Alexa McDonough

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate.

I regret what seems to be the slightly contradictory position taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. On the one hand he insists that the government is doing precisely the right thing and asks what the problem is. On the other hand, despite the announcement by the health minister as far back as November that there would be an opening of the window for hep C victims who were excluded from the original compensation package which covered only those who were infected between the arbitrary dates of 1986 and 1990, he was forced to acknowledge that not one penny has flowed from that announcement by the minister that there would be serious consideration of compensation for the previously excluded victims.

We got very confusing messages from the parliamentary secretary. He was absolutely indignant at any suggestion in this debate that there was not yet a clear, firm commitment from the government to act on the stated intention of the health minister to at least look at this issue. On the other hand it sounded as though he was washing the government's hands of the whole matter by reminding people that we are talking about a trust fund that has been set up at arm's length, that we need to find out how much of a surplus there is going to be in the fund before we decide what we can do.

I do not understand what prevents the government from doing exactly what the health committee recommended, which is to state clearly without equivocation and without further delay that the other victims who were infected outside of the 1986-90 window will be compensated. Then the details can be worked out.

There was no sense at all that the parliamentary secretary was prepared to respond to the sense of urgency in the health committee recommendation. The committee used the word urgent to get on with this, yet we saw none of that from the minister.

I want to state clearly the New Democratic Party's support for the recommendations that have come from the health committee. Our party also supports the spirit in which all opposition members came to the House this afternoon to speak in support of the health committee's recommendations.

I want to use the few minutes that are available to me to plead the case of another group of people who have been largely excluded from any fair level of compensation in relation to the blood contaminated conditions they are suffering. I raised this matter on United Nations Day which was dedicated to women and children suffering from HIV-AIDS. I know that time is short, so I will quickly set out the case of a group that has not been fairly and adequately compensated within this fund which specifically identifies that group as being eligible. It specifically identifies that group's circumstances as also being considered within the fund that we are discussing.

That group is largely women and children, a group of Canadians who have been secondarily infected with HIV. This group was specifically identified; it was clearly recognized and included in the terms of reference for the fund that we are discussing, that money should also go toward compensating those secondarily infected with HIV from blood.

At this point, it is relevant for us to keep in mind what Justice Krever stated:

The needs of those who have been harmed are the same, regardless of their cause, and whether or not fault can be proved.

The secondarily infected spouses and children with HIV are a group of approximately 100 people who received a much inferior compensation package under this fund which was specifically established for those spouses and children who became secondarily infected with HIV from blood contamination, namely the wives and children of those who received tainted blood. The compensation that was afforded these women and children was only slightly above the amount given for the level six damages for pain and suffering for hep C. The hep C compensation for loss of income, cost of care and medication was not provided to the secondarily infected. The result is that the compensation for this group of approximately 100 people, primarily women and children, is somewhere between one-quarter and one-third the level of compensation that has been provided to the hep C victims in the 1986 to 1990 window.

Clearly it is appropriate to bring forward the plight of these people. The unfair and discriminatory treatment of this group of 100 Canadians should be brought forward in a very open way. It must be acknowledged that they too have been excluded from full and fair compensation, although not totally. They have not been absolutely excluded, as the pre-1986 and post-1990 hep C victims have been totally excluded, but they have been very seriously undercompensated. One cannot fail to recognize that there has been discrimination in their not receiving a level of compensation that comes anywhere close to helping them deal with the horrific situation in which they find themselves.

Let me quickly give a little history as to the circumstances of these people, not exclusively women and children, but mostly women and children. It is not a pretty story. It is not a story understandably that those women or their children want to tell before the microphones in the public eye. They do not want to do press conferences to say, “Look at us. Look at what victims we are. Please hear our case”.

We are talking about women who were encouraged to continue their usual sexual practices with their HIV positive husbands. Some of them were actually told once the hazards became more clearly understood that they were being unsupportive of their husbands if they used condoms. Others were told that hemophiliacs were not passing the disease on to their wives. Health officials, regulators and health policy people utterly failed to recognize and at least inform these women about the risks to their health. No one really warned them as to what could happen.

For the most part we are talking about women who cared for their husbands while they were too ill from HIV-AIDS. The compensation that their husbands had received died with them. When these women die of the HIV that they have contracted, their children will be orphaned.

It becomes very serious for us to recognize that their financial needs have not been fully taken into account. The people in this group were in fact intended to be included in a fair and full compensation package, but they were given a far less adequate compensation package than those others who have received compensation in that 1986 to 1990 hep C window.

