FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 30, 1998

• 0908

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): I would like to call the meeting to order and welcome everyone here this morning.

As you know, the orders of the day are consideration of Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998.

Today we have the pleasure to have with us representatives from the Graduate Students Association, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, for our first round table.

We have Cindy Robinson representing the Graduate Students Association. Welcome. From the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada we have Mr. Robert Giroux, president; and Mr. Robert Best, director of government relations and public affairs. From the Association of Canadian Community Colleges we have Mr. Gerry Brown, president; and Mr. Pierre Killeen, government relations.

Welcome, everyone. We will begin. As you know, you have approximately ten minutes to make your introductory remarks, and thereafter we will engage in a question and answer session.

We will begin with the representative from the Graduate Students Association, Ms. Cindy Robinson.

Ms. Cindy Robinson (Graduate Students Association, Carleton University): Thank you for allowing me to speak to the committee today.

I am a representative of the Graduate Students Association at Carleton University. I represent approximately 2,500 graduate students at that school. I am also heavily involved with the Canadian Graduate Council, a national student organization that represents approximately 20,000 Canadian graduate students.

When I was invited to speak to the committee today I immediately informed my membership I would be here, and I received many suggestions and recommendations from the students regarding the millennium fund. The one concern that was reiterated again and again was the need to reserve a portion of the millennium fund for graduate students.

• 0910

The recent federal budget included a variety of strategies to combat student indebtedness and improve accessibility to post-secondary education. Both my GSA and the CGC are very grateful for these much-needed measures. The millennium fund in particular is a welcome measure, for it will make post-secondary education accessible while also reducing the amount of debt a student will incur.

Because graduate students make up approximately 11% of Canada's student population, the Canadian Graduate Council would like to see 11% of the millennium fund reserved for graduate students. In my capacity as the vice-chair of research for the Canadian Graduate Council, I have occasion to speak to many graduate students across the country, many of whom are finding it increasingly difficult to complete their education without incurring enormous debt.

No doubt this committee is aware that the average debt load for a four-year degree student has escalated to approximately $25,000. Students who wish to attend graduate school to obtain a master's or a doctoral degree can expect to incur even greater debt. Debt loads of $40,00 to $50,000 or even more are not uncommon. Unfortunately, they may become the norm. As an anecdote, I don't mind telling you I am over $40,000 in debt. So truly, student debt is an issue of major concern in this country.

University research is responsible for the production of $76 billion worth of goods and services. In order to improve its capacity to produce knowledge, Canada must support its researchers so they can undertake leading-edge research. Graduate students are the new researchers of tomorrow, but high tuition and skyrocketing debt loads are driving students away. Too often the best and brightest of Canada's students are opting for careers outside of research, thereby missing the experience and the opportunity to contribute to the process of discovery.

The recent federal budget announced substantial increases to the granting councils, SSHERC, NSERC, and NRC, and we are very thankful for these. However, many Canadian graduate students will simply not receive any of these awards. Currently, the granting councils fund 17% of all graduate students in Canada. Moreover, PhD students are most often the recipients of SSHERC and NSERC grants, so unfortunately master's students have few funding options.

In order to remain competitive in the global market, we have to ensure that university research continues to be well funded. Accessibility to graduate school could be greatly improved by granting graduate students a portion of the millennium fund.

Additionally, if the millennium fund is to ensure accessibility to graduate studies, the Canadian Graduate Council would like to see the fund awarded based on need, rather than merit. Merit-based funding is extremely competitive, and unfortunately bypasses many bright and ambitious students. The Canadian Graduate Council believes that graduate studies should be accessible to all, and therefore requests that the committee ensure accessibility by establishing a need-based component to the millennium fund.

Undergraduate degrees have now become mandatory for obtaining employment in today's society. Master's and PhD degrees are much in demand. However, federal transfer cuts have affected not only the undergraduate students but graduate students as well. Tuition fees have increased dramatically, thereby creating financial burdens for Canada's graduate student population. Like undergraduates, graduate students also need financial assistance and incentives to complete their degrees. Reserving a modest portion of the millennium fund strictly for graduate students will permit accessibility to graduate studies, promote innovative and important research, and ultimately allow Canada to remain competitive in the global market.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Robinson.

The next presentation will be made from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Mr. Robert Giroux. Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert J. Giroux (President, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, my name is Robert Giroux, and I am President of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. I am accompanied today by Robert Best, AUCC's Director of Government Relations and Public Affairs. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee today.

Over the past two years, AUCC has appeared before this committee on a number of occasions to talk about two serious threats to Canada's prosperity. The first was a declining university research capacity created by reduced government support, and the threat this posed to our country's ability to innovate and compete in world markets. The second was the sudden and dangerous rise in the size of debts which students were having to bear in order to complete their studies, and the threat to the accessibility of post-secondary education this posed.

• 0915

Since AUCC's mandate is to foster support for higher education, we have worked hard to propose constructive solutions to these problems. In conjunction with our various round table partner organizations, we presented a set of realistic and concrete solutions which would begin to address these severe threats.

I am very pleased to be back in front of this Committee, Mr. Chairman, because since our last visit here, the situation on both fronts has improved considerably. We would like to congratulate the federal government for its long-term vision and objective of preparing Canadians for the knowledge economy and its support to post-secondary education in achieving this objective.

In the last federal budget, the Government of Canada adopted a number of measures which are strongly in support of post-secondary education, particularly to address the urgent problems in university research and in student assistance. On research, the government made an excellent start by restoring the cuts to Canada's three granting councils. These councils are key to the country's strategic efforts to invest in people, enhance our efforts in knowledge and technology transfer, and give a greater international orientation to our research. By increasing its investment in granting council research, the measures announced in the federal budget will help generate growth and jobs, create new products and processes, and improve our ability to compete globally.

[English]

It was on student assistance, however, that the government took its boldest steps in the February budget. Let us put the matter in context. Since 1990, the debt level of the average student who borrows to finance a four-year post-secondary education has almost tripled. Increased federal loan limits, rising costs, including tuition, and most importantly the abolition or scaling back of most provincial grant programs have all fueled the spectacular leap in the indebtedness of our youth.

Alarmed by this trend, AUCC and six other organizations began working together in the fall of 1996 as a round table, in order to develop a package of measures to ensure that post-secondary education remains affordable for students and their families. We were brought together by shared concern over rising levels of student debt and their implications for accessibility and by shared belief in the importance of continued federal participation in student assistance, particularly through the Canada student loans program.

In January 1997 we released a package of proposed reforms entitled “Renewing Student Assistance in Canada”, which we subsequently updated in November 1997. A précis of the details of this package can be found in the left-hand column of the attachment to this document.

We developed this package to deal with the problems of accessibility and student debt, because there is no single answer to these problems. The package included a mixture of grants and tax measures, with the exact policy instruments varying according to whether the student was in the pre-study, in-study, or post-study period.

Moreover, the package used different measures to target different groups. One set of tax-related measures was included to help savers to make savings for education more tax-efficient. Another was included to help borrowers pay off their debts more easily. Similarly, one set of grants, the upfront grants, was included to encourage more students to access and stay in school, while another—the back-end grants—was included to provide a better safety net for graduates as they negotiate the increasingly difficult transition from school to work.

[Translation]

As our attachment shows, the government listened to what the students, teachers, institutions, and student aid administrators who made up our round table had to say. The Canadian Opportunities Strategy is very much in line with what the post-secondary community had recommended on student assistance.

AUCC strongly supports the Canadian Opportunities Strategy, some important elements of which are contained in Bill C-36. While not all of the policy measures in the Strategy are precisely those recommended by the Round table groups, the intended outcomes are very similar.

For instance, on the matter of promoting savings for education, we recommended treating contributions to Registered Education Savings Plans as tax-deductible, in the manner of contributions to Registered Retirement Savings Plans. The government chose to create the Canada Education Savings Grant instead. The intended outcome is essentially the same, but the exact measure chosen is different.

Similarly, when we first made our proposal for up-front grants, we assumed that they would be distributed through the Canada Student Loans Program since this provided an efficient distribution mechanism as well as an alternative payment to jurisdictions opted-out of the Canada Student Loans Program.

• 0920

Instead, the government chose to deliver up-front grants through the mechanism of the Millennium Scholarship Foundations. While this mechanism was not the one originally recommended by AUCC and the other Round table groups, the Round table did take the view in November 1997 that if the Millennium fund is designed to focus on the needs of low and moderate income students, it might well serve as an important source of up-front grants.

In this regard, we note that sections 28 and 29 of Bill C-36 show a willingness on the part of the federal government to ensure that the delivery of the Millennium Scholarships is complementary to the extent possible with existing student loan programs—which are of course overwhelmingly based on need—and avoids duplication with the processes of those programs. Moreover, we have been pleased to see that the federal government and the government of Quebec are undertaking negotiations to reconcile their objectives in relation to the distribution of Millennium Scholarship funds in that province.

[English]

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me make three final points on the millennium foundation. The first is the issue of timing. Our association believes the foundation must begin distributing its funds to needy students as soon as possible. And while we are delighted at the breadth of stakeholder consultation contemplated by the government for the foundation, this consultation exercise should not be taken as an excuse to delay implementation of what could be a program of extraordinary value for students.

The second point has to do with fund-raising. Although we support the idea that the foundation should be able to accept donations, should citizens choose to make them, we would not support the foundation's actively soliciting private donations to replenish the public funds to be allocated pursuant to section 46 of Bill C-36.

While a private foundation, the millennium foundation is being created to fill a strong public need, to service a public policy good, and should therefore be publicly funded. Moreover, our universities and teaching hospitals are themselves increasingly reliant on private donations as a result of years of cutbacks, and it makes little sense to make their job more difficult by introducing a new competitor into this already difficult marketplace.

Our third and final comment has to do with considerations of need versus merit in the award of millennium scholarships. Like our round table partners, we are of the view that making need the overwhelming criterion is the right thing to do. Moreover, the fund has twin goals of minimizing administration costs and harmonizing the delivery of the funds with existing need-based aid programs in the provinces, and it is very difficult to see how a significant merit criterion could be injected into the foundation's award formula without violating one or both of these conditions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very pleased to answer questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux and Mr. Best.

The next presentation will be made by the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Mr. Gerry Brown. Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Gerry Brown (President, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, it is a pleasure for our organization to be here today and to participate in the hearings on Bill C-36.

I am here today as President of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, the national and international voice of Canada's publicly-funded community colleges, technical institutes and CEGEPs.

It's probably best to start by adding some context to our remarks on the subject of the federal budget and the Budget Implementation Act, 1998. Within Canada's post-secondary education system, there are over 175 colleges and institutes located in 900 communities throughout Canada's 10 provinces and two territories.

From Medicine Hat Community College in Alberta to Lambton College in Sarnia, Ontario, to the Cégep de Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, to College of the North Atlantic in Newfoundland, Canada's colleges and institutes occupy a unique niche in our nation's economic development structure.

[English]

Colleges and institutes are commonly community-based institutions committed to fostering and promoting economic, cultural and social well-being in 900 communities throughout Canada. During the day, there are 500,000 full-time students learning and training in community colleges. At night, there are over a million Canadians, now called lifelong learners, attending colleges and institutes. Most are looking to upgrade workplace skills, while others come in order to engage in learning.

• 0925

Secondly, colleges and institutes provide access to technical, vocational and applied learning and training opportunities to Canadians of all ages and from all backgrounds. Helping Canadians navigate the school-to-work-to-school transition is the raison d'être of colleges and institutes.

And finally, colleges and institutes are community-based organizations created in order to respond to the training needs of business, industry and the service sectors within their communities. Colleges and institutes are exciting and stimulating learning environments poised to facilitate Canada's entry into the next millennium. We would urge you to visit a college, CEGEP or technical institute in your riding, and we would be more than happy to facilitate such a visit.

