House of Commons Hansard #180 of the 37th 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
Madam Speaker, if I might, I would ask members present for the ability to finish my remarks seeing as there are only five minutes left and it would appear that we have time on the clock. I would ask for unanimous consent.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, I am perfectly happy to agree to that provided the extension is for five minutes if that is sufficient for the member. Then obviously we would add the same amount to private members' business.
Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
I have to advise the House that if we have five more minutes until the end of the debate then there will be the matter of questions and comments, which means another ten minutes. That means extending private members' business for another fifteen minutes.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough might agree that we extend his speech for five minutes, add that to private members' business and dispense with questions and comments.
Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
Is there consent?
Public Safety Act, 2002Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
It being 5.52 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing a tax credit based on the repayment of Canada Student Loan principal, to a maximum of 10 per cent of the principal, per year, for the first ten years after graduation provided the individual remains in Canada.
Madam Speaker, it really has become quite a cliché to begin a speech in the House by saying that one is pleased to participate in the debate or the subject before the House. However, I can clearly say that there is no issue of public policy that is more critical to the competitiveness of the nation, that is more important to the nation, than the accessibility to post-secondary education. This is the first time that we have had a comprehensive debate on the issue of accessibility to post-secondary education in the five years since I have been a member of the House. I know that the NDP was generous enough to dedicate one of its opposition days, but this is the first time that we have really had a chance to take up this issue.
There is no public policy issue in Canada that the Government of Canada is not addressing that is more important than the accessibility of post-secondary education. It has been a dreadfully long time since there has been any substantial debate on the accessibility of post-secondary education. I am pleased that the motion we put forward, which is only one component of the strategy that must address the problems with the system, has started this very urgent national public conversation to address this national crisis.
One does not have to travel far or speak to many people to hear appalling stories. There are stories of students who owe so much money in student debt that they will be in their thirties, if not their forties, before they are capable of paying it off. There are stories about Canadians who have chosen to drop out of university or college because the debt burden was becoming that severe. There are stories about young people who have been forced to decide not to pursue post-secondary education in the first place due to inadequate loan programs and ever rising tuition rates. There are stories about new graduates faced with massive debt loads who have now moved south of the border to pay off their debt by seeking opportunities in the United States.
Quite simply, this is a national tragedy. We cannot allow it to continue. There are very specific and enormous consequences of the sorry state of post-secondary education in Canada, from the lack of competitiveness and reduced economic growth and to brain drain.
There are also the more fundamental reasons to make post-secondary education a national priority. Edward Everett wrote “Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army”. A few months ago I introduced two motions to help address the crisis of accessibility in post-secondary education. One is to lessen the financial burden on students, which is the motion we have before us today. It is a surgical strike to address the issue of student debt and provide a mechanism or tool that would empower students to have the capacity to pay back their student loans. The second one is to remove the taxable status of scholarships. I would advocate that this must be one of the most draconian taxes that we have in Canada. We actually shamelessly punish performance by taxing university scholarships.
The principal reason why the motion put forward today has been deemed votable is that it has to be an issue of national importance that the Government of Canada is not taking up. I applaud the members of the subcommittee who have recognized this issue. For the record, the motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing a tax credit based on the repayment of Canada Student Loan principal, to a maximum of 10% of the principal, per year, for the first ten years after graduation provided the individual remains in Canada.
The motion goes to the heart of the Tory conviction that the actual costs borne by students must be addressed. A mechanism must be developed to put money directly back into the pockets of post-secondary education students who on average acquire a debt load of over $25,000 upon graduation or completion of university.
Let us take a moment before I continue on to paint a picture of post-secondary education in Canada today to show why we must address the problems that we have in the system.
The principal reason why student loans have quadrupled in the last decade is because during the same period tuition rates increased 126%, precipitated by the fact that since 1993 the Liberal government cut $5.3 billion from post-secondary education funding in Canada. Using current rates, the federal government's share of university operating revenues has decreased by almost 50% from 1990 levels.
As the government slashed Canadian health and social transfer money to the provinces, tuition rates skyrocketed. At the current rate, in 2008 tuition fees will be 226% higher than they were in 1990. The higher tuition fees have resulted in swelling debt loads. The average student debt load for someone completing four years of post-secondary education now sits at $25,000, up from $13,000.
The Liberal government has claimed that it has made an attempt to do something to help university grads struggling with these unprecedented debt loads. Liberal members sitting opposite are all probably primed to rise and speak about the initiative called debt reduction and repayment, which was announced in the 1998 federal budget.
I am here today to ensure that Canadians know the whole story about the program. When it was announced, the federal government declared that eventually 12,000 borrowers would be assisted each year. By 1998-99 only 44 borrowers were helped and the total cost of the program was under $200,000.
The cost of the program for 1999-2000 was just twice that amount. We are talking about 100, maybe 150 students, who were actually helped, out of the 12,000 who were intended. It is simply preposterous.
Even the finance committee agreed when it said last year in its report:
We recommend that the government re-evaluate the criteria for some of its student debt relief initiatives to determine if they are too stringent.