Some might say that is not what we are talking about today. What we are talking about is that this package has been opened further for consideration to cover excluded categories. We know that negotiations are going on. The Minister of Health made it clear that there are negotiations going on to determine the extent of unmet needs for those who have not been adequately covered or not covered at all.

These women in taking care of their children are not asking for some kind of special treatment. They are simply asking for the opportunity, which has not yet been granted to them, to be at the table for the negotiations about opening the fund further to those who have been previously excluded or not adequately compensated. They are simply asking for equal consideration and equal opportunity to have their case examined and their plight considered.

When the health minister stated that he was prepared to open the window to further compensate those who had been excluded or not adequately compensated previously, he stated that this was not a matter of legalities, that this was not a matter of politics, that it was a matter of doing the right thing. It is a matter of doing the fair thing. I would plead the case of the people in this group who have been excluded from fair and adequate compensation on exactly that principle.

If the health minister meant it when he said that it is not about legalities, the first package excluded a lot of people. The argument could be made by some that legally they are excluded, so why are we looking at opening up the fund to include those who were not included. We are doing so because it is the right thing to do and we congratulated the health minister when he said so.

Surely the case can be made that it is also the right thing to do. I would say it is imperative if we are going to do the right thing, that we look at the reality of some 100 people, women and primarily children, who through absolutely no fault of their own became infected with HIV. Sadly they are not just dealing with an ongoing illness, but effectively they have received a sentence of death. That is what we are talking about. Those women, themselves ill, are dealing with the incredible struggle of trying to provide for their children who will eventually become orphaned. For some of them it will be sooner rather than later.

There is no time to be lost. This is the time for equal and fair consideration to be given to the plight of these 100 or so Canadians. They should have a place at the table. Their circumstances should be recognized so that they have an opportunity to put their case. They are not asking that there be some guarantee given in advance. They are asking for equal consideration.

I hope that as we address the absolute unfairness of the exclusion of those who contracted hepatitis C before 1986 and after 1990 by bringing them in for consideration now, given the surplus of these funds and the unfairness of their previous exclusion that we give them the recognition. I pay credit to the health minister. I have differences of opinion with the current health minister on a lot of matters, but on this one I applauded him, my party applauded him and a lot of Canadians applauded him when he said that the wrong thing was done when those infected prior to 1986 and after 1990 were excluded and that we are now going to do the right thing, we are going to create a process of negotiation and review.

I am simply pleading the case, in the same spirit expressed by the minister toward those thousands who have been arbitrarily excluded with respect to hepatitis C, that these 100 or so Canadians will finally be recognized as having been woefully and inadequately compensated given their circumstances and their needs. We must also respect and act on the spirit of Judge Krever who made it very clear that, regardless of the cost, the need is the same for those who have been identified for compensation and that we should accord them equal treatment in bringing them to the table in discussions and creating the opportunity for them to receive their fair compensation.

A compensation package of somewhere between one-third and one-quarter of what was granted to the hepatitis C victims between 1986 and 1990 is simply not adequate, nor would it be adequate as we now move to do the right thing to extend the coverage to those victims prior to 1986 or after 1990.

Let us not have it said that we are not addressing this situation because they are not a large enough lobby group or that they are not as effective because they are not represented in the same way. I say that with nothing but total respect. I want to express appreciation and respect for the incredible work done by the Canadian Hemophilia Society and by other community based health advocacy groups that have worked together with the victims of hepatitis C to put their case forward.

However let it not be said that because this small group of 100 women and children principally do not have the same kind of lobbying clout, that their plight has been ignored and that we have failed to take the opportunity to ensure they receive fair and equal treatment as this whole package of compensation is being broadened to include all those who should be compensated fairly for the blood contamination that has resulted in their ill health and, in most cases, an untimely death in the not too distant future.

There is no time to be lost. I plead for the support of all members of the House in stating that this matter needs to be addressed.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and I have to say that I am really quite taken aback.

Instead of congratulating the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, I have rarely heard a member of this House be more condescending in chastizing someone and making what seemed to me very close to accusations about his trying to mislead the House and actually accusing him of motives, which I thought were in fact extra parliamentary, not acceptable in parliamentary terms.

However, let me go the question that I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to address.

I am sure he has read carefully the motion that has come from the committee. Let me remind him that it is not only urging the government to extend compensation to all those who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood but that the government do so immediately “in recognition of the recommendation of the Krever Inquiry and the large surplus in the federal Hepatitis C compensation fund”.

How can the parliamentary secretary so conveniently ignore the urging of the committee, including the Liberal members, that the government move immediately to commit to compensating all hepatitis C victims prior to 1986 and following 1990, and instead turn this into one of the most grotesquely partisan attacks on a member who is simply reflecting the unanimous will of the health committee that brought this motion forward?

