Debates of March 12th, 1998

Supply

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, the resolution reads:

That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as the introduction of the millennium fund scholarship program or national testing.

Our caucus will be voting against it. In the beginning I must say that I agree almost completely with the member for Vancouver East who just spoke. She sort of put the problem with students in perspective. We will be voting against the motion for three or four reasons. However, in reality there is only one reason and that is students.

There is a crisis in student education, student debt loads, student access to employment and educated students who are leaving the country. Any parent or any student realizes that students in this modern age require the best education that is humanly possible to achieve and receive.

That is simply not happening in Canada any more. Somewhere down the road there will be significant problems with our economy, with our society and with our social structure because we have not allowed as many people to become educated to their limit as should have happened in this industrial age, this information age and beyond.

There are supposedly 50,000 high tech jobs that we cannot fill. The Government of Canada actually changes the immigration laws to allow people to come into our country to fill those jobs. At the same time 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed. Of those 1.5 million Canadians, over 400,000 are young people below the age of 25. That is a very significant problem and a real shame. On the one hand we have people who are unemployed and on the other hand we have jobs that go unfilled by Canadian people.

We also have the problem of education. That is where the correlation comes in. Why do we have jobs unfilled and people unemployed? It is because we do not have the high level of education these people absolutely require. There is a direct correclation between employment and education. This is why we have, especially with our youth, an unemployment rate of 18% and over every single day, every single month in every single year in Canada.

Since the government took office we have had an unemployment rate for youth in excess of 18% on average. If we break down the averages and take a look at what the unemployment rate is for the uneducated, we will probably see that for those with less than high school the unemployment rate is in excess of 40% every day, every month in every year.

Education is obviously the means to an end to make the country strong, to allow us to export and to allow us to conduct research and development. We cannot do that with an uneducated populace.

The problem is so huge that it requires all participants to be involved and to co-operate. When I say all participants, I mean first and foremost the students themselves who must realize the value of an education and what they can contribute to themselves, their families and the country if they are educated.

Parents of all students must be involved and must realize that the best thing they can do for their children is to encourage them in all ways possible to get the best education.

It is also a case where our universities, vocational, trade and technical schools and private schools have to make education as accessible as possible, which means keeping tuition fees under control and providing good research opportunities. It also means provincial governments have to be involved in a very aggressive and meaningful way to make sure that our students are educated to the very best of their individual abilities.

We are voting against the resolution. The Government of Canada has to be involved in showing leadership by supplying funding to make sure that Canada and Canadian citizens, especially those in the weaker financial provinces like Newfoundland, have equal opportunity with every other province of Canada. It should be a joint partnership of students, parents, institutions, provinces and the federal government to try to solve this terrible sickness that has overtaken our education system.

The real reason we are voting against the motion is that we do not think any government or any political party should deny access to funding for students simply because of jurisdictional disputes. The problem is too grave. I sincerely doubt if any parent in Newfoundland, British Columbia or Quebec would turn down lower tuition rates or a scholarship for one of their children if it makes education more accessible and more financially available.

The student situation, as I say, is by far the most pertinent. However funding of post-secondary education has always been a joint venture between the Government of Canada and the provinces. This is not something new.

Nobody in the House would deny that education is and always has been a provincial responsibility. The direction of education within the provinces, the setting of policies and the choosing of curricula are all provincial responsibilities with which we fully agree. We have no intention of encouraging the Government of Canada to interfere in any way with the rights of the provinces to deliver the education system that the people and the government of a province put in place.

I am from the province of Newfoundland and represent St. John's West. I do not see it as a federalist plot to destroy the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador if a cheque comes to a student attending one of our schools that is flying a Canadian flag. We see it as a case where the federal government has a responsibility and if it has the financial wherewithal we will happily take its contributions if it allows more of our students to be educated.

I have a couple of other reasons. We have problems with the millennium fund, but I acknowledge the finance minister's budget at least began to address the problem.

We do not think the millennium fund was the way to do it but I will give credit to the finance minister for identifying in the budget that there is a huge problem in post-secondary education in the country, and at least by recognizing it hopefully he will address it.

