Was that a question, Mr. Speaker? It was kind of a rant, I thought.
My hon. friend is right. The government announced that it will do something to help students some day in the future. Is this not nice? In fact it was more precise. By the year 2000 it will take some action.
If my friends opposite were sincere about helping young people afford post-secondary education, they would go far beyond having a scholarship program. They would consider doing away with tuition fees in our post-secondary institutions.
I can hear my hon. friend now, that whining we hear all the time: “Where are they going to get the money?” We always hear whining from across the way.
This is not a new concept. Other countries that put a priority on young people's education have long had tuition free universities and colleges. It is not a new concept. It exists today.
Rather than give a tax break to one of the tens of thousands of very profitable corporations that do not pay a single cent in income tax year after year, why do we not close some of those loopholes? Then we could have some money for post-secondary education funding.
We will hear comments any day now—we should be hearing them in question period today—that the government has decided the Cadillac helicopter purchase has been changed into a Chevrolet and now we can afford it. We will be dishing out money now for the helicopters. Fair enough. That is what this job is all about. Helicopters will probably be a lot more important than helping poor children. Buying helicopters will probably be a more important initiative than helping young people afford education. That is a decision that the government might well take.
If it does, let us recognize that as long as it tolerates more than one million children living in poverty it will have to wear on its shoulders what the Conference of Catholic Bishops reminded us is a form of child abuse.