Debates of March 12th, 1998

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no qualms about it, my own father voted no at the last referendum but he told me the same thing. He said “Stéphan, I will vote no, but if nothing changes, next time I will vote yes”. Everyone said “Things will change. Things will change”. Nothing has changed.

Now, back to the issue. The second thing the minister talked about was the growth rate. Let us talk about it. It is true that we have a good rate of growth at present, and that corporations are making record profits, according to the stock exchange index. There are numerous economic indicators showing that things are going well and it is true. But why are the members opposite creating poverty as never before?

In 1993, there were 1 million children living in poverty in Canada. Now there are 1.5 million. I wonder what mechanisms they want to use to distribute wealth in this country.

When we talk about the efforts of each and every Canadian, we must be cautious. Often, it is the provinces who make the efforts. But there is something else that we do not talk about often enough. I have done some serious research into the financial crisis that countries are going through, like Canada. I believe that countries, and not only Canada, are becoming poorer every day.

Why is it that in the 1950s, the corporate sector paid almost 49% income taxes and that its share has dropped to 7% today?

No wonder citizens have to pay so much tax and income tax. It is because some are not paying their share. Who benefits from economic growth? It is the corporate sector, businesses. I think this warrants serious debate, but it is not the subject of debate today.

As I said earlier, if I came from somewhere else and were listening to the minister's speech, I would think it a fine speech. It is like finding someone hurt on the side of the road and offering a bandaid. A praiseworthy gesture. It takes courage to apply a bandaid, but perhaps it would be an idea to disinfect the wound first.

The Bloc's opposition to the new loans and grants program is not because students should not be helped. We are saying they should be helped efficiently and the most should be made of every dollar invested in education. But what are they doing instead? A system of loans and grants already exists in Quebec. It is one of the most effective in Canada, not according to me but to the president of the Canadian students association. But what are they doing? They are sabotaging that system by cuts in transfer payments to Quebec. And then they cause duplication by setting up another system of loans and grants.

I therefore ask the minister: Where is the co-operation?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the fundamental reason why I decided to go into politics, this co-operation that the minister—

[An hon. member]

He is not a minister yet.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Excuse me. That the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is talking about. You do have a future. That is good. I wish you the best. And we will see if it takes 18 months to adapt.

Essentially, my role within the Canadian government as Minister of Human Resources Development is to redistribute the wealth and to allow Quebeckers, among others, to benefit from a broader Canadian tax base in the area of manpower, which we have transferred to the Quebec government. Even though Quebeckers pay 23% of contributions to the employment insurance fund, the budget that was transferred to Mrs. Harel, in Quebec, represents 31%. That kind of redistribution of wealth is certainly in Quebec's favour.

The same thing applies to the national child benefit. We are helping families in Quebec and we are even giving Mrs. Marois more leeway so she can implement her own family policy in that province.

I am telling you that millennium scholarships will have the same impact. That program will give money to students who want to pursue their education, and it will do so in close co-operation with the Quebec government, who will make the first selection. It will be able to make that selection using its own system of evaluation. It is all written down in the budget.

We remain true to this vision of Canada. I think it is an extremely comforting way of contemplating our future.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite something to follow our Minister of Human Resources Development. He is a most articulate as well as competent spokesperson in the interests of the well-being of transferring wealth in a fair and equitable way across the country, except sometimes I think Quebec gets more than its fair share. Notwithstanding that, as a Quebecker I am pleased to see some improvement in the state of the nation in Quebec.

Let us look at the level of unemployment. The level of unemployment of our young people between 15 and 24 years of age increased from 13% in 1989 to 18.9% in 1996.

That is an increase of nearly 50%. Moreover, young people with a low qualification level are more affected. For example, 56.4% of income security recipients under 30 years of age did not finish high school.

This last fact must be considered in the context of certain data on the evolution of jobs in Quebec according to the education level required. Between 1990 and 1997, data show that the number of jobs requiring a post-secondary or university degree increased by 471,000, whereas the number of jobs requiring a lesser level of education decreased by 384,000.

Let us look at the combination of those figures. There has been a dramatic change in the employment portrait in Quebec for many reasons. We are looking at 855,000 job shifts, 471,000 in the interests of those who have post-secondary education and a loss of 384,000 for those who have not as yet finished their secondary education. There is also a 56.4% dropout rate.

These are figures from Madam Harel with whom I had the pleasure of working at the anniversary of the black community resource centre. We discussed the importance of education and the importance of addressing the changing world of work in which we live.

Young people today need the proper kind of training and advantages so that they can face the new millennium with the newest of skills and the latest of technology at their fingertips. If they do not have that, the potential for no jobs or poor jobs indicates a very sad reality for them. It becomes more and more important to look at what we can do to prepare people through education.

Epidemiologists say that one measures a healthy society in the kind of efforts we put in as a government. It is regardless of which government because basically members on all sides of the House are really interested in the well-being of the people. It is a matter of how the well-being of the people is interpreted.

