House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was students.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, again reluctantly I rise of a point of order. Question No. 21 is absolutely languishing on the order paper. Months and months have gone by. The clock continues to tick. The question remains outstanding. When might we expect the answer?
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I point out that as of today we have replied to almost 70% of the almost 1,000 petitions presented.
With regard to the question the member is referring to—and I know he has particularly Question No. 21 in mind—we are in the range of a 75% response rate, which I do not think is bad.
I assure the member we have been working specifically on Question No. 21 during the constituency break. I assure him that I will be tabling the reply very soon.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall the remaining questions then stand?
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, as reported (with amendment) by the committee, and of Group No. 1.
Budget Implementation Act, 1998Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Because of the interruption for Oral Question Period, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau has six minutes left to speak.
Maurice Dumas Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the January 1994 throne speech, the federal government, which was faced with an unprecedented deficit, committed to clarifying the role of the federal government with respect to the other levels of government in order to eliminate duplication and overlap.
Why not make better use of proven education structures within the provinces rather than creating more? As Minister Landry told Le Devoir last February 25, Quebec “will again be penalized... by endless discussions and mechanisms of all kinds.... This is not the way a system that respects the various levels of government operates”.
Has the government forgotten that, in the February 1996 throne speech, in response to the referendum, it made the promise to no longer make use of the federal government's spending power to create programs in areas under provincial jurisdiction?
Does the federal government not acknowledge all of Quebec's accomplishments in education over the past 30 years?
Quebec is a leader in the area of education in Canada. To the people of Quebec, education represents a vital tool for cultural, economic and social development. What is more, education is the cornerstone of any society.
Thanks to its lack of political logic, and the creation of the millennium fund, the federal government has managed to create consensus in Quebec. All those consulted, who are involved in the education field, are opposed to Bill C-36.
The federal government will have once again shown its complete ignorance of the Quebec reality. It is not the first time a consensus is achieved in Quebec against any federal interference in education.
We will recall that, in May 1991, in a motion passed in the National Assembly, Liberal and PQ members unanimously condemned the federal government's unacceptable urge to interfere further in education.
The Prime Minister of Canada is doing his best to and will go down in history as the first government leader to so bluntly and obviously interfere in the provincial jurisdiction that is education.
However, the Government of Quebec has made itself quite clear: any additional funding for education must be directed to the Government of Quebec, which will redistribute it according to its own priorities. Any other form of funding will be considered as interference.
The Prime Minister will be known as the founding father of the millennium scholarships: a fine waste of public funds and a rather unoriginal way for the current government to send students in Quebec cheques with the Canadian maple leaf on them.
There is no logical and rational reason to create yet another scholarship system in Canada. Instead, the government should improve the system already in place in Quebec. It seems obvious to us that Ottawa's only motivation for establishing the millennium scholarships is to raise its profile.
In fact, the purpose of these scholarships is visibility at the expense of efficiency. The Prime Minister has said so himself. These scholarships run counter to Quebec's practice of entitling all students desiring to further their studies to financial assistance.
According to their criteria, the millennium scholarships will help only about a third of low and middle income students. In addition, they are only a medium term solution, as they will become available only in the year 2000. It will therefore be of absolutely no assistance to those currently completing their studies with a significant debt.
It is unacceptable that the millennium scholarships will be given out not only according to need but also on the basis of merit. Linking the subsistence of disadvantaged students to their academic performance is unconscionable. The scholarships fall short of the expectations of student associations because assistance is not based solely on need.
Even if the millennium fund focused its assistance on the most needy students, the Government of Quebec also administers merit scholarships. Regardless of the name given these scholarships, Quebec will no doubt most effectively manage the new money.
Allow me to quote Premier Bouchard in a letter to his Canadian counterpart: “Quebec will not be told what approach to take with respect to financial aid to students, an area that is under its jurisdiction”.
In conclusion, the millennium scholarship has given rise to a veritable outcry of protest, not only from sovereignists, as the Prime Minister of Canada had hoped, but also from all those with any sort of interest in Quebec's education system.
