Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition's training and youth critic, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the social program reform proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
I am also, as a member of the Committee on Human Resources Development, pleased to participate because, as you know, Madam Speaker, with two of my opposition colleagues, I was involved in all the proceedings of the first consultation phase. We heard many people express their opinions on this. Unfortunately, I must tell you right off the bat that I am disappointed with this proposal when we were expecting an action plan. This discussion paper almost invites us to scrap last winter's consultations and start over.
As the training and youth critic, I will focus on the education part of the discussion paper issued by the Minister of Human Resources Development. I say education because that is what it means. Although the third section of the minister's discussion paper is called "Learning: Making lifelong learning a way of life", they are clearly talking about education. This section nonetheless contains elements that will affect post-secondary education systems in Quebec and Canada.
Again, may I remind you that, under the 1867 Canadian Constitution, education is a provincial jurisdiction. The discussion paper released by the Minister of Human Resources Development even included the following statement, on page 57: "In Canada, education falls within provincial jurisdiction". While admitting this fact, the federal government also points to training-related problems and uses them to justify its continued involvement in the field of education.
It is obvious, when you read this document, that the federal government has no intention of withdrawing from the field of education, even though it is a vital provincial sector, particularly for Quebec, since our identity as a nation is at stake.
The most contradictory aspect of this paper is the fact that, while the government expresses a will to tighten controls and centralize even more education-related responsibilities, it obviously wants to withdraw its financial support.
The withdrawal of federal support would not result in fewer constraints, quite the contrary: It would mean less money and more constraints. The federal government intends to cut transfers to the provinces and to replace them with more student loans. However, these transfer payments are used by provinces to subsidize secondary schools. The provinces will be stuck with a shortfall of $2.6 billion. They will then be left with two options: either allocate more money or else leave the institutions to fend for themselves, which would surely mean increased tuition fees.
The federal government seems to think that students would easily absorb such an increase, which is anticipated in the minister's document, on page 63:
It is true that replacing federal cash transfers would put upward pressure on tuition fees.
In fact, a Treasury Board memo published in the Toronto Star today indicates that tuition fees will double if such a measure is implemented. Cabinet has been informed of that.
Students already incur large debts. Let me give you some figures. In Canada, 10 per cent of personal bankruptcies affect students or former students unable to repay their loans. And what does the minister propose? He wants to put students even deeper into debt.
In Quebec, a university student spends more than 30 per cent of his or her annual budget on tuition fees and related costs. This percentage has doubled since 1990. The situation is the same everywhere in Canada.
In fact, the problem is somewhat less serious in Quebec because the provincial government, through a scholarship program, has helped alleviate the burden of students to ensure that everyone can get a university education. Quebecers can be proud of that initiative since, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this morning, until the quiet revolution, in the sixties, only rich families could afford to put their children through university.
The discussion paper also refers to a new scheme which consists in making repayment proportional to one's income. This concept raises many questions. Since the government claims to be relying on the support of all partners, it is rather surprising that, after the working paper was tabled, the first reaction was that of the Canadian Federation of Students which immediately opposed the income contingent repayment, because they worry about the terms of the program. They are all the more concerned because of pilot projects which were carried out, particularly in Ontario.
I should mention that Ontario had an experimental project and that last year, only 75 students participated whereas up to 1,000 could have. Why? Because the terms of this income contingent repayment plan are often quite restrictive. Students have to say that they want to be part of that program almost as soon as they begin their studies. Usually, they are forced into that program. That approach was tried in other countries, and results have always been negative. Nevertheless, Canada now wants to use that approach. We should at least ask a few questions.
The president of the Canadian Federation of Students stated: "Members of the Canadian Federation of Students are determined to fight government proposals and we are convinced that the majority of Canadians will support us because they want to maintain accessible post-secondary education for themselves and their children". The federation reacted that way because it is convinced that this reform will push students deeper into debt and restrict access to higher education. That was the first reaction.
The president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec, François Robello, made the following comment: "The government will have to publicly assume responsibility for passing the bill on to students. The way this reform is going, access to higher education will be under direct fire". The first federation is an umbrella organization mainly for associations outside Quebec, and the second one is affiliated to but independent from the first one and represents most student associations in Quebec.
Two federations, two similar conclusions. Both are concerned about student indebtedness and access to higher education.
