Debates of March 12th, 1998

Business Of The House

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to stand in the place of our House leader today to ask that traditional Thursday question. I would like to report to the House that our House leader is healing well. He is in great spirits and we expect him back soon.

We would like to know the projected government agenda for the next several days.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure all hon. members are glad to hear the hon. member's news.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I join with all colleagues in wishing a speedy recovery to the House leader of the official opposition and we certainly hope he will be back with us very shortly.

Tomorrow it is my hope that the House can deal with both report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, although this will require negotiation. This is the Small Business Loans Act. In any case, either tomorrow if we are unsuccessful with obtaining third reading or on Monday if we are, we would then do the following bills: the resumption of Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley bill, followed by resumption of debate on Bill C-19, the Labour Code amendments, followed by Bill C-15, the Canada Shipping Act amendments, Bill C-20, the competition legislation, Bill S-3 respecting certain financial institutions ,and Bill C-12 respecting RCMP superannuation.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day. We plan next Wednesday to call Bill C-25, the defence legislation.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. With all due respect, members of our party would ask that you abide by decisions made previously by other Speakers. It was no doubt an oversight on his part, but the hon. member for the Reform Party had not removed his flag. He was nonetheless recognized. This was certainly an oversight, and I wanted to point this out to you.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I respect what the hon. member for Repentigny said. He certainly raised a good point. I am sorry, but I did not notice the flag on the desk in front of the hon. member for Elk Island.

Anyway, as everyone knows, this matter was referred to the Speaker, who is now preparing his ruling. I hope that, while he reviews the matter, all members will apply their best judgment and that no problem involving the flag will arise the House during this time, which should not be too long. I hope this answers the question for the time being.

Are there more questions on the Thursday question? The chief government whip on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

Supply

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been deliberations among representatives of all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 17, 1998, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the House broke for question period the hon. member for Kelowna had 15 minutes remaining in his speech.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I will be splitting the balance of my time, 5 minutes for me and 10 minutes for the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

What has happened to education? What is ironic about the fact that there is a millennium scholarship fund which does not deal with the substantive issue of education in the country?

The irony was expressed very well in a Globe and Mail article of February 21:

There is no more pointed paradox today than that of the tens of thousands of information technology (IT) positions left unfilled in a Canadian economy in which some 1.4 million people are without jobs.

At a time when advertised positions in many sectors draw a deluge of qualified candidates, organizations across the country are having to strategize and scramble to hire vital IT skills.

“This society's use of information technology is growing by 15 to 20 per cent per year, according to some estimates”, says Gabriel Bouchard, vice-president of marketing for TMP Worldwide in Montreal. “It's everywhere”.

We need information technology. This morning on the front page of the Globe and Mail a headline reads $1,000 if you know the name of a person who can qualify for a competent software position in Halifax.

We have a millennium scholarship fund which does not address this shortfall in our economy. What is happening?

The executive director of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, Mr. Nakhleh, said that many of the courses in electrical engineering have not changed since he was a university student in the discipline 25 years ago. In other words, the courses have not changed. We are moving into information technology. It accounts for 15% to 20% of entries on an annual basis and we are still offering the same courses we offered 25 years ago. Something has to be changed.

Universities are not getting the resources to expand their efforts in the field. Quebec has said to the universities they cannot raise their tuition fees and it will not give them more money. That is the government of the Bloc which has proposed this motion today.

There is a bright light. It is coming from private industry. Nortel announced yesterday a scholarship fund of $360,000 for students pursuing technology. That is the issue. That will provide in the Ottawa area $3,000 for a summer job and $1,000 for a scholarship toward university tuition for up to 30 high school students. That will give the budding techies hands on lab experience in Nortel's research and development facility.

The Nortel people, who employ a lot of technology people, have some advice to give to the universities and to our post-secondary technical institutes. Nortel suggests that other priority areas for business and universities include expanding the highly successful co-op work in education programs, internship programs and programs such as distance learning, video conferencing and virtual classroom concepts. These can lower costs and increase student access. Companies could encourage university professors to spend sabbaticals in private sector labs.

