Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perplexed by the comments of the opposition, particularly as they relate to federal-provincial relations.
My recollection leads me to believe that the provinces are quite happy with the program. They look forward to participating as they have for almost 30 years. If I may quote the minister from Quebec on May 10, he said:
"It says in this bill that the option taken by Quebec in 1964 to create its own student financial assistance network, that is, a loan and bursary system in place since 1966, will be protected".
It is very clear there is a great deal of support from the province of Quebec to continue with the type of effective partnership that has existed with the federal government.
Since I need to bring evidence to the floor of the House of Commons, I should like to quote the minister of education for the province of Nova Scotia, John MacEachern, who wrote to the Minister of Human Resources Development on May 4: "I believe that the development and implementation of the youth employment and learning strategy, which includes the reform to student loans, will assist our young people in their success in today's labour market. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on the initiatives under this strategy". That is a very strong endorsement from the province of Nova Scotia.
Lastly I refer to the representation made by representatives of the New Brunswick and Alberta governments who kindly answered the invitation to all provinces to appear before the standing committee on HRD. Mr. Smith from New Brunswick responded to a question by the member for Mercier on whether the bill was an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.
"Really, because all New Brunswickers expect the other governments to agree on how to serve this student while keeping additional costs to a minimum".
He added that the federal-provincial agreements provided for in the bill, as well as the enhanced administrative and technical co-operation, would lead to a further guarantee of continued federal-provincial co-operation with respect to designation of authority.
This is what Mr. Hemmingway from Alberta commented. I think one of the problems we have today in relation to the federal loan program is discrepancies between and among provinces with respect to which institutions may be designated. I know that the federal concern has been that given it is a national program, benefits should be reasonably equal across the country. We are presuming and it is our understanding that we will have a great deal of input in developing the designation criteria that will be put in place and that those criteria would be negotiated on an ongoing basis between the two levels of government.
To me what this legislation clearly indicates is that if there is one single group of people against this legislation it is the members of the Bloc Quebecois.
I want now to return to the specific issue, the specific motion. We as a government are committed to providing consistency and fairness under our student assistance program. The amendment presented would repeal subsections 42 and 43 of the bill which provide the minister with the flexibility to establish policy directives.
I think if we are to look at this in a very clear and rational way there is nothing wrong with the federal minister's having something to say about a federal initiative, a federal policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong. It is within his right. It is his duty and obligation to make sure he has something to say about the policy initiatives, the policy direction under this particular act.
I fail to understand, and I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure it out, exactly what the opposition is saying and trying to follow a logic of the opposition. Perhaps the problem is not one of logic. Perhaps the problem here goes above and beyond that. It is a question of vision.
For the moment I am not going to engage myself in a constitutional discussion. The reason I am debating today is that there are hundreds of thousands of students who are awaiting this program, provinces awaiting this program, part time students, students with disabilities, women who want to pursue
doctoral studies, students who have been victimized by a heavy debt load. This is the issue we are debating today.
It is for this reason that I simply cannot support the amendment as proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.
The government must be in a position to ensure that the policies which are developed are applied consistently across the country. It would appear that the opposition is not overly concerned about treating students fairly throughout Canada because of its own political agenda.
On behalf of the thousands of students who are awaiting this program, the thousands of students in need who want to acquire the skills to be competitive, to acquire the life skills necessary to meet the challenges of the new economy, to acquire the education that is part and parcel of life today, as we live through a learning continuum, as we engage in life long learning, it is fundamental that we support these students. It is for that reason that I will not be supporting the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois.