Debates of March 16th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her well presented thoughts.

The commitment of the government to women as well as my commitment and that of my colleague is quite evident. Given that we are talking about women's economic equality, would it help and enhance women's economic equality much faster in all parts of Canada, including Quebec, if we were to get past and get over as quickly as possible this issue of separation which is in effect holding back the whole country economically, not just women?

Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by earlier comments of members concerning the recent report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It seemed to suggest there was a gender bias of some description in lending.

With some experience in the CFIB mode of surveying, I wonder if this is correct or if this is a reflection of the people who responded.

I would like to put some interesting information on the record. It is from a Statistics Canada national survey on the financing of small business, dated November 1994. Statistics Canada found that 18 per cent of small businesses owned by men who had sought financing had been refused. For women the figure was 24 per cent.

StatsCan noticed that this difference may reflect an industry preference rather than sex discrimination by the lenders. An example that suggested this industry preference is the business and personal services industry which is the largest share of businesses owned by women. In fact, if there was a bias it had more to do with the kinds of business women determined they were going to try to open. It was not a gender bias.

The other was the question of whether or not there was a bias based on interest rates. Research has shown there is not a gender bias. It is strictly based on the credit worthiness of the business.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her remarkable speech. I have seldom had the opportunity to listen to such a long speech made by her and I want to congratulate her. Her speech is full of good intentions and I can tell she knows this issue thoroughly.

I am not rising to blame anyone. Unfortunately, in spite of all the policy statements and the good intentions expressed on both sides of this House, on the government side, there seems to be a distortion between what they say and what they do.

We have had many days like today where we discussed the status of women. I remember last December 6 was one of those. The women of the Liberal Party joined the Bloc Quebecois women to denounce the sometimes tragic situation of women.

However, in our daily lives, in our bills, we seem to forget all the promises, all the good intentions and we just brush honourable thoughts under the carpet. For example, the Liberal members and ministers, and perhaps even the minister who just spoke whom I regard and respect highly, are not opposed to measures like the one implemented in last year's budget, which takes into account a husband's salary to determine if a woman will be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

When we proposed other legislation, what did they do? Did they fight for child care? I know they are all good human beings and I respect them, but they are just not there when time comes to keep promises, turn words into deed and principles into actions. Unfortunately, they then often slip away.

I said at the beginning of my comments that I did not want to criticize. On the contrary, I hope that, like the health minister, women in the Liberal Party will be able to put pressure on their male colleagues, who are the majority, so that they take some actions in favour of women.

Do not be surprised if it is a man who is telling you this today. I have three beautiful daughters whom I love as much as my son, and I see that the future that we are preparing for them, the environment that they will have to work in, is not always to their advantage.

I am not asking for special privileges for women. I am simply asking that they be treated the same way as men and, often, as some minorities. In Canada, our women are not treated as well as some minorities, and I feel that this is not right.

I thank the minister for her fine speech. We can tell that she knows the subject and that her intentions are good. What I am asking her is, does she intend to promote her ideas within her own party?

Madam Speaker, I must say that it is absolutely necessary to keep working together, not only in this party, because here we really care about the status of women and the status of minority groups. As you know, many women are members of minority groups. My point is that we intend to do everything we can, despite an economic situation that is still pretty serious, to ensure that the dollars we have go directly to those who need them most. These are sometimes difficult decisions. We have groups that do good work, but the dollars we give them do not go directly to those who really need them.

When I consider the spirit of co-operation we see today when we talk about the status of women, especially poor women, and when I consider that for years we have had constitutional debates to decide which level of government should do what, and all kinds of commissions, and all very expensive, I start

thinking that if we had worked together and collected all those dollars that were spent over the years and if we had all decided that the best thing we could do for Canadians was to sit down and do something about their economic situation, just imagine what we could have accomplished. We could have a national day care system. We would not have to fight about whether this is a provincial or a federal area of jurisdiction or priority. It would be wonderful if we could do that.

