Debates of May 13th, 1998

Budget Implementation Act, 1998

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-36, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 18 with the following:

“40. (1) On the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the Governor in Council shall appoint an auditor for the Foundation for the fiscal year, and the members shall fix, or authorize the Board to fix, the auditor's remuneration.”

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-36, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 18 the following:

“(c) the Auditor General of Canada.”

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-36, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 18 with the following:

“(4) On the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the Governor in Council may remove an auditor from office.”

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-36, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 44 on page 18 with the following:

“(6) On the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the Governor in Council shall appoint an auditor to fill any vacancy in the office of the auditor.”

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-36 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-36, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 20 with the following:

“46. (1) Subject to subsection (2), from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there may, on the requisition of the Minister of Finance, be paid and applied for payment to the Foundation the sum of two billion five hundred million dollars.

(2) The sum referred to in subsection (1) shall not be paid to the Foundation in respect of a fiscal year that ended before the date of the coming into force of this Part.”

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 20 the following new clause:

“46.1 The Access to Information Act applies to the Foundation as if it were a federal institution.”

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 20 the following new clause:

“46.1(1) Where the Foundation enters into an agreement with the provincial minister of a province whereby

(a) the Foundation shall not carry out its objects and purposes in the province;

(b) the Foundation promises to pay to the government of the province the amount that the Foundation would otherwise have spent in the province in carrying out its objects and purposes; and

(c) the provincial minister promises to use the amount referred to in paragraph (b) to address the particular needs of the province in terms of post-secondary education the Foundation shall cease to carry out its objects and purposes in the province.

(2) Within ten days after the signing of an agreement referred to in subsection (1), the Foundation shall pay to the government of the province the amount specified in the agreement.”

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the finance committee responsible for reviewing Bill C-36 as it relates to the millennium fund, I am very pleased to take the floor today.

In my opinion, the millennium scholarships are as important as manpower training. It would have been a symbolic gesture on the part of the government to comply with the consensus that has been expressed in Quebec, concerning the possibility of opting out, with full compensation.

I believe that the millennium scholarships are a test of the flexibility of federalism. This is the kind of attitude we are up against. We saw 34 groups, 41% of which came from Quebec. All Quebec groups were in favour of opting out with full compensation.

Once again, this is a demonstration of the government's bad faith. Had it wanted to show good faith in this matter, it would have amended the Canada Student Loans Act. All that would have required, as we know, was to add these scholarships on to it, and then opting out with full compensation would have been possible.

First, I would point out the bad faith of the government, and then there is another point to be made as well. They could have given the current negotiations a chance without rushing to pass a bill which, as we know, does not give the power to the foundation and does not allow a province to opt out with full compensation.

Why do we want to do so? Clearly, as the Prime Minister himself has said, he needs visibility. He is therefore creating a bill that does not allow opting out with full compensation.

The board will not have the power to delegate to the provinces. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will speak today on this Bill C-36, which we oppose because the millennium scholarships do not reflect the reality of Quebec.

Had it not been for pressure from the Government in Quebec and the coalition for Quebec's withdrawal with full compensation, we would never have had the opportunity to speak for Quebec. Forty one percent of those who testified through their various organizations, or 1.2 million people, have been heard by the committee, including 89,000 small businessmen and women.

We know that the business community, Quebec's Conseil du patronat and Chamber of Commerce as well as manufacturers and exporters from both Quebec and Canada came before the committee to ask that Quebec be allowed to manage education and to opt out with full compensation, so that funds can be allocated based on the needs and realities of Quebec.

I am very disappointed. I sat on this committee with a great deal of good faith. I was able to see once again how little attention is paid to Quebec's demands, consensus and reality. These were ignored since the government members, after having heard all the witnesses, do not have a single amendment to propose in this place. I am disappointed as a member of the committee who took part in the proceedings in an honest and open fashion.

I can say that all witnesses from Quebec were once again unanimous. I did warn the committee that the people will judge their performance. It shows just how inflexible this federal system is. In fact, John Trent, a university professor and a federalist, told us that this was poor federalism and that, once again, Quebec's demands were being ignored. This is not a sovereignist speaking, but a federalist who testified before the committee.

This is all very disappointing. Many students' associations outside Quebec came to tell us to listen to Quebec. They believed Quebec's demands should be listened to for once. I attended almost every discussion and meeting with the various representatives, associations and witnesses, and I can tell you that several witnesses noticed the government's bad faith in this matter.

The consensus in Quebec includes the education sector and the unions, but polls have also been conducted. According to one public opinion poll, 71% of respondents preferred an increase in the Canada social transfer. They felt that it had been extremely difficult to go through the period of restraint created by the cuts and that the surpluses might not be properly managed. Considering the $2.5 billion to be allocated to a private foundation which, as we know, will have a rather broad mandate, I do not think we can expect a great deal of transparency from that foundation. So I am very disappointed.

I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to postpone consideration of the bill until we have seen the results of the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa. Why not do that? I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to seek the consent of the House to postpone the study of this bill. I think the government is acting in bad faith.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Could the hon. member clarify the reason why she is requesting the unanimous consent of the House? Is it to refer the bill to committee?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now looking at the bill. I am asking that this review be postponed.

When one wants to negotiate, one does not rush things. I worked in the real estate sector for seven years. I know what negotiating means. One does not sign a contract until both parties have agreed to it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps I can clarify the situation. It is the government that determines the order of the items to be considered during Government Orders. So, we cannot change things, but the hon. member may want to ask the House for permission to adjourn the debate on this bill.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to adjourn the debate on this bill?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the answer. We see that our colleagues across the way, who were not on the committee, have not heard everything that people wanted. Most of those who appeared before us wondered what the point was of trying to agree on a bill now.

I am therefore disappointed. The government holds a vote on a motion on distinct society and what does that really mean? We have always said that we will achieve absolutely nothing by holding a vote on the motion. In the end, the government is making grand promises and telling us how very deeply they care about distinct or unique society, call it what you will.

