Antoine Dubé

[Manpower Training, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. We learned from the SQDM, the Quebec labour development corporation, that the minister was aware of the duplication between his youth service project and Quebec's young volunteers program as early as the beginning of February, two months before he launched his program.

Does the minister confirm that federal and Quebec government officials tried without success to harmonize the two programs before the federal government decided to go ahead despite the resulting increase in duplication?

[Student Loans, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate this opportunity, as the Official Opposition critic for training and youth, to state the position of our party with regard to Motion M-291 put forward by the Leader of the Reform Party

This motion, as you may recall, reads as follows: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Student Loans Act to include an income contingent loan repayment system [-]"

On the face of it, the concept of repayment based on income seems to be to the students' advantage. If that were the intent, there would, of course, be very wide support for this motion on this side.

But since no clear definition of this concept exists as of yet, it can easily be used for other purposes.

As it stands, the motion tabled by the leader of the Reform Party justifies, in our view, the approach advocated by this government, that is to say to have the students defray the costs of higher education.

There is no need for me to emphasize the fact that, at more than $500 billion, our national debt is huge, but the point can easily be made that students are not to blame for this situation. It is not the doing of students pursuing higher education. I will not get into a debate on who is to blame. Let us just say that the blame does not rest only with this government. As we know, this debt has been spiralling, particularly since 1979. It started under the Liberals and continued with the Conservatives and is still growing today.

Just now, I heard the member of the governing party say something that is very wrong. He said that responsibility for higher education is shared by the federal and provincial governments. The member has misread the Constitution, which clearly states that education and higher education are a provincial responsibility. My purpose today is not to debate the Constitution, but it is still worth recalling because even members of this House seem not to know that fact.

Despite that, we know that so far the federal government has used the spending power, which is also in the Constitution, to invade this field. Since some of Quebec's taxes have been used until now to finance higher education under the federal government's authority, it was normal that we tried to obtain our share, but again, keep in mind that it is in provincial jurisdiction.

Until now, we in Quebec have used our right to opt out with financial compensation, but this is not the discussion that I want to get into today.

We believe that we must debate ICLR more thoroughly before setting up such a plan. Nevertheless, we oppose any use of ICLR if the ultimate goal is to make students pay the full cost of higher education, because tuition fees are already rising outrageously. Students' indebteness is also growing at an alarming rate, and

not just the national debt. Students' personal debt is already rising fast.

Indeed, students have great difficulty repaying their loans once they graduate. According to an article that appeared in the October 18 edition of the Globe and Mail , the federal government is now owed close to $1 billion by former students unable to repay their loans. The new financial assistance law passed on June 23 will allow us to compensate by turning to banks, whose customary generosity is well known. These banks will not hesitate to recover students' debts.

Here is another statistic: former students unable to pay for their studies make up 10 per cent of personal bankruptcy cases. What do they want to do now? They want to increase these students' debt load. Where are we heading, Mr. Speaker?

Although figures are often contradictory, according to the Committee on Human Resources, the average Canadian student owes $11,000. At first sight, this does not seem very high, but it is the average and we know that the average includes those students who do not complete their college or university studies. This means that, at least in Quebec, the $11,000 average debt would be closer to $16,000 or $17,000 for those about to receive their B.A., and some even talk about a higher figure.

They mention an average of $21,000 for students with a master's degree and $37,000 for those with a Ph.D. The Federation of Students thinks that these figures will double. We can see what kind of debt load this could lead to.

I do not think that the purpose of this motion is to help students. If we read paragraph ( a ) of the motion tabled by the leader of the Reform Party, we can see clearly that such is not the case. Its first objective is to ``reduce the cost to taxpayers of financing post-secondary education''. The goal is not to help students but to reduce the deficit. So we, of course, disagree with the motion as it now stands.

A closer look at the text of the motion gives us a better understanding of the real motives of this party which, above all, wants to cut costs. I said that in paragraph (a) , the reason was to reduce the cost to taxpayers of financing post-secondary education. Like the Liberal government, the Reform Party recommends reducing the government's financial commitments to post-secondary education. Its purpose in presenting this motion is, first of all, to reduce government spending.

Students will have to pay higher tuition fees as a result of government cutbacks. The Reform Party and the Liberal government describe income contingent loan repayment as a blessing for students, but they omit the fact that this measure comes at a time of major cuts in financing for post-secondary institutions. The blessing is rather dubious.

We are against cuts in post-secondary education. If the government wants to withdraw from an area that is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction, it should do so across the board, not just financially. The government seems to want to control more while spending less. There is a contradiction here. We agree the system for repayment of student loans should be changed, but not in the way suggested by the Leader of the Reform Party or by the Liberal government under its current social security reform.

Occasionally, references are made to countries like Sweden, Australia and New Zealand, which have introduced income contingent loan repayment systems. We know that New Zealand was forced to do so by the IMF. However, people tend to forget that the position of students and post-secondary education financing differs from one country to the next. It is therefore very difficult to apply in this country what is being done elsewhere, especially since the ICLR systems used in these countries are relatively recent and according to initial results have shown that they are not successful.

Closer to home, a pilot project in Ontario had 1,000 openings and only 75 people took advantage of this opportunity, 75 out of a potential 1,000. Why? Because, students, the Canadian Federation of Students and the Quebec Federation, all the major student federations are against the system. Why? Because it only covers loans, and there are no provisions for bursaries.

