Antoine Dubé

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will answer this to my hon. colleague, whom I know well, as he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development and we both sit on the same committee.

I think he already knows the answer. Not mine though. So far, three provinces have indicated that they find it unacceptable in many respects. Quebec of course considers it unacceptable. A statement to that effect was made yesterday. The hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned the government's commitment to co-operate. To illustrate the spirit that drives this government, I would like to quote from the student financial assistance act, Bill C-28, passed last year. This act provides for the possibility of opting out. Yes, but "only if the province satisfies the Minister-that is the Minister of Human Resources Development, the new super minister of education for Canada-by written notice received by the Minister before the beginning of the loan year in question, that, in relation to the matter in question, the provincial financial assistance plan has substantially the same effect as the plan established by this Act".

In the mind of the new government, in a spirit of sharing, from now on, the provinces could apparently be entitled to financial compensation-in a provincial jurisdiction-provided they satisfy the minister that their plan has a similar effect, the same effect-as this is put in the act- as the federal plan. A fine example of co-operation indeed!

Canada is currently undergoing changes. We are witnessing the end of a status quo. This reminds me of statements made by a certain Prime Minister, the former leader of the Liberal Party, to the effect that the 1980 referendum would indeed bring about change, but not in the direction that the people of Quebec expected. Change is happening now and I can see it from here: I do not doubt the persuasiveness of the present Quebec Minister of Education, with whom I have worked, but he has to satisfy the federal minister that his plan is the same as the federal plan. What a great show of co-operation!

This government tells the provinces: "We will go along with you on this, provided you do exactly as we tell you. From now on, your role will be limited to do as you are told, in a provincial jurisdiction on top of that".

Make no mistake, people of Quebec, that is what this co-operative proposal is about. When they talk about decentralization in the discussion paper, they are not talking about giving more powers to the provinces, they are talking about going directly to the groups, the municipalities, the people interested in employment. They would bypass the provinces to reach the groups and organizations concerned. Is that what decentralization means? In any case, that is not what Quebecers want. If the government stubbornly insists on spending less but controlling more, I fear that the reaction will not be the one the parliamentary secretary is hoping for.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition's training and youth critic, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the social program reform proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I am also, as a member of the Committee on Human Resources Development, pleased to participate because, as you know, Madam Speaker, with two of my opposition colleagues, I was involved in all the proceedings of the first consultation phase. We heard many people express their opinions on this. Unfortunately, I must tell you right off the bat that I am disappointed with this proposal when we were expecting an action plan. This discussion paper almost invites us to scrap last winter's consultations and start over.

As the training and youth critic, I will focus on the education part of the discussion paper issued by the Minister of Human Resources Development. I say education because that is what it means. Although the third section of the minister's discussion paper is called "Learning: Making lifelong learning a way of life", they are clearly talking about education. This section nonetheless contains elements that will affect post-secondary education systems in Quebec and Canada.

Again, may I remind you that, under the 1867 Canadian Constitution, education is a provincial jurisdiction. The discussion paper released by the Minister of Human Resources Development even included the following statement, on page 57: "In Canada, education falls within provincial jurisdiction". While admitting this fact, the federal government also points to training-related problems and uses them to justify its continued involvement in the field of education.

It is obvious, when you read this document, that the federal government has no intention of withdrawing from the field of education, even though it is a vital provincial sector, particularly for Quebec, since our identity as a nation is at stake.

The most contradictory aspect of this paper is the fact that, while the government expresses a will to tighten controls and centralize even more education-related responsibilities, it obviously wants to withdraw its financial support.

The withdrawal of federal support would not result in fewer constraints, quite the contrary: It would mean less money and more constraints. The federal government intends to cut transfers to the provinces and to replace them with more student loans. However, these transfer payments are used by provinces to subsidize secondary schools. The provinces will be stuck with a shortfall of $2.6 billion. They will then be left with two options: either allocate more money or else leave the institutions to fend for themselves, which would surely mean increased tuition fees.

