Debates of May 21st, 2002

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking some clarification. My colleague from Winnipeg mentioned earlier numerous hypothetical instances. My colleague from the Alliance has just mentioned a situation where an adult woman might want to have her own child without using someone else's sperm. I am rather at a loss as to how that would be possible? Again, relating to the information that the member just read, I would like some clarification as to exactly how the member came up with that idea?

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to clarify the situation. This question came from one of my constituents who gave the example. Because I am not a scientist, I do not know whether it is possible to do that. I assumed it was a cloning type of question where certainly if it is not achievable now, it will not be very long before scientists could implant a cell in a uterus, somehow cause it to turn into an embryo and have a woman clone her own child. That was the basis of the question. I do not pretend to say that it is already possible or even to answer the question of how it could be done.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like a number of other members who have spoken to the bill today, I am doing so with a good deal of reservation and trepidation because inevitably we see ourselves in an atmosphere of gross uncertainty. It is science fiction stuff. I think that is how we see this when we begin to address the ethical and the important public policy issues that are here. We have heard a number of speakers today refer to science fiction scenarios.

What worried me when I reviewed the bill was the lack of courage that I found or more specifically that I did not find in the bill. The point is that the work done by the health committee, and before that the Baird commission, took us further I believe as a society, as a country and as a government than the bill reflects.

The health committee and the commission addressed a number of issues. We heard from various members of the committee who sat through those hearings say that those issues were addressed and discussed extensively. Yes, in a number of cases they began to look toward resolutions that are not found in the bill.

I will come back to some of the areas in which the bill is lacking. Before I do that I want to express a great concern that I and I believe members of my whole party have in the shifting of decision making away from the House and the health committee, elected bodies, to the agency that is envisioned to be established under the bill and to regulations that will be established.

I want to deal initially with the agency in its composition. The provision in the bill simply allows for the establishment of a board of directors who will run the agency. There is some general language that the board of directors should represent various sectors.

One of the matters that was made very clear to the health committee, I understand from its deliberations and the testimony it heard, was the importance of recognizing that women have a much greater stake in the outcome of the debate and the policies that will flow from it. One would have thought that at the very least the board of directors would have been mandated in the legislation to be composed either primarily of women or at least an equal number of women on the board. That is not provided for at all.

There was a great deal of discussion in the health committee about the potential for some of the research and technology that would flow in this area to be discriminatory, particularly discriminatory for persons with disabilities. I would have thought that we would have looked for mandated representation on the board of directors from the people who suffer from various disabilities. There is no provision for that whatsoever.

Phenomenal ethical considerations will flow from the bill if it becomes law. They have been discussed extensively but probably still not sufficiently to come to a consensus on what the values of the country are on a number of these very important issues.

The provision for some input on an ongoing basis from the academic community that specializes in ethics would have been very important. They could have been representatives on the board or performed a consultative function to bring forward the issues that are evolving. The issues are not fixed and we do not know them all now. They will continue to grow as the technology and the research continue.

This is not to say that the academic community would dictate decisions around ethical considerations. They would simply assess, analyze and bring them before the board of directors who would make some very important decisions and recommendations in other areas regarding regulation.

Another issue that was raised in the minority report from our member was the issue of the very real potential for conflict of interest of people who sit on the board of directors but who may have involvement in research or in the private sector with ownership of some of this technology either at the time or potentially in the future. There are no guidelines with regard to conflict of interest. Because we are in such a new area it is hard at this time to envision all of the possibilities but there should have been some provision for that in the establishment of this agency.

We must appreciate what we are really doing with the bill if it really does become law. We are saying that a good deal of the decision making and discussion will be away from the elected body and will go to the agency, issues like conflict of interest which should have been addressed. This is another area where the bill is wanting.