Our perspective of the well-being of people is we looked at the millennium fund. As the minister so eloquently stated, rather than putting it into bricks and mortar, into fancy designs or houses or buildings, we have decided to invest in our intellectual capital.

We are investing in our young people so that tomorrow they will be able to face the world in a far more constructive and open minded way. They will change jobs two or three times, unlike the situation with my generation where we took a job and we were there for life or until we got our gold watch at 65. Now they will have to look at other options in life.

The millennium scholarships fund is very exciting and dynamic. It is responsive to a changing world. It shows we are a government with a vision which has been building along with governments before it on helping the future of our country. It is your future and my future, your businesses and our businesses. It is extracting from the best the guidelines to the future for our families.

As I listened to much of this debate and the questions, I asked myself what I would think if I were an ordinary citizen in the world. Would I not believe that investing in my children and grandchildren was the most wonderful thing a government can do? Would I not believe if the government plans for the future well-being of our total society by addressing the futures of those young people, that it is investing in our well-being?

Epidemiologists say that a well educated society is a much healthier society. It will reduce the costs of our social services and health services. It will improve the quality of life within our society. That is why the finance minister has ensured a program of quality and worth which is worthy of praise rather than condemnation.

I lived for nine years on the opposition benches. I lived in opposition and I know it is the opposition's task, its job and its responsibility to pick and to criticize. But even when I sat on that side, if something of quality was presented, I found it within my conscience, within my right and within my responsibility to respond to the needs of my electors, that even if I did not want to thank the government, at least not to use the kind of negativism I have been hearing from the other side of the House. It is a shame.

This is one of the most exciting and dynamic approaches we could possibly want for the young people in my riding. It is offering them an incredible scholarship procedure. This is part of the building tool. I hate to make it so mundane as to say it is the icing on the cake but really it is the top of the layers we have been building in the hope for the future.

We should look at the approaches that could lead to a better future for our children and guarantee that we will not have a 56% dropout rate, which is appalling? This will not help anybody in Quebec and is not in our best interests.

I do not care what your political views are or wether you are a man or a woman. The parents of these children do not see a very bright future ahead. These children will have to go elsewhere to get what they need. Perhaps they will turn to drugs or to something else because they do not have a vision of the future.

Young people can be given a chance, particularly those from low and middle income families, by being offered finances. We should ensure that they will be able to get through university training, that they have the qualifications to do it.

We are a city that has a most delightfully exciting cultural mix with bright, intelligent young people who in many instances are unable to look to the future. They do not see being able to afford a post-secondary education whether in college, university or a retraining program.

There is much in the millennium scholarship fund. Hon. members should refer back to what the minister had to say and to the budget books we have seen. In the end, even if they have to stand and cross their fingers because they are in opposition, I am sure they will find it to be an absolutely extraordinary undertaking.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. member for Mount Royal, who is a very wise member of this House, said.

In her comments, the hon. member dared to lecture us, and with good reason. I too feel very uncomfortable with the antics in this House and I agree 200% with the hon. member.

On the other hand, the hon. member for Mount Royal told us to look at the budget and added that it did not make sense in a state like Quebec to have such undereducated children and all the rest. I must tell the hon. member for Mount Royal that I did look at the budget. What was done about family trusts in order to help our poor children? What was done about the tax breaks enjoyed by certain corporations in order to help poor children get a better education? What is being done?

I too would be very uncomfortable to rise in my place and say: “We are doing a lot”. Three thousand dollars a year for some students beginning in the year 2000? That money is needed today, not in 2000. I too would be uncomfortable. I too would be unhappy to pass on messages and blame people. That is not the objective of our debate. The millennium fund does not make sense since it will start only in 2000.

Secondly, we have the necessary tools to manage the money. Why spend money? It should go to the students. They should be given money to go to school, not a meagre $3,000 a year.

I have a question for the hon. member. How will she manage to make more money available to each and every government in Canada? Instead of cutting transfers, how can they give money to these governments so they can help poor people and the middle class?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my sense is that this is an important undertaking. I enjoyed the fact that the Bloc Quebecois decided to use this opportunity to discuss in the House what has been done in the interest of children, youth, and seniors in society.

The government chose to put $2.5 billion in a fund to be administered outside the government by quality leadership and with representation of youth and of the provinces. This was at the request and consideration of the Council of Education Ministers.

Members choose to ignore the tax credits and child programs. We have put $1.7 billion into the enriched child tax credit. We have undertaken to ensure libraries and schools are interconnected with the Internet. Every school will have a co-ordinator. I find it sad that they cannot stand and say they agree because a lot has been done.

First and foremost we have a balanced budget. We have been able to put in order the finances of the nation. It was not an easy task. It was not easy for the population. The people of the country tightened their belts and had less discretionary funds. They contributed to putting the financial house in order.

Once the foundation is there we are able to build without undue cost. We can move to further solidify that foundation and enrich our society through the intellectual property we have with good grace.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise after my Bloc Quebecois colleagues in this debate on a motion moved by my party. The motion reads:

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.