With one voice all those involved in education in Quebec have told the federal government that while C-36 is good for Canada it is not good for Quebec.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following order:
That the recorded divisions scheduled today at the conclusion of government orders take place in the following order:
all necessary questions to dispose of report stage of C-36.
the motion for third reading of C-19.
M-75.
the motion for second reading of C-247.
and all questions to dispose of M-261.
Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Does the House give its unanimous consent that the deputy government whip may propose this motion to the House?
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I did not really grasp the procedure and what the hon. member proposed. We are debating Bill C-36. Could it be repeated, please.
Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I will repeat the motions moved by the hon. member: “That the recorded divisions scheduled today at the conclusion of government orders take place in the following order: all necessary questions to dispose of report stage of Bill C-36; the motion for third reading of Bill C-19; Motion M-75; the motion for second reading of Bill C-247; and all questions necessary to dispose of Motion M-261.”
Is it clear to the hon. member?
Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 1.
Sarmite Bulte Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian needs and deserves an equal chance to live up to his or her full potential. I am in favour of the legislation establishing the millennium scholarship foundation because it will help Canadians reach their goals. In so doing it will also play a part in helping our country live up to its full potential.
No nation can rely solely on its resources in the ground for economic growth. In today's global economy and in the growing knowledge economy of the future the key to economic success is the development of our human resources.
Quite simply we need to have a highly skilled, highly adaptable and highly motivated workforce if we are to continue to prosper into the next century and beyond. The new reality for every Canadian is that getting and keeping a job in the growing knowledge economy demands ever higher levels of learning.
As we all know the result is that not everyone has the financial means to take advantage of the learning opportunities that are out there. It is certainly true that the Canada student loans program and provincial student programs have helped millions of young people over the years including myself. Indeed without these essential supports many thousands of low and middle income young people would not have been able to participate at all.
Even so, today far too many people are facing enormous student debt burden upon graduation. Too many others are simply not going on to post-secondary institutions because the costs are just too high. We all recognize that the problem has become progressively worse and that there is a need to act.
Last November a national all stakeholders working session on Canada student loans brought students, teachers, administrators, federal and provincial governments, lenders, colleges and universities together to reach consensus on student assistance reform.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities undertook an extensive study of the issue. It consulted Canadians across the country and the report it tabled last December made 16 specific recommendations for change. At its meeting last December the Prime Minister and the premiers made a commitment to work together to reduce student debt.
As hon. members know, in response to these recommendations and discussions the Minister of Finance outlined the Canadian opportunities strategy in the budget of last February, a strategy that directly reflects the sentiments and the directions offered by many Canadians.
It is a seven-part strategy that puts the following measures into place: to help graduates manage growing debt; to give Canadians access to the financing required to upgrade their skills throughout their careers; to help families pay for their children's education; to help graduate and post-graduate students continue to develop their skills and carry out research that benefits the whole country; to help young people make the transition from school to work; to help connect Canadians to the information age technology; and to greatly improve access to learning by helping students in financial need cope with the increasing cost of education.
In the time remaining I would like to concentrate my remarks on the last point, in particular the Canada millennium scholarship foundation. The endowment that the Canada millennium scholarship foundation will manage is the largest single investment ever made by the federal government in support of access to post-secondary education for all Canadians.
I agree with what the Prime Minister said in the House when he announced this initiative last fall. There can be no greater millennium project for Canada and no better role for government than to help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge based society of the next century.
The 10 year endowment of $2.5 billion will provide over 100,000 scholarships to low and middle income students every year for the next decade. The scholarships will be available to young and old, to full time and part time students. Students in universities as well as students in community colleges, technology institutes and other post-secondary education systems will all be eligible. That is over one million new scholarships.
We believe that a million new scholarships devoted to equalizing access to learning is a fitting way to commemorate the next millennium, a millennium in which all societies will look more and more to the knowledge, skills and creative intelligence of their people for growth and prosperity. Contrary to the assertions of some people, the Canada millennium scholarship foundation does not intrude into a provincial area of jurisdiction. Quite the opposite. It will help more people benefit from the educational opportunities provided by provincial governments.