However, the fact is that we have provincial governments that have certain responsibilities which they are not prepared to relinquish. That is mine. Hands off. Even if what you want to do is very good, do not interfere. This causes problems, delays and a lot of frustration, especially for this minister, who realizes that these are very difficult issues.

When we consider what we could do if, first of all, we invested in our children, in children from infancy to 6 years of age, if we could intervene at that level, we would not have to build prisons, which we will have to do because we cannot afford the luxury of helping our children. We will do what we can. I would like to ask all those people who want the best for our children, for women and the future of our country, to get together and work on this and take the dollars we have to really do something good for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, on March 8, we celebrated International Women's Day with all our sisters and colleagues around the world. Let me tell you that our day is no exception to those important days that we celebrate over an eight-day period.

I consider however that a single day is not enough to allow us to say that we have won the game. This day marks a time-out. It lets us have a moment's reflection before going on with the task at hand. On the last day of this octave, I am pleased to rise in this House to draw attention to the substantial and hard-fought gains made by women and set them in the perspective of future initiatives and representations, particularly with regard to Quebec women.

I also take this opportunity to salute all of Laval's women's organizations devoted to the well-being of their fellow citizens.

Let us never forget that the courage, determination and dedication that characterize earlier generations of women before cannot be overstated. These qualities have revolutionized the established order. In their quest for self-sufficiency, these women broke new ground so that their daughters could enjoy equal access to the right to vote, to higher education, the labour market, financial independence, political power and the corporate world.

These past few years have also seen a number of firsts: first woman in space, first woman Prime Minister of Canada, first woman leader of a Republic, first women Supreme Court justice, first women member of l'Académie française, and the list goes on.

In fact, the statement issued following the recent world summit on social development held in Copenhagen reiterated ten commitments, including that of promoting absolute respect for human dignity, ensuring fair and equal treatment of men and women, recognizing and reinforcing the participation and role of women in political, economic, social, cultural and everyday life as well as development.

Where are we now? Today, women collectively ask themselves: Where are we now? What is the result of our efforts? What will be at stake the next time? We all know, from personal experience, that some progress was made. But let us not fool ourselves.

In spite of these improvements, major inequalities continue to exist. In times of budget cuts and high unemployment, women and the poor may well end up paying the price. Some realities remain true: women still only earn 72 per cent of what men make, the majority of them are in low paying jobs without any security, daycare services are inadequate, elderly women are poorer than their male counterparts, and so on.

What is the situation in Quebec? Many Bloc members travelled across various regions of the province in recent weeks, along with the regional commissions on Quebec's future. As you know, the hearings held by the 18 Quebec commissions were a true success. Over 50,000 Quebecers participated in these very productive discussions, as part of the largest public consultation exercise ever held in Quebec. People from every age group and background came and told us what they expect from a sovereign Quebec.

Once again, Quebecers showed that they can listen to each other, understand each other and get along with each other. They came and told the Quebec government about their hope for a generous, united and responsible Quebec which will care about women, children, workers, seniors and young people. Many women's groups participated in the debate. I can tell you that their vision of Quebec's future is not that of the current federal government. Can the gap between the reality in Quebec and the way the federal government is perceiving it be that wide? The Secretary of State for the Status of Women and her Quebec colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada have missed a first rate opportunity to get back in touch with Quebec's reality.

In any case, since Liberal members were absent, I will try to convey to them what Quebecers told us. First of all, as I mentioned before, women groups told us, as they did during the

Bélanger-Campeau Commission hearings, that they want major changes. These women want the federal government to stop interfering in areas affecting them, such as work conditions, family law, income security, day care and abortion.

The involvement of two levels of government in these areas, they said, leads to administrative overlap, program and structure duplication, a lack of harmony between provincial and federal policies, hence a waste of public funds and the inability of the Quebec government to initiate a coherent policy on women's issues.

