceptable is the departure from what used to be,
that is allowing the appropriate authorities to act in the area of
loans and bursaries since appointments were made by the
provincial cabinet to the appropriate bodies. In the new bill, the
Minister of Human Resources Development takes it upon
himself to appoint these people. We think that this is
unnecessary centralization that will hurt the practical
application of this program in every province.
Secondly, before, provinces opting out as Quebec did had to
show the federal minister that their own plan met the general
conditions of the federal plan, which left them with some leeway
to adjust their loans and bursaries programs to their own needs.
Now the new bill says that the province will have to show that
the program which it wants to implement meets the
requirements of the federal law in every area covered.
Obviously, in the medium term, this will force provinces like
Quebec that want to have their own loans and bursaries to
comply more and more with federal standards and thus, on
occasion, to diverge from their own provincial requirements.
4336
(1345)
On top of the massive centralization it will bring about, this
bill also gives the minister too much leeway in defining the
reform. We are moving from a system where most of the
elements were provided in the legislation to a reform which will,
in the end, be implemented through regulations we know
nothing about.
This is like signing a contract without seeing it. Before the
government signs the contract, we would like to know exactly in
which kind of a regulatory framework this legislation will be
implemented; we want to avoid any surprises, especially since
the examples I gave earlier show these regulations may indeed
contain surprises not altogether to the advantage of students.
Since the minister promises to submit the regulations to a
committee, I believe it would be important that we get them at
this stage so that we may analyze them globally and see if the
program, as it will be when those regulations are implemented,
will be beneficial for students and will in fact create an incentive
for the youth of Quebec and Canada to study, to succeed and to
get well-paying jobs that will enable them to contribute to the
development of their community.
I think this bill should be improved in order that the reform
meets all the requirements of the students and other
stakeholders, that is educational institutions, banks and all other
banking institutions, and that it results in a better system, more
efficient than the one we have now but also more advantageous
for future generations.
The cost of student grants and loans, and on that point I agree
with the member who just spoke, must be regarded as an
investment. It will allow us to see that the generations
graduating in the year 2000 will have a maximum chance of
finding jobs, leading decent lives and creating adequate family
lives.
In the context of this International Year of the Family, I think
that is exactly the attitude we should adopt regarding this
situation.
In concluding, I would like to call the attention of the House
particularly to the rather more difficult circumstances that could
result from the fact that students will be asked to undertake a
study program with very little assurance of being able
afterwards to make use of the time needed to find appropriate
jobs. For instance, a student who is presently in high school
meets a professional training counsellor to discuss his future
choices, and he tells him to get into a loan and bursary system
that provides this and that, that he should get an education in
order to have a better chance of ultimately making good money
and leading a normal life. But if the conditions that are offered
to him are less advantageous, we are encouraging these people
to leave the system.
A bill such as this could, through changes that seem
economically profitable in the short term, have a negative
long-term effect in the sense that students, instead of getting
into the education system in order to be the most competitive
possible, would rather choose to quit school too early, thus not
providing the manpower that Quebec and Canada will need in
the coming years.
(1350)
So, I believe it is important that, in the future, the minister not
bring about, through his decisions, changes that would upset a
system that took several years to develop, especially in Quebec,
where the loan and bursary system has sometimes led to major
discussions. The government should not, by interfering in an
area of provincial jurisdiction, jeopardize advances made in that
area.
We would like the minister to insure most of all the tabling of
regulations to make sure that the package is an interesting and
logical piece of work, rather than a series of scattered decisions
or decisions that will make the life of students more difficult.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade): Madam Speaker, several Opposition
members have raised an issue which I consider a rather
interesting one: jurisdiction over education. They said that
education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Our government
agrees with that, but I would like to set the record straight.
In the bill as tabled by the minister, there is a provision under
which the provinces are not obliged to participate in the
program. As you know, Quebec and the Northwest Territories
have already said they do not want to participate. I would
appreciate if the hon. member would tell me whether he is
satisfied with the bill proposed by the government as far as
jurisdiction is concerned, and I want to stress that this bill
recognizes the right of the provinces and territories to do what is
referred to as opting out.
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for his question, which gives me an opportunity to clarify my
position. It is true that this bill is not satisfactory to us, because
in the section that applies here, the provinces must satisfy the
minister that their plan, in relation to the matter in question, will
substantially have the same effect as the federal plan.
Previously, this requirement only concerned the effects of the
plan.
So there is a big difference between the two. Previously, they
said: ``What are the objectives of your plan for Quebec?'' And
the federal minister said they were in line with the federal
objectives, and it was all right. However, as the bill stands now,
it says that the plan will have to have the same effect in relation
to the matter in question, which means that the provinces have
lost the flexibility they had before in this respect, and
everything will depend far more on the individual minister.
4337
The person who is Minister of Human Resources
Development today may not be there a few years from now. And
we can expect bureaucratic inflation because when a
bureaucracy is allowed to check the details of a program, you
may be sure that this will make a lot of jobs for public servants.
Previously, the emphasis was more on political objectives,
and so it was more up to the politicians to make a general
evaluation. In fact, there have been no major problems with
Quebec's opting out in this area for the past thirty years, but
there were no reforms during the past thirty years either. We do
not want the provisions of the new legislation, as it stands now,
to add to bureaucratic constraints, at a time when we should be
doing the exact opposite and giving the provinces as much
leeway as possible.
(1355)
I think this is a time for general legislation which allows for
defining objectives and clearly identifying these objectives and
not a time for setting up audit teams in Ottawa to audit Quebec
and the territories concerned who have the same kind of
situation and fighting about whether our plans have
substantially the same effect. In this respect, the new legislation
is not satisfactory to us, and that is one of the reasons why we
object to the bill.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Madam Speaker,
education is a universal norm. I used to be a teacher. One thing
about education is that it is dynamic.
In a lot of cases although people develop ideas in different
municipalities those ideas might be the same. There has to be
some central body to make sure there is some kind of uniformity.
That is the role of the federal government.
We are not trying to stifle creativity in whatever this
government is drafting. We are trying to make sure that we
enhance and use all the knowledge and talents from all the
provinces. I do not think any one province has talents exceeding
those of another province.
For instance, in my municipality a youngster at one of the
high schools I taught at qualified recently for a global
scholarship. He will be leaving for Japan. I will be making a
statement in this House about that. I know that all provinces, all
peoples and all races produce people with these talents.
It is the role of the federal government to make sure that the
educational facilities throughout this great country of ours have
some semblance of order. Notwithstanding the fact that
provinces are innovative and the province of Quebec has done
extremely well with its economic base and some restructuring of
its industries. In fact, it is a leader. Certainly the rest of Canada
from time to time could copy some things from Quebec, but I am
sure there are also things in Ontario which could be
cross-pollinated.
There is always this movement of the provinces wanting more
responsibility. They ask the feds to collect the money and then
pass it on. However the feds do have a responsibility to maintain
that uniformity.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comment. I singled out two expressions that he used, because
they set us apart dramatically. He mentioned a ``central body''
and ``uniformity'' as being responsibilities of the federal
government. This is precisely what we disagree with.
Education development, in Quebec and in Canada, cannot be
uniform from one end of the country to the other. If you take just
one example, the Northwest Territories, where the loan and
grant system is applied differently, certainly have situations
which differ greatly from ours. As to uniformity, a province
might consider-and Quebec just did it- extending the loan
and grant program to vocational training, to people who enter
the labour market after high school, because it makes sense in
that province, while it may not be the case elsewhere.
Some provinces may wish to emphasize keeping their
graduates at home. This is why we disagree on this subject and
why we oppose the bill introduced by the government.
[English]
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
4337
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, drunk driving continues to be a problem throughout
Canada. Every year in Canada over 45 per cent of all traffic
collisions involve alcohol.
I am told that every 20 minutes in Canada someone falls
victim to a drunk driver and every four hours someone is killed
as a result of drunk driving. In 1991 over 31,000 Ontario drivers
were charged with impaired driving offences. That is one person
every 17 minutes.
The Peel regional police through a program called Operation
Lookout call upon all Ontarians to report drunk drivers. All
provinces should follow this example.
4338
Everyone has a stake in keeping our roads safe and free of
impaired drivers. By reporting a drunk driver you could save the
life of someone you know, even a family member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, after
127 years of federalism, the Outaouais is still neglected by the
federal government and receives only 1 per cent of the $2.5
billion in federal contracts which are awarded every year. This
shameful neglect on the part of the federal government proves
how totally indifferent it is to the economic development of the
Outaouais and the creation of jobs in this area. Such an attitude
has a disastrous impact on its economic situation.
The fact is that the federal government, while saying it
champions the cause of the Outaouais, is actually promoting the
inequality which has persisted in the Outaouais and
Ottawa-Carleton regarding the awarding of federal contracts.
After decades of fruitless protests and demands, Quebecers,
especially in the Outaouais, have now understood that it is only
through sovereignty that they will be able to develop their
country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, in
August 1992, 73-year-old William Dove was lured from his
cabin near Whitewood, Saskatchewan and brutally beaten to
death by two men and a teenager. Unbelievably, Hubert
Ascoose, one of the two men convicted of manslaughter, is
already eligible for parole.
The victim's mother has asked to attend the parole hearing
scheduled for June. The parole board has advised Mr. Dove's
family that they are welcome to attend the parole hearing ``but
they won't be able to say anything''.
Many people in Saskatchewan feel that the three charged in
this case got such light sentences that they literally got away
with murder. Once again the system bends over backward for the
criminal and denies the victim's family a chance to tell the
parole board what they think.
When is the government going to correct this gross injustice?
When is the government going to make changes to the parole
system to put the rights of the victim and the protection of
society as its first priority of the criminal justice system?
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, as a member from Atlantic Canada I am very proud and
very pleased that my government, the Government of Canada,
has recognized the 12,000 Canadians who voluntarily served in
the merchant navies of Canada and other allied countries during
the second world war. Many of those merchant mariners came
from Atlantic Canada and one out of ten died on the high seas.
Yesterday, after 51 years, this government represented by the
hon. Secretary of State for Veterans and the hon. Minister of
National Revenue in twin ceremonies in Halifax and in
Vancouver presented the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal to
veterans of the Canadian Merchant Navy. With the 50th
anniversary of the D-Day landings on the Normandy beaches
just a few days away, it is very appropriate and timely that this
government acknowledge the success of the allied war effort
vested in large measure in the considerable sacrifices made by
allied merchant seamen.
Today Canada salutes the veterans of the merchant navy and
we thank them for their ultimate sacrifice.
* * *
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to honour an officer and a gentleman on his recent
retirement. For 35 years Lieutenant Colonel Donald Edward
George Irish has served our country as a member of the
Canadian forces. During that time he has made significant
contributions to the Canadian cadet organization and the youth
in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.
He is respected by his fellow officers, revered by his
cadets-I know because I am one of them-and known to his
peers to be knowledgeable, fair and impartial in mediation. In
fact, Lieutenant Colonel Irish is considered by many to be the
most respected cadet instructor air list officer to have ever
served in the Canadian cadet movement.
With his time, compassion and genuine concern he has played
a major role in guiding the development of one of Canada's
greatest resources, our youth.
I am sure my House colleagues will join me in recognizing the
accomplishments of Lieutenant Colonel Donald Edward George
Irish.
4339
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, in 1995 Canada
will host the G-7 summit. Even better, Halifax was chosen to
represent Canada as the site for this conference.
(1405)
This decision may have surprised some people but
Haligonians have always known that our city is a great place for
such an event.
Halifax can compete at the international level in business,
education, research and, of course, tourism. The beauty of the
city goes unrivalled due to its setting, its significant historic
landmarks and its modern infrastructure.
Those of us who are fortunate enough to know of Halifax's
fine qualities first hand are very proud of the city's
accomplishments and are very proud that we are given the
opportunity to represent our great nation from east to west, from
north to south, anglophone, francophone and allophone on the
world stage.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I join the
Leader of the Official Opposition in the Quebec National
Assembly in denouncing the Premier's statement regarding the
Asbestos area. On May 11 last, the issue of Metropolitan Gas
expansion was debated by the National Assembly. Mr. Johnson
stated at that time that it was not cost-effective to invest in that
area.
People there have been ingenious enough to diversify and
survive after the demand for asbestos dropped dramatically;
Thetford Mines was even declared Industrial City of the year in
1992. We can see that Mr. Johnson is completely disconnected
from reality.
I find it despicable for a politician, in his ivory tower, to
hamper the efforts of our people who are doing their utmost to
develop the area around Thetford Mines.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, this week May 21 to 28 marks the sixth annual Mining
Week in British Columbia, the focal point being an awards
luncheon in Vancouver on Friday, May 27 to honour
achievement in B.C.'s second largest industry.
While this industry has struggled in the face of low world
market prices with competition from abroad and detrimental
land use decisions here at home, the B.C. industry remains a
driving force, employing 33,000 British Columbians and
generating billions of dollars in annual economic activity.
I congratulate the industry this week. I am sure my colleagues
from British Columbia and across Canada wish this vital
industry continued growth and a standing offer of assistance.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to congratulate the team of engineers working
for Les Ponts Jacques Cartier and Champlain Incorporée. On
April 29 last, they were awarded the Prix Méritas 1994 by the
Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (Régionale Plein-Sud) for their
work on the restoration of the Champlain bridge.
Congratulations go out especially to CEO Benoît St-Laurent, to
Senior Engineer Glen Carlin and to their team.
An important phase of the project involving the replacement
of the Champlain bridge deck was the focal point of
presentations by Mr. Carlin to the board of directors of the
Permanent International Association of Road Congresses, to the
annual congress of the Association québécois du transport et des
routes, to the Transportation Association of Canada and to the
McGill University and École Polytechnique chapters of the
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, today
the South African Parliament opens. One of the first items on its
agenda is the reform of the justice system to remove decades of
prejudice and imbalance.
It is about time we did the same. Canada incarcerates
offenders at a rate which is the third highest in the world. Canada
incarcerates its aboriginal people at a rate which is three to four
times higher than the population as a whole and at a rate which is
twice the rate South Africa incarcerated blacks.
The right wing Reform Party is today asking Parliament to
change the Young Offenders Act. The fact is 70 per cent of the
offences committed by young offenders are only property
offences but an amazing one-quarter of these youth who commit
these property offences are sent to jail.
Unlike the right wingers opposite, our government is
committed to putting justice back into the justice system.
4340
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, on
May 15 we celebrated the International Day of Families.
(1410 )
In celebration of this day, the Prime Minister has asked
Canadians to reflect on the important role the family plays in all
our lives. In particular he recognized the importance of the
family unit for children and young people.
I would like to build on the Prime Minister's words and ask
Canadians to reflect on the significant role played by the senior
members of our families, our parents. My father, who is with us
in Ottawa this week, is an example of the generation that with
hard work and dedication made Canada the great country it is
today.
We talk of tapping our resources. Our greatest resource is the
people who have made this country. These Canadians are truly
the foundation of our society.
We must recognize that strong and healthy families create
strong and productive societies. Our parents lived through
different and sometimes challenging times. We would do well to
learn from their experiences and to build upon them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, it is with
some consternation that we helplessly stand by and watch the
ongoing hostilities in Rwanda. The situation is all the more
distressing in that according to some sources, this senseless
conflict has already resulted in the loss of over half a million
lives.
In the face of genocide on such a massive scale, the Bloc
Quebecois urges the federal government to follow up as quickly
as possible on the Security Council resolution to reinforce the
United Nations mission in Rwanda.
In view of its reputation on the international stage, Canada
cannot remain indifferent in the face of this slaughter. It must,
therefore, intervene without delay.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, in the next
few days every member of this House will be receiving a letter
from my office containing information about Referendum `94
along with a copy of the householder presently being distributed
to North Vancouver voters.
We will also begin distributing confidential voter PIN
numbers within the next two weeks so members should alert
their staff to watch for the arrival of the personalized envelope.
Other than some minor delays in updating the voters' list, all
aspects of Referendum `94 are running on track. Our
computerized help line is available 24 hours a day on area code
604-666-8378. I urge all members to call at their leisure to learn
more about the referendum.
In case some members did not have their pens ready, that help
line number for Referendum `94 on proposed changes to the
Young Offenders Act is area code 604-666-8378.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, Pride
Canada, the parent Resources Institute for Drug Education,
celebrated its 10th anniversary at the University of Manitoba
this last weekend.
It met with a variety of Manitobans from different
backgrounds, actually with advocates who knew a lot about the
drug problem in Canada, particularly among youth. They were
international, national, local and adolescent experts. They
recognize and reaffirm that the best way to get hold of the drug
problem today is to make sure that it does not get started or, if it
has started, to intercept it early.
I want to mention that this particular conference focused on
prevention, treatment and law enforcement.
[Translation]
On behalf of all members I want to congratulate both
organizers and participants who discussed one of the problems
of our young people, a problem that deserves the attention of
this Parliament.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, Canada's drug
regulation system exists to serve, protect and benefit all
Canadians. We have a special responsibility toward those
fighting life threatening diseases such as AIDS, Lou Gehrig's
disease and Parkinson's disease.
Many Canadians and many members of my constituency need
compassionate access to experimental drugs which might arrest
the progress of their illnesses. For them the emergency drug
release program just is not working. They do not have the luxury
of waiting for further tests. Their life expectancy is short and
what time they have left will be in pain and mental anguish. Yet
manufacturers often deny access to experimental drugs and
there is no way to review or challenge that decision.
4341
Time is of the essence. We owe it to those who are suffering
today to provide them with the greatest assurance that their
voice will be heard and that their access to needed drugs will
only be denied for objectively determined and scientifically
conclusive reasons.
A review of the drug approval system is currently under way.
Fairness in emergency drug access must be a part of that study.
* * *
(1415)
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker,
rationalization, modernization, automation: all these buzzwords
have been used to justify a situation which should have many
Canadians, especially rural and northern Canadians, concerned
about safe air travel.
The previous Canadian government undertook a plan of
closures of air traffic control towers across northern Canada.
Personnel was reduced, automated systems put in place, and in
one case in Watson Lake, Yukon a system called Readac has
been observed to record clear skies in a raging snowstorm.
The question of air safety is an extremely concerning issue.
The Union of Canadian Transport Employees has raised its
concern with members of Parliament about the possible
elimination of emergency response services in category one to
three airports.
I call on the government not to follow the previous
government's path of playing with Canadian safety, to act in the
interest of the safety of Canadians, and to look at the safety of
these systems for the north.
_____________________________________________
4341
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister stated that since the
Canadian Constitution is silent on the matter, the issue of
Quebec's sovereignty is, and I quote: ``purely hypothetical''.
This statement raised some doubts about the Prime Minister's
position, that is to say, whether or not he recognizes Quebec's
right to decide on its own sovereignty.
I want to ask the Prime Minister to remove these doubts as to
his position on the subject and to tell this House whether or not
he recognizes Quebec's right to self-determination.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
in 1980, we allowed a referendum to be held on the question of
Quebec's separation. As I said several times last week, and I say
it again today, only 5 per cent of Quebecers see the issue of
separation and the Constitution as a priority. It is my duty to deal
with the nation's real problems instead of spreading political
and economic uncertainty in this country, and to make sure that
Quebec remains in Canada. And I am convinced that Quebec
will remain Canadian.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I asked a fundamental question which requires a clear
answer. My question is whether the Prime Minister of Canada,
of this country, respects Quebec democracy. Will the Prime
Minister tell us clearly, and I will repeat my question, as head of
State and Prime Minister, whether or not he recognizes Quebec's
right to self-determination?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this is a very broad question. It is more or less what the Leader of
the Parti québécois said last week, when he commented on an
international opinion according to which Quebec's borders
would have to remain as they are. In the same opinion, it was
also said that according to international law, Quebec could not
separate from Canada without the consent of Canada, and that
we would have to allow a vote to be held on the question.
That was done in 1980. I worked for the federal cause in a
democratic vote, and Quebecers decided to remain in Canada.
When I read current reports, I am convinced that this is not what
Quebecers are concerned about, and that we are wasting our
time. And as the Leader of the Opposition traipses around the
world, he is creating problems for the Canadian economy,
because talking about separation has a destabilizing effect. I am
talking about a united and prosperous Canada that will go into
the twenty-first century as a country that is a shining example to
the world, and with all the provinces in Canada.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he realizes
that his ambiguous remarks imply that he reserves the right not
to recognize the desire for sovereignty democratically
expressed by Quebecers?
How can he reconcile this ambiguous attitude with his own
behaviour and that of his leader, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in 1980,
when they were both very much involved in the Quebec
referendum campaign and they agreed to abide by the outcome
of this democratic process? Why don't this party and this
government follow the example of the Conservative Party and
the New Democratic Party which adopted resolutions formally
recognizing Quebec's right to self-determination?
