FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 7, 1998

• 1639

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order, and welcome everyone to round two—I should say, to this afternoon's session.

We will go back to where we left off, when Mr. Loubier had just about completed his picture presentation.

• 1640

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Chairman, I'm substituting for Mr. Brison. I'd like to apologize to my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. As you know, Mr. Brison did indicate this afternoon that he would unfortunately be absent. He informed committee members that at the present stage he would like to withdraw the amendments he tabled. The main reason is that there will unfortunately be no one to defend them when they are introduced. Mr. Brison did present the problem to the committee. Once again I apologize to my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe. If committee members agree, the amendments will be withdrawn and Mr. Brison can table them at a later date.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Monsieur Bachand. I think we should have no problem doing that, withdrawing and.... Consider them withdrawn.

(Amendments withdrawn)

The Chairman: Is that clear?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Does that mean that the amendments are withdrawn from the clause-by-clause study or merely that the member is asking to have them postponed until later if the clause-by-clause study takes place at a later date?

Mr. André Bachand: Yes, that's exactly what it means, Mr. Chairman. The amendments will be debated during the clause-by-clause study, but at a later date. As Mr. Brison explained, certain things are happening right now. The study of the deferred clauses will take place when the report is tabled and will be debated at that time.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand, we will be doing clause-by-clause today, so you may want to move those things at report stage.

Mr. André Bachand: Yes.

The Chairman: At report stage in the House, not here.

Mr. André Bachand: At report stage, yes.

The Chairman: The future is now.

Mr. André Bachand: Oh, are we in an election now, or what?

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I don't know how you can assume we will proceed with clause-by-clause study. We presented a motion. This motion must be debated until there are no more speakers. Standing Order 116 allows this and we have a number of colleagues who wish to speak on the fundamental issue of the Millennium Scholarships.

As I mentioned when you suggested we adjourn until 4:30 this afternoon with the possibility of resuming debate, this matter of the Millennium Fund Scholarships is a very fundamental issue in Quebec. The reason I made numerous references to the federal-provincial conference of March 1964 involving such noticeable participants as Lester B. Pearson and Mr. Lesage, the Premier of Quebec, is because the present situation is quite similar to the situation that occurred then because of the federal government's inordinate intentions.

The federal government's intention is to invest in the field of education which, under section 93 of the Constitution, is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That is something we will keep on repeating. At the time, the federal government wanted to take action in this area. Owing to the wisdom of Mr. Pearson, at the end of the discussions of this federal-provincial conference that was one of the most important in the history of relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada, people finally realized the importance of education for Quebec. The federal government withdrew its claims and its attempt to intrude in this area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

It is quite interesting when we take a look at history and when we hear what people have to say about it, to note that there is no real reason for us today, in view of our experience 30 and even 40 years ago, to reproduce the mistakes of our history. Why repeat a mistake when the matter was made so clear at the 1964 conference? That is the reason why I brought this historic photograph. As far as I'm concerned, it tells us a lot about the good federal-provincial relations at the time.

• 1645

This was a very important conference. After a great deal of discussion and examination of the Constitution, it was concluded that it was better to respect this Constitution rather than engage in sterile quarrels between Quebec City and Ottawa.

Why the present failure to recognize this? Why the present failure to recognize what was acknowledged more than 30 years ago, namely that the federal government should mind its own business? Minding its own business means respecting the Constitution and anyone who wishes to defend the Constitution of Canada must respect Quebec's exclusive area of jurisdiction.

In this respect, Mr. Chairman, all those who appeared here made the same point. I'm also asking for the same thing for the sake of history and because of all the historical battles and victories. In the field of education we are asking you to give consideration to presenting a proposal to your government asking that, in the light of the unanimity displayed here, Quebec be allowed to opt out of the Millennium Fund scholarship program with full compensation.

Mr. Chairman, I would be so happy to see the events of 1964 repeat themselves here, that is Mr. Chrétien playing the role of Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bouchard that of Mr. Lesage as far as these Millennium Scholarships are concerned so that we could have a final meeting by June the 1st. We all talk about this date of June 1st with a smile on our face. I'm told that the two prime ministers at the time left smiling because they had succeeded in coming to an agreement. If there was some misunderstanding in Mr. Pearson's mind about the Constitution's scope with respect to education and Quebec's jurisdiction, this misunderstanding was dispelled during the conference and completely cleared up because Mr. Pearson stepped back.

I'd also like you to reflect on what you have heard in the past three weeks from the mouths of all these speakers from Quebec so that the Prime Minister is made to understand that there is no sense in imposing the Millennium Fund Scholarships on Quebec. This would at least demonstrate that government members are not present only to adopt the ideas already determined by Cabinet, the Prime Minister or the responsible ministers, but also to reflect what they hear and it would show that they are capable of thinking and suggesting solutions to the government to avoid sterile battles that may turn out to be aggressive as well. If you look at history, you will see that we did fight fiercely for education. In Quebec education is sacred.

It seems to me the committee has a fundamental role to play here. The committee must reflect the consensus and in Quebec it must repeated that the consensus is clear. I think it is worth repeating that we have never been opposed to Millennium Fund Scholarships for the rest of Canada. We've never been against the federal government's claim to assist students with the support of the other Canadian provinces. But in Quebec the situation is different. As a matter of fact, certain representatives of English Canada told us that it was different in Quebec and that they supported us. I can give you the example of Mr. Trent. I think it is easy to understand.

It seems to me you must understand that these Millennium Scholarships are completely unacceptable for Quebec. I think it would be a good sign for the future if your report, Mr. Chairman, that you say you'll have to table in the House of Commons soon, does refer to the consensus in Quebec and makes appropriate recommendations to the federal government concerning the need for amendments in the case of Quebec. You're not even giving the negotiations a chance to continue, the negotiations between the representative of the Quebec government, from the office of Premier Lucien Bouchard, and that of the office of the federal Prime Minister.

I'll now give my colleagues a chance to speak; I'm sure that they have lots of things to say in addition to what has been said during the course of the day. I hope we'll be able to convince you that it is important for you to withdraw you claims.

[English]

The Chairman: You can speak for as long as you want.

• 1650

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): As you've been able to observe here and during the question period, it is strange that you have turned a deaf ear to this unanimous appeal from Quebec and refused at the very least to establish a moratorium during the negotiations between Quebec City and Ottawa, as Yvan reminded you, which would be perfectly normal as part of the negotiations process.

An attempt is being made to proceed quickly to clause-by-clause study and to bulldoze through the provisions of the bill while at the same time parallel negotiations are taking place for an agreement. What is the significance of negotiations in such a context? If I were a negotiator, I wouldn't be very happy to know that before I have concluded my negotiations, the government has already introduced provisions for a bill and will be undoing all my work.

Mr. Chairman, all the witnesses from Quebec we heard on the Millennium Scholarships as well as others who raised the question, including Mr. Trent, were unanimous: they are not against the creation of Millennium Scholarships for the rest of Canada but recognize that the situation is different in Quebec. Since 1984 Quebec has received compensation as part of the loans and bursaries program, and the average level of student debt in Quebec is lower than elsewhere in Canada and Quebec has done a good job.

One of the 14 Quebec groups that appeared to give testimony put the matter very eloquently. It may be that I was particularly affected by their position since I was previously a teacher and it was one of my former unions, namely the CEQ. I'll be quoting excerpts of their press release as well as their testimony here to the committee.

The creation of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation is not the right way to improve equal opportunities for university education for the youth of Quebec.

The Minister of Finance has now made the discovery that "members of low income families are underrepresented in our institutions of higher learning". This is something that we have known in Quebec for a long time and that is why the Quebec system of loans and bursaries is the most developed in Canada.

Before continuing my quotes from the press release, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recount an anecdote about something that occurred in the House during the opposition day when we were discussing the millennium scholarships. A liberal member was reading a speech probably drafted by Mr. Pettigrew's or the Prime Minister's office without really knowing what he was talking about. One of the big blunders in his speech was to claim that we were rejecting the Millennium Scholarships because we didn't want our young people to be educated, to travel or to be equipped to face the challenges of the year 2000. There were some extraordinary gaffes.

Following his speech I went to sit next to him. We chatted a bit and I explained to him what the system of loans and bursaries was in Quebec. To my great surprise, before the end of the sitting he admitted that he understood our point of view and that if he had known what exactly the system was he would have supported us. It may be that certain members of other parties, either Liberal or Reform, do not understand the Quebec position simply because although they may have the time to read Agatha Christie novels, they have not compared our system of loans and bursaries with theirs.

When we hear people talk about the right of our youth to a community college or university education and it is claimed that the Millennium Scholarships will give greater access or equal opportunities, it should be remembered that in Quebec loans and bursaries are not granted as a result of academic performance, since this would only encourage a certain elite that may not be in need of such loans and bursaries. The Millennium Scholarships that are being suggested would probably be granted on the basis of academic performance. A certain number of students will be chosen to receive a $3000 scholarship because of their academic performance and this would go directly against the Quebec system we have where financial assistance is provided on the basis of family income for the specific purpose of encouraging equal access to education.

We could improve the Quebec system by increasing the budget of the Quebec loans and bursaries program which would allow us to reach a greater number of students. If you're afraid that the maple leaf won't appear on the cheque, maybe both emblems could be stamped on the cheque at some point.

• 1655

If that's the objective you're trying to attain, there is in actual fact a problem. But if you're trying to facilitate access to higher learning for our youth and offer them a better chance to face tomorrow's challenges, then that common goal would surely be attained by joining the Millennium Fund to the Quebec loans and bursaries program as we've been asking you to do and as the 14 groups who have appeared before us have asked you to do.

Mr. Chairman, I will read portions of the press release sent out by the CEQ in May entitled "Eight good reasons to reject Bill C-36 on the Millennium Scholarships".

The CEQ is proposing an amendment to Bill C-36 to provide for a right of withdrawal with full financial compensation for any province managing a financial aid program with a view to ensuring equality of opportunity in education.

Such opting-out provisions have already been accepted in the past, confidence was shown in us and we did our homework well. During its appearance before the Standing Committee on Finance within the context of the examination of this bill, the CEQ showed that there were eight good reasons for which Quebec should demand this right of withdrawal with full compensation and a summary is given in the press release. Maybe after hearing it repeated so many times, you will all manage to understand. It's a bit like teaching at the secondary level: you repeat everything many times or you get texts copied out, and at some point, our students finally understand.

The first good reason to reject this bill is that it "is federal interference in the field of education". My colleagues have probably already mentioned section 93. It is easy to show that this is strictly a provincial jurisdiction. The CEQ states that:

The Millennium Foundation is not the right way to improve equality of access to post-secondary education.

It's not by choosing 1,000 Quebec students who have an A+ average and giving them $3,000 each that we'll improve equality of access. If ever that were to be the case, I would appreciate it if, during their eloquent presentation, the Liberal members could prove this to us because we also would surely like to share their great knowledge.

The third point was: "Equality of opportunity is not a private and temporary mandate". This Foundation will not allow us to attain this goal. It also states: "The Foundation would duplicate the Quebec system that has already proven itself". There is also the matter of some $16 million in management costs to duplicate this whole administration and make this duplicate system of loans and bursaries work.

"In the matter of student indebtedness, Quebec has succeeded relatively well whereas the federal government has failed miserably". This isn't a matter of politics; these are not separatists versus federalists. The figures demonstrate it. You only have to look at the average indebtedness of students in Quebec. The Liberal members who have perhaps profited from this system are very happy today that their indebtedness is surely less than that of their colleagues from other provinces.

"The Quebec program of financial help is more generous than the future program stemming from the Foundation's activities." The Foundation is a hidden thing used for direct interference. The Quebec program of loans and bursaries helps a far greater number of students than the foundation ever could.

"The federal government's intrusion will create distortion in the Quebec plan". If there are two wickets giving out information or two places where the students can get information on loans and scholarships, they'll be wondering whether they have a right to loans and scholarships under the Quebec system or under the federal system and whom they should be seeing about it. Besides being costly, this duplication will create confusion in the ranks of those who would like to avail themselves of these services.

As for visibility, we're not the ones who invented it but rather the Prime Minister when he spoke about it during a statement he made in the House. I hope that we're not going to be using Quebec youth as supporters or as window-dressing at Eaton's to sell the maple leaf. In theory, we should be helping them not trying to buy them to promote federalism.

During its presentation, the CEQ reaffirmed that the federal government should respect Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of education. Ms. Pagé said that: "The creation of the Foundation is a duplication of structures and a shameless waste of public funds." The 5% of the 2.5 billion total amount that will serve to pay for the management of the fund prove unequivocally that she was right.

• 1700

According to the CEQ, it's not fundamentally through scholarships based on merit that you improve the equality of opportunities...

That was one of the important elements in their presentation and I'd like someone to prove the contrary to me.

...but rather through an aid plan essentially based on needs, like the one in Quebec. Moreover, equality of opportunities is clearly a public responsibility. In setting up a private foundation, the Chrétien government has turned this fundamental mandate into a private responsibility. The Quebec population cannot accept that directors of major corporations whose main goal is to increase their profits will be replacing their own government in managing public funds earmarked to improve the equality of opportunities. The CEQ would want no part of such a project even if it were advanced by the Quebec government.

It would also reject it if it were proposed by the bad old separatists—as you often like to call them—because it goes against the philosophy and the spirit of the Quebec loans and bursaries program.

Quebec distributes 525.4 million a year, as loans, to over 100,000 beneficiaries while it generally receives less than 90 million dollars a year in compensation payments from the federal government.

Between those 90 million dollars and the 500 million dollars, there's a bit of a difference.

Quebec invests a lot in access to education, far more than the federal participation. Moreover, Quebec already offers, annually, 256.3 million dollars to over 75,000 bursary recipients. The Quebec financial help plan is both different and more complete than those of the other provinces.

As for the matter of indebtedness, we'll show you the figures.

Moreover, average indebtedness in Quebec is around $11,000 and it is more than double that everywhere else in the other Canadian provinces where the federal government takes the responsibility for financial help. In the matter of student indebtedness and equality of opportunities, Ottawa's record is very bad, in the CEQ's opinion.

And the figures are a demonstration of this.

The press release also says:

Moreover, the Quebec plan is already more generous than what is provided for in the federal proposal both in the amounts of money allocated and the number of beneficiaries as well as the duration of the eligibility period for the scholarship. To eliminate the distortions created by the federal government's intrusion, Quebec would have to reduce the amount of the scholarships it's already offering.

Finally, Prime Minister Chrétien wants the people to know where the money comes from.

When she came before the committee, the president of this teachers' union reminded you that:

Mr. Chrétien wants to give cheques to young people old enough to vote to try to influence the next referendum vote. This kind of political practice dates back to an era we all thought was long gone.

In this, she is referring to the Duplessis era where refrigerators and beer were used to buy votes.

So, Mr. Chairman, faced with such clear and eloquent data, we hope that at some point, sooner rather than later, our Liberal colleagues will understand the importance there is in granting us at the very least a moratorium during negotiations on the harmonization of the federal-provincial scholarships programs with a view to giving the negotiators enough time to come up with promising suggestions for the future and really give them an opportunity to establish harmony between the federal and provincial governments in this area of Millennium Scholarships. We hope that the repeated requests made by all groups in Quebec whether they come from unions, students, teachers or politicians will be heard and respected. Everyone in Quebec is saying it unanimously: "Listen, what we want is to opt out and obtain full compensation as we did in 1964 within the framework of this program. For 34 years, Quebec has shown its great sense of responsibility in handling the funds allocated under the loans and bursaries program."

