Stéphan Tremblay

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing clear. If the government opposite promises to give Quebec the right to withdraw, I do not mind if a maple leaf appears on every cheque it sends out.

There are maple leaves everywhere in Quebec. I have nothing against the maple leaf.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one thing seems rather obvious. I tend to be more forward-looking than fixated on the past. And when I look at the future, what I look for is value for money and equal opportunities for all, meaning that those who want a complete education should be able to get it.

I do hope that everyone here supports this principle and agrees that we must seek the best and most efficient means to reach this goal. At one point in history it was decided that the province was the most efficient level of government to manage education.

I am willing to believe that it is possible for Quebec and Ottawa to reach agreements; the Constitution, which says that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction, is supposed to be such an agreement.

Given this premise, I wonder what the federal government is trying to do with its millennium scholarships. Is it an agreement or an intrusion to gain visibility? It is making no bones about what this is all about. I heard the Prime Minister—not a backbencher, but the Prime Minister himself—say that what he was seeking was visibility. Therefore I have serious misgivings regarding the return on investment we will get out of this fund.

We are not against helping students, indeed we believe student assistance to be a basic principle. But what is at issue here is cost-effectiveness. Canadians and Quebeckers are taxed to the hilt and deserve the maximum return on their tax dollars.

Education is an investment. As I said before, with life expectancy constantly increasing, it is not uncommon for students to stay in university well into their mid- or late 20s. But today, people can no longer afford this.

That is my answer. I could go on for another hour, but I will try to restrain myself for the rest of the day.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

moved:

That this House censure any action by the federal government in the area of education, such as the introduction of the Millennium Scholarships program or national testing.

Mr. Speaker, today we are putting a very important issue before the House.

It is important, because we feel we must decry the disease affecting the federal Liberals, which I would call chronic dominating federalism. It is an infectious disease they caught from the Conservatives and is characterized by the search for better ways to intrude in provincial jurisdiction, despite the Constitution's precluding it.

The disease recently led the Liberal government to establish the millennium scholarship fund. An integral part of the financial assistance for students section of the Canadian opportunities strategy, the Canadian millennium scholarships foundation will have an initial budget of $2.5 billion in order to support access to knowledge and skills for all Canadians.

This is $2.5 billion worth of pretences because if it were really committed to access and to reducing the debt load of Quebec students, this government would not deny the Quebec government the right to opt out with full compensation.

This government, which praises the knowledge-based economy, will have cut approximately $3 billion in education in Quebec alone between 1993 and 2003.

This same government championed in this House, in December 1995, a motion recognizing the distinct character of Quebec and explicitly reassuring Quebeckers that every federal government department, institution and agency would take this into account in making decisions.

This same Liberal government claimed in the 1996 Speech from the Throne that it would stop using its spending power to develop programs in provincial jurisdictions.

This government, which stated left and right that all it is trying to do is to work in co-operation and partnership with the provinces, disregards provincial jurisdictions and priorities.

This action translates into a net loss for the Quebec education system. This money could have been used to improve the grants and loans system in Quebec, thereby helping to considerably reduce the student debt load, as pointed out by the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec when it testified before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development last November.

It is clear to the Bloc Quebecois that, by establishing the millennium scholarship fund, the federal government intrudes in an area under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

The evil separatists are not alone; other stakeholders in Quebec have commented on this federal intrusion. On February 18, Alain Dubuc wrote in La Presse : “The federal system is based on a system of checks and balances, like the division of powers, which must not be upset. This is especially true in education, where Quebec's distinctiveness is most visible. In fact, one wonders why, after establishing its scholarship fund, the federal government would not let the provinces manage the fund should they wish to do so.—Clearly, while it would rather go it alone on this issue, the federal government must reconsider and agree to let the Quebec government manage the millennium scholarships awarded in Quebec”.

Similarly, on February 25, in speaking about these scholarships, the leader of the opposition said he would have preferred to see the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces respected fully.

