Human Resources Committee on May 29th, 2007

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

The provinces too had some issues with delivering. I'm told that not all of them are in a position to administer the grants. I'm wondering if you have any comments on that. Isn't that something that would have to be considered?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

My impression is that most provinces are able to do that. Surely the government could work with them to work out those problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have 15 seconds left, Ms. Yelich. Don't worry, we'll tag them onto your next one.

Ms. Dhalla, five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Regan, for appearing. I think the issue you're speaking about impacts many individuals and in particular students from across the country.

I think when we talk about education and students having the opportunity to participate in education it really gives them an opportunity for economic freedom and really opens up so many doors for them, and especially I think students who have unfortunately been the victims, for a variety of different reasons, of being from low-income families. I think that education is so important for them for their future. And I think that we, in our country, need to invest in our students, we need to invest in our children, to ensure that for those who want to, who have the grades, they get to go to school and get to go to university and have the opportunity to further themselves.

I know that within the previous election we Liberals had spoken about expanding the Canada access grant program to all four years of study, versus what had existed in terms of the first and the last year. Have you done any type of research in terms of the limitation this imposed on students?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

No. I think it's fairly obvious. The idea, obviously, as it started, was with a certain amount of money to say we can afford this much for now, and if we can do the first and last years then it creates an incentive to start and an incentive to finish. And that's a good thing, no question, as a starting program. However, if you can provide it for all four years, if the person doesn't finish the first year and then finds they can't afford to do it the second year.... I look forward to seeing research on this in due course. We hear the department talking about maybe having some come out eventually, but I think the benefits are fairly obvious and I'll look forward to seeing the data in due course.

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

I'm sure you've heard this frustration from many of the students as well with regard to providing tax credits to students when tuition rates are rapidly rising across the country. I know for some of the undergraduate programs and for medical school they're upwards of $5,000, $10,000, to $15,000 a year. Having a tax credit given to them, like the $80, may in some way be helpful, but it's such a small portion of it. We need to look at programs like this in terms of expansion. Could you perhaps comment and provide the committee with information with regard to the benefit of an access grants program that would provide the opportunity for accessibility, versus a tax credit being given?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

The $80 tax credit, as you say, helps students pay for their books, except that it doesn't help them pay for their books when they're buying them. It helps them eight months later, when they get the tax credit. Maybe if they're still there the next year it helps them a little bit to buy the following year's books, perhaps. I think they need the money up front when they're going in the fall. They need the help then with their tuition, with their books, and their various other costs. That's the challenge this bill is trying to address.

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

It think it's excellent that you're reaching out to the vulnerable and you're reaching out to students from low-income families and also those with disabilities. I think programs like this are going to provide an opportunity for students to ensure that they have the grades and that they can fulfil their potential and realize their dreams.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think that's a very insightful comment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Lessard, five minutes please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sometimes consideration of certain bills enables us to get a clear grasp of the philosophy that moves us with regard to the major social programs. It seems to me this is an opportunity for that.

I'm going to respond to the remarks by Ms. Yelich, who wonders whether Quebec and the other provinces do a good job of administering the funds when transfers are made. Moreover, the Conservative government ventured to speak a little on this entire issue of training as such, saying that it was going to examine the possibility of making the transfer. I would like to hear what you have to say on that subject.

Would it not be preferable for everything that constitutes the value of the tax points allocated to training to be transferred directly to Quebec and to the provinces so that they can take full charge of their responsibilities?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think this program sets an example of flexible federalism. Quebec, for example, has decided not to allow universities and colleges to increase their admission fees. This happens elsewhere as well, from time to time, but it's mainly in Quebec. Fees have increased sharply elsewhere in the country.

This program makes it possible to respond nationally to a significant need, the need for a well-educated, skilled labour force, while dealing with the specific characteristics of certain provinces. The position with regard to Quebec is to give it money, taking it for granted that its situation is different. Quebec can use it to improve university infrastructures, for example.

Did I miss something?

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

No, you've clearly grasped the idea. I think we see eye to eye.

I'd like us to take a closer look at your reasoning. I'm not attributing any bad intentions to you, but isn't there something paternalistic about this form of management? The provinces are recognized as having full responsibility in this area, and they are given the means to take full charge of that responsibility. So they have to discharge that responsibility.

Instead of monitoring twice as much, as is currently being done, wouldn't it be preferable for each of the provinces to shoulder that responsibility and to be fully accountable to their population?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, that concept, in a way, denies the fact that there is a national economy, that Canada as a whole has economic needs and that the government has to meet those needs from time to time. There is an obvious link between education and the economy. In this committee, we've clearly seen that, in a number of sectors, we will soon be facing a labour shortage, with some people having specific skills and others having completed advanced studies in specific fields. This shortage affects the entire country, as well as its economy. We are going to need an integrated solution.

I think the federal government has a role to play. It will no doubt have to work together with the provinces. As part of this program, the federal government has consulted them and, of course, consulted students across the country. The idea is to combine our efforts in order to accomplish something important for the country, the economy, students, universities and colleges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

We're going to move to Madame Savoie for five minutes.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the study on employability that we've begun, we've heard a lot about barriers that adults and youths face when they try to get the training they needed to find a job. I'd like to go back to the idea that I wanted to propose, that the bill be based on the needs of the student, rather than an arbitrary income threshold.

I believe at the moment the grant can go only to students from low-income families, as defined by the national child benefit supplement. So I think it would be important to extend that.

You wanted an explanation of what I meant by needs-based rather than income-based. It's in the same way that the Millennium Scholarship Fund has extended its grants to a needs base.

For example, if you take two young people, for the one who lives with his or her parents in a town where there is a university, the costs are going to be very different from those of the young person from northern Ontario who has to go to university. So you would assess those costs based on needs rather than on the income of the parents. Both of those students could come from families with the same income, but one would face considerably higher barriers to education.