I will also give great credit to the student groups of this country who have put significant pressure on all levels of government and all politicians to try to somehow address this very serious problem of the cost of education.

We agree there are serious problems with the millennium fund. The $2.5 billion will not be refused by any of the students in Canada but the real problem of advanced education is the fact that there is tremendous debtload today. We have 1.5 million students in this country and many of them have never worked a day in their lives except for part time work. This means 1.5 million young Canadians owe $7 billion. They will spend most of the next 20 years or 25 years trying to repay it.

We think that is the sickness of the Canadian post-secondary education system. It is the reason why we think the federal government should be involved. Somehow we have to make education both accessible and affordable.

The federal government must take responsibility because it has caused this crisis in education by unilaterally cutting back to the provinces on transfers to education and social programs. The cutbacks amount to 37% or well over $6 billion to education and health care in the last five years. It is a shame because it has simply transferred the tax burden from the federal government which has balanced its books to the provinces which cannot balance theirs. The provinces pass it on to universities, and universities and schools pass it on to students, and students in many cases pass it on to their parents.

There is a very serious problem with our post-secondary situation and the only way to deal with it is to put more money into the system.

We are also against any unilateral action by the federal government. I want to make that absolutely clear to my colleagues from the province of Quebec.

Unilateral action by the federal government is what got us into so much trouble with both health and education. We are not saying, even in the area of national testing, that there should be unilateral action. Our party has recommended it because we see it as a tremendous need for the country to know where our students stack up, whether they are from Newfoundland, Quebec or B.C., and where Canadian students stack up against those from Sweden, the U.S. and other countries with which we compete.

We are against unilateral action but we are very strongly in favour of co-operation among all the agencies, including the federal government which has leadership and the financial wherewithal to try to resolve the problem of the post-secondary education system in Canada. For those reasons we will be voting against the motion.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague began by suggesting he agreed with some of the comments of my colleague from Vancouver and I would like to compliment him on his speech. It is always refreshing to see how those of us from the east can clarify the issues in the House.

He did mention the millennium scholarship fund and I would ask him if he would agree with me that by cutting the transfer payments to the provinces for education and then putting a little money in the hands of students what the federal government has really done is make the universities, because they are not getting any increase in funding, compete against each other for the bit of money that will go into the hands of the students.

Consequently universities like Memorial in Newfoundland may end up competing against universities like the University College of Cape Breton in my own riding for the same student base, watering down what they can offer students and losing some of the excellent programs they already have.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree. There is now getting to be tremendous competition among universities and even among private schools for the limited amount of funding available.

What the Minister of Finance did was realize there is a tremendous sickness or malaise in the post-secondary system. It is like going to the hospital when you have a brain tumour and a wart on your nose. The Minister of Finance does a little cosmetic surgery, takes the wart off your nose and sends you home while saying you are healthy. In effect you are not healthy, you still have the brain tumour.

The problem of Canadian student debt and accessibility still remains. It has not been dealt with and until it is dealt with we are going to have some significant problems.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wish the member for Vancouver East were here because my questions refer to her as well as to the previous speaker from the Progressive Conservative Party. We are talking about a millennium fund that has gained a lot of publicity. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that it is kind of like putting the problems mentioned by my hon. friend from the Conservative Party on the back burner.

The information I am getting from students in my province is that devising the millennium fund was politically motivated. This is a politically motivated fund which does not kick in for three years and already has a politically appointed selection board. Does the member think it is possible that in this whole process of it growing politically the recipients will somehow be affected politically?

Does the member not see that as a direct possibility? I am sure the member for Vancouver East would agree that is a direct possibility.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I agree it is very politically motivated. The student groups we spoke with prior to the budget debate could not understand why there was all this talk about the millennium scholarship. To direct two and a half billion dollars toward scholarships somewhere down the road will at most help 100,000 students or 7% of the total. That is great but there will still be a million and a half students in this country with very serious debt problems. We thought the money could be directed in a different way.