We need collaboration, co-operation and partnership among universities, private industry and the general public. That is what needs to happen.

This millennium scholarship fund simply perpetuates what has always been. We need new thinking. We need innovative thinking and Nortel is showing us the way. When will the government listen to the people of Canada and do what is right in the interests of Canada?

There is a whole other area that we have not talked about, the preparation of graduates. There is a shortfall of money in this country today that is available for basic research. This is probably one of Canada's greatest shortcomings.

Canada should be on the leading edge, and is in certain areas, telecommunications, for example, where Canada is recognized as being a leader in the world, and yet as we speak we recognize universities are being short changed in terms of money for basic research.

Yes, we have the wonderful statement made in the budget where the funding to the granting councils, MRC, NSERC and SSHRCC has been raised to the 1994-95 level.

The minister of industry says this is new money. It is nothing of the kind. It is simply replacing the money that was there in 1994-95. What has this shortfall done? This shortfall has brought about a deterioration of the infrastructure that is necessary for researchers to do their jobs. It has lowered the number of positions available for these researchers. We need to address the shortfall.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was a little confused about the member's commentary about fitting the programs that students are taking to the jobs available.

I fail to see how the need for software programmers, engineers and all kinds of other high tech and knowledge based training that will be necessary is somehow the responsibility of a government.

I have three children. They go to school. I think they are taught in a number of disciplines. They get guidance counselling. They know from their guidance counsellors and from what is happening in their lives where the opportunities are. This is not a secret. It is certainly not the responsibility of the government to somehow conduct some social engineering to steer people into things that we want as opposed to dealing with what they want.

The member concluded, therefore, that the millennium scholarship fund was a failure because it did not address directing students into programs that they want. These are the kinds of things that are the responsibility of the schools before post-secondary. These are the responsibilities of individuals.

The millennium scholarship fund, if the member did not follow the budget, has to do with the issue of accessibility. The member well knows that one cannot simply say we are going to provide all funding for all things we need in the very first budget of a mandate. The direction is here and the priority was established that accessibility to post-secondary education was a very serious problem. With the endowment of $2.5 billion there was going to be 100,000 scholarships provided over 10 years, not just on the basis of merit but on the basis of need.

It really has to relate to those students who probably have the ability to be successful at post-secondary education. I know this member knows how important that is. However, they are not prepared or able to take on the financial burden because of their personal family circumstances of not only tuition but the living costs and ancillary costs of an education.

I would simply ask the member whether or not he would like to reconsider the issue about not having enough software programmers and whether or not he really believes that this is a role for the federal government.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer that question. If the hon. member will go back to Hansard tomorrow or later today, he will recognize that not once did I use the words directed toward students.

What I did say was that this scholarship fund fails to recognize where the shortfall is. That is what I said. The shortfall occurs in the provision to the universities for the kind of resources that are essential to develop. The first is research funds. Second, we need to develop the kind of infrastructure that will attract the students and instructors that are necessary. Third, I also said that we need to be sure that the kinds of courses that are being offered in the universities are ones which the students really need.

The point is that we need incentives. This is not an incentive program. All this does is provide some money and an apparent return of money for the money that the kids lost.

Let me put this in perspective. Every post-secondary student lost when the government cut funds to education. Now comes this scholarship fund which is available to whom, to everyone? Absolutely not. It is available to perhaps 6% of the group. That is not equitable and it is not going to solve the problem of the shortfall. It is not going to provide the universities with the kinds of incomes they need in order to build the infrastructure and develop the instructional talent and skills that will educate our young people toward those kinds of things that will lead them to be competitive in the workforce.

That is what I said and I hope the member listened this time.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize time is running out but I would like my colleague to explain something to me.

Today's motion deals with the need to respect exclusive provincial jurisdiction over education. I would like him to tell us what his party's position on this issue is.

Does he agree with us in the Bloc Quebecois that education is a provincial jurisdiction? I appreciated every point he made and I agree with him when he says that transfer payments to the provinces must be maintained to support research grants in high technology and so on.

Simply put, what is the position of the Reform Party on the need to respect the provinces' jurisdiction over education?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The answer is that education is constitutionally a provincial responsibility.