The federal government seems to think that students would easily absorb such an increase, which is anticipated in the minister's document, on page 63:

It is true that replacing federal cash transfers would put upward pressure on tuition fees.

In fact, a Treasury Board memo published in the Toronto Star today indicates that tuition fees will double if such a measure is implemented. Cabinet has been informed of that.

Students already incur large debts. Let me give you some figures. In Canada, 10 per cent of personal bankruptcies affect students or former students unable to repay their loans. And what does the minister propose? He wants to put students even deeper into debt.

In Quebec, a university student spends more than 30 per cent of his or her annual budget on tuition fees and related costs. This percentage has doubled since 1990. The situation is the same everywhere in Canada.

In fact, the problem is somewhat less serious in Quebec because the provincial government, through a scholarship program, has helped alleviate the burden of students to ensure that everyone can get a university education. Quebecers can be proud of that initiative since, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this morning, until the quiet revolution, in the sixties, only rich families could afford to put their children through university.

The discussion paper also refers to a new scheme which consists in making repayment proportional to one's income. This concept raises many questions. Since the government claims to be relying on the support of all partners, it is rather surprising that, after the working paper was tabled, the first reaction was that of the Canadian Federation of Students which immediately opposed the income contingent repayment, because they worry about the terms of the program. They are all the more concerned because of pilot projects which were carried out, particularly in Ontario.

I should mention that Ontario had an experimental project and that last year, only 75 students participated whereas up to 1,000 could have. Why? Because the terms of this income contingent repayment plan are often quite restrictive. Students have to say that they want to be part of that program almost as soon as they begin their studies. Usually, they are forced into that program. That approach was tried in other countries, and results have always been negative. Nevertheless, Canada now wants to use that approach. We should at least ask a few questions.

The president of the Canadian Federation of Students stated: "Members of the Canadian Federation of Students are determined to fight government proposals and we are convinced that the majority of Canadians will support us because they want to maintain accessible post-secondary education for themselves and their children". The federation reacted that way because it is convinced that this reform will push students deeper into debt and restrict access to higher education. That was the first reaction.

The president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec, François Robello, made the following comment: "The government will have to publicly assume responsibility for passing the bill on to students. The way this reform is going, access to higher education will be under direct fire". The first federation is an umbrella organization mainly for associations outside Quebec, and the second one is affiliated to but independent from the first one and represents most student associations in Quebec.

Two federations, two similar conclusions. Both are concerned about student indebtedness and access to higher education.

The government claims that the reform was initiated for the very purpose of securing freer access to higher education. There is already some disagreement on the subject between the government and representatives of this community. Since members of student groups experience first hand the effects of being in debt, they are clearly in a good position to evaluate the impact of such reforms.

In addition to the students, groups representing universities, colleges and their presidents in Quebec and across Canada have expressed their concern that student debt would have the effect of compelling universities and colleges to raise their tuition fees, which in turn would reduce enrolment.

The future does not look too good for government members, when we see both students and universities worried about the same thing. I think you are in for a tough time during the months to come.

As the article that appeared in the Toronto Star on October 5 pointed out, the government wants to cut $7.5 billion from social programs over the next five years. During Question Period, in response to a question from a member of the Reform Party, the minister referred to $15 billion. We know that the budget already provided for cuts totalling $7.5 billion, and now the minister says $15 billion. This is not a rumour. This is not a document leaked to the newspapers. This is the minister speaking.

There is one suggestion that did not really impress me but did raise some questions. Just think, to deal with student financial problems, they suggested using their RRSPs, their registered retirement savings plans. Now how many students who are in debt have RRSPs when they graduate or when they are at university? Unless the minister or the paper he tabled means that parents could use their RRSPs to pay for their children's education. If that is the case, then we have a problem. First of all, students who are over 18-which means they are of age-are adults and want to be able to take care of themselves, and now the implication is, unless any other explanations are forthcoming, and we hope they will be, that the parents' RRSPs could be used. This is disturbing because usually, people have RRSPs for their retirement and not to pay for the education of their children.