It is no secret that the famous millennium scholarship program announced in the recent Martin budget is a personal initiative of the Prime Minister who would like to draw the attention of historians away from other less glorious deeds of his going back to the Trudeau era.

Well, it seems that he will not make his mark in history books with this program which is being widely condemned by provincial governments.

This comes after his attempt to destabilize the sovereignist movement in Quebec with a Supreme Court referral, a political football he deflated when he said yesterday it was a thing of the past. He was being asked about the eventual designation of the Progressive Conservative Party leader as the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party.

I urge the Prime Minister to re-examine very soon his strategies, like he has done for the Supreme Court referral, and to listen more carefully to what students and their associations are saying in Quebec. They all ask him to do his homework concerning the millennium scholarships.

One of the student federations that have condemned this program is the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec, whose president Nicholas Ducharme said it was no more than an exercise in visibility and a purely political operation.

He goes on to say that the federal government is duplicating existing structures. I can only agree with the federation that the federal government should have invested this money which comes from Quebec in the existing loans and scholarships system in Quebec. This is the Bloc Quebecois position.

Quebeckers have not been fooled. They know the source of the problem, of the difficult financial situation which Quebec students are in, and it is, as we all know, the massive cuts in transfer payments made by this government.

Quebec has made major investments in its young people in the area of education. It has made some efforts to maintain tuition fees and student debt loads at reasonable levels and, in that regard, we have no cause to be jealous of the situation in the other Canadian provinces.

Indeed, tuition fees are about $1,700 a year in Quebec, while they average some $3,200 in the rest of Canada. This significant difference explains why students in the other provinces are often in a more difficult situation than Quebec students. The average student debt in Quebec is $11,000, compared to between $17,000 and $25,000 in the rest of Canada.

To counter this situation, the Chrétien government ignored its commitments at the last first ministers' conference and decided to intrude once again in a provincial jurisdiction.

What is the prime minister's word worth? An appropriate answer would lead me to use unparliamentary language. I leave it up to you to answer it in all honesty.

We in the Bloc Quebecois consider that all Quebec students who want to further their education deserve some help, and this is the approach favoured by Quebec with its loans and grants program. That is not the case with the millennium scholarships, only a third of which will go to low and middle income students, and which will be awarded mainly on the basis of merit or excellence.

This new duplication in the area of education concerns me a great deal, especially for my region.

The Conseil permanent de la jeunesse recently specified in one of its studies that the Lower St. Lawrence, the North Shore and the Saguenay would see their population decline by 10 per cent by the year 2016. This phenomenon is not new, but it seems to be increasing. Thousands of young people will emigrate to urban areas. We must help our regions keep their young people and it is the governments closest to these people that are in the best position to know and to initiate the corrective actions required.

I will not surprise anyone by saying that in outlying areas there is a problem created by the fact that young people are leaving. In the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, we are trying to slow the process by developing our university as well as the colleges in Chicoutimi, Jonquière, Alma and Saint-Félicien. We know full well that we have to offer a wide choice of education programs geared to the local job market and to regional development, in order to convince our young people they do not have to leave to study and to pursue a career.

It has been demonstrated that students who complete their studies and enjoy good employment opportunities in their region have a good chance of staying. The association of alumni and friends of the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi offers scholarships to graduate and postgraduate students to encourage them to pursue their studies in the region.

In my region and in all of Quebec, we have been trying for a long time to promote access to higher education through a scholarships and loans program. Also, by staying in their region students can save money by living at home with their families.

If the federal government wants to meet the real needs of our young people, it should transfer the money to the Government of Quebec.

It is clear that the millennium scholarship fund proposed by the Chrétien government is out of touch with the Quebec reality, as are many other federal programs. In that area as in manpower training, the Government of Quebec must hold the levers of power to better meet the challenges of the next millennium.

It must be said loud and clear: the millennium scholarships will not improve the quality of post-secondary education or substantially relieve the financial hardships of the students in our region. This misdirected program is a waste of money.

This $2.5 billion would have been better used if it had been handed over to the provinces, which are in a better position to know the education sector's priorities and needs. Moreover, these needs are being felt right now and will not appear only at the beginning of the next millennium.

As I said previously, in cutting its transfers to the provinces, Ottawa struck a real blow at the funding of Quebec's educational institutions. Out of the $10 billion cut from education, $3 billion was in Quebec.

I sincerely believe that we in Quebec must focus our efforts on our education network, which was hard hit by these cuts.

The Quebec loans and scholarships system is very efficient. This is certainly not the time to make financial assistance to students more complex.

Just as he did with the reference to the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister could change his mind, review the millennium scholarships program and at least hand over management of this fund to those provinces that want it.

I remind the Prime Minister that he is the first and only Canadian Prime Minister to jump head first into education, an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. That is another action by the Chrétien government that will be remembered.

I ask my colleagues opposite to think twice before they interfere again in this area, because they will face all Quebeckers early in the year 2000.

The Quebec population will not forget this new interference on the part of the federal government. There will be a final evaluation in the next referendum.