Our members and the members of the Bloc have a right to be suspicious of some of the things the Liberal Party does. There is no question that it can manipulate and finagle any program available. When the Liberal Party of Canada is going to appoint this board I suspect that along the way it will be like the recent Senate appointments. Along the way it might be a little easier to get a scholarship if you are the son or daughter of a prominent Liberal than if you are not. Do not be at all surprised if it happens because that is the way this thing goes on.

I still think the millennium scholarship is not what it could have been. With two and a half billion in taxpayer dollars, all of our dollars, an awful lot more good could have been done. The government could have wiped out close to 50% of all student debt for the one and a half million students in school today with that two and a half billion dollars.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont.

The motion by the Bloc member reads as follows:

That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program or national testing.

In moving this motion today, Bloc Quebecois members want to find out whether the federal government still views education as an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. If it opposes the motion, the government will once again show its true colours, providing proof positive that, in creating the millennium scholarship fund, it is interfering in provincial jurisdictions.

The federal government is using the fund as an excuse to barge into education, an exclusively provincial jurisdiction, uninvited.

The government is obviously not helping Quebec reduce student indebtedness or fund universities and post-secondary educational institutions. It is just after additional visibility. It is obvious to everyone that this program runs directly counter to Quebec's.

We already know that the fund was dreamt up by the Prime Minister and that even his most influential ministers could not persuade him to change his mind. I think that the term ego trip says it all.

One has to wonder whether the Prime Minister is prepared to put everything on the line just so he will have a place in Canadian history books. I can tell the House that his latest whim will be written up something like this:

Shawinigan, 1934; destroyer of Canadian unity, henchman to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and king of federalist propaganda. His last act as Prime Minister of Canada was to create the millennium fund, a huge blunder.

Enough pleasantries. I must now set the record straight, for the year 2000 is right around the corner.

I would like the Prime Minister and his government to understand the reality of today's young people. Not all that long ago, I was a student myself. Thanks to the Quebec government's system of loans and bursaries, I was able to get my degree and thus improve my chances of a job.

Needless to say, I still have debts, but I am nonetheless far better off than many others, because I am working. My purpose in saying all this is to point out that debt is the main concern of students.

So when the government refers to scholarships based on some criterion of excellence, it is obvious that it is way out in left field. But that is excusable, because it has not been tuned in to the reality of the people of Quebec for a long time—if ever it was, that is.

All the Prime Minister's predecessors agreed that education ought to be administered by the provinces. Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau, not a sovereignist, or at least never an avowed one so far, said the following back in 1957, in connection with government intrusion into education: “We are entitled to suspect the federal gifts of being in bad faith—which is insulting for the provinces—and contrary to the principles of representative democracy”.

If the federal government really wants to help young people, and in particular to ensure them of a future, thus reducing their debt load, why does it not try to create jobs for young people? One more promise we will never see kept. My generation has had its fill of empty promises.

Young people are not fools. They do not want to turn down generosity, no matter where it comes from. But as the president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec so aptly put it, “The greatest possible number of students must be reached, and the system best placed to meet that objective is the Quebec student aid system”.

I will repeat his words more slowly, so that the Prime Minister and his colleagues can grasp them fully: “The greatest possible number of students must be reached, and the system best placed to meet that objective is the Quebec student aid system”.

In a federation, whether it qualifies itself as renewed federalism or not, where education is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction, the situation becomes complicated. This time, the big bad separatists cannot be blamed because even the other provinces do not agree with the eligibility criteria. The government might be well advised to listen. Worse yet, to be sure Quebec would not withdraw from the millennium scholarship program, the federal government went as far as creating an independent foundation. It smacks of bad faith and is oddly similar to Option Canada. I wonder if students will receive their check even before they apply for it. As far as I am concerned—and there are many others like me—this is clearly another federal propaganda trick played on the back of students.

Would it not have been preferable to help institutions or simply transfer the money to the provinces? Oh, no. What the federal government wants is uniformity from coast to coast, wrapped in the Canadian flag.