I felt that by making it needs-based--as I believe the millennium fund has done--rather than income-based, it would eliminate one of those barriers.

Perhaps you could answer that.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, through you--

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Could you see any problem with...?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm interested in this discussion. Clearly, you want to assist those who need it most, and you want to do it in a way that's fair. Yet you also want to do it in a way that's simple. In other words, you want to keep the administrative costs and the complexities of it as low as possible. One of the advantages of the present system is that it is tied to an existing measure that's very straightforward and simple.

It strikes me as well that you'll have cases where two kids from the same community may go to different universities, may go away somewhere to university. Now, that's harder and harder if you're low-income, clearly. But if one's going to Carleton and the other is going to a smaller town, let's say Antigonish, Nova Scotia--my alma mater, St. Francis Xavier--those two are facing very different costs, even though their families, with the needs-based assessment you're talking about, would warrant the same benefits, the same grants.

Maybe there's a way to work this out that makes sense.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think the student loans have found ways of assessing need rather than income. There are fairly simple measures that can be adopted to avoid getting into too many complications around that.

Just quickly, I think there was a reference to the fact that in studies, finances were only one factor that students identified. I think Ms. Yelich mentioned that. But I've seen that study, and the number was significant. It was in the high thirties, or 35%, which is almost the percentage of voters who elected the Conservative government. That's a sizeable percentage of the population. And we know from the employability study that we can't afford to leave 35% of our young people behind if we want to keep our competitiveness as a country and allow them to participate in it.

I would say that we have to use every means we can to give students not just the incentive.... And that was maybe a wording thing. This bill suggested providing an incentive to students from low-income families. I would have liked to hear “assist” students, to actually assist them. That is one of the issues, I think, that this significant portion is saying, that they can't do post-secondary because they can't afford it, or that debt load is too frightening.

Incidentally, I just want to add that I'm hearing from parents who are remortgaging their homes to help their students. That isn't appearing in the statistics we're looking at. And that's a consideration for people of a certain age.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Just a quick response.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, I have one daughter in university now, another daughter who will be going in a year or so, and a son who's a fair bit younger. None of us in this room is in the low-income category, but many of us would be concerned about all these costs, because they can be quite considerable. You can only imagine how a low-income family would feel when faced with that kind of challenge. It would look like an insurmountable mountain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to the last questioner.

Mr. Brown, you have five minutes.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Allison.

I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Chong. I'd suggest that I go through my series of questions, and then Mr. Chong can go through his series of questions. You can then respond to both of us at the end.

I was a little surprised to see this bill put forward, given what we saw happen during the Liberal tenure in office. Tuition increased over 13 years, access shrank as capacity decreased, and cuts rose.

I was a little perplexed to see it brought forth by a Liberal member, especially when the member voted against the recent budget increases for university infrastructure, which added $800 million in money for universities and a $39 billion increase for the Canadian social transfer.

We already heard my colleague, Ms. Yelich, speak of the $5.4 billion annually in support for students.

In terms of this particular proposal, I want to know what additional information you could provide in terms of the completion rate for students who use these grants, the percentage of grants given out to students who would otherwise not have gone to university, and the percentage given to students who would go if they did not receive these grants.

The final note I want you to comment on is this. I think we're going to hear from Canadian Federation of Students later today. As I understand it, they have suggested in the past that increases in grants could result in the provinces clawing back the amount by raising tuition fees to meet the shortfalls created by the $25 billion that was cut by the previous Liberal government, of which, if I recall, you were a minister.

My concern on that front is this. A few weeks ago this committee met over Bill C-303. Your colleagues expressed concern that the provinces could potentially claw back child care money. We already saw Dalton McGuinty do it in Ontario, where the budget only allotted $25 million of the $97.5 million that was allotted to them.

Three weeks ago your colleagues expressed concern over the provinces clawing back. Right now we're presented with the picture that the same expectation doesn't exist on the proposal you're putting forward. Was there a side conversation you'd had with the provinces that would give you that impression?

I think the concern we've heard from student unions and the Canadian Federation of Students is a real one. Education was radically attacked during the previous Liberal government. It's a possibility that the provinces could use these funds and say it's to make up for the money the Liberals cut. It's a valid concern.

I'll let Mr. Chong ask his questions.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Patrick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a little surprised with the intent of this bill and frankly with the critique of utilizing tax expenditures such as tax credits as a way to improve access for students.

With the exception of Mr. Merasty, all the Liberal members on this committee were members of the previous government. In the mid-1990s, they dramatically reduced the Canada health and social transfer, which was the transfer that was utilized to assist universities and colleges throughout Canada. It had a direct impact on provincially regulated tuition rates throughout the country. As a result, tuition in the mid-1990s started to skyrocket.

We understand why those cuts were made to the CHST. It was part of an effort to attack the deficit, and that's understandable. But in the late 1990s and in the early years of this century, when finances improved so that the government had surpluses to invest and to improve access, it chose not to improve it through direct financial assistance to students. It instead chose to do it through tax expenditures.

As a matter of fact, between 1996 and 2005, which was the tenure of your previous government, tax expenditures rose from approximately $500 million a year to almost $1.5 billion a year. It was an increase of close to 200%.

The method you used to restore some of the cuts you had made in the 1990s was not direct financial assistance and was not improving programs such as the Canada access grants, but rather it was the utilization of instruments such as tax credits, tax deferrals, tax deductions, and the like. It was the primary method through which your government improved access for students.

You have now come in front of our committee only 18 months after having left government. To ridicule the use of tax credits, tax deductions, tax deferrals, and the like as a method to improve access, in my view, is a little hypocritical.

That's the point I'd make, Mr. Chair, to the members on this committee and to the witness.