Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to commend the member for Elk Island for his co-operative attitude.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the matter of social security reform. A discussion paper we have released gives Canadians a chance to debate the future of these programs, what is necessary and what is possible with the limited resources we have available to us.
As the National Anti-Poverty Organization has correctly noted, the best social security for an individual is a decent job paying decent wages. But we know with technological change that decent job has been altered beyond recognition.
And if that were true so far, just think about what the future has in store for this 18-year old woman, assuming she has just registered this year at a community college. Can anyone predict what skills she will need in the labour market in the year 2030? Of course not!
What we can predict is that her education will not stop on the day she receives her degree. She will have to continue to learn. In fact, to achieve financial security, it is not enough to have a job now; we must also have the skills needed to secure employment at any time in our lives. That is why we must upgrade these skills on a continuing basis.
It seems only yesterday that I was 18 years old myself. Shockingly, I find myself the mother of 18-year old twin boys. The future they face is much different from the one that lay ahead of me at the same age.
When I left school at age 18, the product of rural Saskatchewan, the choices were clear. A generation or two ago it was still expected that one would finish school, train for a specific job and keep that job most of one's working life.
For myself, a young girl from a traditional farm environment I had a couple of choices; be a nurse, be a teacher. I chose teacher. I went to the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon which I am proud to say is a jewel in the crown that is the riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt.
Because of this fact and the fact that I am a former teacher, I am particularly delighted today to address the learning chapter of the green book, chapter 3. No one would deny that learning is the key to finding and keeping stable jobs. Competition from other countries, automation, new technologies have changed the world of work irrevocably.
The new jobs in our economy demand higher and broader kinds of skills and this is the future that looms before my 18-year old sons. Unlike me they can expect, no they must plan for, being educated for the likelihood of changing jobs in their working lives. Their future must be one in which lifelong learning is possible. Only this way will our young people be able to enjoy the same financial, emotional and societal benefits of employment as generations past.
Our government, through this discussion paper, faces this challenge. As members know, federal contributions have helped build and operate a system of post-secondary education that is both extensive and accessible.
The Canada Student Loans Program has been improved. We raised the weekly ceiling by close to 57 per cent for full-time students. We also raised the maximum for loans to part-time students from $2,500 to $4,000. We will gradually introduce special subsidies which will provide an extra $3,000 to single parents who pursue part-time studies, to handicapped students and to women registered in Ph. D. programs.
For the first time we will be offering a national program of deferred grants that will help high need students who would otherwise face extremely high debt loads on graduation. There were many other elements to our improvements to CSLP, but members will understand the essential principles of improving and broadening access for students of all kinds.
I would probably not be addressing the Chamber today had it not been for the assistance of the Canada Student Loans Program. Without those funds, a university education would have been beyond my grasp. From the letters I have received from constituents, and from talking to people in the riding like Mr. and Mrs. Ivan Dale, I know there are still young people out there facing the same problem.
Education is not just for the young. As I said in my earlier remarks, it has to involve people at all stages of their lives if we are to be successful in the future. In spite of the removal of certain barriers, one huge obstacle remains. That obstacle is money or the lack of it.
In the discussion paper, we propose ways to finance post-secondary education. We discuss the means to make it more accessible to those who want to develop their skills. We also recognize that we have been contributing to the financing of post-secondary education for a long time and that we must continue to do so.
The provinces and territories manage the system, but without federal involvement it would look much different. The federal government now provides $8 billion a year, or about half the total spending in this area. The discussion paper recognizes that the federal government provides core funding for the post-secondary system through tax points. As members will recall, the budget earlier this year called for the federal government to reduce the other part of that funding, cash transfers.
We have already told the provinces and territories that cash for post-secondary education will be returned to the 1993-94 level of $2.1 billion in 1996-97. Within 10 to 15 years the formula in place to calculate the funding will probably end the portion of the PSE funding paid in cash.
The document raises the question of how to best use that money. We believe that it is by making post-secondary education more accessible to students. We realize that the increase in tuition fees imposed by provinces and territories have forced students to absorb a larger proportion of the costs of their education. The changes we made to improve the Canada Student Loans Program should help students get by, but we can do more.
The paper offers an interesting option. End the cash transfers for institutional support quickly and expand student loan opportunities instead. It is estimated that a $500 million student aid program would lever $2 billion in loans every year. The target for that money could be older students, people who want to add to their skills and who want to retrain.
A student aid program like this can be truly preventive. It can offer support to working people who want to stay ahead of the skill wave.
All this talk of loans brings up the thorny question of repayment. Sooner or later these loans have to be paid back. Over the last year I have received letters from students young and old who are unable to repay their student loans, wondering what they can do. Sometimes they have graduated and cannot find work, other times the work they found was so low paying that they cannot make loan payments. They cannot even make ends meet.
One option being considered in the discussion paper is the income contingent repayment plan. This plan which has been working well in Australia and New Zealand would permit people to repay their loans on the basis of their income perhaps through the tax system.
Another option in the green book is the concept of using RRSPs to finance education and training.
What is clear is that the discussion paper takes into account the need to achieve reform within tight fiscal parameters. Our objective is to use limited resources in the most effective way to preserve and expand access to post-secondary education for many more students.
I congratulate the minister of human resources for having the courage and the commitment to his ideals to engage Canadians in the revitalization of our social programs. The easy way would be to sit back and watch as an outdated social system collapsed under its own weight as it limped toward the next century. It is much harder to take the path set by the minister, to recognize that we have a problem, to identify what those problems are, to take the time to hear what Canadians have to say about their needs and about how those needs may be met and how we can pay for those needs.
In my riding my constituents will be participating in the revitalization process October 29 and 30. I invite all Canadians including some of the doubting Thomases in this House to participate fully in this task, to take advantage of this opportunity to be part of the rebuilding. Criticism without offering constructive alternatives gets us nowhere. Why be part of the problem when it is so much more exciting to be part of the solution?
I am confident that Canadians hold dear our social programs and I anticipate that they will join in the task of reweaving our social safety net so that it is there to cradle Canadians at those times in our lives when we need its support.