I applaud the finance committee and I know that the former vice chair of the finance committee is here and is keenly interested in the issue, as well.
It is clear that the one initiative the government has used publicly to counter criticism that it is not doing anything to help students is a farce. To state the obvious, there are serious consequences by the lack of funding for post-secondary education.
First, there is accessibility. The impact of higher tuition fees and debt loads can be seen in exacerbated inequalities of access. There are significant gaps emerging between low and high income students.
Studies show that there is a trend toward a greater proportion of family after tax income needed by low income households to cover costs of tuition and fees. The lowest quintile of families would have had to set aside 14% of their income in 1990 to pay the cost of university tuition. In 1998-99 that rate increased to 23%. In contrast, for the richest families in the nation, the increase went from 3% to a mere 4%. These statistics are worrisome and require urgent attention. They point to further inequalities of accessibility in the years ahead.
The second major consequence of the tragedy of post-secondary education involves Canada's competitiveness and innovation. If Canadians are to prosper in the international marketplace of ideas and jobs in the next century, the serious problems of our post-secondary education system must not only be addressed but resolved.
Market demands, along with the competitive pressures and technological change, are shifting the mix of occupations in Canada. The proportion of new jobs requiring at least 16 years of schooling has risen by about 40%. If current government policy is allowed to continue, many young Canadians will choose not to pursue post-secondary education and that threatens the very competitiveness of our nation in the international arena.
Moreover Canada's demographics are changing and a huge number of baby boomers are retiring en masse just as many thousands of young people become severely indebted with increasing tuition rates and inefficient loan programs. This will have a stifling effect on Canada's economy since these young people effectively are indentured due to excessive debt loads, given that they have significantly reduced spending capacity because of the burden of student debt.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has used an analogy on a number of occasions. Essentially the level of student debt of many of these students in professional disciplines is equivalent to what it would cost to actually purchase a home. They have a mortgage but no home and no capacity to financially contribute to the economy.
Canada simply cannot afford to set these young people and their lives behind. I would like to explain for a moment how my motion would work.
The motion would allow post-secondary education students to deduct up to 10% of the principal of their student loans for up to 10 years provided they remained in Canada, which effectively would reduce their loan payments. This would allow young people to pay back their debts more quickly, which would then allow them to become more productive members of society and make large contributions by purchasing goods and stimulating the economy.
There is an economic stimulus to this aspect. This is the main reason why members of the Canadian business community have endorsed this motion as well. In their book published last year called Northern Edge: How Canadians Can Triumph in a Global Economy , Tom d'Aquino and David Stewart-Patterson, senior vice-president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, endorsed this very motion. In fact they endorsed the post-secondary education electoral platform of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
It was from that electoral platform that this motion was extracted. I want to pay immense tribute to the learned member from the riding of Kings--Hants who was the principle author of our electoral platform in the year 2000 and was the scribe that ensured that this aspect was included in our platform.
They wrote, referring to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, “a tax credit equal to the significant portion of the principal of the student loan each year would enable all students to finance their education without taking on a lifelong burden of debt”.
Gilbert Chesterton wrote: “Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another”.
Let us be clear. If we do not address or resolve the problems of Canada's post-secondary education system, we risk cutting that transfer. We promise ourselves a future less bright and far less competitive than that which we deserve.
The second major way in which my motion addresses the crisis in post-secondary education is that it works to reverse brain drain. This is an initiative brought forth to use income tax as an instrument to mitigate the impact of student debt. However one only gets to benefit from the program if one is paying taxes in Canada.
To put this in perspective, using the health care profession as an example, an occupational therapist in my riding of Norton owes over $70,000. She went to St. FX and did very well there. Then she went to Dal and took occupational therapy. Now she owes $70,000. Quite easily a town in Nebraska could offer to pay down her debt if she gives five or six years service stateside. We lose not only the investment we have made in her education but we lose one of our best and our brightest. That is what we cannot afford to lose. Unfortunately that is what is happening each and every day in a myriad of professions due to their enormous debt load.
Third, the motion goes to the heart of student indebtedness and will positively affect thousands and thousands of students in Canada.
The intent of the motion is to provide a surgical strike right where it counts in addressing student debt. It puts money directly into the pockets of students. We know that if we merely transfer money to the provinces and on to the universities, the universities have to invest in the infrastructures of their schools. It may not result in lower tuition fees or address the issue of student debt. That is the intent of this.
I know the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot and his colleagues are supportive of this motion, especially due to the positive effect it will have on students who have both federal and provincial loans. I know the member is particularly attuned to the need for this motion since he himself only finished paying off his student debt recently at the age of 35, which I suspect must have had to be just last year.
We all know that provincial tax law quickly follows federal tax changes, and that the benefit of this motion would only be amplified. We are talking about a lot of students. The Canada student loan program lent out $1.7 billion to students in 1998-99.
In 1998-99, 350,000 full time students made use of the Canadian student loan program and borrowed on average over $4,600, and that is for one year .The average from provincial student loan programs is another $3,000, a combined debt of approximately $7,700 for one year.