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the legislation that is before us. It is legislation that has been brought forward in an atmosphere of great controversy. It would establish the right of gays and lesbians in this country to be married and to have access to civil marriage on an equal basis with all other citizens.

I want to say at the outset that the New Democratic Party, as a matter of official policy, adopted at our nationwide convention the equality of marriage. My caucus colleagues are very much in agreement with that designation of equality for gay and lesbian citizens.

I must say that I have found the divisiveness of this debate to be deeply distressing. I think Canadians generally looking on have found it to be a worrisome thing that an issue that is so fundamentally one of dealing with human rights could arouse such animosity and such deep divisions both within Parliament and in many communities across the country.

To some extent there is an onus on us to make it very clear to Canadians that some of the excessive claims, the exaggerated predictions of the dreadful things, that can be seen to flow from granting equality of marriage to all citizens are really something that need to be dealt with.

It is regrettable that some of that arises from an unwillingness to acknowledge what precisely the Supreme Court had to say on this matter when it referred it back to Parliament.

First of all, it needs to be acknowledged that 87% of Canadians today already have access to equal marriage rights. The judges in seven provinces and one territory have already established equal marriage and have also established that no faith group, organization or institution shall be required against its religious beliefs or practices or traditions to perform same sex marriage.

The exaggerated notion, the simply wrong-headed notion, that this somehow treads upon the religious freedoms of individual citizens or religious institutions in this country is simply false and needs to be laid to rest.

Members of the House have had many opportunities to address this issue. I think what now is more important than ever is that we respond thoughtfully to the advances that have been made, the approaches that have been made, to us as members of Parliament to deal with this matter in a responsible way.

I want to begin by quoting briefly from some correspondence that I have received. There is no member of the House who has not received a great deal of correspondence. I appreciate the fact that some of the correspondence that I have received, letters, e-mails, personal approaches and phone calls have taken the opposite position from what I have set out personally and what my party embraces, namely that all citizens should have the right to equal marriage. Some of those who have taken the opposite position have done so in a respectful way, recognizing that this is a complicated issue for many Canadians to deal with. I appreciate the fact that they have done so.

There are clergy who have written to me expressing the opposite point of view. There are elderly people who say that this is something very difficult for them in their eighties or nineties to begin to get their heads around because the notion of sexual orientation being a grounds for inclusion in the Human Rights Act, for example, or in the charter is something that is just utterly an anathema to them, something that simply did not exist in their earlier lives.

However, what has impressed me most is those people who have clearly struggled with trying to understand the opposing points of view put forward. They have really tried to put themselves in the shoes of people who want to enter into the solemnity of a marriage, who want to make the commitment that goes with being married, of a lasting and loving relationship, with the rights and obligations that go with it. And from there, try to honestly address the question of why one would chose not to allow any two people who want to enter into that relationship to have the full benefits of civil marriage.

I must say, of all the arguments that I find difficult to deal with, it is the argument that somehow this destroys marriage, that somehow this is disrespectful of the tradition of marriage. It seems to me, for those who keep talking about being pro-marriage and pro-family, that they would be among those who should most welcome the fact that we are ensuring that as many people as would want in our society to enter into a marriage relationship, a long term, sustaining, loving relationship, are to be welcomed. Those who understand the importance of family, understand the importance of marriage, should understand that we are better off as a society if more people embrace the tradition of marriage and want to live within marital relationships.

Let me quote briefly from a woman, unknown to me but in my own province of Nova Scotia, who wrote as follows in the early weeks of this debate getting underway in Parliament:

I am the grandmother of 18, great-grandmother of 5. Are any of them homosexual or lesbian? I have no idea--nor do I care. I love them regardless. Do I think a same sex marriage would in some way degrade the morals or sanctity of my own marriage? Of course not, how silly. How could love and caring and compassion and happiness in any way take from my own marriage? If the Lord made humans, animals and mammals homosexuals how can we judge His actions? Surely there are more admonitions in the Bible to love one another than there are to judge one another. I pray you vote “yes”.

Here is a second message which comes to me from someone in my own community:

The purpose of this e-mail is to express my gratitude for your support of the upcoming debate and vote on the legislation concerning same sex marriage rights. I grew up in your riding, both provincially and federally...I was politicized early in life, and have always been pro-socialist.

As a fellow Nova Scotian, I am proud to be living in one of the provinces whose supreme court ruled to allow marriage rights for gays and lesbians. My partner and I are having a civil ceremony next month on the occasion of our eleventh anniversary together. We are thrilled that this option exists for us, and are also very glad that you will be supporting the notion that this is a right all of Canada's same sex community deserves. The passage of this bill will make Canada one of the most progressive and accepting societies in the world.