Madam Speaker, I should let you know that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Lévis.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Jonquière. I would like to ask her a hypothetical question.

I think she would agree that a national government has to be concerned about all Canadians even if she feels very strongly that her first allegiance is to the people of Quebec. Nevertheless a national government, as on this side of the House, has to be concerned about all Canadians.

Recent tests in science and mathematics conducted across the country disclosed that students in Quebec scored higher than the national average on mathematical and science questions. Other provinces, particularly my own province of Ontario, scored very low.

If it were turned around and Quebec students had scored very low as the result of governments of Quebec which had not paid enough attention to education whereas other provinces were much higher in the quality of education that the students were receiving, would it not be right and proper for the national government to want to intervene in order to ensure that those students in Quebec receive the same quality of education as was received elsewhere in the country?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my kind colleague for his question.

I believe he did not understand what I just said. I want to tell him that everything regarding education has always been well managed by Quebec and the provinces. What happened to education is that transfer payments to the provinces were cut. I said it before in my remarks. With its cuts to transfer payments the federal government made a mess of education.

Let us decide what we want for our students. We want nothing but the best. We are parents and we are close to our children. We know what they want and what they deserve.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also listened to the comments. I am absolutely astounded that the member spent all her time talking about jurisdictional authority and boasting how the provinces are the ones that are most aware of the needs of students.

The member may know that with regard to youth unemployment, university graduates in Canada under age 25 have an unemployment rate of about 6.5%. University graduates in Canada as a whole have an unemployment rate of only about 4.5%. High school graduates have an unemployment rate of about 15%, and high school dropouts have an unemployment rate in excess of 20% and in fact peaks at about 23%.

Notwithstanding that this member suggested that the provinces know best how to deal with the needs of our students, this member probably does not know, but should know, that the dropout rate of students from high school in the province of Quebec is almost 40%.

The member should also know that high school dropouts represent Canada's poor in waiting. These are the people who will be totally dependent on the rest of the taxpayers because they have not got the education they need.

The member totally ignored the concept of accessibility of post-secondary education, which is the focus of the millennium scholarship fund. It is not necessarily to provide assistance for existing educational programs or to provide financial assistance with student loans, et cetera. It is to address the issue of accessibility for those students who are unable to take on any amount of financial responsibility but have the ability to attend post-secondary education.

I would ask the member whether or not she agrees that the issue of accessibility of education is also an important priority which any level of government should have in its portfolio.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member misunderstood me.

I have been saying since the beginning that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction. In the past few years, the government has had the nerve to cut transfer payments to the provinces for education to the tune of $3 billion to Quebec alone.

The member has the nerve to tell me “Would it not be right and proper for the national government—” Let us take care of our own, we know what our students want.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of my young colleague, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. It is all nice and dandy to have a debate, but we must deal with the issue. The motion 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.

The motion is clear. That is what it says. Let me give you my reasons for supporting it. First, as everyone knows, the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which will begin in the year 2000, is primarily designed to give visibility to the federal government in the year 2000. Federalists anticipate that a referendum could be held in Quebec that year, or the year after.

The federal government is trying to influence young Quebeckers, because it knows that the last time, polls conducted by the CEGEPs always showed that over 75% of young Quebeckers supported sovereignty. We are no fools: this is the real purpose of their millennium scholarship fund.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his motion, and the other young Bloc Quebecois members. Five of them are under 30, which is unlike what we find in any other political party here.

We have five young members who are doing a mighty fine job. All day long, they led the debate. Since other speakers were required, they had to call on some of us in our fifties. I feel comfortable participating in this debate because before the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean took over as the Bloc Quebecois critic on training and youth, it was my job.

I will remind the House that, in those days, 15,000 Quebec students had rallied on Parliament hill against the reform proposed by the then Minister of Human Resources Development. There were students from all parts of the country, but more than 10,000 were from Quebec. Why point this out? Because last night, on the news, I saw college students rallying in Quebec City because they are concerned about potential cuts—they have a budget to balance in Quebec too—in education.

I take this opportunity today to say that cuts were made in education and health because cuts are required in Quebec like in every other province. Ask our colleagues from New Brunswick and western Canada. All the provinces have had to make cuts in education and health. Why? Because the federal government, which tried to cut $48 billion just before the election, eventually cut $42 billion through the Canada social transfer.

What does this Canada social transfer include? It has three components: social assistance, health and education. In education, $10 billion was cut back. Quebec's share, on the basis of its student population, came to approximately $3 billion for that period. A $3 billion cut in education was imposed on Quebeckers. And this year, the Minister of Finance has the gall to establish a millennium scholarship fund and a foundation to administer it, spending $2.5 billion right now for this purpose. This amount is slightly lower than the cut made previously in Quebec in particular. And this is going on across Canada.

The objective is to provide assistance to 100,000 students starting in the year 2000. This will mean assistance for about 24,000 students in Quebec. But there are currently more than 300,000 full time students enroled in university. Add part-time students and the total number of students in college and university rises to 500,000. What should be do about all those who will not benefit from the scholarships?