I would like now to turn your attention to the February 24, 1998 budget. Budgets are the principal opportunity for the federal government to set the national agenda. They are about charting our nation's course for the future. In many respects, the February 24, 1998 budget is a milestone for Canada. It is the first budget in what many describe as the post-deficit era and comes so close to the millennium. Given the significance of this budget, we cannot help but state our strong support for the direction it has taken. Finance Minister Paul Martin's budget speech sends a strong and positive message to all Canadians about the importance of lifelong learning and studies at the post-secondary level.

Canada's colleges and institutes are strong believers in the positive contribution of learning and training to economic development at the community level and health and success at the individual level. We applaud this budget as a strong first step on Canada's road to becoming a lifelong learning culture and society.

ACCC also wishes to commend the budgetary commitment to providing equality of opportunity to all Canadians. This principle speaks to the fundamental mandate of publicly funded colleges and institutes, which were created by a partnership between the provinces and the federal government in order to provide a broader range of Canadians with opportunities for access to post-secondary education. In today's knowledge-driven economy, we believe colleges and institutes are a fundamental element of the opportunity equation.

Student financial assistance is the lifeblood of access to college for the majority of our students. Without student assistance, students and adult learners cannot access learning and training; the relationship is that direct and that simple. As a nation, we cannot forget that our future prosperity is dependent upon the economic success of our middle and lower classes, and we must constantly guard against post-secondary education becoming an option for the wealthy and a dream for the less-than-wealthy.

As president of ACCC, I must also flag our membership's appreciation of the budget's recognition of the college and institute system, a system that has gone on to become a model of technical, vocational, career and adult education throughout the world, and this in the short space of about 30 years. We were heartened to hear the minister state that the budget was about every community college and technical institute in the country. In a very significant way, the federal budget served as an acknowledgement of community colleges and technical institutes as an equal part of the nation's post-secondary educational infrastructure, and we wish to applaud this signal.

Finally, we'd like to acknowledge the effort of our national education partners: the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada; the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations; the Canadian Federation of Students; the Canadian Association of Student Financial Assistance Administrators; the Canadian Graduate Council; and the Canadian Association of University Teachers. We sat down together and set our philosophical differences aside. We worked to develop a package of student financial assistance measures, many of which are included in the budget's Canadian opportunities strategy. If you have a vision and are determined, it can really work.

Some of you may feel, judging by our comments, that the policy issues around learning, training and post-secondary education have been resolved and the time has come for the government to turn its attention to other public policy concerns. To this, we would respond that the health of our knowledge-based economy is dependent upon a continuous updating of the skills of our workforce in an effort to avoid the reduction in competitiveness that results from the uncontrolled and rapid obsolescence of people's skills. As a nation, we are only beginning to address the issues regarding the accommodation of the pressures and demands of work, skills upgrading and the family. We see this as one of the major policy issues of the 21st century.

In conjunction with these comments, we would like to take advantage of the remainder of this presentation to speak directly to Bill C-36 and recommend certain amendments to the legislation.

On a general note, ACCC was concerned that the millennium scholarship, as originally proposed, would focus on rewarding and promoting excellence and that need would be regarded as a secondary criterion. In response to this, ACCC argued that academic excellence ought not to be a prerequisite for access to a millennium scholarship but ought to be the product of a millennium scholarship. We suggest that making secondary school academic success an eligibility requirement will pose serious obstacles to access to the millennium scholarship for the majority of our college and institute students.

• 0930

Providing access to post-secondary education for people from a broad range of backgrounds and life experiences is the role of the colleges and the institutes, and access should be the predominant purpose of a millennium scholarship.

Our reading of the legislation implementing the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation indicates a significant degree of movement on the issue of excellence versus need. We commend the government for listening to our thoughts and the thoughts of our education colleagues on this subject.

Pursuant to paragraph 10(a*xx), the directors of the foundation must be knowledgeable about post-secondary education and learning in Canada. ACCC believes there is a need for a safeguard, designed to ensure that the student board representative understands the college and institute environment. In all likelihood, the absence of such a safeguard could produce a situation whereby a university student will be asked to render opinions and advance positions on issues particular to college and institute students.

With all due respect to university students as well as to many of us in this room today, the college experience is different from the university experience. The college institute students have a different perspective on issues, which ought to be advanced and listened to at the board level.

The transformation of the nature of post-secondary education, combined with the needs of continuous skill upgrading, is such that we must regard college and institute students as learners with different needs from those of university students.

Therefore ACCC recommends that paragraph 8(2)(b*xx) be amended to read:

six persons, one of whom shall be a student attending a college and one of whom shall be a student attending a university, appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Ministers; and

We also recommend that paragraph 8(2)(c*xx) be amended to read:

eight persons appointed by the members, in accordance with the by-laws of the Foundation, after taking reasonable steps to consult with the provincial ministers and with representatives of post-secondary educational and learning organizations in Canada that the members consider appropriate.

On a related note, according to paragraph 8(2)(b), students sitting on the foundation's board of directors must be in attendance at an eligible institution, whether it be public or private. The length of most college and institute programs is from one to three years, yet the student board member term is one of a period of five years. This will result in a situation where the student board member may be occupying this position while he or she is no longer a student. Our reading of the legislation regarding the eligibility of student board members suggests that the student would become ineligible prior to the expiry of his or her term.

Therefore ACCC recommends subclause 9(1) be amended as follows:

Subject to subsection (3), the Chairperson and the directors appointed under paragraph 8(2)(b), except for the student directors, shall be appointed to hold office during pleasure for terms of five years but, except if they cease to be directors under subsection (6), they shall continue to hold office until their successors are appointed.

We also recommend a new paragraph be added, 9(1)(b):

Subject to subsection (3), student directors appointed under paragraph 8(2)(b) shall be appointed to hold office during pleasure for terms of three years but, except if they cease to be directors under subsection (6), they shall continue to hold office until their successors are appointed.

Pursuant to subclause 7(2) of Bill C-36, members of the foundation are vested with the powers enjoyed by stakeholders and shall be asked to approve actions by the board of directors. Given that the purpose of the foundation is to grant scholarships to students who are in financial need, ACCC believes the voice of the students ought to be heard at the member level.

Therefore ACCC recommends that subclause 12(1) be amended to read:

There shall be 15 members of the Foundation, one of whom shall be a student from a college and another whom shall be a student from a university.

In ACCC's opinion, the requirement for a public post-secondary institution to receive a substantial part of funding from government in order for its students to access millennium scholarships must take into account the reality facing publicly funded institutions and should not unfairly penalize students attending these institutions by denying them access to the millennium scholarship fund.

Therefore ACCC recommends that subclause 2(2) be amended to the following:

For the purposes of this Part, a public post-secondary educational institution is considered to be public if the Foundation is of the opinion that a significant part of its funding comes from a provincial government.

• 0935

[Translation]

Finally these comments conclude ACCC's thoughts on the subject of Bill C-36 and I would now welcome questions regarding the issues raised in our brief to the Standing Committee on Finance.

[English]

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Brown and Mr. Killeen.

We'll begin with Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentations this morning.

The first thing that strikes me is just with relation to what Ms. Robinson has said about her own personal situation where she has a personal debt now of $40,000. There is really nothing in this legislation to help with that, is there? What I'm saying is there is a generation of students who are going to be left out.

Ms. Cindy Robinson: The most recent budget did include some measures so that interest that is paid on the student loan will become tax deductible, which will be helpful, because this is definite. I am here today, definitely, to put my voice forward for the students of the future. This is true.

Mr. Monte Solberg: One of the concerns I have is that a lot of people end up graduating and then end up leaving the country to go find work. I'm wondering to what degree this would be caused by high levels of student debt. Given the fact that there may be better-paying jobs elsewhere, or tax advantages, to what degree, in your judgment, would this be driven by high levels of student debt?

Mr. Robert Giroux: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address that question.

We in the AUCC have done a bit of work on the whole issue you're raising of brain drain, the whole issue of our graduates leaving the country. I don't know to what extent student debt contributed to it. It may be a factor. But our work certainly indicates that it's much more a factor of particularly some very specialized fields of graduation—computer science comes to mind immediately, information technology—in which the salaries offered are higher and therefore the financial compensation if you are already in debt could be a factor. Of course, another factor, particularly as we look south of the border, is that the taxation system is much more advantageous south of the border.

When we talk about graduates at the PhD or our researcher levels, we've also found out through some surveys we've done that the total research environment and the availability of research funding and of very good facilities, and also of having colleagues who are strong, leading-edge researchers, contributes to it.

You will recall, Mr. Solberg, that we have come in front of this committee also—and we will come again in the fall if we're invited—to talk to you about the importance of research funding. It is one of the climates that keeps our best minds in Canada.

Mr. Monte Solberg: You mentioned that you thought the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund should be implemented immediately. Why do you think it's even possible to do that?

Mr. Robert Giroux: It's a question, Mr. Solberg, of the 1999 school year, versus year 2000. When we had our annual meeting in March, in Ottawa, our members certainly asked us to do everything we could to assist the foundation and this committee to ensure that the legislation is passed as quickly as possible, and at the same time that the foundation complete its discussions, its consultations, with the various provincial governments and other stakeholders in order to try to do it for the school year 1999.

It's a difference of one year. That's why we have made this particular point. We realize that it's going to be a major task of the foundation to achieve this. Of course one of the major tasks is the negotiations that are taking place now, even before the legislation is passed between the governments of Quebec and Canada.

Mr. Monte Solberg: All of you have stated that you think the fund should be doled out on the basis of need, not merit. Is this recommendation because in your judgment there is already enough funding available for people on the basis of merit? What is your thinking?

• 0940

Mr. Robert Giroux: Yes. The genesis of all of this, which began in terms of the roundtable recommendations we presented last fall, was that as part of the package to deal with accessibility and to deal with student debt there was a need to provide assistance related to need rather than merit in order to allow that accessibility. We also argued at the time that most of the scholarship programs now available in our universities—and our universities are increasingly able to get private donations to increase these scholarship funds, as with the Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Fund, which is in place and is very much also contributing to this—are available to deal with the meritorious considerations and that need was by far the overriding factor.

Mr. Gerry Brown: I would just complement that by saying that for the colleges and institutes of Canada an additional concern for us of course is that many of our students enter the educational system at the post-secondary level, in many cases from work, as opposed to from academic disciplines.

Mr. Monte Solberg: What is your understanding of the percentage of students who would benefit by the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund in a given year?

Mr. Robert Giroux: The numbers that have been advanced so far, and it's of course subject to whatever the foundation will do, is roughly 100,000 students. It's been estimated, and this gets back to the criterion of need, that across Canada those benefiting from loan programs, whether it be the Canada student loans program or the Quebec program, number in total around 400,000. The percentage of about 25% is the percentage that comes out in terms of those who would be benefiting from this, which is of course a sizeable number in terms of the impact of this program.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Solberg.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): First of all, I will say that, in reading the briefs of your two associations this morning, I was somewhat surprised to find nothing in them that expressing your support for the position defended by the Coalition québécoise pour l'éducation. I will cite, among other things, a single example of the position that organization has adopted:

In its present state, the Bill clearly does not make it possible to take into account Quebec's particular characteristics and policies respecting financial assistance to students.

The student assistance regime has been recognized here by Quebec and Canadian student associations as being the best in Canada.

I would like to hear the views of the associations on this subject, particularly that of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. Mr. Lavertu, who represented the Fédération des cégeps du Québec, came here and said that the Bill, as it stands, was not at all acceptable to Quebec. That message was repeated to us by all the members of the Coalition, which represents students, rectors and professors.

In your opinion, what attitude should Quebec and the Coalition québécoise pour l'éducation adopt if the Bill is not amended to ensure that Quebec can exercise its right to opt out with full compensation and to put those amounts into its loans and bursaries plans?

Mr. Gerry Brown: I don't feel qualified to say what the response of Quebec and the current coalition in Quebec should be.

Mr. Paul Crête: Answer on behalf of your association.