For my part, I see it as provocation. The Quebec people is getting used to provocative manoeuvres on the part of the federal government, but enough is enough. This operation seduction does not take into account the root cause of the problem, namely the massive cuts in transfer payments.

The government claims it had to make choices according to priorities. Its own priorities. Does its millennium scholarships fund mean that encroachment in a field of provincial jurisdiction is one of its priorities? What happened to its commitment to create jobs and fight against poverty?

If the budget reflects the government's priorities, does it mean that women are not a priority? I must remind the government that women were unanimous in asking for an increase in the Women's Program budget. But I forgot, this government's priorities are areas of provincial jurisdiction, however the Women's Program is a federal program. What a pity!

I would like to add that students did not ask for such a program. What they demanded was for transfer payments to the provinces to be restored at the level they were before the finance minister hacked them out.

Why not listen to people's demands instead of catering to the Prime Minister's whim? I can hardly wait for the day.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with the rhetoric because, fundamentally, the most important thing is to ensure that we can reduce student debt loads. We are in a knowledge and information era and the important thing is indeed to ensure that we can establish an opportunities strategy. Therefore, we are not dealing with skills, but with accessibility.

I have a few short questions for the member. First, does she think that the loans and grants system is exclusively provincial? I already have the answer, but I want to see if she knows it.

Second, does she think it would be appropriate for Lucien Bouchard to go around trying to play politics with a bunch of cheques with the Quebec flag on them when 90 per cent of that money would come from the federal government? Does she not agree that her first priority is not the students, but in fact ensuring that Quebec's separation is promoted once again?

If she believes we should work toward reducing student debt loads and for greater accessibility, why does not she support the government in its millennium fund initiative? The very day it was announced, we saw what students thought of it, not people who have titles or who have infiltrated the system because of the separatists. What did students say? “We are not interested in the squabbles of Pauline Marois and others”. What are they interested in? In having access to that scholarship. They even asked unanimously that we stop this petty rhetoric because they agree with us on the scholarship issue. I would like to know what the member thinks about all this.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of true demagogy, this beats everything. I guess the hon. member for Bourassa longs to become Minister of Education.

[An hon. member]

That's right, at the federal level.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

I hope it will not be at the federal level. At least not as long as the Bloc Quebecois is here.

I want to remind the hon. member for Bourassa of what the editorial writer for La Presse , Alain Dubuc, who must not be a sovereignist, had to say: “This does not justify the reflex, the paternalistic approach of those who say that Ottawa would do better in a field it does not know anything about”. I do not think Mr. Dubuc is a sovereignist. I can quote many other people who do not agree with this millennium scholarship foundation.

Again, the federal government is totally disconnected and refuses to listen to what the people in the field have to say. It would be nice if the federal government were to listen to what the people tell them. Michel Auger said: “We will do what we have to do to ingratiate us in the eyes of the public in the short term and later we will dump it onto the provinces when it starts to get too costly or less popular”. What does the hon. member for Bourassa think about this?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned youth unemployment.

The member will probably know that for those youth who have a university education the unemployment rate is only about 6.5%. University students pay approximately 30% of the cost of their education, while taxpayers pay the rest. As well, those who have the highest debt are usually those students who are in professional programs, such as dentistry or medicine. When they graduate they will be earning high incomes.

If we go down the list we will see that high school graduates have an unemployment rate of somewhere in the range of 15%. Those who are high school dropouts, about 52% of all unemployed youth, actually have an unemployment rate which approaches 23%.

If the member is really concerned about youth unemployment and how we can attack it, I wonder if she would like to comment on what she thinks the Quebec provincial government—since she wants to say it is provincial jurisdiction—should do about high school dropouts. Quebec has the highest rate of high school dropouts. It is approximately 40%. These people are Canada's poor in waiting. These are the kids who need help. She thinks education is in the provincial jurisdiction. Why does she not think we should do something about addressing the levels of education even prior to post-secondary education?

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I can see that he is also concerned about the unemployment issue. I would like the government to show as much concern and to create jobs, instead of meddling in provincial areas of jurisdiction.