The member for Sherbrooke is in the paradoxical situation, on the one hand, of supporting a Canadian fund for excellence in education, which is just as much an interference in Quebec's jurisdiction as the millennium fund and, on the other, thinking of running as a candidate in a party that has always opposed the federal government's systematic intrusions in provincial jurisdictions, particularly education.

If I understand correctly, he could become leader of a party that is part of a broad coalition calling for the respect of provincial jurisdictions, while the policy has shortcomings that only Liberals and Conservatives understand well enough to explain.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Témiscamingue.

Let us leave aside the disagreements of the Liberals and Conservatives and look more closely at this government's reasons for creating the millennium scholarship fund. The government recently said that it was the provinces that requested it, and that it was necessary to meet the expectations of students in difficult economic straits.

I will not go back over this government's failure to respect provincial jurisdictions, but will instead focus on what students in Quebec and in the rest of Canada want. It says in the finance minister's latest budget that these scholarships will be awarded to individuals who need help in financing their studies and demonstrate merit. Is this what students really want?

Why did the Liberals create this millennium scholarship fund? I personally asked the Prime Minister what he had had in mind. On February 26, the member for Shawinigan said in the House: “We think every Quebecker should know that the taxes they pay to the federal government give them something in return”. They are going to know it in this case, you can be sure. The cat is out of the bag, or rather the maple leaf is out of the envelope.

As the Prime Minister said, his goal was to use this program as a promotional tool to increase the federal government's visibility, waving maple leaves everywhere in Canada and, of course, in Quebec.

The government wants to gain visibility at the expense of debt-burdened students. Did Quebeckers see through this scheme? On March 7, Sondagem published the results of an opinion poll about this millennium scholarship fund. Conducted from February 27 to March 3, this survey is probably a good reflection of public opinion in Quebec. The results reveal that 42 per cent of the 1000 respondents think that the federal government wanted to score political points among the student population, while 20 per cent think that this project is aimed at promoting federalism in Quebec. Only 22 per cent believe that the only purpose of Ottawa's initiative is to help students.

As we can see, Quebeckers are not fooled by the federal government's manoeuvres. The president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec stated in the Journal de Montréal that the millennium fund was only a “visibility exercise” on the part of the federal government, and even an ”ego trip”.

In spite of strong pressure, the budget does not provide any right to opt out so that provinces like Quebec can control their share of the $2.5 billion the federal government wants to spend on higher education.

However, the plan introduced yesterday is still vague and undefined and nothing in it justifies the control of the fund by Ottawa, except perhaps the desire to see a maple leaf on the cheques distributed to students. Maple leaves were good in Nagano. Visibility does not make the provincial education systems better or more efficient; it only creates duplication and overlap.

Jennifer Story, of the Canadian Federation of Students, said, and I quote:

<“questioned why it's necessary to create a new funding mechanism to deal with it. Why not put the money towards the existing Canadian Student Loan Program? Why create something entirely new?”

Quebec is not the only one to say what we are saying today. There is a large consensus among students and universities, but the government turns a deaf ear to them.

I also have a message for those who held a protest yesterday in front of the Quebec National Assembly. These protesters, who are members of the various student associations, were asking for an end to cuts in the education sector. I support this generation which, in fact, is my generation. However, these young Quebeckers should look across the Ottawa River, they should look at this Parliament to find those responsible for these cuts. The dumping of responsibilities starts here, with the federal government.

I often wonder, because we hear all this talk here about building a forward-looking society, a society based on skills. But the federal government imposed cuts of over $3 billion on Quebec, and it is now coming up with another program which essentially seeks to give more visibility to this government. As a society, we have to ask ourselves some tough questions.

Let us not forget that, during the course of this century, life expectancy increased by some 20 years. Since we are now living longer, it is vital to invest in education. Instead, the government is making cuts, thus making the system ineffective or less effective. We have to ask ourselves some tough questions.