I join with my colleagues from the Bloc to ask you to show a bit of understanding. I won't ask you for your compassion, as I have seen in the House that this word does not exist in your dictionary. Grant us a moratorium during the negotiations after which we'll see and we'll go to clause-by-clause examination of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now give the floor to my colleague.

Mr. Paul Crête: The chairman is the one who gives the floor.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: My pleasure. Mr. Brien will replace Mr. Loubier.

[English]

The Chairman: So you're finished your comments?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

The Chairman: You're finished your comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to remind you that at the end of the day there will be a quiz on what I say. I hope you'll be listening up.

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Yes. A real teacher, right?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): It's my turn?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

• 1705

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to have this opportunity to address the matter of the Millennium scholarships especially as our great Quebecker, the Member for Bourassa, is here to listen to us.

An Honourable Member: Draped in the flag of Quebec.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I hope he will be lobbying his Prime Minister. We know he has a lot of influence on him; we saw the government's change of attitude in the matter of sports teams, amongst others. I'm convinced that my colleague for Bourassa will report our words very minutely to the higher-ups in the Liberal Party.

It's a bit strange that we're discussing a bill that sets up Millennium Scholarships at the very time that important negotiations are to be opened between the Quebec government and the federal government. One could wonder about the real good faith of the federal government in the negotiations when, on the one hand, they say they're negotiating and, on the other, they're getting ready to pass this bill as though no changes were being considered and there was no intent to make any concessions. That was my first point.

Let's look all together at the total of federal investments in the area of education and post-secondary education. When the Bloc arrived, in 1993-94, and the Liberal Party was put in power, the federal government was already present in post-secondary education in the financial area just as it was in the shared cost programs in the areas of health and social welfare.

When it got here, the government decided to create the first victim of its budget-reduction goal by slashing all transfer payments used to fund post-secondary, health and social welfare programs in the provinces. Instead of paying out $17.5 billion a year in transfer payments, in cash, it is now paying out $11.5 billion and this amount will eventually be increased to $12.5 billion.

In summary, more than $5 billion in transfers to provinces were slashed in the areas of health, education and social welfare. But, at the same time, this year, they're going to end their year with a surplus of just about the same amount. It can easily be seen that the federal government could have avoided making these cuts and still have had a balanced budget.

Why was that done? Is it pure chance that things turned out this way? Certainly not. The federal government found it didn't have much visibility with transfer payments; it sent a cheque to a provincial government who decided to use it to do what it wanted in those areas of activity for which the monies were received. The federal government collected the taxes, gave the money back to the provinces and had no visibility in return.

As we know, there is now an obsession with making public all monies spent by this level of government. So it's clear that the first goal of these government interventions is to change that completely. If they intend to invest amounts of $15, 16 or 17 billion, they feel they had better do it themselves. They can't let the provinces do that. They'll just let the provinces manage the cuts and they'll undertake parallel initiatives.

It's clear, Mr. Chairman, that this was planned from the very beginning of the decrease in transfer payments. As soon as it got a bit of leeway, the federal government would use it to undertake non-recurring initiatives. In other words, it would undertake expenditures that would not necessarily occur every year as is the case with the Millennium Fund, and interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction like health and education. I don't think it's very interesting for you to do anything at this point in the area of welfare. But in health and education, it's certainly interesting to make yourselves visible and even more so because the provinces have had to make huge cuts in both of those areas that together count for $5 billion less per year.

How is this translated in the field of education? In real life, you have budgetary restraints everywhere. And now the federal government has decided that education in general and the post-secondary in particular have become a huge priority. It's wondering how it can intervene. Apparently, the idea of offering bursaries to students comes from the Prime Minister himself—which in itself is a bit surprising, but let's imagine it's true.

How, then, do you get the greatest visibility for those $2.5 billion? You divide it into $3,000 units—that's a lot of units—and you hand it out as bursaries. But there, of course, hardly a few people will ever ask the question: "Yes, Mr. Chrétien, but isn't that a prerogative of the government of Quebec? Quebec has its own system." Why get tangled up in that one? You just create a foundation. So it won't be the government as such that will be managing the Millennium Foundation and you just make believe that the Foundation has the mandate to coordinate its activities with the provinces.

• 1710

But let's think about how things actually work out in real life. Of course, the appointees will all be friends of the government; there's no doubt on that. These people will certainly be close to the Liberal Party. There might be the odd exception. They'll be given someone close to the Conservative Party as a token to balance things out. The honourable member from Bourassa will be put in a delicate position when he tries to manage the Millennium Foundation bursaries, very sticky indeed. Anyway, before that day actually comes the political context will have changed. You also might be sitting in Quebec City because there won't be any federal representatives in Ottawa anymore.

So, concretely, how will this fund be able to manage a bursary system without an infrastructure of bureaucrats or technocrats, whatever you want to call them? How are they going to analyze the criteria to distribute these bursaries? How are they going to manage this? Are they going to set up a group that will be receiving the requests and analyzing them? Think about it! That's a lot of bursaries to send out and a lot of requests will be made. It will be a number almost equivalent to the one that the Quebec government's regular financial aid system gets and they already have quite an infrastructure for that.

Of course, the federal government might imagine they'll be able to manage this in partnership with Quebec on condition the maple leaf appear side by side with the fleur-de-lys on both cheques, thus trying to gain visibility using what Quebec is already injecting itself into its loans and bursaries program.

Broadly speaking—I may be out by a few tens of thousands or a million dollars, maybe—Quebec invests almost $500 million in its loans and bursaries program. The federal government, thanks to this temporary initiative, is going to grant a certain number of bursaries, but it will probably want to have the maple leaf on all the cheques. If, ultimately, the government of Quebec were to accept to bend to that will, this whim of the federal government, you couldn't have two cheques printed, one with both logos and one with a single logo.

That's probably what they're trying to get at so that people know how much Canada's good for them. The Prime Minister expressed it very clearly in the House, actually, when answering one of the questions put by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. The Prime Minister candidly recognized that he wanted the students to know where the money was coming from.

This leads me to a broader question. Is there actually such a thing as federal money and provincial money? If so, I'd like you to show me the two kinds of money so that we could see the difference. To my knowledge, all we have is dollars coming from the taxpayers' pocket. Whether it makes a detour by Ottawa or whether they send it directly to Quebec City or their own municipality, these are taxpayer dollars.

On top of that, there's something a bit nutty in the transfer payment principle itself, when you look at it more closely. You send money to the federal government, that then goes through Treasury Board, the Department of Finance and the Department of Human Resources Development. Everybody takes his own cut for management fees as it goes through before sending it back to a province where it goes through the same process; Finance, Treasury Board and the department involved in the transfer program. That's a lot of manipulating for a poor little dollar despite the fact it would be far simpler for the province to collect that money itself. In that sense, the tax-point transfer principle makes far more sense than transfer payments.

It's the great manitou himself, the great wise man of the Liberal Party, the man of influence, the spiritual father of our present Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said that there was something immoral in the transfer payment principle, if not illegal. Because if you transfer money to provinces for them to deal with an area under their jurisdiction, the federal government, first of all, never should have even collected that money. Unless you rewrite our history manuals, our political theory and the Constitution and redo the sharing of powers, education is a provincial jurisdiction, and rightly so.

I'm broaching another subject, Mr. Chairman, but I know that we have all the time we need to deal with the subject. When you think that those people are trying to get us to believe, with something like the Calgary Declaration, without even mentioning all the other motherhood statements they throw at us, that Quebec can promote its language, its culture and its specificity, whether you call it unique, distinct or whatever you want if you're afraid of words! Education is an important part of promoting language, culture and identity.

• 1715

Why then would the federal government want to play a role in that when it's one of the key elements? It can't let the provinces take care of administrative iotas and keep the role of great purveyor of funds all to itself. We know very well that money is the main weapon of war. The federal government pretends it's letting the provinces take care of health and education even though the funding in those areas is in its own hands. That's the most important thing, the primary thing.

Try to do anything without money. Now the federal government still has absolute control of the purse strings. Whenever it feels like it, it just throws a monkey wrench into provincial plans. When it's not in a good mood, it cuts off your transfer payments. It goes even further in the area of health. If national standards are not being respected, transfer payments are cut which prevents certain provinces... Whether you're for it or against it, it's their choice. If Alberta wants to have a different health plan, it's Alberta's business. If the people there are not happy with that, they'll just have to defeat the provincial government next time around.

But in this case, playing the role of the great wise man, the federal government has decided to stick its nose everywhere and declare itself as being the government best suited to determine the great priorities, national standards and so forth. Behind that, you can see the will, hardly hidden and ever more visible since 1995—everyone knows why—to build an identity, a sort of a single school of thought, to build Canada around the single-nation concept and so draw further and further away from the concept of founding peoples, the Quebec people and the Canadian people which, at the time, were the francophone and anglophone communities.

So, Mr. Chairman, what is going on with this matter of the Millennium Scholarships is a very good illustration of this problem, this sort of Canadian constitutional cancer we're all infected with, this problem of ill-defined and fuzzily-shared jurisdictions which means that the federal government puts its nose in wherever it wants, whenever it wants, all that because of this illustrious spending power or stewardship of the national interest that the Constitution grants it. So, it can intervene whenever it wants and wherever it wants.

It's a battle of jurisdictions, but it's more than that. Let's take a look at the effectiveness of the whole process. When two governments, with two different priorities, two objectives, two strategies, two approaches intervene in the same area, that leads to much confusion. We've seen the kafuffling in the training and the manpower programs. Right now we're going towards a single wicket, but I'm convinced that it will take some years to clear up the confusion that was created for so many years. We've seen that the system is not effective.

Let's take the case of education. Mr. Chairman, I'm just back from a tour of Quebec with four of my colleagues. Five young members under 30 years of age, members of the Bloc Québécois, that is the members for Longueuil, Charlesbourg, Rosemont, Lac-Saint-Jean and myself went to speak with the Quebec youth. Of course, we spent a lot of time in schools, colleges and universities. We saw what's happening in the area of education. Is the priority, in education...

When we met those young people, we listened to what they had to say. We gave them the opportunity to speak to us. We didn't go there for propaganda purposes unlike all the publicity that we saw in all those institutions.

When those people, in addressing problems in the field of education, mentioned the Millennium Foundation, they told us that it wasn't a priority, that they'd only benefit a certain number of students. According to them, they preferred that the money be of benefit to all of the students. Having bursaries granted, on merit in some cases, and even in many cases based on definite criteria, is that really a priority, the most fundamental problem of the education system at this point in time?

And I'm only talking about the post-secondary sector at this point. We could look at the problem in a far broader perspective. At the post-secondary level, the students are saying that if more money were invested in teaching, if you put more resources in supporting students or into guidance counselling services that would be of benefit to all the student body, not only to some 25,000 of them targeted as being the elite, tomorrow's leaders or whatever else. In any case, they are often the ones already succeeding quite well and that are already lined up for bursaries granted by private foundations. They're not the ones who really need financing. so we're not addressing the essential problem which is to set up measures that can be of benefit to the whole group.

• 1720

Mr. Chairman, can we say that that is the priority in the field of education? The federal government gets involved from time to time. In Ottawa, at a political level that's the furthest away from reality, the furthest away from citizens as such, it has been decreed that the priority in education is that one, and that it will be taken care of by setting up a Millennium Foundation; two and a half billion dollars will be put into the fund and taken from the 1997-98 financial year surplus. Actually, a lengthy debate could be entertained concerning the accounting practices of this whole operation.

When a government isn't involved in the day-to-day affairs of a given area, it is clear that it will put its money into something that is not a priority. Let's just think about it for 30 seconds. In the area of education, isn't the main problem the number of drop-outs at those levels below the post-secondary one? Shouldn't we be providing more resources to the provinces so that they can put more energy and money into solving that serious problem?

We know that there are still problems with vocational education, that you have a lot of dropping out at the secondary level. I was reading an article not long ago in La Presse that got my blood boiling. It said: "We're happy. The drop-out rate is not 40%, but only 20 to 25%. Way to go! Huge victory! Great news!" But that's still a lot of people. What's going to happen to those people down the road?

I come from Témiscamingue where there's a population of 17,000. I'm seeing people who, for all kinds of reasons, dropped out at the secondary level. These are friends, people from my community that I know well. I can see all the problems they're having today staying in the labour market. I don't think that situation is unique to Quebec.

I would point out that, on the other side of Lake Témiscamingue, which happens to be Ontario, they have just about the same problems. Every morning when I get up, on the other side of the lake, I can see the other country, Canada, and I see that they have relatively similar problems.

Actually, a good number of my family live outside Quebec. If there are some who would like to simplify and explain the problem away using the presence of Lucien Bouchard, that only shows how narrow-minded you may be or how incapable you are of understanding the problems. It's easy to simplify and bring everything back to one person or one dimension. I'd actually recommend that you look at things in your own backyard, where we're witnessing what's perhaps the most representative of all problems we've had in Quebec-Canada relations over the last 30 years.

Let's get back to what's supposed to be a priority in the field of education. Was that really the priority? From what I heard everywhere I've been in Quebec, that wasn't at all the opinion shared by the young people we met. And that seemed very clear to them. Besides, we had the results of polls published in the different newspapers in Quebec according to which the Millennium Scholarships were taken to be a political ploy on the part of the federal government to gain more visibility.

I also have questions. Don't you find that bizarre? But maybe you've totally forgotten that. Is it possible that you might have just a touch of amnesia? If memory serves, the federal government wasn't asking anyone to promote or recognize its responsibility in the cuts it actually made in transfer payments. I never saw them do that. So why don't you undertake a great advertising campaign to announce how much you cut in transfer payments? Isn't it strange that we never hear about that? You didn't ask for cuts to federal funding to be visible.

On the other hand, the minute you inject a penny, boy! How we hear about that! If you could hand out Millennium Scholarships in $10 cheques and hand out 2.5 million of them instead of the number you've already forecast, I think you'd do it. The objective is that people see that the federal government is concerned with education.

There's something vaguely hypocritical in all that when, on the other hand, you've slashed your transfer payments. That has to be understood because it's something important. Transfer payments represented money paid year after year. You cut $5 billion that were paid year after year.

• 1725

Today, you're making one single payment of 2,5 billion dollars and you want that to be considered as a huge priority. Over a period of five years alone, these cuts represent 25 billion dollars and you're reinvesting 2,5 billion dollars.

We know your game! Since it's possible to forecast the surplus here, in Ottawa, we now know what the priorities are. The people from the armed forces have been knocking on the door for a long time to get their gadgets. Now you're giving to them. You are putting money into buying helicopters, submarines and all kinds of other widgets. What are the other great priorities; little visibility programs here and there: some sort of anniversary here; 1,5 million dollars for the RCMP to have a party for goodness knows what anniversary; money for visibility.

I'm sorry, but when I left university, I should have gone out and set up a business to sew Canadian flags. I'd be rich today. Besides that, I would have contributed to funding Sheila Copps' campaign. It would have been like winning the lottery and my future would have been assured as well of the future of my children, my grandchildren and many generations to come.

I'm convinced that some people got in there before me and they probably have quite a stock of unsold flags. Now that the flag episode is drawing to a close, now that everyone has one, it's going to be hard to hand out any more. You're going to have to stick that flag somewhere else.

I'll give you an example of that, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Regional Development Bureau that changed names one again and is now called the Canada Development Agency, didn't have enough maple leafs. Do you know what they did in their new offices? They put in the whole maple with a lot of leaves. One wasn't enough for them. there are now seven or nine in their logo.

