Debates of Feb. 25th, 2005

Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not feel the need to have any lectures about the NDP record on things like education and housing. The NDP record is really clear.

The federal housing program had its genesis back in a minority Parliament in the 1970s. It was because the NDP put pressure on the government of the day to include a national housing program that we had the kind of national housing program that we should have today. There is no doubt in my mind where the NDP stands on these kinds of issues.

The member mentioned Ontario. The NDP government in Ontario inherited a record deficit from the previous Liberal administration. That was one of the reasons it was under such stress.

In B.C., the NDP government held the line on tuition increases, even though the federal Liberal government cut transfer payments dramatically to the provinces in the period it was in power. Our priorities are absolutely clear.

On housing, the member mentioned there is money that has not been spent. It is a crying shame that money for housing is not being spent, given the need in the community for it. The lack of action on that file is outrageous. We need to be spending the money, the paltry sum that has been committed, and if we are not spending that, then there is a problem with delivery and the government needs to attend to that.

There is also a problem with the government's promises on this. During the election campaign, we heard a promise of $1.5 billion for affordable housing in this country. In the budget there is nothing. We will fight against the betrayal of Canadians and the betrayal of yet another promise on an important program that Canadians need.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to point out the irony of being here on February 25, 2005, discussing a bill to implement a number of measures in the 2004 budget, which was brought in a year ago. I find it quite ironic.

As my colleague from Joliette mentioned earlier in the day, we will vote in favour of this bill because it contains a certain number of measures which can remedy—to some extent—a number of problems.

This bill lists many things. Unfortunately, what is even more striking is that it also ignores a number of things. On this point, I would like to read an extract from an article which, although the journalist was speaking of Wednesday's budget, could be applied very well to the measures in the 2004 budget and all the budgets presented over the past eight years. He says:

The lack of credibility is much more worrisome. It comes from the fact that the budget is based on figures no one believes anymore. For eight years, federal financial operations have generated large surpluses which budget speeches, year after year, have denied. Last year, as always, the Minister of Finance predicted a surplus of $3 billion. It will be $10 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion or something like that. For this year, the minister is announcing, as always, a $3 billion surplus. We do not believe him.

The gap between the forecasts and the reality is too wide, too predictable, for it to be justified by thrifty management. But especially, this gap is corrupting the very essence of the budget process. What a budget is meant to do, in addition to providing an update on public finances, is to establish the resources available and have a collective debate on their best use. This debate is essential for democracy and impossible if the real size of the surplus is not known.

For example, recognizing the fact that there are large surpluses could lead Canada to begin to seriously reflect on making different choices, reducing income tax substantially, creating a new agreement with the provinces, greatly reducing the debt or, perhaps, engaging in extraordinary initiatives—debates that are impossible if, technically, manoeuvring room is $3 billion.

More importantly, as a result of this budgetary fiction, important decisions are now being made outside the budget process, as surpluses materialize out of thin air. For example, for fiscal year 2004-05 ending in March, Ottawa incurred $10.9 billion in expenditures that were not included in last spring's budget. These are significant expenditures that escaped budgetary debate. And it looks like it will be the same this year. The new initiatives for 2005-06 announced in Wednesday's budget are in fact very modest, at $2.9 billion, probably because the real 2005-06 expenditures will come later, once a surplus has been uncovered.

—The fact that the federal government is so affluent while the provinces are increasingly struggling to carry out their responsibilities is creating an imbalance, both politically and fiscally. Besides the fact that it is unfair and causes misuse of collective resources, Ottawa's refusal to recognize this imbalance is translating into moves that are not always very bold.—

—Because of this dynamic, the finance minister's budget lacks consistency, credibility and legitimacy.—

—As a result, when the Minister of Finance announces an initiative, even an intelligent one, instead of applauding, we tend to think that the money he is spending should not be in his hands to begin with.

There are such initiatives in this bill.

These remarks were made by Alain Dubuc, a reporter with La Presse and Le Soleil , among others.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, the Canada School of Public Service Act and the Official Languages Act, be read the third time and passed.

Financial Administration Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat stymied by this third reading of Bill C-8.

During the debates held in the House at second reading, we discussed Bill C-8 extensively. At the time, we raised a number of questions that have yet to be answered by the government, but that are very valid questions regarding the purpose of this legislation and the objectives of the government. Since the bill is now at third reading, we can assume that, indeed, these considerations and questions have been left unanswered.

