Human Resources Committee on May 29th, 2007

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I think, though, having talked to many students, and in my own case having gone through university not very long ago, that there is a frustration out there in the workforce, in terms of some of the rising tuition costs. But I think that for access to post-secondary education, whether it's an undergraduate degree or a post-graduate degree, there are barriers. For individuals who come from low-income families, financial access is a barrier, just as it is for individuals with disabilities.

As I said earlier, as a country we are going to compete in a globalized world with some of the emerging economies, like China and India and Brazil, and we're going to have to ensure that we prepare our country, that we prepare our young population with the skills and with the resources and with the educational requirements so that not only as individuals, but as a nation, we can compete with some of those emerging economies.

When you take a look at a country like India, 65% of the population in India is less than 32 years of age. I think it's important that we invest in our children, that we invest in our young people, to ensure that there is an opportunity for them to go into university and other post-secondary educational opportunities.

I realize the frustration, that there is a limitation for some of that accessibility. I'm a firm believer that if you have the grades and you have a desire and a passion and a commitment to go, you should have that opportunity. But I do think, Scott, with all due respect, that this particular piece of legislation, this private member's bill, is the right step forward, because we are dealing with individuals from low-income backgrounds, and we are dealing with people with disabilities.

I know that there was an opportunity to deal with some of the other individuals who have restricted access, like the aboriginal community, but unfortunately, with the investments that were made in the Kelowna Accord, the bill wasn't brought forward. As a result, that was cut. That's why there was tremendous frustration by the aboriginal community, because it would have provided it with an investment.

As the critic for social development, I know that I've been trying to push forward, along with many other opposition members here, in regard to investing in early learning and child care, because we all realize that investing a dollar is going to ensure a much greater outcome.

So I would hope that despite your frustration with the fact that rather than a band-aid solution we need one much more comprehensive in nature, that in itself is going to act as an inspiration to the government that we have at the moment to ensure that we invest in students, that we invest in young people. But I would hope that we would have your support today for this bill, in light of the fact that it is a step in the right direction, because it's going to ensure accessibility over many years, versus just the in first and the fourth years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Give a quick response, Scott. We're going to have to move on to the next round.

[Scott Gorry]

I appreciate your comments.

To me, it doesn't focus on the areas it needs to focus on. I think the fundamental problem is that you're not thinking outside the box and you're not trying to incorporate everybody into the solution.

You talked about the cuts to the Kelowna Accord and the aboriginal community being outraged. Well, you had 13 years to develop a program that would handle post-secondary education. You could have put a platform together that would have been a solid foundation and could incorporate all students, but it didn't go forward.

You talked about health care and day care programs. You tried to push through a day care program, but it didn't work either. You also cut transfer payments to the provinces for health care, which resulted in other cuts.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I had hoped you would have a non-partisan perspective.

[Scott Gorry]

I'm trying to take a non-partisan approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to cut it off there. We're out of time.

We're going to move to Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

As far as I'm concerned, I thought that was very interesting, Mr. Chairman.

I find your argument very interesting, Mr. Gorry, but I believe that what Ms. Dhalla raised deserves to be examined in greater detail. In a parliamentary system, there are government bills, which constitute priorities and which can include more provisions. There are also private member's bills, such as this one, which contain more limited measures. Now I want to understand your remarks. I understand what Ms. Aziz said, that is to say that, even though it's not complete—we would have liked it to be—we nevertheless agree on the bill and we could make amendments to it.

But you, Mr. Gorry, from the moment you say you don't agree on the bill as introduced because it isn't complete enough, are you nevertheless able to see that it contains a positive element for low-income students? Wouldn't it be enough in the circumstances to say that, since it's a private member's bill, we can hardly go any further, and to recognize that it contains a positive measure, or are you simply telling us that, if it only contains that measure, we might as well reject it? Do you understand my question?

[Scott Gorry]

Yes, I see what you're getting at.

I'd go back to the point that yes, it's a private member's bill. I understand it's a private member's bill and the priorities of different bills take different precedence.

When you talk about post-secondary education, the reason I don't agree with the bill is that it doesn't incorporate a broader scope. In my estimation, it's really two steps backwards.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I don't want to prevent you from answering, but, if I understand you correctly, in your opinion, this bill constitutes more of a step backwards than forward? Is that what you've just told me?

