Debates of March 12th, 1998

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is in order.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the member who just spoke and before we agree to the amendment, let me remind the member that in the budget, in case he missed it, the foundation announced would be at arm's length from the federal government. It is on page 79 of the 1998 budget plan.

Second, the Council of Ministers of Education Canada representing provincial governments as well as the post-secondary community will have a role in identifying directors.

Third, the legislation creating the foundation will provide the administrative flexibility required to meet the partnership objective. Last, the foundation will also have the authority, subject to mutually agreed needs, merit and mobility criteria, to contract with appropriate provincial authorities.

There is that flexibility envisioned for the foundation and there are also the partnerships with the provinces. There is nothing to fear.

We have to focus on the fact there is $2.5 billion from the federal government to help 100,000 Canadian students across the country.

How can the member still refuse to see the beauty of the millennium fund?

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question allows me to deal with another aspect of the issue. The millennium fund is nothing more than the political legacy of the prime minister, who wants to leave his name on something before retiring. He will probably sign all the cheques to students for the 10 next years to make sure that he is remembered in some way after his retirement.

But I ask the hon. member, since he seems to have missed the essence of my speech, does he really think that all the people questioned on the subject or who took position on the fund, like the vice-president of the Conference of Rectors, did so without thinking or without even looking at what was said in the budget speech? Of course they knew what they were talking about.

Last week-end, the Gazette , which cannot be suspected of supporting Quebec's sovereignists, took exactly the same position as we did when it declared that Quebec's Deputy Premier, Mr. Landry, was right and that Ottawa should put the money into transfer payments instead, which could then be used to cover expenditures in education.

A foundation managed by government's chums will not change anything. They make me laugh with their speeches on flexibility. Before concluding on this point, I will quote for the hon. member Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the great federalist mentor who is a source of inspiration to him and his colleagues. This is from something he wrote in the Action nationale , before he entered federal politics.

He said this about the federal government “This government is clearly guilty of going against the principle of proportional taxation, which underlies our federal system. It collected moneys for education, which is not under its jurisdiction. That money, left to the provinces, could have been used or not to fund universities, depending on what the electorate and the government in each province wanted”.

These are the words of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Did his opinion change since then? Maybe a little. But before entering partisan politics and being subjected to all kinds of lobbying here in Ottawa, that is what he deeply felt.

I conclude on flexibility. In Quebec, we know perfectly well what it means. Flexibility means leaning always on the same side, that is toward Ottawa. We want nothing to do with that kind of flexibility.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about a constitutional cancer in relation to the spending power. When he was a minister in Ottawa, his mentor, Lucien Bouchard, spent $1 billion on literacy. If the federal government had not used its spending power, there never would have been a national health system. We could not have invested in universities or in the student loans and scholarships program since 1961.

Does the member believe it is more important to invest directly in reducing student indebtedness instead of engaging in petty politics and working for Pauline Marois, who cannot do her job? Two thousand students and 2000 professors agree that she cannot do her job.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the president of the flag committee of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec say, in his great political wisdom, that, if it were not for the federal government, there would not be any health system or universities in Quebec. I think no one will be fooled by that statement, which makes as much sense as its author.

In conclusion, many people in Canada and Quebec tried to use the Meech Lake accord to cure the constitutional cancer I referred to with regard to the spending power, but all the efforts to limit the federal government's spending power were killed by the members across the way.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to mention to the House that the agency of which I am responsible is no longer known as the Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec, but as the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion brought forward by our colleagues from the Bloc, a motion which, once again, if one analyses it—and it need not be a thorough analysis—is designed essentially to deceive the people of Quebec and to launch a constitutional debate on a fundamental issue. Moreover, the Bloc wants to do that at the expense of future generations, of students who, tomorrow, will form the Canadian society that we are building today.

This motion talks about the Canadian millennium scholarship fund as well as national testing in education. Let us begin with the Canadian millennium scholarship fund.