Let me tell you how I see things. These are the facts confronting my generation. There is an increasingly wider gap between the people and their elected officials. As I said earlier, the public supports social values and goals, while this government seeks visibility. When are we really going to try to close this gap between elected officials and the public? It is urgent that we answer this question.

[Millennium Scholarships, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting tired of these melodramatics. Everyone agrees that this millennium scholarship fund makes no sense.

On behalf of young people, I am asking the government, if it has an ounce of good sense left, to backtrack before it is too late.

[Millennium Scholarships, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister clearly indicated that his millennium scholarship fund was designed to make his government more visible to young people.

Now that we know what the Prime Minister really thinks, will the government admit that, instead of stating before the Canadian Club that he is not playing politics on the backs of our young people, the Prime Minister should have said that he cares about their future as long as it benefits him politically?

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about $80 million out of $600 million.

What is the Prime Minister's response to his colleague in human resources development who told journalists yesterday, and I quote: “The millennium fund is the best way for the federal government to increase its visibility”?

The government does not care about young people. What counts is visibility.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, despite the opposition of Quebec's educational community, despite the opposition of the Government of Quebec and the Liberal Party of Quebec and despite the serious reservations of all provincial ministers of education, the government has imposed its millennium scholarship fund.

Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that his government's refusal to put money set aside for the millennium scholarship fund into existing provincial loan and bursary programs is intended not so much to help students as to make the federal government more visible to young people?

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my first comment would be that, if I were a single mother or a student owing $20,000 listening to the debate this evening, I would go to bed pretty discouraged. There is all this finger pointing going on, with charges that the Liberals did this and the Conservatives did that. Could we not focus a bit on the future?

The Progressive Conservative Party's motion today reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should lower the tax burden on Canadians and offer interest relief to student loan holders in order to address the brain drain crisis which is forcing Canadians to move to the United States where unemployment rates, income tax rates and student debt levels are lower and the standard of living is 25 percent higher than in Canada.

This morning, when I read it and learned that I was to speak to it, I found the motion strange, although there are a lot of good points in it. It covers so much. It talks about tax burden, student loans, and the brain drain, and praises the United States as though it were the best place to live. I am going to look at each element in turn.

First, there is the brain drain. I did some research this morning. The chief statistician of Statistics Canada recently declared that, between 1986 and 1996, approximately 50,000 people with various levels of education left the country, while 200,000 came here to work. So we are somewhat ahead. The fact still remains, however, that there is a brain drain problem.

In this regard, a study on the behaviour of 1995 graduates shows that, two years after they obtained their degree, 24% of those with PhDs had left Canada, compared with 10% of students who had obtained a master's, and 3% of students with a high school diploma.

I would like to draw members' attention to a survey done by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. This survey showed that the main factor in leaving for the United States was the salaries there.

The tax burden could be a factor, but according to the study, it is primarily the phenomenal salaries the Americans can pay in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.

One thing bothers me, however. They say the United States is a great place to live. In this regard, the Liberal Party said some interesting things today. As a country we have choices to make. If our taxes are so much higher than in the U.S., it is in large measure because of our societal decision to provide universal education and health services. That has to be paid for somehow.

On the subject of the American dream, the information I have indicates that, between 1973 and 1995, the per capita gross domestic product increased by a third and gross salaries for people in management positions decreased by 10% to US$258.

It all looks fine there, but what choices do they make as a society? Their crime rate is one of the highest in the world. Child poverty is the highest in the world. Choices have to be made, and in many instances, to my great regret, they strongly resemble the choices the Reform Party wants us to make, although I would like to hear their remarks should they change their minds.

That concerns the first two elements. The third element is student loans. Here I am going to have some fun. I am going to have fun because there is a lot to say on this subject.

We should have a quick look at the history of student debt. Students go into debt because it costs a lot to go to school. Every year tuition fees go up. Why? We have to start at the beginning.