I was listening earlier to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I know this is not one of the minister's idea, but rather a pipedream of the prime minister—who shall remain nameless—who woke up one night and wondered what he could do for students in the year 2000. He came up with this initiative, convinced that it would keep up his good image and reach the sovereignists among the students and manage to confuse them somewhat. It could work in some cases.

Last week, I went to visit the Sainte-Foy cegep in my riding, where I met students and realized that some of them are in fact confused. These young Quebeckers were wondering if, as sovereignists, they should turn down a grant if they were among the lucky ones to benefit from the millennium scholarship fund. I told them no, but do not let the federal government fool you and keep a critical mind. I know young Quebeckers have a critical mind. They know how to read, they are educated and intelligent. They will not be fooled by this razzle-dazzle federalists are using to fool them and get them on their side.

In his speech today, the minister of Human Resources Development said that Quebec stands to lose its current structures, even though they are the best in Canada, Quebec students carrying half the debt load of the students in the rest of the country. Quebec is the only province to provide grants to 70,000 students for an average of around $3,800. No other province does it. The debt level is lower and the Quebec system is recognized as offering good financial assistance.

But now, since only about 6 per cent of students across Canada will benefit from the program, they want to leave it to Quebec, and maybe to the other provinces as well, to decide who will get a scholarship and who will not, because the number of scholarships will be limited to 3,000. Millennium goodies. They want Quebec to get on board so it can get blamed by those who will not get a scholarship, while the federal government will enjoy greater visibility among those who do get one.

No, the people of Quebec will not be deceived by this new attempt. They will not respond to the fantasies of the present Prime Minister, who at the same time follows plan A by distributing millennium scholarships or, with regard to regional development, by continuing to issue grants or loans to Quebec small businesses without consulting regional councils or taking their strategic plans into account, always with a view to promoting the maple leaf among Quebec people and businesses in order to obtain their political support.

As long as Quebec remains a part of the Canadian system, we will ask for our fair share. Yes, we will accept financial aid coming from Ottawa because we pay for it. We pay our share of taxes, and as long as we continue to do so, we will demand programs, even those we criticize.

I remember criticizing Youth Service Canada at the time of the referendum, and the Minister of Human Resources Development then told me: “Yes, but why is the member for Lévis criticizing a program which benefited an agency in his riding”? Yes, we must accept this system, even though it creates duplication, even though it competes with the provincial systems and does not respect Quebec's people and their convictions.

Why are we so protective of our education system? It is a question of language. What do we teach in our schools? We teach the Civil Code and different traditions. In spite of the goodwill of some of the members across the way, they are not listening, they do not understand that we are different. We may not be unique, but we are different.

It is not only a question of provincial jurisdiction. It is about respect for Quebec's distinctiveness, which they never accepted and are now trying to submerge with little flags, with stunts such as the one that occurred on February 26, and by issuing checks to about 24,000 young students.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, Canada Pension Plan; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Wild Rose, Young Offenders Act.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's remarks. I am quite willing to agree that the French culture in Quebec is a very important and different part of Canada, something we would want to cherish.

I hope he will agree that a university education is more than the French language and more than learning about the civil code. A university education is about learning the sciences, medicine, history and all kinds of disciplines.

One of the problems with Quebec's situation with respect to grants to students is that these grants are basically exclusive only to Quebec. It keeps students in Quebec.

Would he agree that the millennium fund and all the money that it gives to students will give opportunity for young Quebeckers to go to universities of their choice, not only in Canada, but elsewhere in North America? It will underwrite at least some of their educational costs. They will benefit from the experience.

Is it not a good thing to give young Quebeckers the opportunity to broaden their minds by experiences elsewhere in the country?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the speaker before me spent some time at McGill University. It is in Montreal.

His intentions are good, but that is not the case.

[An hon. member]

It was another member.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

I am sorry. Let us forget that, it has nothing to do with it.

Nevertheless, if he has not been, he should visit Quebec from time to time. He would understand that we are different. He would understand very quickly that we are different. It is true that medicine is science. In that regard, it is the same science.

He would also see that a good Quebec doctor recognizes Quebeckers' health problems are not the same as those of other people elsewhere. That is an everyday occurrence.

Culture is not about language and the civil code. He is right on that. I remember Guy Rocher, who said “Culture is a way of thinking, feeling and acting”. I watch my colleague from Repentigny, who speaks on foreign affairs and trade. Business is handled differently in Quebec.

We are not abnormal. The Japanese are like that. It is true for people in business, or other sectors. Our country and our culture make us different. We must honour that.

In Quebec, education is vital to us. It enables us to continue to be different because we want to be and not because we detest others. It is not that we do not want to get along with others. We simply want them to respect us as we are, just as we are ready to respect you as you are.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech. He clearly showed that this is an unwarranted interference of the Liberal government in the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces, namely those of Quebec.