Mr. Gerry Brown: That's what I am doing. First of all, it is important to note that we are an association and that, as such, the association derives its mandate from all its members. The fact is that a large number of our association's members outside Quebec—and I am not revealing anything new in saying this—are very much in favour of this Bill. I am quite familiar with the viewpoint of the Fédération des cégeps and I have discussed the matter a number of times with the Fédération, not only with Mr. Lavertu, but also with Mr. Boucher, to try to find potential solutions. But as an association, we derive our mandate from our members. As for this particular element, we don't really have an answer to give you at this time because everything depends on the negotiations that will be held in the coming days between Quebec and the federal government.

• 0945

Mr. Paul Crête: Does your association ultimately feel that Quebec is just once again asking to opt out with full compensation, which is the message that the Coalition québécoise representing all stakeholders has conveyed? In your opinion, considering that the Bill offers no chance of opting out with compensation, is the Quebec Federation's position justified? I am also putting my question to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Mr. Gerry Brown: Once again, I repeat my answer, Mr. Crête. Unfortunately, our association has not expressed its stance on that, and I don't feel I have a mandate as president to state a position on its behalf.

However, in the course of discussions we have had with the representatives of that group, it was clear that we put the decision in the hands of the negotiators of the Quebec and federal governments. However, a view as common to our association as to the Fédération des cégeps du Québec is that the outcome of these negotiations will have to reflect the wish expressed by the regions, which forms the basis of our efforts and of all those of the associations across Canada: to reduce student debt.

The outcome of the negotiations should take into account the fact that it's students who should ultimately benefit from this operation.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Giroux, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Robert Giroux: Yes. First of all, our objective as a national association is to ensure that the governments and, in our case, the Canadian government provide and invest more resources at the post-secondary level. That's the basis of our demands.

Second, I would like to emphasize that we too are a national association. In an association, certain regions may have different points of view. We are aware of this and we also recognize that Quebec's situation is somewhat different since its student loans and bursaries program is the best in Canada. I believe we can state that without hesitation.

Furthermore, we also recognize that one of the fundamental problems of our Quebec universities is the basic budgets, which have been cut in draconian fashion over the past two years for the reasons of which we are all aware.

For that reason, we strongly supported the Canadian government when it drew up its budget and showed its willingness to negotiate, consult, try to put together, avoid duplication, add to the programs in place and to support them.

We also encouraged both levels of government to use the current negotiations to come to an agreement. In our view, such an agreement would provide better assistance to Quebec students. As Premier Bouchard acknowledged, even though student debt is a less significant problem in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada, it is still a serious problem.

Furthermore, if the results of the exercise meant that the post-secondary sector in general received more assistance, that would be a good thing. To date, we have observed the negotiations, hoping they would culminate in an agreement.

Mr. Paul Crête: As you are quite familiar with Quebec's system, and as it is impossible to dissociate student financial assistance from the rest of the funding for the system, wouldn't it be preferable for the balance of Quebec's education system that the available amounts be handed over to Quebec so that it can put them into its system as a whole? In that system, the basic criterion is access to education, the financial ability to pursue an education. Introducing the criterion of merit into the structure would risk disrupting the entire operation of the Quebec loans and bursaries system. Wouldn't the best way for the federal government to balance the Quebec education system in a satisfactory way be instead to proceed by making transfer payments to the provinces?

Mr. Robert Giroux: It's quite clear that one of the problems of the Quebec universities is their basic budgets. However, we believe it is possible, through negotiation, to reach an agreement that may perhaps enable the Government of Quebec to make choices in the allocation of its own funds in a way that would lighten student debt loads and ease the strain on basic university budgets.

• 0950

That's a government decision. The federal government has decided to introduce its program through the Millennium Scholarships and, in these negotiations, it must decide to what extent it is prepared to adjust to Quebec's situation without compromising either the impact of the scholarships or the process whereby they are granted elsewhere in Canada.

It's a difficult situation for the federal government and we hope that the good will shown on both sides will make it possible to come to an agreement.

Mr. Paul Crête: If the negotiations ultimately did not result in an agreement and you had to make a recommendation to the federal government as to the best way to secure the welfare of the entire education sector in Quebec, would you be in favour of a transfer to Quebec with full compensation, a right to opt out with full compensation, or would you prefer the federal government to maintain its position and pass the bill without taking into account the wishes expressed by the Coalition québécoise pour l'éducation?

Mr. Gerry Brown: You're asking me the same question. That's the third time that you've asked it and it's the third time that I unfortunately have to give you the same answer. We don't have any views on that issue as an association. We respect the fact that certain views may differ from the pan-Canadian view.

We believe that the Fédération des cégeps's argument is well founded in that the system has its own needs, not only respecting its operation, but also concerning the capital needs of the colleges. But that may also be true in other provinces. It is in fact also true in other provinces.

There is a certain amount of validity in the argument presented by the Fédération des cégeps. Unfortunately, the members of our association have not expressed a consensus that would permit me to say what the ACCC thinks about this issue.

Mr. Robert Giroux: I believe you are going to want to know my position on that as well.

Mr. Paul Crête: If that's possible, yes.

Mr. Robert Giroux: The position that the AUCC has adopted is that we will consider this question when we have seen the outcome of the negotiations because we believe we must encourage both levels of government to agree on the issue. Then we'll see.

Mr. Paul Crête: If there is no agreement, I would ask you to give us your position at that time.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Ms. Robinson, did you say that 11% of the student body were graduate students?

Ms. Cindy Robinson: That is a rough estimate that the Canadian Graduate Council has come up with.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Is that 11% of the Canadian post-secondary student body, including community colleges, institutes, technical schools, vocational schools, private career colleges, and so on?

Ms. Cindy Robinson: No, it's simply university gradate students.

Mr. Nelson Riis: So it's 11% of university students, probably.

Ms. Cindy Robinson: Yes.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Okay, great.

I assume you would agree that when you look at the basis of merit or need, anyone who is accepted to a graduate program has demonstrated merit. Would that be a fair assumption to make?

Ms. Cindy Robinson: Yes. The standards are quite high.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I think they are significantly high. In terms of our criteria, if you're a member of any graduate department in Canada you obviously have demonstrated adequate merit. Then it can be based on need. So merit ought not to be an issue with graduate students, I would think.

Ms. Cindy Robinson: Again, there is tough competition to get into graduate school. If I can add an anecdote, personally I applied to six schools and I was only accepted by one.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Exactly. The point I'm making is that surely you have demonstrated merit just based on the fact that you've been accepted.

Ms. Cindy Robinson: Yes, but I am quite sure there are a lot of students who have similar merits to mine but have not been accepted.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Right. But the fact that this scholarship is available to them wouldn't make any difference. You have to be accepted into a school before you can qualify.

Ms. Cindy Robinson: True.

Mr. Nelson Riis: This question is to the witnesses generally. Would you agree that private career colleges ought to be eligible for funding under this program, or should it be restricted to public institutions only?

Mr. Gerry Brown: My understanding is that they are covered by this legislation.

Mr. Nelson Riis: They are. We're not talking about part-time students. The people who were before the committee were making the case that.... Well then, is that our understanding, that private career colleges are included? I don't think it is.

• 0955

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Maybe we could ask him why he thinks that.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Why do you think that, Mr. Giroux?

Mr. Robert Giroux: They are included, but as a discretionary measure on the part of the foundation itself. I think the foundation board would have to certify that a private institution meets the general criteria for accessibility of its students to this fund.

For example, we have two members of AUCC that are privately funded institutions. They don't necessarily receive public funds. They are Redeemer college, Bob, and Trinity—

Mr. Robert Best (Director, Government Relations and Public Affairs, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada): Trinity Western.

Mr. Robert Giroux: —Trinity Western in British Columbia, but they are members of AUCC because they meet the criteria for membership in AUCC with respect to the quality of their education, the degrees they give out and so forth. For example, once the foundation is in place and they ask us the question, we would submit that those two institutions should be considered in that category.

Now, there are a number of other colleges or career colleges—

Mr. Nelson Riis: Thousands of them.

Mr. Robert Giroux: There are thousands of them, and of course, we, as the AUCC, might be concerned about the quality of the education they offer and whether they should be considered. But definitely for those that are part of our membership, we would certainly argue very strongly that they be included.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Brown, you make the case in your presentation—and I will ask you to elaborate on that—after recommendation 3 and the preface of recommendation 4, for a indication of concern around these areas, I think. I think that's the point you're making.

Mr. Gerry Brown: That's right. And I come back to my response, because when I look at the definition, it says:

...a private post-secondary educational institution in Canada that grants degrees, certificates or diplomas and that is determined by the Foundation to be an eligible institution.

The vast majority of our membership fits into the same kind of situation that Bob is indicating, and that is, the majority that are private—they're not many—and are granting degrees and diplomas tend to be somewhat funded and sponsored by the provincial governments. So there is a degree of funding there. That's where our concern is as that funding reduces. Our concern is that we have limited resources as a country, and I don't necessarily see the mom-and-pop shop as part of this operation.

Mr. Nelson Riis: What about a career college offering, say, a year-long program in computer skills or business skills or bookkeeping skills and so on? Would you say that it ought to be eligible or are you ruling those sorts of institutions out?

Mr. Gerry Brown: I think one of the ways we can address it is that the Canada loans and bursaries system already has criteria in place by which it defines those institutions that are eligible for loans and grants. Therefore, we should probably build on some of what exists in the provinces already as part of a way to address this issue.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Would you feel comfortable, then, with the statement that any career college where students qualify under the Canada Student Loans Act ought to be eligible?

Mr. Gerry Brown: I think “comfortable” would probably not be a good choice of words. I am concerned with the limited resources, and since we represent 175 institutions across Canada that are publicly funded, clearly my members would have a concern about the amount of resources that would be available for our students. As an association, we would make the case that those organizations that are publicly funded are the ones that should get priority.

However, I do recognized the dilemma you're raising here. I would not use the word “comfortable” though. I think it's a recognition of what you're talking about, but certainly from an association point of view, we're concerned about the 175 colleges that we represent.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Okay.

Mr. Giroux, in your presentation you raised the concern that you folks have regarding fund-raising in terms of people providing donations. You see some competition there in the fund-raising area. Could you elaborate on that concern?

Mr. Robert Giroux: Yes, with pleasure.

First of all, as we said in our presentation, we have no objection to a voluntary donation of funds on the part of individual Canadians or even from other organizations that take the initiative and provide funding to the foundation. We have no objection to that being done to achieve and to sustain the objectives and programs of the foundation.

Essentially, where we have more of a problem is if the foundation were then to to give itself a mandate to aggressively pursue outside funding. For example, were the foundation to make an offer like “if you give us a dollar, we will match it with another dollar”, or these kinds of means, which are of course effective, there is a danger there, because due to the reductions in government funding in terms of our own institutions, they have been aggressively pursuing funding themselves. They have been out there. They're charitable organizations, and we as an association of course have been strongly asking the federal government to provide better conditions for contributions to charitable organizations and so forth in order to assist our institutions in getting additional funding.

• 1000

So we have a concern, a strong concern, about this organization being in competition with our institution. It's something I'm sure we'll have to address later on, particularly as the foundation starts getting into operation and moves towards probably the latter part of its mandate.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Chairman, can I ask one tiny one?

The Chairman: One tiny one.

Mr. Nelson Riis: In terms of professors and teachers employed at your universities or colleges or institutes across the country, do any institutions exist where the children of those professors receive tuition-free college?

Mr. Robert Giroux: Bob, maybe you'd like to answer.

I think Bob Best knows better than I do.

He says “I think so”.

Mr. Robert Best: That's about my answer.

Mr. Riis, I believe that's the case, but I'm afraid I don't know the scale of it, or which institutions. I believe that is the case in some collective agreements.

Mr. Nelson Riis: That's the case at Carleton, isn't it? If you're the son or daughter of a professor at Carleton, you get free university.

Ms. Cindy Robinson: Actually, I don't know. I can't say for sure, I'm sorry.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Adopt a parent, perhaps.

Mr. Gerry Brown: It doesn't exist in our case.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Riis, I was just wondering, why that question?

Mr. Nelson Riis: I guess the point I'm making is that we have two categories of students today. If your parent happens to be a professor at Carleton, you have tuition-free university from beginning to end of graduate school. If you're a professor at another institute, you don't. So there's a difference across the country.