4342
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
want a referendum with a very clear question, not playing on
words to try to confuse people, not talking about sovereignty,
not talking about sovereignty association, but talking about the
real thing: the separation of Quebec from Canada.
I am a democrat but I am not going to spend my time debating
that because I know clearly that the preoccupation of the people
of Quebec is exactly the same as the preoccupation of all
Canadians. They want jobs, job creation and growth. They want
all parties to work toward that goal rather than have the Leader
of the Opposition, who is supposed to protect the interests of
Canada when abroad, creating uncertainty around the world. He
is guilty.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Indian Affairs said that Quebec's natives could remain in
Canada if the province decides to become a sovereign state. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs then stated that the Minister of
Indian Affairs should retract his comments, while the Prime
Minister tried to avoid the issue and justify the statement made
by his Minister of Indian Affairs.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the head of the
Canadian government recognize the principle of territorial
integrity for Quebec, whether that province chooses to remain
part of Confederation or become independent? Does he
recognize that principle?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
want to quote the opinion used by Mr. Parizeau last week, to the
effect that Quebec natives must remain in Quebec and that
Quebec must remain in Canada. Mr. Parizeau forgot to add that
part. It is the international law for the time being. I want
Quebec's territory to be fully protected, and the best way to
ensure that is for the province to remain part of Canada, because
the Canadian Constitution says that as long as Quebec remains
part of Canada, no one can change its borders without its
approval. Quebec's territory is protected by the Canadian
Constitution. This is the best protection Quebecers can ever
hope for.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister not realize that with this answer, which is sort of
a veiled threat, he maintains the ambiguity resulting from the
irresponsible statement made by his Minister of Indian Affairs?
Can he tell us if he really knows the principle of international
law which provides that when a state becomes sovereign, it does
so with its whole territory? Does the Prime Minister know that
principle?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the territory as a whole means all of Canada. That is what the
opinion which Mr. Parizeau had in front of him the other day
said but he forgot to mention that. This is our objective. And
while we are discussing hypothetical issues, there is a lot of talk
on international markets about the political instability in
Canada and that has the effect of making interest rates go up, as
the Minister of Finance can confirm.
(1425)
It is because these people do not care about the economic
interest of Quebecers. If they did, they would help us stabilize
interest rates, create jobs and give Quebecers what they want.
Quebecers do not want to talk about the Constitution: They want
jobs and they want to be able to come home at the end of the day
with their dignity intact.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The unwillingness of the federal government to so far
vigorously promote its vision of federalism or to respond to
various problems created by Quebec separatism is creating a
national unity vacuum. That vacuum is now being partially
filled by statements from provincial premiers, ad hoc
pronouncements by ministers of the government, separatist
rhetoric and media speculation.
Does the Prime Minister believe the time has now come for
the federal government to fill the national unity vacuum with
something more positive and concrete on the federalist side?
And, if so, with what does he propose to fill that vacuum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
during the campaign I went across the land and made a promise
to all Canadian citizens that I wanted to become the Prime
Minister of Canada and talk about job creation.
The leader of the Reform Party wants me to reopen the debate
on the Constitution. I think it is completely wrong to do so.
People are completely fed up with discussions on the
Constitution. They want us to create jobs, and that is what we
will do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the Prime Minister for his reply. We have had the
discussion before that federalism and the Constitution are not
synonymous.
The vigorous promotion of a federalist vision of the future
need not focus on constitutional arrangements. It could focus on
4343
an economic vision or a social vision or a vision of Canada's
international role. My point is that something visionary and
futuristic has to be put forward to fill that vacuum.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that what he needs to do
soon, what he needs to do now, is provide the country with a
fresh, clear vision of what a 21st century federal state should be
in order to deepen the commitment of all Canadians including
Quebecers to Canadian federalism?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
now the leader of the Reform Party says there is no need to talk
about the Constitution. Fine; I agree with him. That is why we
are working on reforms to social programs at this time. We have
tried to have fundamental reform and to make sure we approach
the problems in a modern way by putting the emphasis on the
right thing: job creation and dignity of work.
In terms of trying to make arrangements with the provinces,
that is what the minister for federal-provincial relations is doing
at this time. He is working to try to end the duplication of many
programs. That is a practical way to have better federalism. We
have been working that way since the beginning.
To come in with so-called new things and get people around
the table like we have done over the last three years and talk
Constitution all the time will lead to that. That is the speech this
member of Parliament is making across the country today and he
knows it makes no sense. The people do not want us to spend our
time on constitutional matters. They all know that we live in the
best country in the world and that we can solve our problems in a
practical way. The big scheme à la Reform would never work.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
that is not exactly the kind of visionary statement I had in mind.
It seems to me that behind the government's reply is also a fear
that it is conceding legitimacy to the separatist cause by even
acknowledging some of the problems which Quebec separatism
creates. Yet by saying nothing on such problems the government
is leaving the national stage open to one-sided separatist
arguments and ad hoc federalist responses which confuse rather
than clarify the issues.
(1430)
My question is simple: Will the Prime Minister agree today to
publish a list of the key issues which Quebec separatism raises
from a federalist perspective and simply assure Canadians that
his government is developing a principled response to those
issues?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): The best way
to answer the question is to do what we are trying to do. That is
to give good government to the people of Canada which is what
they want, to reopen that type of debate, to talk about the values
of Canada. I do it all the time. In fact I will have the pleasure of
saying that to 1,000 people in Calgary this week. I said that in
front of 12,000 people in Winnipeg last week. I will have
another great occasion to say the same thing to a great crowd in
Edmonton.
I say to everybody who listens to me that we have problems.
Every country in the world has problems. It is not easy, but I
would not change the problems of Canada with the problems of
any other nation of the world. We live in the best nation in the
world, the most generous country that exists with a tolerant
society. It is a country that has such an open democracy we can
tolerate the separatists in front of us who want to break up the
country. You do not find a better country than Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, a study commissioned by the federal government
concluded that over 10,000 defence industry jobs had been lost
in Quebec since 1987. It also indicated that unless action is
taken, 10,000 more jobs are in danger of disappearing within
five years.
Given this alarming context, how can the Minister of Industry
refuse to implement an emergency plan to put defence industries
to alternate, civilian uses, thereby preserving thousands of jobs
in Quebec?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to congratulate my hon. colleague on his article published
in La Presse last week. At least he paid attention to the debates
we had in this place the week before the recess.
It must be made very clear here that the Bloquists'
understanding is that defence conversion requires massive
subsidies to be paid to companies which also have shareholders
and managers responsible for finding ways of succeeding. That
is essential to helping us understand where they are coming
from.
[English]
We will support defence conversion and DIPP is doing that.
We also recognize the important role shareholders and company
managers have in ensuring the success of their own enterprises.
That is part of the system and it is part of defence conversion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased, delighted really, to see that the hon.
minister reads other material besides Shakespeare.
Considering that Bell Helicopter admitted to delaying a $40
million investment because the existing DIPP did not meet its
needs, how can the minister continue to maintain that the
program is adequate for companies seeking to move away from
defence production? This is a concrete example of conversion.
How can the minister help this company?
4344
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, in
all honesty I believe $160 million a year which DIPP currently
has is adequate to support a program of defence conversion.
(1435 )
I would like to point out as well to the hon. member that since
this government was elected we have approved 41 DIPP
applications. Of those, 39 were for civilian or dual use purposes.
This in effect demonstrates that a defence conversion program is
operating.
It is time the hon. member recognized the important
contribution DIPP is making to firms across Canada,
particularly in Quebec. Pratt & Whitney, Canadair and others
have benefited in great measure by this government's program.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Last Tuesday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development suggested that the aboriginal people of Quebec
would have the right to remain in Canada if Quebec separates.
On Thursday the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had
misspoken and would soon clarify his remarks.
Can the Prime Minister tell this House which of his ministers
speaks for the government on the subject of aboriginal people in
Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
under the Canadian Constitution the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development is the one responsible for natives in
Canada.
Because there was a lot of debate about hypothetical
questions, he gave a hypothetical answer. At that time I said we
were all wasting our time. That was my answer.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation that will not
exist. I do not want to spend my time on that because I want
members of my cabinet and members of this Parliament to be
preoccupied with the jobs that are needed for the Canadian
people.
To speculate on what would happen, as Mr. Trudeau said one
day: ``If my grandmother had wheels, I would have been a bus''.
I do not want to speculate; I do not like if, if, if. I like to do
things. What is important at this time is job creation and giving a
good society and a lot of confidence to the Canadian people and
Canadian investors so that everybody will be there.
I do not want to reply to hypothetical questions. It is not
permitted by your rulings, Mr. Speaker. One cannot ask
hypothetical questions in the House.
The Speaker: I want to thank the right hon. Prime Minister
for pointing that out to me.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
following that hypothetical answer, I would like to try one more
time with another one of the Prime Minister's ministers. The
government House leader recently stated at a convention that the
government had no policy regarding native self-determination
in Quebec should separation occur.
Can the Prime Minister tell this House whether he has any
strategy to deal with aboriginal people in Quebec so that all
Canadians, including members of his own cabinet, will know
how he intends to address this crucial issue?
The Speaker: I agree that the questions are getting into the
more hypothetical stage. I will permit the Prime Minister to
answer that question if he so desires.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
after 32 years in the House of Commons and in Parliament what
happened to the Solicitor General? Rightly so. At that
convention, he refused to reply to a hypothetical question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Barely 48 hours
after the global embargo imposed by the UN against the military
regime in Haiti, it is reported that the junta is executing
members of organizations supporting President Aristide. The
terror campaign against them is intensifying.
Can the minister indicate what measures Canada has taken to
enforce the global embargo and whether it intends to get actively
involved to achieve the desired results without ruling out any
option?
(1440)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, in the last few days, I met with Mr. Caputo, the official
representative of the UN Secretary General for the Haitian
question, to discuss initiatives that could be taken to reinforce
the complete blockade of Haiti and prepare for the return of
President Aristide as soon as possible.
Of course, this must be done in co-operation with other
countries and Mr. Caputo will meet with representatives of
Haiti's four friends to establish a common position.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I again ask
almost the same question. Besides consulting with the three
other countries that are friends of Haiti, can the minister tell us
4345
whether Canada will intervene directly in the conflict in order to
enforce the embargo?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, obviously, from a distance, it is very difficult for
Canada to enforce this embargo.
One of the best-known ways to get around the embargo is
through the border with the Dominican Republic. We cannot
enforce this embargo at the border with the Dominican
Republic. However, we have told the authorities that, if they
want, we will help establish a United Nations force that could
enforce this embargo along the border with the Dominican
Republic.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Recently in my riding of Mission-Coquitlam two high risk
prisoners, wrongly labelled low risk, walked away from
Ferndale minimum security prison. They walked away either by
walking out the front gate or by crossing the prisoner golf course
and going over the four-foot fence.
Mission's mayor and council have requested an immediate
public inquiry as to those prisoners' classification in being
there. Because of the federal government's inaction to this
point, the municipality is going to hold its own public inquiry.
Will the Solicitor General launch an immediate public inquiry
into the whole classification system?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has raised a good point, but she is a bit late on
it.
The Correctional Service of Canada's commissioner has
already announced a national inquiry, not just into the
circumstances of the escapes from Ferndale but into the
situation involving minimum security institutions, including the
approach to classification. This is already under way. I am sure
it will do a good job in dealing with the concerns she has raised
and which I fully understand.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the Solicitor General for his
answer. He may be aware that I did contact his office and was
waiting for a confirmation on just that question. I have not yet
received it.
However, I am concerned that classification seems to be one
of the areas where there is inconsistency. In making the term low
risk, would the Solicitor General please check in his public
inquiry as to how the classification comes about. That seems to
be the problem why we have so many high risk prisoners with
low risk classifications.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
will draw the hon. member's point to the attention of the
commissioner of corrections so that it can be taken into account
in the national inquiry which is going on. I understand this is
already intended, but I will make sure it is not overlooked in the
inquiry. I think the inquiry is much needed and I look forward to
its results.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
He said on several occasions that he intended to prepare a
code of ethics for his government, to table before the end of June
a bill on lobbyists and to name an ethics adviser.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that the proposed
appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board, without
interviews, solely on the basis of their resumés, remind us of the
urgency of the proposed legislation I just mentioned?
(1445)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said that we would proceed in these areas. We hope to be able to
give a name to the Leader of the Official Opposition and the
Leader of the Reform Party in the next few days. The bill on
lobbyists will be tabled shortly after the person is appointed. We
would like to consult with that person before introducing the
bill, because we think it would be useful to have his or her
opinion.
I hope we can agree shortly on an appointee, and that the
promise will be fulfilled before the summer recess.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, in the meantime, does the Prime Minister not think that
his Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would be well
advised to postpone the appointment of 25 commissioners, at a
salary of $85,000 each, without interviews, solely on the basis
of their resumés?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to tell the hon. member that the minister has
proceeded with appointments since he has been a minister and
has been praised across the land for the quality of people he has
chosen to occupy these jobs.
4346
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, the United States is asking us to take part in the new
United Nations peacekeeping mission in Haiti.
Canada, as usual, will probably participate and share the
peacekeeping expenses. The United States profits from these
ventures through the additional sale of arms. However, it refuses
to pay its share of peacekeeping costs which now amount to over
$1 billion.
What is the Canadian government doing to get the United
States to honour its United Nations peacekeeping
commitments?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that Canadian policy
calls for the equitable sharing of peacekeeping costs by all
member states of the UN.
I remind the hon. member that the U.S. administration has
recently published a presidential decision, directive 25, which
reaffirms that the U.S. intends to pay its full arrears in a timely
manner. I believe this should be acknowledged as a substantial
step forward.
We will be discussing with the Americans and with other
countries the best way to make sure that all UN members pay
their fair share of peacekeeping missions throughout the world.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Several weeks ago the minister was quoted as saying that only
16 deportation orders against criminals had been overturned last
year. He argued that this meant the immigration and refugee
board was working just fine.
Recent reports indicate that at least 242 non-residents, most
with criminal records, had deportation orders overturned.
Was the minister unaware of the numbers of criminal
deportations overturned? If not, why did he choose not to reveal
the true number?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the number that I referred to some
time ago in the House was the number of overturned cases. The
cases that the hon. member talks about include a large number of
cases that were stayed. There is a difference between
overturning and staying.
I have also said that I do not look kindly on those individuals
who clearly poke fun at our system, who abuse our system. We
will have a bill in the House of Commons before we go home in
the summer and I look forward to the hon. member's support as
well as that of her party to deal with it.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has also tried to reassure Canadians that
the vast majority of deportations are carried out after they are
ordered, but of approximately 25,000 deportations ordered last
year fewer than 9,000 have actually been carried out.
Canadians deserve to know how the immigration enforcement
system is working.
Will the minister agree to the public disclosure of the
percentage of deportation orders successfully carried out,
especially in light of his recently announced amnesty agenda?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member is getting this amnesty agenda. The government did no
such thing. She is obviously twisting the facts of what we did
last week, which was to impose a number of interim measures,
because I believe that the agency and the automatic review after
failed claims were not well defined and that discretion rested
solely with the minister. What we had were end runs around the
system to try to get to members of Parliament, to ministers, to
NGOs, to the media, to church sanctuary.
(1450)
Rather than having something undefined I chose instead to put
discretion back into the system, define what it means to have an
automatic review and what it means to have a humanitarian and
compassionate review so that the people and the council know
the rules by which they have to appeal. I think that makes sense,
rather than having the system overtaxed.
The hon. member should be careful in how she uses the word
amnesty because first, it is not an amnesty; second, the people
who can apply for that are post-93; and third, those with
criminal records are not eligible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of heritage has just received the report of a
committee which looked into the funding of amateur sport in
Canada. In particular, the report recommends that the grants
awarded to several federations representing sports such as the
biathalon and freestyle skiing be cut. These are sports in which
Quebec athletes excelled and won gold medals at the
Lillehammer Games.
Can the minister of heritage tell us if he intends to follow up
on the Best report?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted that our colleague has given me this
opportunity to shed some light on this situation. Last week, I
received a copy of the report that had been tabled. The only
ministerial decision that was taken was to make the report
public. Any further decisions will not be made until the report is
examined.
4347
I might add that not only will recommendations be examined,
but also the very concept on which the report is based, that is the
concept of mainstream sport. We will examine all of this and
make our decisions known in due course.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, will the minister commit to fully maintaining the level
of assistance provided to athletes and will he agree to focus his
cost-cutting efforts instead on the real waste within his
department, particularly the waste associated with the Canadian
Museum of Nature?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, we should not be mixing apples and oranges. A
museum and athletes are two very different things. I can,
however, reassure our colleague that I have always given
priority consideration to hard-working athletes in whom we
take great pride. She can rest assured that they will have the
consideration of the minister of heritage.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In June 1993 the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that there is no
inherent right to an aboriginal commercial fishery yet the
previous government persisted with just such a policy.
Is the minister committed to continuing the policy of the
previous government establishing this aboriginal commercial
fishery?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the previous government did not establish an
aboriginal commercial fishery. The previous government
established a number of test sale projects in British Columbia
with respect to the aboriginal fishery. That is what was
established.
That policy has now been reviewed by the current government
as was required under the cabinet directive of the day and a
proposal or an announcement on the future of the aboriginal
fisheries strategy will be forthcoming very soon.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to
hear that an announcement will be coming soon. The minister
persistently and consistently refused to meet with the B.C.
Fisheries Survival Coalition, a group formed to deal with and
address that particular issue.
Does the minister believe that in refusing to meet with this
group while declaring that he intends to make an announcement
soon, he will generate support for the government's position?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I know the member would want all members of the
House to have all of the information available regarding this
important matter. The member for Delta knows that I have met
with almost every individual component part of the aboriginal
fisheries strategy group.
(1455 )
I have met with the FCBC of British Columbia. I have met
with the union. I have met and addressed the Pacific Troller's
Association at its annual meeting. I have met a variety of other
groups. I have probably held more meetings with groups-the
member I think would acknowledge this-in British Columbia
on the question of the British Columbia fishery, in particular
getting ready for an aggressive campaign to try to resolve our
differences with the Americans than any other minister for a
heck of a long time.
When the member says I have not met with each of these
component groups under something called the Survival
Coalition as one group, he is right, but I have met every one of
the individuals involved on numerous occasions.
Mr. Speaker, you do not get meetings with ministers by
occupying the offices of federal MPs. If you want good faith,
show good faith. That is my message to the people I want to
work with in the province of British Columbia.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The United States secretary of agriculture is now sending a
team to Brazil to attempt to gather unfounded evidence of
alleged Canadian dumping of wheat.
Time and again the Canadian Wheat Board has been found by
international tribunals to be trading fairly. The United States is
again creating mischief, this time among Canada's trading
partners in South America.
Will the minister of agriculture intervene to counter this
ongoing harassment and attacks against Canadian farmers by the
U.S. government?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the House can
be absolutely assured that the Government of Canada will
vigorously defend Canada's vital interests, including the
interests of Canadian grain farmers.
We have consulted and will continue to consult with our
customers and our competitors alike. In recent days we have
4348
been in touch with the Brazilians, the Argentinians and the
Mexicans and we will continue that dialogue to resolve any
concerns they might have. We want to ensure full and accurate
information so our customers and competitors do not have to
rely on misinformation or disinformation that might be provided
by the United States.
In the circumstances being complained about by the United
States at the present time, the U.S. is wrong. Its allegations are
false. It is ironic that those allegations should be coming from a
country that spends $1 billion U.S. annually on its export
enhancement program which is the most manipulative and trade
distorting program on the face of the earth.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recently stated that an
agreement had been reached with the Quebec government
regarding the future of the military college in Saint-Jean.
However, the Premier of Quebec denied that such an
agreement on the future use of the college existed. Can the
minister tell us whether or not an agreement was reached with
the Quebec government regarding the use of the college in
Saint-Jean, as he announced at the Liberal convention last
week?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, the negotiations on the future use of the college in
Saint-Jean are ongoing. We clearly had a meeting of the minds
on a number of items that will be part of the final round of
negotiations. But, as I indicated last week, the final agreement is
not ready yet. When it is ready, I will be happy to give a copy to
the opposition member.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, could the
minister tell us exactly what, in his current negotiations with the
Quebec government, is the federal government's proposed use
for the college in Saint-Jean?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, as usual, we have been very flexible in our negotiations
with the provinces, and in this case with Quebec. We are still
flexible. Therefore, until we have a final decision, we cannot
announce it, because we are giving Quebec the opportunity to
continue to discuss some of the items.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
One of the five principles of the Canada Health Act is
accessibility. Traditionally this principle has been interpreted
narrowly, that is, ensuring that health care is not denied for
financial reasons.