We have over the years developed a certain partnership that now exists between the provinces and the federal government with regard to post-secondary education. There was a time before this when federal money was put into vocational high schools in particular. Hundreds of millions of dollars went into that program. The reason it went into vocational high schools at that time was to bring about the educational skills the people needed.

It is the same thing today. We need a partnerships.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to say how disappointed I am with the motion before us.

Even though I agree with the underlying principle of the motion, its wording prevents me from supporting it.

I agree with the principle of the motion since I recognize that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction and I agree with the Bloc that the millennium scholarship foundation is in violation of this principle.

However, I believe the Bloc erred by wanting to censure any action by the federal government in the area of education. If I could have amended the motion, I would have clarified the issue of transfer payments because the Reform Party believes it is a federal responsibility, which is not clear in the motion.

Besides, I believe the issue of national testing is a separate issue. The relationship between federal and provincial governments in the area of education must be clarified in order to maintain national standards without encroaching on provincial powers.

However, the Reform Party agrees with the Bloc to condemn the millennium scholarship foundation. We believe it has nothing to do with education but everything to do with the political image of the Prime Minister of Canada, who made this announcement two years ahead of time just to look good.

The Liberal government is trying to hide the fact it cut $7 billion out of health care and post-secondary education, and is making up for these cuts by promising $325 million a year starting in the year 2000. This money will only help 6% of Canadian students while the other 94% will get no help whatsoever.

Moreover this fund will do nothing to lower the present debt load of students. The average student debt is around $20,000. A $3,000 scholarship for 6% of students will not improve the situation very much.

Eligibility criteria are fuzzy. Will the scholarships be granted on the basis of merit or need? If it is on the basis of need, they will overlap the Canada students loan program as well as provincial programs. If it is on the basis of merit, a whole new bureaucracy will be created to decide who will get help.

By making the foundation a private and independent body, the Liberal government is creating a new opportunity for patronage. This fund will only benefit a minority of students, whereas an increase in the CHST would have benefited every student.

As I mentioned in my speech, and I would like to go over that one more time to make it clear, the Reform Party is committed to education. We campaigned on that during the last election campaign. We wanted to reinvest $4 billion back into health care and education. It is not a question of Reform not being committed to education.

We have seen that on the part of the Bloc too. Its amendment and the direction that it is heading with this motion is quite clear. It cares about education. I would agree with the Bloc. As I mentioned, education is a provincial responsibility. We have said in past debates that the Reform Party would like to get back to the constitutional sections that show exactly what are the provincial responsibilities and the federal responsibilities. We do agree with the Bloc on that level.

I was reluctant. I really wanted to support this motion but it was so vague in its explication of how the relationship of the federal government to the provinces in education would actually develop. There still has to be some sort of a relationship in the area of transfer payments and in the area of potentially national standards. As I said, that is up for debate.

This motion does not at all address that issue and that concerns me. I know that one of the things that educational institutions, especially at the post-secondary level across this country, have had to do is catch up with the heartless cuts that we have seen on the other side of this House. That is something that we can share in our feelings of dismay with the government and this attempt with this millennium scholarship fund. We have no idea who it is going to help and how and what sort of bureaucracy it will create in the process.

In that frustration that we in the Reform Party feel with the Bloc, I can understand and share that same sense of frustration. We want to see more of the responsibilities that are provincial responsibilities returned to the provinces.

It is very, very important that we have this definition clear as to what it will mean when we start changing the relationship between the federal and the provincial governments. We are open on this side to that debate. In future maybe the Bloc could have some correspondence with some of the other parties in developing motions. Maybe we can work together to create something better in this country.

I appreciate the Bloc's motion, but I am sorry I cannot support it.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be tempted to contradict, to react strongly to the Reform member's words, but I am obliged to acknowledge two things first of all.

First of all, that in his desire to address the students and people of Quebec, he spoke in French, and I congratulate him on that.