It is true that the motion I have presented will cost Canadians something. When we prepared our 2000 election platform, we costed out this measure to somewhere around $1.2 billion over five years. I say somewhere because we used the most conservative of estimates.
There is a similar initiative that the Government of Canada is using at the moment where it enables a student to deduct the interest of their student debt from their income taxes. That costs the Government of Canada in the neighbourhood of $100 million right now.
If the same rate of take up was used for the principal issue, it may only cost in the neighbourhood of $400 million. That is the range we are utilizing. The most conservative estimate is the $1.2 billion program.
The fourth point I would like to mention is that it is important for us to start the much needed debate on the accessibility of post-secondary education.
The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, known as CASA, a non-partisan organization representing well over 310,000 post-secondary students in Canada, endorsed my motion back in March and for very good reasons. Students in Canada have waited a very long time for this discussion. Liam Arbuckle, the national director of CASA, said that it had been a long time since the federal government seriously looked at improving post-secondary education in Canada and did something about it.
Institutions of that nature, whether it be CASA or the Canadian Federation of Students, have said that while this initiative is a positive one, it only addresses half the problem. They would like to have more upfront funding to mitigate the cost of tuition in the first place. I fully support where CFS is coming from, but this is one aspect to address the issue of student debt. We all know we need that kind of mechanism in place so we can mitigate the impact of student debt.
I am particularly appreciative of the support I have received from the Bloc and from Liberal members as well. All too often politicians sell out Canada's young students by arguing that we should be restrained with this subject by a constitutional straightjacket.
This is about students and not indenturing an entire generation. It is not about jurisdictional battles. It is about providing moneys to educate Canadians wherever they reside.
I am particularly pleased that this is now starting to cross partisan lines. I read the Telegraph-Journal earlier today, a learned publication. It said on page A3 that the finance minister supported the student debt reduction motion of the member for Fundy--Royal. We will see what kind of language we hear in this debate because this is when we find what the truth is in that regard.
I know the member for the riding of Fredericton, a Liberal member, is amenable to this. I have had a series of conversations with Liberal members and I expect this votable motion will receive support from all political backgrounds.
I also want to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for St. John's West, who is listening here tonight, for hosting a round table and for working on this issue.
This is the first time we have had a significant debate. It is a pleasure to have this votable motion discussed.
Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion put forward by the member for Fundy--Royal. The motion asks the government to consider introducing a new tax credit for students.
The credit would be for repayments of the principal of a graduates' Canada student loans. Each year, for 10 years after graduation, the graduate could claim a credit on the principal that he or she repays.
The member would limit this credit to 10% of the principal per year and would limit it to graduates who stay in Canada. In other words, graduates who stay in Canada would receive a credit for the full loan repayment over the 10 years following graduation.
Let me say at the outset that the member's objectives are laudable. In the new economy, supporting post-secondary education and post-secondary students must be a priority.
The government has taken action on several fronts to help students with the cost of education. However I must take this opportunity to raise some concerns about the member's motion.
Foremost, I want to tell the members of the House that there is a better way to help students with the cost of post-secondary education, and we are already doing it.
Today we have a tuition tax credit that recognizes tuition costs. We have an education tax credit that recognizes non-tuition costs of education, such as the purchase of textbooks.
Starting in 2001, we doubled the monthly education amounts to $400 for full time students and $120 for part time students. In fact we have increased the full time education credit fivefold since 1985.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
And quadruple their debt.
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON
I hope the member is not going to heckle throughout my response. Since I listened to him, I would hope he would listen to my comments. However I know the Chair will keep an eye on him.
In the 1998 budget we also opened the education credit to part time students. We made it possible for unused tuition and education amounts to be carried forward into future tax years.
These measures are quite generous. The tuition and education credits alone provide over $1 billion in tax assistance to some 1.4 million students each year. Largely because of these credits, 80% of full time students pay no tax at all while they are studying.
Not only are these measures generous but they are fairer than the credit proposed by the hon. member. The existing credits apply to all students, not just the ones who use the Canada student loans to finance their studies. Students who take part time work instead of borrowing also benefit.
As a final comment on the member's motion, I share the member's desire to encourage our graduates to stay in Canada. A graduate's decision about where to work after school is complex and money is no doubt an important factor in that decision.
As a former educator, I am particularly interested in the debate and in the comments that all colleagues will be making with regard to the motion.
Would the member's proposal actually encourage graduates to stay? I doubt it. Here is why. For someone with a $20,000 student loan, this measure would be worth about $320 per year. Surely this amount is far too small to sway a graduate's career choices.
In my view, the government is taking the better path. Our measures to promote research, innovation and excellence, and to reduce the tax burden represent a fairer and more effective way to attract and keep talent in Canada.
I have already pointed to some highlights in the government's record on support for post-secondary education. I would like to share some other examples that clearly show the government's commitment.