Hon. members can understand our deep disappointment when the Government of Quebec chose to break off the discussions on the Canada millennium scholarships. Our government demonstrated much flexibility during negotiations with the Government of Quebec to ensure the alignment of a new foundation with the Quebec system.
There is nothing new in our desire to help people help themselves. Since Confederation the federal government has helped people improve their education. Following the second world war for example, thousands of returning soldiers benefited from grants to help them upgrade their skills and rejoin the peacetime economy.
Today, in addition to the Canada student loans, several billion dollars each year are transferred to the provincial governments in Canada health and social transfers to help fund post-secondary education, social assistance and health care.
We believe as do most Canadians that all governments have a role to play in providing everyone with an opportunity to improve themselves, an opportunity for a better life for themselves and for their families.
If the Government of Quebec would accept the principle of the millennium scholarships for what it really is, namely an ad hoc and unique contribution to help young people access opportunities in the new economy, it would be proud to be associated with this initiative.
The Quebec government can rest assured that the foundation will be able to build on the existing needs assessment processes and complement provincial efforts to provide accessible, affordable post-secondary education to all its citizens.
The foundation will have nothing at all to do with determining curricula, setting tuition levels or managing educational institutions. Those are questions for the provincial governments and the institutions themselves. That has been clear from the very beginning.
As the Prime Minister has said in the House, we are satisfied that this bill gives us the needed flexibility to resolve the situation in a reasonable manner.
An independent foundation will manage the fund. It will not be run by government but by private citizens. Among other things, this fund will also facilitate a greater degree of student mobility, allowing students the opportunity to complete all or part of their studies in different parts of Canada.
With it we are marking a unique event in the history of our country, a passage into the new millennium. At the same time we are also improving the prospects of all Canadian students by giving them a better chance at starting the next millennium with the skills and knowledge they will need to become full and contributing members of this economy.
Again, I believe that every Canadian deserves the chance to live up to his or her full potential. I believe that this legislation will help them do just that. I sincerely hope that all hon. members of the House will give it their enthusiastic support.
Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to take part in the debate on the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.
I am sure Canadians will be pleased to know that once again we are being pushed to limit the debate on this important topic by the time allocation motion that the government has introduced to the House. Many speakers who were planning to take part in this debate will now be prevented from doing so.
I was happy to speak on this bill at second reading. At that time the millennium scholarship foundation was one of the hottest issues of the budget. It has now been three months since the federal government announced its budget and the $2 billion legacy to our current Prime Minister, also known as the millennium scholarship fund, is still a hotly debated issue particularly in the provinces.
From day one the government was criticized for entering into an area of provincial jurisdiction, especially by the province of Quebec. The government was strongly criticized not only by members of the official opposition but by parliament's watchdog, the auditor general, whose job is to keep an eye on the government's questionable accounting methods.
I would like to spend some time on this issue because this is an important issue which needs to have some emphasis. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I am well aware of the work of the auditor general. As I have stated on several occasions not only in committee but here in this place as well, I hold the Office of the Auditor General in the highest esteem for the integrity, perseverance and determination to see that value is received from every dollar that the government spends. It is largely because of the work of the Office of the Auditor General that the government has worked toward cleaning up its act in the spending of the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. I am sorry to say there is still a long way to go in this.
This government has shown Canadians all too frequently that if given the opportunity it loves to tax Canadians to the very hilt while providing them with useless programs having little if any tangible benefit. As I speak on this issue I am reminded of the distribution of $15 million to $20 million worth of flags. I would like to know what tangible benefit that had to the economic well-being of Canadians. Some of these programs do not provide Canadians with good value for their money, something on which as a member of the public accounts committee, as a member of parliament and perhaps most of all, as a Canadian taxpayer I work to hold the government accountable.
The auditor general has criticized the finance minister for his accounting practices in previous budgets and has gone so far as to offer a qualified opinion on last year's budget. It is obvious by this qualified opinion that the government is not producing a transparent picture of the nation's finances. The year before, the auditor general also questioned the manner in which the government crafted its budget.
Canadians need to know and have a right to know and have a clear picture of the financial situation of this government, how it intends to spend the money and not have those numbers fudged by moving figures from one year to another.