I want to use the last moment to express my appreciation for those who have been the trailblazers in putting themselves on the front lines of this battle at a time when it was not easy for people to declare publicly that they were not only gay or lesbian but that they were going to participate in the struggle to ensure that all gays and lesbians in Canada enjoyed the same rights as all other people in Canada.

I think we owe them a special vote of thanks. We owe our heartfelt appreciation. However, we also understand that they fought the battle, not just for their own benefit but because they know that gays and lesbians in our society would enjoy the benefits of equal treatment and that the whole of society would benefit from our being a more tolerant, more inclusive society that can be proud of the fact that we have extended equal marriage to all of our citizens.

[Foreign Affairs, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today is the symbolic anniversary of Tibet's loss to China 46 years ago, but Tibetans are not rising up in defiance of China. They seek a peaceful means of negotiating with China Tibet's rightful place in today's world. It is reasonable and just that Canada help to make this happen.

It was my privilege to meet with his holiness personally during his visit to Canada last spring. When he met with the foreign affairs committee and the Prime Minister, the Dalai Lama urged Canada to take on a peace bridging role between China and Tibet.

Tibetans, Canadians and a majority of their parliamentarians urged the Prime Minister to seize the opportunity of his recent visit to China to urge an end to human rights abuses in China and the resumption of peaceful dialogue with Tibet.

We have yet to see evidence that the Prime Minister has acted on those requests. That is why today parliamentarians in every corner of the House once again call upon the Prime Minister to show leadership in doing what Canadians expect of their government, and that is to contribute to building peace and a meaningful place within China for Tibetans.

[Privilege, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the very same point, I would have to say it is a rare occasion in which I agree so wholeheartedly with the position expressed by the Conservative caucus. There is a certain sense of relief that I am able to do that on one or two occasions.

I have to say that the response given by the government member simply adds confusion to an already confusing situation. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, and I am not trying to anticipate your ruling, that there may not in the strictest sense be a contempt of Parliament here in the ham-fisted way that the government has handled Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, but it certainly is a case of colossal arrogance and colossal incompetence at the same time.

One has a very difficult time, particularly in a minority government when I think we all share a sense of responsibility to try to make this place work, make Parliament and its committees work, to have a situation where the government has introduced two bills after the fact. Yes, there is legislative authority that allows for the rearranging of transfer of duties prior to there being legislation brought in. Having described the necessity of doing that as an urgent matter, the government then bypassed a spring session of Parliament where the appropriate legislation could have been brought in, and bypassed a fall session of Parliament when the legislation could have been brought in. Then when the government finally brought in the legislation, after it was voted down by Parliament the government decided that it did not really need to do it anyway. I guess the bottom line, although this was not said quite so explicitly, would be that the government's intention is to go ahead and ignore the fact that there is no such legislation.

At the very least this shows no respect for the time of Parliament. Why would we spend time being charged with legislation that the government says it does not need and that if we vote against it the government will do it anyway? Also, in a minority Parliament, surely there is an onus on all of us to try to come to some sensible agreement about what is a priority for us to deal with and at the very least, Liberals should not be wasting our time with this.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we will get some direction from you in regard to this practice of bringing in legislation, actually two sittings of the House after it could have been brought in if it was any kind of an urgent matter in the first place, and then when it is voted down by a majority of members of the House to have the government say that it is going to do it anyway. If it is not contempt, it certainly is arrogance of the worst kind and extreme incompetence to have wasted the time of Parliament in the manner that the government has.

[Security Certificates, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats stand in solidarity with family members of those being detained under so-called security certificates.

Families are in Ottawa today pleading for their loved ones to be accorded rights supposedly guaranteed by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory.

Earlier today I tabled a motion calling on this government to charge or release these detainees, held for up to four years with no charges laid, no presumption of innocence, no due process and no opportunity to defend themselves in a fair and transparent judicial process.

I urge all members of this House to join me in calling for an end to these draconian security certificates, which violate the Canadian Constitution and our international obligations.

Let us end this practice that has torn families apart, separating these men from their parents, their wives and their children.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, February 25th, 2005]

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.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, February 25th, 2005]

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.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, February 25th, 2005]

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.

[Education, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government's stall on education funding over the past decade has caused the doubling of tuition and crippling student debt loads.

Grubbing for youth votes in the spring election, the Prime Minister promised to restore $8 billion to $9 billion to educational core funding. Yesterday's budget did no such thing.

Education core funding remains below the 1995 level. There is no tuition relief and students have to either die or become permanently disabled in order to qualify for debt relief.

Why the betrayal of Canada's students of yesterday, today and tomorrow?