Debates of June 16th, 1994

The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-28, an act respecting the making of loans and the provision of other forms of financial assistance to students, to amend and provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans Act, and to amend one other Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canada Student Financial Assistance Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, there are three amendments on the Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-28, An Act respecting the making of loans and the provision of other forms of financial assistance to students, to amend and provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans Act, and to amend one other Act in consequence thereof.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted upon separately.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-28, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 46, on page 2 and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:

"3.(1) The appropriate authority for a province may designate as designated educational institutions any institutions of learning in or outside of Canada that offer courses at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions."

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment moved by the Opposition is meant to improve the bill so that it will become slightly more acceptable to Quebecers and to all Canadians, particularly to young Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, you have already read the motion but I think a second reading would be welcome since all the commotion following the vote made it hard to hear.

It is being proposed that clause 3 of the bill be amended by replacing lines 34 to 46, on page 2, and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:

"3.(1) The appropriate authority for a province may designate as designated educational institutions any institutions of learning in or outside of Canada that offer courses at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions."

We have moved this amendment because the other amendment made by the bill was divided into two sections whereas, in our view, it defines the role of the appropriate authority for a province.

We would have preferred by far the old section in the existing act where, for the purposes of the present act, the appropriate authority was defined as a person, an organization or any other authority designated as such by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province.

Unfortunately, this was defeated in committee. But it is most appropriate to highlight the change it has brought. Until the bill is enacted, designation of the appropriate authority is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province concerned, that is by the province's Minister of Education.

What is new here is that the designation would be made by the federal minister designated by the Governor in Council. It says "the Minister" because ministerial structures are undergoing so many changes that it is preferable not to say which minister. But, in this case, it is the Minister of Human Resources Development.

This means that, ultimately, our federal Minister of Human Resources Development will become almost a federal minister of education. I wish to remind this House once more-as I did during first reading-that, under the Constitution, education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is important to keep this in mind.

What in fact have we just learned? That the appropriate authority for the province will be designated by the federal minister in order to accomplish two things essentially: first, to designate or not to designate post-secondary institutions in or outside of Canada and, second, to deliver eligibility certificates to students entitled to federal financial assistance.

In my view, designating institutions and delivering eligibility certificates are definitely two educational matters, the responsability for which normally belongs to the provinces.

It is becoming increasingly clear that there are two nations in this country. Some provinces do not mind much that a federal minister would be responsible for educational matters. However, education is very precious to Quebec as it is at the very root of the development of our culture and our identity. We are witnessing another attempt by the government to interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to remind the House that, during the election campaign, the Liberal members and the Prime Minister himself said that they would not talk about the Constitution. This was reassuring for some maybe, but what is happening in reality?

They say they do not want to talk about it, but they are almost changing the Constitution through administrative agreements, by increasing the role of a federal minister in the field of education. As far as the Official Opposition is concerned, we would have preferred them to talk about the Constitution and we would have hoped that the present government would not go against the spirit of the Constitution, at least in the field of education.

How must we interpret such a strong desire on the part of the federal government, on the part of the Minister of Human Resources Development, for that minister to be the one who designates the appropriate authority from now on? There is a connection with the employment and learning strategy that he himself announced on April 15, and student loans can now be seen to be the fourth element of that strategy.

This is the first piece of legislation put forward by the government which relates to this employment and learning strategy. That is a new term, a play on words: learning is essentially education. We believe that behind this aspect of the strategy-and this is reflected in the press release-the government is barely hiding the fact that it wants to impose on the provinces national, meaning Canadian, standards of education.

From Quebec's standpoint, from the Official Opposition's standpoint, that is unacceptable. For us, what is national applies to Québec, to the nation of Québec, and the concept of "Canadian standards" flies in the face of the attachment of the people of Québec to their culture, to their education. That is why the members of the Committee, with the help of other members, fought relentlessly against this will to centralize.

But, since there are only a few hours left, we have to recognize that we failed to make the government back down. I would like to point out other centralizing initiatives. There is the one that I have just talked about, but there is another one. The federal government not only interferes with provincial jurisdictions, it gives itself increased discretionary authority, an authority which is almost without precedent in that a minister will be able to intervene, to manage by regulation. And that is quite important because we see what role he has in mind for the appropriate authority.