I went to visit a fair put on by this federal government propaganda agency. You should have seen the maple leaves everywhere. You would have thought it was fall. But it was in the middle of winter. It's become ridiculous. Isn't there some kind of flash of lucidity that could illuminate all these Liberals and all these propagandists and make them understand that they should resort to a bit of common sense and be efficient?

Efficiency, in this case, the Millennium Foundation, would be to reinvest the money that you took out of transfer payments. That would be the first thing to do. Ultimately, if you still persist in wanting to create this Millennium Foundation, then just let Quebec manage the funds. That would be the least you could do.

When we get out of this room we'll be crossing the bridge and going to Hull. We're going to have a chat with four or five people picked out of the crowd. Chances are, they'll be federalists. We're going to explain the whole thing to them and ask them if it wouldn't be logical and efficient to use structures we already have to manage those scholarship funds. I'm convinced they'll agree.

But, no, here you're going to maintain this arrogant attitude to the end and maybe even further because the whole thing originates from way above. After all, as I was saying a bit earlier, it would seem that the idea comes from the Prime Minister. As he doesn't necessarily have ideas in industrial quantities, there'll be a strong temptation to see this to the bitter end.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am quite ready to listen to the nonsense and stupidity spouting from my colleague, but we should agree on one thing. I can waste my time because I've spoken to all kinds of people from the riding of Bourassa who were quite proud of the Millennium Foundation. I also asked students if this was a good thing. They said yes.

However, if we want to get personal, I find it's a bit disrespectful. So I'd like the member to stick to his arguments and stop getting personal. If he wants to play that game, I have to say that I also have quite a fertile imagination.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Chairman, we know all about the imagination of the Member for Bourassa who rose on a point of order to point out that what I was saying was stupid and inept: it takes one to know one. This isn't his first contradiction. This week, on the news, we saw him with a very different position concerning investment in professional sports. This isn't his first contradiction. But, coming from the great cheerleader of public investment in professional sport, what's one contradiction more or less.

I'll try to stick to the substance of the matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Up to now, I think I've been very generous with people taking little shots here and there. Unfortunately, I guess, that's part and parcel of committee work. But I'm not going to tolerate any deviation away from Bill C-36. So if you don't stick to Bill C-36, you won't be speaking for very long. I just want you to talk about the bill.

• 1730

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: It is quite germane, Mr. Chairman. It's the member for Bourassa who used diversionary...

[English]

The Chairman:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...as interesting as he may be.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Coderre intervened before and I'd like you to be as rigorous and as rigid for everyone, including your own colleagues. Then we can talk about justice and equity. If you've been listening to my speech, you know full well it was germane to everything concerning the present bill.

I know that it's a lot to listen to, but the bulk of my discourse was situated within the context surrounding this decision of the government to intervene and invest and come up with this initiative which, and I'm repeating myself, is a prime ministerial idea. I shall not qualify it as I have done so twice already. You know what I think about it. There is something a bit indecent in not being able to have common sense prevail here.

It seems to me that if the members on the government side in this committee had a bit more backbone and if their motivation was not to please the establishment of their own political party and manage their own careers as some are doing, the least they could say would be: it doesn't make any sense. Will you dare say even that? And I will wrap up on that. Are you going to dare tell your government what you have heard?

To restore a bit of confidence in the political system we have—a confidence that has been even more affected recently when we observed how parliamentarians were often forced to stifle their own opinions—will we see the government party members daring to tell the government that it doesn't make sense? In the past, the same political party accepted formulas that allowed a right of withdrawal. In the past also, within that very same political party, there was a solid belief in investing in the areas of health, education and social programs.

Are they not going to take this opportunity to remind the government that we have perhaps drifted away from these principles somewhat, that they're twisting the provinces' arms, that they've gone too far? This wish to reinvest in the area of education has to do with the fact that a lot was cut in the past. Somewhere, we shall see the audacity, the perspicacity or the wish that drives those people in the Liberal majority to make things better and more efficient.

I'm pleased to see that there is a Liberal member from Quebec here today. We'll see what he's going to chose: defend the interests of his fellow citizens or those of his political party. As usual, the second option will probably prevail.

Mr. Chairman, since there's only a minute left, I'd like to thank you for your great patience but I hope that by the end of your proceedings, you will come up with a rather daring recommendation that will allow your government to save face and also to show some realism and common sense. Concretely, this means withdrawing from the bill the section relating to Millennium Scholarships and allowing the negotiations to come to their conclusion, taking advantage of the report to bring some pressure on your government to settle this in a responsible and efficient manner, respecting areas of jurisdiction and a provision of its own Constitution.

As a matter of fact, it's rather surprising that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is not appearing here to ask the federal government to respect the spirit of this Constitution. I suppose he has other things to keep him busy. Once you've done this, you will at least be able to have an untroubled conscience and say that we acted as we should and not necessarily to please government authorities.

I don't think I'll have a chance to speak again but I hope that the conclusions of your committee will be dictated by a desire for clarity, efficiency and improving the actual conditions faced by students and the field of education where there are a great many needs and other requirements. I hope you will give the provinces the necessary latitude they require to carry out their mandate properly and to play their role in the field of education.

Thank you.

• 1735

[English]

The Chairman: It's Mr. Valeri's turn.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of points were made during the debate here and during the interventions. I just want to reiterate a couple of points.

One is that, as was said, the foundation itself is structured in such a way as to provide the maximum amount of flexibility in order to meet the objectives of avoiding duplication, building on existing provincial needs assessment, complementing existing provincial programs, and increasing access to post-secondary education everywhere in Canada.

The federal proposal is not aimed at changing Quebec's priorities with respect to student loans and scholarships. It's merely intended to enable students in Quebec, as in other provinces across this country, to have greater access to post-secondary education and reduce their debt burden. Nothing in the bill prevents the foundation from concluding an agreement with the Minister of Education of Quebec or taking on the method of evaluating student needs that Quebec uses for its own program.

The Government of Quebec might even provide the foundation with the names of students eligible for the millennium scholarship.

Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to make is that Bill C-36 in fact provides a framework within which the foundation members are able to work with the provinces and ensure that we meet those objectives.

So at this point I would move to adjourn debate.

An hon. member: I would second it.

An hon. member: Hey, hey!

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. A motion cannot be moved while another motion is still under study.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second. Let Mr. Valeri finish.

Go ahead.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Chairman, I'm moving to adjourn debate.

An hon. member: I would second it.

The Chairman: All right.

An hon. member: No, it's—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. That won't work. I'm quite willing to be open and understanding, we are peace-loving people. But what's happening here now is that one motion is being moved after another when we haven't yet concluded the debate on our motion.

[English]

The Chairman: I have to move to this motion, because it's a votable motion, and there's no debate on this motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, under our standing orders, it is not possible to move a motion while another motion is still being considered.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Valeri can in fact move this motion. It's a votable motion, and there's no debate on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, just a second. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer you to Standing Order 116 that says a motion may be debated without any time limit and that the Chair cannot impose any gag on this debate. We can debate until there is no one left to speak. What you are trying to do is gag us and dispose of a motion when we have not yet finished the debate on our motion. You are trying to take away our rights and privileges as members of Parliament. That is unacceptable. Before any motion is moved, we must dispose of the motion under consideration. The motion just presented by Mr. Valeri is out of order.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have a question about this motion because I'd like to understand it.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: It's a motion for adjournment, in other words we suspend our proceedings until the next meeting and we will be able to resume the debate on our motion. As I see it, a motion for adjournment simply means that we extend the deadline but we do not put a stop to the debate, otherwise the motion would be out of order according to our interpretation of the Standing Orders. We are right. Ask the committee clerk.

[English]

The Chairman: I think Mr. Valeri's motion is very clear. What he is moving is adjournment on the motion that is before us.

An. hon. member: And on the debate.

The Chairman: Sorry, that is of the debate that is before us. That's what he's doing.

It's in order, and it's a non-debatable—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What is meant by adjourning a debate? Can you explain to us, please?

Mr. Paul Crête: We are asking you.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): If you don't mind, it's on the same point of order, Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'm the one who is making the point of order right now.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: What?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Can you explain to me what is meant by adjourning the debate, Mr. Chairman? Can Mr. Valeri explain what he means by such an adjournment? Does this mean suspending the debate and resuming it tomorrow or Monday? Is this an attempt to prevent us from exercising our rights under Standing Order 116? Is it an attempt to remove our rights and privileges as members of Parliament, namely the right to debate a motion for an unlimited period of time until there are no more speakers? Does this mean you are willing to resort to the gag, an anti-democratic procedure removing the rights we enjoy under Standing Order 116? Is that what you are telling us, Mr. Chairman?

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulties]

• 1740

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second.

We'll go to Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Valeri's motion is on the floor. You're the chair; you can rule. If the opposition doesn't like the ruling, there are ways to deal with that. If you make your ruling, we'll vote, and if they don't like it, they can deal with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, we must be careful not to put ourselves in a bind. Think it over. If we adjourn this committee, there will no longer be a report to the House on the clause-by-clause adoption of the bill. There will have been no clause-by-clause debate and you will have to report to the House tomorrow because the motion says that the report must be tabled by Friday May 8. The only thing you'll be able to say to the House is that the debate was adjourned because there will certainly not have been any clause-by-clause discussion of the bill. That is not what was provided in the resolution adopted two weeks ago.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, let's not confuse this, because this is very simple. This is so simple it's unbelievable. What Mr. Valeri basically is saying is that we are adjourning the debate on the motion you presented this morning. That's what he's saying; that's what the vote is going to be on.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Wait a second, Mr. Chairman, it isn't as simple as that. What do you mean by adjournment? That we will be interrupting the debate on our motion and it will later be resumed? Or are you telling us that notwithstanding the provision of Standing Order 116, that allows us to table a motion, without any time limits and to debate it until there are no further speakers, you will override such provisions and simply scrap this debate even though there are still members of the Bloc Québécois who want to talk about the Millennium Scholarship Fund, you've decided you will put an end to all of this? Is that what you are telling us?

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second. Let's look at this in a very rational way. Mr. Valeri, as a member of this committee, has a right to move the motion he has just moved. The motion he has moved is basically saying that the debate on the motion you presented this morning be adjourned. That's what he's saying and that's what you're voting on.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: A point or order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I have to go to Mr. Szabo first and then Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: But doesn't a point of order have priority?

[English]

The Chairman: No, he's—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Alright, as long as I'll be able to speak afterwards.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, as you have explained it, the motion is for an adjournment of the debate of the motion now on the floor, which is a votable motion. You've indicated it's in order and it's not debatable, which means we should be proceeding to a vote on the motion made my Mr. Valeri.

There appears to be, on behalf of the Bloc, a question of whether or not Mr. Valeri's motion is in order. I believe the best resolution of this is to ask the clerk directly for an opinion on whether Mr. Valeri's motion is in order.

The Chairman: Just a second. I'm telling you right now, as the chair, that his motion is in order and his motion is not—underlined, not—debatable.

An hon. member: Call the vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The motion may not be debatable but we are still in a democracy. Explain to us why you accept this motion and allow it to be votable when you are preventing us from debating the motion we moved this morning. Give us your reasons. You are required at least to justify your decision. Tell me why you agree to gag us in this way. Why are you going along with that?

[English]

The Chairman: Why am I accepting—?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Why are you accepting this kind of decision?

[English]

The Chairman: You're asking me why I am accepting Mr. Valeri's right as a member of the committee—

• 1745

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Why are you accepting this kind of decision? Why are you making that kind of decision?

[English]

The Chairman: You're asking me why I am accepting Mr. Valeri's right as a member of the committee—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no, no. That isn't the point. Why are you going along with this game that will gag us on the motion we moved this morning, a motion on something fundamental and that concerns education in Quebec. Why are you going along with this? Tell me why you accept this procedure. What is your agenda? What are your constraints, Mr. Chairman? What is the problem? Is it the fact that you must table the report tomorrow at noon in the House of Commons?

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second here. Let's—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Explain yourself, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to tell you right now, Mr. Loubier, I'm being extremely generous here, because we should be really going on with the vote. But with fairness, because that's the way we operate here—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, just a second! You're generous, you say? We have rules guiding us here.

[English]

An hon. member: Order. Order. Order.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We have rules of procedure and we are in a democratic system. You are in no position to say you are granting us a privilege. You, giving us a privilege?

[English]

The Chairman: No, no, no.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are generous because you are allowing us to speak?

[English]

The Chairman: No, no.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: My eye! We have rights and privileges here.

[English]

The Chairman: No, what I'm saying is we should be moving right on to the vote, and Mr. Valeri is within his rights as a member.... You can move that motion, Monsieur Crête can move that motion, Torsney can move that. Any member here present can move the motion that Mr. Valeri has moved. There's not a problem with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: And I don't understand—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Standing Order 65 specifies that any motion must be presented in written form. We did not receive the motion in written form. Therefore the motion is not in keeping with the standing order requirement.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It is out of order.

Mr. Paul Crête: So we can come back to the main motion and I would like to speak on it. The other motion was not tabled in written form and he is not in order. I would like to speak on the main motion. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[English]

An hon. member: No, no, no.

The Chairman: That applies only to the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I am speaking on the motion that was tabled.

[English]

The Chairman: Anyway, we'll have to move to the vote.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No! No!

Mr. Paul Crête: It was not tabled!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paul Crête: In any case, you're going to bring this situation to a head.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Stop taking such high handed airs and listen to what we have to say. We have witnesses from Quebec and you don't give a damn about what they have to say. You can hear us out on this. We have a motion that was tabled and we intend to debate it.

As for your agreement of May 2nd, we checked the blues and analyzed it. It says that you are to present a report but nowhere does it specify in this motion that the bill must be adopted clause-by-clause before you present this report to the House of Commons. So there is a defect in your motion.

Mr. Paul Crête: Was the motion in written form before being tabled, Mr. Chairman? That's important. It is required under SO 65. You will be calling into question our privileges as members of Parliament if you accept this motion.

Standing Order 65 clearly specifies:

65. All motions shall be in writing...

This is a requirement under the standing order. If you do not fulfill this obligation, it is a breach of my privileges.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

[English]

An hon. member: Shut up!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: No, no. Just a second.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: This committee is made up of a bunch of cynics, you're all full of sarcasm.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We told you last week that we were willing to co-operate. We co-operated and presented amendments to you. Yesterday I asked you to—

Some Hon. Members: Ah, ah!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Tell those fools to stop, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make myself understood.

Two days ago I asked you to call the government negotiator as a witness. You told me yesterday that the government negotiator would not be coming before the committee. Today you are asking us to proceed, following the tabling of a motion that we consider to be out of order, with the study and the clause-by-clause vote on the bill. That is unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I think you are behaving undemocratically.

[English]

The Chairman: No, I don't think I am.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We'll remember, Mr. Chairman, you can be sure of that.

Mr. Paul Crête: I'd like to come back to my point of order, Mr. Chairman. You did not respond to Standing Order 65:

65. All motions shall be in writing...

It wasn't in writing so the Standing Order was not respected in this particular case.

You must respond to this point. If the answer is no, then immediately afterwards I wish to speak on the prime question of interest to me. I asked to speak and I am entitled to be the first to have the floor.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second, Mr. Coderre.

As you well know, having been a member of the finance committee for a number of months, it's been a tradition of this committee to accept motions without the motions being in writing. You know that as well as I do.

Another thing I'm going to tell you is that if anybody in this room thinks I'm going to be impressed by the volume or pitch of one's voice, you may be quite surprised, because the only thing I'm interested in is the quality of debate. I am not going to deny—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We are as well.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes.