Bill C-8 illustrates once again the scenario that we had with other bills proposed in this House. Indeed, with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, we saw that the government had implemented administrative changes without consulting those who are most affected by these changes, and without putting in place a plan to develop those administrative changes.

As regards Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, since there were no plan or justification with respect to these changes, the House rejected these motions. In the case of Bill C-8, even though we said at second reading that we had some concerns and fundamental questions regarding this legislation, we still reviewed, in the hope, of course, that these questions would be answered, and that some objectives as well as a plan would be defined.

Unfortunately, as I said, our questions were not answered. I should point out that this is an issue of particular interest to the NDP. Indeed, we have always believed it is important that the government maintain good relations with public servants. Unfortunately, over the past several years, we have seen that those who spend their lives in the service of their country, Canada, to ensure that we have an effective public service and to maintain and even increase services provided to the public, we have seen that all these public servants who do so much to support programs, services and Canadians, were not consulted when the government decided to make the latest changes. Here, one week. There, the next.

We saw this recently during the surprise announcement of the single window for government services. So documents and information were leaked. We learned a few days ago that the government was planning to make some major changes, once again without consulting the public and the workers, the people devoting their lives to maintain and increase services for Canadians. There are no consultations. An announcement is made. We know that major changes are coming, once again, in the form of a single window, in the absence of planning and the implementation of all administrative procedures.

Unfortunately, I suspect that, once again, the Liberal government is deciding to make all kinds of promises of job offers here and there, without any plan to ensure the provision of services throughout the country. British Columbia, where I come from, is under-represented in the public service.

It is extremely important to people in British Columbia to be able to say that access to the public service corresponds to our demographic weight in Canada.

However, putting something like that in place requires a plan. There really have to be consultations with Canadians and public servants so we can a plan in place that will work. We know that this government has a tendency to make plans similar to those of the official opposition—sketched on table napkins—plans strung together with bailing wire that are not properly or sufficiently thought out, and ultimately, we end up with something that does not work.

We saw this with the Kyoto protocol; the government had in fact promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was supposed to reduce them by 20% by 2010. It is now 2005 and in actual fact greenhouse gases have gone up, not down, by 20%.

We have also seen other plans, including an anti-poverty plan. The NDP member for Ottawa Centre introduced a motion in the House in 1989. With the agreement of all members of this House, we adopted a plan whereby child poverty would be reduced by the year 2000 with a view to its total elimination.

Now here we are in 2005, and, tragically, there has been an increase in the number of children living in poverty in this country. They now number over one million. Among aboriginal children, 40% are poor or living in poor families, and liable to end up homeless. We know that 30% of families with disabled children are in the same situation.

This 12 year Liberal idea of a plan has once again resulted in failure. There has been a failure as far as the environment is concerned. A failure as far as housing for the homeless is concerned. The surprise announcement of a few days ago leaves us once again with a plan that has been cobbled together without consultation, without any clear objectives. This one will have a considerable effect on the Canadian public service, and that is most regrettable.

Now, if we look at Bill C-8, we see once again that it dates back to a year ago, after the decisions had been reached, without any connection between the two or any consideration of the impacts.

It must be pointed out that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre works tirelessly both in this House and outside to protect the public service and to ensure that its members are taken into consideration when the government plans to do something. I would like to congratulate him on the work he does. He is a new member like myself, but one with a long history in this place. He is new only in that his riding, Ottawa Centre, is a new one for him, but he is already hard at work, not only representing that riding, but also defending the interests of those who make such a great contribution to the running of our Canadian governmental services and the federal government's outreach in this country. The member for Ottawa Centre is making a remarkable contribution.

Let me point out the problem. We have Bill C-8. We have had questions raised in the House. Those questions have stayed there without a definitive response from the government. We know that morale is very low in the public service. We know of the surprise plan that was thrown out there, a one stop shop thrown out on the backs of the public servants who have contributed so much to this country.

Again we see a government proceeding without a plan, going from photo op to photo op, without considering the implications of each decision that is made. We saw with Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 how little forethought had actually been given to these decisions that the government was throwing forth to the House. At second reading we asked those questions and did not get the answers we wanted to hear.

We see very clearly that there has not been a consultation process with the people who are most concerned about this: the public sector workers who have contributed so much and yet receive so little consideration from the government. Last summer, after a real decrease in public sector wages of 10% and a salary gap in many sectors of 20%, as we saw with table 2, we saw the government, rather than engaging in meaningful negotiations, basically push through a settlement that of course public sector workers had to ratify after that.