Second, he shows some open-mindedness. He says he is in agreement with the motion because they too would like to see education a provincial matter. But, having said so in French and in English, he then says the Reform Party is demanding $4 billion more for the federal government's intervention in education. It is an art to be able to contradict oneself within less than ten minutes on an entire position, not just a detail. I would tell the hon. Reform member that, if they want to gain points in Quebec, they will have to be more consistent than this. A person cannot say two contrary things within one speech.>

The hon. member from the Reform Party describes our motion as too vague, too broad. I would like to remind him of the wording of our motion: “That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as—and here it is very precise—the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program—to which he has expressed opposition—or national testing”. This is the wording of our motion. It is very specific. I am therefore raising the matter of this contradiction.

I would like his help in understanding it better. If he does not see this as a contradiction, fine, but it is obvious that either one agrees that jurisdiction over education is a provincial matter, or one does not. I would then understand a position like the Liberal government's stand on education. It wants to interfere in education precisely in order to gain visibility with young Quebec students.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to clarify my point once again for the hon. member who asked me the question.

I do not think I contradicted myself at all. The Reform Party has always said that we have been committed to reinvesting in health care and education. We made that clear during the course of the last campaign. I do not think that has anything to do with the jurisdiction as it relates to the provinces.

We are not saying how the provinces should spend that money on education or health care. We realize that disparities exist throughout the country in how some provincial governments deal with certain problems. They are most effective in dealing with those problems.

All we have said is that we believe transfers should be continuous and increased to those provinces to allow the provincial governments to supply funds to health care, education or whatever the matter may be. I am not contradicting myself. Actually I am saying that the federal government should remove itself from creating policy on how the provincial governments spend the money once it is transferred to them. I am actually in favour with the Bloc on that point.

When the member referred to the Bloc's motion he himself made it clear that the motion says the federal government should remove itself from all attempts at creating any relationship with the provinces in education. That is what is not clear. As I have outlined, the federal government still has a responsibility for transfer payments to the provinces. That is not clear in the motion. I wish there had been more thought put into the motion because as I said there is something that we could have agreed on in the principle behind the motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member caught my interest.

Early in the debate the talk was about increasing the transfers to the provinces to take care of these so-called problems in the post-secondary area. The member mentioned a very important point regarding the fact that there would be no strings attached and they would not be told how to spend it.

Given what happened in the province of Ontario where the reduction and the transfer was only $850 million yet the tax break passed on was $4.3 billion, how do we determine whether or not the moneys that are transferred from the federal government to the provincial government are actually used to either enforce national standards or to go to the area into which they were directed?

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason lots of provincial governments have had to struggle in order to make up for the lost funding over the last number of years is that the member's government has cut close to $7 billion in transfers in education and health care. Unfortunately that is what some of the provinces had to do.

I am of the slate of people who believe in the provinces and believe in the administrations of the provinces to start putting money toward areas where it is needed. The Liberal government should consider giving more trust to the provinces. It should start reinvesting back into them in the form of transfers. Those governments can take care of the problems more effectively than we have seen with anything the Liberal government has created.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be given the opportunity, by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, to take part in a debate that is so close to my heart because it concerns the future of young Canadians.

I am all the more happy since I just attended a meeting with provincial social affairs ministers and our discussions with them were very constructive and beneficial to us.

I have been a member of this government for two years. I can tell you that, with regard to social cohesiveness, we have made considerable progress in vital areas that are of concern to all of us, especially those that relate directly to the well-being of people, families and children across the country.

Before going any further, I should tell you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

Child poverty, the status of people with disabilities, job market development, employability, labour issues, these are all areas where my provincial counterparts, myself and this government have worked together to strengthen Canada's social fabric so we can be ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

We owe this progress to the openmindedness, the good faith and the co-operation of provincial and territorial governments, which each have their own concerns, but which also share certain goals and objectives and a common vision of our country.

This vision is the vision of a Canada that is preparing to enter into a new century and a new millennium and that must be able to rely on a population that is strong and well equipped to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

It is the vision of a country that wants to see its young people make a nice place for themselves in a world that is offering them new, almost unlimited prospects.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member opposite that he must address the issue being debated.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the hon. minister, who has prepared remarks, will soon address the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, as long as we are talking about co-operation with the provinces, about developing partnerships, and about extraordinary achievements to improve people's skills and knowledge in this country and help us face the new millennium, I am very interested in the Bloc's motion, because this is what we have been doing for the past two years.