What about consultation? The Standing Committee on Human Resources, of which I am a member, will conduct wide-ranging consultations across Canada. Why bother, since the government has already made its decision on its reforms? The parameters are there, plus cuts totalling $15 billion. What we need here is a little motivation, because if spending cuts are to be the order of the day, people will come to defend their own particular interests, and you can hardly blame them.

What this paper does not contain, and although what it does contain is disturbing, what it does not contain is equally disturbing, and I am referring to a genuine job creation policy, because we can train students and keep improving their employability, but in the end they will just be competing for the same number of jobs.

What do we see now? More and more young people, at least a third of them, live in insecurity, not just for a year but for long periods; at least a third or so of young people in Quebec have trouble finding permanent employment.

What does this reform project do? It calls them frequently unemployed, it classifies them and we see in the discussion paper that they are particular targets for cuts. On the contrary, action should be taken to strengthen these people who are victims of unemployment. Why attack the victims instead of unemployment? Why is the human resources development minister's paper silent on job creation? Why does it not talk about full employment measures? Some countries have almost full employment, so why not use them as models?

The paper does not cover everything. We see leaks. We could talk about them at length, but when a member meets his constituents, he realizes that cuts are being made to established organizations that are working to increase employability. Many organizations in Quebec at least were told that their programs would be cut by 10 per cent, even though some community organizations grouped together in the RQUODE umbrella organization, where I attended a consultation last year, have a placement rate of 75 per cent. Resources are being cut back for these established organizations.

While they consult, they cut. Unemployment insurance was cut last year. Now the organizations are being attacked.

This morning, I heard the minister tell us about an experience he had when he visited a training centre in New Brunswick. I would suggest that he not go as far; he could go to Gatineau, a few kilometres from here, where the Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi Centre found out last week that not only was it getting a 10 per cent cut but that the job search club was losing its entire $240,000 annual grant, while young people are told about so-called measures and intentions. Meanwhile, what the document does not say is that cuts are being made.

Madam Speaker, do you think that I am being partisan? Last week, the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, whose name I do not want to mention, said that he was shocked. He tried to save the program at the Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi Centre in Gatineau from being cut. He had to admit that he was disappointed because he had been misled, it seems, so he said in the newspaper. He had been given some hope and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who lives in Hull, had announced that the problem would be settled.

But three days later, the way it was settled was by cutting it. And that is not the only organization to be cut. In at least two other regions, organizations that prefer to remain anonymous have already been informed verbally that they will be eliminated. Meanwhile, the government puts in place its youth strategy, the Youth Service Corps, and gives $10,000 per young Canadian, while Carrefour Jeunesse Emploi managed to find jobs for 375 young people on a budget of $240,000 last year. And these young people later generated $1 million in tax revenues for the federal government. Before eliminating organizations, they could at least have had the decency to await the result of the consultation process before cutting programs.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech, and I am about to do something unusual for me and stand up for my colleague in the Reform Party even if, in many respects, we do not share that party's views.

Our colleague is a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources. As far as I know, he was present during all proceedings and did take part in the first phase of consultation. That is why I am asking him this question.

Does my colleague consider that the consultations our committee held last winter and last spring are reflected in this working paper? We were supposed to get an action plan, but what we got is simply a working paper and a series of options. We were supposed to get something by mid-April, and then in June. Here were are in October, and the implementation is now postponed until next year. Is this a disappointment for the hon. member?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that besides doubling tuition fees, his reform helps to double students' indebtedness, as was confirmed by a Treasury Board note made public in today's Toronto Star ?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. We read in the document presented yesterday by the minister that the federal government intends to cut $2.6 billion dollars in cash transfer payments for post-secondary education.