• 1750

[English]

The Chairman: Listen, I've listened to you for quite a few hours now, and I'm not going to deny any member of this committee the right to move the motion, as Mr. Valeri has done. He is within his right.

You are basically saying I ought to abandon the rules, because somehow Mr. Valeri has acted as a responsible member by moving a motion he feels he wants to. I mean, as chair of the committee, why should I deny Mr. Valeri his right? That is the issue.

Second, I also want to remind people that as chair I must always keep in mind the rights of all—and I underline all—members of this committee. I also have to keep in mind the framework within which we are working, and this framework also includes the fact that by 11.59 p.m., this evening, we need to do our job as a committee and respect the work of the Bloc Québécois, who have approximately 39...just one second, you're not going to get in any words. You've got to listen to me now...just one second.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: No, no, no. That's not going to happen. We need to get this job done as a committee. Mr. Valeri's motion is in fact in order, and we will proceed with that vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'd like to give you some further information on this point of order.

Standing Order 65 says:

65. All motions shall be in writing...

Standing Order 116 says:

116. In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

There is no exception. Mr. Chairman, there is no exception in Standing Order 116 allowing a motion not to be tabled in writing. If the legislator had wished to make an exception, it would have been mentioned explicitly. If this order is not respected, I will consider my parliamentary privileges to have been breached. It is very clear. When an exception is not specifically mentioned in a standing order, it puts even greater emphasis on the need to comply with such an order. In a debate as important as today's, we're not talking about beets or carrots. We are talking about the future of Quebec, about education in Quebec and you can be sure that we'll use whatever legal means at our disposal, including that one. Don't think you can walk over us once again!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. To add to what my colleague said, you are right. Perhaps we may be raising our voice and I'm sorry that I said what I said a while ago, I may have gone a bit overboard. But whenever we debate these questions, we find ourselves being bulldozed and ridiculed. We hear all sorts of remarks from the other side when the mikes are off. Let them have the courage to speak when their mikes are on and tell us what they really think about us and about Quebec and the debate on the Millennium Scholarships. Let them have the courage of their convictions. When I hear disagreeable remarks off the record, I have a lot of trouble accepting that.

Mr. Chairman, to come back to my point of order, we want to continue and it was always our intention to continue this debate in a calm fashion. It is a fundamental debate for Quebec. Let us debate this matter until there are no more speakers. In any case, the Standing Orders support our position, as was noted by my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. It is not tradition that governs the debates of this committee but rather the procedures specified in the Standing Orders. Today we are applying these procedures, Mr. Chairman, just in the same way as you applied these procedures literally when my substitute colleagues came in. I am a regular member and I left. Otherwise, my colleagues would not have been able to speak. I comply with the Standing Orders and I expect you to do the same.

• 1755

Given your attitude today, we are applying the Standing Orders to the letter. Standing Order 65 is quite clear, motions shall be in writing. The motion was not tabled in writing and is therefore out of order, particularly since our right to debate the motion we tabled this morning is being taken away, our right to debate the motion until there are further speakers.

Mr. Chairman, continuing with this point of order, I looked at the blues, the proceedings of the meeting of April 2 where the decision was taken to table your report on May 8. First of all, I'd like to quote a few passages. My colleague Bellehumeur remained till the end. Ms. Torsney moved the motion and my colleague Bellehumeur asked to speak. You asked:

[English]

«all those in favour of the motion»

[Translation]

and everyone on the Liberal side said

[English]

«agreed».

[Translation]

You ignored my colleague who asked to speak. That is one thing.

Secondly, the motion tabled by Ms. Torsney...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier. Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, yes, this is something you mentioned in your reasons...

Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to explain my point of view in relation to your position? You said: "We are bound by the March 8 deadline and we must present a report tomorrow morning."

Madam clerk, I am speaking to the Chair. Would it be possible to convey our message to him one of these days?

According to the motion presented by Ms. Torsney, you were to table a report in the House of Commons tomorrow May 8 but nothing says that the clause-by-clause study of the bill is deemed to have been completed and that all of these clauses must be voted upon. It is possible for you to present a report to the House of Commons tomorrow. If you want to have suggestions about his content, we can make some to you.

You can say that the debate is still taking place within the Finance Committee, that we are a responsible committee and that a fundamental divergence appeared between the views of Quebec on Millennium Scholarships and this exclusive jurisdiction in education and the views of the rest of Canada and that we are continuing our discussion. This possibility is open to you. If you do not wish to take advantage of it, Mr. Chairman, I will consider that as an affront.

If you do not proceed in this fashion, in view of the unanimous representations from Quebec rejecting the Millennium Scholarships, I shall conclude, Mr. Chair, that you are acting in bad faith and that you do not wish to reflect what took place here. Everyone without exception in Quebec told you that we are against the Millennium Foundation. You cannot fail to take this into account and present your report tomorrow after clause-by-clause study. That is unacceptable. We'll fight it out to the end.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, look, Mr. Valeri has the right to move that motion. It is in order, according to me. If you want to challenge the chair, you can. Challenge it, and we'll move on the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. We wish to challenge the Chair's decision. We will table a motion and challenge this decision. The motion will read pretty much as follows: "We reject the Chair's proposal to suspend the debate on the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois." If you wish to have a vote, we can have a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: That's it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]... Mr. Valeri. Take your vote. We'll have another one to propose to you afterwards.

• 1800

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]... the gag imposed by the Chair, by Maurizio Bevilacqua.

[English]

The Chairman: You challenged me. You have to—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no. Let's have a recorded vote on Mr. Valeri's motion.

[English]

The Chairman: You have to. The vote that will be taken will be to maintain my decision, so you may be in favour or against. So make a—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I agree, but let Mr. Valeri officially table his motion and we will then have a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: No, no, no, no.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Oh yes, yes, yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, no. You just challenged me, right? You challenged the chair, so we have to—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: All right, we'll table our motion. Could you read it over?

[English]

The Chairman: You're basically voting on whether or not you maintain my decision. In other words, if you're against the decision made by the chair, you're against it; if you support it, you're for it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, and we'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paul Crête: We are challenging the decision.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, we are challenging the Chair's decision.

Mr. Paul Crête: So we are voting in favour.

[English]

The Chairman: Hold on, just a second.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We are rejecting the Chair's decision to adjourn the debate on the Bloc Québécois motion to scrap Bill C-36.

Mr. Paul Crête: We can start our debate on it.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, the motion reads as follows:

We reject the Chair's decision to accept an unwritten motion for an adjournment from Mr. Tony Valeri preventing us from continuing our debate on the motion presented by the Bloc Québécois this morning.

The term "unwritten" is very important.

Mr. Paul Crête: It is our right to have a written motion.

[English]

The Chairman: We seek your help with the legislative clerk. The motion will read that the committee sustains the decision of the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We are entitled to reasons for this decision.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Just a second! It is our motion.

[English]

The Chairman: That's it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It is our motion.

Mr. Paul Crête: He is working for you.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The motion we are presenting is the following:

We reject the Chair's decision to accept an unwritten motion for adjournment from Mr. Tony Valeri adjourning the debate on the motion from the Bloc Québécois to scrap Bill C-36.

It is our motion and we don't need you to tell us how to draft it. What next!

Mr. Paul Crête: We are the ones making the challenge here with our motion and we certainly do not—

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Otherwise, we're going to have to draft Mr. Valeri's motion. Come on now!

[English]

The Chairman: Everybody calm down, take a deep breath. You're basically doing something very fundamental, and that is you're challenging the decision of the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, exactly.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Exactly.

[English]

The Chairman: You're challenging the decision of the chair, because the chair—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: That does not comply with the Standing Orders.

[English]

The Chairman: —has accepted the right of a member of the committee—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: That does not comply with the Standing Orders.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no, no. Look, we've just read the motion we are making:

We reject the Chair's decision to accept an unwritten motion for adjournment from Tony Valeri to adjourn the debate on a motion from the Bloc Québécois to scrap Bill C-36.

That is our motion. We are entitled to present the motions we want to present. If you don't agree, that's your problem.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, the standard motion when you challenge a chair is the following: that the committee sustains the decision of the chair. When you challenge a chair, that's what you do.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: That may be the standard wording, but in view of the present situation, we want our reasons to be indicated.

[English]

The Chairman: That's what you're doing, that's what you're doing.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: You are failing to comply with the Standing Orders and we must indicate this. That is what we will do, Mr. Chairman.

• 1805

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Exactly. Our motion, that we are free to present as we did, moves that the committee reject the Chair's decision to accept an unwritten motion from Tony Valeri.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, we don't want to go around in circles here. Basically what you've done is this, okay—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We're not going round in circles, we are presenting a motion to you.

[English]

The Chairman: No, just a second. We've got important work to do here.

Mr. Valeri moved, and I have already ruled that I feel it's in order, so we have to vote on it. Now what you're saying is you don't agree with my decision, so you're challenging me.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: And I am telling you that what you're going to vote on is the following: that the committee sustains the decision of the chair.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No.

[Translation]

No, no, no and no. If I want to challenge you, then I'll table a motion to do so. It is not your responsibility to draft my motion. That's completely absurd.

The motion we are tabling and on which we would like a recorded vote moves that the committee reject the Chair's decision to accept an unwritten motion from Mr. Tony Valeri that would gag the debate on a motion from the Bloc Québécois to scrap Bill C-36.

Mr. Paul Crête: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the legislative counsel employed by the Liberal Party of Canada or by the committee?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Good question!

Mr. Paul Crête: That's a good question!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Indeed, our motion is quite admissible.

Mr. Paul Crête: Is the Legislative Counsel working for the Liberal Party of Canada or the Committee? That's a good question.

[English]

The Chairman: Order, Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Is the...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, just one second. I'm going to be very calm about this. I'm going to tell you something, that there are certain lines that members of Parliament should never, ever cross, and I mean that. One of them is that you never, ever, ever question the integrity of clerks, legislative clerks, or people who work hard to make this committee work well—ever. If you've done it once, don't ever try again.

I'm going to move to a vote, and that's the end of this story.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: The vote is going to be—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, on a Point of Order.

[English]

The Chairman: —that the committee sustains the decision of the chairman. All those in favour.

An hon. member: No, no! You cannot do this, please.

The Chairman: All right, recorded votes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. You are a dictator! You are an experienced dictator! You should resign, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: We're voting.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: On a point of order. No. Dictator!

[English]

The Chairman: Give me a break.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Dictator! I'm going to ask for your head, my dear Mr. Chairman, because I find that you have just behaved like a slob.

[English]

The Chairman: Are you being...? Look, if you're going to be disrespectful to the chair, or if you think—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, I have always done that for democracy, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, absolutely not, given what you have just done. This was our motion, it has to be debated and we didn't even have a debate. You have just put a gag on us on a fundamental aspect.

[English]

The Chairman: Listen.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You have just bulldozed us, just as you bulldozed my colleague, Mr. Bellehumeur, on April 2. Such a situation is unacceptable. And you think you're going to have our cooperation for the clause-by-clause study? Never! It doesn't make sense to put a gag on us and force a decision down our throats when we could have debated Mr. Valeri's motion. We could have debated your decision and we could have designed the motion that we wanted, using the wording we wanted, because we were, in fact, the ones who initiated it. This is unacceptable, in my opinion.

[English]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: A recorded vote on the motion!

[English]

The Chairman: Now we'll go to Mr. Valeri's motion. All those in favour?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: A recorded vote on the motion, Mr. Chairman!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A recorded vote on the motion. We have asked for this three times.

[English]

The Chairman: Listen, relax, it's going to happen for you. You wanted a recorded vote. We'll do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What arrogance! You are going to pay dearly for that, Mr. Chairman. You can be assured that you'll pay for that.

Mr. Paul Crête: We have been asking for this three times.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are going to pay dearly for that!

• 1810

[English]

The Chairman: Listen. Listen. Mr. Crête and Mr. Loubier, I'm going to be very frank with you that every single member.... I mean, you've spoken on your main motion for hours now. We also know that we have work to do on reporting this to the House. You know that. Don't make it look like you're not aware of that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No.

[English]

The Chairman: It's not true?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. Mr. Chairman, you have been behaving yourself in a manner unworthy of the responsibility bestowed on you. This is unacceptable. We have had a good understanding up until now, despite a few differences of opinion. However, this takes the cake! You have prevented us from fully debating the motion tabled this morning and you have prevented us from continuing our discussion on a debate that is fundamental to Quebec, as you were able to observe from the 14 organizations that appeared here.

In my opinion, this is unacceptable and Quebec is going to know this. Quebec is going to know that you are a bunch of cynical people and that the rest of Canada couldn't give a damn about Quebec's claim with respect to education and the fight it has been waging over its jurisdiction in education for the past 35 years.

Mr. Chairman, you can rest assured that this matter is not over yet. If you think that the work atmosphere will be good after doing that, after the cynicism, the arrogance and the nasty jeers that we have heard from the beginning from the people opposite, you are mistaken. Rest assured that you will not have our cooperation. Not at all. Never.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Now we have the vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You may find this funny today, but you are not going to find it so funny later on, when there won't be any more negotiating.

[English]

The Chairman: We have—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Be quiet, you sheep.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, the sheep, the yes men!

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, go ahead with the vote.

(Motion agreed to; yeas 8; nays 2)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I move that Bill C-36, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, not be considered at the clause-by-clause stage until we have been informed of the results of the negotiations between the government of Quebec and the federal government.

The motion is tabled in the two official languages.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: And seconded by me.

[English]

An hon. member: Call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: No, no, no. We have just tabled the motion and we are entitled to debate it. You can't prevent us from starting to discuss it. We have just tabled the motion and there hasn't been one speaker yet.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We are tabling a motion, Mr. Chairman, and we are requesting that it be debated. Our motion was written in both official languages. We always make sure that we submit things in writing and in both official languages.

Mr. Paul Crête: As best as we can.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's right.

Mr. Paul Crête: Do we have any copies?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Can we read slowly for the benefit of the interpreter?

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, I'm going to reread it.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: For the benefit of the interpreter, Mr. Chairman. We have been asked to do this. All right?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I move that Bill C-36, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, not be considered at the clause-by-clause stage until we have been informed of the results of the negotiations between the government of Quebec and the federal government.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Very good motion.

Mr. Paul Crête: Moved by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Seconded by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot with pride.

Mr. Paul Crête: And by all of Quebec.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: With pride also. So there.

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to speak to my motion.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Me too, I would like to speak to my colleague's motion, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Listen. Mr. Valeri's motion basically pushed debate off for your main motion. We now have to respect the fact that the committee needs to address the clause-by-clause issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, we haven't got to the clause-by-clause consideration.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second. Can I speak?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: All right, I'm listening to you.

[English]

The Chairman: If you look at the order of the day today, that's what we're doing—we're doing clause-by-clause. The Bloc Québécois has approximately 39 motions, if I'm not mistaken, and you get to speak on each one until 11:59 p.m.

I don't know if you pay attention when I speak or not—and you should pay attention, because we're going to.... I mean, you've given me directives to follow, and this is what we're doing.

• 1815

This is from the minutes of proceedings of Tuesday, May 5:

That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-36 commence on Thursday, May 7, 1998, at 9:00 o'clock a.m.

—we have yet to touch one clause, okay? Not one—

and continue through the day until completed and, that, should debate on the Bill reach 11:59 p.m. without the Bill having been adopted, it will be reported to the House on Friday, May 8, 1998, at 12:00 o'clock p.m. as per the motion adopted by the Committee on April 2, 1998.