I would like to remind my colleague of the fact that the Liberal Party opposite is not the only one to interfere in the areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Conservative Party does it too. I will quote from the plan of the Conservative Party on page 33: “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”. I repeat: “A Canadian Education Excellence Fund”.

Does my colleague agree that the Liberal Party is not the only one to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, but that the Conservative Party and the whole federal system are doing it too?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take a few seconds to remind the House that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean also deals with national testing.

When I fulfilled the responsibilities now held by my colleague, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, we fought very hard against national standards. I have a lot of respect for the New Democratic Party, but the NDP members then supported the national standards.

This is how the Bloc Quebecois differs from the other parties. These parties represent a majority from the other regions of Canada. People in this country must realize, and it is obvious when one travels a little, that there are two countries, two different cultures. There is one in Quebec, and one elsewhere in Canada.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for London West.

It is a pleasure to speak to this motion by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. The pleasure does not stem from my agreement with the motion, but rather from the opportunity it gives me to underline some of the contradictions expressed up to now by members opposite. They contend that the federal government has no business in education, that it should simply hand the money over to the province and forget about it.

Our government thinks otherwise. We strongly believe that we have a role to play, as we have been doing for many decades, in educating and helping young Canadians.

As the year 2000 draws near, various countries are looking at different ways to celebrate and mark the beginning of the new millennium. To give one example, the city of London, England, is looking at ways to celebrate their event and is considering building a dome at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars.

Our government, on the other hand, has taken a different approach. We have decided to invest in the future of our country by giving young Canadians the opportunity to achieve their full potential through access to training to meet the ever more challenging demands of the next millennium. This is something that the Bloc Quebecois have a hard time understanding.

Nowadays, we are facing a most formidable challenge which we cannot avoid: competitiveness. Given the global economy, all workers must be highly skilled, because only those who can produce faster, better and cheaper have access to the markets.

The opening of borders, or even their gradual elimination, created a whole new attitude toward trade that industrialized countries must deal with. We believe that we must rely on the creativity, the imagination and the innovation of young Canadians to continue to carve out an enviable position in the knowledge-based economy.

Traditionally based on the development of natural resources, Canada's economy now depends increasingly on knowledge rather than resources. That is how we will be able to help create stimulating and well paid jobs for young Canadians.

The Government of Canada has a responsibility to support and encourage those who want to participate fully in the new economic, cultural and social environment in which we will be living from now on. That is what we undertook to do, and the Canada millennium scholarship foundation is one of the ways Canada can face up to this great challenge.

Bloc members, especially the member who moved the motion, are again making a mistake they made repeatedly in the past. They confuse access to education and education itself.

The role of the Canada millennium scholarship foundation will be to eliminate the obstacles limiting access to post-secondary education or to training in advanced technology, which are essential to get a good job in the new economy.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the foundation will interfere in education programs. As the Bloc members say, we know that education is a provincial responsibility, and the foundation's vocation fully respects this fact.

However, for decades, the Canadian government has been playing a role in the area of financial assistance for students, because it strongly believes that access to education must be enhanced through a concerted effort.

Preparing young Canadians to enter the new economy is a collective responsibility. This is not the prerogative of any level of government and should not be the subject of the narrow dogmatism which too often characterizes the Bloc's actions, as is obvious in the motion before us.

Of course education is a provincial jurisdiction. Programs as well as institutions and the quality of the teaching fall within the domain of the provinces. However, federal and provincial governments alike have long been working to promote equal opportunity by supporting the people who cannot afford to pursue their academic training.

Has that system served us badly so far? I do not think so. Canada has already undertaken to address the challenge of globalization and its efforts have been quite successful. Last year, Canada ranked fourth out of 35 countries for its competitiveness, according to the World Economic Forum.

Obviously, several factors contribute to such a performance, but the quality of our manpower training plays a very major role. The establishment of the millennium scholarship fund does not change anything in the workings of the present system and, contrary to what the Bloc Quebecois always claims, it does not encroach in any way on provincial jurisdictions.

The role of the federal government in this dates back to the post-war years, not February 24, 1998, the date of the last budget.

As the Minister of Finance has clearly explained, the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation will be an entity at arms-length from the federal government. It will be administered by a board made up of members from the private sector and including one student. The Council of Ministers of Education, representing the provincial governments, will also be involved in the selection of directors.

It goes without saying that the foundation will consult closely with the provincial governments. What is more, the post-secondary sector will also be involved in designing and awarding the Canadian Millennium Scholarships.

Members will recall the Minister of Finance placed particular emphasis on the federal government's desire to avoid duplication in this area. We have done this continually for more than four years in other areas, and will continue to do so.

We will also remember the reaction of the Quebec minister of finance to the tabling of the last budget. As he did last year, Mr. Landry accused us of practising predatory federalism. Always given to verbal exaggeration, he added another adjective, abusive. His words predator and abusive may have rhymed in French but they are really a joke. The words he uses to describe the budget and the millennium fund are frankly laughable.

According to that same minister of finance, this was a budget of a unitary state which completely discards federal structures. I wonder if we can consider him to be serious.