But this means that it is passing wall-to-wall legislation that does not reflect the real situation, specific to Quebec. This bill shows, once again, the government's inflexibility. It was a test the government could have passed, but one that it is going to fail. The people of Quebec, and students in particular, who know what is going on and are not stupid, know that the real reason for this bill is to increase the government's visibility, to the detriment of what happens in the education sector with student funding.

Students would have liked there to be a better form of management of the funding than by a private foundation. This concern is shared by almost all the witnesses that appeared before us. The auditor general challenged the transparency of this foundation that will be managing $2.5 billion. I think this money should have gone back into the social transfer to the provinces for education, health and welfare.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my friends in the Reform Party for giving me the privilege to speak at this point in the discussion and my friends in the Liberal Party as well. I should also refer to my friends in the Conservative Party who have agreed to allow me to make a couple of points.

I might have some different views than my colleagues from Quebec, but we have concerns about the millennium fund. I first of all want to acknowledge that in terms of the government providing some recognition of the serious problem of student debt relief I think is a step in the right direction although a very limited step.

We have to acknowledge that the average student debt load now for Canadian students is at $25,000 and is growing year after year. Obviously some dramatic measures must be taken.

When it comes to the millennium scholarship fund we have to acknowledge that this is going to help perhaps somewhere between 8% and 9% of students requiring financial assistance. We still have a huge group of young people, and perhaps not so young people, who need financial help and this millennium scholarship will not be of much help.

We also want to acknowledge that we are concerned that students who are able to access this fund do so on the basis of need. We take the position in the New Democratic Party that if a person seeking post-secondary education is accepted by an institution, that demonstrates merit. They have qualified for their program; they have qualified for entrance to a university or college or an institute of one kind or another. After that it should be based on need to ensure that no Canadian is kept from pursuing post-secondary education because of a financial barrier. That is one point.

Another point is we are concerned that the scholarships be allocated on a reasonable basis. By that I would suggest that if a population of a province is for example 12% as in British Columbia, then British Columbia could expect to receive 12% of the scholarships operating in that fund. It would not go to one area of the country over another area, which unfortunately is the tradition in so many of these federal government programs. Certain people in certain areas of Canada receive an overwhelming benefit, often at the expense of other regions of Canada.

While this fund is limited to certain kinds of institutions, there are other institutions and other ways of training and learning that should be considered. I think for example of apprenticeship programs. We are woefully lacking properly trained apprentices in a number of areas. They should have access to this program.

We should also recognize certain institutions. If they qualify for funding under the present Canadian loans act, students in those institutions or colleges or whatever they may be called ought to have access to the scholarship fund. It should recognize that education is changing in terms of how it is being pursued by individuals, whether it is on a part time basis in a small institute, or career planning as opposed to academic planning. If a person is serious about self-improvement, serious about becoming better educated, we should use this facility.

Let us also acknowledge that this scholarship fund reflects a government that does not place a high value on education. If it actually placed a high value on education, it would do what some other nations do which in fact place a high value on education. For example, 16 out of the 29 OECD countries have no tuition fees. It is their way of saying it is one thing they can do to eliminate a barrier from some people pursuing post-secondary education.

It is fair to say that many decades ago we as a country decided that 12 years of education was an absolute minimum in order for someone to be a contributing citizen. Therefore we do not have tuition fees in grade 6 or 10 or 12 but we do at let us say, grade 13 or 14 or 15. There probably is not a single Canadian that would not think that they now have to have more than 12 years of formal education. They probably have to have at least 14 or 16 years to enter the workplace and become a contributing citizen.

In that tradition we should consider eliminating tuition fees as a barrier, like so many other countries do. As a matter of fact, even the college system in Quebec does not have tuition fees, unlike other provinces, as a way to encourage young people to continue their education in that province.

We have a number of concerns. As the day progresses, various colleagues of mine will be identifying concerns they have in various sections of the bill and other concerns regarding the millennium scholarship fund.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the Group No. 1 motions respecting Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. In particular I want to speak to the three motions being brought forward by the Reform Party and explain why we think it is important that the House consider them seriously and give serious thought to accepting them. We feel very strongly that they will improve greatly what is being proposed in the budget.

The first motion I want to speak to is Motion No. 3. This amendment would ensure that an eligible institution for a millennium grant would be any institution that currently is eligible to receive a student loan from the federal government. In other words, what we would do with this motion is spread the eligibility from the current proposal which is just for students who attend publicly funded institutions to all institutions, including institutions for instance like Trinity Western University in British Columbia.

We feel very strongly that publicly funded institutions do not have the monopoly on good education. The federal government in the past has seen that these institutions, like Trinity Western, provide a good education which is why it allows student loans to be used to go to school there. We think it just makes sense if the government is going to be consistent that the millennium fund should apply to those sorts of institutions.

We are suggesting that the government should hear what we are saying. I also believe that this was supported by witnesses who came before the committee. We hope the government will hear what we are saying and adopt this as part of the budget implementation act.

The second motion we want to address, Motion No. 42, deals with the establishment of an appeal process whereby a student who was turned down to receive a scholarship fund would have some way of appealing the decision. Governments are notorious for making bad decisions. They do it all the time. They get information wrong and based on that information they may make a faulty decision.

We think it makes sense to have an appeal process so if somebody is turned down because of a bureaucratic bungle, a problem at the government's end, there is some way for the student to come back and say “these are the facts, you have it wrong, you made a mistake, let me have another chance to apply and have access to the grant”. It is a mechanism that will ensure fairness for students.

The final motion we want to discuss and the one that is most important is Motion No. 67. It is a motion to allow a provincial government to opt out of the millennium scholarship fund and enter into an agreement where the foundation pays the province the amount that would have been spent in a particular province. The province would then use the funds for its own priorities.