Do you want examples, Madam Speaker? Maternity leaves are granted pursuant to the Act respecting Labour Standard while compensation for lost income is paid pursuant to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which makes it difficult for Quebec to implement a coherent policy concerning parental leaves.

Let us deal with the preventive withdrawal of employees who are nursing or pregnant. In Quebec these women are covered by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, while federal employees and women employed by federally regulated businesses are covered by the Canada Labour Code. The level of compensation is not the same, which has the effect of creating two classes of female employees in Quebec.

Furthermore, federal intervention in family matters illustrates the double jurisdiction that exists in matters of family law. The federal Parliament has jurisdiction over marriage and divorce; Quebec has the authority to legislate on the celebration of marriage, matrimonial property, adoption and separation.

As the Council on the Status of Women said so succinctly, women, depending on whether they get married, separate or get a divorce may be provincially or federally regulated. Furthermore, this double jurisdiction prevents Quebec from creating a single family court.

I could go on and on and talk about the overlap in income security, social services, day care and many other areas.

There is a lack of consistency that has often been criticized and which women's groups brought up before the regional commissions on the future of Quebec.

My colleagues have, throughout the day, reminded this House of the government's failure to adopt concrete measures to promote the economic equality of women. Bloc members also condemned the drastic cuts in the latest federal budget and made it clear that women may be severely affected. The government claims it cannot afford to take steps to promote equality and equity, but it is not doing a thing to stop the waste, duplication and inconsistencies generated by overlapping federal and provincial policies.

The federal government has proven it is incapable of responding to the urgent needs and repeated requests of women in Quebec. As I pointed out earlier, Quebec is more progressive in a number of areas. All it needs is the tools to go even further and pursue an integrated development process.

There is an English expression that says "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". Women want the federal government to take this to heart and let Quebec have sole authority over areas connected with the status of women.

For all these reasons, I fully support the motion moved by the hon. member for Québec, and I urge the federal government to withdraw now from all areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. I would like to follow her lead and take the debate in a slightly different direction. I ask her to remember that Quebec society of say 50 years ago was quite a different society than it is now.

It was a society that was very much oriented toward the church and the family. Indeed, during the second world war the francophone population of Quebec opted for the motto of the Vichy French, that the family and home were the important things rather than the traditional French motto of liberty and equality.

After the second world war we moved into a period in which there was the great liberation of Quebec socially. There have been wonderful advances in Quebec in freeing up the contribution of Quebec's women to the economy and culture of the country-not only francophone but anglophone as well.

Does the member not feel this change-it is a profound change that occurred in Quebec in the fifties and the sixties-owes much not just to the forces within Quebec society but also to Canada itself? I remind her that some very positive initiatives were coming from the federal government, particularly under Mr. Pearson and Mr. Louis St. Laurent which led to the kind of society that she wishes to see in Quebec.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. Indeed, Quebec has changed a lot, particularly since the fifties and the sixties, in the context of what was called the "quiet revolution".

The hon. member tells me that there was a profound change, and I was part of it; he also says that this profound change was due to forces within Canada that accompanied with the forces within Quebec. I would also like to ask a question to the hon. member. I would like to know what these forces are, because he

did not mention them. Saying that there were forces of change is one thing, but we would like to know what they are.

In Quebec, we know what our forces of change were and what contributed to these forces. We admit that there were also forces in Canada, but I would like to know what were the forces of change in Canada that might have had an effect on Quebec. Personally, I do not see them. That is what I am now asking the hon. member.

Madam Speaker, far be it for me to instruct the hon. member in the history of Quebec. There is no doubt that in the fifties and sixties there was a great reaching out by the federal government under Prime Ministers Louis St. Laurent and Pearson. The history of the federal government did tend to be a history of anglophones prior to the arrival of Mr. Louis St. Laurent and Mr. Pearson and then we had Mr. Trudeau and so on.