If you happen to be a son or daughter of a professor in certain institutes, and now at the college level as well, I understand, you have tuition-free university.

It's just an interesting point to raise.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the panel, I think you've covered very concisely a lot of the bases we've heard. The issue of merit has come up often. I think Mr. Tom Brzustowski, who appeared before us, clarified it with regard to the merit thing, and it not being cherry-picking the best and the brightest. Any program should necessarily ensure that people who are eligible would be capable of completing a program. I think the entrance requirements being met probably meet most of those.

The debate seems to be carrying on with regard to the debt issue versus the accessibility issue. Finance officials undoubtedly are monitoring these very carefully. I think it's really important that we get your views with regard to the balance between providing sufficient incentive for those who otherwise would not seek or aspire to post-secondary and trying to jump in during the careers of existing students and maybe giving them a little bit of assistance because they're already into a debt situation, or something like that.

So I think this accessibility issue is important to clarify.

Mr. Gerry Brown: I think we have to look at that from the perspective of the entire budget. The entire budget has a package of measures that deal with not only the immediate concern from the perspective of the debt students are facing—and I don't have to cite examples of all the measures of the Canada opportunities strategy that address that—but also the long term, things like RESPs and so on, which begin to move us from one philosophical thinking about how our educational system is going to be funded to the new millennium, and that process.

We look at it from the overall package, and we think the overall package does provide the type of accessibility or does encourage or move towards accessibility much better.

Mr. Robert Giroux: If I may, I'd certainly support that entirely. When we approached this, as I said in our opening comments, we approached it as a type of pre-, during, and after. The “pre” is of course very much the tax measures, the RESP measures and so forth, to encourage savings. The “during” are the scholarships or what we call upfront grants. The “after” are measures to deal with the debt, including the deduction of interest on student loans for tax purposes. Those three together we think provide a good balance.

• 1005

In the situation we have today, there are very few upfront grants provided to students. The debt is beginning to assume a very high proportion and has been estimated this year to be around $25,000. There are problems with respect to repaying that debt, and the interest is not deductible. So if we project the situation we have today into the future, it will only get worse.

The measures that have been taken should reduce that overall debt, provide an incentive to save, and assist the students while they're going to either community colleges or universities. We think at this time this is a very good compromise of measures in place to deal with the situation.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this just a little. My understanding from the discussions we had earlier is that approximately half of university students have any amount of debt, and it averages $25,000. We were told 93% of students actually pay it off without difficulty, and 7% are defaulters, of which the vast majority declare bankruptcy even before the interest relief period is up. In other words, the percentage of overall students we're talking about, in terms of having a debt problem and hitting the wall, is less than 4%.

Are we are concerned that the tendency right now, in terms of the cost of education, will exacerbate that situation and that's why we have to do something, or are you saying today's situation is so bad we have to concentrate on it—it's already intolerable? It seems to me the figures show the debt situation is not the driver here. It seems to me, from what I've heard from others, the need to get post-secondary education at any reasonable cost is the most important thing. Will you continue to lean on the debt side?

Mr. Robert Best: If I may, Mr. Chairman....

The Chairman: Yes, of course.

Mr. Robert Best: When the roundtable groups came together, in our deliberations we never saw it as an either/or proposition. We felt, as we said in our opening statement, there was a rapidly accelerating debt problem. The figures we saw from Human Resources Development Canada suggested the debt of current students and current graduates was accelerating very quickly, so there was a debt issue to be addressed. But we also recognized that those kinds of debts and aversion to taking on those kinds of debts had real accessibility implications in the longer term.

So that led us to propose a set of measures. We talked about a balanced package of measures, and we think in general what's in the budget responded to that call for a balanced set of measures. You alluded to the need for finance officials and others to monitor the situation. Some of the measures in the current package of measures in this budget do address the debt situation of people graduating now—the interest relief measures, the debt remission measures and so forth.

It will be vitally important to monitor how the harmonization talks go with the provinces. It's important that the harmonization of the student assistance measures, under the umbrella of the Canada student loans program, ensures that the debt remission measures, interest relief measures and so on benefit people who have problems now. So we'll need to watch that to make sure those measures are right.

At the same time—as we argued in the package, and I think the budget responded to it—we have to pay attention to the longer-term implication for accessibility. Therefore we need upfront grants now and tax incentives to save, to ensure that the fear of taking on debt doesn't keep people out of school in the future.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

• 1010

The Chairman: Would you like to comment, Mr. Killeen?

Mr. Pierre Killeen (Constituency and Government Relations Officer, National Services Bureau, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Just briefly, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Szabo, if you're asking if the debt problem is going to go away overnight, speaking from a community college and technical institute perspective, the debt situation is not going to go away overnight.

Recently figures have been released in the province of Ontario looking at student defaults in the college system, and I think the average was about 27%. I think you're basing a decision upon 93% of the students paying off. I haven't seen those numbers. The best I can see is that the debt situation in Ontario and probably in other provinces is problematic.

Mr. Paul Szabo: In private school and business it may be 25% to 50%, but in universities and colleges I think it might be a little bit more.

Mr. Gerry Brown: I would like to question your 7% default rate. That's certainly not the impression we're getting.

Mr. Pierre Killeen: Certainly not in the figures we've gotten from our membership in terms of asking what are your default rates and what has the Canada student loan program provided you in terms of default rates.

I think for the longer term, we have maybe 25% of Canadians accessing post-secondary education. If you look at the relationship between post-secondary education and getting a job in this world, I think that speaks to the fact that we're going to have to broaden accessibility. We're going to have to find a mechanism or a way to encourage more people and provide more access to educational opportunities in the future.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just wanted to check the first part. You're pretty unanimous on the issue of merit not being as important an issue as student need. The witnesses all nodded. That's on the record now.

As an organization, Mr. Giroux, are you addressing this issue of some provinces, one province in particular, imposing a differential tuition on students from outside of that province? I think it's an interesting issue, as we have encouraged for the scholarship to allow students to go to whichever institution they want to, anywhere in the country. It is of note that should they be born in a different province or resident in a different province and choose to go to university in the province of Quebec, they'll pay a higher rate than students from that province. Is your organization trying to address the inequity of that?

Mr. Robert Giroux: As an organization, we've adopted the policy that as much as possible, there should be no barriers to mobility across the country. It applies to that as well as to the student loan question because in certain provinces, not only in Quebec, there have been situations where student loans are not provided if you study out of province. That's why we feel that one of the positive measures with respect to the millennium fund is that it will allow for special considerations for mobility, both interprovincially—I think it's inter-regionally in the bill—and internationally.

With respect to the particular situation you talk about, it's not as simple as that. The fees in Quebec are considerably lower than in the other parts of the country. I think their base fees are averaging around $1,700, whereas in other parts of the country it varies, but you're looking $2,600 to $3,000 and more.

What the government has said is we'll charge you the average of the fees from any other place across the country. I think the average comes out to $2,900, which of course means that if a student in a particular province—let's take Saskatchewan—wanted to consider studying in Quebec or in Ontario, the average fees in Ontario are a bit higher than the $2,900, so in effect it may not make that much difference in terms of their decision.

It's a difficult one because of the particularities of the various provinces, but in general, to answer your question, we would be in favour of no barriers to mobility across the country. That's been a strong position of the association.

Mr. Gerry Brown: I think it also underscores the fact that the studies we've done in this area indicate that a majority of student debt, a huge portion of student debt, is not really tuition-related. If I look at the CEGEP system in Quebec, it's tuition-free, and yet the recognition by the people in Quebec is that there's a debt problem in Quebec among our students. It's the maintenance around the housing, food, books, etc., that contributes to the overall debt load.

• 1015

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. Of course, Monsieur Giroux, you know that students from other countries can study in Quebec for the same price as a Quebec student, versus students from other parts of our country.

Mr. Robert Giroux: That's only if it's part of special agreements that have been arrived at between the Government of Quebec and France and some African countries, and so forth. But those who are not part of these special agreements are paying a foreign student fee, which I think recognizes the actual cost. A figure of about $8,000 or $8,500 sticks in my mind, which is comparable with the other provinces. But there are agreements also that apply to other provinces along similar lines.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mrs. Redman, do you have a question?

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): No.

The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you very much for your very thoughtful presentation. It has been a very interesting round table. You've certainly raised some very interesting points in relation to Bill C-36.

I want to address a point that Mr. Giroux raised vis-à-vis our next possible invitation. I want to tell everybody here in the panel to get your briefs ready, because we will perhaps be requesting them earlier this time. We'd like to perhaps take the summer to read everybody's briefs before you present in the fall. So maybe get your researchers or speech writers and your pen ready. Thank you.

There is one very brief housekeeping item. The clerk informs me that we have to pass a motion to authorize the clerk to make the necessary arrangements for working lunches for the committee when required.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Now that we've improved the food quality, I'll be happy to move that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Okay, we'll suspend for approximately 10 minutes, and we'll be back at 10.30 a.m.

• 1017

• 1034

The Chairman: I'd like to call the meeting to order, and welcome representatives from

[Translation]

The Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Fédération des professionnels et professionnelles salariés et des cadres de la CSN, the Fédération des employées et des employés de services publics de la CSN and the Fédération nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec.

[English]

We will begin with Mr. Larose. You have approximately 10 to 15 minutes to make your introductory remarks, and then we will have the question and answer session. By the way, we're very happy that your helicopter landed safely.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose (President, Confederation of National Trade Unions): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We apologize for being late. I could say, somewhat facetiously, that it was because we aren't used to coming to Ottawa to discuss these matters.

• 1035

First, I'll introduce the people who are here with me today: Mr. Marc Lagana, of the Syndicat des professeurs de l'Université du Québec; Mr. Pierre Bonnet, a research officer at the Confederation of National Trade Unions; Mr. Denis Marcoux, Vice-President of the Fédération des employées et des employés de services publics de la CSN, which represents all support employees in the education system; Mr. Éric Morin, President of the Comité confédéral des jeunes de la CSN; and Ms. Hélène Boileau, Vice-President of the Fédération nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec, which also represents CEGEP teachers and university lecturers.

First, I would like to emphasize our interest in education issues. As you know, the CNTU comprises over 245,000 members—ordinary parents, but also citizens, CEGEP teachers and university professors, lecturers, support employees, education professionals and research officers—45,000 of whom work in the educational field and more than 25,000 work in the post-secondary system, that is to say the college and university system.

We are concerned with education because we are concerned with the overall development of individuals and the community. I would remind you that, since its inception, the CNTU has always been an ardent participant in all debates on education. This started with a demand for free evening courses for workers, the fight for mandatory education, the struggles over tuition fees, free education and funding for systems, the Parent Commission in the early 1960s, the Estates General in 1996-1997 and the coming consultation concerning the universities. These were all major debates conducted in the community to determine the feelings and pulse of the general public regarding this powerful instrument.

The CNTU considers education to be a social determinant and a public service that must be universal, accessible and free of charge. We have led a number of debates and struggles, by ourselves and with others. In this case, we are fighting with our traditional allies in the union movement, but also with institutional managements, management federations, student federations, government authorities, opposition spokespersons and opinion makers.

We are unanimous on three things. Bill C-36 is an obvious intrusion into the exclusive jurisdictions of the provinces for which there is no reason. Second, we are unanimous in saying that provinces that refuse to allow this intrusion must be adequately compensated, as has been the practice, moreover, for Quebec and the Northwest Territories since 1964. Third, we are unanimous in saying that the amounts allocated as compensation must be used in the education system, in particular as additional educational systems.

The CNTU is prepared to debate three issues with you: principles and constitutional principles, the political relevance of Bill C-36 and the best use of public funds.

• 1040

On principles and constitutional principles, why is education so dear to the exclusive jurisdiction of all peoples, including plurinational federations such as Canada? Essentially because education is one of the founding actions of the autonomy, freedom, responsibility and citizenship of individuals, but also because education is a determinant of development, progress and the development of peoples. The British North America Act recognizes this. In each province, the legislature may exclusively enact statutes respecting education. This can't be any clearer. But granting scholarships would not come under the heading of education. This is not a decision made under a Canadian federal act. Exactly the opposite has been the case for the past 38 years.