There is a bit of history required in order to understand why Motion No. 67 is so important. In the 1993 leadership debate the current Prime Minister was questioned by the current Leader of the Opposition about transfer payments for health care and higher education. The Leader of the Opposition asked the current Prime Minister if he would keep them at the current level. The Prime Minister replied: “I said yesterday in reply to Mr. Bouchard that I promised that they will not go down and I hope that we will be able to increase them”. That was a few days before the election.

What happened after that is history. I think we all know what happened. There were $6 billion in cuts to the provinces for health care and higher education. After the Prime Minister promised they would not go down and in fact might even go up they were cut by $6 billion. That means the provinces have $6 billion less to give to their health care systems and higher education.

The impact was devastating. It meant that tuition costs had to go up dramatically. We know as a result of tuition costs going up dramatically all of a sudden students had to bear more of the cost for their education. That is why we have student debt levels of around $25,000 today. But that is not in all provinces.

Quebec provides more money for its university system and education is much more heavily subsidized. Student debtloads are much lower, about $11,000. We heard that over and over again from witnesses who came from Quebec. They said their student debtloads are not nearly as high. They said they do not need the millennium scholarship fund to address those things.

Once the federal government created the problem it then stepped in with the millennium scholarship fund, this great monument to the Prime Minister, and said “now that we have created this problem and the provinces are taking all the heat for it we are going to step in and be heroes and get all the credit for fixing it”. It is like the arsonist who starts fires so he can come back later to put them out and get credit for putting out the fire.

So we are saying let us not let the federal government get away with that. Let us ensure there is a clause that allows the provinces to opt out and if they so choose to take the money that would come to their province through the millennium scholarship fund and use it to lower all tuition costs, not just for the select few who have access to the millennium scholarship fund.

I think what the government did was duplicitous.

It set out in 1993 to convince Canadians it would somehow fix all their problems without having to make any cuts of any kind and then turn around immediately and slash funding to the provinces for health care and higher education. Then it steps in with a fund that is clearly in provincial jurisdiction and wants to get credit for fixing the problem it created.

We do not want to let it get away with that. We want to ensure the money gets back to the provinces so they can use it in a way they choose. They may choose to stay in the millennium scholarship fund and if they do that is fine, it is up to them. But they know their own priorities a lot better than the federal government does 2,000 miles away.

Let us give the provinces that option. In a day and age when the federal government is talking about co-operative federalism it would take a giant step toward healing rifts if it would adopt Motion No. 67.

All we are asking is to give provinces the options. The federal government needs to have some faith in the people of Canada. If the people of Canada do not want their provinces to use this money for something else, they will send a strong message to their provincial governments.

The federal government should have some faith in the people. That is exactly what they will do. We are encouraging the House to seriously consider adopting Motion No. 67. I am very sensitive to the issues raised by my colleagues from Quebec that over and over again we had witnesses coming from Quebec saying they did not necessarily need this for scholarships in Quebec. Student debt levels in Quebec are only about $11,000 compared to $25,000 elsewhere.

I urge colleagues to consider the good this motion would do in terms of building bridges with the provinces, in terms of uniting our country and strengthening the union. I urge members to support Motion No. 67 and the other motions Reform has brought forward.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, this government's approach to budgetary decisions is a patchwork quilt of interventionist policy that lacks the type of consistency required for sound economic policy.

We have proposed 19 amendments to Bill C-36. I want to ensure we have proposed these amendments in a very constructive non-partisan way because we want to make significant improvements to this legislation which will benefit all Canadians and which will be a credit to this House.

Two such amendments we have proposed would see both private and public institutions treated similarly by the millennium scholarship foundation. For instance, we believe private institutions require representation at the board level and at the membership level of the foundation. It is absolutely essential that students in private educational institutions across Canada have that kind of representation.

Private colleges and career colleges are growing across Canada because they represent the needs of the workplace. They are more sensitive to labour mobility and a lot of the facts of life of the late 20th century and the early 21st century in terms of the needs of Canadian employers.

For this millennium scholarship fund to not recognize the importance of career colleges and private educational institutions would be a travesty. One of our amendments calls for membership at the board of directors level and at the membership level of the foundation for representatives from career colleges.

Another amendment we have moved would allow students studying provincially certified programs at private institutions access to the scholarships as well. This is consistent with our belief that career colleges and private institutions and students studying at those institutions deserve to be treated with respect and deserve to be thought of with the understanding they are going to be making a significant contribution to Canada in the 21st century.

Each province currently has standards and criteria for funding for programs so we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can simply rely on the provincial certification process which has worked extraordinarily well to date. The federal government need not reinvent the wheel or start a new bureaucratic process to do this. We can simply rely on the good judgment of the provinces.

Some of the legislation governing federal boards and agencies must provide a proper framework for accountability and transparency, and this framework is lacking in this bill. For boards and agencies functioning with taxpayer money there must be an accountability to this parliament and to all Canadians.

Transparency means that the stakeholders, ordinary Canadians and their representatives in parliament, have free access to information sufficient to enable them to judge the make-up of the board and the board's conduct of its business. Unfortunately the arm's length nature of the millennium scholarship foundation and the lack of transparency denies Canadians that access and denies Canadians the opportunity to judge whether the millennium scholarship foundation will meet the needs of ordinary Canadians.

Two and a half billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money is going to a private foundation which would not be accessible through the Access to Information Act, the books of which will not be available to the auditor general. What the government is really doing is saying “here is $2.5 billion, do not worry about screwing up, you operate at arm's length and you are free to run your own show and the auditor general will not have access to your books anyway”. The auditor general is the Canadian taxpayers' watchdog in Ottawa and to deny Canadian taxpayers access and due diligence over the books of $2.5 billion of their money is a travesty.

It is debatable to what extent this foundation is at arm's length given that the government appoints a chairman and a third of the board. The other two-thirds are appointed by members who in turn are initially appointed by the minister. Most of the money will come from the federal treasury and yet this is considered an arm's length foundation.