What we see is a lack of respect for the public service. We do not see a change in attitude toward public sector workers. We do not see a change in responsibility. We do not see this government working with public sector workers and trying to engage in meaningful consultation, not relying on the strength of public sector workers who contribute in every community of this country, small or large, giving their hearts and souls, giving their efforts and their labour to make sure that we have the best possible services at all levels.

The responsibility for any concerns people have about public service and the state of public service in this country remains with the government, this government that does not consult, that refuses to recognize public sector workers as the assets they are for our country, that shows the same lack of respect for public sector workers we have seen it show to students with this recent budget. Students are not taken into consideration, nor are farmers. We see the same lack of consideration for people with disabilities and for poor Canadians. As well, in my area of greater Vancouver we have seen a threefold increase in the number of homeless. This is due to a lack of a housing strategy or policy.

We have seen, as I mentioned, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. We have seen an increase in smog and toxic pollutants across this country, yet we saw the government last week actually vote against the NDP motion that would have set mandatory emission standards in this country and thus actually address the issue of increasing smog and pollution and the deaths caused by that.

We saw the Liberal government and the Conservative Party voting against that simple measure. Now we see the Liberal government and the Conservative Party voting for a budget that does not address housing and homelessness issues. It does not address the issues around the poor.

It does not address the crisis that we are facing in post-secondary education. As my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax, has said so often and so effectively, we need to address the crisis in post-secondary education. There is nothing in the budget for students.

There is also nothing in the budget for people with disabilities, even though we know that four million Canadians live in the poorest conditions and with perhaps the lowest quality of life of all Canadians.

There is nothing in the budget to address aboriginal issues.

There is nothing in this budget that addresses those important issues, except the lack of respect for Canadians generally. The Liberal government and the Conservative Party in opposition are still going to support this budget, so who does get the respect if public sector workers do not get it, if students do not get it, if seniors do not get it with that tiny buck a day increase?

We know who gets the respect. It is the big corporations, with a $4.6 billion tax break. It is the wealthiest of Canadians, who actually see the cap on RRSP contributions lifted for those who earn more than $100,000 a year. They get respect. It is wealthy people, big corporations and the banks. We heard them lobbying to have the foreign content limit, that cap of 30%, lifted. That lobbying paid off for them.

Banks, big corporations and the wealthy are the ones that get respect from this government, not public servants. That is why I again raise concerns about Bill C-8 and the fact that the government is not showing proper respect for public sector workers. The government has shown this pattern consistently over the months that I have been in Parliament and certainly in the years before I came to Parliament. We have seen a consistent pattern of a lack of respect and a lack of consultation.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the bill. The concerns remain.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, a bill our party supports, naturally. Why? First because we believe that maintaining some consistency in human resources management within the federal public service is fundamental.

In terms of human resources management in the federal government, depending on whether we are talking about classification or compensation, there are two different types of agencies or departments that do this sort of management.

Does my colleague think Bill C-8, being debated today and to be considered at third reading, will improve consistency? There are some major omissions. I am referring to clarification and to integration in the bill, which would fight psychological harassment more vigorously. That is the first omission.

Also, linguistic duality is not recognized in the bill. These two aspects were fundamental omissions in Bill C-25 on management.

Does my colleague think that Bill C-8 will provide better consistency in human resources management in the federal public service?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As he noticed during my presentation, I am concerned by the general lack of consistency in this government when it comes to our public service, while its employees make such a big contribution to Canadian life, and work hard to represent their country. They also improve the outreach of federal services.

The concerns raised during second reading, which were clearly identified, still remain. General concerns have to do with the government ignoring linguistic duality. We saw this many times in many different areas. French does not receive the respect it deserves. It is widely used across the country. As the fourth largest francophone province in the country after Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, British Columbia now has 65,000 francophones. British Columbia is fourth in the pack in terms of the strength of its francophone community.

It must be said that in British Columbia there is a lack of services in French; still, at the same time, immersion schools are overflowing in that province. In fact, the immersion schools in British Columbia are the leaders in the country when it comes to people, parents and children, participating and wanting to learn French. In British Columbia, there always are obstacles to getting into the public service. It is always a problem. British Columbia is under-represented in the public service, while we are busy, in our immersion schools, teaching more and more bilingual young children who would like to contribute to their country by providing service in both official languages.