Although the bill provides for a three year review, the provision states that it can either be a review by the House of Commons or by the Senate. We find it repugnant to have an unelected body conduct the review three years from now. If it comes to a conclusion that changes should be made or new laws passed we will simply get a recommendation. We are seeing too much of that and to see it actually in the bill that it could be the Senate doing the review rather than the House is repugnant to my party. We will oppose that on an ongoing basis.

I will now turn to some of the other areas the bill does not address. The bill contains no provision to prohibit the commercialization of human genetic material and no proposals to amend that under the Patent Act. In effect we are simply stepping back, which reflects the lack of courage in the bill, and, as we have seen so often from the government, allowing the marketplace to determine whether human genetic material will become patentable.

In some of the analogies we were making on the scientific issue I wondered if we were just opening the door to creating different forms of human life that can be owned? Are we turning the clock back to allow for slavery of a different human life form? It is not addressed in the bill. It would have been very easy to simply say that we would not allow for the ownership and commercialization of human genetic material.

To some degree it is already being determined since there was reference made to the Harvard mouse case. The interesting thing is that human genetic material was implanted into the mouse. We heard a number of examples today of other experiments going on at the present time using human genetic material.

The bill hides its head in the sand, ignores the issue and simply says that nothing will be done about it. The minority report written by our member on the health committee recommended the banning of any ownership of human genetic material. It went beyond that to what I found to be a laudable type of proposal. It stated that in all cases when human genetic material was being used it must be developed for the purposes of the general good of the public. That means it would be controlled by the public sector or at the very least by the non-profit charitable sector.

We saw some of that in the past but we have of course moved completely away from it. Insulin, which was developed by the Connaught Labs, is probably the best example that jumps to my mind.

What we are doing now is simply avoiding the whole issue and opening up the possibility and potential for different types of human life forms to be owned.

The health committee made the recommendation that the precautionary principle be incorporated as the guiding principle in the legislation. The definition it looked at using was the one proposed by the Royal Society of Canada. It essentially says to the person or group proposing or developing any new procedure or technology that the onus is on them to prove that it will not damage our society, and specifically in this case human health.

There is absolutely no reference to that type of concept or principle. The bill certainly does not use the term precautionary principle and makes absolutely no reference to it in any kind of a general way at all.

We are where we have been for some period of time. We saw all sorts of chemicals being dumped into our environment, where if the precautionary principle had been applied these chemicals would never have made it to the market. We are allowing that process to continue in the face of a very clear recommendation from the health committee that the precautionary principle be enshrined in the legislation.

When we talk about the reproduction of humans we cannot help but think of where else we would want to put that principle. It seems that it would be one of the very first priorities for this type of legislation but there is no reference to it whatsoever.

If that had been incorporated a number of the other issues that I already raised would at least have a framework, one could almost argue an ethical framework within which to function. How the agency and the government conducted themselves with regard to regulations would have been guided by that principle and certainly would have left Canada and individuals using these types of technologies in a much more secure position and would have ensured that they were not being taken advantage of. However that is not in the bill.

We have heard about and we recognize the need for legislation. We have heard a number of comments with regard to stem cell research, whether it be the embryo type of research or the adult stem cell research. We have heard from a variety of scientists and medical personnel about the potential for this type of research to advance medical science very dramatically and very significantly to aid in a number of areas, such as Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's. The list goes on. This research shows great promise, but again the worry is who will determine that it is good research, useful research and beneficial research and that the results will be beneficial for society, versus research that may in fact end in a result that is not responsive to the values of this country. The bill really does little or nothing to deal with that. The government has sidestepped it again. There is that lack of courage again.