In the 1998 budget we launched the Canadian opportunities strategy. The strategy introduced several important measures, like the $2.5 billion millennium scholarship program. The program awards over 90,000 scholarships every year to post-secondary students on the basis of their financial needs. The average scholarship is $3,000. That was just a start.
In the 1998 budget we introduced a credit for the interest portion of student loan repayments. We strengthened support for advanced research. We introduced the Canada education savings grant to encourage families to save for their children's education. We introduced a Canada study grants for students with exceptional financing needs. I could go on.
Since then, we have not been content to simply rest on our laurels. We have continued to find ways to make post-secondary education more affordable and accessible for more Canadians.
In 2000, for example, we increased the amount of scholarships and bursaries that are exempt from income by a factor of six.
I should also mention the changes we made to the Canada student loans program. This program is a cornerstone of Canada's system of support to post-secondary education students. It provides essential financial aid to some 400,000 Canadians. And we have taken steps to make it stronger.
Before I explain these changes, I first want to discuss some comments made by the hon. member. In his press release, he stated that the credit would lessen the debt burden faced by Canadian students.
Debt burden is an issue for some but, thankfully, most graduates can manage their student debt. This is no surprise. A post-secondary education is probably the best investment one can make. It means better job prospects and better pay. For example, for someone with a post-secondary degree the likelihood of being unemployed five years after graduation is one-third of the general youth unemployment rate.
As I said before, debt burden is an issue for some. That is why the government has taken significant action to make student debtloads more manageable. Now graduates who have difficulty repaying their loans can apply for various relief measures.
The relief period, before interest starts to accumulate on their loans, can be extended by up to 54 months. Their loan repayments can be extended from 10 to 15 years. After that, if they are still having financial difficulties, they can apply to have their debt reduced. The relief that we have put in place is efficient and fair.
We will continue looking for ways to do more.
Just last February the government launched two papers on Canada's innovation strategy. In those papers we reinforced our strong commitment to learning. We proposed an ambitious national goal: to ensure that all qualified Canadians have access to high quality post-secondary education. This national dialogue is an important step toward building a stronger future for Canada and for Canadians.
In closing I would like to reiterate that the government has a better approach to helping students with the cost of post-secondary education. Our approach is also fairer. It not only assists those who use Canada student loans to finance their education, it also assists those who rely on other means, such as part-time work.
If our objective is to attract and keep the best and the brightest, then I would suggest that the best way is to focus on creating more opportunity in Canada. We will do this through our strategy to promote innovation and excellence.
For those reasons, I would urge hon. members not to support the motion. However I do commend the member, in spite of some of his heckling, for putting this issue on the floor. It is an appropriate venue for us to discuss it. I am looking forward to hearing the comments from members of other parties and from my colleagues on this side of the House. As I said before, we are always looking at innovative approaches.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand and address this important issue. I commend my friend from Fundy--Royal for raising this as an issue. It is obviously a very important one to many Canadians.
We are discussing the issue of student loans and the high burden many students and their families have to bear as a result of rising tuition costs in Canada.
I have to say that one of the most enriching things in life is the privilege of getting an education. It opens all kinds of doors. It does not just provide people with careers and jobs, it provides them with all the knowledge they need to see the world through new eyes. That is very important. When people get a good, broad, liberal education they really do see the world in a different way. It allows them to have a much richer life.
A number of proposals have been floated over the years as to how to deal with student debt.
My Liberal colleague, who just spoke, talked about the millennium scholarship program, $2.5 billion over 10 years, reaching about 100,000 students a year. My friend has proposed a plan to grant a tax credit on the principal of a student's loan as long as he or she remained in Canada over a 10 year period.
My own party has proposed a plan called income contingent loan repayment. It would allow people to pay back their student loans over a period of years at a flat rate so that as their income went up the amount they would pay back would go up as well. That is something that is already in place in the United States, the U.K., New Zealand and Australia.
These plans do not eliminate the pain of a high debt burden. They make the pain more bearable and spread the debt out over a longer period of time.
There is merit to all these proposals. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but, to be fair, they shift income from one taxpayer to another. For instance, in the case of the proposal that my friend just made, as is the case with the Liberal proposal, the students enjoy a tax credit which is, in effect, funded by taxpayers who already have higher incomes or pay more taxes. As students earn higher incomes, they do the same thing for the students who come along after them. That is commendable but it is really a shifting around of income.
Our proposal is slightly different but it has the same effect. When people get older and their incomes grow they can then pay back the loans.
My point is that in all the scenarios I have talked about, we are just shifting income around, either from person A to person B or person A pays his or her loan over a longer period of time. The real answer to this is to create more wealth overall.
I want to explain what I mean by that. Right now we see the phenomenon of many people graduating from university going to the United States, for instance, partly because they can pay back their student loans because of the higher incomes they enjoy or, in many cases, especially when the economic boom was at its height in the United States, because of the large signing bonuses that were offered from all kinds of companies. A computer programmer, for instance, who received a $25,000 signing bonus in U.S. funds, could pay off his or her entire student loan.