We had an attempt, a very successful attempt, to involve Quebec in the life of the nation at large. Quebec has contributed enormously to Canada. I am surprised that my hon. colleague does not appreciate this.

Madam Speaker, I will answer the hon. member by saying that we certainly did not take the same courses in the history of Canada and of Quebec.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to spend a few minutes this afternoon on this opposition motion. As I listened to the debate unfold this afternoon, with people speaking with heartfelt conviction from different political perspectives on the whole notion of women's issues, it was interesting to reflect on it based on our own personal experiences, our life experiences.

I thought of my mother and grandmother. My grandmother was a war bride after the first world war. She came from a life of some luxury in Scotland and arrived on the prairies in Vulcan, Alberta to live in a sod hut. I thought of what she went through in her life as they were breaking the prairies. I thought of how her circumstances changed relative to the circumstances of my mother who often said perhaps her life would have been a little easier if she had been a man. I think that was because she did many things which were not normally within the purview of women. To be charitable, she would never rate all that highly on a scale of one to ten regarding her interest in washing floors, dishes, and that kind of thing.

Interestingly she was the first women photographer ever in the newspaper guild in Canada. She edited and wrote a newspaper column for many years. I am very proud of her. She is in her mid-70s. She always wanted to write a book so she wrote a book. We are now getting it published.

In her lifetime and in the lifetime of many of the women and men in the House, the role of women has changed dramatically in our society. It has changed dramatically as a result of the emancipation of both men and women. Perhaps the greatest change that has taken place, at least to my thinking, is the generational change between my parents' generation and my generation, and the relationship we have with our daughters.

Most of us in this room who have daughters expect our children to be treated with absolute impartiality, regardless of their gender.

My wife and I have a daughter who is an engineer. She is a very competent person. It used to drive her crazy every time a male opened a door for her because she could do it on her own, thank you very much. I said to her: "Kate, there are times when you just have to be a little gracious. Perhaps whoever is opening the door for you is just being polite. It is not a statement meant in any way to put you down".

Perhaps one of the things that is missing in this great raging debate between men and women is that every once in a while we have to lighten up and not take ourselves so seriously.

We evolve as a people and as a nation. It is an evolutionary change not revolutionary change. There are those who would say that evolutionary change has a way of being better than revolutionary change.

I believe the debate was worthwhile and placed in good faith by the Bloc. It is worthy of mention that there are all kinds of inequities in life, not just inequities of women. They may feel for one reason or another that their potentials are not realized. It is not just people of different ethnic backgrounds who feel that maybe their potentials are not realized because of that background. These things are not right and it is a value system that we all share.

We recognize that people should not be restrained from the opportunity of achievement because of any physical characteristic, whether they are women or because of their colour or because of their religion, or anything. It is the equality of opportunity that everyone feels is a right in a free society. Circumstance is earned. Provided we, as a society, ensure that everyone; women, men, young and old, have equality of opportunity, then we are on the right track.

Our challenge is to ensure equality of opportunity, that the ladder between success and failure is climbed by the amount of effort put into whatever opportunity is afforded.

I thank the House for the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record. If anyone has any further comments, I would be delighted to entertain them.

Madam Speaker, I am anxious to comment on this debate because the whole question of women's inequality and what it means for violence against women forms very much a part of the work that I do as Minister of Justice on behalf of the government. I am happy that this issue has been put before the House today for discussion. I congratulate members of the Bloc for devoting this opposition day to such an important subject.

By way of comment, may I make it clear to my colleagues that the government is keenly aware of the findings of study after study in recent years which have addressed the issue of violence against women, and which have concluded almost invariably that violence against women is connected directly to the economic inequality of women. As a logical consequence, we will never effectively address violence against women until we come to grips with the causes of the economic inequality and correct them. It is surely a matter of common sense.

Most of the unpaid work done in our society is done by women, whether it is volunteer work or work in the home. There is a body of work done by Marilyn Waring, a New Zealand economist who has studied this phenomenon. She contends persuasively that until we find a way to collect census data to value the work done by women, we will never really have a true picture of their contribution to the economy of our society.