(1500 )
The greatest barriers to health care today are the line-ups and
waiting lists Canadians encounter when they require health care
services.
Does the minister agree that accessibility for health care must
be defined in terms of timeliness as well as affordability?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
accessibility is a case of affordability as well as timeliness.
When extra billing is involved it means that some people very
much do not have access to treatment. We are looking at all five
principles to make sure that as much as is possible within our
system we can withstand the pressures that are there. We have
the best health care system in the world, bar none.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister of Health. The
minister has reduced access to health care services in her recent
decision to cut funding to British Columbia.
Access to health care is the right of all Canadians. How can
the minister say she is complying fully with the Canada Health
Act when her actions are making health care less and less
accessible?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it
was not a choice I had. I had a duty to enforce the Canada Health
Act.
The Canada Health Act is very specific. Extra billing is not
allowed. Once a year provinces are asked to submit a report on
the extra billing that is going on in their province. When this
report was sent to me I had no choice but to act on it because
extra billing restricts access for people.
I ask the hon. member, how can paying extra money for a
physician give everybody better access? All it does is make
some physicians richer than others.
* * *
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon.
members the presence in our gallery of Mr. Riccardo Jagmetti,
Speaker of the Council of States of the Swiss Confederation.
4349
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1), I wish to table explanatory notes and a notice of a
ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise
Act and the Income Tax Act.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
_____________________________________________
4349
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505 )
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-28, an act to respecting the making of loans and the provision
of other forms of financial assistance to students, to amend and
provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans Act, and to
amend one other act in consequence thereof, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a
great deal of pleasure on behalf of the constituents in Hamilton
West to speak at second reading of Bill C-28, the Canada
Student Financial Assistance Act.
Contrary to the views espoused by certain members opposite,
this bill should have nothing to do with the politics of separatism
or the political autonomy of our provinces. All we are trying to
do with this legislation is ensure that our citizens have adequate
access to post-secondary education.
The government realizes that many Canadian students need
financial assistance in order to achieve their academic goals.
The government also realizes that the provinces cannot address
those needs alone which is exactly why the Minister of Human
Resources Development has chosen to work in concert with
provincial authorities to try and provide sufficient financial aid
to college and university students in this great country.
The legislation before us today provides proof that the
government is committed to the principle of protecting access to
post-secondary education. This principle is an extremely
important one to uphold if for no other reason than simply to
ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to intellectually
empower themselves through post-secondary education and
training initiatives.
Debate on the issue of financial assistance to students across
Canada seems quite timely and highly appropriate when one
considers the fact that thousands of secondary school students
will receive acceptance to a Canadian university or college
within the next 30 days. Many of these students will apply for
and receive financial assistance from federal and provincial
sources in order to obtain enough money to finance their
post-secondary education.
However unless we act now, many more students will either
be unable or unwilling to pursue a college or university
education due to a lack of funds.
In addition to the students trying to enter college or university
for the first time, there are several thousand who will graduate
this year with a substantial debt load, in some cases as high as
$15,000 and even $20,000.
The time has come for the federal government to respond to
the increased financial burden faced by those Canadians who
seek to further their education. We must work together to
provide incentives for people to pursue higher education by
replacing the archaic provisions of the Canada Student Loans
Act with legislation that is more reflective of the changing
financial needs of Canada's student population.
In the process of representing a riding with a high university
and college student population, I have had the opportunity to
speak with a number of students and parents of students at
McMaster University and Mohawk College, both of which are
located in the great city of Hamilton.
The students in my riding have brought forward a number of
concerns related to the Canada student loan program. For
example, with the rising cost of university and college tuition,
students are uncertain whether their weekly student loan
allocation will cover their basic educational costs. Students who
have received loans from the federal government are frightened
about the debt and increased burden they will have to bear by the
time they graduate from college or university.
In this regard many students are calling for the reinstatement
of the six-month post-graduation interest free loan period that
was removed by the previous government. Many students who
cannot afford to go to school on a full time basis have been
forced to attend school on a part time basis while holding down
part time jobs in order to earn enough money to keep food on the
table. In some cases these students are single parents or re-entry
women and men trying to upgrade their academic skills while
supporting a family at the same time.
To make matters worse, there has been a ceiling of $2,500 per
academic year applied to students enrolled in part time studies
even though the cost of part time post-secondary studies often
exceeds that amount in tuition and textbooks alone, not to
mention room and board.
4350
There is also the issue of the often exceptional costs faced by
students with special needs such as students with disabilities
and students who suffer from severe financial disadvantages,
many of whom would benefit from a national system of targeted
grant funding.
These are just some of the fundamental concerns that the
government is attempting to address by means of Bill C-28.
After nearly 30 years it seems reasonable to think that the
Canada student loans program is long overdue for fundamental
reform.
(1510 )
When we look at weekly student loan allocations, for
example, we see that they have been frozen for over a decade
now. Yet in the same span of time, the costs associated with
post-secondary education have skyrocketed by some 58 per
cent. This scenario is absolutely ludicrous and appears to defeat
the principle of trying to provide adequate financial assistance
to those who need it in order to defray the rising costs of their
education.
In addition to addressing issues of access to post-secondary
education, the government is also prepared to address the costly
inefficiencies that have been identified in the Canada student
loan program as well. Outdated eligibility criteria, inconsistent
need assessments, loan defaults and inefficient program
delivery are some of the key problems that are recognized and
addressed by the proposed legislation.
It should be noted that the proposed changes to the Canada
student loans program have met with positive response from
many of the students in my riding of Hamilton West. For years
student organizations such as the McMaster Student's Union
and the Canadian Federation of Students have called for higher
weekly loan limits, greater repayment flexibility and a national
system of grants for needy students.
The proposed legislation will increase weekly loan limits by
57 per cent from $105 to $165 for full time students and will also
increase the part time student loan limit from $2,500 to $4,000.
The government also intends to establish special opportunity
grants for disabled students and students with serious financial
needs.
In addition to raising loan limits and providing needs based
grants, the government is also committed to establishing a more
flexible repayment schedule for college and university students.
The proposed legislation allows the federal government to
conduct a meaningful income contingent repayment pilot
project in order to determine whether or not this type of funding
model which has been implemented with mixed results in other
nations is worth pursuing at all.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the proposed legislation
is the message it sends out to all Canadians about the degree of
importance the government has placed on protecting access to
higher education for all Canadians. By proposing the stated
reforms to the Canada student loan program, the federal
government has taken a giant step toward strengthening our
overall system of education and training.
In closing, I want to point out that this legislation is not about
separatist politics or the constitutional implications of
provincial responsibility for post-secondary education. Bill
C-28 is about access to higher education in Canada, plain and
simple.
All we are trying to do is ensure that Canadians who have the
desire, the ability to pursue post-secondary studies are provided
with the funds to do so. A high quality accessible system of
education will be the salvation of this society.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments.
I was disappointed that this rather comprehensive and bold
initiative that responds to actual problems that young people are
experiencing has not been applauded by the opposition parties.
I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. From the official
opposition we have heard some noises, some rhetoric about our
getting into provincial responsibility. There is an opting out
clause there. Provinces can opt out if they wish. I do not see why
that point was made and I wonder if my colleague would explain
why the Bloc Quebecois would want to do that.
We all know that young Canadians need more assistance. That
was documented in the 34th Parliament and finally in the 35th
Parliament the government has acted. It has not only raised the
amount of loans available and grants for those who are under
represented and made repayment much more sensitive to those
who have to repay but it has taken a number of measures quite
apart from the job creation initiatives to make life more bearable
for students.
How in the world is that involved with politics? I wonder if
my hon. colleague at the same time, because there are two
questions, would care to briefly define the Reform Party's
position on this legislation.
(1515)
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I want to thank
the hon. member for St. Boniface for the question because I
would not dare try to speak for our separatist friends opposite.
To answer my colleagues question in its simplest form, the
parties opposite, especially the Bloc in this case, have to realize
that education is not some sort of commodity like pork hocks or
apples. It is a national principle. Education is a national
principle. Education is a natural resource and I am now working
with
4351
the minister to prove how the country can actually export this
natural resource.
We have a natural resource called education. With this bill, as
I have outlined, we want to do many things to make
post-secondary education accessible to all Canadians, whether
they are working or not working, whether they are young or old,
whether they want to be retrained or whatever their situation.
They must have equal access and not just because they have
some money in their pockets they can go to school. That is not
very fair.
If the Bloc can take politics out of the issue, if the Bloc can
understand that we are not talking about the resource of
education being something with which to balance the books or to
trade off. If Bloc members say that with the bill the federal
government is attempting in some way to make a power grab
away from the provinces, especially the province of Quebec,
they are missing the fundamental point that education is not a
commodity.
Education is a natural resource. Education is something
precious that must be made available to all Canadians whether
they live in B.C., in the Northwest Territories, in Ontario or in
Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
says a lot about the value of education in his speech. We can
easily go along with him on that because education is important,
that is a fact. But when we educate our young people, we explain
to them that contracts are important. We tell them that a contract
is binding, whether it is a handshake or in writing. From being
with educators, I know that they spend a lot of time telling them
that it is important.
Well, the best-known contract in this country is the Canadian
Constitution. What does this Canadian Constitution say? It says
that education is exclusively in provincial jurisdiction. We can
take a long time explaining the values of education and where
we stand on it, but everyone in Quebec seems to agree that
education is important. We must do everything required to make
education better. One way to do that is to avoid duplication and
to act as consistently as possible in co-operation with the
educational partners in a province.
Now the hon. member opposite tells us not to worry about the
Constitution, that it is not serious, that these are problems and
annoyances which the Bloc Quebecois seems to want to bring in.
So I ask him whether the Constitution and a contract and
everything legal really have any value for him. I would like to
know his position on that.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I suppose we have to keep in mind that if the federal
government could unilaterally afford to provide students with
enough money to carry out their educational requirements it
would do so. If the provincial governments could provide the
funds necessary all by themselves for students to obtain
post-secondary education, there would be no argument.
Obviously there has to be some teamwork. Even in question
period today we saw the wall going up between the hon.
member's party and the Government of Canada. As much as we
see that wall going up we are not going to be threatened. The
Bloc must understand it cannot do it by itself. Quebec cannot do
it by itself.
(1520)
We can all work better in education if we work as a team.
Together we can make that education possible without money
being the inhibiting device for our students. Ask any one of our
pages in the House today. They know what it is like to work all
kinds of hours, go home, grab a meal where they can grab one
and get through their education. Do they care whether Quebec is
paying for it by itself or whether the feds can? I do not think so.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased today to speak on the issue and in support of the
government bill.
I graduated from university about 11 years ago, in 1983. Since
then or over the past 10 years there has not been any increase in
loans for students. The bill is about our future. It is about our
young people. It is about education and access to education for
people so they can go to university and take part in our society.
From 1990 to 1993 people with lower than high school
education saw a loss of 17 per cent in the number of jobs they
could have access to. For those who had a high school education
there was a loss of about .5 per cent. Those with beyond high
school education, with post-secondary education, there was an
increase of 17 per cent in the number of jobs available for them.
We can see the impact and the importance of education. We
can see the need for us to have access to education and the need
for a bill that finally remedies the problem we have seen over the
past 10 years of erosion of student loans because of inflation. It
is very important that we support the bill.
The reforms being made to student aid are an essential part of
the government's broader strategy. We want to work with the
provinces and interest groups to revitalize learning and training
in Canada. To compete in the global marketplace and to respond
to increasing technological advances we have to ensure that our
education and training systems are relevant, effective and
accountable. We have to take action now so that tomorrow's
graduates are able to compete and prosper.
It has long been a hallmark of Canadian society that every
person should have access to educational opportunities to
develop to his or her full potential. It is well known that
education and training have two important goals: to prepare
individuals for
4352
fulfilling social and cultural life and to prepare them to
contribute as productive members of our society.
Provincial jurisdiction over education in Canada is clear. The
provinces have already begun to implement reforms which seek
to make Canadian learning systems more productive and
accountable for results. Canadians in all provinces are well
aware of the importance of ensuring that education meets the
challenges of modern society as we approach the 21st century.
Their recognition of the need for new visions and new
approaches is shared by the federal government. As education
and training are crucially linked to the economic health of any
nation, the federal government would be remiss not to facilitate
and support all efforts which seek to prepare young Canadians
for the future.
It is recognized that the concept of lifelong learning requires
the involvement not only of governments but of parents,
teachers, business, industry, labour and communities.
Substantial financial support is provided by the federal
government for education at the post-secondary level. Over $6
billion a year is provided to the provinces under the established
programs financing arrangements, the EPF program.
The federal government has always maintained a strong
interest in fundamental values relating to quality education and
training which are shared by educational jurisdictions across the
country. In this regard the government remains committed to
assisting the provinces in providing whatever support it can to
ensure the efficiency of our learning systems.
(1525)
The new Canada Student Financial Assistance Act is an
important part of efforts being made in this area. Our youth
employment and learning strategy announced on April 15
committed the federal government to support along with the
provinces a number of other key initiatives. These include the
development of clear national goals and expectations, updating
and improving existing measurement tools, promoting
technology and innovation in learning, and facilitating the
dissemination of information on important learning and labour
market issues.
We are confident that all these measures will contribute to
improvements in education and learning throughout Canada.
They will greatly assist Canadians in developing, acquiring and
maintaining the skills and knowledge they need in today's
world. Our citizens must be able not only to enter the workforce
successfully but to be able to adjust to changes in the labour
market. For that they need education.
Indeed it is important to recognize that education and training
processes are seldom if ever constant. While it would obviously
be much easier and less costly merely to maintain what is
already in place, it is not good enough. In view of rapid
unwilling changes in today's global economy, we must always
be alert to ensure that our learning systems are relevant and
current. Modifications and new initiatives must be introduced
to address emerging issues and new realities. This is what the
government intends to do. While we do not dispute that these
challenges are formidable we must not be fearful to act.
Canadians do not lack the initiative or desire to compete. We
have every confidence in the ingenuity and commitment of
individuals who are endeavouring to get ahead by pursuing
post-secondary educational opportunities either full time or
part time. Canadian students must have the right tools to enable
them to undertake their studies and produce results that are
meaningful and positive. This is why the government has
introduced the bill before us.
Obviously one of the major barriers standing between
students and post-secondary education is the lack of significant
financial resources. Students have repeatedly indicated over the
years-I heard this during the election campaign and
since-that they need more financial aid to meet the rising cost
not only of their education but of their basic living expenses.
And our pages know it well.
We should make clear at the outset that students are not asking
for a handout. They are seeking financial support for the time
while they are in school. They are well aware of the expectation
that they will repay what they borrow as the great majority of
former students do and as I did about three years ago when I
finished paying off my student loan. The great majority of
students pay them off once they begin to work.
Student aid reforms therefore seek to increase the maximum
amount that students both part time and full time may borrow.
While it may seem to be a big increase, let us not forget that loan
levels had been frozen for the past 10 years. The new loan levels
the bill proposes merely reflect the realities of today's costs.
These measures will also make grants available to students with
special financial needs, including those with disabilities,
women in certain doctoral programs and high need, part time
students. Deferred grants will also assist borrowers with
significantly high debt loads.
New financing arrangements with lenders, revised eligibility
criteria, improved need assessment and greater flexibility for
new federal-provincial approaches to student aid are part of the
reforms being provided in the bill. All these measures are aimed
at establishing a fair, consistent and accessible student aid
program. The government is confident the reforms will
contribute significantly to achieving the overall objectives of
the youth employment and learning strategy.
4353
The emphasis of our strategy is toward greater effectiveness,
inclusiveness and accountability. A learning system shows its
true value if the end results are clear, meaningful and relevant.
The federal government will also contribute to support the
efforts of provinces, the private sector and community groups to
develop initiatives designed to reduce dropout rates. That is
absolutely a critical part of this bill and of our government's
program.
(1530)
Canadian youth must be made aware of the vital importance
of education and training in terms of their own futures and be
encouraged at every opportunity to develop their skills and
abilities to full potential. That is what life long learning is all
about.
We must ensure access to learning systems based on
excellence and relevance in terms of providing people with the
skills needed to be productive and self-sufficient members of
our society. We must ensure a smooth transition from school to
the workplace.
Many people today are understandably disillusioned if their
education and training does not enable them to move into the
workforce. It is only natural that students expect their hard work
and commitment to yield positive results and it is most
discouraging when this does not happen.
In fact, I have students in my riding who have graduated in
various areas and are looking for jobs. They are having a tough
time and for them it is discouraging. I see that in people when I
meet them in my riding. Not only does the individual suffer in
this case but the loss in terms of wasted resources and untapped
potential hurts the educational system, the labour force and
indeed the Canadian economy and society as a whole.
Accordingly, a number of key elements of our youth
employment and learning strategy relate to the important goal of
providing young Canadians with practical labour market skills
and meaningful work experience, like the co-op programs at
Mount Saint Vincent University located in Halifax West. These
programs are a key element in moving into the workforce.
Our initiatives are aimed at addressing specific problems
which prevent Canadians from participating fully in society,
including high dropout rates, limited access to post-secondary
education and lack of work experience. We are certainly not
willing to nor would we need to begin from scratch. There are
many positive features of our education and training systems
and we intend to build on what has worked well in the past.
It is imperative however that we also consider new
approaches to meet today's realities. We are seeking to build
solid structures which will help to eliminate problem areas
associated with the transition from school to work.
It is important to recognize that our reforms and initiatives
relating to youth employment and learning are not meant in any
way to offer anyone a free ride or an easy way out. Individuals
have a responsibility to take advantage of the opportunities
available to them and to apply themselves to the fullest extent
possible.
If governments can ensure that world-class education and
training systems are in place and that access is maintained
through viable student assistance programs, we are confident
that Canadians throughout the country will provide the
determination, hard work and commitment which are all
necessary components for success.
Basically, what all Canadian students are saying is: ``Give us
a fair chance. Give us the support we need as we pursue learning
and training opportunities''.
Canadians from all walks of life and from all regions of the
country recognize the vital role education plays in their lives.
They are willing to make sacrifices and to do what it takes to
achieve their learning and employment goals.
Canadians are not expecting guarantees. All they really ask
for is access and opportunity. They have the confidence it takes
to succeed. We must build upon that confidence by providing all
citizens, including those with special or exceptional needs, with
a chance to develop and show their talents and abilities.
We cannot expect individuals to contribute to society in a
meaningful way if they believe they have received unequal or
unfair treatment or have been excluded from opportunities.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know it is
difficult when members share their time, but I regret that the
member's time has lapsed. It is time now for questions and
comments.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. member is the third speaker from Nova Scotia to address
this issue today.
My question relates to how universities are funded in the
various provinces. It is interesting to note that Nova Scotia,
perhaps more than any other province, funds students from
outside the province. Dalhousie and some of the other
universities attract a lot of out of province students.
Unfortunately, under established programs financing the
funding these universities receive is on a per capita basis, based
on the population in the province.
(1535 )
Does the hon. member agree that it makes a lot more sense to
give this funding over to the students? They could purchase their
education with a voucher. This would ensure that some of these
Nova Scotia institutions would get the funding they need to
continue to support the high level of students they get not only
from their own province but from other provinces as well.
4354
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
the question. I am glad to see he is so aware of the situation in
Nova Scotia. We do have a large number of universities and it is
a concern. With so many universities per capita we are providing
so much brain power for Canada from Nova Scotia.
The question of funding of course has been an issue in our
province certainly because of the fact that we have a large
number of universities producing excellent graduates. With the
funding coming per capita it is a problem and a concern.
I have talked with students in my riding of Halifax West who
have been very involved in their universities and have been
involved in looking for improvements to the student loans
program and student financial assistance. They have strong
objections to the idea of this voucher system. They do not feel
that it is workable.
The first and most important step is to give students the loans
and the kind of financial support that will give them real access
to university and this bill does that. By substantially increasing
student loans for the first time in 10 years this bill finally takes
that major, most important big step of moving us toward a
situation in which people can actually gain equitable access to
universities and post-secondary education. That is the key and it
is very important.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker,
helping students is an excellent thing. I have two short questions
for the hon. member. First, why not give these amounts directly
to provinces, so that they can help students? Second, in regions
such as my riding, where there is no CEGEP, college or
university, would it not be possible to provide a little bit more
financial help to people who live far from these institutions?