Does the minister realize that by reducing cash transfer payments for post-secondary education to provinces, he will force them to double tuition fees, thus making higher education less accessible?

[Child Poverty, September 29th, 1994]

I will go more quickly, but one quote in particular attracted my attention because this speech was made by the present Minister of Human Resources Development. He said that members should set aside the fine speeches prepared by the departments and open their eyes and their hearts a little.

They should try to face reality and talk about Canada's real problems. Not one day went by in the House without a minister or member of the Conservative government talking about the deficit. That is what they said at the time.

I never heard the then finance minister talk about Canada's real deficit of one million children living in poverty. That is where we should be investing. That is the real tragedy. In 10 years these children should be our educators, business people, politicians and journalists but they will never get that far because they cannot get a head start. One million children living in poverty is a tremendous loss. That is the big deficit we must face. Yet, nothing was done to solve that problem.

In 1989, the current Minister of Human Resources, the same member who is now a minister, authorized the cut in the UI program, did not provide more daycare spaces, voiced his intention to cut social programs to fight the deficit, and did not, in my opinion, table a real program to create permanent jobs. Let me give you an example: The Youth Service Corps is a program designed to give $150 per week to young Canadians. In other times, it would be nice to create part-time jobs for our young people, but these are not real jobs.

Such a program maintains duplication in the field of vocational training and this is costly for everyone. In the meantime, his colleague, the Minister of Industry, refuses to allocate funds for the conversion of military and civilian industries. I raise this issue because we have an industry back home called MIL Davie, which waited in vain for a year to get an answer from the Conservative government regarding a simple ferry, and which has now been waiting for another year to get an answer from the new Liberal government. If approved, this project would create at least 700 jobs.

We are poor because of the deficit. We cannot help needy children since we are poor. In the meantime, there are costs. I am truly disappointed because the members of this House-some of whom seem to approve-will not even seize the opportunity to vote and confirm our commitment to fight child poverty.

[Child Poverty, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House today, as the Official Opposition critic for training and youth, to support the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reaffirming its commitment to seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

In a country that has already won international recognition for its quality of life, it may seem strange that it should be necessary to advise the government to deal with a problem as serious as that of child poverty. Children are a country's greatest asset, and it is thanks to them that nations develop and evolve. Thanks to them, we can look forward to the future.

However, according to a recent study by the Canadian Institute of Child Health, in 1991 1.2 million children in Canada were living in poverty, which is 500,000 more than in 1981. Today, 20 per cent of our children live in poverty in this country.

The hon. member who moved the motion mentioned more recent figures-1.3 million children-which indicates a trend and shows that the situation continues to deteriorate.

Forty-two per cent of child deaths before the age of one year can be attributed to prenatal conditions. The mother's quality of life before birth is crucial to the life expectancy of the child. The incidence of learning disabilities and mental health problems among children from poor families is double that of children in the rest of the population.

If I may, I shall digress for a moment. I was told recently that even in the supposedly richer areas, children in increasing number go to school without breakfast or a nutritious lunch. No wonder their failure rate is so high and they eventually become high-school dropouts.

One cannot talk about child poverty without talking about poor families. As we all know, in the past few years, the average family income has not kept up with the cost of living.

According to the same report on child health I quoted earlier, in Quebec, in 1993, a single parent earning the minimum wage had to work 73 hours to have an income equivalent to the poverty level. In Canada, the same single parent on social assistance, with one dependant child, would receive 65 per cent of that. In 1991, 453,200 single parents were women whereas a mere 83,600 were men. Therefore, we cannot talk about child poverty without talking about the poverty of mothers, especially single mothers.

Single families make up 20 per cent of all families, but the most alarming situation is that of single mothers with children. Indeed, in Canada, close to 90 per cent of children living with a single mother live in poverty.

