Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate on the discussion paper on social policy review.
I wish to take a slightly different approach than has been taken so far and concentrate on a particular section of the policy paper that has been presented. I would like to indicate how clearly that discussion paper misses the opportunity for leadership and new thinking for a new economy and for a redirected social policy program.
I recognize that the government has set for itself a major task of tremendous significance that will affect our financial, social and personal well-being in this country.
There is a desperate need to change our social policy. There is a recognition in this particular paper that our economy has become technology oriented and that it is critical for Canada to find a way to capitalize on the technology of tomorrow.
How can we all benefit from this recognition? By recognizing that the world is rapidly changing we have taken the first step in making the transition toward a productive future. But it is only a first step, a very, very tiny one. In real terms this means that the workforce in Canada must change. This too is included in the discussion paper.
Canada must develop a workforce that is well educated, capable and skilled and above all that is primed to participate and anticipate the changes that are coming with respect to the economy in general, their specific jobs and to prepare themselves for the transition that is about to come. A workforce that has those characteristics will indeed be successful in competition.
It requires lifelong learning. Learning I believe is at the basis of a dynamic economy. Only through education and ongoing training of a workforce can that force be equipped to meet market demands.
However, like all the other components in our economy education itself is under tremendous stress. It has become inefficient. It has become too expensive and it is failing the very people it was designed to serve. Canadians are lagging behind, no matter how well educated they are. They are not equipped to tackle the jobs of the market requirements.
Canadians are paying the price for post-secondary education that is out of date, a system that was designed primarily to serve the needs of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We are in the 1990s. Higher education must be reviewed and must change to reflect today's requirements. That means universities, colleges and technical institutes and other deliverers of educational services and courses. Every avenue of education must be taken to be part of the plan and must be utilized.
I pose this question to the House this evening. What should the federal government's role be in post-secondary education? In particular, how should post-secondary education be funded?
As an educator with 25 years experience and as a provincial politician and now as a federal politician I have witnessed the relationship between education and government in the post-secondary process and throughout Canada. It is from this point of view that I wish now to reflect upon one of the government's proposals.
The proposal is to expand student loans. Student loans are not a new idea in Canada. They have been used to finance education for many years. As a result many graduates have racked up substantial debts and upon graduation, despite the investment, many of them cannot get jobs. The jobs they had and were well paying and looked secure were not. Graduates are underemployed on a part time basis and often on a very short contract basis. Despite the investment in education through student loans there has been no guarantee of employment for graduates despite the fact they have been left with massive debts and no way to repay them.
The key is jobs. There is some suggestion that maybe the government should guarantee these loans. It does not help if the loans cannot be paid back and it adds to the cost of government.
How serious is this problem? One might say that is not that big a problem. In November 1992 the total default in education debts or loans if you will was $1 billion. That is the equivalent of 100,000 students defaulting on a $10,000 loan. That is a significant problem. Many students are not only deep in debt, they are without a job and have very little to show for that debt that they have incurred. Canada has very little to show for that debt. It is unacceptable and it must change.
We are looking for a legitimate role for the federal government in this kind of funding. Leading economists and Canada's leading authority on educational finance or finance of higher education, Dr. E. G. West of Carleton University in Ottawa, says that what we need is a voucher system not a heavier burden on the backs of our young people, a voucher system that would see the federal government distribute its higher education money to students themselves directly in the form of vouchers that would be accepted by universities, colleges and technical schools. These institutions in turn would convert those vouchers into money by redeeming them with the federal government. This voucher system is direct, single, simple, effective, flexible and deals with the individual-talk about decentralization-a legitimate approach for the funding of higher education at least in part.
What are the advantages of such a system? There are many. In the minds of my colleagues and those who are in authority, such an arrangement would encourage healthy competition among institutions to attract students. It would be a preferable arrangement for students too because an arrangement like this would enhance individual choice and make it an effective choice. Students would have more leverage to seek out institutions to meet their needs and the federal cost would be no higher than it is today.
The voucher system would work better for students. It would ensure a higher standard of post-secondary education through competition and would cost the government no more than it costs today.
The voucher system would do much more than that. It would put into the hands of the students consumer power. The students would decide what kind of program, who would deliver it and at what price. It would recognize the diversity of choice of those who seek to learn and those who provide the educational services. It would allow the post-secondary education institution to fine tune the system and like government itself, avoid the expensive duplication and overlap that exists at the present time.
Under this system students would benefit from institutions competing for enrolment between themselves and the students would feel strong and well about their particular decisions. Would they make good decisions? I have dealt with many of these students at the post-secondary level and the post-graduate level and they are very capable of making decisions. They know exactly what kind of program they want and need. If the universities would listen, if some of these services that are provided would listen to the needs and demands of the students and have the wherewithal to give them money needed for their education they would do so.
Students are not only the young. There is a much larger proportion of Canadians who are older adults in various age groups who need further education. These too could be served with this voucher system. It would create a large, political and powerful force at the federal level for higher education if we adopted this voucher system. That force would consist of students, their husbands, their wives, their parents and all those others who would benefit and participate in the decision-making for higher education.
Advanced education would then compete on a much more equal basis in terms of the power that they need so that government supplies those services that we actually have to have in our society.
Finally and most important, it could be expanded beyond simply education to include the training programs under UI and welfare instead of having the turf war that exists between the various departments.
I strongly urge the government to think very seriously not about expanding the loans to students but rather to institute a voucher system and give the student consumer power.