[English]
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not able to hear
entirely what the member said as I had a problem with the
translation. However I want to point out that I know there has
been a lot of-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I can be of assistance, I
will beg the indulgence of the House and I will ask the member
for Matapédia-Matane-
[Translation]
-to repeat his two questions as concisely as possible, so that
the hon. member for Halifax West can understand him and give
his reply.
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to oblige. I started
by congratulating the hon. member by saying that helping
students was an excellent thing. I asked him first if it would not
be better to send the money to the provinces, so that they could
help students.
Then, I asked if it we could be a little more generous in those
regions, particularly in rural areas, where there is no university
or college. Indeed, if you live close to Laval, that university is
easily accessible from your parents' home, which makes things
relatively easy, but it is a different matter if you have to travel
200, 300 or 400 miles.
[English]
Mr. Regan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. I
thank the hon. member for his question.
[Translation]
Next time I will try to listen more carefully. I tried to listen in
French because I wanted to make sure I understood, but I was
trying to translate. I apologize for that.
[English]
It is an interesting idea that we should transfer this whole
responsibility to the province, but I think we have a joint
responsibility. People from my part of the country believe very
strongly that we need to have a strong education system all
across Canada, that we have an interest across this country,
whatever province one is in, in having students coming out of
post-secondary education who are well educated and have had
access to education all across this country. They look to the
federal government to be part of that system, to be part of
providing and ensuring that access.
(1540 )
To relegate it entirely to the provinces is not what people are
asking for in my view. In fact, they are asking for us to be
involved and to play a role. For instance some of the provinces
lack the financial wherewithal to overcome these problems if
they did do it on their own.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate
with great delight today, since I am one among all members of
this House who have received an education.
I remember seeing a bumper sticker which said: ``If you can
read this, you're too close'', but I think a much more poignant
bumper sticker reads: ``If you can read this, thank a teacher''.
All of us are beneficiaries of the education system in this
country, myself included.
I began my schooling in a very small rural school in
Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact I was instrumental in saving
the school from being closed. I was the fifth student and that was
at the margin where it would have been closed. Later on I had the
privilege of being one of the first young men from my
community to go to university in Saskatoon. There I jumped into
classes of 200 to 250 students which was a remarkable transition
from my earlier school years.
I am one who is a very firm believer in education as are all the
members of the Reform Party. I think I can say that
unequivocally not only for the members of this caucus but also
for the members of our party throughout this country.
4355
There was a question asked not long ago in this House by the
parliamentary secretary. He asked one of his fellow Liberal
members to explain the Reform position on education.
Fortunately the Liberal member declined.
During the last campaign various attempts were made at
stating what the Reform position was by our opposition parties.
If I can say so with great respect, there was a great deal of
distortion in the explanation by our opposition.
It should be known that we based our position on consultation
with a wide variety and a large base of our constituents, of
people in our ridings, on a consensus for what the priorities of
spending should be. It is totally clear that this country is in
financial trouble. I am going to come back to that a little later in
my speech, but we are going into debt at the rate of $1,200 per
second. That is how fast we are going into debt. That cannot
continue if we are going to keep this country from going down
the tube. Consequently the Reform Party has assumed
leadership in asking the people of this country what should we
do first, what are our priorities?
Contrary to what many people said about us, our own
members, Canadians, told us-and we are a party that responded
to it-that the very first item to be maintained in terms of
spending and keeping it healthy and strong was our health care
system. That was the very top item. That was in our platform.
We stated it, it was in our documentation, and there was no
excuse for there being any misunderstanding on that point.
The second point on which we were unanimous and where we
said it was very important for us to be strong and healthy was in
the education of our youth. In fact our policy stated-and I
challenge any member here to check it out if they want to go
back to the documentation from the campaign-that present
levels of funding for education should be maintained or even
increased, if possible. There will be found in the Reform Party a
very strong level of support for education.
All of us know how important it is. I do not think I need to
spend a great deal of time speaking about how important
education is. Can we imagine living in a society where very few
of us could read or write? The majority of us can read and write,
but we occasionally hear of this thing called marginal or
functional illiteracy.
(1545 )
That is something that we must continue to address but the
fact is that in this country every individual is entitled to that
starting education. As students proceed through the years, for
various reasons they reach a certain level of education and stop
their formal education.
I want members of this House to know that I have a lifelong
career in education. I chose to become a teacher when I
graduated from high school. On the influence of a very effective
teacher whom I had in high school, I changed my career choice
to one involved with young people.
I was a young person at the time, but he challenged me to
become involved. I am still young, yes, half way to 110. I was
challenged to work with young people. Frankly, I have enjoyed
it. I taught high school for four years. During the first three years
of that career, I was the math department in a small rural school
with some 150 high school students. I taught all of the maths
from grades 9 to 12. It was a delightful experience.
I taught in a very large city high school for one year. For
reasons that I will not go into here today, I decided not to stay
there. A wonderful opportunity came up. I received the
opportunity to work in a technical institute, a post-secondary
education institute in Edmonton, the Northern Alberta Institute
of Technology.
Prior to this rather abrupt career change that I experienced last
October, I worked there continuously for 27 years, teaching and
working with young people. I always felt that I was a failure as
an instructor if I only taught my students what I knew. I had to go
beyond that and teach them how to learn.
My greatest successes were those students who passed me in
knowledge and who went on from the technical institute. In
some cases they went back to the university and exceeded even
what I knew which-I suppose I should be modest here-is not
that great.
During that time I encountered a number of students who quit
school during the time they were at the institute. They stopped
for various reasons. Some realized that after they got into this
program of studies it was not the right one. Some left because of
home pressure or home difficulties. The most heart wrenching
ones were those who stopped because they ran out of money.
I feel very close to this question today. How do we effectively
arrange our affairs so that our students can go on in their
education to the very apex of what they are capable? Only as we
do that will we have a society which benefits from that.
I know that we are all pleased that the majority of us can
speak, read and write. Unfortunately in my field of math the
academic strengths out there are not that strong. In fact, I have
been doing a little ongoing survey. When I tell people that I am a
math instructor, I find that about 95 per cent of them right away
respond by saying they hated math. I guess there is a flaw in that.
Not many years ago the question of sex education in school
came up. When we were discussing whether this should be
taught in schools, one of my colleagues indicated: ``Why not? If
the schools teach it the way they teach math and physics, the
children will lose all interest in it''.
4356
I need to get back here. We want to train our young people to
the very apex of their abilities. Though we like the majority of
them to be educated, it is true that we owe our high standard of
living to a select few among them. These are the students who go
past high school, past their undergraduate degrees. They become
our scientists, engineers and researchers and we must do all that
we can in order to accommodate them.
(1550 )
In his opening comments today in introducing this bill, the
minister said that we need reform. As soon as I heard the word
my heart just fluttered with delight. After that he said we need
fundamental reform. While I gave an accolade to the
government for at least addressing the question and recognizing
that in the past number of years our financing and our help for
students to carry on with their education had suffered, I looked
to see where this real reform was coming from in this proposed
bill.
I would like to humbly recommend some changes to this bill.
We need to get down to the fundamentals. What I observe in this
bill is not a reform, a rethinking, a reinvention or real good
creative thinking. What I picked up was ``We are going to take
what we have done before and just make more of it''. Where we
used to limit the loans to $2,500, we will now make them
$4,000. Where we used to have students under great financial
pressure to pay their loans back, we will now make that a little
easier for them. I applaud that. Those are very necessary steps if
that is the route that we are going to take.
However, there is a marked absence of creative and lateral
thinking in actually looking at the solution to this problem.
Regardless of which method is chosen to finance education, it
costs the taxpayers money. We want to use that money as
efficiently as possible. There is no doubt in my mind that
dumping money from the taxpayer to the different levels of
government and then dumping it back again with these big dump
trucks, having no accountability for how it is used, is one of the
greatest detrimental features to the effectiveness of our
educational system. I certainly think that we should do
something a little more creative.
Other speakers in our party talk about the concept of the
voucher. It has a great deal of merit. I challenge members
opposite to stop and really think about what it does. First, it
grabs on to a catchword that we have nowadays, and that is
choice. If we were to give individual students a sizeable
voucher, one that would cover their total cost of education in
whatever university of college or technical institute they
choose, they would then have a total choice. Too often their
choice of where they go for their schooling is imposed on them
by financial restrictions. If we gave them the voucher, they
could go to the school where they themselves have determined
they can benefit most and therefore return to us the taxpayers the
maximum benefit.
I have also thought that we should not have students working
when they are studying. Most of the time that is a distraction
from their studies. I have thought of this: Why do we not reward
them for what they are actually supposed to be doing when they
are students? Why do we not give them the opportunity to earn
money by being good students? One thing I thought of was why
do we not have tuition that is refundable as a percentage of their
performance in their classes? Give them a real reward for the
effort that they put out.
I was a student way back in the mid-fifties. I realize now in
looking back at it that I lived in an ideal world. When I wrote my
university exams in spring, if I finished in the morning I was on
my job at noon. A week or two before the exams my boss whom I
had worked for the year before asked me: ``Ken, when can you
come to work? I need you''. I drove a truck as my summer job.
He had some hauling to do and he needed me. It was wonderful.
What is the difference between then and now? I went through
school without a loan. I came out of school after five years of
university, having been completely self-supporting without any
debt. I paid my room and board, my clothing, tuition and books
and I had money left over. I made a dollar an hour on my job
which was about 50 per cent more than I needed.
(1555 )
What was the difference? There is a remarkable coincidence.
If we go back to the mid fifties and sixties-I graduated in
1961-those were the years before our government started
cranking us into a huge debt hole. Those were the years when
there was consumer confidence. There was business confidence.
As a result there were jobs for us during summers and on
graduation that were waiting for us.
When I graduated from university, I had a choice of jobs. I
cannot help but make the connection that there is some
correlation between the level of debts of government and the
burden that has placed on all of us and the dampening effect that
has on our economy. That is the reason why our young people are
now in this bad situation.
I cannot help but think that this government is missing a great
opportunity. This government thinks in terms of: ``Let's borrow
more and spend more and thereby get out of our problems''.
I am very disappointed with this bill which among other
things provides a mechanism to allow students to graduate from
university or college with a maximum debt load. I wish we could
stop thinking about borrowing and debt and start being creative
so that students can earn their way as they go and come out
without a debt as we did away back then. We would really have a
strong economy as a result.
4357
I believe that my time is almost up. I conclude by saying that
there are some areas in this bill which I think we really ought to
look at. I am not sure that we are wise in choosing to target
certain groups for special consideration. I really do not believe
that we should be saying that you are special if you are of a
certain gender.
When I fly in an aeroplane, drive in a car or go over a bridge I
really do not care about the gender of that engineer, but I do care
a lot about the competence of that person who designed and built
the structure to which I am entrusting my life.
I think it is myopic at this stage in our society to keep dividing
people into this category, that category and that one. We ought to
begin treating all of our students equally regardless of gender or
race or ethnic background or what language they speak. Let us
treat them equally. Let us give them a voucher. Let us give them
freedom of choice. Let us give them the maximum opportunity
to go out there and do the very best they can with their lives.
I really encourage this government. I think it is on to
something here. It is starting and at least facing the question. I
sincerely wish that it would step back and try to be more
creative.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to my hon. friend from the Reform Party. I
commend him for his dedication to education and recognize his
long career as an educator. Certainly he has some very positive
things to say to government about education.
I was so encouraged by much of the hon. member's speech
that I expect he will be supporting this bill when it goes through.
I certainly hope he will do that.
I would make a suggestion to the hon.member, and I speak
from experience also, being someone who worked his way
through college without student loans and so on. I recall those
days in our situation just breaking even with what one could earn
the summer and what it would cost in the winter. In thinking
back on that education system we had in the late 1950s, our
course was very heavily subsidized by government. Therefore
our tuition was relatively low by today's standard. We lived in
residence and our board was relatively low by today's standards.
I suggest that all the costs cannot be laid on the shoulders of the
national debt. It seems to me there was a different approach
toward education at that time. In my case, which was
agricultural college, agriculture was considered enough of a
priority so most of the costs of those courses were paid for by
government.
(1600)
I would like to respectfully ask the hon. member if he will
support this bill and in so doing be able to contribute to the
education of our young people across Canada. Perhaps he could
bring these new ideas and suggestions to our government.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. I respectfully
differ with him in terms of government involvement in our
education vis-à-vis what it is now.
If I am not mistaken, I believe the involvement of the
government directly in education then was about in the same
proportion as it is now. Somewhere between one-half and
one-third of the costs were borne by the students through tuition
and the other part was subsidized. It depended again on what
kind of study was pursued. If you went to medical school or
some of the highly technical oriented places where the lab and
shop equipment was very expensive then of course the
government involvement was higher.
However I do not quibble with that. As a taxpayer and as a
citizen I think we are very, very wise to invest in education. That
is one of the things government should be doing. It is not
something that should be left to go by itself. The government has
a legitimate role to play. However in the actual practice of it, to
introduce a degree of competition by vouchers, to introduce a
degree of accountability by that I think can only improve our
educational system.
The member asked whether I would be supporting this bill. If
the choice is between the status quo and what this bill provides
as an improvement, I think I will have to support it because it is
an improvement. It is better than what we have, but it is not
going far enough and it is going in the wrong direction.
I still have to study the bill some more to see the details.
Hopefully the committee will come up with some good
amendments. Maybe we will be able to introduce more elements
into it which will reward those who are diligent, who work and
come out the other end without the debts instead of penalizing
them at the expense of those who incur a debt.
One of the features of this bill is that if you happen to run up a
really huge debt you can get part of it forgiven. However if you
are astute and you live on potatoes and rice because there are
those times when you have to be really frugal-as some of us
did, and you can see I had my share-the fact is the frugal
individual is the one who forgoes the benefits. In a way he is
penalized.
In education, as in all areas of life, we need to reward the
actions and activities we want. We should somehow be
punishing those we do not want, instead of vice versa.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South): Mr. Speaker, it is with
some pleasure that I join in this debate today.
I am the member for Winnipeg South and the University of
Manitoba is in my riding. I was post-secondary education critic
for our party when I served in the Manitoba legislature. I have
taken a great interest in the situation as it affects students in my
province at the university in my area and certainly in all of this
country.
4358
I am one of those, and I expect it is shared by most members in
this House, who believes that education is a public good. I note a
member opposite who serves with me on the human resources
committee. We listened to submissions on employability on that
committee.
One of the things which was noted very quickly is that the job
creation rate for people with a university education, college
training, or a profession is something in excess of 10 per cent a
year. However, the job creation rate for those without
post-secondary education, for those with less than high school
education, is minus some 17 per cent and declining. It is a very,
very serious situation.
(1605)
We all benefit, all of us. Not just the person being trained but
all of us who live in this country benefit by having a populace
that is well educated, well trained, productive, et cetera.
The question is what do we do in support and in pursuit of that
public policy? That is what this bill is attempting lay out a
framework for. It does not answer all of the questions but it does
make some very innovative changes to the current legislation
which provide for some fairly major improvements in the way
we as a community support those people who are able to achieve
a standing at a university or college.
I want to deal briefly with one piece of information which was
mentioned just before I stood up to speak. That is the question of
the level of support which is currently provided for students
versus what was provided.
While there is some variation between smaller colleges and
universities and the more major institutions, students do not pay
one-third to one-half of their education. At large universities
they paid 15 or 16 per cent. This has slowly ratcheted up over the
last few years as a result of, I believe it was the Smith
commission report which looked at the share that students
should pay.
At the University of Manitoba it is around 19 per cent right
now that the student revenue is comprised of total expenditures
at the school. There is a covert, if not an overt, policy in place to
bring that up to 25 per cent, which I think was the level
recommended by Dr. Smith, believing that gave students more
power and a little more clout in their negotiations with
universities.
The dilemma is that despite the fact we give lip service and
stand up to make statements about the importance of education
and we examine the value of an education and understand this is
something which is a major improvement to life in our
communities, as a country we have not provided very significant
support to students, particularly in this last eight years.
One of the things we did right away in 1984 as a country-it
was done by the former government, but it was done in this
Chamber-was we froze the amount of money a student could
borrow or could claim for cost of living. From 1984 until this
year the amount of money they could claim for food and housing
was frozen. That put students in a very difficult position. The
cost of living did not stop going up. People still had to pay for
their apartments and their meals.
What we did part way through the last eight years is we
changed the regulations relative to work. I think the previous
government felt what should be done was to allow them to work
more part time but still consider them full time students. By
doing this it would somehow allow them to shoulder more of the
costs and therefore pay for their own education and not be a drag
on the public purse.
Unfortunately that put students under enormous pressure.
People began working at those part time jobs. They had to in
order to pay for their living accommodations and to feed
themselves. As someone who has had the proverbial potatoes
and rice also, I can assure you students are not eating a whole lot
better now. It forced them to take time away from their studies.
It took time away from the pursuit of excellence in their
education. It put them in the position of having to work
continually to sustain themselves and at the same time trying to
get that education.
You could get by if you were a student from a family that was
intact and you could live at home, or your family lived close to a
university and you could live at home and commute. If your
family lived in the rural area or in the northern parts of the
province and you had to live in residence, or you were a student
who for any one of a number of reasons came from a home that
was either too impoverished or too disparate to offer any
support, you were in a very difficult financial situation.
(1610 )
Almost from the time the government changed the regulations
we saw a very gradual but significant increase statistically in the
number of part time students at universities and a decrease in the
number of full time students. That was even factoring out the
influx of older students who pick up the odd course.
That was because students found they could not do both
things. They could not go to university full time and work what
they had to in order to sustain themselves. All of a sudden three
year degrees were taking four or four and a half years. Those
students who, had they been able to concentrate and work full
time on their studies, would have come out with degrees and
excellent averages in good preparation for graduate school were
unable to do that because they were forced to spend so much
time just sustaining themselves.
4359
What did the government do just prior to the last election? It
announced an increase in student loan limits. Looking at that
increase and at the regulations which support that increase, the
government also changed the identification of what were
personal contributions. This was done to the point whereby even
though it was seen that more money could be borrowed, it did
nothing to alter the underlying ability to assign greater cost to
the cost of living.
The government changed the regulations. Instead of basing
accommodation on two people sharing an apartment, it based it
on three people sharing an apartment. It took things out of the
basket of goods students were deemed to need in order to survive
at university. The result was that students were put under more
and not less financial pressure.
There is another element to the provision of student aid which
needs to be talked about because we are the federal government
and we deliver these services for the most part through a
relationship with provincial governments.
What was happening in my province was that the federal
government was providing about $3,500 in total support. If a
student required more support than that, another $3,500 could be
obtained from the provincial government. A very small number
of special needs students could access another chunk of money
through the provincial government.
One of the concerns we had was that when one was tied to that
provincial assessment and delivery of support, as the federal
government increased its ability or willingness to subsidize the
interest on certain loans, the provincial government rather than
also increasing its support would simply decrease its
involvement.
I am sorry to report to this Chamber but that is exactly what
has happened in my province. I do not know what has occurred
in some of the other provinces, but in the province of Manitoba
as the federal government has moved to increase the loan limit,
the provincial government has withdrawn certain support.
All we have done in one aspect of this program is to transfer
an expense on to the back of the federal government. That has to
open the door for a discussion about the federal role in funding,
the federal involvement with provincial agencies in the
assessment and delivery of support. Perhaps we need to look at
some new vehicles for delivering support to students. I think you
will find that the possibility of that is contained within this bill.
My concern since I first began to work with this is that over
the last eight years we were successively constraining the
support given to universities through established programs
financing. We were holding back on the support that we in
pursuit of a public policy took on to the public purse to the point
where in some cases the annual increases universities were
getting were in the negative numbers.
That certainly happened in Manitoba and in some other
provinces. Even when they were getting positive increases they
were increases of a point, a point and a half, or two points versus
the total cost of living, inflation, et cetera which was at the three
or four point range back in the late 1980s.
This caused the universities to look to that 18 or 19 per cent of
revenue coming from students in order to make up for the
shortfalls in their revenues. We were seeing student fee
increases of 15 and 20 per cent year over year. Student fees at the
University of Manitoba increased over 100 per cent during the
last eight years.
(1615)
In our pursuit of that policy we were taking something that
had been deemed to be a public good, that had been funded by
the community, by the government in pursuit of a
well-educated, productive population, and we were transferring
responsibility of that from the government on to students. It has
created some very difficult situations.
We gave the students no options on the repayment. We gave
them no way out of the hole that we were forcing them to dig for
themselves.
I have been given the high sign by the Speaker so I will draw
this to a close now and perhaps I can go a little further in
response to a question.