The entire issue of linguistic duality is and always has been a concern of the NDP. I was just talking to the hon. member for Halifax. Even when she was NDP leader in Nova Scotia, she fought to ensure that the Acadian community was well represented and respected in Nova Scotia. We could also talk about other governments, for instance, New Democratic governments, which have advanced francophone rights. We could mention the members of legislatures all over the country who have advanced francophone rights.

Everywhere in Canada, the NDP message is the same, whether in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Elizabeth Weir in Alberta and Léo Piquette. The governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have done the most to advance francophone rights. In fact, the New Democratic government in British Columbia set up the first francophone school boards. All over the country, we have the same message about linguistic duality and we always take the same care. That is a fundamental aspect of the NDP's existence and the reason why it must continue to speak on behalf of people all over the country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe that if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

moved that Bill C-236, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (student loan), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the New Democratic Party advocate and critic for post-secondary education I rise to launch second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-236, with very mixed feelings. I will try to explain that in the time available to me.

This is a measure that is desperately needed to provide some relief to students who are in dire straits. The reason I rise with mixed feelings is that it was my hope and the hope of hundreds of thousands of students and their families that the need for such legislation, this debt relief for students, would not be so great today after the budget was tabled in the House this week.

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. What the students of yesterday, today and tomorrow have received from the budget is the back of the hand and a kick in the teeth with respect to the priority needs for young people and for all Canadians who understand the value, the importance and necessity in today's world of being able to afford a post-secondary education.

I want to briefly outline what the bill would do. The summary states:

This enactment amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to reduce, from ten to two years after a bankrupt leaves school, the period of time during which an order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from the reimbursement of his or her student loan.

I have no doubt that some people who are trying to follow this debate are asking themselves why on earth the NDP member from Halifax would be introducing a bill to deal with bankruptcy. I am also sure they will be asking themselves whether there not other more urgent priorities for students and greater needs that ought to be addressed by the federal government and raised by all members of Parliament.

The answer to those questions is an unqualified yes. A lot of things are of higher priority to the overwhelming majority, especially to all post-secondary education students today and those who will follow, but the sad truth is that students have been virtually abandoned by the budget that was brought in here this week in terms of those priority needs.

It is absolutely clear that yesterday's students and their struggling families needed a meaningful program of debt relief, debt forgiveness in many instances.

Second, today's students, because of the crippling debt loads that are amassing and the continuing spiraling of tuition fees, desperately needed the government to reinvest in post-secondary education to make it possible for universities to both freeze and lower tuition fees. However, not only has the government not addressed this urgent matter, it has once again broken an election promise in this regard.

We are not just talking about some casual election commitment. We are talking about a specific commitment that the Prime Minister made in a grubbing for youth vote exercise in which he participated, the great Canadian job competition, a debate that was held with my leader, the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. At that time the Prime Minster said that the government recognized that there had been massive cuts over the last decade that have caused the financial crisis for students and he committed to the reinvestment of $8 billion to $9 billion in core funding for post-secondary education. There was absolute silence in the budget on that matter.

Tomorrow's students need to know there will be a post-secondary education system still standing when the government is through hacking and slashing at it. We have damage done, not just to the finances of students and their families in terms of debt burden, but we have an erosion of the post-secondary infrastructure because of the massive unilateral cuts that were introduced in that infamous 1995 budget. After one takes into account the paltry dollars that were contained in this week's 2005 budget, today the level of core funding to our post-secondary education system is below the level of core funding in 1993 when the government came to office some 12 years ago. It is unbelievable.

It is a tragic irony and it is heartbreaking. It is so important for the discrimination that now exists in our insolvency legislation to end as it relates to students. That is what we are talking about today. Others who become bankrupt, whose circumstances beyond their control have driven them into the situation of financial disaster where bankruptcy is an option, are eligible to apply for bankruptcy protection after two years. However, the government has removed that protection from the student population who have indebted themselves because of the inadequacy of the student aid programs in the country and particularly because of the withdrawal of any meaningful support from the federal government. They are in the position where they are not eligible for such bankruptcy protection for 10 years.

This is out and out discrimination against a category of Canadians that needs to be fought in the courts. I applaud the student leaders of the country, through the Canadian Federation of Students, who are fighting this discriminatory provision through the courts. It is pathetic that our students have to do this to get the government to pay attention to their desperate lot.