The finance minister has responded by saying that the government has to evolve and change as events change. However as the auditor general has reminded the government time and again, the finance minister does not have the liberty to make the rules up as he goes along for his own political purposes. The federal government blatantly ignored standard budget guidelines and tried to brush off legitimate criticism by changing the rules for its own political purposes.
We have heard the same line of reasoning in the hepatitis C debate that this government is doing what is best and right. We all know how the general Canadian public feels about the government's idea of what is best and right in the hepatitis C debate. Here also in the budget what is best and right falls far short of the standards set up in the general rules of accounting.
Group No. 1 deals largely with the millennium scholarship fund. I am happy to support many of the amendments in this group. I would like to spend some of my time talking about the amendments proposed.
The motions proposed by the Bloc Quebecois delete all the clauses which establish the millennium scholarship foundation. As I mentioned earlier, those in Quebec have made it perfectly clear to the federal government that they do not want the federal government intruding in matters of provincial jurisdiction. The Quebec government is also worried that this will detrimentally affect its system of grants and loans. I can sympathize with Quebec's complaint.
I can also assure the government that there is a growing chorus of dissatisfaction from British Columbians. This growing chorus must not be ignored.
Every province has experienced similar problems. As the government has waged its war on the deficit, it did not cut out inefficiencies in many government departments and eliminate needless grants and programs; rather it cut transfer payments to the provinces. Now that the federal government is continuing to meddle in provincial affairs instead of restoring transfers, after the millennium fund is spent many students will not benefit from it. The provinces however will still be responsible for all these students, even though they lack the money that should be theirs to fulfil this responsibility.
Cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces over the past few years were brutal and swift. That was money the provinces needed and counted on to ensure that their people would receive adequate programming in areas such as health and education. We have clearly seen the effects of the federal government's approach to balancing the books in the province of British Columbia. Services have been dramatically reduced due to the reduction of these federal payments.
Motion No. 67 speaks specifically to the provinces being able to opt out of the millennium scholarship fund and to enter into an agreement where the foundation pays the province the amount that would have been spent in a particular province allowing the province to use these funds for their own purposes. This would help the provinces make up for some of the lost funds from the cuts to these transfer payments.
Before my time is finished, I would like to touch on several other motions which touch on the accountability issues surrounding this initiative.
Motion No. 66 from the fifth political party, the Progressive Conservatives, would make the millennium scholarship foundation subject to the Access to Information Act. This would be a great idea.
Canadians demand that the government provide them with value for their money. Having federal departments and programs subject to Canadians having access to information explaining how each department spends its tax dollars in essence makes it more accountable to the public.
I would like to comment on several of the amendments put forth by the Progressive Conservative Party which deal with the appointment of an auditor for the foundation. Motion No. 56 would have the auditor general be that auditor of the foundation, something which I wholeheartedly support.
As I mentioned earlier, the office of the auditor general has done a splendid job in evaluating how various departments and programs operate and, in cases where value for money is not achieved, the office of the auditor general can present that program or department with several options on how to improve its operations. That evaluation would surely benefit the operation and spending of the millennium scholarship foundation.
Government Motions Nos. 55, 57 and 58 are a different story. They give all the power of appointing and terminating the auditor of the foundation to the government. Motion No. 55 allows the government to appoint the auditor of the foundation.
The difficulties we have with Bill C-36 are headlined in the last Hill Times . The headline reads “The decline of the Canadian Parliament and the escalating deterioration of public information and debate in Canada's Parliament”. This is a serious issue that cuts through this debate and the bill that is presented here.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who have spoken on Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998.
Today, we are primarily dealing with the motions relating to the millennium scholarships. More than 40 of these motions were tabled by the hon. member for Québec and their overall objective is to eliminate the millennium scholarship foundation from Bill C-36.
In so doing, the Bloc Quebecois is echoing the consensus reached among all the Quebec stakeholders who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and who unanimously condemned these scholarships and asked for withdrawal with full compensation.
It is rather difficult to understand the policies of this government. After adopting a resolution recognizing the distinct character of Quebec society, the Chrétien government is now trying to get involved in education, which is a vital component in the development of a people.