There is no federation in the world where the central government does not play a role in financial assistance for students. For example, in the United States of America 75% of public scholarships and bursaries for students come from federal government assistance. In Germany 65% of publicly funded bursaries and scholarships are federal. What is more, in both of these countries the central government plays an even more direct role in education. That would never be the case in Canada, since we understand that this is a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

All governments are called on to play a role in this field. It is crucial to the future of our children and our country.

It does not really surprise me that Bloc Quebecois members cannot understand that. That they have presented this motion today surprises me even less. If it suits them, the Bloc and their PQ head office do not hesitate to denounce supposed predatory federalism. However, when the PQ government accepts hundreds of millions of dollars from our government to pay for damage caused by the ice storm, the adjectives are different.

Alain Dubuc put the real question as follows in La Presse , and I would like to quote him because it is an excellent summary of our position. He writes: “Can Quebec, which has no economic strategy, logically, just for the sake of being different, refuse a project expressing in a dynamic way the importance of university education and knowledge? One suspects that the main fault in the federal project lies in it being just that: federal”.

I believe that Quebec's young people share the same aspirations as young people anywhere else in Canada. They want to achieve their full potential in order to take an active part in improving society. Let us not saddle them with our own limitations, our old quarrels; let us instead encourage them to equip themselves to build a better future.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges. He spoke eloquently about the importance of education, young people in Quebec, and so on and so forth.

He seems to have forgetten some of his history, which is still relatively recent. It goes back to 1964 when the federal government gave Quebec the option to opt out. In those days, the federal government's trust in Quebeckers, their administrators and democratically elected representatives was greater, since it allowed Quebec to have the money it wanted and which was Quebec's anyhow—it is our own tax money—to be administered in Quebec. The federal government had been trusting us since around 1964. These Liberals were elected five years ago and they have been trusting the Quebec government since then with this opting out clause under which they hand over the money to Quebec to be used for loans and bursaries.

Loans and bursaries are granted on the basis of family income. This is equal opportunity: if a family is unfortunate enough to have a low income it will not be penalized when it comes to sending its children to university or cegep because it can avail itself of the loans and bursaries program made possible in part through the opting out clause given to us by the federal government in 1964.

After 34 years of sound management and solid infrastructure put in place by the managers of the Quebec loans and bursaries program, what we are asking is for the millennium scholarship program to be transferred to Quebec under the opting out clause in order to improve our loans and bursaries program in keeping with our philosophy, which is to help Quebec students, not according to how many A 's and B 's they have on their report cards, but according to their family income, as we are doing now, giving them equal opportunity.

What we are asking regarding the millennium scholarship program is to follow the same principle we have been following for 34 years and apply the same opting out formula to the amount as before. If the position of the federal government, which knows how to spend money, is the same as the member for Bourassa, who said he did not trust Mrs. Marois and democratically elected representatives in Quebec, it should have the honesty to say so. Otherwise it should explain to us why it is questioning a formula which has been working for 34 years. This is my question to the member from Vaudreuil.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, we really see the politics behind the motion. We really see the concerns of that political party. For these members, the issue is not concern for the future of young people, but instead the opportunity, and I have seen this in the last four years, to fan the flames of some so-called federal-provincial squabbles. I wonder whether they are more concerned about the future of young people than about receiving the money to help them.

The program put forward, as has already been the case for the last 30 or 40 years, is not a matter of federal or provincial jurisdiction. We are not intruding in the administration; we are not telling a province which education programs it has to implement and which books it has to buy. The millennium fund is aimed at giving a better future to young people. It gives them the opportunity to pursue post-secondary studies to better prepare their future.

If Bloc Quebecois members are really concerned about the future of young people, they will have to do what was done in the past, that is co-operate with the federal government, and we will be able to agree on the process and the administration. The Canada students assistance plan is already working well in Quebec. Quebec is managing it and, in the other provinces, it is the federal government that deals with it. There are other examples. With regard to the GST, we have administrative agreements with the provinces. Therefore, if they are really concerned, they should think about the future of young people instead of the future of separatists.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, Canada is part of a fast changing, competitive and interdependent world economy, an economy that is increasingly knowledge based.

This is not only because of new high skill jobs and high tech industries but there has been a steady rise in skill requirements in all sectors of the economy and in most types of jobs.

The facts speak for themselves. Since 1981 jobs for Canadians with a high school education or less dropped by two million but more than five million jobs were created for those with higher qualifications. Not all Canadians are in a position to easily access the knowledge and skills they will need throughout their lifetime to find and keep the jobs in a very different and changing labour market.

Barriers, most often financial, reduce access to post-secondary education for many of our students across this country. While the government cannot ensure that every Canadian will succeed, the government can enhance the equality of opportunity.

That is what our government has done in the 1998 budget. It has introduced a Canadian opportunity strategy which builds on actions in the 1996 and 1997 budgets and it also introduces historic new measures.

