Evidence of meeting #3 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was loans.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm struck by the figures coming out of the Canada student loan program writeoffs. I'm sure members around this table can recall when they went to university. I know that for me it was not too long ago. If I recall, I was paying about $3,500 in tuition at Acadia at the time. At that time it was very expensive. I have deep concerns about the increasing financialization of post-secondary education as it relates to providing equal opportunities to everybody to be able to engage in our post-secondary education system.
Mr. Chair, when I look at 33,098 writeoffs, I have to wonder what we're doing in terms of saddling this whole generation of students with debt.
10 a.m.
A voice
No, we're not.
10 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, we are. If they're writing it off, you can imagine the collections process that happens for students who are having to write off this debt, it also has ancillary implications on their financial outlook. Even though the government's writing it off, you can imagine the pressure that's on these students.
As we look at the rising costs of every aspect of life—the financialization of education, housing, food, transit—the question is put quite rightly. This is obviously the writeoff on the previous estimate. What factors do you think account for the increased dollar value in unrecoverable debt from 2019 to 2020 in the fiscal year, compared to 2018 to 2019? If you care to comment on my colleague's comment, what are the consequences for students when this debt gets written off on their behalf?
10:05 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It may be something that you may wish to also get supplementary information on from ESDC.
Ultimately, as I mentioned, of a base of about $34 billion in student loans, since 2014-15 the government has written off between—
10:05 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Actually, if I could finish with this line.... Since 2014-15, the government has written off between $164 million and $295 million per year in student loans. This is a regular appearance in these estimates. It is a normal accounting practice for us to expense it in this way.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
When the comment is made that we're not saddling students with debt, you're suggesting that there is $34 billion in student loans out there.
10:05 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
There's a stock of about $34 billion in terms of student loans.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
In your opinion, would that not feel like a significant debt burden put onto this generation of students?
10:05 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Again, the portion that is being written off is the non-performing.
10:05 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
The performing, effectively, is the bulk of all the loans. Given the fact they are performing.... I can't comment on the policy and the calibration of the student loan program. That's beyond our remit. All to say, that it is a normal practice through the estimates and supply to have a certain writeoff attributed to these.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Maybe you can't comment on it, but it seems clear to me that this is an ongoing consideration that we have. What suggestions would the Treasury Board have in terms of adequately adjusting for adequate supplies to post-secondary education that would perhaps mitigate this ongoing writeoff?
10:05 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
That's a policy question that would probably be best addressed to our colleagues at ESDC.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay.
As it relates to Indigenous Services, the question came up about the $588.3 million in funding under vote 10b to fund child and family services. This funding was aimed at improving prevention and access to early intervention programs.
What portion, to your knowledge, is being requested by services provided directly by first nations?
10:05 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
I don't have the answer to what proportion of the $588 million is going directly to first nations providers of that, versus provincial versus agency. I don't think we have that information, unless Ms. Santiago does. It's within the authority of the department and the minister.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
My riding is 45 minutes away from the Six Nations and New Credit territories. The services being provided there are exemplary as they relate to the experiences of the urban indigenous first nations folks we have in Hamilton.
Incredible programs and services are being provided, but it often feels like the funding is going to organizations, agencies or other levels that are outside the first nations communities. I would take this opportunity to strongly suggest that we get this information provided to us so there's a clear understanding of what that looks like in terms of direct funding to first nations.
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Could I just add one point?
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
On your initial question about student loans policy, budget 2016 did have a lot of information on that, in moving more toward grants as opposed to loans. That's a useful resource and something for linking with the ESDC colleagues.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's very helpful.
Thank you very much for the time, Mr. Chair.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Now, we'll go to our second round with five-minute interventions each.
Mr. McCauley, you're up.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Thanks very much.
Mr. Purves, I realize we don't agree on a lot of things. I have to take great offence at your comment about misrepresentation.
If you look up the definition, it's providing fake or false information. I don't believe my comments about the use of vote 10 ballooning from past years traditionally being $3 million a year is false or misrepresentation. I hope you were perhaps using that word wrong.
I want to get back to the vote 10 issue. Traditionally it has been $3 million. I think you commented to my colleague, Mr. Aboultaif, about the use of it in a crisis response. I want to go back to the last world crisis we had financially in 2008. The vote 10 then, I think, only went up to about $8 million. Again, no government—Liberal or Conservative—had used this in the past to the extent that it has been used this year and last year.
The vote 5 money, which is contingency money, is where I would think such money should be coming from, not an inflated vote 10. I will state again that if the government tries to bring forward a $200-million, $300-million or $380-million vote 10 in the estimates again for the coming year, I believe the opposition will look to reduce it to the traditional level of around the $3-million mark as it has been used repeatedly.
Getting to vote 5, there's money in vote 5 for almost $5 million for Rideau Hall Foundation. Vote 5, “...to provide for miscellaneous, urgent or unforeseen expenditures not otherwise provided for...”. Rideau Hall Foundation has been funded for the last eight or 10 years by the government. I'm wondering how this $4.9 million, therefore, is considered unforeseen and urgent. Again, this should be Heritage Canada re-profiled over $5 million.
I bet you'll ask Marcia.