Second, there is the debate on the political relevance of Bill C-36. We could say: "Principles are all well and good, but just look at where they lead us: to catastrophe, disaster, injustice and an irremediable situation. In short, leave it to the provinces or things will turn out badly." Is that the case?

By assuming these jurisdictional responsibilities with respect to student financial systems, has Quebec failed in its duty? No, it has succeeded even better than anyone else. Through a set of policies, Quebec has managed to maintain the lowest tuition fees in the country, which are on average half of those anywhere else in Canada. It has also managed to contain the level of student indebtedness and to democratize post-secondary education. Today, we even have more women than men in the post-secondary systems as a whole. Quebec has also managed to appreciably lower the financial barrier to the pursuit of education. This wasn't done without difficulty, particularly in recent years as a result of cuts to transfer payments in particular. In the 10 years from 1993 to 2003, education in Quebec will have been deprived of $3 billion.

The Quebec government has made a number of attempts to increase tuition fees. Each time, we have fought those attempts. Decisions have been made in the past and those decisions must be upheld: the decision to provide free post-secondary education at the college level, the decision to freeze university tuition fees and the choice of a general assistance policy to reduce financial discrimination even further, regardless of merit. In this general assistance policy, a democratic, non-selective and non-elitist decision has been made. Fourth, a special political decision has been made to encourage students to complete their programs on time and to encourage them to specialize in certain areas that benefit society as a whole.

In short, in Quebec, there is a set of efficient, effective and well-managed policies and practices. It is somewhat difficult to accept the fact that, after making these budget cuts and forcing Quebec to make dramatic cuts in turn—cuts in the order of $1.5 billion for the colleges and $329 million for the universities—Ottawa brings its dollars, our dollars, to bear and interferes in a Quebec responsibility in which Quebec has increased its budgets on average by 5 percent per year over the past five years. If money is to be made available, it must be returned and reinvested where the cuts were made.

• 1045

The third issue that we are prepared to debate is the best use of public funds. Normally, when the federal government wants to make billions of dollars available, it wants to do so in order to solve problems. In the case of Bill C-36, what are those problems? In Quebec, do we have a general financial assistance problem? No. This policy has been formally in existence since 1961, without discrimination, and assistance is accessible to all students who are experiencing economic difficulties in the professional sector from high school to the doctoral level. It is even available for students studying elsewhere in the country or elsewhere in the world.

Is there a problem with education incentives? No. According to policies that have been added to the regular system, students who complete their studies on time are forgiven as much as 15 percent of their debt. They also have access to research funds to continue their education.

Is there an indebtedness problem? Yes, but it is less serious in Quebec than elsewhere, with average debt loads of $11,000 compared to the Canadian average of between $15,000 and $25,000. Are there tuition fee problems? Yes, but in Quebec, tuition fees are on average $1,700, compared to the Canadian average of $3,200. Are there mobility problems? Quebec receives exactly the same number of students as it sends elsewhere in the country or outside Canada. There is therefore no mobility problem.

The situation is thus different in Quebec and the solution must also be different. In this case, without breaking down the doors, without clashes, without tears, extending the Pearson-Lesage agreement, the agreement of two great and reasonable Canadians reached in 1964, is an accessible solution that would benefit everyone. And in particular, we believe that we must spare Quebec Bill C-36, which would force it to lower itself to negotiate its own prerogatives with a private foundation managing public funds, something we will never accept. In short, we feel that, while Bill C-36 may respond to significant needs elsewhere in the country, it is utterly inadequate for the situation Quebec has known for the past 34 years.

Those were our introductory remarks. We are now prepared to start the debate on all the aspects of interest to you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Larose.

We will begin with Monsieur Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Good morning, Mr. Larose. It's a pleasure to see you in another forum. We have known each other a long time. Perhaps I would even say, in response to your introduction, that if you came here more often, we might understand each other better.

Mr. Gérald Larose: We would like nothing better.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm pleased to hear that.

I completely agree that education is a provincial jurisdiction and that this jurisdiction must be preserved for the provinces because it is consistent with the wish of the Fathers of Confederation under section 93. I have no doubt about what you said about the jurisdiction issue in education.

However, in our view, the Millennium Scholarship Fund is not an education issue, but an access to education issue, which means that it comes under a jurisdiction that the federal government shares with the provinces.

• 1050

And that is why we have introduced this shared program between the federal and provincial governments from which the loans and bursaries system stems. The federal government has contributed to this and continues to contribute to it in a certain way. So we are talking about accessibility and a division of powers. How was it that I didn't hear you talk about other access problems? We have increased the funding granted to research councils and, under our Canadian Opportunities Strategy, we have granted tax credits to help students reduce their debt loads. How is it that the Millennium Scholarship Fund bothers you, but that we haven't heard you talk about all the other measures that promote access to education and permit a reduction of student debt loads?

Mr. Gérald Larose: Regarding your first point, we dispute the idea that a distinction can be drawn between education assistance policies by suggesting that this issue might not come under the education jurisdiction. It's so true that, in the 1964 debate, the Canadian Prime Minister of the time ultimately acknowledged that this was indeed an education issue and thus a provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government, nevertheless wishing to make those funds available, agreed with Quebec on an opting out arrangement.

We are not saying no to the contribution made through the federal government, but it must be made in a manner that respects not only the jurisdiction, but also the priorities that Quebec has identified for its own education system. From that standpoint, we are saying that there is no absolute priority respecting financial assistance for education. Quebec society has made a major contribution to provide this access to education by reducing the financial barrier as far as possible.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Larose, let's agree on one thing. It is obvious that the Quebec loans and bursaries system is the best in Canada. We also agree that, with respect to the criteria for access to the loans and bursaries system in Canada, Quebec stands in the front rank. We have no problem with that. Where I do have a problem is when we talk about jurisdiction and the constitutional issue.

It is obvious, in my view, that it is not an intrusion in the education system to help students reduce their debt loads, to enable a federal government to help students gain access to education or to conduct negotiations with the provinces, perhaps on the basis of criteria used in the Quebec loans and bursaries system. In this way, we are respecting the fact that financial access to education for students is a shared jurisdiction. This is where I disagree with what you have said from the start.

Mr. Gérald Larose: And I think we'll continue to disagree on that point. Let that be noted. I don't see how the federal government could introduce a mechanism that is already in existence in Quebec, for the purpose of making it easier for students to reduce their debt loads. In 1996, if I remember correctly, the MacDonald Commission made recommendations that the Quebec government accepted, in particular enabling students who completed their studies within normal time limits to be forgiven 15 percent of their debt load. This mechanism is already in existence.

Mr. Denis Coderre: We know that debt loads are not as high in Quebec as in the rest of Canada: we're talking about $11,000 compared to $25,000. We know all that.

• 1055

Could we agree, for example, that we might be able to develop a policy that would make it possible to reduce student debt loads further? We are debating semantics here when we say we should take this money, invest it in the structure and let the government organize the whole thing. But I think it's important to ensure that these funds go directly to students based on the criteria of the Quebec loans and bursaries system. In a way, we could say that making it possible to gain access to education through debt reduction is a shared jurisdiction. That has nothing to do with education. It's a matter of access to education.

Mr. Gérald Larose: I am going to let Marc Lagana answer that.

Mr. Marc Lagana (Fédération des professionnels et professionnelles salariés et des cadres de la CSN): This access issue is an important and truly fundamental issue.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It's the issue.

Mr. Marc Lagana: You could indeed say that this the issue to the extent that it goes to the heart of the universities' mission, if we understand that mission to be a mission of public service. Funding also goes to the heart of this issue. Without funding, there is no access.

If we take matters somewhat as they come, we can first say that governments have an obligation. The Canadian government moreover has formally acknowledged on a number of occasions, and more recently in a UNESCO declaration, that the state must fund public services.

I won't recall what has just been said. Quebec has this responsibility. However, one task force on university funding produced an excellent report last year, in 1997, which requested adequate public funding. It said it would be unrealistic to think that universities can continue to provide the same services, with the same level of quality, as resources constantly decline.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You're right that we have increased the transfer payments by $1.5 billion. You are very right in saying that we have increased funding to research councils. You are also right that we acted on your remarks in the last budget. Tell me about students now. Don't tell me about the service structure. Tell me about students.

Mr. Marc Lagana: I am coming to the students. As regards bursaries, you have to look at what purpose they will serve. What do we expect from these bursaries? What are they going to make it possible to do? With respect to access, will they really provide greater access? It seems to me that's the most important question.

I would point out that, in Quebec—not only in Quebec, but we are talking about Quebec—universities are operating on diminishing funding, chronic underfunding. Would these scholarships help reduce or increase student indebtedness? Will they help possibly defray tuition fees, which may increase? We're doing whatever is possible in Quebec. There is a tuition fee freeze policy. We absolutely want this policy to be maintained, but how long will we be able to maintain it if there is no more money? Will these bursaries ultimately help students go less into debt? Lastly, this could be said differently, but will they help them pay their tuition fees?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Lagana, I just told you that we increased transfer payments by $1.5 billion. Obviously, in our Canadian Opportunities Strategy and in the last budget, we increased the funding that will actually be used to answer your question. The fundamental issue is the student. Currently, as you know perfectly well, students who have large debts and cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel, know that their debts are going to prevent them from moving forward. When we introduce a Canadian Opportunities Strategy, when we say that we are going to reduce the debt by introducing the Millennium Scholarships, we are talking directly to students. We want to help students directly. We want to invest in knowledge. We don't want to interfere in education. I just told you that I completely agree that education is a provincial jurisdiction and is so for historical reasons. We want to help young students. Mr. Lagana, I will tell you that it's by working on university funding—and I just told you that we are doing that—and on reducing student indebtedness, we are investing in knowledge.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Mr. Coderre, Bill C-36 concerning the Millennium Scholarship Fund is not even a general policy scheme for students in financial difficulty since a merit criterion has been added to it.

• 1100

So I would like to talk about real problems. If your problem was really student indebtedness...

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'll stop you right there, Mr. Larose.

Mr. Gérald Larose: If your problem was really the issue of student indebtedness, tell me how the federal government would be in a better position than Quebec to say that the absolute priority in Quebec is to solve the problem of student indebtedness, whereas Quebec says that billion of dollars must be invested in education. After all the cuts that have been made in recent years, we should reinject a certain percentage of that money into the system itself, which is democratic and which is intended for everybody.

Does Quebec have the right to make those choices? Yes. This is even its exclusive responsibility. I would remind you that our dollars belong to us. Would it be possible for us to have a say in the matter to ensure they are maximized?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Larose, that's why...

Mr. Gérald Larose: Particularly since you are one of those people who tell us that we have to be careful spenders and use our money wisely.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Larose, it's for that reason...

Mr. Gérald Larose: We think that we have made excellent use of money set aside for education over the past 34 years.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Raising your voice does not impress me very much because I've known you for too long.

Mr. Gérald Larose: It's to convince you.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I can hear you well enough. However, I would say that, if we want to rely on negotiations, I hope we will arrive at a result that will satisfy both parties. The fact that we want to review the problem on the basis of the Quebec system's criteria does not prevent us from being just as effective.

I'm simply saying that, in my view, since this is a shared jurisdiction and has nothing to do with education, the federal government is entitled to do this.

However, I would like to tell you that the Millennium Scholarship Fund is not based on merit. It's based on need. In that sense, I feel it is important to recognize that we are right in thinking that investing in students to help them reduce their debt loads is justified. Young people who are indebted are caught in a trap. Even if they want to find a job after university, they are stuck.

So let's find a solution. Let's not get involved in this little game of structures were we put money into the system without caring where it goes. I just told you we have increased our transfer payments by $1.5 billion and that we are respecting the province's jurisdiction over education. It seems to me that what we must do above all, you and I, the government and all other players, is to reduce student indebtedness.