As well I want to briefly address the Patent Act. It is quite clear that this is an area that needs further review. We do not know, and I say that with some sense of assurance, how to use the patent type of legislation in this area of human genetic material. We just do not know how to do that

What I feel very strongly about and can say again unequivocally is that when the Patent Act was designed there were clearly no prospects in view of having to deal with this type of new technology. It is woefully inadequate in dealing with human reproductive technology. As I said earlier, there should be an immediate ban on the use of human genetic material for patent purposes, but it should not stop there. We do need to know how to control the development of this technology. It is my own personal belief that the Patent Act will not do it. We will need a whole new and different approach, not just the framework. It is like trying to use a piece of legislation that developed and evolved over a century or two for something that is so dramatically new that it is not possible to do it. I think that is where we are at with patent legislation when it comes to this type of technology.

We have to take a whole new approach, one in which Canada could in fact be a leader, because we cannot do this just by ourselves. There are no prospects of any of that coming out of the legislation. This has just been shelved, pushed off to the side and ignored.

In conclusion, let me say that there are some very specific things that could be done to change the bill on a short term basis around the agency and the types of regulations that could be passed through the use of the precautionary principle. More important is what we should be doing after that. We should show some vision and some courage and move strongly into this area in the House of Commons and in the general society as the debate continues.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to commercialization. I would like to just note for him section 7.3 of the proposed guidelines of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which states:

Researchers or their institutions with financial interests in the outcome of the stem cell research must disclose this information to the...Oversight Committee, the REB and the prospective research participants [the donors].

It also goes on to say that may not be enough and that:

copies of contracts between researchers, institutions, industry sponsors and any relevant budgetary information must be provided to the...Oversight Committee and the local REB [research ethics board]--

Obviously it is contemplated that there would be commercialization, money changing hands and big business after the donation is made, but the bill specifically prohibits any exchange of money between the donor and any other party. Why is that? Maybe the member could give us an idea of why it is that the donors have to sign off to say that they would not benefit from making their donation whereas others can make money.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have an answer. It seems rather ridiculous that we have this type of situation.

I do not believe in the concept of commercialization of human genetic material. It simply should not be happening. I do not think the CIHR is really prohibiting it. In effect it is allowing for a mechanism to allow it to develop. I will not stand here and suggest that individuals who donate material should somehow benefit from the commercialization of that material. That is just abhorrent. I say no to the individual and to anybody else who wants to commercialize it.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question that was raised by someone who appeared before committee on an issue that has not been discussed much. It has to do with donor anonymity.

A woman and her daughter, both of whom are from the city of Nanaimo, appeared before the health committee. They were involved in one of the first donor insemination projects. The daughter is 19 years old. They are involved in a support society related to the whole issue of reproductive technology. This young woman made quite an impassioned plea before the committee on the issue of knowing who her biological parent was.

The bill is about producing children. Would the member agree that children have a right to know? Would he agree that part of their health is knowing where they come from? Would he agree that in fact there is no justifiable reason for having anonymity when Sweden, Australia and other countries have implemented systems that requests disclosure when the offspring requires it?

My second question has to do with the very important issues he raises regarding the patent law. A human being has 30,000 genes and 46 chromosomes. If just one of those genes was changed, would that be patentable? Is the member articulating that we should make changes to the Patent Act to make sure that biological material is not patented?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, It is quite clear that the health committee, after listening to some of the testimony the member referred to, I assume, drew the conclusion that donor anonymity is no longer justifiable, that the primary interest is that of the child and his or her right to know. I always felt very strongly about that during all the adoptions I handled over the years as a lawyer.

Interestingly, and I do not know how many people are aware of this, a number of countries in Europe have never had the provision for anonymity in the adoption process. We can find legislation from the 1910s and 1920s in various countries in Europe allowing for adoptions but never providing anonymity for the parents, without their societies breaking down and with them being able to do the number of adoptions we have done here. That experience should be the same in this case. I believe that is how the health committee came to its conclusions and I would say that I support those conclusions completely.