The annual report is to be tabled in parliament. The auditor general questions exactly how arm's length the millennium foundation will be. In chapter 9 of last month's report he states: “It relates to what we would call the essential nature or substance of these types of entities. We will be examining this matter further and will report separately if significant findings emerge. Questions that we will address in this study will include whether, in substance or in fact, such entities operate at arm's length from the government”.

The auditor general questions the degree to which this will be an arm's length foundation and I think Canadians require greater accountability and assurances that this $2.5 billion is to be invested properly and will benefit all Canadians. That is why we call in our amendments for a greater level of transparency and a greater level of accountability for these funds.

We have also put forward an amendment that would require a five year review to be conducted by someone who is independent of the foundation. The Liberals do not care if this review is done by someone with close ties to management who would take a cursory look around and write a glowing report and then collect a fat fee for telling management what it wants to hear.

Canadians deserve better than that. Canadians deserve to have true accountability. We are offering government members an opportunity to redeem themselves in this instance by supporting some of these amendments and effectively ensure that Canadians will have external auditors who will do unbiased evaluations of the millennium scholarship foundation's activities without the bias or prejudice of appointment by the board.

I urge members to support this amendment so that all members of parliament can judge for themselves the success or failure of the millennium scholarship fund and its value to the Canadian taxpayer.

Another amendment we have put forward would allow the board to indefinitely block the release of unfavourable annual reports by simply refusing to approve them. Under the current legislation if a report comes forward that would be an unfavourable annual report the board can indefinitely block it from public viewing. That is unacceptable.

We propose that effectively any report or any annual report will be made available to the Canadian public after a reasonable period of time. Currently these types of negative annual reports can be shelved indefinitely, denying Canadians the access to information and the accountability and transparency they need.

There is also an amendment we are proposing which would require that some directors know something about investments. They are going to be given $2.5 billion. We do feel that they should know something about investments. Perhaps they will lend the money to the provinces, as was done with the Canada pension plan money resulting in the stellar performance that we have seen in recent years during a time when we have seen unprecedented growth in the equities markets around the world.

We believe that there should be criteria for the board members that include some knowledge of the investment industry and some knowledge of portfolio management. This can prevent poor returns in fixed income securities. It can also prevent high risk situations à la Orange county derivatives or shares in the next Bre-X.

It is increasingly apparent that the Minister of Finance does not have a particularly good relationship with the auditor general. I would venture to say that is probably one of the greatest understatements made in this House this year. The auditor general's accounting advice is routinely ignored by the Minister of Finance.

We are looking to provide the type of accountability through these amendments to this legislation which will provide ordinary Canadians with the accountability they need, independent of the auditor general and independent of the Minister of Finance. We need to ensure that this money is accounted for properly and that ultimately the millennium scholarship foundation results in the betterment of Canadian educational opportunities and competitiveness in the 21st century.

I do not have time to devote my speech to some of the other amendments, but we will have some opportunities later today. I urge all members to take a look at these amendments in a non-partisan and constructive way. That is the way they were developed and proposed.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, let me start off by saying that the 1998 budget set up the arm's length foundation to manage the millennium scholarship fund. It is intended to increase access to post-secondary education for deserving students from lower income families. It is a priority that has support right across Canada. It has been discussed at the first ministers meeting and in other fora. Federal and provincial officials have been working together co-operatively to address the issue of student financing for post-secondary education.

The foundation has been mandated to undertake an extensive consultation with the various stakeholders, which would include the provinces, on the definition and administration of the scholarships. We heard during committee the concern that individuals have with respect to overlap and duplication. That is why the foundation has been mandated to take on those consultations.

Let us be very clear. The millennium scholarship foundation will not be a federal program. Scholarships will be distributed from a private arm's length organization which will deal directly with the students. That means the foundation and the scholarships will not be under the control of the federal government, nor will the government be able to dictate to the foundation the parameters of these scholarships or their distribution.

The scholarship fund will provide 100,000 scholarships a year to students in every province and every community, up to $3,000 per year for full time and part time students. It is about increasing access to knowledge and skills. It is the country's dividend for balancing the books. It is the recognition that Canadians from coast to coast, province to province deserve equal access to the opportunities that will secure a better future for them and their families.

I have said it in committee and I will say it again here. Something as important as this should be taken out of the hands of politicians and put into the hands of experts. That is what this millennium scholarship fund is doing. The foundation will be administering the scholarships and over time will attract private sector endowments so that it can grow and help even more young Canadians.

With respect to the motions in Group No. 1, the member for Kings—Hants talked about his amendment and the idea that private schools should be designated by provincial law as eligible for the millennium scholarship fund. Under the current legislation, universities, community colleges and CEGEPs will be eligible institutions.

The current legislation also provides the foundation with the flexibility it needs to determine the eligibility of privately funded institutions. This flexibility gives it the means to designate bona fide credible private institutions as eligible institutions. There is no intent in this legislation to exclude such institutions.

I go on to the Reform motion that would require the foundation to establish an appeal process for applicants who do not receive scholarships. I said it in committee and I will say it again. There is nothing in this legislation to prevent the foundation from establishing an appeals process.

We have to understand this is an arm's length foundation. It is completely within its purview, and the legislation allows for this flexibility, to establish an appeals process. Establishing an appeals process pursuant to regulations established by the government would undermine the arm's length nature of the foundation. We cannot have it both ways.

The Conservative Party proposed an amendment that calls for the Auditor General of Canada to be appointed as the auditor of this foundation. There is really no need for this amendment because the auditor general could be appointed as the auditor for this foundation. There is no legal obstacle to naming the auditor general. It is completely within the purview of the foundation to choose the auditor general as its auditor.

The same member from the Conservative Party calls for the Minister of Finance to remove the auditor of the foundation from office. I could not believe this amendment when I read it. The hon. member's motion gives the Minister of Finance the power to remove the auditor chosen by the foundation. This amendment compromises the arm's length nature of the foundation. It gives the minister a direct role in the removal of the auditor. That role properly belongs to the members of the foundation.