The federal government gives large sums of money to the provinces for education. In fact, this money comes from our taxes. We must remember that. The federal government distributes our taxes to the provinces, which pay the education costs. Then for whatever reasons, the federal government makes huge cuts, leaving the provinces stuck with the problem. Fees increase, student debt increases, and the song goes on.

The federal government finally took notice of the problem. It should be praised for noticing that the student debt load is very high. Faced with the problem, the federal government said “We are going to create a scholarship fund. We will provide assistance for students because now we are rolling in surplus dough”. But we still need to see them put their money where their mouth is.

I will speak of the situation most familiar to me, the situation in Quebec, where we have the most efficient system of loans and bursaries in Canada. Don't take my word for it. That is what the president of the Canadian Student Association says, and he ought to be well informed about the situation throughout the country. He has said “If I were in Manitoba, I would be a bit jealous of students in Quebec, because they have an excellent system of loans and bursaries”. Recently, however, we have had to cut back on the system because of certain cuts in transfer payments.

The student debt load is increasing, and now the federal government is turning up as a Johnny-come-lately. The Minister of Human Resources Development said once in committee, and I was there to hear it: “The federal government is giving enormous sums to Quebec and other provinces, but has no visibility whatsoever”. Is that what the purpose of the policy is, to gain some visibility?

It has therefore created a system of loans and bursaries with its own money, to be administered at the federal level. It is not concerned in any way about whether this creates duplication, about whether it decreases efficiency, about whether it is throwing a monkey wrench into a system that is working perfectly well at the moment.

All these questions have to be asked, and they are things that bother me a great deal.

There are many things that could be done to help students. During the last election campaign, for instance, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a registered education savings plan. That could be one solution. The tax credit for tuition fees could be another. The education credit, the transfer of education credits to a spouse or parent, not taxing the first $500 of a bursary, all these could be yet other solutions. In this regard, there is a consensus in Quebec, as representatives of the Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois, student associations and university presidents all agree with what we are saying.

Yesterday, Mr. Bouchard sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada asking for an emergency meeting. Since there is a consensus in Quebec, could a way not be found to take these huge amounts of money and let Quebec administer them as it sees fit, in its own jurisdiction?

It is really a shame to see this sort of petty politics. Other ideologies may be better, but I say that, on this issue, the logic is obvious.

Another point mentioned was the tax burden. In fact, many issues have been mentioned today, given the wide variety of issues covered in the motion.

I am interested in the tax burden, as it covers quite a range of things. Today's debate on the tax burden prompted the NDP, which often says things I find relevant, to speak about child poverty, and poverty in general.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding, and I keep up on this area, how it is that, in a period of full economic growth that has gone on for several years, poverty continues to grow.

When the topic is child poverty, and it is said that one child in five is living under the poverty line, I find this frightening. As a politician, I ask myself what will be the consequences of the measures taken, or very often not taken, here in 15 or 20 years. You will tell me I am being very egotistical, because I am thinking of what will become of me in 20 years—I will be only 44—in what sort of society we will be living, when I see the steady increase in the rate of poverty. This is an up-to-date statistic, but it is also a persistent trend. We are looking at a steadily growing gap.

Four years ago, there were one million children living under the poverty line in Canada; today there are 1.5 million. That is a huge increase. If this keeps on, where are we headed? These children living below the poverty line, who have a hard time studying since they are not properly fed, and who have a hard time finding a job because of their poor education, and who have trouble making their way in the world, are much more likely to get involved in crime. All of this makes me wonder about the kind of society we will end up with.

When I see“tax burden”, I think of taxes. When I think of “taxes”, and I see more wealth and more poverty, I can see there is a problem somewhere. I am not alone in saying this. But what are we doing about it? I do not see anything happening.

In terms of tax, wealth is being created, but it does not appear to be going into government coffers. In 1950—I was not around—businesses paid 50% income tax, as did people.

People are overtaxed as they say, and I agree. It is truly hard for a single parent to pay tax on a salary of $20,000 a year.