In Quebec, we have a bursary program that is very popular. Since I only have one minute left, I see the Chairman of the Human Resources Committee, and I happen to be a member of this committee which will organize wide-ranging consultations across the country. I think this is a concept that could be discussed, but I think we would need some in-depth consultation before getting it on the road.

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask my colleague if reducing the deadline from five to one year indicates, in his opinion, that the government is contemplating cuts to retirement plans?

[Social Program Reform, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister also says in his document that students could use their RRSPs to repay their debts.

Is the minister really serious when he suggests that students use their RRSPs? Does he really think that students have the means to invest in RRSPs while having to borrow even more to study?

[Social Program Reform, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Human Resources Development. On page 63 of the document he tabled yesterday, it is said that, and I quote: "It is true that replacing federal cash transfers would put upward pressure on tuition fees. This may be a necessary price to pay to put in place a permanent system for ensuring accessibility to post-secondary education".

How can the Minister pretend, as he did yesterday, that his reform will not limit accessibility to post-secondary education for thousands of young people when the proposed reduction in transfer payments will result in an increase in tuition fees? According to a Treasury Board memorandum which will not be released by the government, these fees could even double.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the experience of my colleague comes through his comments and the way he resumed the whole situation. He ran out of time a little bit

towards the end. So, I would like him to elaborate on what he was saying at the end of his speech, but first I would like him to comment on the level of responsiveness shown by the Liberal government. He has more experience as a member of this House than I have. To his knowledge, have Reform members ever been forced before to fill in the seats of Liberal members?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Durham claimed that our system was ill. I have to support his position in this regard. It is true that the system is ill. Of course, we must have the same definition of what he means by system. For us, it is the federal system. It is the one which is now holding up the provinces, especially Quebec, with its duplications, its entanglements and its various restrictions. It is even said somewhere in the document that the authors feel that the federalist system had been too strict in the past.

Tonight, certain comments I heard and the member's view surprise me somewhat. Prime minister Campbell was defeated in the last elections because, one night, she said on television-and I remember it full well-that it would not be appropriate to discuss spending cuts during an election campaign. Later on, when cornered, she had to admit that there would be cuts. A little pushed the same way, the current minister told us before that the reform would not change the level.

What can be felt, now in this House, is that the Liberal Party is seeking a new mandate to cut spending, which it has already begun to do in any case.

I concur with the statement that our system is ill, but not with the other comments of the member. According to him, some people seen in the unemployment insurance office look happy to be there. It is as though they are unemployed on purpose. He did not say that, but he was speaking about regular claimants.

Later on, he spoke of some single women with children who were able to put some money aside. I think this attitude is completely depressing, even if I know that we must respect everyone's freedom of expression in this House.

On post-secondary education, he seems to think there are too many students attending university and that these students choose the wrong field of study. To reduce the number of wrong choices, we should make some study programs less expensive than others. I would like to have more details on this.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Reform Party has come to the same conclusion as I have. He feels that Canadian students are too heavily indebted, and that this indebtedness can create problems with respect to post-secondary education. He also stated-and I think that we must agree with him-that the key, which is sadly lacking in this document, is employment.

While it is true that university students have a better chance at finding a job than other people, many of them, even though highly educated, have to take a master's degree because they are unable to find work. Some of them even have to go on to their doctorate, because they still cannot find a job, and that leads them deep into debt.

The hon. member spoke of the many advantages to be derived from the student voucher system he put forward, but he did not say where he would get the money for it. His central argument seems to be that he recognizes that the federal government has a funding responsibility with respect to education. The minister's discussion paper and the budget show that the federal government is bent on reducing, and even backing out completely from these cash transfers to provinces.

As he is a former provincial politician, I have another question for him: What role, in his opinion, should the provincial government play in education? He knows very well that education, under the Canadian Constitution, is a provincial area of responsibility. I would like some clarification on the student vouchers he referred to. Where would the money come from? Who would pay?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and I must say that he was true to himself. This government member has shown some independence of mind, by voicing his own concerns. It is interesting to hear such statements in this House.

He began by addressing the issue of unemployment and decrying the practices and orientations of the previous Conservative government, under Mr. Mulroney, and I want to indicate to him that I have come to the same conclusion after reading the discussion paper, and that is that the unemployment insurance fund should still be used to support training.

Then, the hon. member mentioned his concerns regarding the universities, and I agree with him. I took note of these two points he raised. As far as the unemployment insurance situation, for which he blames the Conservatives, and the universities are concerned, if the hon. member has read the same document I did yesterday or today, he must have come to the same conclusion I reached. I think that the universities are very concerned about the increase of students indebtedness, the rise in tuition fees and the reduction of transfers to the provinces and that these issues concern the hon. member of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, so I would appreciate his comments on this.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned some interesting measures in her speech, including those designed to help women go back to school-she even related her personal experience.

I would like to make a comment followed by a question. The discussion paper contains a provision regarding UI, while the budget speech tabled by the Minister of Finance made mention of a cut. In fact, there are cuts this year and the government wants to make additional cuts affecting those who regularly find themselves without work.

As the hon. member knows, that group includes women. In times of economic hardship, many women will have part-time jobs. Their situation is precarious and, unfortunately, they are often underpaid or paid less than men.

Last year, the human resources development committee heard testimony by the Anti-Poverty Organization. One woman who testified had finally succeeded in returning to school and she told us that, like other students, she would have completed her studies since she was prepared to incur debts of $32,000 in the process. In the end, since she did not have a job, she could not get loans.

As an MP, but also as a woman, what does the hon. member think of the new measure designed to take into account the salary of a spouse, in the context of women's autonomy?