As for us in the Bloc Quebecois, we know that the flexibility of Canadian federalism is nothing but a myth and that what the government gives with one hand, it takes back with the other hand.
The millennium scholarships show the true face of federalism as a centralizing, if not levelling, force. The Chrétien government really does not understand anything about Quebeckers' aspirations.
Budget Implementation Act, 1998Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. The hon. member knows she must refer to members by using their titles, not their names. I hope she will comply with the standing orders in this regard. The hon. member for Jonquière.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
Liberal members from Quebec either do not have the Prime Minister's attention or are insensitive to their constituents' needs.
Need I remind my colleagues opposite that all the witnesses from Quebec who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance were in favour of a withdrawal with full compensation?
Some 14 groups and individuals from the education community came to express their disagreement with the Prime Minister's idea.
To put in perspective the outcry caused by this Liberal initiative, it is interesting to note that 41% of the witnesses who appeared before the standing parliamentary committee to express their views on the millennium scholarships were from Quebec.
And yet, the federal government continues to turn a deaf ear and is not proposing any amendments to Bill C-36. The comments made by those witnesses from Quebec were very clear to those who understand French, one of the two official languages of this great country that is Canada.
For example, the Coalition des ex-leaders étudiants québécois eloquently said that with its millennium scholarships, the federal government is proving its ignorance and its incompetence in the area of education.
As for the president of the Fédération des cégeps, he said just as eloquently that Bill C-36 does not take into account what Quebec has accomplished over the last 30 years in the area of financial assistance to students.
One has to wonder if the government that concocted these infamous scholarships lives on the same planet as we do. How many times, since Quebec joined the federation, have Quebeckers of all parties condemned duplication and overlap between federal and provincial programs? Today, with the millennium scholarships, the federal government is trying once again to invade Quebec's education system by competing directly with the province's loans and scholarships program. Has the federal government even looked at the needs of Quebeckers in this area? Certainly not.
After making drastic cuts in transfers to the provinces and threatening the balance in Quebec's education system, the federal government comes up with a wall to wall solution that simply does not suit Quebec.
In 1997 the task force on funding for Quebec universities concluded that previous cuts were the main reason for the increase in the number of students per classroom and in lecturers' workload and for the decrease in the number of teaching assistants. These choices led to a decrease in the overall supervision of students, which is directly related to the quality of education.
The opinion of Mrs. Boileau, of the Fédération nationale des enseignantes et des enseignants du Québec, a member of the CSN, is totally in sync with the suggestion of the Bloc Quebecois to opt out of part I of Bill C-36. She said that the only way out is for the federal government to give back to the provinces what it has cut from the transfers, not to hand out millennium scholarships.
As several people said before, Quebec has proven its ability in the loans and scholarships area. The way it manages its program is quite innovative. More needs to be done in order to ensure equal access to university studies for young Quebeckers. However, the implementation of a parallel system will not help to improve the system we now have in Quebec, especially since eligibility for the millennium scholarships will be based on an elitist approach.
By contrast, Quebec's loans and scholarships program focuses on the needs of students, to promote greater accessibility and equal opportunities.
We need to enhance our current system, not create more duplication that would only further distort the Quebec loans and scholarships program. I therefore urge my colleagues in this House to listen to the 1.2 million Quebecers who, through their associations, expressed their views on the millennium scholarships to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Just like them, and on their behalf, we ask members for nothing less than the right to opt out with full financial compensation, so that we can spend the money according to the needs and realities of Quebec.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss this bill which will actually implement some of the items that were announced in the budget.
I listened to members opposite earlier today, in particular those of the Reform Party, as they ranted about the fact that the government passed time allocation to get some of these items through. Yet time allocation has been used three months almost to the day after the budget was introduced. The budget was brought down by our finance minister on February 24. Here we are on May 25 dealing with this bill that will implement the policies that were announced.
Members opposite shake their heads as if they do not understand. Why do they think we have to bring in time allocation? This bill is part of the government's policy and program. If they had their way they would simply delay and obstruct. They would simply be negative. I do not hear anything positive coming from over there.