We must also bear in mind that women have a disproportionate responsibility for home and family. Despite the social changes of recent decades, preponderantly it is the woman who must take responsibility for the children and for maintaining a stable home environment for the family. They do so at an enormous cost to their professional aspirations, to their economic and financial opportunities. It is a cost that is often unfair, invariably beyond compensation. In the case of family break-up often it is the cause of real financial hardship.

When women do work too often they are consigned to the pink collar ghettos; clerical or secondary, supportive roles in the workforce that deny them the opportunities for fulfilment in the development and use of their full potential. We are told by those who keep statistics that 80 per cent of the clerical positions in the country are held by women. Even when they work in full time positions women earn 72 cents for every dollar earned by men in full time employment.

This ties directly to violence. Women are constrained to stay in abusive relationships by economic necessity for themselves and their children. Because they are in a disadvantaged category in society they do not necessarily have access to means of help to get out of those relationships, with tragic consequences for themselves and for the children.

This issue is of such significance and breadth that I cannot do justice to it in the few minutes allotted to me today. If there is anything I would record for the House before I sit down, it is the profound commitment of the government to do whatever it can in the mandate that the people have given us to address the issues we are discussing today.

In some small way we must start a process of broadening people's understanding of the questions, of working toward their resolution, of turning around the attitudes of people against violence against women and the economic inequality of women so that together, with a better understanding of the issue and a common resolve to see it addressed, we can improve the situation for the young women of Canada who will tomorrow come into their own.

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to address motion M-291 introduced by my leader earlier this year.

Today I would like to talk about education in the new economy. I would like to address not just the details of the income contingent loan repayment idea but how it fits into the bigger picture of training and learning in the new economy and what this means to younger Canadians.

The Journal Policy Options said last November:

The observation that Canadian universities in 1993 are in a state of serious crisis is now commonplace. Nobody agrees more than administrations, faculty and students. A preoccupation with underfunding pervades every campus.

Yet the demand for university education is skyrocketing. In Saskatoon and Regina near my constituency it is becoming increasingly difficult not only to get into the universities but to get into the colleges that prepare students for university. Thousands of students are being turned away and this is a reflection of our changing economy.

Natural resources have always been part of our country's greatest asset. Our economic and social progress was financed

with beaver pelts and fish, with logs and grain, with minerals, with oil and gas and with power generated by our rivers.

Times change. We are increasingly turning our raw natural resources into manufactured goods, everything from cars and snowmobiles to fish sticks and frozen french fries. It is a valued added, information based economy today and those who would tap into this new economy must have the know how and the skills to compete with countries all over the world.

Canada's old economy, labour intensive based on natural resources and basic manufacturing, is no longer able to pay for all the things we want as a country and is no longer providing the jobs we need.

The situation is not unique to Canada. The countries of the developed world are experiencing the most important economic shift since the industrial revolution, the shift to a knowledge based economy in which the brain power of our citizens is our most valuable natural resource.

Government can help to cultivate Canada's most important natural resource, to develop our country's intellectual infrastructure by helping young people get a quality education. Two direct ways to do this are to invest public funds in education, for example by distributing cash transfers through a voucher system, and the other by enabling Canadians to invest in their own education through an improved system of student loans.

For the first time in 40 years and only after the Reform Party brought up the idea, the Liberals are looking at the income contingent loan repayments as a realistic way to help finance post-secondary education.

Let us take a look at the proposals by the Minister of Human Resources Development. The Liberal social policy discussion paper points out that established program financing for education is currently frozen. This funding consists of $3.5 billion in tax points on $2.6 billion in cash. The government says the value of tax points will increase as the economy grows and because of this the cash transfer will taper off to zero in about 10 years if nothing is done. His discussion paper proposes an immediate elimination of the cash transfer and the implementation of a student loan system where repayment of the loans depends on income.