Mr. Loubier was present at this meeting. I'm simply saying, look—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. No. As for what I said...

[English]

The Chairman: No, no, just look. I've listened to you people for hours, so listen to me just for a few minutes.

The choice we have here is that if you have no interest at all in going through clause-by-clause—

Mr. Paul Crête:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: No, no, today. You know it has to be completed by 11.59 p.m., because I have to report this to the House. If you want to continue to speak from now until 11.59 p.m., what's going to happen is that the bill will be reported as is to the House of Commons.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I carefully read the account of your famous meeting attended, for the last part, by my colleague Michel Bellehumeur who represented the Bloc Québécois.

If I may, Mr. Janse... If you don't want us to go back to what it was like earlier...

The motion stated that you were supposed to table a report in the House of Commons on May 8, that is correct. That's the motion that was tabled. Although we did not agree to it, and while my colleague, right up to the last minute, did not vote for this motion because he was wondering why it was so urgent, the motion did in fact state that you were to table the report on May 8. Let's agree that this motion was adopted and that you were to table a report tomorrow, in the House of Commons.

Some members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: If my colleagues would listen, perhaps they would be less arrogant as a result.

[English]

The Chairman: Could we have some order here, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you all.

According to Ms. Torsney's motion, nothing states that we had to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and adopt each of the clauses. What you could do tomorrow, based on this motion, is to say that there is an irregularity because it does not compel us to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill for May 8. You must only present a report to the House tomorrow. And in your report to the House, you could say that we haven't concluded the analysis of the bill as such, particularly an extremely important section dealing with the Millennium Scholarships Fund which, without doubt, poses a problem to Quebec.

There are 14 organizations that support us. You aren't there just to follow orders from above. In other words, you are not sheep. You are neither followers nor yes men. It seems to me that tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the motion passed on April 2, it is your duty to table a report in which you say that we have not yet completed our consideration of the bill nor the discussion. That seems quite clear to me and I do not think you can say that forces you to table to report tomorrow by saying that the vote on the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill has been taken. That is not true. That is incorrect. That is not what was said in the motion of April 2.

Mr. Paul Crête: Just to add to this same point of order, I would like to add an excerpt from the minutes that says: "It is agreed that Bill C-36, an act to... etc. tabled in Parliament on February 24th, be reviewed..."

Some honourable members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Crête: I think it is very important. Don't you?

Would you like me to reread it? I just wanted to finish reading it.

Some honourable members: Oh, oh!

[English]

The Chairman: I hear you.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Fine.

We thought the committee had made a commitment to table a report in the House without following the usual procedure. In fact, we have never followed the usual procedures for the clause-by-clause study of a bill. I have the record of proceedings in my hand.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's right. And it should have been read, Mr. Chairman... The motion should have included...

Some honourable members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The motion should have contained the following wording: "That all questions required for clause-by-clause study of the bill be deemed adopted."

• 1820

That is not in the motion. So do not present us with false arguments for the report you want to table tomorrow.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Now, let me make it perfectly clear so everybody here understands. The motion of Thursday, April 2, 1998, by Paddy Torsney was agreed to. I'm going to repeat this again and I'm going to speak very slowly, because I'm not going to say this again tonight: that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be reported back to the House of Commons by Friday, May 8, 1998.

That to me is very clear. It is so clear it's unbelievable. I can't think of anything clearer than this motion. There's also the fact that at 11.59 p.m. the bill, having been adopted, will be reported to the House on Friday, May 8, 1998. That was from Tuesday, May 5, 1998.

These are crystal-clear motions. The bottom line is this, Mr. Crête. Mr. Valeri moved this motion in reference to the motion you presented this morning. He said “Let's adjourn debate.” and he may have whatever reason for that. His motion is in order. He, as a member of Parliament, has a right to move that motion. I ruled it as an acceptable motion. You proceeded and challenged the chair.

You're saying basically that Mr. Valeri's motion somehow violates your rights as a member of Parliament. After that you had another motion, which we accepted. Now find me one person who can think straight, who lives on this planet, who would think that debate is being stifled and you're being muzzled. How are you being muzzled? You have been speaking since 9 a.m. practically non-stop, and we have listened to all your points—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes and we had other things to say about it. We can do so under clause 116.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second. We've even looked at your pictures.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: And you thought they were very nice.

[English]

The Chairman: Now all of a sudden you are saying that somehow the democratic process hasn't been adhered to. Now we are engaged in listening to your next motion, where you will once again, I am sure, repeat some of the points you have made before, which is fine with me. But I also want it to be very clear that at 11.59 p.m., if we haven't gone through one clause, this bill, Bill C-36, will be reported to the House of Commons as is.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Dictator!

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: No, it's not.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Let me explain my opinion.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I see what you are saying. The motion we passed should have said that clause-by-clause consideration is deemed to have been made. Tomorrow, there is nothing to force you to do the clause-by-clause study and to hold an clause-by-clause vote.

If you had any good will whatsoever, if the negotiations between the two negotiators were not just for show, you would not proceed in this manner. You would table a report tomorrow, but also give a status report.

• 1825

Mr. Paul Crête: The point of order must be clear. I read an excerpt from the minutes. The French version I have in front of me is not the same as the English version. And these minutes were passed.

In French, it just says: "report to the House", and there is no reference in the minutes to the fact that a report must be tabled on the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. That bit of text does not appear in the French version. Is it in the English one? I would be very surprised if it is.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I got the report, and even in the report, it says...

[English]

The Chairman: No, just a second. Now, let me explain this again, and I'll go very slowly.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: And my question, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: I'm reading to you from the minutes of the proceedings the clerk has provided to me. In the minutes of proceedings on Tuesday, May 5, 1998, and Thursday, April 2, 1998, meeting 67 and meeting 80 respectively, it says basically that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998 be reported back to the House of Commons by Friday, May 8—

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Monsieur le président, there is no translation.

[Translation]

There is no translation.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there no translation?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We do not have the same minutes.

[English]

Mr. Loubier: Only from English to Spanish.

The Chairman: Okay.

A voice: The microphones are on.

The Chairman: Anyway, the bottom line is that we've agreed to this. If we want to be honest here for a second, we've agreed to the timetable and we've agreed to the fact that we're going to bring the bill back to the House on May 8. That's common knowledge of the committee members.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I ordered the report on that meeting. I am not trying to criticize or insult you. But what you read in the minutes is completely different from what is in the record of proceedings.

I'll read you the record. Listen to what Ms. Torsney said. I'm quoting. If I am talking to no purpose, I can stop.

An Honourable Member: No, no, that's fine.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Ms. Torsney's motion reads, and I quote:

[English]

“that we will report this bill to the House on May 8. Thank you. Are we voting on it?”

[Translation]

Today, by bulldozing us, you've proceeded to vote. The motion read into the record is not the one you presented to us. It's simply this:

[English]

“that we will report this bill to the House on May 8”.

[Translation]

Nothing says that...

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: ...with the usual terminology...

[English]

The Chairman: All right, so you're saying we said to report the bill on May 8. Now, when do you report a bill on Friday?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When you read the French version, it says: "fasse l'objet d'un rapport à la Chambre des communes". When it says "fasse l'objet d'un rapport" there's no allusion at all to the fact that it is the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill that should be reported on.

You can very well say tomorrow that we examined the report, that a motion was debated at length and that we didn't have the time to do a clause-by-clause. You can also say that interesting amendments were suggested and that we'll continue the clause-by-clause consideration next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The French version is even clearer.

Mr. Paul Crête: What's forcing us to go so fast? I don't understand. We haven't been preventing you from working during the last three weeks. We've only been debating this for one day while the negotiations with Quebec aren't over yet. It would simply be good common sense to say that we should have an opportunity to come back to this.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Besides the record of the meeting that day, it is quite clear, in the French minutes, that Ms. Torsney is suggesting Bill C-36, an Act to implement [...] tabled in Parliament on 24 February, 1998, be the subject of a report to the House of Commons. It's the bill that is to be the subject of a report to the House of Commons.

[English]

The Chairman: Quiet down, please. I want to hear Mr. Loubier. Go ahead, Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: In French, the minutes record Ms. Torsney's motion and request that Bill C-36 be the subject of a report to the House of Commons and not that the bill be duly passed clause-by-clause, then tabled in the House. That's not what the motion says at all.

• 1830

Mr. Paul Crête: I'd also like to say that this was done in a certain spirit.

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: The demonstration about the 11 o'clock matter is important because it's proof positive that we can take the time to debate sanely and vote on our motion. We just wanted to make things clear at the outset. I'm now ready to continue debating the motion.

So, shall we go to it?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: On Mr. Crête's new motion?

Mr. Paul Crête: But let's get this straight—because I want it to be straight—on the fact that if, at the end of the day, the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill isn't finished, then you don't have to say tomorrow that you're reporting the bill. So then we'd be able to examine it next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday without any problem and continue the debate and then look at another subject. That's easy.

Do you agree, Mr. Chairman? I can now address my motion?

[English]

The Chairman: Just a second. I will accept arguments and I will accept reason. One thing I will not accept, though, is when people start moving things around a bit. I'll tell you where I draw that from.

Above and beyond what was said in the minutes and what I have from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence that the clerks have provided me, there is also the work plan we approved as a committee. The work plan is very clear that we were going to do clause-by-clause today and report to the House tomorrow. That was very clear, and you know that as well as I do.

If you can look me straight in the eye and tell me that's not the case—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, I'll look you straight in the eye. I'll look you straight in the eye and tell you what has been driving us from the very beginning.

[English]

The Chairman: No, I don't think so.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, yes. When we said...

[English]

The Chairman: I don't think you can do that with a straight face.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Put your translation device in your ear because what I'm going to say is important.

From the very beginning, my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, my colleague from Quebec City and myself, have been maintaining that we should take all the time necessary to examine this important bill and that the matter of the Millennium scholarships is fundamental for Quebec. We've come back day after day and said we had to take our time to analyze and weigh our decisions.

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We have to give a chance to the negotiations that are underway. At the present time, you're giving us proof positive that you don't care about the negotiation and that all this is horse feathers. I can tell you that that is how Quebec will understand this whole matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Just tell us the contrary. I'm looking you in the eye.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, I can too.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I can look you in the eye. But you're having problems looking me in the eye just seeing the way you're shifting around. It's visible.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second. You don't remember at all the work plan you approved as a committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, yes. Absolutely.

[English]

The Chairman: You're telling me—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You're the one who's not remembering what we said. We said we'd take the time necessary to get to the bottom of the question and that the matter of the Millennium Scholarships was fundamental. A program is made to be changed once you're underway when you see that the debate is quite fundamental. Otherwise, why would we have witnesses come before us? For them to accept your decisions and that they accept the calendar you have suggested? It doesn't work like that. If democracy worked like that in Parliament, there would be no more room for debate, no more room for any parliamentary action, no change at all to the calendar of events that the government would present. Come on, that's not the way it works. Your attitude is not logical.

After all that's been said here over the last three weeks, we saw it was necessary to examine this matter of the Millennium Scholarships a bit more and we saw that there was a consensus in Quebec against these Millennium Scholarships. So don't try to tell me that we're going to accept to proceed on May 8 simply because there was an administrative decision made.

[English]

The Chairman: It's a real shame, these lads. Really, it's unbelievable.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: On a point of order.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You're the one who's unbelievable. I find it unbelievable that after having heard Quebec witnesses tell you the same thing for three weeks you can still undertake the examination of this bill with such sarcasm and cynicism.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It's cynical to set aside Quebec's requirements, to ignore the negotiations underway at this very moment. You should be ashamed of doing that.

[English]

The Chairman: Listen, Mr. Loubier. When it comes to—

[Translation]

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Crête: Could we have some order, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

Can we have some order here? Take your conversations outside.

• 1835

Mr. Loubier, I am convinced, through my interpretation, that what we decided as a committee was in fact to do clause-by-clause today and to report to the House tomorrow. Of that, there is no question in mind, as chair. There is no question in my mind.

I'm not going to engage in any gamesmanship or trying to upstage this person or that other person. The only thing I really care about is the fact that people of this country were given the opportunity to present their case in front of the committee on this particular bill, including many of the people you brought forward. I thought there was accommodation made for practically every person you cited. I thought that was the case. We listened to it.

I do really resent, though, the fact that somehow you're trying to say that I was going through the motions, when no member of this committee has been more present, more punctual, than me, or has listened to more people. So don't go down that road with me.

Secondly, don't ever think that your rights as a member of Parliament are superior to any other member of Parliament's rights. That is exactly what happened here with Mr. Valeri's motion. Mr. Valeri's motion, according to me and to the legislative clerks here, was in perfect order. We proceeded with that. Then you challenged my decision—and as a reminder, you lost.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: You're the ones who don't want to admit that we're right.

[English]

The Chairman: But that's not the point. It doesn't mean you're right, either.

I'm charged with the responsibility, as chair, to make sure this committee works well. I also know what we all agreed to, and what we agreed to was the fact that we would do clause-by-clause—and I repeat this—today, followed by a report to the House tomorrow. I think that's the agenda of this committee.

Having said that, you can introduce a new motion because that's your right, in the same way, exactly the same way, as Mr. Valeri had a right to move his motion. So if you have another motion, we will do this.

By now I know exactly what you're going to do, and we'll probably listen to Madame Guay after this and we'll go through some other things. But I'll tell you right now, come 11.59 p.m. this meeting will be over. If we haven't touched one clause of this bill, it will be reported as is.

That's just so you're clear about what's going to happen tonight.

Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have a point of order to answer that one. If you do what you just said, for the second time tonight you'll be in contravention of the Standing Orders. I'll read you clause 75 of the Standing Orders:

Consideration in committee

75.(1) In proceedings in any committee of the House upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and if the first clause contains only a short title it is also postponed; then every other clause is considered by the committee in its proper order; the first clause (if it contains only a short title), the preamble and the title are to be last considered.

(2) All amendments made in any committee shall be reported to the House. Every bill reported from any committee, whether amended or not, shall be received by the House on the report thereof.

In other words, if we don't consider the clauses of the bill, we're in contradiction with Standing Order 75. And this isn't a matter of written or unwritten sheets. It's a far more important matter.

Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to wait for your little conclave to be over to explain this passage.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Your arguments would bear repeating, Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes. I'll wait for their conclave to be over.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It would bear repeating because it's most interesting.

Mr. Paul Crête: So, S.O. 75...

[English]

The Chairman: Come on, make your point. Let's go.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Standing order 75 says that when you consider a bill in committee, the committee must examine each one of the clause in its proper order and, lastly, the first clause. Moreover, any committee must report any amendments made to the bill to the House. Logically, for it to be able to report to the House, the clauses must first have been considered and to consider the clauses, you have to have considered the amendments.

So as long as we haven't undertaken the clause-by-clause consideration, we don't have the right to report the bill to the House. That is what this Standing Order requires us to do.

• 1840

(2) All amendments made in any committee shall be reported to the House. Every bill reported from any committee, whether amended or not, shall be received by the House on report thereof.

To amend it, it has to have been considered. We're going to be setting an absolutely extraordinary precedent were we to send back to the House, without going through clause-by-clause consideration, a bill first submitted to the committee. This would certainly lead to a couple of political science theses, but nothing will have been settled.

And it's written down there: a bill is sent to committee to be considered clause-by-clause. That's what we want to do. We said we were ready to do it if, at the end of our motion... As you said, we tabled 39 amendments. We wish them to be considered. We would like it to be done, but on condition that it's done in an interesting context.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, if I could just make a comment, I just laid out for you what the story is and it's pretty simple. You have another motion. Then you're going to speak to it. I think you're going to get support here from everybody to accept that motion and you will speak to that motion.