[Scott Gorry]

Is that what I'm saying? Yes, it is.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Why, very precisely and to inform us, do you think it represents a step backwards from what currently exists?

[Scott Gorry]

If you go forward with this bill and it becomes enshrined, then if different changes are made, as you stated, it's going to be stalled. With the different priorities on the government's agenda, you're not going to be able to get to it, and it may be pushed back.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Let's try to stay on the point. You say it's a step backwards. We think it's an improvement because it expands access for low-income families, low-income students.

In that case, don't you think it's a step forward? I understand that you would like the bill to cover more elements. But there's only one element. Do you think that element constitutes a step backwards?

[Scott Gorry]

I think it's a step backwards.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Why is it a step backwards? You're not specifically answering my question.

[Scott Gorry]

I tried to find out what constitutes low income for this program. There is no information that states what low income is.

Specifically, for me, I think it's a step backwards because it's only a stopgap to a larger problem. My problem and my frustration with stuff like this is that you put it forward instead of thinking within a broader scope.

I know your point is that because you're getting something, we should move forward on it. But I don't think you need to take all this time to put something forward, when taking a few more weeks, a few more months, or whatever, to come up with a better solution would have solved the problem. You're instead getting something now, but you're going to have to go back to fix the program.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I understand what you're saying.

In constructive terms, Ms. Aziz, you're saying that the bill deserves to be improved. So for us, who have to make recommendations to the House of Commons, can you briefly say what should be improved, if we have to make improvements?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're out of time. Just a quick response, thanks, Amanda.

[Amanda Aziz]

I think there could be a couple of things. One is the idea of needs-based assistance. It would examine the idea of how to incorporate needs-based assistance into it instead of just low income. Then I think Scott said something earlier about mature students. Currently, mature students aren't eligible for this grant because you can only access it after four years of study. So remove that restriction as well so students are able to access it past just the four years.

One more thing: the grant right now is available for students in their first program of study. Ensure that doesn't exclude students who are going to be transferring from college to university. It's your first degree, not your first program of study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Madame Savoie, five minutes.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

I want to thank you both for your comments, because you've triggered a good policy debate, which we should have more of. It's been said by many people that we've been functioning on a patchwork of tax exemptions and tax deferrals and then the CESGs and CAGs and learning bonds are thrown in, and students are facing a broken package of financial assistance.

Just to pursue Mr. Lessard's comments, because I was going there, and those were probably my recommendations in pursuing discussions to improve this bill, I'm wondering if we could go one step further and have a transition for low income. Low-income families are defined by the national child benefit supplement. So if you were under 18, could that family receive...? Could there be a possibility of having, for example, full tuition for those students in the low-income category, and then a graduated system of smaller grants as you go up in income, as I think Ireland is doing?

Mr. Chong mentioned France earlier, where there are smaller classes. I did post-graduate studies in France, and it's free; there are no tuition costs. Ireland is going in that direction and they're seeing their productivity and the ability of their young people to compete, and even to educate Canadian students, which Canada hasn't been smart enough to do in some respects.

What would you think of that kind of modification to facilitate it even more, to make it even more useful for students?

[Amanda Aziz]

That's full tuition fees for low-income students, you said?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Something like that. I was suggesting some kind of a gradation. If we're going to be helping people, let's start with those groups that have been identified, but then move upward.

[Amanda Aziz]

Yes. As I said earlier, the provision of student assistance is important, and to include provisions for needs-based versus income-based could be examined and could be something debated within the committee.

One of our concerns when the grant was first announced was the level of assistance based on province for those students who study in provinces where tuition fees are lower. They are not benefiting as much as in places where students are studying where tuition fees are higher. Not that it's not benefiting students, but there's a concern that there's no provincial impetus, then, to control the costs of education. Certainly I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have, in terms of needs-based versus low income within the system.

There are quite simple ways to determine which category a student falls into. The Canada student loans program already assesses need and assesses how much unmet need a student has left once they've received their loans.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Would you be able to comment on what effect the Canada access grants have had on student debt so far? Even anecdotally, can you talk a bit about that?