I think that not only is the government making a noble effort, but its vision is also extremely noble. On the eve of the next millennium, we had the opportunity to invest in infrastructure projects, which are strictly brick and mortar projects. It is not that these projects are not important, but we also had the opportunity to invest in future generations to ensure that Canada can enter the 21st century with pride, knowing that our young people are well equipped to face the new challenges that lie ahead.

These challenges are legion. First of all, we have to prepare our young people and give them the tools they need to compete in the knowledge based economy. Secondly, there is the issue of globalization. Obviously, this is no longer a utopian concept, no longer hypothetical. Globalization has come to our society, to all of our communities. Whether we live in the regions or in large urban centres, we must all position ourselves to face the new realities.

When we talk about the millennium scholarship fund, we talk basically about a vision, about giving our young people the tools they need to deal with the new realities of the 21st century.

Similarly, the strategy outlined in the budget of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is aimed at giving all Canadians equal opportunities and access to continuing education.

We are taking measures to support the provinces. As we know, education is a provincial jurisdiction and the budget measures are intended to support the provinces in areas related to education but which also come under the responsibility of the federal government. We want all Canadians to benefit from the educational resources made available to them by all the provinces, including Quebec.

Members across the way say that the millennium scholarship fund is an intrusion in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Let us take a closer look at this fund.

The purpose of the fund, which amounts to $2.5 billion over 10 years, is to enhance learning opportunities. Each year, some 100,000 Canadians will benefit from this fund and enjoy better access to post-secondary education.

An equally important aspect is the fact that the government has set up the fund so as to promote co-operation with the provinces and avoid any form of duplication. What does that mean? It means that basically we have created an independent foundation based on partnership. The members of this foundation will come from all walks of life. The mandate given to them by the government is to hold consultations.

They will, of course, consult the private sector, the academic community and above all the student population, which is the most directly concerned.

Members who say that the foundation will be encroaching on provincial jurisdictions do not know what they are talking about, for, at this time, the plans call for a foundation whose board of directors will hold consultations and establish procedures based on rules which have yet to be defined.

Another important fact is that the mandate of the foundation gives it enough flexibility to conclude agreements with the provinces. This means that ultimately the foundation could use all the channels put in place by the provinces.

Let us take Quebec, for example. If memory serves, the province opted out in 1964 and implemented its own scholarships program. Since then, it has added a process for analyzing students' needs.

The way the foundation is set up, it could use the channels put in place by Quebec to avoid any duplication.

My question is very simple. If, as a Bloc member just mentioned, they do not mind seeing Canadian flags in Quebec, I wonder why they are making such a fuss about the fund, given that its operation will fully respect Quebec's jurisdiction, particularly if it uses the existing channels.

[An hon. member]

Why not to the students?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

The answer is very simple.

Earlier, someone spoke about a contagious disease spreading on this side of the House. I must say that, across the aisle, in particular amongst Bloc members, an illness is also spreading—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

But it is not contagious.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

No, thank God, it is not contagious. It is not a contagious disease in the sense that the type of nationalism they have developed is not shared by everyone in the province of Quebec. Theirs is basically a doctrinaire nationalism intent on getting Quebec to break away.

This nationalism is ultimately designed to divide, divide the country and divide the Quebec people among themselves, which is an aberration. On the other hand, the type of nationalism that we on our side advocate is one which includes all Quebeckers and is designed to ensure that it can have an impact both domestically, within the Canadian federation, and internationally.

I will conclude, as I can see that time is quickly running out. The issue of national testing was raised. There again, I think they cannot distinguish between facts and their dreams, aspirations and even fantasies. All they are trying to do is to make sure the system does not work. The Canadian government is blamed left and right for all that is going wrong in the world.

In education, regarding national testing, we do not want to establish national tests. That is a totally false statement. We want to accentuate co-operation between the provinces in developing tools of comparison, which will contribute not to standardizing but to adjusting their education systems, ultimately to provide better education for their students, who are the next generations.