With regard to the patent law issue, study shows that the patent law was designed in the 1700s and 1800s. Steam engine technology, that type of technology, was beginning back then. Quite frankly, with the exception of some amendments, the legislation has not changed a lot. To use that type of legislation to regulate, control and provide some public infrastructure around human genetic material is impossible. We are so far beyond that with our science that we now need the law to catch up with it, but a different law. I do not think it is possible to change the Patent Act that way. We have to begin to think about this in an entirely different way. I think we are unable to amend the Patent Act or change it in some manner to allow for the legislative infrastructure we need around this type of material.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I would like to inform the member that he still has four minutes left in questions and comments when debate resumes on Bill C-56.

The House resumed from May 9, consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment at the second reading stage of Bill C-55.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be read the third time and passed.

Excise Act, 2001

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-47.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the House that the vote just taken on the subamendment to Bill C-55 be applied in reverse to the vote now before the House, with the exception of the member for LaSalle--Émard and the member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant who are not voting on the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 6.05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion.

Tax Credit

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we in Canada have a rich and wealthy heritage in our youth. It is incumbent on governments at all levels, but particularly at the federal level, of ensuring that education is available to students of all financial ability. I am abhorred by the fact that some students have a lot of mental ability and the motivation but lack the money and are deprived of a necessary education.

It is undoubtedly true that if we were able to take people, particularly from the so-called poorer end of the spectrum, those who are not as well off financially, and help them to become educated, in many instances, that would help those families get off the treadmill of dependency and discouragement which so many people face.

I would endorse any actions that the government would take. I listened to the member who introduced this particular motion. It is a measure which unfortunately is too piecemeal. We should have a measure which will help all Canadians across the board in terms of taking less money out of their pockets and leaving more there so that they could provide for themselves.

I would also be remiss if I did not add that students are a great investment. When I was an instructor, one of the things we did was evaluate the present value of the tax dollars that were earned by a well educated person versus a person who quit after high school. We found out that over a lifetime the incremental amount of additional income tax that was paid yielded a very good return for the taxpayers who invested in the education of young people.

It is a vast benefit to our country to have more people that are well educated, well trained and able to participate not only in our economy, but also in building the standard of living that we have come to enjoy and to expect.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion and to commend my colleague from Fundy--Royal for having the courage to bring forth this kind of motion. It is not something that we would normally expect at this point.

The motion recognizes there is a grave imbalance within Canada with students attending post-secondary education and how they afford to take their education. That imbalance has happened over a number of years, specifically taking a real downturn around 1993, the year the Liberal government came into being as the governing party. It consistently attacked funding and transfer dollars that were going to the provinces to the point that they went from $7 billion to 17% lower than they were. As a result we have seen a situation where provinces become cash-strapped.

Hefty tax dollars come into the federal government via gas taxes, income taxes, GST--

[An hon. member]

Security taxes.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Yes, I am reminded that the government is now collecting literally billions in airport security taxes and is taking in a pile of money from Canadians but not giving back the services it should be providing. It does not give back the transfer dollars to the provinces so that they can provide some of those services as well.

The irresponsible actions of the government are unconscionable. It has failed to accept responsibility to provide the funding for some of those services while it takes a good amount of dollars from Canadians. As a result we have situations where more and more students go into debt but do their darndest to pay it off. The figures are very high as to the percentage of students who will work and work to ensure that they pay off their student loans.

Certainly they pay off their student loans a whole lot better than corporations in Canada pay off what they owe for loans or grants or whatever they may get to say nothing of the money they get purely as a freebie or in tax deferrals. Students have been far more responsible and more active in giving back to Canada in the amount of their student loans but also in providing their different services.

It is unconscionable that for a number of years the Liberal government has continually reduced those dollars and as a result students are in a tougher position. My colleague suggests a tax credit to a maximum of 10% of the principal, per year, for the first 10 years after graduation. Frankly, it is such a minimal amount it would seem that it should be the thing to do. It is worth supporting because it is a step in the right direction.

Ideally what we should have in place is a situation where students are able to access grants for their education. Then for a number of years we know they will be in the country working, paying income tax and paying taxes for everything else. They will give back by providing the services we need.