The second amendment is also about this, but the appropriate authority will play a key role and it will be completely controlled by the minister himself without any right of appeal. At least, the bill makes no mention of a right of appeal. Maybe the regulations will, but when one makes a law, one must foresee all the possibilities, even changes of minister, even changes of government.

In a democratic society, a law must be as clear and precise as possible, especially in areas like education, which lends itself to conflicting interpretations, to hesitations, to pulling and tugging, all of which is detrimental to both levels of government.

I think that Quebecers and Canadians-when the Prime Minister was saying that he did not want to hear any talk about the Constitution, that was not quite it-want to avoid duplication, having two governments that want to do the same thing in the same fields, when there is so much to be done in terms of jobs and economic development.

We see a government that wants to reduce its funding in the fields of health care, social services, education and postsecondary education. Yet, while it is reducing its financial contribution, it is increasing its desire to control, its desire to run everything from Ottawa, in a field that Quebec jealously guards: education.

Education is a major portfolio, it is important in defining an employment strategy, it is important for the future of young people and for the entire community.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I should make it clear that the debate is to complete Motion No. 1. Then we will go to Motion No. 2.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.

I heard many of the arguments and points which he raised during his intervention at the committee. I must say that the comments at times steered away from the content of the amendment which he was making. He spent a great deal of time talking about the constitutional impact of the changes to the Canada student loans. It is unfortunate that the members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot appreciate the fantastic results we have received in co-operating with the province of Quebec for over 30 years in providing important financial aid to students.

Regardless of where they come from, whether it is the province of Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, they have definitely been given access to much needed funding so that they may complete their education and give great strength to our country.

I suggest to the hon. member that the best indication as to how the provincial governments feel about this legislation can be found in statements that have been made by various ministers or their representatives in the last few days, not in hypothetical statements made by the Bloc Quebecois.

First, let me say that Mr. Chagnon, minister of education for Quebec, on June 9 answered the following to a question by the Parti Quebecois on whether Bill C-28 will force national standards in education on the provincial government of Quebec: "La réponse est non".

I think that is fundamental to the debate. I do not wish to engage in a merely political discussion when there are thousands of students waiting for this government and this House to act on this very important piece of legislation.

I want to go specifically to the point raised in the hon. member's amendment. This amendment does not make much sense. It would leave the program without an appropriate authority at the provincial level for purposes of assessing and according aid to students and designating eligible institutions. That is quite clear from the hon. member's amendment.

It is my belief that students need some assurances that they will be able to gain access to the aid that is available under this legislation.

I remind hon. members of the Bloc that provinces have played a critical role in the administration of federal students' assistance program. We expect the provinces to continue to act as the appropriate authority for the purposes of assessing students needs, according aid and designating eligible institutions.

At the same time, both levels of government are actively exploring ways to improve services to students and streamline the administration of student assistance programs. A number of provinces even during committee here signalled their interest in harmonizing both the administration and financing of student aid. Such initiatives are extremely important. They will reduce overlap and ensure greater value for our funding.

In this regard several provinces have indicated an interest in looking at different machinery for delivery of provincial and possibly federal aid. This could entail assigning the administration of the program to a third party other than a provincial student aid office. As well there is interest in streamlining the process of designating foreign institutions for purposes of the federal program. Currently over 4,500 international institutions are designated.

This is very labour intensive and maintaining up to date information is extremely costly. One approach would be to establish a broadly representative entity with the necessary expertise that could undertake this task in respect of student aid programs generally. For example, a mechanism such as the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials which is jointly funded by the CMEC and the federal government could serve the interests of both levels of government in this regard.

The centre brings together representatives of provinces, the AUCC and the ACC and it might be appropriate to expand its role in this regard.

For these reasons we have provided the necessary flexibility to allow for different types of machinery at the provincial and federal levels. Of course, we intend to continue to work in close collaboration with the provinces. The Canada student loans program is an example, a model example, of how the federal government can work together with the provincial governments and deliver a very important service to Canadians.

This view is widely shared by the provinces. I was very pleased to hear senior provincial representatives who appeared before the committee speak positively about the program and speak positively about the partnership that this program has allowed our federal government and the provincial governments to participate in. This type of collaboration is an example to all federal-provincial governments as to how federal and provincial governments can in fact work together.