I support the bill because it does many things. It enables us to
provide some repayment options for students, it opens the door
to link good performance to some opportunities in community
service, it allows people to deal with their debt management, it
provides more badly needed support to students, and it allows us
to assess a reasonable level for the cost of living that is also
regionally sensitive. These are very profound and long overdue
changes which I hope we will pass quickly and get into play.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
the hon. member how concerned he is about the indebtedness of
Canadian students. As you know, on average, and I quote from
Quebec figures, students owe $8,500, but for those who
graduate, the debt level sometimes reaches up to $16,000 or
$18,000. The member talked about the tuition fees which have
tripled since 1984. Somehow, it seems like the load was
transferred after the subsidies for post-secondary education
were frozen. That led to an increase in tuition fees.
Also, I think the increase in the debt level should be a concern
for all of us. How far are we ready to go? In this bill, when we
talk about financial assistance, we are mostly talking about
loans, and not necessarily about grants, so that also contributes
to the debt level. With the public debt in Canada standing at
$17,000 per capita, we are asking our students to further
increase their debt level. Add to that the rather shaky
employment situation, and you have 16 per cent of Quebecers
going
4360
bankrupt, including students unable to pay back their loans.
Students account for 10 per cent of personal bankruptcies in
Canada.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he is concerned about
the alarming debt situation our young students are in.
[English]
Mr. Alcock: I thank the member for Lévis for the question.
We serve together on the human resources committee and I have
found his interventions to be always thoughtful.
It is a difficult problem. The member puts his finger exactly
on the problem that has confronted students up to this point. We
say it is a loan but there is an element of grant here because we
pay the interest on those loans for the three, four, five years, up
until the time that people begin repayment, and then we pay a
subsidy up to a certain amount.
At the same time we know that if we allow people to
successfully complete their education, the economy is still
performing relatively well for people at that end of the scale.
The question is that until this bill we have not allowed them any
options, any opportunities to repay. If they get stuck, if they
cannot find a job, we have not provided for them or given
ourselves the opportunity to provide any way in which they can
repay their loan. This bill begins to speak to that. It begins to
offer some opportunities, whether it becomes income contingent
repayment or some form of community service as an alternative
to work.
(1620)
We know that if you graduate university right now, job
creation for university students, depending on the region of the
country, is somewhere between 11 and 17 per cent. That is pretty
healthy. It provides a lot of options, a lot of opportunities for
work, a lot of options for people to access employment and
repay these loans.
The bigger question is, are we allowing people to have an
adequate educational experience or are we just simply putting
them into a no-win situation in which they perform poorly
because they have to work so hard to get by day to day that they
are less competitive in the marketplace when they get out?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take the opportunity to voice my support for Bill
C-28, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. Indeed this
is a necessary pillar to ensure quality in higher education in
Canada.
Financial assistance to Canada's students is in a very real
sense an investment and there are few investments in the country
which can be expected to yield as great a dividend as an
investment in the human potential.
In many respects the intellect, diligence and perseverance of
young Canadians is our biggest asset as a nation, our most
precious natural resource. Imagine nearly 1.5 million students,
both full time and part time, trying to reflect the future of our
country. Indeed, the youth and students of today, though they
only represent a portion of our total population, represent 100
per cent of our future. The government is committed to making
certain that the rich vein of talent which courses through our
youth does not go untapped.
As is the case with other natural resources that are mined the
key raw elements of youth, namely creative and artistic minds,
idealistic and visionary hearts, and adaptable hands are most
useful when refined through education and training.
Bill C-28 is just one important facet of a comprehensive
youth employment and learning strategy. It is designed to break
the traditional dependency of a young person's educational
opportunities on his or her financial capabilities. The bill
provides increased financial assistance for students whose
pockets may not be as deep as their commitment and potential to
achieve.
Generally speaking, the bill has two principal features. First,
it provides for agreement between governments and lenders in
so far as loans to students are concerned. Second, it allows
greater flexibility where the student loan program is concerned
respecting eligibility, the total amount to be granted in terms of
loans and grants and as well in terms of repayment of these
loans.
The bill provides for a new risk sharing agreement with
lenders which will see them assume liability for loan repayment
to a greater degree.
Bill C-28 also contains measures aimed at simplifying the
joint federal-provincial administration of the student loan
programs by way of agreement, not by coercion, and thereby
diminish the cost of administration of the program and saves
that money for actual loans and assistance to students.
The second major component of the bill is flexibility. Under
the bill there is greater flexibility with regard to both the type
and maximum dollar amount of loans available to students. As
well the provinces have the option of opting out of the current
program and receiving an alternative form of federal payment
thereby respecting provincial jurisdiction and taking into
account provincial and regional interests.
Also pilot programs may be established to determine whether
repayment plans can be structured on an income contingent
basis, taking into account a student's total debt load as well as
the student's earning capacity at any given time.
4361
(1625 )
In addition, the new allocation formula provided for in the bill
means middle class students may find it easier to qualify for
loans than they do under the current guidelines.
As well Bill C-28 portends great things for part time students
who will have greater access to funds, both loans and grants,
than ever before. The new flexibility will also address segments
of our society, including women pursuing advance degrees, and
the disabled who have been under represented in certain areas of
higher education.
Some members of the House have taken issue with this
provision, saying that such a provision will create a division in
the country. I submit that the government wants these women as
well as the disabled to have an equal opportunity to pursue the
higher levels of education. Contrary to what others say, we are
only trying to make the playing field level for them as well, and
where in the past, history has made a mistake, to correct the past
mistakes of history.
It is important to note that these general improvements will
translate into very specific and measurable benefits for students.
First and foremost, loan limits will be increased by 57 per cent,
thus the full time loan limit increases from $105 to $165 weekly.
Students with permanent disabilities may qualify for grants of
up to $3,000 annually to help cover transportation,
interpretation and other technical courses necessary as a
consequence of their disabilities.
A special opportunities grant would be made available to
women pursuing doctoral degrees in fields where they are
currently underrepresented and part time students will have the
ability to apply for loans whose maximum will be raised from
$2,500 to $4,000 annually. A $1,200 grant will also be available
to part time students who are able to demonstrate other exigency
needs. Different grants would alleviate the heavy burdens which
rest with so-called high need borrowers.
These sorts of provisions are intended to respond to the
demands the government has heard from students nation wide.
These measures are the best indication yet that the government
is not simply talking about tending to the needs of our youth but
is in fact acting quickly and with an eye toward sweeping future
improvements.
The young scholars of today are the women and men who must
have the tools to lead Canada into the 21st century with research,
innovation and determination. It is they who will need to lay the
cornerstone of the much talked about information
superhighway. It is they who will need to provide the brain
power necessary to realize innovations which will make life
more productive, more enriching and more fulfilling for all of
us, for all Canadians.
To accomplish these formidable goals they will require the
kind of exhaustive training and educational background which is
most often furnished by Canada's many excellent colleges,
universities and vocational schools.
It is for this reason that the government will not force young
Canadians to make tremendous debilitating financial sacrifices
in order to further their education. The government is acting in
partnership with the leaders of tomorrow, effectively extending
its right hand to them in a gesture of co-operation and respect
and in recognition of their needs and potential to contribute to
our Canadian society.
In this way we are today striking a bargain which will
ultimately benefit tomorrow's Canada, for our youth of today
will be prepared to compete in the global economy and as well to
contribute to our national economy and our social cohesion.
They who represent 100 per cent of our future as a nation shall
secure the future for us as today we grant them the necessary
tools to enable them to secure their national dream.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, several
people have commented today it is a shame that students should
be going so far in debt while they are pursuing a university
education. However I point out that when they go into debt they
are the ones who are getting the education. They will be the ones
earning the income and therefore they should be responsible for
paying it back.
(1630)
I put to the hon. member who has just spoken that contrarily
the part of the bill that would allow for outright grants to go to
members of society in essence forces people like me and people
working at fast food restaurants or driving cabs to pay through
taxes for the university education of people who quite
conceivably could have extremely good careers, make a
tremendous amount of money, but never have to pay for a big
part of their education.
Would the hon. member comment on the fairness of that type
of system?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to comment on
the fairness of the provision.
The fairness of this provision can only be understood if we
look at our students as not only working for themselves, for their
personal aggrandisement or for their selfish interest in the
future. If our thesis is that the students of today would only earn
for themselves and for nobody else, not for society, of course
society would have no obligation to them.
The students of today, I should remind the hon. member, do
not only work for themselves. Their success is the success of our
nation. Upon them the future of the country depends. To say they
will have the education, the income and therefore should pay for
themselves alone is to forget that the students of today will be
the ones contributing to our national economy in the future.
4362
They will be the ones contributing to the social cohesion of our
country.
To forget those very important principles is to overlook the
very essence of education itself. I therefore submit that when the
hon. member reflects on these principles he will come quickly to
the conclusion that there is no merit to the question he posed.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague
opposite commented on the views of student associations, of the
Canadian Federation of Students. However, as a member of the
human resources committee, I observed that the views of this
federation differed widely from those held by, for example,
student associations in Quebec.
The hon. member may not be aware that one of the concerns
expressed by students in Quebec is very close to the heart of the
official opposition, and that is its concern for upholding the
Constitution as it pertains to education, a field which comes
under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, I would like to hear my colleague's views on this
point and find out, first of all, whether he is aware of the
demands made by student associations in Quebec. I would be
interested in his comments because there is a growing awareness
that there are two separate countries within Canada. There are
those who tolerate, and even want, federal assistance in
educational matters. However, there is another reality in
Quebec, one which believes that for reasons of culture and
identity, the Quebec government should be solely responsible
for education.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the
concerns of Quebec students. I was listening earlier this
morning to the debate of the hon. member. I recall he indicated
that one of the many concerns was withdrawal of the federal
government from the educational programs.
Withdrawal in what way-to the point a which funds are not
given to Quebec students like they are to any other Canadian? Of
course the government stands opposed to that because it is
committed to helping every student in the country wherever a
student may be. Whether students reside in Quebec, in my home
province of Manitoba or in my home city of Winnipeg they are
entitled to help from the federal government.
(1635)
In terms of the administration of the program, I realize that
education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. There is
provision in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act for
opting out and alternative payments will be given. There is the
flexibility in the bill that I indicated during debate to respect
provincial jurisdiction, to respect regional interest, but to ensure
at all times that students wherever they are in the country will be
treated equally by the federal government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Brant-Via Rail; the hon. member for
Bourassa-Integration of Immigrants; the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Handguns; the hon. member for
Mercier-Unem- ployment Insurance; the hon. member for
Lotbinière-Inter-governmental Affairs.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, those who
hoped that by launching wide consultations on the reform of
social programs, not only in the papers he published himself but
also in the comments he made here, including student assistance
programs, the Minister of Human Resources Development
would initiate a real reform have been disappointed. How can
the minister, before the consultations, before submitting an
action plan that would trigger reactions, come up with a project
that, instead of the hope repeatedly promised and announced in a
passionate tone of voice, only offers to young people the
possibility of getting deeper into debt?
Except for a few scholarships and a possible rebate for those
who have reached the maximum debt level, the only hope is for
getting into debt. This bill only offers the hope of getting into
debt while ensuring a real and effective centralization, as I will
try to demonstrate.
First of all, let us keep in mind that young people do not start
out with the same advantages, whether they are born male or
female, rich or poor, to a family that stresses education or one
that has too many problems to give it the importance it should
have. There is a great injustice right from the beginning of life.
That is why some countries choose to work to make education if
not completely at least widely available to all young people as
long as they have the necessary abilities.
We know that hope in life, the hope to find a job, despite their
scarcity-we will come back to that later-, depends to a large
extent on the capacity to study and get a degree. In some
countries, France for example, education is completely free.
Others offer scholarships or loans. In Canada, depending on
what each province wants, both scholarships and loans are
sometimes available. In Quebec, which has a loans and bursaries
program, students have been complaining since the 1980s that
bursaries are being reduced while loans have increased.
4363
(1640)
For a long time, the federal government has subsidized
education; this is a fact, and we cannot rewrite history. But in the
previous Student Loans Act, at least it respected the provinces'
wishes.
To begin with, I would like to emphasize that the federal
government subsidizes education in two ways. First, by way of
EPF, a program created many years ago, it transfers funds
collected from taxpayers to provinces for education. These
funds have diminished. I will give you an example taken from
the budget. In 1992-93, the funds amounted to $2.8 billion, but
for 1994-95, they will total $2.119 billion. And this is at a time
when the number of students is rising and when the market is
growing for graduates from expensive fields of study.
One the one hand, the central government's help is
decreasing, but, on the other, student assistance is also
decreasing. What the government is doing here is decreasing
this aid, which is not direct aid but a loan to be repaid by the
students. It is replacing a grant it no longer gives by another way
for students to get into debt. That is the bill's real aim.
So, it is more debt and more centralization. Students'
indebtedness, as my colleague said before, is always increasing.
This bill, according to the department's figures, provides that
the funds available for loans will rise from $1.8 billion to
$5 billion. Students will have access to higher education, but
they will have to get into debt to do it. What is the context?
First of all, the cost of education has risen because federal
contributions have been dropping. Education costs three times
more now than in 1984. In Quebec, a similar increase took place
in the last three years. Because of high unemployment, students
have a hard time finding a summer job to pay for their education
the way they did in the past. To get by, when I was a student, I
used to work during the summer like many other students did.
What are the students doing now? More and more, they are
studying part-time and combining school and work.
Some may think this is excellent because students will know
how much their education costs. Let me refer to the experience
of all university and college students and teachers in the world.
Of course one could understand when students studied and had
part-time jobs on the weekend. However, the students' need to
work, whether they are in college or in university, has been
constantly increasing, to the point where schedules in these
institutions are now influenced by the reality of part-time work.
But that is not all. In recent years, I worked as a lecturer at
UQUAM and at the Université de Montréal. I noticed how
strong the pressure created by this part-time work was on
students, teachers and, ultimately, the education system as a
whole. This is true not only in Quebec but also elsewhere.
(1645)
So, we will be penalized when our students later become
professionals or scientists and have to compete against their
peers from other countries who will have had the opportunity to
dedicate all their time and energy to studying. A commitment to
studying is not only an individual commitment; it is also a
collective one. Consequently, to feel good about the fact that, in
the end, students make it by working part-time and getting
deeper into debt is to bury one's head in the sand.
The greater incidence of part-time work has a disastrous
effect on the quality of education and the ability of students,
during this privileged time of their life, to passionately dedicate
themselves to the pleasures of research. If students do not have
this opportunity at this particular time, they certainly will not
have it later on. Some who have had to work part-time know
how hard it is not to be able to fully dedicate oneself to one's
studies.
I should add that getting into debt does not have the same
meaning for a student in arts or literature. We all hope that, in
the future, many will continue to take law, engineering,
medicine, teaching, or simply improve their knowledge, in the
hope to find a career.
I am not overly bothered by the fact that a medical student can
incur debts of $30,000. However, I read this morning that
Bernard Lamarre, President of the Ordre des ingénieurs du
Québec, said that 4,500 to 5,000 engineers in Quebec are
currently unemployed. Now even an engineer cannot be sure
that he will be able easily, or just plain able, to repay a debt that
can be as high as $12,000 or even $15,000, on average. The bill
provides a possible reduction if it is over $16,000.
Who will recommend that a student going into teaching-we
do not know if he will find work-or many other fields where
jobs are scarce should go up to his neck in debt? Let me say that
this is an unsolved problem of my generation, which we share
with others here. It is a miserable failure because instead of
preparing for the year 2000, 2010 and 2020, we find ourselves in
an even more difficult situation. Although we may be satisfied
with the number of students, in fact, when we look at the whole
system, this issue of funding is extremely difficult and it is our
generation's failure. It is a failure for which we will pay dearly.
I also want to talk about the centralization which this bill
represents. I will only take a few points, in particular, the
definition of appropriate authority.
In the old law-I should say in the current law-the
appropriate authority is a person, body or other authority
designated as such by the lieutenant governor in council of the
province for the purposes of this Act. So the authority is
designated by the province concerned.
The bill says: ``Appropriate Authorities: 3.(1) For the
purposes of this Act, the minister-of course, the minister who
is a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada-may, by
order, designate for a province-again, it is the minister who
4364
has this power-an appropriate authority, which authority may
designate as designated educational institutions any institutions
of learning in Canada that offer courses at a post-secondary
school level, or any class of such institutions''.
(1650)
In the existing legislation, a designated educational
institution in or outside Canada was also designated by the
Lieutenant-Governor. In this bill, the same authority designated
by the minister or another authority also designated by the
minister will decide which educational institutions will be
designated in or outside Canada. It is obvious that these two
provisions clearly transfer control of the student financial
assistance program from the provinces to the minister.
In some cases, the provinces do not mind losing that power.
Nevertheless, according to our Constitution, education comes
under provincial jurisdiction. I think the federal government is
going too far by saying in this bill that it is the minister who will
designate the appropriate authority for a province, especially in
this context of broad consultations about a social reform that is
supposed to give hope to Canadians.
It seems to me that the minister should listen to our criticisms
regarding centralization and indebtedness, that they should
encourage him to wait. There are a few incentives for students in
this bill, although I do not have enough time to talk about all of
them. For instance, the federal government does dangle the
prospect of bursaries in front of them. But this is centralisation,
because these bursaries would come directly from the central
government. The government could give these incentives
without having to overhaul the current legislation and define
new relationships between the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the provinces.
There are other signs of centralization. Certificates of
eligibility refer to the determination of the assistance needed by
persons eligible for loans. In the bill, the appropriate authority
may issue or cause to be issued for a period of studies a
certificate of eligibility to a qualifying student whom that
authority considers-there are two conditions specified in the
legislation-(a) to have attained a satisfactory scholastic
standard; and (b) to be in need of a loan for that period. But this
is determined by the appropriate authority designated for the
province.
Here, it is specified: ``Subject to the regulations''. Do we
know what the regulations are? No. ``Subject to the regulations,
the appropriate authority designated by the same Minister may,
on application, issue or cause to be issued to a qualifying student
a certificate of eligibility, in the prescribed form, for a period of
studies at a designated educational institution-we saw how it
was designated, in Canada, by the appropriate authority
designated by the Minister, or outside Canada, by the
appropriate authority designated by the Minister. So, both
characteristics are the same, but subject to the regulations, and
the regulations are determined by the Minister.
Suffice it to say, in conclusion, that this bill stigmatizes the
failure of our generation, the generation now in power in this
government, to give effectively and for good an opportunity, if
not equal at least less unequal, to young people, no matter what
their origin is, but subject of course to their ability and their will
to study.
(1655)
This is a bill that gives absolutely no indication about what
can be expected in this country and, as a spokesperson for the
Official Opposition, and in spite of my convictions, which are
well known, I say that no matter what hopes one might have for
that reform, I think that this bill destroys them. This bill is cause
for concern because it was not intended in the first place to help
the students since it only allows them to go into debt, and they
are not even sure of finding a job when they graduate. As for
centralization, it is consistent with a commitment by a federal
government which decides alone in Ottawa on what is good for
everybody.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I was very
interested in the member's speech. I happen to be the father of
three children who are now in their 20s and who ended up
coming through the education process with a tremendous debt
load.
I wonder if the member would agree that perhaps a
constructive way to handle that situation would be to take a look
at an income contingent repayment plan so that if they are in a
very low paying job such as in a social working kind of situation
or, as has been suggested, perhaps from an arts perspective
versus someone who is on the higher end after a few years as a
lawyer or a doctor, there is some real possibility of being able to
overcome that by tying the repayment of the loan to the income
that the student would have at the time.
Would she see this as a way of getting away from the number
of defaults on student loans we are presently saddled with?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, research has been done by
students and those who are concerned by this issue of student
grants.
I think there is hope in that regard. But students have warned
us and rightly so against the temptation to make the future
generations bear alone the weight of education, which is a tool
for our community development. I am very sensitive to this
argument. It would be too easy in the end to say that they have
only to study now and pay later. In fact, now is the time to share.
That is why I am very disappointed with this bill. The minister
had promised to introduce an innovative bill which would deal
with the real problems. It seems to me he failed completely.
4365
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague
from Mercier spoke as usual very passionately, but also with
considerable knowledge of the subject at hand.
I would like to ask her-since she did not have the opportunity
to touch on this point-if indeed the real problem is the shortage
of jobs for students when they complete their studies. This bill is
part of a strategy which the Minister of Human Resources
Development has called the Youth Employment and Learning
Strategy. We have looked closely, but have not been able to find
any concrete measures, aside from precarious jobs such as those
associated with Youth Service Canada, or low-paying jobs. This
presents a problem. I would like to hear the hon. member's
views on this matter.