My point is that instead of nipping at the edges of the problem with all these schemes to redistribute income or delay the paying back of loans, would a better approach not be to think big about this and ask the government to take the issue of Canada's falling productivity and lagging standard of living more seriously and create more wealth overall, instead of just distributing the wealth around in the pie, as it is today, making the pie bigger?
That is why people go to the United States. If there were more wealth it would be easier to pay down the loans. The loans are much smaller in a relative way.
I would like to add some facts to underline my premise. Productivity in Canada over the last 12 years has averaged about 25% less than that in the United States. It is about 1 1/2% here and 2% in the United States. We are about 80% as productive as the United States.
The result is that our standard of living has gone down. Today it is around 67% of that of the United States and it continues to drop year after year. People say that if they have the skills and abilities, can command a higher income and a more interesting job, that is where they will go. Many of them go to the United States. They pay off their student loans very easily and they are gone. We lose that phenomenal talent that Canada is so rich in to other jurisdictions.
I have nothing negative to say about my friend's proposal. I will argue that we have the focus wrong. The focus should be on the big picture. It should be on creating more wealth in Canada.
If we were to take the measures necessary to make ourselves as productive as the United States and our standard of living grew, there would be more jobs in Canada. I have said this many times in this place. If we were to have a situation where we had three jobs chasing one person as opposed to three people chasing one job, wages would go up and we would see people with much greater capacity to pay off things like student loans.
However right now our unemployment rate in Canada, although we are proud it has gone down, is still about 35% higher than it is in the United States. We still have people with education who either cannot find a job or cannot find a job that is suitable given their credentials.
In the long run, although all these plans and schemes and whatever have their merits insofar as they make the pain more bearable, none of them alleviate the pain over the long run. The only way to do that is to create more wealth overall, and if we were to do that then everyone would benefit. In a way, it does not matter how we do it. If we were to create more wealth in the economy we could subsidize education more, although there are negatives to that as well as positives, or we could have people pay more of their education.
The point is they would have an increased capacity over their working career to pay back those loans. If someone's income were to double tomorrow they would have a greater capacity to pay back a $25,000 student loan. That is where Canada's emphasis should lie.
I would argue that our government has not taken a bold approach when it comes to making Canada more productive, enhancing our ability to create prosperity for the men and women who are just looking for some hope and opportunity. Many of them, sad to say, do not see it here anymore. They see it in other places, particularly the United States.
I cannot speak ill of the motion or of the millennium scholarship, although we have concerns about jurisdiction and that kind of thing. I am saying it is time to quit this timid approach to the economy.
Canada could be the most prosperous country in the world if we were to put our mind to it as a government. If we were to say we would start lowering taxes, paying down debt, getting rid of those burdensome regulations and creating an incentive for people to come and invest here, and spend their lives here, Canada could become truly the greatest wealth producing nation in the world. That is something that is due because Canada is so blessed with human and natural resources. We are simply not achieving our potential today.
I would argue that although all these plans have their merits they do not address the central issue which is our capacity to create wealth. If we were to do that then issues like student debt burden would become much less.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fundy--Royal.
I would like to begin by congratulating the Progressive Conservative member for Fundy--Royal on this marvellous initiative. As he mentioned in his speech introducing the motion, it is rare that we talk about helping students in this parliament. Once a year, when he brings down the budget, the Minister of Finance boasts about his measures to help students. But a closer examination shows that, since coming to power, the Liberal Party has done nothing but reduce any assistance for post-secondary education.
Before speaking to this issue, I would like to pick up on what the member for Fundy--Royal mentioned earlier. It is true that the Bloc Quebecois supports his motion. We will support it with all our strength, because it is an initiative to help those students who have invested effort and money for years and, with school now behind them, are just starting out on their career and find themselves in a difficult situation, even in a period of economic prosperity.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has perhaps forgotten all this because it has been so long since he was in school. When one is starting out on a career, it is extremely difficult to break into the job market and prove oneself, and still have the stress of paying back student loans accumulated over four, five, and even six years in some cases.
Reducing the tax burden of students who invest in an education and in our society is not, strictly speaking, an issue which is constitutionally contentious. It is not, for example, like asking the federal government to invest directly in education programs or to interfere directly in education. It is a tax measure to provide relief for young men and women who have invested in an education for the greater good of our society. That is the distinction.
When the government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, tells us that the federal government is investing heavily in student assistance, that is incorrect. The Canada social transfer and provincial transfer payments for post-secondary education are the lowest they have been in 30 years. That is what last year's figures show.
For every dollar invested by the provincial governments in post-secondary education, the federal government's share is 8 cents. Some provinces have decided, given this drop in federal funding, to increase tuition fees at the post-secondary level.
In Quebec, we chose to make up for this drastic funding cut to post-secondary education transfer payments elsewhere. Some provinces could not do this and did not go that route. As a result, tuition fees have risen dramatically. When we talk about student debt, we need to look closer at where this debt comes from.
This debt comes from increased tuition fees. Tuition fees have been raised in most provinces of Canada because the federal government has cut its contribution since 1995.