Everyone we spoke to basically said to go ahead and push this legislation through. It has many positive features. It is necessary for those students who are waiting for our help. This legislation also takes extremely positive measures, whether you are looking at deferred grants, the help it gives to part time students, women pursuing doctoral studies, or high need students. Not only is it good legislation, it is progressive legislation. It brings in middle class families that have in the past been shut out of the Canada student loans. They may have over $2,000 available.

A person benefiting from a deferred grant with a debt load at the end of a four-year BA of $22,500 now will have the debt load reduced by $6,000. That speaks to the type of legislation this is. It speaks to the progressive nature of this legislation.

For all these reasons this motion obviously should be defeated.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion.

My remarks will be quite brief. The hon. parliamentary secretary has said quite a bit about some of the reasons why this motion should be defeated.

I was very conscious of ensuring that the rights of the provinces were looked after when this legislation came into the House. I looked quite closely at this clause to ensure that the rights of the provinces were not being infringed upon. I reviewed the transcripts from when provincial officials were before the committee to see what they had to say about this clause and about the possibility of any infringements. I placed phone calls to provincial officials to ask them if they were concerned about this. In every case they said they were not.

I believe they used their provincial jurisdiction and delegated their authority to the federal minister in this case because they were confident they could have that authority back at any time. They do have the protection of the Constitution in this matter.

There are many problems with this bill and there are some good things about it, to be fair, as well. I do not believe that this clause that the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about is one of the problems. There are many other things that we can be greatly concerned about, but this is not one that we need to worry about.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that we will be speaking later on about some of the problems with this bill. At the end of the day, however, you will find we support this bill, but at this moment we will be speaking against and voting against the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr Speaker, I would like to say as an introduction to this bill-although it includes an opting-out provision that we shall discuss later in a third amendment and that has become extremely finicky and departs from what has been the spirit of this type of legislation since 1964-that as Official Opposition we worked very hard to keep one thing in this bill. Some people might say it is not the most important thing, or our business, but we wanted to do our job as Official Opposition. We wanted to stress the historic change of replacing appointment of the appropriate authority by the provinces with direct appointment by the federal minister, with no compulsory consultation of the provinces.

This bill was introduced late, and as a result the legislative process has been speeded up.

Although the hon. colleague who spoke before me said that he had consulted-and we know he carried out consultations; so did we-it is not all that clear that the provinces know their rights, for the plain and simple reason that in this bill they have only one right left, one single right, and that is the right to opt out.

Aside from opting out, any initiative or power in this matter, which is extremely important to education, belongs to the federal minister, and we shall see in the second amendment that the minister has even been given an amount of latitude that is rare, not to say unheard of, in a piece of legislation.

Why, in order to establish the co-operation between the provinces and the federal government mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, must the federal minister take the place of or decide in this bill to take the place of the provinces? Some people in Canada may think-and we saw this in committee-that education must become an area of shared jurisdiction. Of course, everyone made an exception for Quebec, which would always oppose that notion with all its might. And it is understandable that, in light of economic imperatives and the importance of education to a country, some people might think that way.

But let us debate this issue for what it is. It does not concern only the provincial minister of education who is left dangling; I think it concerns Canadians, because -and maybe this is becoming the case-unless the provinces of Canada are just administrative authorities with no real power of initiative, education, their field, has to be of concern to them.

Why do we find it so dramatic that the appropriate authority will now be appointed by the federal minister and not by the province? Because, elsewhere, this bill addresses only relations between the minister and the banks, in broad terms; but students-and I shall come back to this point later-despite the good intentions listed by the minister, nowhere does the bill mention any obligations to students. Nowhere! And if we look at the budgets, there again, nowhere is there any mention of students: between last year's budget and this year's budget, after all the terrific promises that were made to us, how much of an increase is there? A million dollars for the whole of Canada! Congratulations! What openness!

Where is the extra money, the stuff that promises are made of, going to come from? Where? The banks are supposed to go and get that manna from graduates, that is where; there is no money anywhere else. At none of the hearings did I hear that there was any money anywhere else; there certainly is none in the budgets.