But I'm just telling you, at 11.59 p.m., that's it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: And that, Mr. Chairman, is where you are not acting correctly. You're not acting as the Chair of the committee but—and this is a strong word—as a dictator.

You're telling us that at 11:59 p.m., no matter the Standing Orders of the House, you have decided to make your report. This is not in compliance with the Standing Orders. Ask your experts what they think. Check with the clerk, the legislative counsel or anyone else to see if what I've said makes sense. You can't report a bill to the House without having gone through clause-by-clause consideration. And we haven't started doing that yet.

It would be like going to a gas station, hauling a U-turn in front of it and going back home thinking that you've gassed up. You have to stop somewhere. For this consideration, you have to be able to stop to give information.

[English]

The Chairman: Just a second. With all due respect, you've gone through this morning and this evening, and all your members have spoken and made comments about the fact that you're speaking on these issues because you feel very strongly—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We still have several members who would like to avail themselves of the rights and privileges and speak to the motion.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm not saying they can't speak. I'm saying simply—and sometimes the simpler you make a message the worse it is, because people don't understand simplicity. I'm telling you now, as chairman of this committee, I'm going to honour the work plan that was approved by this committee. The work plan includes the fact that at 11.59 p.m. if you haven't touched one clause of clause-by-clause, the bill be will reported as is to the House of Commons tomorrow afternoon. I'm just being matter-of-fact with you. That's what will happen.

Now, you have a motion and we'll deal with this motion. You have speakers and you'll get to speak. It's very simple. Nothing has changed. So what's your...? I don't understand why you're—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: It's important that you know that your interpretation of the Standing Orders is not the same as ours. In no way will we bear the responsibility of, at 11:59 p.m., having made the antidemocratic decision to report to the House without having gone through clause-by-clause consideration.

Our contention is that Standing Order 75 requires, when a committee is considering a bill, that there be clause-by-clause consideration. To do so those motions presented in compliance with the Standing Orders must have been disposed of. We presented one which is in compliance with the Standing Orders and we're telling you that we are ready to examine any hypothesis which would allow for clause-by-clause consideration next week.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, what is it you don't understand? Tell me what don't you understand.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Listen to him and maybe you'll understand this Standing Order.

Mr. Paul Crête: What I understand is that our opinions diverge as to the interpretation of this Standing Order. I'm referring to my Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

[English]

An hon. member: Point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I am speaking to a point of order, sir. You may quietly wait until I'm finished. If we take into account your contribution for today, you can certainly wait a little.

I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that Standing Order 75...

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Do you have Standing Order 75? Do you have it?

Mr. Paul Crête: ...about which I've just given my interpretation...

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Read it slowly because it seems that he...

Mr. Paul Crête: He has the text, he can read it himself, no problem.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Read it out for the benefit of the others, because the wording is rather clear.

• 1845

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, I could read it again, indeed.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, read it again.

Mr. Paul Crête: The test reads as follows:

75.1 In proceedings in any committee on the house upon the bill, the preamble is first postponed, and if the first clause contains a short title it is also postponed; then every other clause is considered...

It doesn't say "will consider", "may consider" or "might not consider".

...by the committee in its proper order; the first clause (if it contains only a short title), the preamble and the title are the last to be considered.

(2) All amendments made in any committee shall be recorded to the House. Every Bill reported from any committee, whether amended or not, shall be received by the House on report thereof.

So if there has been a no clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, it cannot be reported to the House.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's logical.

[English]

The Chairman: If you decide to continue speaking on your motion, which is within your right, then at 11.59 tonight we will go through clause-by-clause and we will report the thing tomorrow. That's what will happen.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Well, then! Does that mean that at 11:59 p.m. you will force us to consider in 30 seconds a bill whose impact will be felt over the next to 20 years? Well, you will bear the responsibility for it.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's how it is and you will bear the new title we have given you: dictator of the Finance Committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Why are you saying that now? We've been looking at this bill for three weeks.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, but we haven't given a single minute...

[English]

The Chairman: We've listened to every person you asked for, it's true, and you're depicting somehow that we're bulldozing our way through. How can you say that?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: One must make the distinction between hearing witnesses and the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill. Those are two very different things.

[English]

The Chairman: No, but really, how can you say that?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: One mustn't take apples for oranges.

[English]

The Chairman: Within yourself, right?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, besides... On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Besides, by proceeding in this way—put your earphone back in to hear what I'm repeating—you're indicating that you don't believe in the negotiations underway between the Prime minister of Canada's Office and the Premier of Quebec's Office. You're telling us that those negotiations are just show, window dressing and will lead to nothing. Be that as it may, during the very first day of our hearings, a senior official called before us to answer our questions told us that if the Quebec government and the federal government agreed to an agreement, the bill would have to be amended. We were told that yes it would have to be amended.

By your action, you are giving no chance to negotiation. You are bulldozing us and we risk having to do this work all over again, if ever this negotiation leads to an agreement, even if you don't seem to believe in this. You seem to believe the whole thing is phoney and you are acting like a dictator in this context.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We have taken stock of our respective perceptions. As far as I am concerned, I maintain my views on S.O. 75. However, I am ready to have a debate on my motion. In any case, at 11.59 p.m., each one will bare the responsibility for his or her decision.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: But it won't end there, Mr. chairman. It won't end there. We can tell you that. We will feel our rights have been interfered with, our right to debate a fundamental question for Quebec. Whether within the walls of Parliament or outside, you will certainly hear of us.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier. I don't know whether you mean inside or outside and if that's sort of a veiled threat or whatever it is, but quite frankly you're dealing with the wrong person. I haven't been impressed with your arguments at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no! There must be no mistake. Mr. chairman, let me be specific. It's the debate on the matter of the millennium scholarships that will not end with your dictatorial decision. The debate will continue outside these walls. There are people getting organized. Let me remind you that in Quebec, there is a consensus. If you think that by bulldozing us in this matter, you are going to interfere with our right to question an unacceptable intrusion, you are wrong.

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, I think—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I did not invite you to step outside.

[English]

The Chairman: What was that?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: When I said "inside and outside", I was saying nothing unparliamentary.

[English]

The Chairman: No, it was very wise of you. But the point here is that it's very clear the committee is under the precise and correct impression that we will report the bill tomorrow and do clause-by-clause tonight.

I know that what upset you, Mr. Loubier and Mr. Crête, was the fact that I recognized the member's right—the same right you've always requested. But at the point in time I recognized Mr. Valeri's right to move his motion, all of a sudden you were upset by it.

• 1850

In relation to the elements of a clause-by-clause and reporting, I think it's crystal clear. It's very clear to me that we need to proceed to clause-by-clause.

You have a motion that you want to speak to.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, I will start. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Monique Guay may want to speak to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, but I would like to speak first because I'm the one who tabled the motion. I therefore remind you of the contents.

I move that Bill C-36, an Act to implement certain provisions of the Budget be considered clause by clause only after the result of negotiations between the government of Quebec and the federal government have been reported to the standing committee.

I would like to bring...

Is Mr. Gallaway interested in the debate going on here?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, not at all. No more than for the rest of our work, anyway.

Mr. Paul Crête: So I would like to advise you of a new position. A press release was put out by the Chambre de commerce du Québec. It states the opinion of the three biggest employers' associations in Quebec: the Chambre de commerce du Québec, the Conseil du patronat du Québec and l'Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec. It says that these three associations:

...seriously wish that the negotiations under way between Quebec and Ottawa, undertaken at the initiative of Premier Bouchard and Prime Minister Chrétien, be pursued and lead to an agreement respecting Quebec's constitutional jurisdiction while allowing the federal government to gain satisfying visibility.

The scholarship program, as imagined for all of Canada...

These are the three Quebec employer associations saying this. They are not all sovereignists. It certainly is not in their ranks that we recruit our supporters. It won't be thanks to them that we will get a majority at election time.

I will continue reading the communiqué.

The scholarship program as imagined for all of Canada, does not suit Quebec who has had its own program since 1964. The debt load of students and education costs in Quebec are far lower than those in the other provinces. The federal program should thus not be applied uniformly, according to employer representatives.

Already, Bill C-36 provides that "the Foundation will have the power to enter into contracts with the appropriate provincial authorities to chose the beneficiaries[...]." There is another big opening for negotiation. Ottawa must show it gives highest priority to an agreement...

Listen up. I can see that you are all very attentive.

...by postponing the passage of its bill in order to conclude the negotiations under way and, if necessary, adjust the bill in consequence.

I will repeat those three sentences. Look at the text of my motion requesting consideration of the bill be suspended during negotiations. Now I will just read over what the Quebec employer associations said:

Ottawa must show it grants highest priorities to reaching an agreement by postponing...

It says "postponing".

...passage of the bill to allow for completion of negotiations under way and, if necessary, amend the bill in consequence. For its part, the Quebec government must negotiate in good faith in order to avoid having the students of Quebec paying the price of another federal-provincial quarrel.

Our responsibility here, as federal parliamentarians, is set out in the first part of that communiqué. To all the groups that came to see us, the unions, the school federations and so forth we must add the three main Quebec employer associations who are asking exactly for what is contained in the motion we tabled.

That is why our attitude, in this debate on this bill, puts us on very firm ground. That is what we say. Our position is Quebec's position. It is a position that the Liberal members from Quebec and the Conservative members from Quebec should support as vigorously as possible. If they don't do so here in committee, to show solidarity with their parties, I hope they will do so in caucus. I hope they will do so in private conversations. I hope they will do so everywhere they can for this general wish to be respected at the end of the day.

Do you think that the Quebec employer associations are making this kind of statement just to please the Quebec sovereignty parties? Do you think that this is political expediency? Is it because they don't believe in the virtues of federalism any more? I don't think that their evaluation of this matter is of that order. Their evaluation has more to do with the fundamental aspects of the question, on the fact that everyone born in Quebec or who has adopted Quebec as a home, finds that education is a primordial nerve centre for the future of the population. Before putting a finger in the ringer, they want to be absolutely sure of what is going to happen.

• 1855

At this point, we have no such guarantee. Based on what they have said here, no Liberal member has recognized in any way that any of the recommendations made by all these Quebec organizations could have any positive aspect to it.

Mrs. Torsney even asked every Quebec group who showed up, one after the other, who they were and who they represented. Her questions never mentioned very clearly, but the sub-text was: "Are you friends of the Bloc Québecois?"

The people who came to speak in the House did...

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): I'm a little concerned that things are being suggested here that I have said at committee that I have never said. I did not ask series of groups whether they represented the Bloc Québécois. In fact, I don't think I asked a single group if they represented the Bloc Québécois.

Be very careful about what you attribute to me in committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: It was implied in many of the statements that you made. I could go over them one by one. We could paper a wall with them. So, what you are saying about that...

I get back to my proposal. You...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But did you apologize to me?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: —just one second. I don't want this debate.... I mean, if you really care about this bill, as I think you do—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I think I have given a demonstration of this, especially since this morning, and by my presence at all the meetings of the committee over these many years.

[English]

The Chairman: As I have, and anybody else here who's listened to everybody.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'm the one you asked.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to put a stop right now to any type of personal little jab here and there. It might be getting late in the day, and you might need some food, or you might have to go and get a drink or something, but I don't want people to start taking personal shots. Argumentum ad hominem is the type of debating style where, when everything else fails, you start attacking people. I don't think that's what you should be doing, and I'm not going to tolerate it. I just want you to stick to Bill C-36.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I agree to get back to the bill. I can say that none of the Liberal members here ever submitted any amendment after we heard groups from all over Quebec and all over Canada. I'm doing a political evaluation which, I hope, you'll allow me to express. I'm attacking no one. I find it astonishing that some could consider that what we have here is an ideal bill and that all the witnesses we heard over three weeks coming from numerous and diverse groups lead to no proposal of amendment.

I would remind you of the text from the three employers' associations which, have just told us, just as all the other groups we presented, that consideration of the bill should be postponed. We should wait for the results of the negotiations before considering the bill. Consideration of the bill does not seem relevant at this time.

There are also other proposals presently. Even the Liberal Party of Quebec is requesting that the federal government amend Bill C-36. So the Quebec Liberal Party, at the Quebec National Assembly, in a motion tabled recently, is asking for the bill to be amended. Does their request go in the direction that we want? I don't know exactly. I still have to evaluate it. However, I can say that even the opposition in Quebec wishes the bill to be amended by the federal government.

So, the fact that no amendment was suggested by the Liberal Party is in contradiction with an even broader consensus. All the groups that came here are members of the Coalition. The employers' associations, the Liberal opposition in Quebec, the sovereignist parties, Quebec's population as a whole, everyone supports that position.

We can't even manage to have it understood that a distinction must be made between the motion being debated since this morning, a debate which was cut off by the Liberal majority, and this new motion that is not asking for the bill to be dropped.

We have become very conciliatory. After analyzing the situation, we are now suggesting that clause-by-clause consideration of the bill should happen once the results of the negotiations underway between the Quebec government and the federal government are made known.

• 1900

Our position has changed since this morning when we asked you to drop the bill. We are now asking you to adopt a negotiated position which you should be able to accept more easily. The support that even the employers' associations are showing in that direction gives even greater credibility to the position we're proposing.

I'd now like to come back to the substance of the matter. The Liberal members have had to ask themselves some serious questions as to why we're also solidly together, that everyone has the same attitude and that we absolutely want Mr. Mel Cappe and the Quebec negotiator to be given the chance to complete their negotiations before coming back to discuss the bill clause-by-clause

Quebeckers have a tradition of patience. They have a tradition of wanting to find solutions, arrangements and compromise. They've done so many times in the past. Today, they're faced with a bill unsatisfactory for all groups of Quebec society and they are reaching out.

Mr. Bouchard came to Ottawa with all the members of the Coalition including Mr. Shapiro who is their spokesman and the rector of McGill University. Together, these people came to say to Mr. Chrétien: "Let's try to find a compromise, to negotiate and find a way to make this work." The members of the Coalition sent you a message; they've told the lawmakers to be proactive in the way they will ensure that the negotiations surrounding this bill will lead to an agreement and that this agreement will be found in the bill.

A proposal to that effect was presented today. I actually believe that when we wind up our work tonight, wisdom will have prevailed and we will have agreed to come back and debate this next week to finalize our analysis of the situation and wait for the negotiations to bear fruit.

The work of this committee might perhaps be more efficient if we could ask Mr. Cappe to appear when he's available and tell us about the negotiations. He may have some things to tell us, for example that such or such an opening is missing. He may be able to indicate to us that we're on the right path and that we can make certain amendments to the bill. We could look at the situation as he describes it and keep the parts we feel to be relevant.

But at this point in time, no message has been received, no signal from the Liberal majority. They have not tabled a single amendment with a view to giving a political interpretation or reacting to our requests and our proposal.

I'll simply come back to what I was saying before. Why do we hold such a strong position? This position developed over the years in Quebec. Education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and Quebec assumes its jurisdiction fully in this area. In 1953, the year of my birth, Quebec blocked a federal project whose goal was to give direct subsidies to Canadian universities during the national universities conference. It opposes the will of the federal government to use federal subsidies to replace the financial powers that are essential to the provinces and interfere in the field of education which is strictly of provincial jurisdiction.

Moreover, since 1961 it has had its own financial aid program for students which includes loans and scholarships. For a long time we have been working to build the consensus we have before us and we hope it will be heard. The best message the Liberal majority could send to Quebec would be an opening on this position.