Since 1995, $38 billion should have flowed into provincial government coffers and Quebec to fund health, post-secondary education and social assistance. This figure is based on the level of investment of the Canada health and social transfer that existed before the drastic cuts implemented by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government. This figure of $38 billion is an indexed figure. They may cry about it on the other side, but this remains a fact. When we compare the federal government's contribution in 1994, before the Minister of Finance slashed the budget, and if we take annual inflation into account, we come to a shortfall of $38 billion.
Some have raised tuition fees specifically to compensate for the federal government withdrawal. This is the reason for the student debt load. That is why I congratulate—
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, they are still carrying on over there. Could you ask them to calm down?
Obviously, it is painful to hear something as true as that. Again, my congratulations to the hon. member for Fundy--Royal for this excellent initiative.
Unlike our Liberal colleagues and my colleague from Medicine Hat who has just spoken, he can differentiate between a government expenditure and a government investment. When education is concerned, it is an investment. My colleague has the wisdom to ensure that education, and the contribution a student makes to it, are treated as an investment.
It is an investment not just for the student himself or herself, but for society. It enriches society, thus ensuring that, from the standpoint of the economy and of the reputation of Quebec and Canada, we may achieve a level of intellectual development that is appreciable, comparable, even economically advantageous, and ultimately train and retain our best minds.
Earlier, I heard my colleague from Medicine Hat say “Yes, they go to the United States because of the better standard of living. They can pay back their student loans after two or three years of working”. He neglected to point out, however, that after those two or three years, they stay there. They stay in the States and do not come back here. Perhaps a very few of them do, but most stay in the U.S.
In Quebec, as in Canada, if they had a better chance right from the start, better conditions—I am not saying that the proposal by my colleague from Fundy--Royal is going to solve everything, but if we added such a measure, if we treated them better from the start—maybe these students would stay instead of leaving. Perhaps they would not take off for the States, perhaps they would stay here and contribute to Quebec and to Canada. Perhaps also the brain drain would not be becoming more and more of a sad reality in Quebec and in Canada.
I support such an initiative. I regret the fact that we have, across the floor, people who love to quash initiatives, admirable initiatives such as the one of my colleague from Fundy--Royal, people on the side of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who go around quashing worthwhile initiatives.
Since I have a few minutes left, I would like to go back to some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who seemed to be criticizing this worthwhile initiative without reason.
He said, “There are better ways of helping students in Canada”. Sure, but which ones? Which other means did this government put in place over the past few years, other than make drastic cuts to the Canada social transfer, to help post-secondary education in all the provinces, including in Quebec? The parliamentary secretary said that “thanks to the Liberal government's initiatives, 80% of the students do not pay taxes”.
I should point out that the hon. member's proposal does not directly target students who are still in university, but those who have graduated. The Liberal member seems to forget that the reason 80% of the students do not pay taxes is that they do not have sufficient income to do so in the first place.
The measure proposed by the hon. member for Fundy—Royal is primarily designed for those who are completing their education, those who are on the labour market and who want to have the best opportunities from the start and thus be able to live without stress, as they begin their professional career.
The parliamentary secretary referred to the Canada education savings grant. It goes without saying that this is a good initiative. In fact, when the Minister of Finance introduced this program, we welcomed it, because it is very good. However, this program is designed for the parents of children who will eventually pursue a post-secondary education. It is also designed for parents who have the financial means to take advantage of it.
In order to fully benefit from a registered education savings plan such as the one introduced by the Minister of Finance, parents have to invest at least $200 per month. So, this is not for everyone, and this program overlooks a reality in that an increasing number of students no longer rely on their parents. They pay for their own education and, when they graduate, they must pay off the debt they have incurred. Therefore, we must help these students.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois will happily, enthusiastically and readily support an initiative such as the one proposed by the hon. member for Fundy--Royal.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the hon. member for Fundy--Royal for bringing forward the motion. It is actually a rare occasion to have a debate in parliament about post-secondary education and why it is so important. I have certainly tried to bring forward this debate and have had motions in the past. It sometimes comes up during the budget debate, but it is rare to actually have a debate on it. We will have three hours of debate on this motion and that is very good.
I have listened very carefully to the debate. I think there are some things we all agree on. There is probably one thing we agree on. Everybody is aware that with respect to the future labour market and how it is evolving it is critical to have post-secondary education. The federal labour department has done a study on this and has predicted that by the year 2004, 72% of all jobs will require three years of post-secondary education. This is one reality that I think we can see and certainly it is one that young people know about.
There is also another reality that is facing young Canadians in particular. We are facing the greatest barriers that I believe we have ever had in this country with respect to accessibility for post-secondary education. One only has to look at the facts. Since 1990-91, tuition has risen 126%, six times faster than the rate of inflation. This is an enormous cost that individual Canadians and families are taking on. From 1990 to 2000, the debt load has quadrupled from $8,000 to $25,000.