In closing, I think that, with respect to the Canada millennium scholarship fund in particular, the Canadian government has done an outstanding job. The work accomplished by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is meeting today with his provincial counterparts, is also praiseworthy as it is designed to strengthen the Canadian social union, and this is a fine effort.

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

Madam Speaker, the secretary of state surprises me. We must not forget that this is the secretary of state responsible for regional development in Quebec. He wants to know right off who initiated the debate and how such a motion came to be made.

We moved it, because the federal government initiated it by bringing in the millennium fund, which intervenes directly in the education sector. The federal government does not recognize its own Constitution. This is the first thing we can say about such remarks.

The second thing concerns the minister himself. I find it shameful that the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec is promoting the millennium scholarships instead of returning the money through transfer payments. Our regional education networks—the University of Quebec campuses in Rimouski, Lac-Saint-Jean and Abitibi and cegeps throughout Quebec—are being strangled by the federal cuts. For every dollar cut by the Government of Quebec in health care and education, 75 cents comes from the federal government.

How can this minister, responsible for regional development in Quebec, rise and tell us that it is better for his government to put money into the millennium scholarships and let Quebec's educational institutions shrivel and do so in the knowledge that it will threaten the situation in Quebec and deny the province vital strategic advantages? I have great difficulty understanding the minister's position.

For my last point, I will use his own words. He talks about Bloc Quebecois members, who may or may not be contagious. I say that we were quite infectious, because our position was caught by Alain Dubuc, the editorialist of La Presse , the spokesperson for all of the university rectors throughout Quebec, and the Liberal Party of Quebec. You are familiar with this party. It is the federalist party that hopes to again form the government in Quebec and is asking you the same questions we are. The Quebec Liberals are telling you this, as are all the economic stakeholders in Quebec.

I will conclude my remarks here. I wonder whether the secretary of state responsible for regional development is not contradicting himself in opposing the consensus of Quebeckers, which, in this House, is expressed by the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is interesting about the members of the Bloc Quebecois is that, when they are told the truth in a very rational way, they themselves become irrational. You just saw my colleague opposite; he really seemed to be at a loss for words.

In fact, that is typical of the reaction members of the Bloc have each time my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, speaks very calmly and very rationally about fundamental issues. Unable to respond to these sound arguments, the members opposite become completely irrational.

However, the member made an interesting point. I want all Canadians to understand, particularly in Quebec, that the Canadian government is indeed involved in the areas of post-secondary education, health, assistance to student and welfare through the Canada health and social transfer, which was reformed when we came to power in 1993. This transfer allows us to maintain a good standard of living everywhere in Canada.

Furthermore, it is interesting to see that, the more we tell the truth, the more the members opposite raise their voices. It is also important to note that, when we were re-elected last year, one of the first things we did was to increase the CHST, to increase transfers to the provinces following a request that was made to that effect.

We have been hearing nasty things from the opposition. If the members of the Bloc are serious and they are really making this a jurisdictional battle, based on what I said earlier, the foundation could be expected to use the channels already put in place by the province of Quebec for student loans—which means that it would respect Quebec's jurisdiction.

Why then are they so upset? Only because they do not want to have a federal presence in Quebec. When people see the benefits of the federal presence in Quebec, it threatens the Bloc's wonderful dream of separation, which is not shared by all Quebeckers.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad we have an opportunity to talk about education for young people in Canada in terms of what the government has and has not done and what the federal government should and should not do.