In question period some time ago the Minister of Human Resources Development said the growth and value of tax points represents an increase in education funding, but that is clearly not the case. The reality is the cost of education will probably grow at least as much as the value of the tax points and possibly quite a bit more. All other things being equal, the elimination of the cash portion of federal transfers would represent a funding reduction of over 40 per cent.

The government has recently figured out that we have a debt problem. It is encouraging that the Liberals are finally coming around to the Reform's way of thinking on income contingent loan repayments. A lot of work needs to be done. The crushing debt burden on Canadians, in particular the burden to young Canadians, will force them into more difficulty in the future.

What have we done for our young people lately? There is nothing more important to the future of our country than our young people. This is something politicians say every time they go to a campus or a high school, or otherwise make a political pitch for the youth vote. I say it, the Liberals say it and members of the Bloc say it. Talk is cheap.

Let us consider for a moment what we have done for our young people lately. By creating the national debt we have robbed from the next generation, our young people, to pay for today's consumption. I have said this across the country as I have travelled on the social program reform review. We have loaded off a tremendous debt on to our young people.

The government has spent tax dollars our grandchildren have not even earned yet. We have done something else. Through high debt and high taxes government has aided and abetted the decline of the Canadian job market. One result is that too many young people with degrees are flipping hamburgers or working as bartenders.

The spendthrift ways of our government have also crowded out education funding, resulting in a decline in the quality of education and higher tuition fees. Recently the Minister of Human Resources Development proposed eliminating the cash transfers in support of education altogether. Just a few months ago we saw students protesting hikes in tuition fees on Parliament Hill. As I said, talk is cheap.

We must realistically address the basic problems of the student loan system. Just as if unemployment insurance payments were reduced nationally, the welfare roles would swell. As post-secondary education funding to the provinces dwindled, tuitions rose and students turned more and more to student loans. More and more of them default when they cannot find jobs after university.

By 1992 loan defaults reached unprecedented levels. Almost one-third of outstanding loans were in default. Only two-thirds of those who had reached the repayment stage had begun to pay. Since 1964 the value of defaulted student loans has reached nearly $1 billion. The true cost of the student loan system to the taxpayer is also unrepresented because the government charges only simple interest on defaulted loans.

There is another problem with the present system which works hardship on students. Under the present system students must begin repaying student loans eight months after graduation whether they have a job or not, whether they have a high paying

job or not. This leads to an onerous burden on some students and eventual loan defaults with collection costs, loan write-offs and general increased costs to the taxpayer.

Under the income contingent system students would begin repaying their student loan only after they had found a job with a minimum level of income. The federal government would collect the student loans back through the income tax system. This would mean that students would declare their social insurance number on their student loan forms.

If students were allowed the flexibility of repaying their loans over a longer period of time through the income they earn in the future, tuition fees could rise to allow an education of continuing high quality. Students would be able to afford the tuition fees as they could repay over a longer period of time.

An income contingent program would also allow fee structures in universities to be more flexible, introducing a greater element of supply and demand in the system. It would squeeze out the irrelevant and useless courses from our universities, which everyone agrees should be done. If students must pay something more like market value for an education they would choose courses more carefully and universities would begin to supply what was demanded by the market.

I hope this will encourage parents and grandparents to save in an RRSP type fund for their children and grandchildren because of the onerous costs which will be involved.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to include an income contingent loan repayment system. I am aware that my colleague from the Liberal Party has just moved an amendment but I do not think this will affect my discussion of the main motion since the amendment is consistent with the spirit of the motion by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

The hon. member favours an income contingent loan repayment system. We know that, under the current loan repayment system, loans are guaranteed by the government. A few months after graduation, the student starts repaying his or her loan according to a schedule set by the bank and at regular interest rates. In his first speech, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest pointed out that about 20 per cent of students had trouble repaying their debts under the current system.