No one has really addressed the question of why we have this crisis in post-secondary education. When I listened to the Liberal member who spoke to the motion, I did not know whether to cry or laugh when I heard the excuses and the suggestion that somehow most graduate students are managing their debts quite well. I can assure everyone that most graduate students are reluctant to even leave school because the thought of facing the debt wall they have and graduating into poverty is pretty overwhelming.
The reason we are facing this crisis is that the federal government made a conscious decision to cut $7 billion from federal transfers. As a result, we have real per capita funding for post-secondary education that is now 17% lower than it was 10 years ago. Another fact is that federal support for post-secondary education has now dropped to 34%, the lowest level in 30 years. That is a fact. That is what is now causing the crisis in post-secondary education.
The impact of that decision by the Liberal government to erode accessibility in the retreat of public funding is that tuition fees have been forced up. As we know, higher tuition fees mean lower participation for low and moderate income students. There is just no escaping that fact. In fact, even Statistics Canada documented this in its report of December 2001. It showed that as far as student participation rates in 1998 were concerned, students from high income families were two and a half times more likely to attend college or university than those from low income families.
Canadians know this themselves. They do not need the info from Statistics Canada. A poll in October 2000 asked Canadians why they did not pursue post-secondary education if they were not already involved in it. The overwhelming response was that the main reason was the lack of financial accessibility, so I really have to protest the information that we have heard today from the Liberal government, the little bits of tinkering and pieces that have been put forward.
If the government had truly addressed the crisis facing us and students in the country, first, we would not be here debating this motion today and, second, we would not be facing the most severe limits on accessibility that we have ever seen. What is happening in the country is that high tuition is now discriminating against low and moderate income students.
In fact we also know that the converse is true. We have evidence that tells us that where there are lower tuition fees enrolment increases, particularly for low and moderate income students. We only have to look at British Columbia, where we had a tuition fees freeze in effect for five years and the enrolment in B.C. increased while in the rest of the country it actually decreased. Only two provinces, B.C. and Quebec, have really taken this on and frozen tuition fees and really tried to compensate for the retreat of public funding from the federal government. I am sad to report that now in B.C. the farm team of the federal Liberals, the provincial Liberals, has chucked out the tuition fees freeze. Tuition fees in B.C. now are going up by as much as 300%. Again, that will severely impact the accessibility for low income and moderate income students.
The current situation is clearly intolerable and it is simply not sustainable. We in the NDP believe that education must be a national priority, with the federal government playing a critical and decisive role. We require stable, long term federal funding. We require a national grant program, which has been advocated for by groups like the Canadian Federation of Students for many, many years. We do not need a millennium fund based on scholarship, but a national grants program. We are the only industrialized country that does not have a national grants program.
We also need to have a tuition fees freeze. We need to have a rollback so that students have some capability and some chance of getting through their post-secondary education without graduating into poverty.
We also need to have the bankruptcy law repealed. The government brought about changes to the bankruptcy law that discriminated against students simply on the basis that they were students and basically raised the number of years after which they could declare bankruptcy to 10 years, virtually eliminating the idea that they could at any point declare bankruptcy.
Finally I want to say that probably one of the most important things for post-secondary education is to have some sense of national standards around accessibility. In fact, the Canadian Association of University Teachers has put forward a Canada post-secondary education act modelled on the Canada Health Act to provide not for profit, comprehensive, affordable, universally accessible and publicly administered post-secondary education across Canada.
Until we deal with those fundamental issues, I would suggest that we will still be facing a crisis.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying that I actually seconded the motion before us today because I saw it as one small step that could be taken to provide some relief, but I also believe that mitigating a disaster after it has happened really does not get us very far.What we really have to do is deal with the disaster before us. We have to recognize that the fundamental decision made by the Liberals in 1993 to cut the transfers and to decrease the amount of money going into post-secondary education, which forced tuition fees up and almost eliminated accessibility for low income students, is what we are really facing.
While the motion provides some relief, and again I am very glad that the member has brought it forward, I still believe that we have to deal with the fundamental issue and recognize in this country whether we believe education is a right for all Canadians to enjoy or simply a privilege for those who can afford it because they are affluent enough.
We in the NDP believe in the former. We believe that education is a right and that the federal government has a responsibility to show leadership on funding and for national standards in that regard.
Tax CreditPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Madam Speaker, on February 27 I asked a question of the government with respect to information I had obtained from a question on the order paper with respect to the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes.
Statistics have shown that since 1994, when the Liberal government implemented the firearms registration act, the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes has gone up. In the case of murders it has increased by 3%. In the case of attempted murders there has almost been a 20% increase in the use of firearms.
My question was with respect to the statistics that showed a trend of an increasing use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes, which was contrary to what the Liberal government predicted would happen when it implemented the bill. With respect to the enormous cost that is being incurred by taxpayers, should the government not admit now that it was a huge mistake and take measures to correct it by scrapping the legislation, ending the targeting and harassment of law abiding firearms owners, sports shooters, hunters, ranchers and farmers?
I did not receive an answer to that question so I will ask it again. In light of the statistics that demonstrate a trend in the opposite direction of the government's prediction that the firearms registration act would cause a decline in the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes, should the government not admit that it does not work and that it is not achieving the desired result?