Our young people, and that includes children of course, find themselves in a situation we had not seen since the Depression, that is to say that they are in a worse predicament than the previous generation. They have less opportunities than their parents had. The report on child health in Canada, which was published this week, and from which I got my statistics, was funded mostly by the federal government. I would like to hope that the federal government reacts quickly and with concrete measures in the light of this troubling conclusion because it would be obscene for the government to commission a study and then to ignore its findings, particularly when it comes to the health of our children.

As my hon. colleague who introduced the motion indicated, this is not the first time that the House of Commons looks into child poverty. On november 24, 1989, at the initiative of the hon. member representing Oshawa at the time, the House unanimously passed a resolution similar to the one before us today, to eliminate poverty among children by the year 2000.

May I digress for a moment to say how disappointed I was when we did not get unanimous consent to vote on this motion, while consent was granted in 1989 and all the hon. members present at the time voted in favour of the motion. That was five years ago. Things are getting worse instead of getting better. Why is that? A resolution was passed, but why has the situation deteriorated? I say that it is because the Conservative government of the day did nothing to correct the situation and in the past year, the Liberal government has continued, as we heard again this week, to consult the people on social program reform, but this reform will only take effect next year, yet another year away.

That will make six years since a unanimous resolution was passed to fight child poverty. However, the Liberal Party at that time was in favour of the resolution as it voted unanimously for the motion in 1989. Members then, even some who are ministers today, said many things which are worth quoting. Even the member for St. Boniface, whom I see in front of me, spoke in favour of this motion in 1989.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be very short, as requested. It is precisely the lack of clear answers and, in some cases, the total lack of answers that the member for Berthier-Montcalm who represented our party on the committee had to endure, which motivated the opposition.

If, during the summer, the member, acting as our official representative, had been able to get the answers he was looking for, obviously this motion would have been very different. In our view, if the government is willing to change its attitude and wants to get to the bottom of this, as we do, the only way to proceed is to call for a royal commission. This is what we contend.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, although more calm than his predecessor, the hon. member nevertheless suggests, when talking about separatism, that we are wicked people who wish to inflict hardships on members on the other side, whereas we wish to remain good neighbours and friends as much as possible.

As regards the question, you will understand that I represent the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. I am willing to act as a messenger or an interpreter and to pass on the question, but I think that it should be answered by an elected Parti Quebecois government after it has won the referendum. Therefore, I believe the question is rather premature or that it should be asked instead during a referendum campaign. Please understand that as a member of the opposition, I have no precise mandate to talk in the name of the Government of Quebec. That could be the kind of service that could be maintained.

I take good note of the member's question and I thank him for his interest but this is all I can do for the time being. As a member of the opposition I am more used to asking questions than to answering them.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a funny way of getting out of a predicament. If we were in the military, we would say it was a good diversion tactic.

While talking about shifting the limelight to the National Assembly and what is going on in the new government in Quebec, incidentally, before 1976 we had a Liberal government that had an intelligence gathering services referred to as the CAD, which the Parti Quebecois government-I realize the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is too young to remember that, but this may be useful to other people who are listening-later removed.

What we are talking about today, however, is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. As for shifting the focus to Quebec- The hon. member's answer is particularly disturbing since he is saying, more or less, that now the National Assembly has a new Parti Quebecois government, the separatists are in power, and the hon. member gets all upset and blurts out this type of question. The more I hear this "nervous" reaction the more I am convinced we should be concerned about the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I must say that to me, this kind of nervous-Nellie reaction to the new Parti Quebecois government is all the more reason to support the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse.

I would just like to remind this House that the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the members of the Parti Quebecois were elected in the same way as the hon. member. I respect the fact that he was elected to represent another party in my province. I respect him as an elected representative, elected by constituents who put their trust in him. However, when he goes on in this way, he infers that the people of Quebec-and I will not be unparliamentary-showed poor judgment in electing members of the Parti Quebecois, and because of that, people should be wary and feel insecure about this new government, but after all, like the members of the Reform Party who were elected in Western Canada by people who used their good judgment, after a democratic debate, these people were elected to represent them.