I think of the number of health care professionals we need. We actually do not need any more lawyers in Canada even though if somebody needs to go into law, so be it. However, we need people in a number of areas such as teaching, health care professionals and different technicians. There is a need for people within the computer industry, computer scientists and researchers.

If dollars were available to provide those students with the education they need, we would be opening up that many more jobs to students going through our school system.

I sit on the industry committee and we are dealing with dollars that go into different foundations and research. We recognize that all those dollars are needed. The fact that they do not seem to be going to where they should be is another issue, but they are dollars that are needed. However, what is also needed is an investment in the young people of our country who want to continue their education and give back to the nation.

I listened to numerous witnesses in committee talk about how talented our students are. The key is to be able to get them into the universities. The ones who are there are extremely talented. We would have that many more who would have the opportunity to continue their education by bringing their knowledge and ingenuity. That is equally as important as all those research chairs that we have and the different dollars that go into foundations and research. What is equally important is having the persons there who will expand on what they know and further their education so they can continue on.

It is credible that we have this type of motion but it will not nearly address the needs that are out there for students wanting to continue in post-secondary education.

I want to comment on the student loan program. I represent a riding where most students must travel outside the community to continue their education. We do have some distance education and college programs but there are a number of students who must travel outside the riding to continue their education. There is no way they have the same opportunity to attain that education at the same type of cost as others who live closer to the university areas. There is the increased cost for their residence and for their food. There is no way that is reflected in the dollars they would receive from student loans.

Added to that is a situation where it is almost as if we set up the rules to knock off as many students as we can from being able to access student loans. There could be a family with two or three kids who might be in a situation where they would be attending university around the same time. They might have worked. I have had students who worked for a few years. They make a point of saving and buying their own computer, or they make a point to buy their own vehicle because they would have to travel back and forth 500 to 600 miles to university and then travel around the city to get to their school.

They must have those things. However, if they have spent their summers working away to buy their computer or to buy their car, if they have those things on hand, that is considered against them when they apply for a student loan because they have something of value. It is a detriment. Meanwhile they have worked away at it, trying to provide for themselves.

We have to shake our heads and ask why on earth that would even be considered a part of it. Why would it not be recognized that if students want to attend university in this day and age they should have a computer. It is not easy to access computers in a public library when there are that many students. There are computers at the university but we all recognize more and more that students need one right there with them, especially if they are in specific studies at university.

There are a number of problems out there for students wanting to attend post-secondary education and the Liberal government presents us with nothing. Actually I am wrong. We were presented with legislation that would not allow those students, just the few who cannot pay their debts, to claim bankruptcy for 10 years. That is longer than anyone else who might be in financial difficulties. There is really nothing from the government to help support students as they try to give back to their country. Most of them want to do that.

We will be supporting the motion and I encourage the government to do a whole lot more to support students.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support Motion No. 478 sponsored by my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy--Royal. I was pleased today to note when I appeared with him at a press conference that the motion also has the support of the two largest student groups in the country. We are joined today by Erin Stevenson and Ian Boyko who are chairs respectively of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Canadian Federation of Students.

This debate reflects different visions of the future of the country. It raises directly the question, will the federal government take a direct and active role within its jurisdiction in making Canada the best educated country in the world, or will it continue to ignore the crushing burden of student debt which is driving young Canadians not only out of school but also out of our country?

The Liberal government talks piously about the new knowledge economy. Students cannot pay bills with talk. They cannot contribute fully to the knowledge economy with the current cost of education. Access to post-secondary education is becoming one of the crucial and defining issues of modern Canada.

Of course, the solution lies mostly with the provinces, despite the influence the private sector might have. However, the federal government must play a key role and show some leadership, given its unquestionable jurisdiction over tax matters, by setting an example that would urge the other stakeholders to make access to high quality education a national priority in Canada.