If time permits, I would like to hear what she thinks about the
transfer of responsibility to banking institutions. What was up
until now the responsibility of the government will now be
transferred to banking institutions.
(1700)
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we are not accustomed to leading
questions on this side of the House. However, my colleague has
given me the opportunity to focus on one of the major problems
that young people face. My colleague spoke about how people of
my generation-I am 53 years old-were able to find work quite
easily upon graduating from university. This was likely also true
for some people who are younger than me and certainly for those
who are older. Finding a job is the issue uppermost in the minds
of young people. There is no possible way it can be argued that
this bill is part of an overall employment strategy.
Regarding my hon. colleague's second question, I am
concerned about the new role that banks are being called upon to
play. I am concerned because we are told that as things now
stand, the banks have no incentive to ask students to repay the
money they owe and that as a result, the government is left to
contend with loan defaulters. I note that the minister has given
banks a great deal of latitude to negotiate. Is it not a little absurd
that the additional money to be spent will be used to help banks
put more pressure on students to repay their loans?
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the
discussion and debate because for too long in Canada we have
been living in the context in which the future seems to be a dead
end for our young people and for people who want to pursue
post-secondary studies.
Many young people are wondering what awaits them when
they get out of school, college or even university. They are
wondering whether they will be able to find a job that
corresponds to their skills. They are wondering if there is a place
for them in the labour market.
We must do much more than wring our hands about the often
drastic situation of our young people while remaining
indifferent to their plight. We can get into debates about issues
around centralization. We could make passionate arguments
about indebtedness but it is important to note that the program
proposed today is a model of administrative delegation with the
federal government providing for the financing of student loans
through private sector lenders and provinces undertaking
certain responsibilities in respect of assessing student needs and
awarding aid under the program.
We must give back to our country and to its citizens the
confidence and optimism that are needed to create a strong,
dynamic economy which is so necessary in the context of market
globalization.
In light of this need, the government recently launched, and
the minister again spoke of it today, on the youth employment
and learning strategy in order to give our young people in
particular and Canadians in general the means and the
opportunities of taking on this new economic challenge.
Under the proposed reforms provinces are expected to play a
central role in the administration of the programs. In fact the
proposals to reform the program have been developed through
close consultation with provinces and interest groups over the
past two years. Many of the changes reflect criteria in place
under provincial student assistance programs. I am referring to
measures which emphasize results in learning as well initiatives
to ease student indebtedness on completion of their studies.
Far from limiting provincial flexibility, the bill continues to
provide for jurisdictions choosing to offer their own student
assistance programs to opt out of the federal scheme and receive
appropriate compensation. The formula for compensation has
been expanded to include the enhancements offered under the
federal program. In this way students in opted out jurisdictions
will also benefit from the changes being recommended by the
government.
What are those changes? The student bill amends the Canada
Student Loans Act in order to ensure that it truly meets the
objectives for which it was designed 30 years ago to enable our
young people to pursue their education in accordances with their
talents, their interest and ambitions.
4366
(1705 )
Women pursuing post-secondary education face great
challenges. The United Nations has identified unequal access to
education as one of the impediments to women's full
participation in society. Women still face many of the
challenges confronted by women in the fifties and in the sixties.
They face segregation by occupation, low wages, insufficient
child care and a heavy burden of family responsibilities which
can impede access to education.
These facts influence the ability of women to obtain teaching
jobs at universities and colleges and to advance through the
professorate. At the college level 15,000 full time teachers are
men, compared with 10,000 women. At the university level
there are 30,000 men who are full time faculty and only 8,000
women. Furthermore, women are concentrated at the lower
ranks of full time university faculty. They account for less than 8
per cent of full professors, 20 per cent of associate professors
and 33 per cent of assistant professors. Because women at all
levels below full professor are less likely than their male
counterparts to have earned a doctorate, their career prospects
are significantly hindered.
Despite rapid improvements in the participation of women at
the undergraduate level, we know they are still greatly under
represented in areas such as engineering, applied sciences,
mathematics and the physical sciences.
Right now about one-third of doctoral students are women.
Female doctoral students receiving Canada student loans tend to
have greater assessed needs and higher debt loads than their
male counterparts, which makes studying more difficult for
them and repaying their loans more onerous.
The proposed amendments are designed to eliminate this
barrier which is faced by women who are pursuing
post-secondary studies or who have decided to return to college
or university. Female doctoral students may be eligible to access
up to $3,000 in any given year for up to three years of study to
help them meet the costs associated with studies at the doctoral
level.
As I previously mentioned, the amount of loans and
allocations has not changed in 10 years. Currently the maximum
amount of loans provided to students under the program is
$3,600 a year. The average cost of one year of studies, however,
is estimated at $9,500 for a single student enrolled in university
who does not live with his or her parents.
Furthermore, students who have one or more dependents or
who are the head of a single parent family and persons with
disabilities have additional financial difficulties for which no
specific measures are provided under the program. The program
in its current form is not always equitable. There is no guarantee
that students in comparable circumstances will receive fair,
uniform treatment from one province to the next. In addition,
the amounts provided are determined by provincial authorities
without taking into account the province or region in which the
educational institution attended by the applicant is located.
Under the new program the maximum annual loan limit will
increase to $5,600 per school year for full time students, and
$4,000 for part time students. This will ensure that those persons
with the greatest need can count on reasonable financial
assistance while they complete their studies. I would point out
that these amounts represent an increase of almost 60 per cent.
In addition, special opportunity grants which will be awarded
to students with the greatest financial need will help
re-establish equality of opportunity for higher education.
Expanding eligibility for the interest relief plan to low income
persons with low wage or part time jobs will grant them relief
they had previously been denied.
This will enable us to provide support to those students who
are truly determined to succeed, while at the same time making
good use of taxpayers' money. With the new legislation we will
be able to establish new funding terms so that all eligible
students will have access to loans, to develop repayment
formulas that take incomes into account, and to benefit
taxpayers by reducing the costs of the program.
For a system of financial assistance to be fair and equitable
for all Canadians from coast to coast it must be consistent while
obviously reflecting the particular economic conditions of each
region.
The federal government therefore intends to work more
closely with the provinces with a view to standardizing the
operation of the program and to exploring the potential for
greater harmonization of federal and provincial student
assistance programs.
(1710 )
This bill respects provincial jurisdiction over education.
These reforms are about creating opportunities and providing
hope to Canadians who might not otherwise pursue
post-secondary learning without financial assistance.
The bill is intended to provide the necessary enabling
authority so that the government's announced reforms to the
program can proceed.
Contrary to what we have heard in the House, the government
has been very clear about its intention to overhaul the Canada
student loans program. Specifically, our intention was
announced to increase the loan limits for full time and part time
students. The government will shortly be providing an overview
of the regulations to the committee examining the bill in
specific ways.
These regulations will be subject to the normal regulatory
approval process. They will be prepublished for the purpose of
pursuing the widest possible consultation on their content. Prior
to finalizing those regulations they will be reviewed in light of
those comments for consideration and approval by the governor
in council.
4367
The Government of Canada has long provided funding for
post-secondary education. In 1993-94, $15.6 billion was spent
on post-secondary education. The total federal support reached
$8 billion, representing over 50 per cent of total support.
Federal EPF transfers to Quebec for post-secondary
education are expected to reach $1.5 billion in 1994 and 1995,
representing an increase of over $12 million over last year.
It is in this same spirit of federal-provincial co-operation and
in order to provide the greatest possible opportunity that I join in
this debate and I support the minister responsible.
We have before us an innovative project aimed at giving the
people of Canada, both young and old, the chance to reach their
objectives in the area of education, training and equal
opportunities for doing so.
Therefore we must not hesitate to take bold steps to restore the
faith of our fellow citizens in the future. We must let them know
that we wish to strengthen our economy and make Canada a
strong and competitive country on the international scene. This
is a primary objective of the youth employment and learning
strategy.
We have here a complete initiative, a concrete initiative that is
part of a national strategy whose value I am convinced is
recognized by all Canadians. I am also convinced that all of my
fellow members of Parliament are becoming increasingly aware
of the merits and the necessity of this initiative after today's
discussions. I therefore call on every member to demonstrate
and give their support to this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the
hon. member and since we are both on the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development and she is well informed of
the social program reform, I take this opportunity to ask her a
question on that subject.
Today, we are studying the student loans program in the
context of a particular strategy directed at youth, but
fundamentally, that program should be part of social program
reform throughout Canada. The Committee on Human
Resources Development has been asked to engage in a
consultation process following the action plan that had been
announced earlier by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, who will table his overall plan of action within
the next few weeks. The comprehensive reform proposed in this
action plan was supposed to cover, in a coherent manner, all
aspects of social and income security programs, including
student financial assistance.
What have we observed? As with unemployment insurance,
we can see that, in this case, the minister has decided not to wait
for the outcome of the consultation process on social reform.
Since she is a member of that committee, I would like to ask
my colleague to explain why it is so urgent to proceed with these
changes before the outcome of the reflection process which we
have undertaken together is known.
(1715)
[English]
Ms. Augustine: I thank my colleague for his question and
also for his concern as to the progress of the work we are
presently embarking upon.
I am aware that my colleague knows that we have heard from
hundreds of Canadians who have come before our standing
committee. My colleague is aware of the situation that faces the
young people in this country and that we need to provide them
with opportunities for jobs. It is important that our young people
at the end of the school year can see where their future is heading
in the upcoming year. In the process that is before us there is a
tie-in of course with the work and the reform that is going to
take place. It is also important to note that we are here to govern,
to take the leadership and to ensure that we meet the needs of
Canadians especially our young people at this very crucial time
of the year and also at this very crucial point in the economic
situation that faces our young people.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, a number
of members on this side of the House would dearly love to
support this bill although we do not feel that it goes far enough
in some areas. We are quite concerned about the affirmative
action portion of it in which women doctoral students would be
given grants.
We are concerned that we are handing out privileges based on
gender in this country and that it would be done with the
authorization of the government.
We are wondering why extending student loans to women as
they are extended to everybody is not enough for those women in
the doctoral studies programs.
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about equity in
this country. I think that the member across the way should
recognize that there are some inequities and there should be
some opportunities to ensure that in every institution and every
place in our society that women are there in equal numbers and
that their skills are recognized.
There are 15,000 male full time teachers in our system
compared with 10,000 women. We know that the opportunities
are not there for women. This is an opportunity provided for
women to find themselves on the same level as men and to
4368
ensure that in all of our teaching facilities there are the same
qualifications and an equal balance of sexes in our professions.
It is important that a role model be there. It is important that
we give strong messages to our young people that regardless of
their sex, opportunities are there for them. This is an
opportunity that is being provided at this time for women who
would like to continue their studies at the doctoral level to do so.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to follow my
colleague and to speak on this legislation in support of this
initiative by the government.
I am going to make my remarks in three capacities this
afternoon. The first capacity is as one who has benefited from
the Canada student loans program in the past.
The second is in the capacity of someone who represented in
my first term as an opposition member and continues to
represent here as a government member the countless cases of
students and families that have run up against the deficiencies in
the current program.
The third is in my capacity as the chair of the human resources
development committee which would be expected to study this
legislation more thoroughly.
(1720 )
In my first capacity, if it had not been for the student loans
program, I would probably not have been able to pursue
university studies through the BA, MA and PhD levels because
my family did not have the resources. My family was not of the
means to be able to support my entry into university.
As the oldest of eight children in Margaree Forks, Nova
Scotia, my father's income was barely above the poverty line.
He did his best to provide for his family. If there had been no
opportunity for me to receive student loans and student
bursaries through the federal government in the early 1970s,
chances are I would have done like many others and ended my
education at the high school level. Happily that was not the case.
I had the opportunity to achieve the benefits of a university
education.
I do not think there is anybody in this House who would
question the importance now more than ever of young people
having access to higher education as a means for being fully
productive members in our society and in the Canadian
economy.
In my career as a member of Parliament I have represented
many young people who have found the existing limits, the
existing regulations and the existing red tape associated with the
student loans program, the national requirements and in the case
of Nova Scotia some of the provincial restrictions, make it
absolutely imperative and urgent that something be done to
loosen up the criterion, to expand the accessibility of the
program and to make the kinds of changes the government is
proposing in this legislation.
One of the issues that provided the most work for myself and
my constituency staff was of students in Cape Breton
Highlands-Canso who were unable to attend university or who
had to drop out because the amount of assistance they were able
to receive was insufficient to allow them to go to university.
There were those whose parents were unable to meet the
requirements that the regulations called for in order to
supplement what they could get through the student loans
program. Because of various forms of red tape they did not
receive an answer until it was too late for them to continue. They
had to drop out of the program and very often had to go on
unemployment or perhaps even welfare.
Time and time again I had these situations in the last four
years. As a result, we realized that something had to be done to
open the loan limits. It fell on deaf ears when we brought it
before the previous government. I am happy that the minister
and the government are taking the initiative to review and to
enhance the support that the Canadian government provides in
conjunction with the various provinces to assist young people in
pursuing higher education.
The bill before us delivers on a commitment made by the
government in its youth and learning strategy to improve
student assistance to better serve the needs of present and future
generations of students. The proposed legislation sets the stage
for the modernization of the Canada student loans program
which has not been fundamentally changed for 30 years. Student
loans were frozen by the last government at 1984 levels. The
government is increasing the loan limits for students by 57 per
cent to reflect the growth in education costs borne by students
over the intervening years.
(1725)
Just to give an example of those increases, in Nova Scotia
tuition fees are among the highest in Canada. They rose
dramatically over the period when the Conservative government
was in power in Canada from an average in 1985-86 of $1,478
per student to $2,415 in 1992-93.
As a result of those increases in tuition fees and the freezing
of student loan limits, a growing number of students were
unable to pursue higher education. Add to that the fact that jobs
for students were not able to keep up with the demand created a
crisis situation and some say a lost generation among our young
people. I certainly hope that is not the case.
It is urgent that the government act. I believe that in
introducing legislation such as this at this time and in
preparation for the next school year this government is acting as
soon as it is responsibly possible to do so to begin to address that
urgent need.
4369
Over the next five years the value of aid for students will be $6
billion, an increase of $2.5 billion compared with the previous
five years. This is an addition over the next five years over what
would have been made available to students for the financing of
secondary education. There is opting out with compensation as
there has been in the past to allow provinces such as Quebec to
deal with their own programs. In addition the formula for
compensation to Quebec and to the Northwest Territories will be
expanded to include the new program elements which are made
available as a result of this legislation.
Assistance would be enhanced as a result of this legislation
and targeted to those in need by increasing the low limits for full
and part time students, providing special opportunity grants to
meet with the exceptional education costs of students with
disabilities, high need part time students and women in doctoral
studies and establishing an objective regionally sensitive
approach to assessing student need.
The legislation also facilitates the transition from school to
work which is another important requirement of our work and
labour market environment at the present time. It does this by
creating a national program of deferred grants to reduce the debt
load of high need students on graduation and by expanding
interest relief to low income borrowers.
These are some of the features that are contained in Bill C-28.
I am encouraged that the government has moved so quickly in
order to introduce this legislation.
I know that I will be asked as the chairman of the human
resources committee, perhaps by my colleague from Lévis or
my colleague from Medicine Hat, why this legislation is being
introduced in advance of the government's program for social
security reform and whether this in a sense undermines the
social security reform process.
To that anticipated question I would say that nothing in this
bill precludes the broader assessment of the needs of
post-secondary students and the dealing with these needs as part
of an overall social security reform process. In the same way the
changes that have been introduced in the recent budget to the
unemployment insurance program of course do not mean that
the unemployment insurance program is not part and parcel of
the social security review process which is part of the exercise
that we will be involved with as a government and as a
committee. An important point to bear in mind is the reason the
legislation in a sense precedes the very important exercise of
social security reform which the government is carrying out.
Hopefully we will deal with the legislation in an expeditious
fashion. If passed it would make it possible for students in the
new academic year to take advantage of the new benefits. The
social security reform process will take longer.
For that reason alone I would say the government is to be
commended for anticipating a trend, which I am sure all
members of the House support, toward greater support for the
achievement of higher education by our young people.
* * *
The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred division on the motion.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 40)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Strahl
Thompson
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-36
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
4370
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan-169
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bhaduria
Charest
Collenette
DeVillers
Deshaies
Discepola
Guimond
Jacob
Leroux (Shefford)
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nault
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Rompkey
Shepherd
Terrana
Venne
Wayne
Wood
Young
de Jong
(1800)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
negatived.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4370
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from April 13, 1994, consideration of the
motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take
the required measures to authorize the construction of a high-speed train (HST)
linking the cities of Windsor and Quebec City, as well as the necessary
infrastructure.
(1805)
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity afforded by the motion
standing in the name of the hon. member for Joliette to repeat
what I said in this House on March 22. To emerge from its
economic doldrums, our country needs a large-scale collective
project, one that will generate our enthusiasm and mobilize us.
Such a project exists. I am referring to the HST, the
high-speed train between Quebec City and Windsor, which
could also be run on a loop connecting Mirabel and Dorval.
Several studies have already concluded that this project would
be economically viable.
A high-speed train running through a densely populated
corridor with high ridership potential answers a need. The train,
as other countries have already realized, is not a relic of the past.
In its modern version, when certain distances must be covered
and the ridership is there, it is the way of the future.
According to a study conducted by Bombardier, HST per
capita transportation costs will be competitive with those of
other competing modes. Furthermore, the benefits of control
and speed are obvious.
I may add that the HST would be a welcome solution to the
problem of transportation to and from Mirabel and Dorval. It
would be necessary to add to the main line a loop where the train
would run only at certain times. It would take 18 minutes to get
from airport to airport, and in the airports would also be linked
directly by rail to Quebec and Ontario.
Another point is that trains are more environmentally friendly
than any other means of transportation. Running at a speed of
300 kilometres per hour, the HST uses half as much energy per
passenger as a car and one-quarter as much as a plane. Pollution
has a price, a financial cost which we tend to forget in our
calculations and which should be added when comparing
various transportation modes with highway and air
transportation.
4371
Electrification, which is the rule in Europe, would have the
double advantage of being environmentally acceptable, since
there would be no emissions into the atmosphere, and of
consuming energy that is abundant in Ontario as well as Quebec,
a province that is trying to export surplus energy.
And now for the burning issue of unemployment.
Construction on the HST would create 80,000 jobs annually. In
addition, 40,000 jobs would be created in sectors related to the
project, plus 1,250 permanent jobs in maintenance and
management of the network. The HST would ideally take up the
slack and hire workers who might be laid off following the
merger between CN and CP.
Yes, but look at the cost! According to the proposed
investment strategy, and if we take the average strategy of 300
kilometres per hour, it would cost $7.1 billion in 1990 dollars.
According to this hypothesis, during the construction period tax
revenues would be generated totalling $1.8 billion. For the
government, the HST is an investment rather than an
expenditure.
However, these advantages are better understood abroad than
in this country. Several of the most developed countries in the
world now have one or more HSTs in service. Canada is lagging
behind.
Bombardier, a domestic company, has more customers abroad
for its railway products than it does here. In this area as in so
many others, the government's lack of vision is overwhelming.
Does our low population density preclude this kind of
project? That would be a poor argument. Some of the countries
that already have HSTs or are planning to put one into service
are not more densely populated than the Quebec City-Windsor
corridor.
(1810)
In this high-tech sector, we could be leaders instead of
followers and be the first ones to develop an exportable
expertise that could help improve our balance of payments. Yet,
while our competition is taking action, we are examining the
umpteenth report on the subject.
If our governments act now, we still have a chance to find our
opportunity window on the high speed train market. The time
lost so far can be caught up, we are told, but we must act now.
The late lamented Jean de La Fontaine wrote a delightful little
story our minister of transport may find useful and inspiring to
read every day. You guessed right, I am referring to the tale of
``The Tortoise and the Hare''.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, in their history books, will
our children be taught that in terms of collective achievements
commanding their admiration, the last decade of the 20th
century was marked in their country by the so-called
infrastructure project, that is to say a plan to fill in wholes with
asphalt from the West coast to the East coast?
Is our ambition limited to leaving our children-apart from a
huge debt of course-roads with fewer wholes in them and
sewers with fewer leaks? Certainly not. Such a vision is not
worthy of Canadians and Quebecers.
Our children-I hope and it depends on this
government-will be able to say proudly that besides carrying
out this infrastructure work, we, their parents, made sure, as the
21st century drew nearer, that we remained leaders among
innovative nations.