Tomorrow morning, if you want to contribute to improving relations and demonstrate an open attitude, tell us that you accept to wait for the results of the negotiations before proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. That won't settle all the contentious issues, but it will certainly settle a significant one.

• 1905

I would now ask the other members to express their thoughts on the motion I have tabled.

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Chairman, I came here as part of the fresh reserve contingent, if you allow me that simili, figuring that I was going to be participating in a debate of absolutely capital importance for the future of the scholarship system in Quebec. I knew full well when I got here that there would be a very relevant, very interesting and very germane motion put by my colleagues from the Bloc with a view to postponing consideration of Bill C-36 while the negotiations were under way between the Quebec and Canada governments.

I judged this position quite relevant in so far as Bill C-36 contains provisions which, in a certain way, predetermine the conclusion of those negotiations before they have actually been concluded.

To my great surprise, Mr. Chairman, I get here and closure has been imposed on this motion to get rid of it and make sure it can't be passed. It seems to me that this a really moderate motion that could have led to a serene and fruitful discussion between the governments of Quebec and Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to establish here and now that in no way do I support this action of the federal government who has decided to go ahead and pass Bill C-36 full speed ahead because, to all intents and purposes, that's exactly what is being done here. There is an irregularity here in so far as this manner of proceeding will most certainly impose a direction on these negotiations. There's an attempt to try to preempt the negotiators and present the Quebec government with a done deal. This bill contends provisions which will determine the object of the relation that will exist between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada on this very important matter.

Unfortunately, this motion which was introduced by Mr. Valeri was adopted in the circumstances we all know, and which are actually not of the best water, Mr. Chairman, and do no honour to this committee. After the adoption of this motion, my colleague for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques presented another motion that seemed quite reasonable to me, quite moderate and quite relevant. I would go so far as to read it once again so that our colleagues will be very aware of it and I invite them to listen. I can't say nor can they say that I bugged them all that much today with my speeches because I've just arrived and I'm speaking here for the first time today.

So I'll repeat this motion, Mr. Chairman, which reads as follows:

That the committee's decision of April 2nd—

I don't have the right text, it has not yet been distributed, Mr. Chairman.

The motion reads as follows:

That Bill C-36, an Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget be considered clause-by-clause only after the result of the negotiations between the Quebec government and the federal government has been reported to the standing committee.

Mr. Chairman, that's relevant and quite logical. How could we pass this bill, which in a manner of speaking is going to determine the relations between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada concerning this matter of the Millennium Scholarships before the negotiations between those two governments have drawn to a close?

• 1910

If we go ahead and pass this bill—I'm talking to you, Mr. Chairman—before the negotiations between the governments of Quebec and Canada have even drawn to a close, I should have to come to a conclusion of bad faith upon the part of the federal government which is not really interested in arriving at concrete results in its negotiations with the Quebec government.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to read you a very interesting quote that you have probably heard or read yourself as it comes from an eminent thinker in the ranks of our colleagues across the way. Mr. Trudeau, a past prime minister of Canada, wrote in L'Action nationale—just try to believe that he actually wrote once upon a time something for L'Action nationale—in 1957, on page 438, and I quote:

In such a case, if a government has such an overabundance of revenue that it undertakes to ensure the part of the common good that is not of its jurisdiction, it can only be presumed that this government has taken more than its share of the taxing capacity.

We're witnessing this situation right now. During the last four years, the federal government has decreased its transfer payments to provinces for post-secondary education, health and social welfare, reducing at the same time the leeway of the provincial governments, the Quebec government being one of them, in those matters. It also decided to change the Unemployment Insurance Act which has led to a sinful surplus in that account which it then used to decrease its own deficit thus restricting accessibility to unemployment insurance for people without a job. So the federal government has given itself an absolutely phenomenal leeway in financial matters.

Actually, if it were not for this camouflage operation, the Millennium Foundation Scholarships, the federal government probably would have shown a $2.5 billion surplus. According to estimates, the budgetary surplus would thus be some $4.4 billion while you have provincial governments at wits' end trying to deal with responsibilities that used to be shared 50-50 by the federal government and the provincial ones. The share of the federal government, if memory serves, is now at a level of 12% of these shared cost programs, while all the rest of the cost burden is taken on by the provincial governments.

Mr. chairman, the obvious thing about the Millennium Scholarship project we are dealing with is that the federal government will be taking money from the pockets of the provinces in programs for welfare, post-secondary education and health and use the money that it has saved at the province's expense to set up programs in provincial areas of jurisdiction such as this Millennium Scholarship Program. By acting in this way, it does exactly what the great Liberal thinker prophetized in 1957 in L'Action nationale when he said:

In such a case, if a government has such an overabundance of revenue that it undertakes to ensure the part of the common good that is not of its jurisdiction, it can only be presumed that this government has taken more than its share of the tax capacity.

In other words, the federal government has run up a surplus by taking money from the pockets of the provinces and then is using it to invade provincial areas of jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, that is quite odious.

Let us now return to the bill dealing with the Millennium Scholarships, Bill C-36.

• 1915

The Liberal Party has a long tradition. I have gone back to 1957 but let's talk about a more recent period. In 1964, when the Liberals were in power in Quebec City under the leadership of Jean Lesage, a former federal member of Parliament, and with Lester B. Pearson as Prime Minister in Ottawa, the federal government fully recognized that a loan and bursary program should be implemented by the provincial government, notably the government of Quebec, if the province decided it wished to implement such a program.

I'd like to quote from a telegram sent to Jean Lesage by Lester B. Pearson on April 16 1964 where he said:

...the federal government intends to propose arrangements whereby guaranteed bank loans would be granted to university students... If a province prefers to have its own loans program, it may receive equivalent compensation.

So it was recognized at the time, and this was probably the golden age of liberalism, since René Lévesque who was then a Liberal later became a sovereignist, that a fundamental principle was it stake, namely that education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Since then things have degenerated to the stage we can now see with the present government.

So there was recognition of the basic principle whereby education comes under provincial jurisdiction and that it was up to the provincial government to take responsibility for loans and bursaries.

And now, what is the present situation? As I said, the federal government has absorbed its deficit at the expense of the provinces, it has accumulated a fiscal surplus at the expense of the provinces and is attempting to camouflage the situation by setting up a phony Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation and in this way is invading a sacred area of provincial jurisdiction, namely education. And everyone seems think we will swallow this without saying a word.

The Quebec government rightly demands that its sacred jurisdiction in education be respected. Those who have spoken demand that the federal government respect their sacred area of provincial jurisdiction, namely education. The various witnesses who appeared before the committee reminded you that the government of Quebec was perfectly entitled to demand that the federal government respect this sacred provincial jurisdiction over education.

As my colleague Paul Crête rightly pointed out, even the business community, whom we do not suspect of sovereignist leanings, came before you to say that this bill was a mistake and that it went against the pact of Confederation whereby education is an area of provincial jurisdiction and that it was fundamentally unfair, irregular and even dishonest to take money from the provinces in order to increase one's own latitude and thus step into provincial areas of jurisdiction.

I urge committee members to pay particular attention to the motion presented by my colleague Paul Crête whose purpose is simply to give the negotiations a chance.

Not so long ago, we were faced with a postal conflict and every day the ministers responsible were asked when they would settle this matter once and for all and when they would decide to use the steam roller to force the workers back to the job. The ministers, quite rightly, rose in the House and repeated that they wanted to give negotiations a chance.

I'd like to ask you why the appropriate action for the postal conflict is no longer appropriate in the case of the Millennium Fund? Why are we unwilling to give negotiations a chance? Why did we decide to go along with this phony exercise in negotiations when we knew full well that we would not allow this exercise to result in something concrete?

• 1920

What the Liberal government wanted was to pass a bill at full speed in order to determine the outcome of this negotiation before it had a chance to reach a conclusion.

I sincerely think that this is dishonest. To some extent, it is a subversion of democracy in that there was an agreement and consent between two democratically elected governments to undertake negotiations in good faith. Is this a sign of the federal government's good faith, Mr. Chairman, to force the hand of the government of Quebec and to place the government of Quebec before a fait accompli by adopting Bill C-36 with its specific provisions relating to the establishment of relations between the government of Quebec and the federal government and all the provincial governments with respect to this infamous Millennium Scholarship project?

I have not yet discussed the details of the bill itself, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, this bill contains many aberrations, many problems and elements that strike us as being particularly problematic. We hope to be able to make worthwhile corrections during the clause-by-clause study of the bill with the amendments that we are suggesting.

I urge all committee members, before beginning the clause-by-clause study, to avoid placing the cart before the horse and not to begin a hasty clause-by-clause study since there is another process underway at the present time, namely the negotiations. And as the Minister of Labour and the Minister responsible for Canada Post noted during the last labour conflict with Canada Post, we should give negotiations a chance.

The bill we are studying does everything but give negotiations a chance. So, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you to adopt this motion quickly and unanimously so that we do not proceed with our clause-by-clause study of the bill.

But if, flying in the face of all logic, the Liberal members, contrary to the spirit guiding those eminent Liberal thinkers in 1957 and 1964, decide to reject the very relevant notion from my colleague Paul Crête, we would feel obliged to conclude, out of respect for the groups that appeared before you to present their point of view in good faith, in the belief that you would be professional and honest enough to take these views into account, that you have decided to do nothing.

Since there is unfortunately no proposal for amendment coming from the government party, no proposal for amendment coming from the Liberals, we must unfortunately conclude that you did not listen or if you did listen, you decided that you would remain mute. You decided that you would do nothing to take into account these demands, these representations, these perfectly legitimate concerns expressed to you by a majority and that should have led you to make substantial amendments to Bill C-36. But you've decided not to do so.

Let me repeat that if the submissive majority of this committee decided to reject the motion of my colleague, Paul Crête, I would invite this committee to display the intellectual honesty that should be expected of it, instead of the interpretation given by the Chair to the motion adopted on April 2, which, in my opinion, is not at all the correct one.

• 1925

In spite of this interpretation, I invite the committee members to take the time necessary for the clause-by-clause study of the bill out of respect for the witnesses who appeared before this committee and respect for the negotiations taking place between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada. So I invite you to take the time necessary to give full attention to this clause-by-clause study.

God only knows that the Liberal members are paying absolutely no attention to the present proceedings of this committee. They are only here to ensure a quorum. They're only here to vote against the opposition's motion. They are only here to vote against the amendments made by the opposition, amendments that flow directly from the testimony we heard in this committee, testimony that normally should guide our actions, although that is not the present case.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Lower your voice.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On that note, I invite you once again to adopt this motion. Should the motion be rejected, against all logic, I invite you, Mr. Chairman, to begin the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-36

[English]

An hon. member: I'm calling for the question.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I second it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, no.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: But I want to speak.

An hon. member: We're going to speak to that, yes.

The Chairman: Before we move on to—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We are here to work. If you're not interested, you can go outside!

[English]

The Chairman: People shouldn't lose their cool. This is a civilized society, and we ought to act accordingly. I don't understand why this thing is getting a little bit heated.

I have to bring to Mr. Crête's attention—unfortunately, Mr. Loubier is not here, otherwise I would bring it to his attention as well—the Standing Committee on Finance's calendar, May 1998. Mr. Crête probably remembers this.

You don't remember this?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: No.

[English]

The Chairman: You don't remember.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Loubier was here, not me.

[English]

The Chairman: It says very clearly here that on Thursday, May 7, we'd be dealing with clause-by-clause. It says clause-by-clause here. Then it says to report Bill C-36 to the House on Friday, May 8, the same deadline for suggesting witnesses on Bill S-3 and Bill S-9.

This is something we agreed upon. That's why I find the comments you made earlier quite challenging, and not in a partisan way—not at all—but on a personal level. I find it very discouraging that people at this level, entrusted by so many Canadians who have voted for us, cannot simply agree that certain decisions were made, in the right spirit, to address Bill C-36, and that now somehow we're running away from it.

I say this personally. As chair of your committee, I find it very disheartening that at this level we would do this. It's beyond comprehension.

I say this really from the bottom of my heart. I'm not talking to the part-time members but to the ones who actually show up here, day in and day out, and work very hard to make things work right for people we represent.

I bring this to your attention because sometimes you need to look within yourself when you challenge a person and admit to yourself when you're wrong. You've clearly demonstrated, according to me, that the statements you have made about the clause-by-clause and the report are....

I know you're going to go back to whatever you had before, but I am telling you, if Mr. Loubier was here, he would vouch for this document. I hope he comes back, because I'll put this right under his nose so that he can read it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, since you've mentioned this point, I'd like to make a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: I want to tell you that as chair, I am very, very disappointed.

• 1930

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to say that the position you've just taken is a personal interpretation. I have before me the full text of the minutes and I'd like to read the appropriate excerpt. I trust the people who draft the minutes. The minutes give an account of a meeting and they say: "That Bill C-36 be reported to the House of Commons on May 8, 1998."

We all agree on the words "be reported to the House". What is to be contained in this report? Everything depends on the quality of our debate and our ability to improve the bill. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that the best way of reporting to the House is to say that in view of the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa, the clause-by-clause study of the bill should be suspended until the negotiations are concluded.

You are entitled to your ideas but I also have the right to uphold mine. I have the right to defend my interest and those of my constituents and I will not allow you to call into question the way in which I represent them and their opinions.

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: No. You have your opinion and I have mine. We're even.

[English]

The Chairman: I made my point. Everybody, within themselves, knows what the facts of the case are, and you have to sleep with it.

Mrs. Redman, followed by Ms. Cohen.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Then we'll go to Mr. Szabo and Mr. Coderre.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Speaking for the motion before us as well as some of the comments of the previous speaker, I take exception to the word being used as camouflage, because I would contend that the federal government has been very transparent in committing $2.5 billion to aid students all across Canada, in every province—better access to post-secondary education. This is actually a reaction to consultations we took across Canada, and we heard from students that this is something they need.

I'd also like to respond to the comment that was made by the previous speaker, who I know is hanging on my every word.

Attention.

I am just waiting for him to get his ear-piece in because I know he doesn't want to miss any of my brilliant discourse.

[Translation]

An Honourable Member: If I'd waited until everyone was listening to me, I would have been waiting a long time.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: One of the comments made was that the provinces were having trouble making ends meet, and I would contend that as the federal government has put its fiscal house in order, all but three provinces as well have balanced their budgets. So this really isn't being done on the backs of anyone. I think everybody is trying to walk the walk of commerce and government.

Student debt is a problem and it's something we heard from the people who made representations from Quebec, as well as from outside of Quebec. I sit on a university caucus, and as part of that caucus I have heard from people who represent and actually teach in the province of Quebec. They said the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund and the money would be very welcome to them. So I would have to say that despite the fact that we had 14 groups come forward, there is not unanimity, even in the province of Quebec.

It increases access, and I would also tell you that from the 14 groups we talked to, I didn't hear a common consensus. One group—and I can't remember which one—talked about harmonizing the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund with what exists in Quebec. As Mr. Valeri has already pointed out, there is nothing in Bill C-36 that would prevent that from happening.

I also heard other presenters say they wanted to see it turned into back-filling for what they saw were some of the cutbacks that happened due to the cuts this government had to make in transfer payments. It also points out that this is a shared responsibility between the federal and the provincial governments. I think nothing attests to that more than the fact that two levels of government look after funding it as it is, and it is not an intrusion by the federal government into a provincial jurisdiction.