Some $800 million have been spent thus far and we are still a long way from full implementation of the program. The Liberal government promised, when it implemented the act in 1994, that it would only be $85 million, so the costs are ten-fold greater than what it said it would be. That large sum of money, $800 million, and any future money to be spent on the firearms registration act and its continued implementation could be directed to constructive uses.
For example, not taxing the money from Canadian taxpayers in the first place would be a tremendous boost to the economy and create jobs. Furthermore there is serious underfunding of some federal programs. We have a health care crisis with increasing waiting lists that could be partially remedied because part of the problem is lack of funds. Surely if that $800 million were to be injected into the health care system we would have some tangible and substantial benefits.
It could be put into infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges and road systems. With respect to the issue of crime we could have put that money into policing and had real and tangible results that would benefit our communities in terms of making them safer.
We have a drought on the prairies. Agriculture is in a perpetual state of crisis and $800 million would do a lot to alleviate the competitive disadvantage our farmers face against the unfair subsidies of our trading partners, the United States and Europe.
Should the Liberals not admit that it was a mistake and take the proper corrective measures now, stop the mandatory registration scheme and redirect those resources into more productive uses?
Paul MacKlin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt for the opportunity to provide some context for his comments.
In his question the hon. member stated that the federal government's important public safety initiative, the Firearms Act, was passed in 1994. To clarify, Bill C-68 was actually introduced in the House on February 14, 1995 and received royal assent December 12, 1995.
Let us also be clear that the public safety program is much more than a gun registry. It is a multifaceted practical approach that addresses the prevention of firearm death and injury, and crime deterrence.
The screening of all gun owners, tracking of firearms and minimum sentencing help deter, prevent and prosecute firearm crime. That is why Canada's law enforcement community recognizes and supports the firearms program as an important public safety initiative.
In fact, information on firearms and their owners is a critical tool in police investigations. It allows firearms to be traced back to their original owner. It enables police officers to take preventive action, such as the removal of firearms when they are responding to volatile situations. It sometimes provides a system of tracking firearms and their owners that helps identify and crack down on the illegal movement of firearms.
The premise of the hon. member's question is flawed. It assumes that the introduction of a bill equals its immediate implementation. The hon. member should well know that the firearms program is not yet fully implemented.
Canadian firearms owners were required to be licensed to possess and acquire firearms as of January 1, 2001. That is the licensing process. All licensed firearms owners must register all their guns by the end of this year. Only next year will comprehensive licensing and firearms registration be fully in force. Only in the years that follow will we be able to analyze and attribute any change in firearm violence.
Let us look at some facts. Assume for a moment, as the hon. member has, that 1994 is a valid starting point. In 1994 according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, there were 196 firearm homicides in Canada. In 2000, which is the last year for which statistics are available, there were 183. There was a decrease of 13 homicides, and not the 3% increase the hon. member's question suggested. In fact, the number of firearm homicides in 2000 was significantly lower than the 200 homicide average for the previous 10 years, that is, between 1990 and 1999. I should add that the overall homicide rate in Canada is at its lowest level since 1967.
This is good news. It can only get better with the continuous screening of all applicants and licence holders to ensure that they pose no risk to their community, to their family or to themselves.
Our government's commitment clearly is public safety. The hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt and his colleagues opposite would ask us to ignore the deadly reality of domestic violence. That is as wrong as the premise of the hon. member's question.
I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to bring these facts to the attention of the House.
Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Madam Speaker, with respect to the statistics quoted by my hon. colleague in the years 1994 to 2000, as he pointed out the overall rate of homicides was down so using the actual number is misleading. The important statistic to look at is the percentage of homicides that were committed with the use of a firearm. That in fact has gone up 3% in the case of murders and almost 20% in the case of attempted murders. The way he attempted to misrepresent those statistics is misleading.
Further, the Canadian Police Association, against the advice of many of its rank and file members, initially endorsed the plan of the Liberals. However, the association said the support was contingent upon demonstrated results of a decrease in the use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes. In fact, all the statistics show the trend to be otherwise and is ample reason to scrap the plan. It is clear the Liberals are not prepared to do that.
My hon. colleague said that the plan will be fully implemented by next year. If the statistics next year and in the following years continue to show an increased--
Tax CreditAdjournment Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Paul MacKlin Liberal Northumberland, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to make sure that we go back to basic principles here. The member has to appreciate that we are talking about a public health and safety issue.
The public support is quite enormous. In the most recent poll that I have seen, over 76% have suggested that they are very much in support of the program. They are concerned about firearms being in the hands of those who should not have them. It clearly has been shown that we can reduce domestic violence by taking firearms out of the home.
To date over 4,000 potential licensees have either had their licences revoked or refused. Screening is a very important part of the process to make sure that we protect the families we consider so dear.
The hon. member has to appreciate that the public support is behind this program for a good reason. This is not a program that is directed at hunters nor is it some ill thought out plan. It is a positive and beneficial program.