What I am wondering is where is the money? The money stays in the bank vaults or the coffers of big business. I have, in this regard, a long list of companies that made huge profits and paid almost no income tax. I will not show it to the House, because unfortunately am not allowed. I will name some of the companies. Barrington Petroleum made profits—not revenues—in 1994 of $11 million and paid $194,000, or 1.7%, in taxes. BCE Mobile Communications Inc., with $66 million, paid 4% in taxes.

Let me continue. In 1993, the Nesbitt Burns Inc. group made profits of $50 million and did not pay a red cent in taxes. The money is there. It is in the pockets of the rich.

From what I read when I am doing research, the attitude seems to be that we should not lower the taxes of the rich, of corporations because they are the ones creating jobs. This might well seem logical at first. But their taxes have been going down for 20 years, which means less revenue for governments. Taxes have to be raised somewhere. So personal income tax is raised.

It is in this sense that I find the Progressive Conservative Party's motion interesting. When it says that Canadians' tax burden is much too high, there is no denying that. But there is also the other end of the scale, the corporate tax burden, to consider. I am not talking about SMBs nor about businesses just starting up. I am talking about healthy companies, multinationals making millions, even billions—we see the banks paying heavy taxes, but that is another debate—and not paying any taxes. I have to wonder about this, particularly when I see poverty on the increase.

I heard what my colleague from New Brunswick had to say. In New Brunswick, poverty is steadily increasing. Something is not working, and I have to really wonder. At some point, people are going to have to stop arguing and trying to blame one another. I think people will have to sit down and try to solve this serious problem. In my opinion, the first step toward solving a problem is admitting that there is one.

In his next budget, the Minister of Finance will be announcing highly laudable measures to help students, but what is needed are measures that are effective, not political. Where are things headed with measures like these? Where are things headed with one and a half million children living in poverty? And I am not talking about the parents, or the delayed impact of poverty, what I call people's inability to save.

You know, ten years ago,—and I am not talking about 20 years ago here—the savings rate was much higher than it is now. I think that the average savings per household is 1% annually. This may not be poverty right now, but that is what it will become. When we speak about future poverty, that is where I get worried. In 10, 15 or 20 years, these people will stop working and will have almost nothing set aside. There is a certain degree of income security, but it is just delayed poverty, and that is what is the cause of concern.

I think that the taxation system needs to be revamped. I am not the first one to say so, either. The last major review of the personal income tax system dates back to the work of the royal commission on taxation in the 1960s. The last time they saw fit to review the taxation system was in the 1960s. Now, instead of revising the tax laws for shipping companies belonging to the Minister of Finance, and instead of passing legislation that will benefit the rich even more, would it be possible, at some point, to sit down and look at what is not working properly in the system?

The Liberals should be aware of the inequalities in the present federal system. So should everyone. I think that, with a subject as serious as the increasing gap between rich and poor, we must stop playing politics and get moving.

In a document by the Department of Finance, it is stated that there are three factors which explain the extent of the advantages high income taxpayers enjoy: first of all, these taxpayers have the necessary resources to make better use of tax advantages; second, some of the major tax expenditures relate to investment income, most of which is earned by this group of taxpayers; third, the higher the taxation rate, the more advantageous the exemptions or deductions. So, like just about everywhere else, it takes money to make money.

It is like the 1980s, when the interest rates were raised to incredible highs. It is at such times that people get into debt. They run up debts and that enriches the—

[Education, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, so they are breaking up the best system of loans and grants in Canada to create another through duplication.

Does the minister realize that his project simply ensures political visibility but does not resolve the problem of student debt? This is why people in both Quebec and Canada are criticizing the government so vigorously.

[Education, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is putting more and more energy into promoting his millennium scholarship fund, which he wants to turn into the symbol of Canada's entry into the 21st century.

The Prime Minister claims to be ensuring compliance with Canada's Constitution in his reference to the Supreme Court, so why he is incapable of complying with another clear provision of the Constitution, which is that education is exclusively a provincial matter?