It is unbelievable the one measure, which we could hardly even call it an initiative let alone a major initiative, contained in the budget for which the government keeps congratulating itself is if students die or become permanently disabled, then they will have the debt forgiveness for their student loan.

I applaud the government for its effort. In fact I had a private member's bill to propose exactly that. I am glad that my other private member's bill to provide for such relief is no longer needed. I say that without qualification. However, it is such a tiny measure in relation to what is needed.

Since I have become the post-secondary education critic, I have received an avalanche of letters, e-mails, phone calls, personal approaches from students whose lives are in ruin because of the inadequacies of our student aid system. The government has pushed money over into a foundation to escape accountability. It has absolutely turned its back on the universally recognized need for a student aid system that is based on needs. That has left incredible numbers of students in desperate financial straits.

I could share with my colleagues today the kinds of problems students are having in no more effective way than to briefly quote from the letter from just one such student. I had introduced the bill before I ever heard from this student in my riding. I will not have time to read it in full today because it is quite lengthy. He says:

For years I have been a slave to the student debt I was forced to incur in order to receive a post-secondary education. With no funding available from my family and only minimum wage earnings saved by myself I embarked on my higher education with five years of student loans, leaving me approximately $40,000 in debt upon completion of my studies...

He goes on to describe the nightmare of trying to deal with the student aid system and the frustrations in all of that. He then goes on to say:

My intention at 18 years old, when I accepted my first student loan, was never to have to declare bankruptcy with the debt I was assuming. But the reality of it ends up being so. After speaking to many different sources over the past couple of years, ranging from financial advisors, bankruptcy counsellors, legal aid lawyers, and going through my situation in great length, I was told by the majority of them that bankruptcy is my best option.

Because this student and every other student in a similar situation in the country is actively discriminated against by the insolvency provisions, I have introduced my private member's bill to amend and to correct the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so students will be given fair and equal treatment.

He goes on to say:

More than anything, I want and need the stresses of this to be eliminated from my life so I simply can get on with it and create a decent living for myself.

He finishes with the following:

I am one of thousands who desperately need this change to occur. We, as young Canadians, need to get on with our lives and become productive members of society so that we may create lives for ourselves that will enable future generations to succeed. I feel as though the Liberal government has put young Canadians in a position that prevents us from doing so, preventing us from moving forward with a proper life's path.

This is the problem we have created for a lot of our students today. However, the problem does not only exist for students. In many cases the very low income families, who could not afford to help them with their escalating tuition fees in the first place, are now stuck trying to help bail them out of situation out of which they simply cannot get.

I to appeal to every member of the House to understand that this is a small measure. This is a measure to which every other Canadian is entitled, yet we are insist on dragging down our students with student debt, through no fault of their own. The government has effectively abandoned any meaningful system of student aid.

We have to address the crisis and emergency that exists with respect to the bankruptcy provisions while we continue to press the government to reinvest, starting with the Prime Minister's very specific commitment during the spring election to restore $8 billion to $9 billion of core funding to the post-secondary education system. We can do no less if we mean what we say about our youth being our future.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her private member's bill and her speech this afternoon. It is a very important issue. It is a very important issue in my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas where the B.C. Institute of Technology and Simon Fraser University are located. Many students in my riding are facing exactly the situation she describes.

The member read a letter from a student about the situation he faced. It is one I know very personally. I have listened to those same stories from many students in my riding over the years when I was constituency assistant, and since I have become a member of Parliament.

I commend the member for seeking to right this wrong and end this discrimination against students.

I also commend the Canadian Federation of Students for taking this matter to the courts. It is sad when students and the people affected by this kind of injustice have to take the initiative to right it.

This is the place where we should be undertaking restitution of that and restoring the bankruptcy provisions for students. I am glad the member for Halifax has done that.

In the broader perspective, the issue of funding for post-secondary education and the rising cost of tuition forces so many people into this situation. Students at Simon Fraser University have made a complaint at the United Nations that Canada is not living up to its international obligations under an agreement signed by the United Nations and Canada in 1976 to work toward free education in Canada. All the countries that have signed on have done that.

Clearly, in Canada we have gone exactly in the opposite direction whereas countries have made gains. Could the member for Halifax comment more broadly on the underlying issues around the bankruptcy issue?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his strenuous advocacy on behalf of students in his own riding and elsewhere. What the students in all 308 of the ridings need is a serious commitment from the federal government to post-secondary education.