We have nothing against helping young Canadians, quite the opposite, but we do not agree with the way they go about it. So, if the government really wants to act with good intentions, why do they not transfer the money to the provinces, who will see that it is properly managed?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the opposition motion tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, that this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program or national testing.

After all these years, it is deplorable to have to rise in the House to once again remind the government of the consensus among Quebec's stakeholders in the education sector, under the current and past provincial governments, which has served as the basis for what is now called Quebec's traditional demands in the education sector.

I rise today because this government, in its last budget, is getting involved in education, in an area that is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

I rise today because the Liberal Party is proposing to introduce national standards in education.

I also rise today because the federal government is proposing to young Quebeckers solutions that are increasingly centralizing and that are far from addressing their concerns.

I remind you that there is a consensus among all political parties at the Quebec National Assembly, to the effect that the federal government must respect Quebec's jurisdiction over education. Even the former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Daniel Johnson—whose job may be taken over by the current Conservative Party leader—recently expressed his disappointment at the announcement of the millennium scholarship program. On February 24, he said “I would have preferred to see Quebec's jurisdiction and that of the other provinces respected”.

In addition to being an unspeakable intrusion in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, the millennium fund is far from meeting the needs of young Quebeckers.

Allow me to point out some flaws regarding this $2.5 billion fund. The interest on this fund will be used to grant some 100,000 scholarships, of an average amount of $3,000, to low and middle income students who will have satisfied a criterion based on merit.

The first problem is the criteria relating to income and merit. The government should know that students from wealthy families do better, partly because they do not have to worry about finding money to continue their education. It should come as no surprise if scholarships are not awarded in accordance with the initial objective of helping low income students.

This is the reason behind this statement of the Fédération des étudiants et étudiantes universitaires du Québec: “If the federal government intends to give scholarships on the basis of merit or excellence, we can only disapprove. Linking the subsistence of underprivileged students to their academic performance flows from an ideology we cannot endorse”.

There is another fly in the ointment. The millennium fund is being created at a time when the privatization of universities is being discussed more and more. Underlying these privatization suggestions is a strong movement that is putting into question the democratization of higher education.

I would be remiss if I did not deal today with a problem that is getting bigger and bigger in this country that is desperately looking for its own identity. We are witnessing a quest for a Canadian nation at all cost. The notion of two founding peoples has now been excised from federalist utterances.

In the same vein, these staunch proponents of federalism refuse to give any status to aboriginal peoples who have already been recognized as nations in Quebec since the mid-1980s.

Like my colleagues have done, I have taken you through what I call the millennium blunders, and I would like to deal now with national standards in education.

Since 1867, Quebeckers are in a political straitjacket and a system they never had an opportunity to vote on. We are living ever since in a political entity that is ruled by a constitution of another age that was made with different goals in mind.

If we review briefly the main elements of what Quebeckers considered a pact at the time and which is becoming a straitjacket, we notice that the four initial provinces got exclusive power over health care and education. Obviously, this was not done out of any great concern for decentralization, quite the opposite.

The provinces were given responsibility for jurisdictions already occupied by civil society or by the various religious communities, which looked after both education and health services.

Things started to change in the early 1960s I guess. In a very short time, the quiet revolution and the numerous ensuing reforms radically changed the face of education. We went from a denominational system operated by protestant or catholic religious communities to a network of educational institutions established by the government for the stated purpose of improving democracy in education.

I take this brief look back in history today to show that, in Quebec, education is an integral part of our history and our identity as well. This prerogative has always been a provincial jurisdiction, which means that elected members of the Quebec National Assembly have been able to fashion our education system to fulfil the aspirations of their fellow citizens.

Recently, this consensus has fallen into oblivion. We are dealing with a government that does not understand the meaning of traditional demands. According to the morning papers, there is not such thing as traditional demands. Is there such a thing as education? We do not know yet. What we do know is that this government has once again altered the meaning of this expression to directly invade a provincial jurisdiction. In the federal government, education no longer means education, but opportunity.

What opportunity are we talking about here? The opportunity to sign cheques printed with the maple leaf logo for the purpose of scoring political points of course. That is what we were told by a Prime Minister, who was apparently oblivious to the fact he was not making this statement to his pals in his living room but on television in the House of Commons.