So I come back to my question: why is it so dramatic that the appropriate authority will now be appointed by the federal minister instead of the provinces? Because the appropriate authority has essentially two powers; including that of designating institutions, as my colleague said earlier. What does a designated institution mean for ordinary people? It simply means that Queen's University cannot accept students who qualify for scholarships unless it is designated by the appropriate authority.

So we can see the decisive importance of designation. We could say, "But does not that go without saying? Come on, what university could lose its designation?" Well, Mr Speaker, let me tell you that the Association of Universities, which may have the right to an opinion here, is extremely worried by the very next provision, which provides not only that the minister may appoint the appropriate authority to designate, but also that that appropriate authority, reporting directly to the federal minister, is empowered to revoke designation.

Now, the universities told us that they have been threatened for a long time that if they do not participate and do not know how well students actually pay back loans, if their rate of defaulting on loans is too high, they could lose their designation.

And what could the province do in that case? Nothing. It is the federal minister-as if that person did not have enough to do with that immense department that accounts for nearly half of federal government expenditures-it is the federal minister who, in the end, will consider the case.

There is another worrisome aspect to the bill. If I were speaking on behalf of another Canadian province, it seems to me that I would be saying exactly the same thing. Where designation is concerned, is it to ensure effective co-operation among the various provinces, which are responsible for education, and I shall speak-How much time do I have left? Three minutes?

Why is it assumed that the provinces cannot co-operate except under the appropriate authority? They will no longer be equal; they will be subjected to the authority of the minister. People may say, "Oh, but there is no bad faith on the part of the minister; the minister is going to consult". Sure. I can already hear my hon. colleague telling me that, with characteristic flair. But you do not draft legislation for the incumbent minister. You draft legislation for as long as it lasts. There have been two acts since 1964, so you can guess that this one, too, will last for some time.

The provinces have only one right left, one single right, and that is the right to opt out.

I want to return to the appropriate authority. That authority can designate and revoke designation, but it also has an extremely important power, the power to determine which students will qualify for loans. That, too, is important.

Which students will qualify for loans? According to which criteria? We read:

12.(1)( a ) to have attained a satisfactory scholastic standard;

If the student has "attained a satisfactory scholastic standard" and, obviously, if the student needs the money. Whether the student has attained a satisfactory scholastic standard is clearly an institutional matter; but, what is more important, the use of this provision can have a decisive influence on all degree courses at every institution and every university.

I must say that there has not been much of an uprising in Canada in the face of that provision, although Canada is a big place for an uprising. People have not read it carefully; they have not looked at it carefully; they trust the minister. That provision is eminently dangerous.

To the fact that the minister has been given latitude to appoint the appropriate authority-and of course we would have liked to retain the former wording, the wording of the present act, which-not this new wording- until it is amended, is still the current act and the one we shall defend-I add the fact that the minister can also appoint a bank, a financial institution. In committee, it was very clear that a financial institution could decide whether the student has attained a satisfactory scholastic standard.

People may say, "No, no, that is not the ministers intention". But there is nothing in the bill to prevent that from happening.

We could not ignore this extremely important provision. It is easy centralization because it is about student loans; however, it indicates a worrisome trend, not just for Quebec, which I hope will settle that problem once and for all, but for the provinces in general.

I suspect that, even without Quebec, Canada will be talking about the Constitution again.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 26, on page 3.

Mr. Speaker, after having worked on this bill in committee for several days, we have finally reached the report stage at which time we can propose improvements in the hope of convincing the House that such improvements would give us a clearer piece of legislation which could survive many years without being called into question.

Similar in spirit to the previous amendment, this amendment would ensure that the minister, who in clause 3 may designate for a province an appropriate authority, will not have the power to muzzle the appropriate authority. Perhaps as a result of the previous vote this will no longer be the case, but the basis for this amendment being moved is that this provision of the bill will not be amended. The portion of the clause that would be deleted reads as follows: "The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority".

Since the legislation must provide for all possible situations that could arise, it is possible that in a given situation, the directive given by the minister would be unacceptable for some legal reason to the appropriate authority. The fact that the proposed legislation gives the minister the right to compel the appropriate authority to comply with his directive is tantamount to saying that the appropriate authority is not needed because he would have to implement any decision taken by the minister.