The Reform Party has had a longstanding and strong commitment to education for Canadians, to retraining for older Canadians and to post-secondary education for younger Canadians. The 1993 election was the first federal election we participated in on a national basis.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry but it is very difficult for me to speak with the noise in the House. Could I ask for the co-operation of hon. members.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Yes, the member is quite right. She has a right to be heard. Therefore, I will ask all members to show a little respect.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to check for quorum because I do not see any Liberals in the House and I am not sure there is a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We will check for quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, Reform has consistently affirmed the critical importance of education to Canadians and to Canadian society. During the 1993 election campaign, even though we knew there was a huge deficit, that we were running in the red, we campaigned on no cuts at all to education and health. Even though the Conservative government had put us far into the red, we knew those were programs that had to maintain support.

During the last election we campaigned on restoring some of the terrible cuts to education and health care made by the Liberals. Our commitment to education has been strong and consistent and will continue to be.

I will read from the Reform policy on education. The Reform policy believes that the federal government should: one, transfer the funding of post-secondary education to the provinces; two, promote and stimulate research and educational excellence in the national interest through public and private research grants; and three, institute a federally funded income contingent loan plan that is as near to being interest free to students as is possible.

Our policy also states that the Reform Party supports national standards in all levels of education and apprenticeships.

Through co-operative interprovincial agreements, the federal government should foster: one, the development of national standards in education and vocational training; two, stronger partnerships among higher education institutions, professional associations and public authorities, business and other organizations that have a stake in the quality of higher education and research; and three, internationalization in post-secondary education, because of course we operate in a global society.

I would like to put on the record and say to Canadians watching this debate today that education is a very, very critical issue for our country. Reform has very strong and vigorous policies to make sure that we do not slip behind in this important area of Canadian life.

I also have a few words to say about the Reform position on respecting provincial jurisdiction. Section 93 of the Constitution states that in and for each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education. We believe that the Constitution means something and that the framework for how our country should operate should be respected. The Reform Party respects the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces in relation to education.

Reform has put forward an alternative vision to unify our country. It is an alternative to the status quo federalism that has brought the present instability into place. It is an alternative to the separatists just giving up on the country. It is an alternative that says let us give the powers to the provinces that would allow each province to best take advantage of and manage the unique opportunities and needs of that individual province.

The reason we have put forward this alternative vision is that our country needs the kind of flexibility we have been talking about. We need to respect provincial jurisdiction in the area of education.

The Liberal record in the whole area of education is not a happy one. In fact it is a tragic record. It is a record of slashing and burning and destroying the strength and stability of this country's educational institutions.

In the last four years the Liberals have cut $7 billion from essential transfers to support post-secondary education. We know the tragic results of the Liberal gutting of this important area of Canadian society: difficult and limited access to post-secondary education; high student debt; and real fear and concern among young Canadians about getting a proper education.

The Liberals have also slashed support for essential research that is carried out by our educational institutions. Medical research alone, much of which is carried out at our universities, has been cut 13% by the Liberals since 1995.

Because the Liberals are so insatiable for money, they are now forcing students with part time jobs or summer jobs to pay into the EI system even though they cannot collect a dime. They are taking money from students who desperately need it for their education to put into an already bloated surplus in the EI fund.

The Liberals have continued with high taxation and debt policies which have led to a 16.5% unemployment rate for youth. Our students are not only struggling to get an education, but even if they do manage to get one, they are also very fearful about building any kind of future.

The Liberals are heavily taxing training programs that are provided to older Canadians by companies and businesses. They call them a taxable benefit rather than encouraging this kind of training and retraining. This tragic record of this government is certainly deserving of censure and in that I think all members of the House should concur.

There is an interesting development which began in 1967 called the Council of Ministers of Education. It is a good example of provincial partnerships where all ministers of education in the country, from all the provinces and territories, meet regularly on a co-operative basis. They began to give national tests in 1989. I notice that the Bloc motion talks about national tests. I would like to say a few words about that.

In 1994 the federal government helped the Council of Ministers of Education with their national testing program to the tune of $1.5 million. I guess the Bloc does not like that kind of help by the federal government since they are condemning this kind of action, but the Quebec Minister of Education is very much in favour of this kind of testing. She is a member of the Council of Ministers of Education and was present in 1993 to approve something called the Victoria declaration.