I do not understand what members opposite have against a scholarship fund being established to help students go to school. Explain that to me. What do they have against students and higher education? What do they have against allowing all Canadians to have continuing education?
The NDP members chirping from left wing would wipe out all tuition. They would say that everything is free, that life is just a bowl of cherries. They have their heads in the clouds. They have no idea of the fiscal realities.
This bill shows that for the first time in over 40 years we have a government that is fiscally responsible. We have a government that has balanced the books in spite of the ranting from the left. We have a government that has eliminated the deficit and has finally put this country on the route to financial prosperity.
One of the things that will help to build a prosperous Canada is access to education. Yet I hear members talk against greater access to education.
I know about opposition politics. I spent five years opposing an NDP government in Ontario. I understand that it is fundamentally the opposition's job to be negative. It is difficult to get up every morning, to look in the mirror and to ask “How can I be negative today?” But they do it. It is their job. Although I did hear the member for Burnaby—Douglas congratulate our fisheries minister in question period today for his latest decision on coho salmon. It took a lot of courage for him to do that and I congratulate the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his courage to stand and make a positive statement. In the one year I have been in this place that is the first time I have heard an opposition member make a positive, constructive statement about something.
They cannot tell me that every bill and policy that this government or any government proposes is without merit. It is simply not possible.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
They go on about the millennium fund. Should it come as a surprise? Let us take a look at our electoral system.
The Canadian electorate sent a majority government here. They said “Fundamentally we like what you stand for. We like the proposals on how the budget will be balanced and on how the surplus will be dealt with. We think it makes sense”. They sent us here. So we introduced a budget. We introduced a historic millennium scholarship fund of $2.5 billion to help young people. On average it will mean $3,000 per year per student. It will not only be based on merit, it will be based on need.
We recognized that these young people needed help so we introduced measures to help with debt repayment which are unprecedented. There will be tax relief for interest on all student loans. Why would you be opposed to that? It is unbelievable. It is unthinkable. It is outrageous. Phone your constituents. Members of the Reform Party always say they are to vote this way unless their constituents call and tell them to vote a different way. Phone them on this one. I think you will find by and large, they will support it. Check with them. Maybe just maybe, you might change your position.
Interest relief extended to more graduates. We are not talking about holus-bolus elimination of all tuition as the NDP in its somewhat myopic and naive view of the world would do. “Just wipe out the cost. Taxpayers will take care of everything. There is nothing to worry about. It is okay”. In the world of socialism, they are totally out to lunch on that.
Then on the other extreme, an extended repayment period for those who need it. Imagine that the Reform Party is against that. Of course the Reform Party's solution and the right wing solution to all of this is simply to reduce taxes. They have no concern whatsoever for those young people who are struggling through school whose last concern is how much they are paying in taxes. Their concern is how they can afford their post-secondary education.
We believe very strongly that the millennium scholarship fund will not solve all the problems but it will sure go a long way toward helping people have better access, more affordable access to post-secondary education.
There are lots of examples in the world. The Republic of Ireland is one of the most dynamic successful economies in Europe with much of it coming I would admit from EU financing. Why are people interested in investing in the Republic of Ireland? It is not only because of the historic peace agreement but they have been doing it for years in the Republic of Ireland because of the quality of the training and the education of the young people in that country. It actually is a model we should look at.
It is interesting to hear members from the Bloc stand up and say that we are interfering in provincial jurisdiction. They are the same people who stand up and whine and complain because the government will not give them more money, will not give them more authority, will not give them more autonomy, will not allow them to separate and destroy this country. They got that right. We are not going to let them do that.
What this plan does is it allows for co-operation with the provincial governments. It allows for co-operation. It actually allows for money from the $2.5 billion to be invested and to grow and the interest to be used. It allows for endowments to come from the private sector and that can increase the amount of money available. There would be a lot of interest in that.
I think of the agreements the University of Waterloo has entered into in the Kitchener—Waterloo community. Members opposite should look at how the university community works well with the private sector. Why? Because it has an interest. It wants to turn out good quality graduates.
Members opposite really should take a serious look at the future and the need to help our young people increase their education.