The clause in question states that the minister designates and gives directives to the appropriate authority and that these are binding on him. In our view, deleting lines 18 to 26, as proposed in the amendment motion, would remove the sword of Damocles that is being waved over the heads of the designated appropriate authorities and would give them a minimum degree of flexibility to be effective. Clearly, this piece of legislation, as was the case with the previous student loans legislation, applies more to the other provinces than to Quebec which is the only province to have opted out, or the Northwest Territories. Our duty as legislators is to ensure that the legislation is the best it can be.

While Quebec will certainly continue to exercise the right to opt out-because in Quebec, we have developed an entirely different system, we have a completely different approach to student loans-and continue to do its own thing, legislation is needed and, in the provinces which will be governed by it, this legislation must be administered correctly, honestly and effectively.

In committee, serious work was done and a number of amendments were proposed, some of which were adopted, thus improving the legislation.

I think it is important to note also that in that respect, we end up in a rather symbolic situation at the same time. The hon. member inquired earlier as to where the money came from. Ultimately, grants and bursaries in Quebec are financed by the program, through exchanges between governments. But in fact, it has never been denied that Quebecers' tax money ought to come back to them in the form of grants and bursaries, under a program managed by the province, as this has become the practice, and Quebec has demonstrated that it has the expertise required to grant loans to its students.

In this case, as far as the designation of the appropriate authorities is concerned, we believe that in the spirit of the Constitution and its provisions on jurisdiction, the bill could have provided that the provinces have the authority to appoint them and to delegate this authority to the federal government if they so please, which could have been the case in nine provinces out of ten. A wording along these lines would have avoided infringing upon provincial jurisdiction, which we end up doing with this bill with I must say some contempt for the authority of the provinces. That is what motivated the amendment I have moved.

Seeing that infringement is to be expected, as legislators, we want to make sure that these authorities will retain a minimum of leeway as we move from the old provisions under which the government of each province designated the appropriate authorities to new ones whereby the federal minister will designate the appropriate authorities for each of the provinces. If we cannot persuade the government to change that, let us at least make sure that, as far as the performance of their duties is concerned, these authorities retain some leeway, because the minister might decide for example to sign agreements with banking institutions which could affect the student loan and bursary system, and the authority representing a province may feel this decision was not the most appropriate.

I can give you a specific example: francophone and Acadian students in all provinces of Canada except Quebec asked that caisses populaires be formally identified as banking institutions that could be accredited for loans and bursaries by the government. In a situation like that, one province, for example, could realize that the minister would sign an agreement with only one bank for all of Canada; then the authority in the province might say: "That is not how we want it to apply here and we have some suggestions for you, Minister".

Theoretically, as it is now written, the minister can impose it and the appropriate authority cannot even challenge the decision. This means that even if a provincial government held hearings on loans and bursaries because it considered opting out, for example, those designated as appropriate authorities could receive a notice from the minister that they are not allowed to testify at the hearings.

In the bill as it now reads the minister has indeed too much authority in his spheres of activity, and even more so when past experience is considered, especially in Quebec, which has opted out.

We also considered-because we must always look at the laws regardless of the individuals who apply them and a long-term view-we want to ensure that we will not have a recurrence of what has happened in many other fields, a sort of competition between governments. For example, if the program of a province that wants to opt out is not what the federal minister wants, he might try to override the province, and his power over the appropriate authority would be one way he could control the situation, perhaps to the detriment of the provinces concerned.

That is why we consider it important to support this amendment.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

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.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion of the Bloc Quebecois.

It seems to me that the provinces have spoken with one voice on this issue. They had a chance to speak up on Bill C-28. They came before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to talk about this piece of legislation. In every case they suggested they will go along with this legislation and that they are in support of it.

We cannot start giving carte blanche to provinces including Quebec simply because the members down the way demand it. We must be respectful of what the provinces are saying. Quebec has indicated it is quite comfortable with this piece of legislation. The people in Alberta are happy with it, the people in the maritimes are happy with it.

I do not really understand the paranoia down the way. I can only assume that there are other reasons for this motion coming up than the ones stated.

Having said that, we cannot support this motion. We will be saying more down the road about some of the problems inherent in Bill C-28.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the Reform Party's reaction. They did not argue very long against this amendment, that I will read since it is important to understand the situation.

I will not read the amendment as such but what we wanted to delete:

The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority.