Allow me to quote from the declaration, which was approved by Quebec's provincial government along with all the other provincial and territorial governments. “We are placing a priority on the following activities”, one of which is “a new joint Council of Ministers of Education and Statistics Canada”, a federal institution project to develop pan-Canadian indicators of education performance, including such measurements as completion rates for all levels of education, successful transition to work and student, educator and public satisfaction”. The CMEC also operates a Canadian information centre for international credentials in collaboration with the federal government.

My point is that the Bloc would have us say that the federal government has absolutely no legitimate role in the area of education. I do not believe this is the case. The federal government should ensure secure funding for education, should make sure we have strong research grants, should use its resources in assisting the setting of national standards, should facilitate and work together for partnerships with business and industry, professional associations and international bodies.

I believe that the Bloc motion is misguided. Certainly the federal government has badly fumbled the ball in the whole area of education but it does have a role to play. That should be strengthened and made better, not done away with altogether.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, it was very sad when the Reform member said that the record of the government is a tragedy in terms of post-secondary education when she spoke of the research cut and so on. If we had followed what the Reform Party suggested back to when we started in 1993, that would be a tragedy.

It is known that we had to share in the reduction of the deficit, and for that Canadians did sacrifice. Now that we have achieved a balanced budget, why can Reform not acknowledge that the millennium fund is truly a breakthrough budget as the president of Canadian universities and colleges has said? Why can Reform not acknowledge that such funding has been increased with the present budget? Why do they continue to dwell on the past when the present is already in progress? The member is smiling. I hope that is a smile of approval.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a smile of disbelief. It is very sad to have to point out the government's record in the area of education. Its recent past slashing and burning of funding for education and research is a fact. The Liberals have now given back a few pennies and want to forget about the slashing and burning of the past. That is not going to happen because students and Canadians who are in training deserve better than that. This millennium scholarship fund is something that does deserve to be talked about. I wish I had time.

The Liberals are trying to gloss over the fact that they have cut $7 billion from health care and post-secondary education and are replacing it with $325 million a year next millennium, not even now. Also, this money will help only 6% of students in Canada. The other 94% will go without any assistance.

The Liberals talk about a millennium scholarship fund, which is really about the Prime Minister using taxpayers' dollars to boost his own profile and not about helping students, deserves nothing more than being treated as a joke because that is what it is for students.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the speech made by my colleague from the Reform Party. There were things in there with which I more or less agree, but something made me jump from my seat.

She said that the federal government should perhaps establish national standards but that the private sector should also establish standards in education. What kinds of standards could the private sector set in philosophy, history, literature and certain areas of social studies?

I am under the impression that we no longer live in a country where decisions are made by the elected members, and that we will soon find ourselves with a board of directors instead of a parliament. In the end, we will not be citizens any more, but mere consumers. Those of us who are not fit for business will not be fit for anyone. At some point, I think we will have to come back to more human values so that we have not only consumers but also citizens in this country.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting what other people sometimes hear when you talk. I am happy that the member has given me a chance to correct a misconception that he obviously has about my speech.

I said that the federal government should assist with co-operative initiatives between business, educational institutions, industry, professional associations and international bodies in setting standards for our workers. That does not mean that the private sector alone should be setting standards.

It does mean that we need to have their input because in the private sector there are organizations that utilize the skills and abilities that we gain from our educational experiences. We need to know from the private sector who does the hiring and firing: what do you need, what skill sets are appropriate, what are you willing to pay for, what will give our workers good jobs with good incomes and therefore some future security. The private sector input is critical but that does not mean it should be given exclusive jurisdiction in setting standards. If the member got that impression, of course that is incorrect.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today as the education critic for the NDP to present our party's views on this motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois in their opposition day motion.