We're not saying that the Quebec system is a bad one. We're saying that we want to take part in it and that we want to help it through the Millennium Scholarship Fund. Instead of investing in cement to build monuments for the year 2000, our Prime Minister and government have decided to invest in knowledge and particularly in the Canadian Opportunities Strategy.

But I didn't hear you object to the fact that the government wants to help young people through an income tax credit and I didn't hear you talk about any other measures. You got stuck on the Millennium Fund even its purpose is exactly the same as that the of the seven points of the Canadian Opportunities Strategy.

Mr. Gérald Larose: As you just said, the main objective for the Year 2000 is indeed to do exceptional things, not made of concrete, but in order to gain visibility.

Mr. Denis Coderre: A vision. A vision to help young people.

Mr. Gérald Larose: We recognize that there is no economic...

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Bouchard agrees.

Mr. Gérald Larose: ...rationale. There is no social rationale. We have just proven that this is not the problem in Quebec when you compare it with the other provinces.

There is a political rationale. I am quite prepared to consider the political rationale, but we are not going to destroy everything. We are not going to turn the system upside down. It's been working well for the past 34 years. So where is the problem? If Ms. Copps wants more poles and walls to hang her flags, we can solve this problem.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You mentioned wood and that's appropriate. Keep on going. You mistake yourself for a termite!

Mr. Gérald Larose: We can solve these problems...

Mr. Denis Coderre: He's going to defend himself.

Mr. Gérald Larose: ...but not to the detriment of students, not to the detriment of a system that has been amended five times because you just don't tinker with it. Quebec has amended its system five times and the CNTU has gone to Quebec City on five occasions to debate those issues with the students. There are some people who will show up and make a fuss and say they think they have a better idea and that they can do better than we can. But that's not possible.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Larose, we never said we had the best idea.

• 1105

We said that, starting with our budget, we had decided to provide young people with tangible and direct help in gaining access to education. We want to contribute in a concrete way to improving the fate of students. We think this can be done through negotiations, and that's why the meeting was held with Mr. Bouchard and the main interested parties, as well as with Mr. Chrétien.

We want to find a basis for agreement so that, above all, we can help young people reduce their indebtedness. That's my concern.

Thank you, Mr. chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Coderre. Thank you, Mr. Larose.

[English]

We're going to move now to Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much to our presenters.

I must tell you I agree absolutely with Mr. Larose: this is an area of provincial jurisdiction, obviously. We need to look at the pattern here. There is a pattern that the federal government always takes: they lever their way into provincial jurisdictions with money, and then, once they get in the door, they withdraw the money. We have seen this absolutely in the situation here.

My friend says they've increased funding by $1.5 billion. Net, of course, the funding for the provinces has dropped by $6 billion. So my friend is misleading with those statistics.

The fact is that the province of Quebec in this particular situation—and Mr. Larose has correctly pointed this out—does not have the student debt load problems of the rest of the country. I agree with him absolutely that Quebec knows much better how to administer that money than the federal government. I'm surprised that my friend from Quebec wouldn't see that.

It's ridiculous, when we're trying to build a country today, that we have the federal government—

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't care what you say about Quebec; I'm ready to do anything, because if I look at what you said in the last election about how you consider Quebec, that's another thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Could you tell him to listen to the others and have a little respect?

[English]

An hon. member: Do you have a question?

Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, no, I don't have a question; I have a comment. I'm surprised that my friend doesn't understand that in Canada today, we need cooperation, not the federal government ramming its programs down the provinces' throats.

I'm simply going to leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. Those are my comments.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Solberg. We'll move to Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I believe it is interesting to recall the position of the Coalition québécoise pour l'éducation because, when you have a point of view like Mr. Coderre's, it has to be said that the position of all the Quebec stakeholders is as follows:

As it stands, the Bill clearly does not make it possible to take into account the particular characteristics of Quebec policies on student financial assistance. It even paves the way to overlapping objectives and pointless administrative complications. It therefore requires that provision be made for the possibility of reaching much broader agreements...

I would like you to develop the example of what we could do in Quebec with the money transferred under the 1964 agreement, in the context of transfer payments, rather than introduce these scholarships for which the criterion would be merit. Could you or the federation representatives give us any examples, Mr. Larose? What could be done with this money and what would be the best way to do it? My basic position is that Quebec's education system is balanced. There is a portion of public financing, a portion of financial assistance for students, and when you bring in an outside element such as scholarships awarded on merit, you overturn the entire existing structure.

One final comment before listening to your answer: I believe that those who are overly concerned about structures intend to create a private foundation to provide a parallel management structure to the one that already exists elsewhere rather than integrate the scholarships into the existing structure.

Mr. Gérald Larose: We could give you many examples. The cuts in recent years have definitely resulted in cuts to the services available in the colleges and universities. For example, I would cite the professional student support services, research support, for example, or pedagogical or psychological services, etc.

A large number of stakeholders came and spoke out in support of the main activity of teaching, including support staff for laboratory teachers, for example, who have been cut. These are definitely services in which we would reinvest because we have noticed that a student who has proper support performs better and completes the programs within the normal time limit. This is an important investment. We would put money into this.

• 1110

Students would clearly not be indebted if there were abundant funding. They would not have to pay tuition fees. If there is abundant funding, we wouldn't have so many choices to make. But that's not our financial situation. We have to make choices.

The choice we made in Quebec was to be vigilant so that there would still be access to post-secondary education. We froze tuition fees. We contained student indebtedness. We invested a great deal in that. In the present circumstances and in view of the resources we have, we definitely feel we can say on this priority: mission accomplished. We will not be allocating any more resources to it. We don't want to add any more until other parts of the system have been restabilized. We're not investing in cement and asphalt. We're investing in people who help other people. It seems to me that's the right choice to make.

The banks can wait a little while for their $11,000. We don't believe they'll go bankrupt. Students can also deal with that. We're not ruling out adding to it, but that would constitute the major portion of the assistance over the next three or four years.

These are social choices, without intending to scorn anyone, we don't believe the federal government is necessarily in the best position to make different choices from those Quebec has made in this area.

As for examples of places where resources could be used, Ms. Boileau and Mr. Marcoux will give you a few.

Ms. Hélène Boileau (Vice-President, Fédération nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec): We talked a little about universities, but we didn't really talk about the community college system in Quebec, which is unique. There isn't a similar system elsewhere in Canada. This system guarantees access to secondary education for all young people who complete high school, which ultimately coincides with the end of the mandatory education period.

We know that more than 64 percent, nearly two-thirds, of the young people of the same generation in Quebec attend CEGEP. So, in 1967, Quebec made the choice, based on the Parent Report to provide all its young people with free access to post-secondary education.

When we talk about helping students financially, there are two ways to do this: either by paying money directly to the students to minimize the inconvenience they have to suffer in pursuing their education, or by injecting funds directly into the system, which makes it possible to provide free education and enough resources to minimize the financial disadvantages that young people encounter as they pursue their education. In Quebec, we have made this choice.

Some 82% of the cost of funding the education of a young person who goes to university and earns a bachelor's degree is paid by the Quebec provincial government. That's enormous. It's a choice that has been made.

In recent years, the Quebec government has increased student financial assistance by an overall amount of approximately five percent. You can criticise certain measures that have been taken by the Quebec government respecting financial assistance to students, but cuts have been made to education. Where were those cuts applied? To funding for the community college and university systems. As Mr. Larose said, these cuts resulted in service and personnel reductions. Students who reacted to the budget cuts indicated that guidance services are an essential factor in the success of their education. You can't provide guidance services without sufficient resources.

• 1115

These are not resources that have been allocated for concrete. What we need are mainly human resources and supplementary teaching resources. It's come to this. Mr. Coderre acknowledged a moment ago that Quebec's loans and bursaries system is the best in Canada, that there is no problem with it. All we're saying is that the objective of providing students with financial assistance depends on a loans and bursaries system and on the investment we make in education. Quebec has indeed made choices which distinguish it from the other provinces. So what we're asking is that Quebec be given the right to opt out of the program and to use the money to further the same objective, but by trying to do so in different ways.

Mr. Denis Marcoux (Vice-President, Fédération des employées et des employés de services publics de la CSN): I would just like to quantify what has been said to show that these aren't groundless statements.

In terms of the impact on support employees, in the community college system alone, 516 positions have been abolished in the past three years, which represent eight to 10 percent of support staff.

That definitely has an effect on the quality of services provided, but also has spill-over effects. The additional workload for those who remain also has an impact on the quality of services. The system thus spirals down in a vicious circle, and the only way to break out of it is to reinvest massively in basic funding of the community college and university system.

So, in our opinion, you have to know where to put your marbles. We think that Quebec has shown over the past 35 years that it is capable of investing and of making the necessary choices to obtain the most effective system possible.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Larose, the Coalition's position paper finishes as follows. On the subject of bilateral negotiations between Quebec City and Ottawa, it states:

The Coalition's members are pleased with this and at the same time implore Canadian parliamentarians to support these negotiations by promoting the necessary legislative open-mindedness and flexibility.

What message would you send to the members of the Parliament of Canada, but more particularly to the Quebec members of that body, regardless of their political party, as to what the negotiations should be about, as to what any agreement between Quebec City and Ottawa should allow with respect to the Millennium Scholarships?

Mr. Gérald Larose: It would be the message that one of my friends has just given me. He gave a talk to the Montreal—Lakeshore Rotary Club. I asked around and it looks like that meeting was "packed" by CNTU members.

He said:

Third, I'm surprised at the attitude adopted by the federal government regarding the Millennium Scholarship Fund. This initiative...has arisen in a field where responsibility has long been exercised by Quebec and where Quebec has taken and continues to take stronger action than any other province. It attests to an approach which is reminiscent of the centralizing federalism of the post-war years. The fact that the federal government wants to invest more money in student aid, whereas Quebec has been doing a very good job in this field and the post-secondary education sector has moreover been seriously handicapped by reductions in federal transfer payments to the provinces is clearly contradictory and incoherent. This is a case where there can be no doubt that Quebec's jurisdiction takes precedence. Quebec should therefore be able to exercise its right to opt out of this program and to receive full financial compensation.

This is a text by Mr. Claude Ryan, who sent it to me because we discuss issues quite a bit.

It's neither sovereigntist nor federalist. It's a matter of common sense. Why duplicate things that already exist and that have been proven to perform well? I believe there are people who enjoy stirring up trouble.

• 1120

But I believe the main point is that this is something that was settled 38 years ago. Time has shown that this could work. If what we want to do is quibble, we have lots of issues we can quibble about. But we believe that we are not entitled to do this at the expense of students, particularly at the expense of this social function which is education, a field where every cent counts. Money has to be used in the best way possible.

That's the message I would send all Quebec MPs. However, I would say I could be more generous. I believe I should send it to all MPs from across Canada. The Northwest Territories, not just Quebec, have adopted the same system. I understand them. It seems to me that if others want to do so, that's a good idea.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: To pick up on what you just said, Mr. Larose, a year and a half or two ago, we consulted groups representing students from Canada, from outside Quebec, and representing community college and university teachers. A year and a half or two ago, the Liberal Party was already thinking that it might be a good idea to institute scholarships on the basis of merit. The issue was addressed here in committee. These groups from the rest of Canada often said that they would appreciate the scholarships, but they could understand that Quebec was a special situation.

The rest of Canada supported our approach because it's so obvious that education is something... We are very protective of our prerogatives in this field in Quebec. It's even clearer for the groups of representatives from English Canada that this vision, which is probably that of the rest of Canada cannot apply from coast to coast, that it's just not at all our own vision. So we would have the support of these groups from the rest of Canada in attempting to move government in the direction we wanted.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Mr. Lagana.

Mr. Marc Lagana: I would like to come back to the question of the importance of investing in education. Ultimately, we mentioned the other orders more in relation with post-secondary education. You know the situation with the universities is just as difficult. I don't know what kind of image I could use. I have one: it's roughly as though Laval University had disappeared four or five years ago, representing 25 percent of the budget. That was redistributed, fortunately for all of us.