The motion would introduce 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 10 years after graduation with a proviso, the proviso being that the individual remains in Canada. This simple initiative helps Canadian students pay down their debt and helps them stay in their country. It addresses student debt and brain drain at one and the same time. It is an area of education where the federal government has both the power to act and, I would argue, the duty to act.

This initiative would allow graduate students to pay down their debt more quickly if they remain in Canada as productive taxpaying citizens. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance says that this proposed tax credit is too small to sway a student's career choice. That is not what students in my constituency or those anywhere across the country tell me. That is a bureaucrat's response. It is not the view that we heard in the round table on post-secondary education which my party sponsored last summer nor in our meetings with students across the country.

The government is simply wrong for three reasons. First, any student will say that a tax credit is better than no help at all, which is the Liberal government's response to student debt. Second, this proposal allows a student who stays in Canada to pay off all the principal of his or her Canada student loan. That is a significant help which will encourage young Canadians who are just starting their careers to make their choice to stay in Canada.

Finally, the Liberal government is shortsighted and wrong in its do nothing attitude toward student debt. While the Liberal government is piling up surpluses to look good today, it is forcing the students who will make Canada strong tomorrow to either forgo their studies or move to other countries.

Students today average a debt load of over $25,000 upon graduation or completion of university. It is estimated that this year alone 350,000 Canadian students will rely on federal loans worth $1.6 billion to finance their education. Post-secondary education costs have skyrocketed, largely due to the unilateral Liberal cuts to transfer payments which help provinces pay for education.

Since 1993 the Liberal government has cut $5.3 billion from post-secondary education funding in Canada. One direct result of those federal cuts is that tuition in Canada has increased over 125% in the decade 1990-2000. At the current rate, in 2008 tuition fees will be 226% higher than they were in 1990. That contributes directly to the swelling debt loads of Canadian students.

Despite incentives for parents to save for their children's post-secondary education, many do not or simply cannot. Almost 80% of Canadian parents with household incomes of less than $30,000 want their children to obtain a university education but only 18.7% are saving for post-secondary education.

My colleague, the hon. member for Fundy--Royal, pointed out that a greater proportion of family after tax income is needed by low income households to cover the cost of tuition and fees. He stated “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%.”

We are not only talking about the lives of students and their families, but also about the role of Canada as a world leader.

Human capital is becoming our most precious resource. The new economy is based on knowledge; it moves as fast as a lightning bolt. Training and human capabilities generate wealth. Education is the key to the future.

The government's own innovation strategy predicts that by 2004 more than 70% of all new jobs created in Canada will require some form of post-secondary education and 25% of new jobs will require a university degree. That is only two years away.

It will not happen unless we help students meet their impossible debt loads. This motion is a first step but there is much more to do.

Canada must become a source of sustained excellence through training and education. I fully recognize that education is a provincial area of jurisdiction, but we also need to provide each and every Canadian with the best education possible. Before going any further, the federal government should reaffirm its commitment to respect provincial jurisdiction over this area.

If the federal government wants new scholarship programs, it should work them out co-operatively rather than end-running the provinces with projects like the millennium project that simply broke the trust that is essential to a federation. If Ottawa is to use its spending power, it should do that co-operatively, not unilaterally.

The federal government can provide the leadership. It should co-ordinate either through the Council of Ministers of Education Canada or through first ministers conferences. There is no reason that the first ministers of the country could not be called together regularly to ensure that we have the highest education standards in the world. We could co-ordinate initiatives designed to ensure Canadian competitiveness and Canadian excellence.

The issues of increasing tuition costs, of student debt, of crumbling infrastructure of universities, of access to post-secondary education, of the question of best practices should all be part of the discussion.

Instead of showing a total lack of flexibility, the federal government should help the provinces to build an education system worthy of the 21st century. It should urge the provinces to take part in a national debate on these major issues, not so that it can take all the credit, but because it is the best thing to do.