First, the NDP sympathizes with the frustrations that are expressed in this motion that we are debating today in the House. I think there is a great sense of frustration not just from the Bloc but also from other political parties, and more important from the people of Canada and from students who have been affected by a very great crisis in post-secondary education in terms of how the announcements were made about this millennium fund.

We have to recognize that the millennium fund that has been the showpiece of the Liberal budget was announced with absolutely no consultation. There was no consultation with the provinces. There was not consultation with professionals nor with students in the post-secondary educational field. This announcement came out of the blue after the throne speech, allegedly from the Prime Minister as his legacy to his term in political office. We have to ask the question, is that any way for the government to do its business?

I heard a member from the government ask earlier why is the opposition shouting so loud about this motion and about the millennium fund?

Opposition members, certainly those in the NDP, are shouting loud because we understand that the millennium fund has more to do with political grandstanding, has more to do with political image making, than it does with solving the very deep crisis that we have surrounding post-secondary education in Canada.

The millennium fund was announced to stave off the severe and growing criticism that has come from students, academics and our post-secondary educational facilities because of the crisis that we have.

Let us talk a bit about the funding.

We have heard that this fund will be $2.5 billion. That sounds to me like an enormous amount of money. I cannot even visualize what $2.5 billion looks like. However, I do understand this. By the time this fund begins in the year 2000, we will have lost $3.1 billion from post-secondary education. The $2.5 billion will only begin, over a 10 year period, at $250 million a year.

We really have to put this into context and understand that because of what the Liberal governments have bled from the system, their slash and burn approach to post-secondary education, we have lost billions of dollars. This announcement of $2.5 billion does not come anywhere close to replacing what has been taken from the system.

The figures are well known. The millennium fund will help approximately 7% of Canadian students. We are talking about 100,000 students a year. What is more serious is that the choice the government made to hand out cheques to students will not address the systemic problem which we have in post-secondary education.

The millennium fund and the other measures which were announced will not decrease tuition fees or set the stage to ensure that tuition fees will remain stable. What the government chose to do was to help in a very small way students who are facing an increasing debt load without increasing funding by way of transfers to the provinces.

The other question which needs to be addressed is that we still do not know whether the millennium fund will be a needs-based program or whether it will be a scholarship program. Every indication is that it will be a program based on scholarship. Again this is a mistargeted, misdirected program which does not address the key issue of students who are in financial need because of skyrocketing tuition fees which are a direct result of lack of government funding.

Another concern which we have in our party, and certainly one which I have heard from students in my riding of Vancouver East, is over the complexity of the system. A whole new level of grants or scholarships is being put into place. It is a privately run foundation. I pity the poor student who has to figure out what it is they are able to access, even if it is a few hundred dollars, under the new system.

The concern which I believe is the most serious is that the government has set up a private foundation to administer the millennium fund. It has already been stated that the president or the chair of the new foundation will be the CEO of Chrysler Canada. I believe there is a real danger that this government is taking us down the slippery slope of privatization and corporatization of post-secondary education.

The government should have restored public funding and public confidence to these facilities, to the universities, colleges and technical institutions which are crying out due to the lack of provincial funding caused by the lack of federal funding.

What we now have is a privatized foundation which will be setting the direction, the criteria and the rules which we will not be privy to. We have no idea what they will be. They will be left to the private foundation to decide and there will be a creeping and growing corporate influence.

Members of our party have listened very carefully to what students and academics in the educational community have said in Canada. We have been listening. I want to ask the government why it has not been listening. The message from students and others in the field has been loud and clear. In fact, the leadership which has been shown by organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Students and provincial education ministers has been loud and clear. The Liberal government has turned a deaf ear to the pleas which have come from that community.

What we needed to see and what we wanted to see was national standards in terms of the budget and a new era for post-secondary education. We believe that passionately in the NDP. We need a federal government that is willing to work co-operatively with the provincial and territorial jurisdictions, including the people of Quebec and the Government of Quebec.