But this didn't go unnoticed. At my university, UQAM, or the public system of the Université du Québec, a great deal of work was done. Last June or July, the president, Mr. Lucier, said that the Université Québec system alone was short 483 professors, if my memory is correct. I believe there are people who enjoy stirring up trouble. So the shortage of teachers and the shortage of support and other employees have had cumulative effects, harmful effects. That is why I referred a moment ago to a report that said we can't go on like this any longer.

So, for the next few years, we can unfortunately expect that budget cuts will not go away all that easily. Consequently, we should be very careful with what money we do have. We should be careful how we distribute it and how we invest it. We're not simply investing in mortar, but in human resources as well. It seems to me that's what we should be doing over the next few years.

I would remind you of one thing that seems to me to be extremely important, and that is that, when we talk about university funding, universities not only have a right of review, but also responsibility to distribute public funds that are allocated to them. It is one of their responsibilities to invest, to make choices and to invest where needs are greatest and also to in accordance with their objectives.

When programs are created, whatever they may be—scholarships are only one example and there are others such as research funding—to the extent that those programs are not made the responsibility of the universities and are not managed by the universities, to the extent that they do not fall within the authority of the universities, this causes enormous problems for their independence. This can have an utterly harmful influence on research choices, for example, on the type of research that is conducted. There is thus a risk that we will adopt a harmful orientation where these programs do not fall within the universities' responsibility and where it can call into question the right of the universities to make choices that are up to them to make and that are their responsibility as public institutions with respect to the funds that are allocated to them.

• 1125

There is also the entire aspect of university independence which is very important. When we talk about the creation of another institution such as the foundation, this independence escapes the university in two ways, to the extent that it is not only beyond the control of the universities, but is also beyond all public control. "All" is perhaps an exaggeration, but it is definitely beyond all government control. A private foundation is going to distribute public funds. I don't know whether you want to talk about that, but this seems to me to be another type of interference.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Loubier. Thank you, Mr. Crête.

I think sometimes in presentations we state the obvious. Nobody is going to disagree with the fact that investing in human resources is a key to the competitiveness of any society, be it Quebec's economy or indeed Canada's. I'm just wondering how this particular millennium fund is inconsistent with investing in human resources. I fail to understand. I understand the constitutional debate that took place. It's as old as most of us here probably added together.

I'm just trying to understand why there would be such an opposition to an act by the federal government, which speaks in fact to something we share as a common denominator, namely the fact that investing in human resources is important if you want to develop an economy that can generate wealth, and through wealth you generate such social programs as are necessary and that we all share in.

Above and beyond the constitutional argument, is there anything that you really disagree with, in the sense that it is really such a bad idea to invest in people to provide them with bursaries and opportunities? I just want to get a feeling as to whether the constitutional argument supersedes any other argument in our society.

Quite frankly, as a legislator and as a parliamentarian, I use one measuring stick as to whether or not we in this committee are going to be successful, and that is, at the end of the day if we improve the quality of life for the people of Canada, whether they are in Quebec or outside of Quebec...that's the test for me personally.

Mr. Lagana, you agree with the fact—and we all do—that investing in people is important, but above that, and above and beyond the constitutional issue, is there anything you disagree with?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: In our view, investing in human resources is fundamentally important. It is extremely important for us as a society to invest in our principal resource, that is to say human resources, labour. The problem is not an investment problem: this must be done and we will welcome all these investments with a great deal of pleasure and attention.

The problem you raise is a problem of how this investment should be managed. I'll give you a Quebec example. For roughly 30 years, Quebec has delegated responsibility for managing human resource investments to the aboriginal nations. We have given the aboriginal nations their independence with respect to the management of their educational resources. Why? Because it's the communities that have the greatest interest in managing these investments for the benefit of their members and their communities. This is not unrelated to the fact that, in Canada, Quebec and the Northwest Territories have always wanted to exercise their prerogatives over their education systems, including in the area of the management of student financial assistance.

• 1130

The problem is not a constitutional one. The problem or the reality is the intimate relationship that exists between the collective practice of education and the reality of peoples. This is the case everywhere. As you know, Quebec is one of the few places in the world where there are two perfectly independent education systems. In the post-secondary area, these two systems overlap: Francophones can go to English-language CEGEPs and universities and vice versa. This doesn't happen in many places. Why? Because there are two components to the Quebec people.

In response to your question, I would say that investments are important, including those made by the federal government, because they still involve amounts of money that everyone pays into the common pot. We're going to expect the federal government to feel responsible for a certain equalization or a certain redistribution of the funds to ensure that weaker groups have enough money to enjoy equal opportunities. This is a federal government responsibility, but it's the only responsibility it has, because the rest is up to the communities and to the people. This is so true that it has been constitutionally recognized in Canada. It was not originally recognized because administrative entities were involved. It was recognized because there were two founding peoples. They were given jurisdiction over what was essential to them. Moreover, this is the origin of the section in the constitution. Apart from that, what I am saying is that education is not a trivial matter in the history of a people. It is even a fundamentally important issue.

[English]

The Chairman: I think so. I think, and I hope and wish, that one day we could even do a better job with our education system. Quite frankly, in many ways it's lacking, and it's not providing the market with the type of skilled labour we need. It's also not providing young people with the opportunities they duly deserve.

Having said that, I must tell you, Mr. Larose, that you have not convinced me, because I am convinced there are people who are going to be better off as a result of the fact that we have this fund. I think life for those individuals who will access that fund will be better than it otherwise would be without that fund.

So if the litmus test of this program is going to be whether or not people's lives have been improved as a result of the establishment of this fund, then I believe that any time 100,000 Canadians will have access to a fund that is non-existent now, my logical deduction would have to be that people are going to be better off.

This is the litmus test that I personally use as a parliamentarian. Quite frankly, if you were to play back what you just said to me, a lot of it has to do with how this fund is managed. The nuts and bolts of it come down to whether people are being better served as a result of the existence of this fund. I have not heard an answer from you on whether or not that's the case.

• 1135

You have given me a lot of reasons why some other levels should be providing these services, and how this fund may not adhere to your principles, but I have to ask you a fundamental question: do you think, as a result of this fund, people are better off in this country and Quebec, or not?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: I sincerely feel that the Millennium Scholarships may meet a need in the rest of Canada. I don't have any trouble dealing with that. A month ago, we received eight students from Queen's University who came to do a traineeship at the CNTU.

They asked me, “Mr. Larose, why are you opposed to the Millennium Scholarships? We'll have at least $22,000 in debt once we're finished university.” I answered, “You need them, but our students only have $11,000 in debt.” We've already made a lot of progress, and we paid for it out of our own pockets. When the rest of Canada comes down to $11,000, perhaps we'll make an additional effort. In the meantime, what our students need is more structure, not more money. Yes, if we had more, we would give them some, but structure is more effective. That's where we would like to invest first and foremost. In that sense, investments are significant and the management of those investments must reflect actual situations as they occur in Canada. In Quebec, they're not the same as in the rest of Canada. That fact has to be recognized.

So let's be good managers of public funds. In that sense, we feel that those who are in the best position to manage investments are those who manage them in their communities on a day-to-day basis, particularly in Quebec, through mechanisms that we have established. Mr. Morin wanted to add something.

Mr. Éric Morin (Chairman, Youth Committee, Confederation of National Trade Unions): Being a university student, I would like to add a few remarks.

Everyone agrees that Quebec's loans and bursaries system works very well compared to the rest of Canada.

What good would the $3,000 that the federal government is offering me a year do me if my tuition fees and other expenses were increased and if, at the end of university, my debt was even higher than the current average of $10,000 in Quebec or $26,000 in Ontario? The $3,000 that I may have been given over three years won't pay off my debt. I'm going to go even further into debt. That doesn't solve the problem. It seems to me that you're circumventing the problem in Quebec. Like Mr. Larose, I agree about the rest of Canada, where the needs are different from ours.

I would really like to emphasize the fact that you're circumventing the problem. If I'm granted this scholarship, but on the other hand, my tuition fees are increased, and I am asked to pay out of my own pocket for the services of a private guidance counsellor because these services will no longer be available and the whole thing will wind up costing me more money, I don't stand to gain anything. My debt problem will absolutely not be solved.

[English]

The Chairman: So you're saying that if the federal government gives more money for education, as we have done in this millennium fund, but the provinces raise the tuition, then that creates a challenge. That's what you're saying.

One of the challenges, Mr. Larose and Mr. Morin, that we face here is that at any point in time in which people look at the millennium fund in isolation, you miss of course the other improvements we've made in other areas such as the Canada student loans program, the measures of deferred grants, the increase in interest relief measures, and others. If the focus is solely on the millennium fund in isolation, I think we're missing some of the other pieces that are available to students.

That's why, Mr. Morin, I say that you would be quasi-right if that were the only thing you were looking at, but in reality there are other elements that speak to the issue of student aid—which the province of Quebec, as you know, opted out of—that speak to safeguarding the interests of students.

• 1140

[Translation]

Mr. Éric Morin: That's because we're getting into a problem. We're talking about structures. But a structure is already in place, already in operation in Quebec. We shouldn't mislead ourselves. We should realize that the millennium fund will require a management structure to be set up, which will result in an expenditure. While we currently complain that our money is being poorly managed and that we have too little, we're using that money to set up a structure that already exists. This will be another waste of money, money that could have been useful for me if it had been invested in the structure of the university or CEGEP when I was there.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm being told by members of the committee that I'm asking too many questions, so I'm going to move on to Mr. Coderre, then Ms. Torsney, and then Mr. Harris.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Larose, I'm disappointed by your last remarks. I'm shocked and outraged by them because what you're saying is ultimately that this is good for the rest of Canada, but not for Quebec. You could summarize by saying: a $25,000 debt is terrible and scholarships should be given to those who have that much debt; however, none should be given to those who owe $11,000. Since things are going well in Quebec, because student debt is $11,000, students who owe this amount don't need to be given any money.

Second, to answer Mr. Morin, I would say that, since we're talking about the Millennium Foundation, it is important to emphasize that it was clearly established that this money would not be spent on administrative structures, but rather distributed directly to young people.

Furthermore, I want to be able to help young single mothers who are studying part time and who can get a loan through Quebec financial assistance, but who do not have access to scholarships. So in a certain way, through these negotiations, the Millennium Scholarship Program will supplement the financial assistance granted to students or young single mothers attending university on a part-time basis.

At some point, we'll make less of a fuss over constitutional rights, claiming that this is good for one province, but not as good for another, and we'll focus our attention on young students like Éric Morin, who, once he finishes university, wants to find a job, but does not want to be put at a disadvantage because he owes $11,000.

If you're telling us, Mr. Larose, that equal opportunity is good for the federal jurisdiction, so much the better because, as I've been trying to show you from the outset, what we want to do with the Millennium Fund is to ensure that we can give all Quebec and Canadian students access to equal opportunities. To do this, we must first reduce indebtedness, where necessary.

Now we've just said that the universities are underfunded. You want to talk about history? Then let's talk about it. If we had just relied on Duplessis and not the federal government, the universities as we know them today would not exist. The federal government has played an extremely important role in post-secondary education in Quebec.

Consequently, let's establish this partnership, Mr. Larose, since we have the same objectives. Personally, as a member from Quebec, I want to ensure that young Quebeckers have access to education. But let's not get into this political rhetoric that the newspapers cash in on, but the consequences of which are ultimately felt by students.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Very well, I don't want us to engage in political rhetoric. Would you like to talk about single mothers?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Quebec takes care of single mothers.

Mr. Denis Coderre: They don't receive scholarships.

Mr. Gérald Larose: They do receive scholarships.

Mr. Denis Coderre: They receive loans, but they don't currently receive scholarships. Under the financial assistance system, they have access to loans, but not to scholarships.

Mr. Gérald Larose: What I'm telling you is that, under Quebec's policies as a whole, the particular situation of each individual is taken into account. You want to take care of all single mothers, but how are you equipped to do that?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Would you prefer to grant them a loan or give them a scholarship?