So, with the HST, we will prove to them that our creative
potential and capacity of having daring ideas is intact; in a word,
we are not in a decline and want to provide them, to face the
challenges of the 3rd millennium, a new building tool that
reflects our ambitions for their future as well as our own past
achievements.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, Motion
No. 112 asks the federal government to authorize the
construction of a high speed rail link between Windsor and
Quebec City. The Bloc motion actually reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take
the required measures to authorize the construction of a high speed train linking
the cities of Windsor and Quebec City, as well as the necessary infrastructure.
The motion could be interpreted in a couple of different ways.
If the motion is asking only for authorization to proceed using
100 per cent private funding then there would be no real reason
for us to stand in the way of construction of such a project.
Alarm bells are ringing for me and I have a reputation to
defend. I managed to get to third place on the list of scrooges on
Parliament Hill, proof that I am exceptionally careful with
taxpayers' dollars. I will have to apologize to my constituents
for not making it to number one position, but I will try to do
better next year.
I have a reputation to defend, as I said, and alarm bells are
going off all over the place in connection with the motion. I see a
sink hole, a black hole for taxpayers' dollars into which we
could throw billions of dollars without ever creating a
self-sustaining transportation system between Windsor and
Quebec City.
If the second interpretation of the motion is that we are being
asked to authorize taxpayers' money to be spent on this project
then I say absolutely not. I quote from a colleague who has
4372
earlier spoken to the motion: ``Considering that the political
elites of Ottawa have not had the competence to turn an annual
budgetary surplus since the early 1970s, I would certainly be
surprised if any viable industry would want to enter into a
working partnership with the federal government''.
What then could possibly be the justification for government
participation in a high speed rail proposal? In short the crux of
the issue is very simple: if the rail line is a financially viable
project then the federal government should give its full
legislative backing to such a plan, providing there is no fiscal
component involved. If it is not proven to be fiscally viable then
why would the government sink any of its non-existent money
into such a plan anyway? It certainly would be nice for us to be
the North American pioneers of high speed rail transportation
but if the logic is not there then neither should the taxpayers'
money be there.
(1815)
The possibility of the public and private sector splitting the
cost on this project has been discussed. This means the
government would still be asked to pay nearly $3 billion toward
something that sounds great but may not work.
Where is the government going to get such a large amount of
money? Not only is the availability of $3 billion in question but
also I wonder if that amount will rise as more costs are
discovered, either costs that were not figured into the original
project or costs that were underestimated, as is often the case
with government projects. While costs may rise astronomically
there is no guarantee a profit would be made at the end of the
project anyway.
There is also the question of whether private industry would
indeed want to enter a partnership with the federal government
as I mentioned earlier. If there are huge profits to be earned then
the private sector should tackle this project on its own.
I am not condemning or encouraging the idea of a high speed
rail link per se. Rather I am saying the government should not be
involved in any way other than legislating to make the project
possible, if legislation is indeed needed.
I cannot justify putting $3 billion worth of taxpayers' money
into such an uncertain project. I believe the building of such a
railway should be left up to the private sector to finance if it
feels the need for it.
If there is no interest in this project from private industry then
it must feel there is not enough financial stability in the
investment to undertake it. If it feels the risk is too great for
itself, it is not the place of the government to override the
people's decision and spend their money on a project they would
not support themselves.
I know this is a revolutionary thought for many members on
the government side, the thought that they would not do
something that the people wanted them to do.
In my riding of North Vancouver there is a private company
which runs tourist rail traffic through the Rocky Mountains.
This company, Rocky Mountain Rail Tours, is in its fifth season
and receives absolutely no taxpayer subsidies. It creates a
significant number of private sector jobs and has generated
more than $5 million in taxes for all levels of government.
While there were losses for the first five years of operation the
company stuck it out and made a six-figure profit in 1993.
That is evidence that such a system can be built and run
without government interference. The only threat to this
company at present is the possibility of a government run
railway receiving extraordinary amounts in subsidies as its
competition.
Though it took a few years to get off the ground, Rocky
Mountain Rail Tours is now doing very well and the company is
forecasting more and more passenger traffic all the time. As I
mentioned, the only threat that exists right now is the possibility
that cabinet may authorize VIA Rail to begin running again on
those same tracks.
Even if the government had wads of money spilling out of its
treasury, which it certainly does not, there would be no logical
sense in undertaking a high speed rail link between Windsor and
Quebec City at this time. That is because one-third of the track
would be located in Quebec and as long as the separatist threat
continues to loom over the economic and political well-being of
the country there is no point in proceeding with such a project.
I want to retain at least number three position on the Hill
Times list of Scrooges on Parliament Hill, so I cannot risk
supporting this motion that is on the table from the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, support for the high speed train connection in the
Quebec-Windsor corridor has been received from people who
held very different views, people like Mr. Marc Lefrançois,
president of VIA Rail who said: ``In terms of plans that stir
people into action, it is difficult to find a better one''. It also
promotes the expertise of a company like Bombardier which is a
domestic company and holds rights to the technology required
to carry out this project.
(1820)
The HST project also received support from the Young
Liberal Federation in Quebec who, while not being known as
sovereigntists nonetheless saw in this project an opportunity to
stimulate job creation for young people, whether engineers and
4373
technicians or linemen. In other words, this is a job-creation
project.
At Bombardier, they are not a bunch of incompetent people.
They are the ones who manufactured in La Pocatière, in my
riding, the railway cars now in service in the tunnel across the
Channel between England and France, two sovereign nations
that nonetheless saw fit to be linked by such a means of
communication. The British did not refuse to contribute because
the French were going to benefit from the tunnel. They asked
themselves: ``Will we benefit from this?'' And came to the
conclusion that they would.
I think that, whatever the constitutional context, Quebec and
Canada stand to benefit from developing this link, particularly
since it would be the first of the sort in North America and the
technology could be applied in 19 other sites over the continent.
You go nowhere with a rule like: no government money shall be
invested in this project; we must wait for the private sector to
take on the project. If that rule had been applied strictly, we
would still ride on gravel roads and we would not have the
transportation network we enjoy today.
I think we must have a modern-day attitude and the HST is
definitely modern. In fact, it is the most environmentally
friendly mode of transportation of all. It is a lot less polluting
than cars or planes.
The question we have to ask ourselves is this: is it going to be
cost-effective to build a high-speed train in the Quebec
City-Windsor corridor? In fact, as Mr. Rémy Bujolt, chairman
of the GPC Consortium and consultant for VIA Rail on this
matter, was saying: ``To succeed, we will have to attract as many
passengers as possible; if not this project will become a money
pit. For this project to be cost-effective, the high-speed train
must capture 40 per cent of the market between Montreal and
Toronto compared to 13 per cent today''.
But the answer to this question is in the efficiency of the
high-speed train. This train would link Quebec City and
Montreal in 85 minutes; Montreal and Ottawa in 45 minutes and
Montreal and Toronto in 140 minutes, at 50 per cent of the cost
of a plane ticket. It would also serve Quebec City,
Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Belleville,
Toronto, London and Windsor.
Do you not think that with such a fare, the HST will easily
replace many air carriers? That probably explains in part why
the project is stalling so inexplicably. Is the airline lobby
holding up the project? With all the support it received, there is
no reason why anyone should oppose it.
I discovered this afternoon there might be a new reason: it
might be the fear of displeasing the Reform Party because they
see no advantage in that project since it encourages development
on a north to south axis in North America; that in itself is not a
bad thing and there would certainly be similar projects to be
developed in the west.
We believe the HST project is highly mobilizing and job
creating since it would generate 80,000 direct jobs and 120,000
indirect ones. Compared to other projects, it would be much
cheaper because of the taxes that governments would collect on
the income of a whole generation that would be put to work.
Right now in Quebec, there are 4,000 engineers without work.
Don't you think that such a project would be welcomed by those
people who are looking for jobs, who studied at university and
who have nothing because no interesting development project is
proposed to them.
Therefore, the high-speed train project appears to be an
interesting way of developing the economy of the
Quebec-Windsor corridor, but it is also very interesting for the
Bombardier company. For instance, in La Pocatière, in my
riding, Bombardier has a plant that built the cars used to cross
the English Channel and those of the New York subway. The
economic cycle in that plant is often the reverse of the cycle of
the whole economy. While the economy is taking off again,
employment declines in the plant. Conversely, in an economic
downturn, more jobs are created at the plant.
(1825)
Such a project could perhaps balance production and increase
employability to ensure that the region does not experience ups
and downs like going from 1,000 to 250 or 300 jobs. Such a
project could stabilize job creation in the region and ensure that
expertise stays where it is.
Now, every time the economic cycle hurts our businesses,
technicians and engineers go elsewhere. They must move on to
other jobs, so that our businesses lose this expertise and have to
start from scratch every time.
A project such as the high-speed train would create jobs to put
young people to work and help build a corridor between Quebec
City and Windsor which, in the end, would benefit all elements
of society between Quebec and Ontario and towards the United
States. And, if the decision is made quickly enough in case
Quebec City is chosen to host the 2002 Winter Olympics, it
would certainly be a very interesting means of transportation for
which we would have planned in time, for once.
I think we have all the elements we need to succeed. I was a
little disappointed when the Prime Minister, replying in jest to a
question from the Leader of the Opposition, asked whether the
high-speed train should be stopped at the border between
Quebec and Ontario. I think that it is much more important than
that and that it deserves serious answers dealing with the
substantive issue.
Studies have already been carried out. What is needed now is
the political courage to go ahead with the project. The economic
conditions are such that we are sure the high-speed train is not
another Hibernia project. If we could take the money that
Quebec has thrown away with Hibernia and stop the Hibernia
project and put that money into the high-speed train, we could
4374
contribute Quebec's share directly to this project and maximize
job creation in doing the work.
Creating a new rail line creates jobs that will make good use
of skilled workers and line workers, namely people with
high-school education who can do all kinds of support work to
install the line; at the same time, it takes technological expertise
that would surely make Quebec and Canada leaders in this field.
We can bet that in 15 or 20 years, there will be maybe 10 or 15
high-speed rail lines in North America. Then we will know if we
have missed the train or if we seized our opportunity to be
leaders in such projects and to make Canada and Quebec experts
in developing this kind of transportation link which is what we
need in a continent like North America.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, this debate
has been quite interesting. I suppose many of us come to this
Chamber with somewhat different points of view.
I listened to the first speaker from the Bloc. He was talking
about combating uncertainty with this project. With a wide open
cheque book and having absolutely no idea how many cheques
we are going to have to write, to say that this would be a project
which would combat uncertainty is probably 180 degrees from
the reality. I do not see this project as being a solution to
combating uncertainty whatsoever.
The member spoke of it in terms of economic viability. As my
colleague from North Vancouver has said, if it truly is
economically viable why is private industry not stepping up to
bat? Why are they not the people who are asking for the okay
from the people of Canada?
(1830 )
In doing a little research for this I came across a presentation
made in writing from the TGV Canada consortium which is led
by Bombardier and GEC Alsthom. They are the people who are
attempting to pull this together, at least the concept, for
Canadians to buy into. It sounds absolutely terrific.
On page 17 of their report they say:
The TGV is the job creation project for the 1990s. For the construction phase
alone, TGV Canada will provide a major boost to job creation in all parts of
Canada.
They go on about the fact that we are going to have
engineering, construction equipment, construction, cement and
concrete products, metal products, steel rails, structural steel,
transportation equipment, rolling stock, electrical and
electronic industries, signalling and communications. It goes on
and on. It just sounds wonderful.
Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to pay for all of these
wonderful things in this project?
One of the other members in his speech mentioned the
channel tunnel. To the best of my knowledge, according to the
information I have received, the tunnel underneath the English
Channel will never be paid for. It will never pay for itself
because it went double its budget.
I suggest with the greatest of respect to our friends in the civil
service that because there is not a profit motive involved in the
kind of work they do, without that discipline that is exactly what
would happen on this project.
In additional research, I took a look at what the member for
Québec-Est said in Hansard on December 11, 1991, March 12,
1992, March 19, 1992, and what the member for Drummond said
on March 20, 1992. It goes on and on. This project has been a
favourite of people from that area and I can understand why.
If we had any experience where private enterprise had come in
and done something like this on a massive scale without
government support, without getting their hands in the pockets
of ordinary Canadians, certainly the majority of people in this
Chamber would be in favour of it.
I see a statement under Standing Order 31 on March 20, 1992
by the former member for Drummond where it states in part:
In addition to the many industrial benefits, the socioeconomic advantages,
and the potential for exports, setting up a high-speed railway line could very
well make Canada a centre of excellence for high-speed railway transportation.
He goes on:
Mr. Speaker, building a high-speed line at an estimated cost of $5 billion to
$8 billion-
That seems to me not necessarily knowing what a million is.
With a billion being a thousand of those and the spread being
between $5 billion to $8 billion, well it is only taxpayers'
money.
-will represent the biggest private investment this country has ever known.
This genuine revolution in transportation could generate the construction of 23
corridors in North America, with economic spin-offs and investments totalling
$200 billion.
That scares me a lot. It really scares me when we have people
like myself, not an engineer, not a financier-I would suspect
that the former member was probably like myself, not
necessarily even understanding what $1 billion is-throwing
out figures, saying it will cost $5 billion or it will cost $8 billion
and it will spin off $200 billion. These are not crackers we are
throwing out. These are billions and billions of Canadian
taxpayers' dollars.
4375
We have so many unknowns with it as well. We have not tried
a smaller high speed line as a test. We do not know it will operate
in our climate, in our specific situation. I have travelled by
railway in Switzerland with its concrete ties and the whole
business and while I know that much of its climate is like ours,
we have not done a small enough test in Canada to even know if
we have the technology and the technological ability to be able
to do this at this point.
(1835 )
With the first speaker this afternoon talking about leaving the
people of Canada something, I suggest with the greatest respect
that what we would be leaving them would be a sinkhole of
public debt. That is what we would be leaving them with in this
project. The timing is wrong.
I would further suggest, again with the greatest respect, that if
we really want to combat uncertainty, we have to get down to the
business of working out a united Canada. We need to get away
from this business of blowing this country up and separating it
and pulling it apart. If we want real certainty in Canada, we have
to focus on solving problems together. That is what is going to
make Canada great, not some mythical fantasy land high speed
rail line between Windsor and Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to participate in this debate initiated by the hon.
member for Joliette, whom I want to congratulate for raising
what is, and will be, a major issue for Quebec. I am very
enthusiastic about this project, and this for two reasons. First,
because of its technical nature and, second, because of the
regional development which might result from it.
As regards the technical aspect, I want to go back briefly to
the election campaign, when members opposite put forward the
idea of cancelling the helicopter building project. At that time,
the Liberals received the support of the Bloc Quebecois on the
condition that the cancellation of this contract be compensated,
in terms of the financial and human resources involved, by the
implementation of another major project. At the time, the
current opposition leader had already suggested that this major
project be the construction of a high-speed train line which,
given its magnitude, could replace the helicopter project, in
terms of the budgets involved and the skilled manpower
required.
Unfortunately, the government only remembered the first part
of the Bloc's position and simply cancelled the helicopter
project without providing any alternative. This is a tragic
decision, considering that this whole issue is related to the
industrial conversion or, rather, the lack of industrial conversion
which, in the last five years, has resulted in the loss of 11,000
high-tech jobs in Quebec alone.
In that context, the high-speed train project would, given its
technical nature, give a real boost to the economy of Quebec and
Canada.
In terms of regional development, the magnitude of the
project makes it very appealing for all the regions along the
Quebec-Windsor corridor. Indeed, because of its magnitude, the
project, which would involve costs of $8.5 billion, would also
create 127,000 jobs for ten years. Considering all the claims
made by the members opposite and their slogan about jobs, jobs
and jobs, and considering that they have so far only proposed
infrastructure projects, they should seize this opportunity,
especially since they already know that the opposition will
support the creation of real jobs which will have a real impact,
unlike a lot of the jobs related to the infrastructure program,
which merely maintain employment levels or are only
temporary in nature.
Especially since 70 per cent of the project would be privately
financed, with only 30 per cent being funded by three
governments for a total of roughly $2.5 billion. According to all
projections, 50 per cent of this amount would be recovered as
soon as the construction was completed, with $1.8 billion in
spin-offs and fiscal revenues generated during the actual
construction.
So, we are talking about very important regional spin-offs,
economically as well as socially. It is estimated that the French
city of Lille has enjoyed $1 billion in regional spin-offs from
hotels, office towers, convention centres, restaurants, and so
forth.
One must also realize that such a project targets a potential
North American market which could be worth $200 billion over
the next twenty years.
(1840)
We must, therefore, act quickly because the Americans are
poised to jump into the fray. In the United States, 18 to 20 high
speed train projects are now being considered and should
become a reality. This shows how important it is for Canada and
Quebec to position themselves to carry out this project without
delay, relying on the help of our small and medium-sized
businesses, each of which will develop a certain expertise. This
expertise can, in turn, be subsequently exported, if we act
quickly.
As the member for Trois-Rivières, I have a special interest in
this project, not only because I hope it will get the go ahead, but
also because I hope that it will extend to the Saint-Lawrence
North Shore and that a station will be built in my riding, the city
of Trois-Rivières, which also happens to be the regional capital
of the Mauricie area.
The Mauricie region has a population of 300,000 and extends
from La Tuque in the north to Bécancour and Nicolet in the
south. It is comprised of a number of relatively well-known
municipalities such as La Tuque, Saint-Tite, Shawinigan,
Grand-Mère, Shawinigan-South, Cap-de-la-Madeleine,
Trois-Rivières-West and Louiseville in the west and
Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade in the east. Right in the middle is
the city of Trois-Rivières, the regional capital, where you will
find a
4376
rather flourishing university and many cegeps and private
schools, as well as important companies, multinational and
national corporations, like Kruger, Tripap which was just
launched by the Fonds de solidarité, Reynolds in
Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Alcan in Shawinigan, Belgo in
Shawinigan, the Cartonneries Saint-Laurent, the former PFCP
in La Tuque, the Aluminerie of Bécancour in Bécancour, Norsk
Hydro, SKW, CIL and Didier, the last few are all companies
based in the Bécancour industrial park, which need an efficient
and adequate transportation system to grow.
In fact, one could claim that some measures have already been
taken and that, consequently, we need to go ahead with the
high-speed train project. For example, the train no longer stops
in Trois-Rivières. The former government, in its wisdom,
decided to eliminate the Montreal-Quebec City run on the North
Shore. Despite this decision, however, $2 million was spent on
the intermodal terminal in Trois-Rivières. The bridge which had
collapsed at Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade was rebuilt at a cost of
$7 million and the Gare du Palais in Quebec City was
refurbished at a cost of $60 million. All of this work would
facilitate the eventual development of a high speed train.
I want to take this opportunity to request the co-operation of
all stakeholders in my region. I want them to know that they can
count on my support and, I am confident, the support of all my
colleagues from the Mauricie region. I hope that the mayors and
all the associations and lobby groups seize this opportunity and
realize the importance of this project and its potential impact on
Trois-Rivières. I hope that all of our region joins in so that if
ever the HST becomes a reality, it stops in Trois-Rivières.
The HST must become a reality. When the opposition
discusses the project, it deals in facts. Already, the mayors of all
of the principal cities involved have held a meeting. We have
here before us the former mayor of Toronto, now the President
of the Treasury Board, who co-signed an important brief which
was submitted to the government. We have the former mayor of
Quebec City, a close friend of the Prime Minister and his chief
of staff, who also co-signed the brief along with the mayors of
the four other cities involved.
The HST project must come to fruition. All stakeholders
directly concerned are unanimous on this point. Moreover, in
the opinion of the chairman of the board of directors of VIA Rail
who has been studying this matter for the past ten years, this is
not an improvised project. In my view, the federal government
would not have to make any new outlays of money and would
only need to maintain the subsidy currently paid every year to
VIA Rail for the upkeep of the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. It
would not have to come up with any new money and would only
have to continue providing the subsidy for 25 years. Therefore,
no additional financial effort would be required on the part of
the federal government.
(1845)
Another reality mentioned by the chairman of VIA Rail is the
fact that the rolling stock used on this section will have to be
renewed over the next ten years. This will carry a tremendous
cost and, rather than changing for equipment already obsolete,
why not embark on a modern project which would fulfil the new
needs of our societies.
There are other advantages to such a program that I should not
forget to mention. There is naturally the improvement of
passenger rail service as such, then there are reductions in air
pollution, in road traffic, in airport congestion, and there is
finally, as I already said, the promotion of regional development
all along the corridor, whether it is in manufacturing or trade.