The result of the efforts we have all made for a while now in our daily lives are such that economists from the Conference Board and other experts are predicting that Canada will enjoy the best growth rate among G-7 countries. Thanks to a collective effort by Canadians, and to the co-operation of various levels of government, we are back on the road to fiscal balance and prosperity.

The quality of our human resources is as important for the country's prosperity as are our research and development initiatives, and our economic infrastructure. Our collective effort is guided by the vision that we must continue to build on what has been achieved in recent years in the context of our social union, and this is what we are about to do as a government.

In this connection, the Canadian government has a responsibility to support the individual efforts of each Canadian, each province and each territory, to ensure that all citizens of the country have the same opportunities to contribute to collective prosperity and to profit from it individually.

The Government of Canada and its provincial partners have worked very hard in recent years to battle child poverty, as well as to put some order in the manpower area, transferring the jurisdiction over manpower and active employment measures to the Government of Quebec. All of this is part of our effort to modernize our country, to work collaboratively with the various levels of government in order to ensure that our efforts complement each other and share similar goals.

We are moved by a spirit of co-operation, and I feel this is the best service we can render to Canadian society at the present time. The time is ripe for demonstrating that Canadians, Quebeckers included, are best served when both levels of government show a willingness to work together in good faith to improve and enhance the future prospects of each and every citizen and to reinforce our social union.

There is no question of interfering in each other's areas of jurisdiction. We are combining our means, our resources and our strengths in order to fulfil Canada's destiny, one which will be more promising than ever. This is the form of federalism I am calling for, one which will equip our country with the tools it needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

We shall be approaching the eve of the third millennium in less than 16 months time. We in Canada have chosen to mark this passage from one millennium to another by creating a special non-recurring fund, not part of the permanent program and transfer structure, but one which will provide 100,000 young Canadians over 10 years with the opportunity to earn a post-secondary scholarship of up to $3,000.

We are not interfering in education. We are not interfering in curricula, the management of institutions, and tuition fees. I would be the first to object to the Canadian government meddling in education. But it is the responsibility of the Canadian government to ensure equality of opportunity across the country, for all citizens from coast to coast, so that everyone has the best possible chance of pursuing post-secondary studies.

My colleagues and I are convinced that the millennium fund does not duplicate anything already being done by the governments of Quebec and of the other provinces. I want this foundation to complement the provinces' existing mechanisms for defining needs.

I believe in a resolutely modern federalism, a federalism that is effective and respectful of provincial jurisdictions, a federalism that serves the interests of all Canadians. That is why I am going to make sure that the millennium scholarship fund is implemented in a spirit of respect and solidarity and, above all, in the interest of young Canadians.

The millennium scholarships will give an greater number of Canadians from low or middle income families the opportunity to pursue post-secondary education. We will be sure to work very closely with the Government of Quebec. We made sure, as we said in the budget speech, that the foundation responsible would operate independently of the government. Its mandate is to avoid any duplication. We are even prepared to enter into contracts with the appropriate provincial authorities so that they can make the initial selection of scholarship holders.

We live in a country that has decided to invest in the intelligence of the young generation, in access to skills and in knowledge.

When a government turns a millennium celebration into a celebration of skills and knowledge, rather than choosing the traditional course of erecting a monument or whatever, as is done elsewhere, I can say one thing: I see this as a vision, and I think it is a great deal more productive to celebrate the millennium by taking an interest in the generation of tomorrow, in knowledge, because that is what tomorrow's economy, and our country, will need.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were a foreigner—which I may be—and I did know much about the news in Canada and just heard what the minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, had to say, I could only jump to my feet.

In his book, René Lévesque said that it takes 18 months for a Quebec minister to lose touch. I am sorry, but when they talk about co-operation, I cannot agree. There are many federalists, sovereignists and student associations who doubt the effectiveness of the millennium fund.

I remember that at the last referendum—I was not a member of Parliament yet—I heard many people saying “I will vote no, but if nothing changes, Stéphan—”

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

In the Lac-Saint-Jean area.