What is actually being said is on the one hand there is a call for transparency and accountability and on the other hand this amendment says if the Minister of Finance does not like the particular auditor, the minister can pull him. I do not think we can support that amendment. We are looking for independence, an arm's length relationship, accountability and transparency.

Motion No. 65 makes reference to the booking of this foundation. The auditor general came before the committee. As I have said before, the accounting issue has also been discussed by the public accounts committee. In its majority report the public accounts committee supported the government's accounting policies with respect to the booking of such non-recurring liabilities. It is certainly very clear.

The member from the Bloc spoke eloquently at the meeting. I believe that member is in agreement with me that there is disagreement within the accounting profession with respect to this issue. That means professional judgment should be exercised in such cases, which is exactly what the government is doing and what it will continue to do.

When the government announces a program and commits to funding a program, it is incumbent upon the government to pay for that program. When we came to office there were a number of unfunded liabilities on the books. There were programs that had been announced but not funded. We came to office and there was a $42 billion deficit and decisions needed to be made.

What we are saying is no more. We are saying that when a government makes an announcement and makes a commitment to a particular program, the government should pay for it. I believe Canadians will support that. Canadians want to know that when an announcement is made and a program is put in place that the money is there to pay for it, even if the program is going to begin down the road, as long as certain criteria is met.

That criteria was certainly discussed at the finance committee. What we have here is a disagreement within in the accounting profession. Professional judgment will be exercised as it has been in the past and as it will be in the future.

The other point brought forward by the hon. member from the Conservative Party was about access to information. Again the foundation is an arm's length entity and it is independent of the federal government. Let us talk about what it is required to do.

Sections 36 and 39 of the bill talk about what the foundation is required to do with the annual report. It needs to outline its investment activities. It needs to include the auditor's report. It needs to include the portfolio on the policies, the statement of outlook, and the results achieved with respect to the foundation's scholarships which are placed. Finally it is also required to hold a public meeting every year. It is required to provide ample advance notice of the public meeting so the public can attend, scrutinize, ask questions and discuss what the foundation has done over the past year. So it is not about access to information.

I should also say that the annual report which is then tabled in the House of Commons is certainly open to the auditor general to review and comment on it, as is any other document that gets tabled in the House. It is completely within the purview of the auditor general. There is transparency and there is accountability.

I will close by saying that this is not a government program. It is an arm's length foundation. The opting out option is not there because it is not a government program, it is an arm's length foundation.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to this important bill and to the group of motions we have presented, whose aim essentially is to eliminate everything to do with the millennium scholarships.

Why are we presenting this group of motions? For one good reason: with the millennium scholarships the government is not minding its own business. In the course of three weeks of hearings before the Standing Committee on Finance, 14 organizations from Quebec all said the same thing, which was that the federal government has no business meddling in an area of exclusive jurisdiction. According to the Constitution these people claim to be defending, the federal government cannot interfere, and the organizations are calling for the right to withdraw with full compensation for Quebec.

Witnesses appeared on behalf of such important organizations as the FTQ, the CSN and university and college student associations. An association of former student movement leaders, who oversaw the changes in the education sector in the past 11 years, had seven messages for the committee, and especially the federal government. The first was that, with these scholarships, the federal government is showing its ignorance of the situation in Quebec.

Allow me to quote from the brief of the FTQ, which said, about the proposal as it was formulated in Bill C-36, that “this proposal illustrates the Canadian government's lack of knowledge about Quebec's system of loans and grants and its priorities in education”. The president of the Fédération des cégeps said essentially the same thing.

The association of former student leaders of Quebec said “With its millennium scholarships, the federal government is showing its ignorance and its incompetence in the field of education”.

I do not think they were paying much attention on the other side of the House because, despite three intensive weeks and the unanimity of the witnesses from Quebec, the members of the Liberal majority on the finance committee did not move a single amendment.

They have the nerve to claim to be in touch with people's needs, when 14 organizations representing at least 1.2 million adult Quebeckers with some degree of connection to education or business have told them to mind their own business. But they did not get it. They are thumbing their noses at people and at the democratic system.

Normally, if people had been listened to properly, and if the business of holding public hearings in the committees had had any value in the eyes of the parliamentarians, who claim they are democratic right down to the roots of their hair, they would have backed off after hearing the representations from Quebec. I fault the chair of the finance committee for not allowing any mention of Quebec's unanimous opposition to the millennium scholarships in the report he tabled last Friday.

The second criticism voiced by all stakeholders is that the federal government came up with this project solely to gain some more visibility. Minister of Human Resources Development made no bones about this either. With his usual candour, he indicated that this indeed was the reason. The Prime Minister went still further, as has been his wont since the start of his career in politics.

This project creates duplication and doubles costs for all taxpayers. At the present time, the loans and bursaries system that Quebec has developed since the Ministry of Education was created in 1964 is without equal, and works impeccably well. We are not the only ones to say so. It is cited as an example across Canada. We have all of the structures, all of the staff, and all of the expertise accorded to us by the Constitution, the British North America Act.

Adding on a foundation to administer scholarships just creates duplication and greatly increases costs. The administrative costs of the millennium fund are double what we have in Quebec.

On the average, Quebec's administration of bursaries and loans takes about 2.5% of the amounts involved, while the figure for the millennium scholarships will be twice that, at 5%. Yet they talk of efficiency. Efficiency, my foot!

The third criticism from Quebec stakeholders at our hearings was that, far from reducing inequalities, the millennium scholarships run the risk of increasing inequalities in the field of education.

The fourth criticism is that the millennium scholarships are not a solution to student indebtedness. Ever since 1995, since the Minister of Finance started slashing federal transfers for higher education, we have been saying that the answer to the student loans problem is for the government to stop slashing and start giving back what it has taken from the pockets of the provinces and was actually used before to finance the education programs. That would be a positive measure to reduce student loans.