We must have a new national standard for accessibility in post-secondary education. That is something the government has not been willing to canvass. It has not been willing to sit down at the table to work out a co-operative and collaborative approach with provincial jurisdictions or to say that federal money will be tied to accessibility for students to ensure they have access whether they are low income or are affluent.

Right now the tragedy is that basically education is no longer a right. It has become a privilege only for those who have the affluence and the means to afford it.

We would also want to see put forward a tuition freeze. In my province of British Columbia the provincial government has shown leadership for the third year in a row with a tuition freeze. We have called on the federal government to work with the provinces to show that same kind of leadership.

The measures announced in the millennium fund will in no way provide stabilization for tuition fees. We will continue to see them skyrocket.

We have called, students have called and others in the field have called for a national grants program. This is something that we expect to see from the federal government in terms of vision and leadership. It would not be a private foundation but a national grants program in co-operation with the provinces.

The students of Canada and others have been demanding an adequate level of funding. It is scandalous that, despite all the claims by the Liberal government, program spending in the federal budget has actually decreased from $106.5 billion to $104 billion. By the year 2000 we will have lost over $3 billion from post-secondary education.

The students of Canada need help today. They need provincial governments including the province of Quebec working with other provincial governments and the federal government and showing leadership to provide assistance to young people and to ensure accessibility for students. Regrettably the evidence is clear that the latest measures by the Liberal government are not taking us in that direction. They are taking us in the direction of privatization and corporatization of our publicly funded post-secondary education system.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate carefully. I heard the member talk about the $7 billion being taken out of post-secondary education, which is absolute nonsense. She is talking about the CHST which includes post-secondary health care as well as social services.

They are also only talking about the cash component. If they included the tax points seconded to the provinces, the tax points increase in value over that same period is probably in the neighbourhood of $3.5 billion on a net basis. They are simply wrong in the numbers.

As a precise example in the province of Ontario alone the reduction of the transfers to the province of Ontario was only $850 million, whereas the province of Ontario reduced income taxes at a cost to the coffers of $4.3 billion.

Provincial priorities seem to be something other than health care or education. They seem to be totally out of line with the priorities of Canadians.

The member also raised an issue when she talked about freezing tuition. Tuition is a provincial jurisdiction. I do not know whether the federal government can be blamed for all the decisions of the provincial government. She clearly stated that we do not know what the millennium scholarship is all about. She said directly that it was for scholarships. That is not true. I looked in The Budget Plan 1998 document where it says that scholarships will be awarded to individuals who need help in financing their studies and demonstrate merit. Clearly some merit has to be established so that students will be successful in undertaking post-secondary education, but the principal element also includes the basis of need.

The issue for the member seems to be tuition based, whereas the whole discussion with regard to the Canadian millennium scholarship fund concerns accessibility. I know her colleague who sits nearby has confirmed the issue is not tuition and student loans. It is accessibility for those Canadians who do not even have the opportunity to go to school.

Would the member at least concede that we cannot, in a year that we finally balance the budget, turn on the taps and do absolutely everything we would like to do?

Rather, we should at least start the process of investment where Canadians can be assured the education of our youth is one of the most important investments we can make for the future of Canada. Accessibility is an important priority. The millennium scholarship fund is dealing directly with the accessibility issue.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am astounded that the member and the government try to defend the numbers, the billions of cut dollars, whether we talk about education, social programs or a health care system.

The government has no credibility to debate this point. It can throw mud at provincial governments and say that they are at fault. The record shows that because of the dehabilitating demise of funding for these programs, particularly education, we are now in the crisis we are in.

The member says that somehow the millennium fund should be based on merit, that this is a legitimate issue. I remind the hon. member that what he read from his own material was merit. If students are in post-secondary education they have already gone through that test. They have already gone through the entrance requirement and demonstrated that they have the merit to be there.

The issue the government has to tackle is the issue of financial need. To set up another scholarship program, another merit program, is a totally misdirected political grandstanding exercise.