Mr. Gérald Larose: You say you want to take care of single mothers and that you are going to send a cheque directly to them. You imagine you can do that without an appropriate mechanism. It's your people who are saying that the mechanism will at least absorb five percent of all the money. Do you know how many scholarships that represents for Quebec's share? It turns out to be 1,040 scholarships a year.

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, no. We're starting to talk about something else.

• 1145

Mr. Gérald Larose: You want to manage something that's already being managed in Quebec. It amounts to waste. It amounts to waste because the structure already exists. We don't need to duplicate it.

This is so true that, after 30 years of debate, we have decided to eliminate the duplicate labour structure. We want to start over... You remind me of people who, when they don't have any money, talk about delegating responsibilities to others, but who you can see coming a mile off when the time comes to manage a surplus. Please... We've learned this and we won't start in again. We're going to respect...

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, no. If you take the budget as a whole, Mr. Larose, the Canadian Opportunities Strategy provides for tax credits that single mothers can take advantage of. We have established a program that will help these young people, these young single mothers. So don't provoke me by saying that this is just a percentage and therefore a waste.

Mr. Gérald Larose: It is a waste...

Mr. Denis Coderre: For me...

Mr. Gérald Larose: ...to duplicate a structure that already exists.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It's a waste to help single mothers? We're going to talk often and we're going to talk a long time. We've already done so. What interests me is to ensure that we can set up this system to help these people directly, not to get involved in endless meetings and structures that will then result in more members. I want to help these people. If you're opposed to that, I'm willing to respect your opinion, but I've decided to help them and to fight. I won't get involved in constitutional issues.

Mr. Gérald Larose: That's centralizing federalism. These are people who are overstepping their limits and who want to go over other people's heads and manage their responsibilities for them. You want what is ours, but you won't get it. Is that clear?

Mr. Denis Coderre: I've just proven that there is no scholarship system...

Mr. Gérald Larose: It so happens that I'm not alone. There is the entire union movement, all the management federations, all the corporate managements, including the Anglophone sector, the editorialists. We're not the only ones who say this has been working properly for 34 years. Why are you stirring up trouble?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Then why is Mr. Bouchard currently negotiating? Why? Because he saw an opening. In any case, I'll repeat that if we can help...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre, order, please. We have to keep our voices down. There's another meeting going on there. There's nothing wrong with expressing yourself passionately, but I don't think the volume enhances the quality of the debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Larose, I would point out one thing. If we show that we can help other people directly, how under the current system, with respect to criteria, can we correct certain problems regarding people who do not have access, for example, to scholarships? This isn't duplication. It's a supplementary measure and, in my view, supplementary measures work to the advantage of those who benefit from them.

Mr. Gérald Larose: No, it's you overstepping your limits. You're overstepping your limits when you think you can go over the heads of those who are responsible for education and apologize and say that things aren't being done well enough, that you could do better and that you are going to do better using their money. It seems to me that's like putting the cherry on the sundae.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I've told you from the start that it's not an education issue. It's an issue of access to education.

Mr. Gérald Larose: No, no, no. It's an education issue.

Mr. Denis Coderre: And you know perfectly well it's a shared jurisdiction.

[English]

The Chairman: Order, please, Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Larose, thank you very much. One thing we've determined is that you don't agree with each other.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a few questions on the information you gave us on student scholarships, on pages 9 and 10. I'm not sure whether a Quebec student who wants to study in another province is entitled to this money.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There's no problem?

Mr. Gérald Larose: Even people who go and study in the United States or in France fall under the same program.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, but those who go and study in other Canadian provinces?

Mr. Gérald Larose: Yes, they have access to the same opportunities. These scholarships can even be increased where there are memorandum of understanding between the various institutions. If my memory is correct, there are 4,600 Quebec scholarship holders attending university outside Quebec, in Canada. Wait a minute, I have it here. There are 4,481 Quebec scholarship holders studying in other provinces and 1,024 studying outside Quebec and Canada.

• 1150

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. I have to do that part in English.

Tuition fees have increased 300% in the last ten years in Quebec, probably in the last eight years.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: The...? I didn't understand the question.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was talking about tuition fees.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: Yes. Did they increase? That's your question?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: They increased 300 percent.

Mr. Gérald Larose: You say they increased 300 percent? What has the increase been, Éric?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: They are now $1,600.

Mr. Gérald Larose: They average $1,700 a year.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: From 1985 to 1990, they were only $500.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Five hundred and some dollars.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Five hundred dollars.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Yes, that's correct. So they have increased proportionally. Well, answer. Since you have the figures on that, answer the question. It would be easier.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But you are the head of the delegation.

Mr. Éric Morin: In Quebec, in 1990, fees were an average of $948 a year, compared to 1995-1996, when they were $1,682. They have been frozen since that time. In fact, they mainly increased between 1990 and 1993 because, between 1993 and 1996, they increased by only $50. In comparison, in 1990, they were $1,600 in the rest of the country and $948 in Quebec. In 1995-1996, they were $1,600 in Quebec and $2,600 in the rest of Canada.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Excuse me, but the first figure, which was less than $1,000, was for what year?

Mr. Éric Morin: 1990-1991.

Mr. Gérald Larose: How much were they?

Mr. Éric Morin: $950.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, but I said that, in 1985, they were only $570 a year throughout the province. There has been a very sharp increase. So it seems to me that access problems may have increased more in your province.

Mr. Éric Morin: To make sure we understand the same thing, in Quebec, they increased by about $700 from 1990 to 1993, whereas, in the rest of Canada, they rose by more than $1,000 from 1990 to 1996. The average cost in Ontario, according to what I have here, was $1,600 in 1990. Now...

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. I know what the fees are in Ontario. My point only concerns the situation in Quebec. The government has chosen...

Mr. Éric Morin: To freeze...

Ms. Paddy Torsney: ...to increase tuition fees by 300 percent in 10 years. I was there in 1990.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Yes, yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's just to point out to you that there is a greater access problem as a result of these fees and that the mandate this government has taken on to grant more money...

Mr. Gérald Larose: But it should be added that loans and bursaries have doubled. In 10 years, bursaries have increased by... 300 percent?

An Hon. Member: By 300 percent.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's a good thing. That's a system that works.

Mr. Gérald Larose: Fees increased from $570 to $1,600 between 1985 and 1996, but loans and bursaries increased in the same proportion.

• 1155

We can't say that access has become tighter or that the situation has substantially worsened. If we hadn't managed to fight the tuition fee increases of the last government... It has to be said that it was the former government that systematically increased the fees. When the Parti québécois came to power, we managed to freeze university tuition fees. Otherwise, we would definitely have had problems. With the choice we've made for the public, we're trying to lower, not raise the financial barrier. We're reducing it in two ways, by keeping tuition fees as low as possible, keeping the community colleges free and increasing loans and bursaries. These are the two ways we have of protecting access and maintaining indebtedness at a lower level than is currently the case elsewhere.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: All I want to say is it's interesting that the government is in fact increasing tuition, or allowing fees to increase in a very substantial way, and then giving money to students so that accessibility is not an issue.

It's interesting, because you have asked for funding to be done in a different way to increase accessibility, yet we're actually doing something that's similar in that we're also giving money to students for accessibility. It doesn't need a comment; it's just an observation.

My only other observation is that, if anything, what we're proposing is actually more beneficial to students studying in Quebec if in fact their debts are only $11,000 versus some $20,000 in the rest of the country, because in fact the proportional impact of $3,000 on $11,000 is that much greater. The rest of the country should be arguing that Quebec's getting a better deal out of it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: Yes, but we've made another choice. We think we have to ensure that an improvement in resources benefits everyone. This is a democratic choice that we've made; it's not a selective or elitist choice. We think that, in the current circumstances, we must maintain the education system and make it accessible to all students. This is a different choice that we feel is more suited to the public's needs.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, it's the same choice.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Next is Mrs. Redman, and then...Mr. Lagana, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Marc Lagana: No, Madam, there's a choice here. When you propose to increase, to give, to create student scholarships and to increase the federal contribution by hundreds of millions of dollars for scholarships, that's a choice.

What we're saying, and what I referred to, is that we have to respond to the budget cuts we have experienced in recent years and that we will see in the years to come. Our choice is to respond to this situation which, in the universities and elsewhere as well, is truly dramatic. In Quebec, we have universities that have developed for a generation. We can say that, after 20 or 25 years, the Université du Québec is a major success.

I believe it is also a major success for the Quebec university system as a whole. We need to make choices to invest in this system so as not to lose what we have developed at such great expense, with such unremitting effort and with so much economic, financial and human investment.

That's the issue. The scholarships don't respond to the situation as we would wish. The universities must have the means to check, contain and curb the harmful impact of budget cuts. University institutions must have budgets. As I said a moment ago, it is up to the universities to decide how to use public funds and to guarantee students not only access, but also the quality of the training they receive.

• 1200

[English]

The Chairman: Comment and then we'll go to Ms. Redman for a final question.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: This choice is about what it's going to fund, whether the money we give it goes towards universities or towards other issues. I suppose we could say that these scholarships would in fact enable the Government of Quebec to reinvest the sums of money and save some in funding for post-secondary that it could devote to other areas as well. It could know this was there to help students and it could use moneys in a different way then. It could increase research dollars to universities; it could hire more professors; it could do capital improvements in the universities.

It's provincial jurisdiction, and we're not going to tell them how to do it, but they certainly would have some savings that they could—

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: That's only natural. All peoples do that. They make their own choices based on their own analysis of the situation. That's not abnormal. That's what normalcy is.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So we could be helping offer more choices.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: You must remember that the Millennium Fund is financed by money that did not grow on trees and was not provided by the Good Lord. That money came from all the citizens of this country. So we have an interest in seeing that the money we send to the federal government is used in the best way when it is returned to society.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Of course the Quebec government gets more in transfer payments than it contributes in taxes, so it's all of our money.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérald Larose: It's our money.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may, I'd like to direct this to Mr. Morin.

Is student debt a problem in the province of Quebec?

[Translation]

Mr. Éric Morin: Yes, it's a problem, in my view. If you have a debt, it's a problem, even if it is only $100. If I compare myself to the rest of Canada, my problem is not as great. The problem I want to have...

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Okay, no, because you're here representing a specific group. So yes, student debt is a problem in the province of Quebec, albeit maybe a smaller problem than in some other provinces.

Having said that, one of the discussions we had in our pre-budget hearings was about the appropriate amount of student debt. We've heard a national average of around $25,000. That's really the issue for me. If student debt is a problem in the province of Quebec as well as every other province and Ontario, why isn't it something that can be addressed on a federal level? It seems to me what we're talking about here is the mechanism, when the effort of the millennium fund and the whole reason it was instituted are a reaction to the need we heard from students, that student debt is a problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Éric Morin: Student debt is a problem, but the problem is not the same for us as for them. We can see the problem quite clearly. In the past three years, we have been able to freeze our tuition fees and student debt has remained roughly at the same levels; it has not increased. When you increase tuition fees, you increase student debt.

As a representative of Quebec and being a student who's studying in Quebec, which provides students with loans and bursaries, if I won a Millennium Scholarship, that would increase my income. I would then lose the bursaries that are granted to me by the Quebec government. So I would be in the same situation. I would have gained nothing and, in the meantime, tuition fees could easily be increased again and push me into further debt.

The other problem I have, in the context of my education, is that there is a shortage of staff. I often have to go and consult resource staff elsewhere. So I often have to invest my time to obtain high-quality training so that I can find a satisfactory job when I leave school, as Mr. Coderre said. I need adequate training to find a satisfactory job.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This has been a very interesting round table, and it's obviously generated a lot of debate. It's clear that you share a different vision and a different perspective on this particular issue. You raised some interesting points about the issue of duplication and the most efficient system of delivery, and these are all things we have duly noted as we examine Bill C-36.

• 1205

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to express to you our sincerest gratitude for your input. Thank you.

Witnesses: Thank you.

The Chairman: The next meeting of the finance committee will be Monday, May 4, from 10.30 a.m. until 1:45 p.m., in room 269 of the West Block. We will be dealing with parts 1 and 12.

The meeting is adjourned.