The fifth criticism put forward by people from Quebec is there is no need for this in Quebec. That does not mean that we do not need money, but we do not need a wall to wall policy. That could work outside Quebec. Some Canadian stakeholders stated that they were interested in the millennium scholarships, because they are not organized as Quebec has been since 1964, when it set up its student loans and grants program. However, the proposed scholarship fund does not meet the needs of Quebec.

What Quebec needs right now is for the Minister of Finance to stop playing petty politics with the surplus he hides year after year, by juggling the figures, and to start giving back what he has grabbed from Quebec. We would then be in a position to help students out.

The sixth criticism is a major one. We have grown accustomed, ever since his appointment, to seeing the Minister of Finance juggling the figures. He literally juggles all the figures he brings forward. It has come to a point where we no longer believe the government's financial statements or the estimates the minister tables.

With the millennium scholarship program, he has been criticized three times by the auditor general, who is the watchdog of public finances and is accountable to Parliament. The auditor general is impartial; he is accountable to Parliament.

What did the auditor general have to say? He said that, by charging to the 1997-98 budget these $2.5 billion that he plans to start spending only in the year 2000, the finance minister is fixing the books. They no longer mean anything. Amounts that have yet to be spent cannot be included in the financial statements. Where will that kind of government accounting lead us?

A few moments ago, I heard the secretary of state say that people appreciate this new accounting method whereby all commitments are included in the books as soon as they are made, even though the money will be spent only three years later, because it makes people aware of planned spending. This is not true. It is absolutely false. People want to know what the real figures are. They want to know where they are going. They want to know that the money they are paying in taxes will be spent in the current fiscal year. They do not want to know that expenditures that will be made only in the year 2000 were charged in full to last year's budget.

These $2.5 billion should not have been included in the books for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. The auditor general and chartered accountants are almost unanimous on this issue, except for those hired by the government, of course, who may be suspected of being less impartial.

It is not the first time the finance minister pulls such a stunt. It is the third time. He did it when he concluded a deal with three maritime provinces to harmonize the GST with their provincial sales tax. A compensation package totalling about $1 billion—which is still being criticized because it means the government bought those three maritime provinces to get what it wanted—was included in the books before the agreement between these provinces and the federal government was even signed.

The second time was when the innovation fund was created. Again, the minister charged the full amount to the current year's budget even though he started spending the money only one year and a half later. Therefore, like all the stakeholders in Quebec, we condemn this practice.

During this debate, we will have the opportunity to address other aspects of the millennium scholarship fund that are very important to Quebeckers. I will talk about an important federal-provincial conference that took place on March 31, 1964, in Quebec City. It was a turning point in the debate on education between the federal government and the Quebec government.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Battlefords—Lloydminster I am pleased to speak today to Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.

Like the budget itself, the act is full of items that may have good intentions but are badly thought out or whose purpose seems to be to fool Canadians into thinking the government is managing taxpayers' money properly.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, the most glaring example I can see of good intentions gone bad and turning into a political boondoggle is the Prime Minister's millennium scholarship fund.

I am sure the thinking in the Liberal cabinet was: Who could possibly disagree with putting more money in the hands of deserving students? In principle, no one really disagrees.

However, most of the presenters to the finance committee in the past weeks all had problems with sections of this fund, including the student groups themselves.

The Reform Party certainly supports the concept of encouraging these young Canadians to pursue higher education but, in the time honoured tradition of its predecessors, this Liberal government has managed to separate the taxpayer from his money only to offer it back to him as if it were a favour.

After cutting $6 billion from the amount the provinces were expecting to help pay for further education, this finance minister had an embarrassing problem. He had taxed Canadians to the limit and built up a budgetary surplus.

Why he could not bring himself to leave these excess tax dollars in the hands of the people who earned them we will never understand. In any case, he ended up with $2.5 billion to dispose of, to hide from his fellow colleagues as it were.

The finance minister decided to charge his credit card this year and start paying for it two years down the road. The benefit of providing only 7% of Canada's students with $3,000 a year will not even kick in until the year 2000, but the taxpayer gets to foot this bill right away. The auditor general says nobody else could get away with this creative accounting and we certainly agree with that statement.

Our colleagues in the Bloc have been pressing to allow Quebec to opt out altogether and to decide how to dispense its share of the millennium scholarship fund.

I certainly agree in principle since the provinces are responsible for education and this bill states nothing about how to approach the various types of schools that each province has set up to provide a range of education opportunities.

However, in committee we were told that there is no provincial share because this is not a federal program in the legal sense of the word. This is a new breed of animal that commits taxpayers' money to a private foundation. This government sets up an entity with public money but says it does not need the auditor general to look after it.

The board will name its own auditor, state its own salaries, hand out taxpayers' dollars on merit—whatever that might be—or need, or both, ignoring the fact that provinces and the federal government and, for that matter, private industry already have bursaries, loans, grants and award programs in place to help students who demonstrate that merit and need.

Are we going to reward the poorest of the best or the best of the poorest? That is one of the comments we heard at the finance committee the other day. I think it is certainly true.

No wonder this government does not want the millennium scholarship foundation to be subject to the Access to Information Act. It is clearly a political ploy to convince Canadians that the Liberals care about education when what they really care about is filtering tax money through their offices to get credit at election time.

To sum up, the Reform Party wants this government to return to recognized accounting procedures that only book funding in the year that the project actually takes place. We propose the that Auditor General of Canada be named in the act that creates this scholarship fund, that this fund be subject to the Access to Information Act and that an appeal process be specified to deal with applications that are turned down.

Further, we propose that each province and territory be allowed to access scholarship funds based on the system in place and the needs as determined by the governments based on student populations.