Our Reform colleague's proposal links the annual amount and repayment period of the loan to the student's annual income. It also provides for debt collection through income tax.

At first glance, the proposal may seem attractive in the sense that it allows for some flexibility, which is a good thing for a person in debt. It is important that the system be flexible enough to allow for specific situations. Last week, the Quebec ombudsman noted, while referring to young people who have problems repaying their loans, that one of the main problems was that the banks currently do not have the required flexibility to take into account the situation of these young people, with the result that several of them have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. Obviously, some improvements could be made in that regard.

Collecting debts by using the tax system is also interesting in the sense that very few people can avoid the tax man. This would ensure that the debts incurred by young people for their education would be repaid.

However, when you think of it, that proposal is not as good as it may seem. It is seriously flawed in a number of ways. First, it is based on the principle that education is young people's responsibility. It is up to them to pay for their education, whether by holding a job or getting into debt. It becomes a case of every man for himself. It is the law of the jungle. Society admits to no responsibility toward anyone and leaves it up to each individual to fend for himself.

This is not the principle which led to the establishment of the current loan and scholarship program in Canada. It was felt that education was a right and that society had to help young people enjoy that right. It was also felt that education was a social investment. Young people benefit from school training. Just take a look at the figures on job placement and unemployment;

they will confirm that. As well, all the personal development and culture gained by young people will prove very useful throughout their lives. But providing an education to young people is also a social investment. The richest and most advanced societies from a socio-economic point of view are those where young people get the best education.

The loan and scholarship program in Canada was based on these premises. The federal and provincial governments were guided by the following principle when they got involved in loans and scholarships: each young person has the right to an education and that education is a social investment. This is why, in Canada, we made sure to keep tuition fees rather low, compared to what they are in some other countries. It is a societal decision, a choice we made as a society because we believe that our young people should get an education for their own benefit and that of society as a whole.

Therefore, I cannot support the motion before us because the hidden agenda seems to be to have students pay their own way. It is particularly striking in the part of the motion that my colleague from the Liberal Party wants to delete, the part that talks about reducing the cost to taxpayers and charging accumulated interest. Basically, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest arises from a concern to save money for taxpayers and make sure that the government withdraw as much as possible from education financing.

I think that there is a danger for students in there too and that is the danger of long-term indebtedness. Take for instance a student who has accumulated a debt of $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 while in school. If this student has the misfortune to have trouble finding a job, if he has the misfortune to be poor, he is going to be in debt for a very long time. Perhaps 10 years, maybe 15 or even 20. He will not have much of a chance to get out of debt, especially if, as suggested by our colleague from the Reform Party, we charge him accumulated interest on his debt.

I think that the danger for our young people is long term indebtedness. This is also an indirect way of forcing us to go along with the underlying spirit of minister Axworthy's reform, i.e. shift the financial burden of education on to the students by reducing government assistance in the form of scholarships and asking students to go into debt to get an education.

I think that a proposal like this one could have a negative effect on motivation to pursue their education. My experience as a teacher tells me that positive reinforcement is important if we want our young people to be motivated to get higher education and I think that putting in place an adequate grants and loans scheme plays a major part in this. So, this is why I shall vote against the motion: because, in my opinion, it will institutionalize long term indebtedness for young people and it overlooks the need to maintain a scholarship system.

This motion also disregards the need to provide our young people with incentives to graduate as soon as possible, so as to keep government expenditures to a minimum. It is a matter of completing one's education in good time. If it takes three years to get a degree, take three years but not four, as some are tempted to do because they have to work their way through school.

To conclude, I think that what our young people need when they graduate is to find a good job they can live on and pay their school debts with, not to find themselves having to spend the next 10 to 15 years paying off debts.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we have 10 minutes left to speak to the motion as 40 minutes were allotted.

Would it be in order for me to speak to the motion?

Madam Speaker, can you tell us exactly what is going on with this amendment at this stage? Was it put to the House?