That is a good example of the co-operative federalism the parliamentary secretary referred to earlier. A partnership where everything seems to happen in harmony and in a climate of good understanding. If that were true, the minister would not have to include such provisions in this bill.

Let us try to figure out the minister's intentions. First possibility, when they say they want to add that "such directives are binding on the appropriate authority", does it mean that, in the past, appropriate authorities in the provinces did not follow directives or that the student financial assistance system did not work well? I am not talking about Quebec but about the other provinces, because Quebec had exercised the right to opt out, which it wants to preserve.

The fact that they felt the need to include "such directives are binding on the appropriate authority" in the bill, being very strict and everything when it should go without saying, suggests that there are many problems.

I see my colleague from Louis-Hébert, a former teacher, and I give him an example. It is like saying to a young person that under school regulations, smoking is strictly prohibited. And then adding: "Thinking of smoking is strictly prohibited".

They enact regulations upon regulations, which are binding on the authority. When have we ever seen that in a bill? I have read a number of them, more in Quebec than here, but it is very rare. I think it should go without saying. It shows an incredibly authoritarian mentality. The parliamentary secretary talks about partnership and co-operation. I will remind him of certain facts.

Regarding this year's reform of social programs, the minister has postponed his action plan two or three times because the provincial ministers did not agree with him on the agenda. What a good example of co-operation! They cannot even agree on what to include in the agenda because the provinces are so suspicious.

Another example of co-operation is a National Assembly resolution on job training, which was passed unanimously on April 15, I think, telling the federal government not to meddle in education and training matters in Quebec. Even Premier Johnson, a stauncher federalist than his predecessor, voted for this resolution. What a good example of co-operation! Everything is going awfully well with people working in harmony. Only Bloc members see problems.

I just said that it is not only the Bloc members but also all members of Quebec's National Assembly, including those in the Liberal Party, the sister party of the federal Liberals. There should be harmony, yet motions are adopted unanimously in the National Assembly. There should be another solution, as having such an item on the agenda speaks of a lack of confidence. The

past is often a harbinger of the future. Things happen, but why? Always because of the centralizing will of the federal government in an area in which it has no jurisdiction under the Constitution.

Government members are surprised at the Bloc members' reaction. Bloc members complained to the standing committee studying the bill. We insisted on seeing the regulations because the legislation was vague in many respects, and, without a right of appeal, the Minister has a lot of power. We were finally given an overview. I would like to underline here that regulations can stipulate that appropriate authorities may sign entitlement certificates, designate educational institutions, sign entitlement certificates regarding registration confirmations, and so on. It goes a long way.

Confirmation that a student has registered at a university or college is not a national objective. We are now dealing with registration. The borrower signs the entitlement certificate concerning the loan application, the contract-All we got to see was an overview, not even the real regulations.

Other than being excessively centralizing, this bill reflects a will to encroach on provincial jurisdiction. There is a double centralization, but this time from the Minister of Human Resources Development, who wants to control and manage things, through appropriate authorities who are being told in advance that they have to agree to everything the minister says. This is co-operation! How modern can you get? This is unheard of.

This is a power over which the House of Commons and its members would have no control, since it would be delegated to the federal Minister of Human Resources Development. We are concerned by that and this is why we are trying so hard, while there is still time, to convince the members opposite to change their mind on this issue.

We want to convince them before it is too late. The minister gave examples of co-operation and he read a statement from the education minister in Nova Scotia. For those who are not aware of that, three provinces previously benefitted from a trial agreement which served as a basis for this bill. The parliamentary secretary mentioned Nova Scotia.

Yet, based on testimony heard by the Human Rights Development Committee, and I attended every single meeting and consultation of that committee, it appears that Nova Scotia is the worst possible example one could provide, according to the students, because there is a lot of concern in Nova Scotia at present.

The parliamentary secretary also mentioned Alberta. I do not have the newspaper article with me but, yesterday, it was mentioned that many students are worried there as well. Students are concerned about the reduced financial assistance provided by the provinces. They are also concerned about the financing of post-secondary education. And they are concerned about something else too. It is all very well to raise the loan ceiling and bring in scholarships. Indeed, there are some good provisions in this bill, including for part-time students, for single mothers and for others as well, but what we oppose is the government's will to centralize. We object to this show of authority.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill which does not surprise my colleague on this side of the House and which was praised by the member opposite, to whom I will answer a bit later, contains some gems that we can smile at, once we get over our anger, which we can never do completely. It includes a very rare provision. When asked, before the committee, if such a provision was usually found in bills, the legal counsel answered that he did not remember ever seeing one like that, which was, in any case, very rare.