To conclude, I only wish that like France, Germany, Italy,
Spain, Japan and shortly Korea and Great Britain, we had a HST
between Quebec City and Windsor which would use the North
shore and stop in Trois-Rivières. This project would be a joint
venture between the governments of Canada, Ontario and
Quebec, notwithstanding the comment by my colleague from
the Reform Party who said that, given the risk that Quebec might
become sovereign, we should perhaps delay or rethink such a
project.
I do not think that such words are worthy of a chamber like
this one, given the attitude of the Official Opposition with
regard to the bridge to Prince Edward Island, which the Bloc
approved right away; or given the money that Quebec
contributes to a project like Hibernia, as mentioned by my
colleague from Témiscouata. I also doubt the appropriateness of
remarks like the one made by the Prime Minister when he said
there would be a border between Quebec and Ontario. We told
him in the House that there is no border when we go from
Montreal to New York with Amtrak, so why should there be one
between Quebec City and Windsor. We should not fall for that
kind of argument. This project is so important, so promising,
that only public interest should be taken into consideration.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
4377
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a) I have been requested by the Chief Government
Whip to defer the division. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a) the division on the question now before the
House stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow at which time
the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more
than 15 minutes.
[English]
I wonder if I might have some indication from members as to
proceeding to the adjournment motion.
Ms. Clancy: Yes.
Mr. Allmand: I will second that.
_____________________________________________
4377
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1850)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
follow up on a question I asked of the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Transport a few weeks ago regarding, of all
things, the future of passenger rail in Canada and particularly
along the Windsor to Quebec corridor.
The people in my riding spoke out very vociferously against
the cuts in 1990. Now they find themselves in a position in
which their limited but very important passenger rail service is
yet again in jeopardy.
Just by way of interest, the other day I was down on the
platform in Brantford and saw 40 men and women prepared to
board the train to Toronto and points eastward. There were men
and women on their way to work in the city of Toronto and young
adults on their way to university in Toronto. Seniors find the
train service very accommodating and easy to access, and there
were two going into the city to visit with medical specialists,
friends and neighbours, and to go to the theatre. As well there
were two families that had been visiting in southwestern Ontario
and were on their way home to Quebec City.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, the line that runs
between London and Brantford and goes on to Toronto is the
least subsidized of all the VIA lines. I cannot see that it would
make any sense to further cut the service along that section of
the corridor.
Beyond that I would like to say I have listened to the
parliamentary secretary and the minister talk about how they
view VIA's initiatives in terms of managing continued federal
government funding cuts, that they will be looking at
managerial restructuring and efficiencies, that they will be
working to upgrade, modify and update their very outdated
labour contracts, and finally that they will be rationalizing
unused infrastructure.
I would say to the government that it must insist VIA is
successful in all three of these approaches. Beyond that I would
like to suggest and believe that the government should prepare a
comprehensive multimodal transportation strategy for Canada
that would include an individual comprehensive mandate for
VIA setting out its mission, its roles, its goals and the
expectations by which its success can be measured.
I think in that mandate it will become clear to us that in places
like southwestern Ontario the VIA infrastructure is most
commonly used as a commuter service. I am not sure that I as a
member from southwestern Ontario feel comfortable asking the
rest of Canada to support that specific use of the infrastructure,
just as I expect those in Alberta are necessarily anxious to ask
those of us in Ontario and further east to support the VIA service
to help them build their tourist industry.
While we as a national government should continue to support
this very important passenger rail infrastructure, we should also
encourage VIA to work very closely with our provincial
counterparts to ensure that the use of the infrastructure is
effective and very useful to the particular region in mind.
These are important things our government could do. In fact
debate should be held in the House of Commons and a loud and
clear direction should be given to VIA to be again a successful
and useful mode of passenger rail transportation in the country.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I want first to congratulate the
member for Brant on her hard work in promoting the needs of
her area, especially the transportation needs of the people of the
riding of Brant and elsewhere.
I can also say that we share a common vision with regard to
the role that passenger rail service should play in the country.
Some of the suggestions she put forward are obviously ones that
the government and the minister are considering.
4378
I should point out, though, with respect to her specific
question that it is premature for the government to look at
specific service cutbacks or service routes at this time. I believe
the member alluded to the fact that VIA is currently conducting
some negotiations with its workforce. Those negotiations
hopefully will be fruitful so that in fact VIA can meets its fiscal
requirements as mandated by the government and essentially be
able to maintain a viable passenger rail network across the
country.
(1855 )
I should also point out that not only are the workers part of the
solution. We have always said in the House that passengers must
be part of the solution. As well as other interested parties,
municipalities and provincial governments, passengers need to
be part of the solution for a new invigorated VIA.
People have to use trains. People talk about the value of
trains. They want high speed trains. They want to use train
services. The reality is that they jump in their cars usually by
themselves and travel from point a to point b. We have to do
much more to encourage people to use this mode of
transportation. That is very fundamental.
Let me point out to members that there is a unique opportunity
for all parties to work together toward a solution, including the
municipalities and provinces, as they have between Brantford
and Toronto. They have helped subsidize that particular route.
That is an opportunity for everyone to work together to ensure
that we can maintain a passenger rail service in the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, following my
comments of April 14 last, in this House, regarding certain
allegations made by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration concerning COFIs, centres for the integration of
immigrants into the French community, may I remind the
minister that the fact that the federal government reinvests
taxpayers' money in these centres does not give it the right to
interfere with Quebec's rights.
As a matter of fact, the jurisdictional limits of both levels of
government were defined in the federal-provincial agreement
known as the Cullen-Couture agreement, which was signed in
1978, and later broadened and confirmed by the
MacDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement. The terms of the
agreement are very clear. They give Quebec total jurisdiction
over immigrant services and social integration of immigrants
through the COFIs.
Fortunately, the Quebec Minister of International Relations
and Cultural Communities, Mr. Ciaccia, called his federal
counterpart to order and suggested that he should mind his own
business, just as the Bloc Quebecois did in this House.
The statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
criticizing the lack of enthusiasm shown by the COFIs in
presenting the Canadian reality is indeed a case of unacceptable
meddling in Quebec affairs.
I would remind the minister that it is not for nothing that
Quebec has been demanding, and finally got, some powers
regarding immigration. In fact, the repatriation of every power
in this area amounts to nothing less for the Quebec society than
its own survival and the preservation of the French language on
its territory. The integration of newcomers into the French
community has always been essential to our survival as a nation.
I take this opportunity to congratulate COFI instructors for
their excellent work in making refugees and immigrants feel
welcomed and in helping them get integrated into our society.
I would point out to the minister that COFIs are not supposed
to give immigrants courses on federalism, but rather to give
them basic instruments which will help them cope with their
new environment, that is Quebec and especially Montreal,
where over 80 per cent of the immigrants are found.
Lessons on day to day living informs newcomers about
front-line services such as transport, housing, welfare, health
insurance or education. As you can see, all those services are
under Quebec's jurisdiction.
The minister should know that out of approximately 45,000
immigrants to Quebec, only a small fraction can take advantage
of the COFIs' integration services. A large majority of them
must manage by themselves to find information and adapt to
their new environment.
As we can see, the situation is far from reflecting the
minister's description. Instead of asking COFIs to praise
Canadian federalism, the minister should give them the
financial means to offer all newcomers the services they need
for harmonious integration into our society.
(1900 )
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration has already stated unequivocally
on the floor of this House that there is no disagreement between
himself and his colleague from the province of Quebec
vis-à-vis their respective roles in helping new immigrants
successfully integrate.
Settlement programs and services in every province in this
country help newcomers access services in their new
community and participate in local life. Much of the
information provided relates quite specifically to the
communities and province in which the immigrants live.
4379
For immigrants destined to the province of Quebec the
Canada-Quebec accord recognizes Quebec's exclusive
responsibility for settlement and integration services for which
there is federal compensation.
Not only is there no problem but the federal government
appreciates that understanding and appreciation of Quebec
culture and society is vital in helping immigrants in Quebec
adapt to their new surroundings.
The minister has told his Quebec counterpart and stated in this
House that he thinks that Quebec has a first rate settlement
program for its immigrants.
Conversely, the Quebec government understands the role of
the federal government in promoting awareness of Canada. In its
responsibility for citizenship, the minister is committed to
promoting what he has called a strong, exciting patriotism and
love of Canada. This is the essence of the citizenship review that
he recently announced.
Immigrants throughout Canada have the opportunity to seek
Canadian citizenship. It is the mandate of this ministry to
provide information and assistance to Canadians seeking
information about citizenship and particularly to immigrants
preparing for citizenship.
I am pleased to report that the federal-provincial committee
responsible for the Canada-Quebec accord met on April 29. It
considered the questions raised in the media about the
integration of immigrants in Quebec. At this meeting Quebec
representatives tabled a copy of their linguistic integration
program highlighting that its purpose is to provide immigrants
with the basic tools necessary for integration into Quebec
society.
The Quebec program is not designed as an introduction to
citizenship, the latter being a federal responsibility.
On April 14 the minister announced his plans to develop a new
Citizenship Act for a renewed and reinvigorated citizenship for
all Canadians. The Canada-Quebec accord clearly gives the
Government of Canada sole authority in citizenship matters.
Most eligible immigrants apply for and receive Canadian
citizenship. Any measure to promote citizenship will of course
address their needs as well. Members of the federal-provincial
committee or comité mixte exchange information as required.
That is its mandate and the minister believes in letting the
committee carry out its mandate.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, on April 27, I put a question to the Minister of Justice
asking him what action he would take to ban handguns as a result
of a meeting he had earlier that week with a group which made
that proposal to him. The group in question consisted of
representatives from Concordia University, the Canadian Safety
Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ottawa chief of
police and others.
In answer to my question the minister said that the
government is committed toward more effective gun control,
but he was not able to give me much detail at that time in his
answer. As a result I am putting the question once again today.
Since that time several important things have happened. We
have had two drive-by shootings in this area recently, one by a
group of minors who were able to obtain weapons, guns and
ammunition illegally and without much difficulty.
The second happening was a very important resolution passed
by the Liberal convention here in Ottawa just a few weeks ago.
In that resolution which was passed by an overwhelming
majority of the convention delegates, among other things they
asked that the private possession and ownership of handguns be
severely restricted.
As many have pointed out and as I have pointed out in this
House before, handguns are not used for hunting. They have no
legitimate purpose with private individuals and therefore should
be banned or at least severely restricted. They are now restricted
weapons but they are still available too loosely and much can be
done to tighten that up.
Among the other subclauses of that resolution is one which
would ban the sale and ownership of ammunition to those under
18 years of age. The sale of such ammunition would only be
made to adults if they were in possession of the appropriate
documentation.
(1905 )
For years I have been proposing that no one should be
permitted to buy ammunition unless they present the firearms
acquisition certificate. In this way all those who want to use
and/or own weapons would have to get a firearms acquisition
certificate because in order to shoot the gun and to be effective
in one's shooting of the gun, one needs both the gun and the
ammunition.
If we can put more obstacles in the way of those who want to
use weapons in a criminal way or illegally, the better off we are
and the better chance we have of reducing crime with guns. To
oblige people to have a firearms acquisition certificate or other
appropriate documentation, as the resolution points out, the
better chance we have of preventing incidents such as happened
in Ottawa and other incidents across the country where people
have committed crimes with guns.
I repeat over and over again that there is considerable
evidence from Canada and around the world that where guns are
less available and where ammunition is less available there are
fewer crimes with guns. That is an absolute fact that has been
shown over and over again.
4380
Once again I want to thank the Minister of Justice for his
answer to me and also the response of the Prime Minister
following the convention. If the parliamentary secretary could
give us more details with respect to this important matter, we
would appreciate it very much.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently indicated in this House
that the government is committed to enacting more effective gun
control legislation.
He has said that the government is looking at all of its options
and that it will be introducing measures in this House in due
course.
I speak for many members of this House when I say that I am
concerned about the levels of violent crime in this country.
Canadians are afraid of violence and they want their government
to take strong measures not only to stem the growth of violence
but also to reduce it. They are afraid that values in other
countries where citizens are allowed easy access to firearms will
take root in Canada.
The minister has indicated that the government is considering
its options, one of those being more controls on handguns. There
may be some legitimate use for handguns but in my view these
should be the exception and not the rule. They should be
carefully screened and under close control. Handguns are the
most useful type of firearm for many common offences.
In the United States where they are not under the type of
restrictions found in Canada, they are the most commonly used
firearms in crimes such as armed robbery and homicide. In
Canada, they are already under strict controls and criminal
misuse is less common but it is increasing.
In previous years handgun homicides represented about
one-third of all homicides from firearms. In the last year or two
this has risen to about one-half of all firearms homicides. Under
the circumstances, complete prohibition of handguns must be an
option. If this does not prove feasible, then the government
should act to make sure that only those who actually require
handguns are allowed to possess them and that strict and
effective controls are in place for those who do possess them.
The minister said that he is looking at these options. I am
confident that these options include measures to respond to
concerns about handguns. As the hon. member well
understands, the subject of gun control has a long and
contentious history in this House. When the government brings
forward its proposals I am sure that they will receive close
scrutiny. I am sure that this House will respond to the calls of
Canadians for strict and effective gun control and that the
response will also be a response to the concerns raised by the
hon. member.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, on March
24, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development the
following question: ``How can the Minister argue that his
government's priority is job creation, when its only strategy is
an attack on 85 per cent of the unemployed, and moreover in the
poorest provinces?''
I could ask this question to the minister because I had just
received the information that unemployment insurance cuts for
1994-95 and 1995-96 would amount to $735 million a year in
Quebec and $630 million in each of these years in the Atlantic
provinces. This adds up to $1.365 billion in cuts for Quebec and
the Atlantic provinces together, where some 30 per cent of the
Canadian population lives.
(1910)
Before the minister made these changes to unemployment
insurance that will be submitted to Parliament, was he
concerned about the economic impact of these cuts? I am talking
about the economic impact because claimants will receive less,
because they will not have access to unemployment insurance,
because they will not have accumulated as many weeks of work,
because benefits will be lower. This reduction means less money
circulating in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces, money that
would pay rent and buy groceries and other necessities.
When governments have laws like the Unemployment
Insurance Act to give money to workers who lose their jobs, this
money is immediately put in the economy. It is not used to buy
luxury goods and it is not used to accumulate wealth or to
speculate either. It is money that goes into the local
communities and all these communities, whether they are in my
riding or in the Lower St. Lawrence or in small villages in the
Atlantic provinces, will be directly affected because there will
be less money in circulation.
Has the minister thought of the additional burden he is
imposing on the provinces because social assistance will be
greatly affected? Employment and Immigration published
figures showing that increased welfare caseloads are expected.
For example, it predicts 14,500 new applications from people
who run out of UI benefits and 4,400 from people not entitled to
UI.
In Quebec alone, the minister predicted-and we can consider
these figures to be conservative as well-that 14,500 more
households would be on welfare at a cost of $127 million for
next year; I repeat, these figures are conservative. So I repeat my
question: How can the minister claim that he is working on job
creation when, before helping people, he cuts what they need to
eat, to live and to hang on?
4381
[English]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, in terms of actual money transferred, Quebec and
Atlantic Canada will still be better off than the rest of Canada.
Taking into account the changes introduced on February 21, the
Atlantic provinces as a whole will receive $970 in
unemployment insurance per capita and Quebec $730 per capita
compared with $575 per capita for all of Canada.
Historically Quebec and Atlantic Canada have each received
more in benefits than they paid in premiums. On average each
receives about $1 billion annually in transfers from Ontario and
the western provinces.
[Translation]
The changes that we proposed to the unemployment insurance
plan aim at putting people back to work. Small businesses asked
us to give them a break and reduce unemployment insurance
premiums so as to be able to create jobs for Canadians. This is
what we did.
[English]
The unemployment insurance changes cannot be seen in
isolation. They represent a first but interim step in giving
Canadians a sense of new direction.
If in the redesigning of the social security system we find that
different changes are needed, we will make them. There is no
doubt that the proposed measures will impact on some
unemployment insurance claimants. That is unavoidable. We
have tried to make the changes in a manner that is fair and
protects those with the greatest needs.
(1915)
[Translation]
Unlike the previous government, we made sure that the
changes took into account the needs of the poorest of the poor.
[English]
As we begin the shift from our current set of programs to
something more comprehensive, we have decided to reintroduce
a principle into unemployment insurance that was part of it for
30 years. That is we have decided to look at the needs of
individuals with low incomes and with dependants and to
provide more adequate coverage for these Canadians. These
individuals will receive a 60 per cent benefit rate. Others will
receive 55 per cent.
With the provinces and the territories we will initiate new
programs targeted at the most chronically unemployed
Canadians. We have dedicated $800 million over the next two
years for these strategic initiatives to test out new approaches to
social security.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and again
concerns the referendum on the defunct Charlottetown Accord.
In 1992, this referendum cost Canada the modest sum of $145
million. The federal government paid $105 million, while
Quebec paid $40 million under its election legislation. Need I
recall that this means Quebec spent more than its share? In
addition to the $40 million, Quebec spent one-quarter of the
federal expenditures, or $26 million. So altogether, Quebec
spent over $66 million, far more than any other province.
Quebec is therefore entitled to put in a claim to the federal
government for reimbursement of these $26 million, its
Canadian share, since it had already spent its provincial share.
As I pointed out in the House on May 4 this year, no payments
have been made by the federal government to the Quebec
government so far. However, the issue has been raised several
times by the Government of Quebec, the Bloc québécois and the
Parti québécois. Personally, I asked the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs of Canada for some explanations on
May 4. I repeat, in terms of dealing with the issue, the evasive
response of the minister was certainly not satisfactory.
The behaviour of the federal government certainly defies all
logic. Barely a week before the federal election, on October 19,
1993, in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition
in the National Assembly, the former minister responsible for
Electoral Reform, Marc-Yvan Côté, who is a federalist, thank
you very much, maintained that there was a commitment by the
federal government to reimburse the cost of this referendum.
Mr. Côté pointed out several times that he had submitted several
requests to the federal government and had done so on the basis
of a commitment made by the previous Conservative
government to reimburse the Quebec government.
This injustice to Quebec is an issue not only for sovereigntists
in Quebec but also for the federal government's federalist
friends. The Quebec Government has been patient, but we have
now been waiting for 18 months.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain
the fact that no decision has been made regarding the
reimbursement of this amount of $26 million? It is, in fact, a
legitimate request which the Quebec government has made
several times. How can the minister explain the unfair decision
he is making by having Quebecers pay more than their share of a
referendum on the renewal of the Canadian federation?
How can the minister explain his decision given the results of
the referendum which was overwhelmingly defeated, contrary
to what the Liberal Party of Canada wanted to see? Are we to
understand from the behaviour of the minister and his
government that Quebecers must pay more dearly than the
English provinces of Canada its rejection of this agreement?
Everyone knows that several other Canadian provinces also
rejected the
4382
Charlottetown agreement and the situation with Quebec is still
unresolved.
Finally, I come to the conclusion that for some federalists
equity does not have the same meaning if it applies to English
provinces or to Quebec. The longer the federal government
waits before reimbursing the $26 million the Quebec
government is entitled to, the more this double standard will
become obvious to the Quebec population.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 1992
there were two separate referendums, one in Quebec and one in
the other provinces and the two territories.
Quebec held its own referendum under provincial laws while
a referendum was held in the rest of the country under the
federal Referendum Act. It was Quebec's own decision to hold a
separate referendum subject to provincial not federal laws.
[Translation]
You will remember that, with Bill 150 and after the demise of
the Meech Lake Accord, the Quebec government had pledged to
hold a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty before October 25,
1992. Following the Charlottetown accord, Quebec changed its
own bill in order to hold a referendum on the Charlottetown
accord rather than on Quebec sovereignty.
[English]
Parliament has also adopted its own rules to permit the
holding of a referendum under federal laws. On June 23, 1992
the federal Referendum Act received royal assent.
On September 10, 1992 after a debate the House of Commons
approved the text of the referendum and the referendum
question which read as follows: Do you agree that the
Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the
agreement reached on August 28, 1992?
On September 17, 1992 the governor in council issued by
order in council an order that a proclamation do be issued
directing that the opinion of the electors of nine
provinces-except Quebec-and the territories be obtained on
the referendum question.
The federal government did consult the electors of nine
provinces and two territories on the Charlottetown accord
according to the federal Referendum Act.
[Translation]
As for the Quebec government, it decided to hold a separate
referendum on the Charlottetown accord. Quebec followed its
own rules on the referendum question, the referendum process
and the voting.
[English]
On October 26, 1992 there were two separate referendums
subject to two different sets of rules. The question of
reimbursement of the Quebec referendum costs by the federal
government is now being discussed bilaterally with Quebec.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 7.22 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.)