The government claims that the reform was initiated for the very purpose of securing freer access to higher education. There is already some disagreement on the subject between the government and representatives of this community. Since members of student groups experience first hand the effects of being in debt, they are clearly in a good position to evaluate the impact of such reforms.
In addition to the students, groups representing universities, colleges and their presidents in Quebec and across Canada have expressed their concern that student debt would have the effect of compelling universities and colleges to raise their tuition fees, which in turn would reduce enrolment.
The future does not look too good for government members, when we see both students and universities worried about the same thing. I think you are in for a tough time during the months to come.
As the article that appeared in the Toronto Star on October 5 pointed out, the government wants to cut $7.5 billion from social programs over the next five years. During Question Period, in response to a question from a member of the Reform Party, the minister referred to $15 billion. We know that the budget already provided for cuts totalling $7.5 billion, and now the minister says $15 billion. This is not a rumour. This is not a document leaked to the newspapers. This is the minister speaking.
There is one suggestion that did not really impress me but did raise some questions. Just think, to deal with student financial problems, they suggested using their RRSPs, their registered retirement savings plans. Now how many students who are in debt have RRSPs when they graduate or when they are at university? Unless the minister or the paper he tabled means that parents could use their RRSPs to pay for their children's education. If that is the case, then we have a problem. First of all, students who are over 18-which means they are of age-are adults and want to be able to take care of themselves, and now the implication is, unless any other explanations are forthcoming, and we hope they will be, that the parents' RRSPs could be used. This is disturbing because usually, people have RRSPs for their retirement and not to pay for the education of their children.
What about consultation? The Standing Committee on Human Resources, of which I am a member, will conduct wide-ranging consultations across Canada. Why bother, since the government has already made its decision on its reforms? The parameters are there, plus cuts totalling $15 billion. What we need here is a little motivation, because if spending cuts are to be the order of the day, people will come to defend their own particular interests, and you can hardly blame them.
What this paper does not contain, and although what it does contain is disturbing, what it does not contain is equally disturbing, and I am referring to a genuine job creation policy, because we can train students and keep improving their employability, but in the end they will just be competing for the same number of jobs.
What do we see now? More and more young people, at least a third of them, live in insecurity, not just for a year but for long periods; at least a third or so of young people in Quebec have trouble finding permanent employment.
What does this reform project do? It calls them frequently unemployed, it classifies them and we see in the discussion paper that they are particular targets for cuts. On the contrary, action should be taken to strengthen these people who are victims of unemployment. Why attack the victims instead of unemployment? Why is the human resources development minister's paper silent on job creation? Why does it not talk about full employment measures? Some countries have almost full employment, so why not use them as models?
The paper does not cover everything. We see leaks. We could talk about them at length, but when a member meets his constituents, he realizes that cuts are being made to established organizations that are working to increase employability. Many organizations in Quebec at least were told that their programs would be cut by 10 per cent, even though some community organizations grouped together in the RQUODE umbrella organization, where I attended a consultation last year, have a placement rate of 75 per cent. Resources are being cut back for these established organizations.
While they consult, they cut. Unemployment insurance was cut last year. Now the organizations are being attacked.
This morning, I heard the minister tell us about an experience he had when he visited a training centre in New Brunswick. I would suggest that he not go as far; he could go to Gatineau, a few kilometres from here, where the Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi Centre found out last week that not only was it getting a 10 per cent cut but that the job search club was losing its entire $240,000 annual grant, while young people are told about so-called measures and intentions. Meanwhile, what the document does not say is that cuts are being made.
Madam Speaker, do you think that I am being partisan? Last week, the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, whose name I do not want to mention, said that he was shocked. He tried to save the program at the Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi Centre in Gatineau from being cut. He had to admit that he was disappointed because he had been misled, it seems, so he said in the newspaper. He had been given some hope and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who lives in Hull, had announced that the problem would be settled.
But three days later, the way it was settled was by cutting it. And that is not the only organization to be cut. In at least two other regions, organizations that prefer to remain anonymous have already been informed verbally that they will be eliminated. Meanwhile, the government puts in place its youth strategy, the Youth Service Corps, and gives $10,000 per young Canadian, while Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi managed to find jobs for 375 young people on a budget of $240,000 last year. And these young people later generated $1 million in tax revenues for the federal government. Before eliminating organizations, they could at least have had the decency to await the result of the consultation process before cutting programs.