The minister now has the power to designate. He refused to let the provinces continue to exercise their power enshrined in the Constitution and reaffirmed in federal acts since 1964. The minister changes the whole process, but there is more. He is afraid that the appropriate authorities may be influenced by the provinces. So, he expects strict obedience from the appropriate authorities, as we can see in one provision which says: "The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority".

There is a third issue here which is also very important: the Statutory Instruments Act does not apply in respect of directives given under subsection (2). Hence, these directives will not be published in the Gazette .

So, this provision shows you the spirit in which the bill was drafted. The minister is going from one extreme to the other in his relations with the provinces. We have here a situation where the province, under a federal act, is recognized as the appropriate authority since it has jurisdiction over education. Not only is the minister saying: "From now on, I am the one who decides", but he also intends to follow through. He says: "Not only will I be designating the appropriate authority, but it better not let itself be influenced by a third party, because my directives prevail". After all, his directives are binding.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, how the appropriate authority will be free, under these circumstances, to exercise its power, as long as it follows the minister's directives. There is something funny in this bill. In every other piece of legislation, the appropriate authority is defined. In this one, the legislator must have forgotten to do so, because he says the directives are binding on the appropriate authority. In other words, the appropriate au-

thority has now become merely an authority which is never mentioned in the bill, except under appropriate authority.

Thus, the fact that this appropriate authority has now become merely an authority speaks volumes about how they see the relationship with the provinces and one must have a great sense of humour or be generous enough to say, as does the hon. secretary, that this bill will "enhance co-operation". The provinces are left with a single right, that is the right to opt out. Otherwise, not only is the appropriate authority designated by the Minister, but the Minister's directives are binding on the appropriate authority which has now become merely an authority.

These directives apply to all the powers provided in there. There are well-known powers, but there is also a power to make regulations that I have not seen elsewhere-but I am not familiar with all the statutes. Also, to improve the act, they even had in some cases-and it is somehow contradictory, but this was the only way to proceed-they even had to try to increase this power to make regulations, since neither the provinces nor the students have any rights and the minister has no obligations, only some powers and an authority. This sums up rather well what this bill is all about.

Thus, when the parliamentary secretary says that hundreds of thousands of students are anxious to know the results of our work, he has got an absolute nerve! And there are several reasons for this. First, there is already a system in place. An act already exists. Second, they introduced this bill only two weeks ago although they have had it for some time now! Third, despite the minister's generous intentions, there is in the estimates, as I said, only $1 million more for all Canadian students this year. Wonderful!

So, how is the minister going to keep his promises? He is relying on the banks to make students pay back their loans-and we know that, depending on where they live, the new graduates have difficulty finding a job and are deeply in debt-so the minister is relying on this money to honour his generous commitments.

So, when the hon. member down the way talks about paranoia, I remind him that the opposition has a role to play. When the opposition sees what is in the legislation, notwithstanding-not the clause-the intentions of the present minister, the opposition can only object vigorously to those provisions which do not enhance co-operation with the provinces but enable the minister to make decisions without consulting them.

The minister will consult and listen only if he wishes to. A future minister of education could use those provisions to decide who should have a loan and who should not. If one area of responsibility in a democracy is important for a province, which is responsible for education under the Constitution, it is the issue of who has access to education. We will come back to that aspect because, in the opting-out provision, the minister paid a lot of attention to the conditions for repayment to the banks and to the repayment arrangements for the students, but did not care much about accessibility.

We hear a lot about increased access for single mothers or for the handicapped but the truth is that the real objective is to try to negotiate a better deal with the banks; I have nothing against that, but stop taking liberties with the truth.

As the Official Opposition, we have the responsibility and the duty to denounce nonsensical actions and measures that do not promote co-operation with the provinces. Even though some of the people consulted said that they had nothing against the measures, nothing guarantees that those provisions will not give another minister-supposing that another government is in office-excessive power that would allow him to avoid co-operating with the provinces.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. Members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.