The time to act is now. The motion addresses one aspect of accessibility of post-secondary education, one way to keep the best and the brightest here in Canada. It is a first step in dealing with Canada's competitiveness.

It allows our students to pay down their education debts more quickly. It is an initiative that could be put in place very quickly by the federal government and by the federal government acting alone. It would address the growing concern of Canadians that post-secondary education must be made more affordable.

The motion deserves the support of members from all corners of the House. It serves the best interests of the Canadian future. I hope it will be adopted.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be an understatement to say that the federal government recognizes the importance of expanding access to post-secondary education. There are significant benefits to individuals, to the economy and to society.

A cornerstone of the government's efforts is the Canada student loans program. From its inception in 1964 to March 2001 the program has assisted 4.5 million full time students by providing a total of nearly $20 billion in subsidized loans. I happen to be one of the first ones who entered into the program. I appreciated this assistance. It allows for needy students to access the knowledge, skills and learning they need in order to obtain better jobs and to attain a better standard of living for themselves and for their families.

Not only does the Canada student loans program provide loans to needy students, it also provides additional assistance to students in school and provides help to graduates to deal with the problems of high student debt levels. Many of these measures were key components of the Canadian opportunities strategy announced in the 1998 budget. Specifically the federal government assists those students in school and in financial need by the following approaches.

It provides them with access to Canada student loans of up to $5,610 in loans per year to help them with their financial needs. Provinces supplement Canada student loans with their own student financial assistance programs.

It fully subsidizes the cost of interest on the loans while the students are in full time studies at an annual cost to the government of nearly $250 million.

It assists students with special needs through grants to supplement their student loans. There are grants for students with dependants, students with disabilities, high need part time students, and women pursuing doctoral studies. In the recent December 2001 budget the federal government increased by $10 million a year the assistance available for students with disabilities.

In addition, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which was established and funded by the federal government, provides bursaries averaging $3,000 to over 90,000 needy students annually to help reduce the debt they would otherwise incur.

In recognition of the problems caused by increasing student debt loads, the federal government also provides significant additional assistance for graduates experiencing financial difficulties in repaying their student loans, such as the following.

Graduates experiencing financial difficulty in repaying their loans are eligible for interest free periods on their loan for up to 54 months after graduation. During these periods of interest relief, the government pays interest on the loan so that it is kept in good standing.

Also, if the graduate is still experiencing financial difficulty after interest relief has been exhausted, the loan repayment period can be extended from 10 to 15 years, reducing monthly payments by up to 25%. If there are still problems, debt reduction is available. The maximum amount of assistance is the lesser of 50% of the loan or $10,000.

In addition, there is a tax credit for interest paid on federal and provincial student debt. On Canada student loans the tax credit reduces the effective interest rate on the loan to slightly above prime.

Together these measures provide an insurance policy for graduates in repayment. They ensure that those having difficulty repaying their student loans will not have to go into default. Those with the most serious problems will have their debt reduced, unlike the member's proposal for a tax credit for principal paid on student loans. These measures target federal assistance to those who need the help the most. These are examples of what we think is smart spending.

In summary, the Canada student loans program currently disburses over $1.5 billion in loans annually to nearly 400,000 students, and up to $120 million in Canada study grants. Annually the program assists over 30% of all Canadian post-secondary students.

The cost to the government of the program is expected to be nearly $925 million in 2002-03. There is little doubt that the Canada student loan program has been an effective way to make post-secondary education more accessible for Canadians.

The cost borne by Canadian taxpayers to expand access to post-secondary education is a necessary investment in Canada's future, one that will pay huge dividends in terms of economic growth, increased productivity and higher incomes for the graduates.

Expanding access to post-secondary education continues to be a priority for the federal government. A key objective of the recently announced innovation strategy is to ensure that all Canadians have access to post-secondary education.

The Minister of Human Resources Development will be consulting with partners and stakeholders to determine how this objective can best be met.