If we are to assist the next generation in developing the skills and education they need to build a better Canada we should look first at how we can leave the maximum resources in their hands and then how we can provide them with the most flexible and cost effective ways to support their efforts.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a brief intervention on the bill before us.

As a member of the finance committee I had an opportunity to listen to the witnesses who came before us. It is clear that the millennium scholarship fund was one of the most talked about aspects of the budget implementation bill.

The member asked: Are we rewarding the best of the poorest or the poorest of the best? The member well knows that the issue of merit was well explained by the authors of the millennium scholarship fund and that acceptance at an institution would constitute merit. Clearly, for any program to be successful, obviously the candidates who are eligible should be those who demonstrate an aptitude to be able to complete a program because that is the most important part.

The issue of accessibility was more important for many members simply because we all know that there are many students out there who have demonstrated aptitude in secondary education but, given their circumstances, are unable or unwilling to take the economic plunges needed to pursue post-secondary education. All members know that is almost a prerequisite to having a good job.

The member's cynicism with regard to a political ploy is certainly a very weak argument against the federal government being involved in the education of Canadian youth. There is no question that there is an appetite to have more students attend post-secondary education in order to pursue the necessary skills and training they are going to need to participate fully in the economy of Canada.

With regard to the funding and the accounting, this issue has been dealt with very thoroughly. Indeed, the public accounts committee congratulated and supported the government in terms of its accounting for the millennium scholarship fund.

When the committee met and discussed briefly the mechanics of the accounting, it was pointed out that if the millennium scholarship fund had been designated to be operated through the foundation for innovation that would have eliminated the need for the auditor general to comment.

In fact, before the committee, the auditor general did admit that if the millennium scholarship fund, as proposed, were put under the umbrella of the foundation for innovation he would not have made comment with regard to the $2.5 billion.

I would like to table those remarks. It is clear that some members do not agree with the millennium scholarship fund, but it appears also that their reasons are more politically motivated than they are in terms of showing interest in the future of our young Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-36 at report stage. This bill makes it possible to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Our first group of amendments indicates our strong opposition to this government bulldozing over Quebec's jurisdiction in the education sector, and not deciding, in the present situation, to complete negotiations. The Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec have given themselves two months to come up with a solution that will respect Quebec's jurisdiction and Ottawa's need for visibility. This is the only reason Ottawa has intervened: to ensure its visibility on the cheques it may send students.

Not respecting the negotiating process either means the Liberal majority is ignoring the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister's promises are worthless. Members of the Quebec education coalition, who support Quebec's position, were present at a meeting of the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada.

It is important to know who these people are. They are not just sovereignists. They represent the entire education movement in Quebec. We are talking about the following groups: the Alliance des manufacturiers exportateurs du Québec, the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, the CSN, the Fédération des associations d'étudiants universitaires québécois en éducation permanente, the Fédération des cégeps, the Coalition d'ex-leaders et étudiants québécois, the Fédération québécoise des professeurs et professeures du Québec.

All these people, 41% of the witnesses heard, came to say the same thing. The Liberal majority was unable to find a single witness from Quebec to say that the millennium scholarships made any sense. Why does Quebec feel this way?

In 1964, there were two men who had a conception of Canada that was completely different from that of the Prime minister today, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage. I remember because I was quite young at the time but my father was a Liberal supporter and he knew that they were trying to come to an agreement. In the 1964 agreement, it had been decided to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

The people of Quebec and Canada were told “There is indeed a Canada Student Loans Act, but one province wishing to develop a different model will be allowed to do so”. That is what distinct society is about. This philosophy worked for 34 years and led to the best student assistance system in Canada. Many witnesses agreed on this, not only those from Quebec who were defending their system or Quebec students who came to speak out in favour of their system, but also witnesses from the other provinces of Canada. It was very clear what was on the table.

The federal government had to choose between two alternatives. To put in place a student loans and bursaries program like the one available elsewhere in the country, all it had to do was to amend the Canada Student Loans Act. This way, the rest of Canada could have benefited from a loans and bursaries system similar to the one in Quebec.

Why did the federal government not take that route? Because this meant automatically allowing Quebec to use its right to opt out with full compensation. This right is already provided for in the legislation. Since 1964, Quebec has been using this right to opt out with full compensation and has apparently been doing so properly. The system it has developed could be a model for all Canadian stakeholders.

In Quebec, the average debt load of university graduates is $11,000. In Canada, it is anywhere from $18,000 to $25,000. Obviously, Canadian students are curious about what makes the Quebec system so successful. The main reason is the fact that there is a bursaries program within the Quebec system.

The federal government decided, in order to create a scholarship program, to use a rather extraordinary legal scheme called the millennium fund. The government claims that it must absolutely promote students' performance to achieve great results. But the real reason is that it did not want Quebec to be able to opt out with full compensation. The federal government wanted to make sure Quebec would be forced to ask the foundation for the authority to grant scholarships, according to specific criteria.

This House must realize that if there is one thing on Quebec will never compromise, it is its jurisdiction over education. This government's claim that providing financial assistance to students has nothing to do with education is hogwash.

Any Quebec student or member of the Quebec coalition against the millennium fund knows full well that financial assistance to students is part of the balance, part of the whole system in the education sector. It is what determines accessibility to education. It is thanks to the financial assistance provided to students that there are now as many young women as there are young men in Quebec's universities. This financial assistance has helped children from low income families complete their education. The program was established in 1964, because we had an old and obsolete system which, while quite successful in producing a high quality elite, did not allow others to succeed.

During the Quiet Revolution—and this was an initiative taken by a Liberal government—we wanted to make sure we would have an education system that would be accessible. We are proud of the model that we developed in Quebec, even though it is not perfect.

Let me give you an example of what this system allows us to do. We have a project to recognize students' good performance. One of the ways to achieve this in Quebec is to forgive part of a student's debt if that student completes his or her education within the normal timeframe. This means six semesters for a BA. If a student completes his or her BA in six semesters, he or she can get a 15% reduction of his or her debt. This is a nice way to acknowledge the efforts of someone who works hard to complete his or her education.