The government should be humiliated that students at Simon Fraser University felt compelled to go to the United Nations to plead their case that Canada was failing to live up to its 1976 obligation to ensure students would receive adequate education. As a Canadian I feel humiliated but I applaud their efforts.

Students have every reason to call their elders hypocrites, and that includes all of us, if we keep saying that it is essential for them to have a post-secondary education and then fail to provide the means for them to obtain it. I hope I am correct in the number, although it may have varied by one or two in recent times, but I think there are something like 18 OECD countries that actually have a tuition free post-secondary education system.

People may wonder how we could afford more generous student aid, as if we have a generous student aid program, which we absolutely do not. I agree that in order to be fiscally responsible we cannot do this overnight, but we not only need to lower tuition fees but we need to be on path to move toward a tuition free post-secondary education system.

When we are done with tuition, we still need to recognize that students need resources to live. They need to eat, they need shelter and they need transportation. In many cases they have families. We know that increasingly, with workers being thrown out of jobs, often without any adequate transition measures or opportunities for retraining and so on, they are going back to school with grown families in order to obtain the education they want. However what we are doing is making it virtually inaccessible for a great number of students.

The reason that this bill becomes necessary is that on the one hand we are driving students into bankruptcy and on the other hand, because of the discriminatory provisions in our insolvency system, they are not even given the opportunity to declare bankruptcy on a basis equal with other Canadians. The bill simply asks that students be given equal, not discriminatory, treatment with respect to their ability to be considered eligible for bankruptcy.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for Halifax for her bill. During the federal election I knocked on over 6,000 doors in my community. One of the things I heard most regularly about was the number of young people who cannot go on to post-secondary education because of the post-secondary crisis that we are living through.

As she pointed out at the beginning of her remarkable presentation, the budget that was tabled this week does not deal with this post-secondary crisis. We have the Liberal government and the Conservative opposition both supporting a budget that does not deal with this fundamental crisis that is not only hurting younger generations of Canadians but is also going to hurt our economy as fewer and fewer Canadians go on to post-secondary education and to obtain the skills that are vital for tomorrow's economy.

[An hon. member]

It is a betrayal.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It is certainly a betrayal of what is needed in Canada and it is a betrayal of election promises that were made by the Liberal government and the Conservative Party in the last election.

I ask the member for Halifax what she believes is behind this total betrayal of students and young people across the country.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult question that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster raises, because I am flummoxed by this. I am flabbergasted. One tremendously bright, energetic young student who has been doing a lot of work on these issues described the budget as being “appallingly bold in its silence” on education funding. What a good example, I thought, because there are silences and then there are silences, but this is appallingly bold silence.

How flagrant can this government be? This may not be very parliamentary language, but the government is thumbing its nose at students and their families. I do not know what to say about that in answer to the question, particularly given the Prime Minister's commitment to reinvest $8.9 billion.

I am sure he did not have any thoughts of doing that tomorrow, and we would be saying we cannot afford to do that tomorrow, but this Prime Minister, when he was finance minister and had made up his mind, when he really meant what he said about something, knew exactly what to do to get on with implementing it. We set targets, set timetables, develop a plan and actually implement the plan come hell or high water.

So when he makes a commitment to reinvest $8 billion that he has hacked and slashed out of post-secondary education over the last decade, to the detriment of this nation's future in addition to the detriment of our students who are weighed down by debt, we would think he would actually make a plan and say “here is what we intend to do” and then get on with it.

Why was this government absolutely silent? I will tell members what I think. I think the government believes that students are so overburdened trying to get an education, working at part time jobs for crummy pay, paying off debts and dealing with all of this that they cannot actually be politically active, that they will not do anything to fight back.

I do not believe that for one moment. The student leaders of every one of the major student umbrella organizations and national organizations and Quebec's student leaders came before the human resources committee to deal with the one paltry, pathetic bill that this government introduced, which will not give one iota of financial assistance to students today or tomorrow. In fact, it will not have any effect whatsoever for 18 years. Those student leaders were there to say not only is this inadequate and not only is this paltry, it is fundamentally flawed and it is a fraud because it actually does not do what it says it is going to do, that is, help the most financially disadvantaged.

They also indicated what they believe they represent through their organizations, through CFS, CASA and FEUQ. They absolutely were here to say that they were going to fight for a better deal. That is what this bill does in a very narrow way. It fights against a discriminatory measure and, let us make no mistake, the New Democratic Party is absolutely committed to working in solidarity with those students to fight for a deal that will work not just for them and their families but for all Canadians.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to indicate that I am replacing my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is unable to be in the House today because of the textile issue in Huntingdon.

First, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax for her bill and the quality and relevance of her remarks. What stands out in her speech is the position that this is a matter of equity and fairness for students, as opposed to people in other groups in our society that are forced to go bankrupt. Bankruptcy is not something you choose, but something you are forced into. This is particularly tragic for students because it happens when they have not had the time yet to enter the labour market or find a job that would give them enough money to meet their financial obligations.

I want to say at the onset that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C-236. We are in favour of reducing from ten to two years the period of time during which a former student cannot be released from the reimbursement of his or her student loan.

Naturally, this measure will lighten the load for less fortunate students. This is also a good measure to ensure that students repay their loans not only for extremely moral reasons or incentives, but also because of a legislative obligation.

If I am not mistaken, only students face such a long period before they can be free of their debts. Anyone else in society who goes bankrupt can ask to be discharged long before.

The Bloc Québécois is well aware of the fact that declaring bankruptcy must not be an easy way out. There must be a moral obligation and a legal obligation, in reasonable proportion to everyone else in society faced with declaring bankruptcy.

The issue is that, overall, bankruptcy by students will have to be taken into consideration in light of the fiscal imbalance, among other things. We are well aware that constraints on the provinces resulting from the fiscal imbalance are creating obligations for the provinces. In turn, the provinces will have to limit their loans and even bursaries, thereby adding to the financial difficulties faced by students.

We know that, over the past few years, particularly since 1990, the federal government has gradually cut transfer payments to the provinces for education, which has—as I said earlier—added to the difficulties faced by students. Our interest in this bill is that we must call on the other parties in the House to consider this problem in a more global context, particularly in relation to the fiscal imbalance.

At the same time, it points up the Liberal government's lack of leadership in the overall administration of education, to name just one example. The federal government is insensitive not only to the difficulties of the provinces as a result of cuts to transfer payments, given their obligations in education, but also to the difficulties students face as a result.

That is the end of my introduction, now for a brief historical overview of the situation.

In 1949, the first legislation was enacted, and this made the federal government a preferred creditor in the event of a student bankruptcy. It was therefore the first one to be paid off, and so the student could not escape his indebtedness to the federal government.

In 1992, that measure was attenuated to include only a student's first bankruptcy. In 1997, this same government added a two-year deadline. Less than a year later, to the surprise of everyone—and to this day we do not know the reason behind it—before that two-year period could even have a proper trial, they extended the period by another two years. Totally incomprehensible, that.

So, without any trial period, students found themselves faced with a discriminatory measure compared to others in society who declare bankruptcy, unable to be free of their debts for ten years.

It seems to us that it is time now for this situation to be remedied. The measure proposed by the hon. member for Halifax in Bill C-236 will enable us to correct that injustice and establish fair treatment for students.

I would not want to talk about this bill without looking at both its positive and negative aspects. In the Bloc we think the negative aspects also have to be looked at in order to make a fair judgment and see whether there is any need for amendments.

First of all, let us look at the positive aspects. Obviously there is the idea of relieving financial pressure on the most disadvantaged, in particular, and correcting the unfairness I was speaking of earlier, especially with regard to people who have trouble finding a job because, of course, these people are the ones with the most problems.

In addition, this way of doing things does not unduly liberate the individual by applying the two-year rule. A degree of responsibility is thus maintained. I will come back to that, because we think this responsibility seems rather limited.

I am coming to the disadvantages. Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax has already considered them. Perhaps she already has some answers. For our part, we are trying to find a way that students would feel a little more responsible in that time period. The length of time seems about right. Still, we often talk about moral responsibility, but how can we see it in this bill and say that it will not only be felt but also assumed and put into practice?

I will conclude the last part of my remarks with a few words about the federal government's withdrawal. Since 1990, the federal government has been gradually backing out of transferring funding to the provinces for education, which created a fiscal imbalance. This is one central aspect of the debate as we consider the budget.

This withdrawal represents a 40% shortfall in transfers to the provinces for education. This means that, from 1994 to 1998, an amount of $6.2 billion was not transferred to Quebec for health and education. That is a huge amount. This situation was never corrected. It still exists and its impact can still be felt. It is reflected in almost every area of society, including this issue. That is why we believe it should be considered from the angle of the fiscal imbalance.