This government does not have a monopoly on this centralizing vision of Canada. It is shared by many members of this House. That is why the role played by the Bloc Quebecois is so important.

These people cannot live in a beautiful imaginary Canada united by wonderful national standards any more. These national standards, so heavily criticized in Quebec, were one of the election planks of the member for Sherbrooke, who travelled across his beautiful country to promote them. Why not? This is a very popular theme in the rest of Canada.

The provinces have different levels of education. Not all provincial governments invest equally in education, and the federal government, forgetting about Quebec, may legitimately propose national educational standards to solve that problem.

This is what the hon. member for Sherbrooke did in the election platform that bears his name. He sacrificed Quebec in order to win Canadians over. He forgot about Quebec in order to serve his own interests. Avoiding any hasty judgments on his highly likely running for the leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party, as rumour would have it, let us review the ideas contained in the platform which bears the name “the Jean Charest plan for Canada in the 21st century”.

The following objectives are set out on page 31 of the document. If the party of the hon. member for Sherbrooke is elected, the federal government will pursue “the highest standard in our schools”, “top ten placement in Math and Sciences”, “better accessibility to university” and “better transition from schools to the work force”.

Now we must ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke if the word “schools” in his vocabulary is connected with “education”. And during the next campaign, we will also have to ask him whether he considers university to be part of the Quebec education system.

As for his action plan's reference to the transition between school and work, we need to find out whether this is part of manpower training or of education. If the transition is part of manpower training, the hon. member for Sherbrooke is 30 years behind the times in his knowledge of the Quebec system.

If it is an education issue, along with academic excellence and university, he is more than 125 years behind the times, and would be well advised to reread the constitution before he sets foot in any assembly of the Quebec Liberal Party.

Having referred to the general objectives of the Leader of the Conservative Party, let us now go into greater detail. I will now read a quote that particularly surprised me. On page 33 of the Plan, he says:

A Jean Charest Government will help ensure that all Canadian youth receive the basic knowledge and skills they need for their futures by instituting a Canadian Education Excellence Fund.

Again, the last words are “a Canadian Education Excellence Fund”. We wondered where the Prime Minister got the idea of a millennium scholarship fund. Now we know. He read the platform of the member for Sherbrooke and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

What will this fund be used for? Listen to this: it will provide “matching funds to provinces and territories that participate in establishing interprovincial standards for Common Curricula”. Yes, interprovincial standards and common curricula in education. This excerpt clearly shows that the provinces that will not take part in this beautiful Canada-wide program will simply not be eligible and will not get anything.

In short, the Liberal Party leader and Prime Minister, and the Conservative Party leader have the same objective: to compel and to force Quebec to fit in the Canadian mould. The member for Sherbrooke wants exactly the same thing as the leader opposite, but he refrains from saying so to Quebeckers.

I will conclude by saying—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some people are worried about the next provincial election. They have so little to say about the millennium fund that they are targeting a possible candidate to the Quebec Liberal Party leadership.

Unlike opposition members who keep repeating the same old things, I want to talk about real things. I want to talk about young people, I want to make sure that this budget—

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Interfering is also something very real.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The public understands. Of course Bloc members are not pleased. I did not hear them talk about tax breaks. They are not saying anything about what the Minister of Finance did to give students a tax break.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

What does political interference mean?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

It is the same thing. The millennium fund is part of a strategy to offer equal job opportunities in the future.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

You are off to a bad start as minister.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Watch your back.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We are listening to two young members. I am sorry they are playing politics like the others. It astounds me that they are trying to use the rhetoric of the mother house in Quebec City.

Pauline Marois was probably not impressed with the demonstration yesterday in which 2,000 young people and professors banded together to say, finally, that the Government of Quebec and especially the Quebec department of education were not doing their job.

One thing is sure, people understand the subject is not jurisdiction. We are not getting involved at all in the field of education.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We are talking about accessibility.

Not only that, work—

[Some hon. members]

That is not true.