Along with that program, we will now have the millennium fund. Under that fund, students will get scholarships based on merit, but not necessarily their financial needs. Students will be facing the following situation: elsewhere in Canada, in the nine English-speaking provinces, some students will be granted millennium scholarships. Good for them, but several others will have to do without.

However, in Quebec, when a student will be granted a millennium scholarship, if the legislation is not changed, Quebec will have to withdraw any financial assistance it was providing that student, because it will have to take into account this additional income.

For the student at the receiving end, it does not change a thing. It only creates a whole new bureaucracy. The members opposite do not seem to know how education works. To apply for a loan or a grant, one needs to fill out some forms. The cegep and university staff who help the students to fill out the forms and to meet the requirements to get the most out of the system will now have to learn how the two systems work, to become familiar with the two different forms, because the requirements will not all be the same. This total and absolute duplication.

Obviously, we have to deal with a government that is turning a deaf ear. It did it in committee, tit gagged us and decided it would do the same thing at report stage. One thing is clear, in the end, the people in Quebec will realize by themselves that the federal government is turning a deaf ear to all Quebec stakeholders.

I urge the members from the province of Quebec, whether they are from Brome—Missisquoi, from Anjou—Rivières-des-Prairies, from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, from Bourassa, from Beauce or from Saint-Maurice, to reconsider their position. How can they be silent in the House, not say a word, not rise in their place to say that Quebeckers are right about this, that they must be given a chance to continue running their system, which is a good one?

And to top it all, last week, three of Quebec's major management associations, the Conseil du patronat, the Chambre de commerce du Québec, and the Association des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec came to testify before the committee. These are not exactly people who are identified with the sovereignist movement in Quebec.

The representatives of these three associations came to tell the government to postpone consideration of the bill until negotiations had been completed. If an agreement is reached, it will be incorporated into the bill. If no agreement is reached, the government will assume its responsibilities, as will the opposition, but there will not be a pretence of democracy such as that being forced on us today.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois has introduced motions to delete from this bill any references to the foundation. Quebec will never agree to the federal government poking its nose into one of the systems we have developed, the best in the world. We will never stand for it. The government will make sure it passes by invoking closure at every stage, because otherwise this bill will never get through.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure again to speak to Bill C-36, the budget implementation bill, at report stage.

Today there was a report in the newspapers that Canadians are feeling poor. I can tell the House why Canadians are feeling poor. It is because their government has become richer at their expense. Why? It is because of high taxation, not because the government reduced expenditures. It has been on the backs of Canadians, raising taxes as well as cutting funding to the provinces. Funding to the provinces for education has been cut by $6 billion.

This has created a debtload on students. We all know that students' debtload has skyrocketed.

I have two daughters who are in university. One has just completed university and she has a debtload of $15,000. The other has a debtload of almost at $8,000 and she is midway through her university degree. They are both very worried about how they will pay this debt.

Let us talk about what the government is trying to do. It has come up with what it calls a millennium fund. The irony of this situation is that Brian Mulroney, a former prime minister, came up with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords so he could go into the history books as doing something. Now we have this Prime Minister who also wants to go into the history books by bringing in the millennium fund which is not well thought out.

Who will benefit from this millennium fund? We are told that the fund is targeted toward students. About 7% of students will receive about $3,000. It is based upon merit. Granted, there has been talk about need, but the majority of scholarships will be given on merit. We heard a member opposite talk about how the merit system will work.

I would like to bring in another point of view. My riding, like many ridings in Canada, is made up of hard working Canadians, Canadians who, due to the high taxation of this government, are struggling to put food on the table. They do not have the money to send their children to university. Most of their time is spent trying to put food on the table. Therefore, they have less time to spend looking after their families.

In my riding, particularly, there are hard working, working class people. When I visited a high school in my riding the principal told me that only 10% of the students will go on to higher education. What is the solution to that?

I talked to them and explained that they do not have to go to university for higher education. They do not have to go to college to get ahead in life. They should look at another option, trade schools. They can become electricians. They can become drywallers. They can become carpenters. These are the options the majority of the students in my riding face.

Where is the millennium fund going, their tax dollars? It is not going to address these concerns. That is why I call the millennium fund an elitist fund. Time after time after time many members have talked about how it will help students in university. That is fine, but what about the other students? What about thousands of Canadians who will try to choose a trade career and be denied access to the fund?

Therefore the amendments the Reform Party have put forward are worth looking at to address many of the issues I have raised. First and foremost, Motion No. 3 asks that we take a look at public and private post-secondary education institutions in Canada that are designated for Canada student loan purposes. This will open it up to many students in high school who are unable to go university but choose a trade as their career.

I emphasize that we must look at the students who choose careers that are different. We must also help them. We do not want a shortage of skilled workers in the trades area.

Motion No. 42 is extremely important. Whenever taxpayers' money is put into something, be it a private foundation or a government institution, there has to be a mechanism where people can appeal a decision that at times may not be favourable.

We know that the bureaucracy in these foundations has a tendency to follow strict rules. There has to be a place where people can go to someone and say that a wrong decision was made. They have that right because they are taxpayers. Their parents have paid money into the fund. That money has not been raised by private sources. It is public money so the right to appeal should be there.

I will talk about the provinces. Education is a provincial jurisdiction. Provinces are the ones most closely associated with the economy of their regions. They know what is required in the regions. It is not the federal government sitting 2,000 miles away. Therefore it is important that we look at the motion which allows the provinces to opt out and use the money in the way that will address their own needs. It is very important that they be given flexibility. It is public money. There is no need for the federal government to have tight control over it although it talks about the private foundation.

I ask my colleagues across the floor to look at the motions that are trying to create a better disbursement of the fund and make it accessible to all Canadians.

[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 Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Trans-Canada Highway; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Post-Secondary Education.