The costs of post-secondary education have risen dramatically over the past 10 years. Tuition fees and other student costs have more than doubled and those with low and middle incomes often face a difficult choice, the no win situation of forget higher education or incur onerous student debt.

This is no win for both the individual Canadians facing this dilemma and for Canada's economic future. The Canadian millennium scholarships are the centrepiece of the Canadian opportunities strategy. They are the single largest investment ever made by the federal government to support access to post-secondary institutions for all Canadians.

Through an initial endowment of $2.5 billion the arm's length Canada millennium scholarship foundation will provide scholarships to over 100,000 students each year over the next 10 years. Scholarships will go to Canadians who need help financing their studies and who demonstrate merit.

For full time students scholarships will average $3,000 a year and individuals can receive up to $15,000 over a maximum of four academic years. The Canada millennium scholarships could reduce the debtload that recipients would otherwise face by over half.

Canadians of all ages, full or part time, studying in publicly funded universities, community colleges, vocational and technical institutes and CGEPs will be eligible for the scholarships. The foundation will begin to award these scholarships in the year 2000.

The government is also introducing Canada study grants. These recognize that many student needs are not fully met by scholarships and student loans. Beginning in 1998-99 Canada student grants of up to $3,000 a year will go to over 25,000 needy students who have children or other dependants. These grants will help fund both full and part time students and will cost $100 million annually.

Nothing is more critical to Canada's economic successes in the 21st century than vigorous, broad based research and development. I am a firm believer for all types of R and D in Canada, both basic and applied science.

To support graduate students and researchers as they develop the leading edge skills needed in a knowledge based economy we will increase funding to the three granting councils to provide research grants, scholarships and fellowships. Over the next three years their combined budget of $766 million in 1997-98 will be increased by over $400 million.

By the end of the year 2000-2001, the council budgets, I am happy to say, will be at their highest level in Canadian history.

Student debt has become a heavy burden for many Canadians. In 1990 a graduate completing four years of post-secondary education faced an average student debtload of about $13,000. By next year the same graduate's average debt will almost double to $25,000. At the beginning of this decade less than 8% of student borrowers had debts larger than $15,000. Today and in the near future almost 40% do. That is a heavy load to carry into your future.

Last December federal and provincial first ministers agreed something must be done to reduce the financial burden of students. They asked the federal government to take action in the 1998 budget and we did. I must say that the universities and colleges in London, Ontario are very grateful that we have, and I know parents of future students are very grateful. Down the road, all Canadians will benefit from these highly skilled people.

First, students will get tax relief. There will be a 17% federal credit for interest paid on the student loans.

Second, we are increasing the income threshold used to qualify for interest relief on Canada student loans by 9% and more graduates will be eligible.

Third, we are introducing graduated interest relief which will extend assistance to more graduates further up the income scale.

Fourth, for individuals who have used 30 months of interest relief, we will ask the lending institutions to extend the loan repayment period to 15 years.

Fifth, if after extending the repayment period to 15 years a borrower remains in financial difficulty, there will be an extended interest relief period.

Finally, for the minority of graduates who still remain in financial difficulties after taking advantage of these relief measures, we will reduce their student loan principle by as much as half.

Together, these new interest relief measures will help up to 100,000 more borrowers and over 12,000 borrowers a year will benefit from debt reduction when this measure is fully phased in.

To keep their job or to get a new one, many Canadians who are already in the workforce may want to take time off from work to upgrade their skills through full time study but often lack the resources to do so. Several new measures will improve Canadians' access to learning throughout their lives.

It will start with at least six million Canadians who have RRSPs with total assets of $200 billion. To those people looking to further their education, this represents an important source of their funds. Beginning on January 1, 1999 Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs for lifelong learning.

An individual who has an RRSP and is enrolled in full time training or higher education for at least three months during the year will be eligible. Individuals will be able to withdraw up to $10,000 a year tax free over a period of four years to a maximum of $20,000. To preserve the role of RRSPs in providing retirement income, the amounts withdrawn will have to be repaid over a 10-year period. In many respects, this plan resembles the home buyers plan.

The need to continually upgrade knowledge and skills can be particularly hard for the growing number of Canadians studying part time and trying to manage the difficult balance of work, family and study. We are proposing two new measures to help those people. Beginning in 1998, the education credit will be extended to part time students. They will be able to claim $60 for each month they were enrolled in a course lasting at least three weeks and including a minimum of 12 hours of course work per month. The measure will benefit up to 250,000 Canadians.

In addition, for the first time, parents studying part time will now be able to deduct their child care expenses. I think this is important. There are certain limits but it is important because previously only full time students were eligible to do this. This measure itself will benefit some 50,000 part time students with children. Any long range plan to acquire knowledge and skills for the 21st century must look ahead to the students of tomorrow and the best way to help those children's futures is to save for their education today.

That is why we have registered education savings plan contributions for children up to the age of 18 to a maximum grant of 20% on the first $2,000 in annual RRSPs.

It is unfortunate that I have limited time left. This budget deals with youth employment and offers $250 million over three years for information technology—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

A point of order, the hon. member for Rosemont.