There are many other things in Bill C-36 that are good news for students, not the least of which are the RESPs, the dealing with RRSPs, and the fact that the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund will go to part-time students. There are a lot of things in this bill that are good news for anyone who is looking at going back to education.

I just wanted to address those comments to the previous speaker and some of the assertions he has made. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Szabo.

• 1935

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was a little disappointed that we weren't able to get to clause-by-clause by now, because, quite frankly, there are a couple of amendments that have been tabled here that I really wanted to participate in a debate on.

We have come through an interesting day that started at 9 a.m. with a motion that we basically scrap the bill. That didn't seem to be very constructive, although I understand why the Bloc made that motion. I thought the chair was very patient in providing substantial opportunity for quite a number of members of the Bloc to speak on that motion. I think I heard the rationale—clear, complete and redundant.

But after that was disposed of, and during the disposition of it, it also disappointed me that decisions of the chair were debated on more than one occasion and not ultimately resolved by a motion to challenge the chair until after it had really become out of control. I think, Mr. Chairman, the decision to deal with this in order to report back to the House tomorrow is still an item that continues to be debated by Bloc speakers on the motion we're talking about even now.

I would suggest that if other speakers want to question the decision of the chair about whether or not this bill will be reported, a motion should be either made or deemed to have been made that the chair's decision is being challenged.

We are now faced with another motion that basically says let's stop doing our work until something else happens. My first reaction was that the motion itself actually wasn't in order, because the committee as a whole agreed, I believe unanimously, to a work plan and to a timetable for Bill C-36 that included an agreement to report the bill back tomorrow.

The effect of the subsequent motion to not proceed with clause-by-clause until something else happened contradicted a decision already taken by the committee. To reconsider a motion or a decision already taken by the committee should have been presented as a move to reconsider, rather than some other motion that would have the effect of reversing a decision previously made.

I accept your decision about the motion the Bloc made to defer the consideration of clause-by-clause until some other event takes place, but it's an interesting point that I want to take up with the officials, just for future reference.

I can recall in some other aspects where, if a matter has already been addressed, it can't come up again without the unanimous consent of a committee. Those are points of procedure, and I think we're all grasping at straws to try to resolve it, but they're interesting questions.

We are now in a position where we have this bill, and for better or worse, we all understand that the process will proceed, and we will report the bill back to the House as the committee agreed. I think it's unfortunate that it will likely be without discussion of the proposed amendments, which could still be done in time if this motion presently on the table were discharged. However, it appears there isn't a will to do that. It therefore appears that what will happen here tonight is that a generic discussion will go on until the clock reaches a point at which the committee has to wind up its affairs for the day.

• 1940

During the hearings, Mr. Chairman, the issue of the millennium scholarship fund preoccupied a lot of the debate and dialogue. There is no question that the Bloc was able to assemble a number of educational institutions from Quebec to come before committee, ostensibly to lay out, I think consistently among all of them—unanimously, if you will—a number of points.

One was that in their view, all things considered, education was the purview of the provinces, and therefore in this case Quebec was claiming it was their responsibility and that the federal government was not to move into this area.

The second point was that there was already a system in place to address the needs of the students of Quebec. I think it's interesting that the tuition rates in Quebec are substantially lower than they are in the rest of Canada. I can only speculate, because I don't think I had much success in getting an answer, but I had suggested that the high school drop-out rate in Quebec approached something like 50% whereas the average in Canada was around 30%.

It really meant that the population of young people who would be available to go to post-secondary or the equivalent was actually much smaller on a per capita basis. Thinking about what the Province of Quebec did with regard to the declining birth rate in Quebec, for instance, there were certain very generous incentives introduced to encourage families to have larger families, more kids. It seems to me that the financial inducement was a response to a social reality, and I think the same principle probably applies to the education system as well.

The reality is that on a per capita basis there are fewer students to draw on in Quebec for its colleges and universities. It means there has to be some special inducements to encourage as many students as possible to sustain the levels of student population Quebec needs for its facilities. As a result, Quebec has given those financial inducements indirectly, not by scholarships but by maintaining a higher level of subsidy of the post-secondary levels of education.

Having done that, I think it's quite obvious and understandable that Quebec would suggest that the millennium scholarship fund would provide assistance in the same area that the Government of Quebec has already provided ample levels of assistance or inducement to students to attend post-secondary.

However, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding that the average debt levels of graduating students in Quebec are substantially lower than they are in other parts of Canada, there are still students in Quebec who do not attend post-secondary because there is no way they are prepared, or can be prepared, to accept any financial debt, simply because of the family economic circumstances.

It says to me that notwithstanding maybe students who do go to post-secondary and are prepared to carry some level of debt, the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund necessarily has to be used for existing students. It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund, because it is a scholarship rather than a loan, means that it is a tool or an instrument that can be used to help those, in my view, who may not otherwise go. There is a threshold at which students will choose not to proceed to post-secondary. It could be that their families' economics are such that they cannot even afford to sustain themselves while they are in school, even with loans that might be available.

• 1945

It means, to me, that the accessibility issue is something that is also relevant in Quebec. It means, to me, that 20% or 25% of the resources from the annual millennium scholarship endowments would be available to Quebec students. It means, to me, that a lot more students who otherwise would not be able to go to post-secondary—which I think most members would agree is an important milestone or level of educational achievement necessary to fully participate in the success that Canada enjoys today—would be able do so.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it appears that notwithstanding that Quebec has done a better job than the rest of Canada in maintaining lower tuition rates, it still has a need for the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund for those students who otherwise will not go to post-secondary. That need, to me, justifies the existence and applicability also to Quebec.

I'm gratified, however, as the parliamentary secretary has said, that there is a framework that is very flexible so that there can be a cooperative effort between the federal and provincial governments to deliver what I believe to be a student-centred initiative and not a political or some other interparliamentary or provincial-federal negotiation. It happens to be a legitimate program directed at those in need in Canada, and in this regard, it happens to be students for whom accessibility is a primary issue.

The third area in which the witnesses represented the Quebec point of view had to do with duplication. Clearly, there is a mechanism in place with regard to the Quebec funds. It's not all scholarship, though. It is loan based, ostensibly, and has a shrinking bursary or scholarship base.

Mr. Chairman, we also know that there are other provinces that don't have the same kind of mechanism, that don't have the same kind of structure built up to service the needs of their students. It means that the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund is and has been supported by every other province in the country, based on the testimony of witnesses that came before us very, very enthusiastically. I must admit there were some questions, there were some concerns about areas that the committee took into account, and I believe those questions that were raised have been resolved to the satisfaction of those who raised them.

It does mean, though, that Canada will have a millennium scholarship fund. It means that it will be there for Canadian students, regardless of where they choose to study; that mobility will be respected, and that meeting the needs of those students, particularly as it relates to access, will be the primary focus.

The issue about duplication, however, I do not believe is as serious as the testimony that we received from some Quebec representatives of the education industry would have us think. Their concern was somehow that there would be administrative duplication or other forms of duplication. I don't think we got into too much detail.

Then there was the question—and I recall raising it on a couple of occasions with witnesses—about the extent to which somebody in the system...where there was discussions and cooperation going on about names or suggested names for the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund being prepared or submitted by the province or by the educational institution etc. to make sure that those in need would be properly identified and it was determined that merit was essential. But that process takes place in any event, and it means that the process of assessing need, merit, who, what, where and why, are all done once and used by both funds, both in the Quebec system and the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund.

• 1950

I don't believe there's duplication. That effort would have to be done, in any event, and could be done and coordinated, with regard to Quebec students, through the existing infrastructure of the Quebec program.

The Millennium Scholarship Foundation, as a non-profit and arm's length entity, still has to have its own system set up, because there are other provinces that don't have the infrastructure that Quebec has. It means there is going to be an administrative element but it also has a board of directors who are accountable. It's going to be audited. The dollars are presented under the condition that 100,000 scholarships are going to be provided annually to students who meet the criteria.

This whole argument of duplication is maybe played out a little more than it need be. It also seems to be at a level of detail that gets too far away from the essence of what we're talking about. I can recall talking to one of the witnesses about the materiality of the dollars involved. When you consider that some $300 million annually would go into the scholarships for a year, Quebec would get, say, 20%, so we're talking in the range of $60 million.

Right now, the Government of Quebec administers programs that deliver over $800 million into the Quebec educational system for loans and tuition. So, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the amounts on a per capita or pro rata basis being talked about are not sufficient to undermine anything that's already going on. I wasn't at all the meetings—I think I missed one group of witnesses—but I doubt that anyone heard a student or a student group in Quebec say they didn't want the money. They still want the money.

I guess the most important thing is for us to make sure that those for whom it is directed and intended get it. I know, Mr. Chairman, in the last rounds and as we were grasping for some sort of rationalization, it dawned on me that to the extent that the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund were to grant a scholarship to a particular student, the coordination between the feds and the province—the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, I should say, not the federal government because it is at arm's length—would be such that the province would be in a position to determine whether that student would qualify for any supplemental assistance, either by way of loan or bursary, and therefore the Quebec system would in fact be saved or forgo the necessary funding of that student to the extent the student got the millennium scholarship.

If that's the case, what ultimately results here is that more students in Quebec in fact will benefit from the existing level of resources available under loans and bursary programs, because some currently getting them, or who would apply for them in the future, would be taken care of under the millennium scholarship fund.

It seems to me that there is a leveraging and a real addition to the resources available, no matter how the mechanics work out. One way or another, there are more dollars, directly or indirectly, available to Quebec students, hopefully to deal with the accessibility issue. In the long term, if Quebec felt it necessary to inject more funds into the educational system to stabilize or even reduce tuition, the savings with regard to the current provincial loan and bursary programs could be curtailed somewhat to fund those things. Certainly, if there's $800 million there, they'd have some latitude to work with that.

Mr. Chairman, those are a few of my thoughts. I know how strongly the Bloc feels about this. I think they've done a very good job in bringing these points of view to the attention of the committee, and they've also brought enough witnesses to corroborate their views and to give them the kind of information they need to support their arguments.

• 1955

I think the arguments have been made very well. I don't agree with them but I respect their views. I listened. I think I understand them. I hope I've understood them.

I would say, based on the totality of evidence that I've heard as well as on the information I received from the witnesses—particularly those who argued in ways with which I didn't agree—I'm not convinced that the millennium scholarship fund is an affront or undermines anything at all. On the contrary, it makes a significant contribution indeed to the advancement of students, particularly at the post-secondary level as well as colleges and other educational institutions that qualify under the proposed terms of the foundation's operations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to leave you with my comments. I just wanted to summarize how I feel after going through this process. I don't think I have to repeat any more of the points I've already made. Once made, I hope members had an opportunity to appreciate where I was coming from.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here on such a lovely evening, to be inside enjoying myself in air-conditioned comfort. I'm sure that the 23 officials from the Department of Finance, and those from HRDC and Treasury Board who are here or in the environs, are very happy to be here. We all know how well paid they are, and I'm sure they're all making overtime.

I'm sure the clerks are very happy to be here—they've recently settled their contract, and I'm sure it included a very generous allowance for overtime—and the researchers whom those who seek to filibuster this evening are so cavalierly keeping here.

You might like to know that the researchers have not settled their contract and, in fact, make a pittance compared with other highly paid people in this room. But that doesn't stop us from keeping them here, keeping them overtime, and keeping them away from their families and their pursuits.

The members opposite may moan and groan and grin, but it is our staff and our fine public servants that they abuse with these notions.

Personally, I'm having fun. I'm having a wonderful time. I know Ms. Torsney is, too. We came dressed in our jeans so we'd be comfortable. I've got a wonderful novel called Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. I hope we do get to midnight, because we're certainly in the garden of good and evil tonight.

Let me talk for a moment about the city of Windsor, the centre of my universe and, I know, a place that many in this room wish they were visiting right now. Windsor is a fine city, a medium-sized city of 200,000 people, near to the very small and homely little city of Sarnia, Ontario, which is represented by the member on the phone there.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You might want to correct the record. Would that be the homely member or the homely city?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: The homely city, not the homely member. I'm sorry if there's any confusion about that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Sarnia is a city full of very large people without hair. But it's a nice city. And they're friendly, those large people. They're very friendly. Windsor, on the other hand, is a charming city, as I've said, right across from the city of Detroit. And speaking of Detroit, I'd like to talk now about gun control and the relationship of gun control to the millennium scholarship fund.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: It is, after all, because of gun control that we can have this filibuster in a calm and civilized manner and that we can trust our public servants not to do anything that might harm us while they're sitting here.

In Windsor, there are two post-secondary institutions. There is the University of Windsor, whose president, Ross Paul, wrote me recently to thank me for the efforts our government has undertaken in developing a wonderful fund like the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund. Also the St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology, where I taught for several years—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Did you graduate at all?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I'm going to go to my educational history in a minute. Jack McGee is the president of St. Clair College, and he wrote and thanked me for our work on the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund.

Speaking of the University of Windsor, I got three degrees there—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: How many did you get expelled from?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I didn't get expelled from any, but I was at the University of Windsor for three degrees, part of which I got at a place called the DH. It's the Dominion House Tavern. We did a lot of research there.

But, you know, I credit the University of Windsor and the Dominion House Tavern with getting me here. Had I not had this education I could not be here. I did so without scholarships because those were in the days when tuition was cheap and parents could afford to send their kids to school, even all the eight kids in my family. But that's not the case today. And so the millennium scholarship fund means that many people in my riding, which is not a wealthy riding—

• 2000

Ms. Paddy Torsney: How many people are there?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: There are 104,000. Could I finish? Many people in my riding will be able to go to university and to complete their degrees and to go to community college and to have an opportunity at a life of some prosperity. Education and prosperity go hand in hand.

The Chairman: Order. I want to hear what Ms. Cohen says.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: There's a little problem with somebody talking on the telephone at the table. I think probably we can deal with that.

The Chairman: Madame Guay, we don't use cells here, okay?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: You know the nice thing, Mr. Chair, about the city of Windsor is that people there are polite. Not only are they polite, but in Windsor we have several finance critics and not one of them has ever shaken his fist at me, not one of them has ever called me a clown—at least not in public. But, you know, I can get over that because I'm a woman of peace,. I like to think of myself that way—a woman of gun control and peace, an educated woman of gun control and peace.

And education is a chicken and an egg thing. It's like that movie written by a famous Canadian, Mr. Kinsella, a movie called Field of Dreams, the baseball movie. It's a great movie, and it was about the philosophy that if you build it they will come. And what they have found in places like Windsor is that if you educate people they will find jobs.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Excuse me, I'll just have a little drink of water; my throat's a little loose.

If you educate people, they will find jobs. Educated people, people with degrees, do in fact find jobs. And corporations like Chrysler, like General Motors, like Ford and Mercedes and Hiram Walker, like to have an educated workforce. And so they go to places where they have trained people to work. So in Windsor, at our post-secondary institutions with the help of the federal government, we have established specialized training programs for people in the automotive industry.

And this brings me to another subject that I'm fond of, and that's the country of Ireland. Ireland has a highly educated and a highly literate population. And in Ireland, where they now have beaten their deficit and where they now have one of the fastest-growing economies in the European Union, companies like IBM have sought to locate research and development labs. Why? Because the people are literate, they're educated, and of course, being Irish, they're highly talented and able to...never mind what else they can do, but they're very good people.

If we all took a look at this millennium scholarship fund and we all concentrated on how it could be used to educate our people, wherever our people are located in this country, we would see that this would be an impetus for us for economic development both externally and internally. People would come with their companies to use our educated employees in the various regions of the country, but as we educated people, they would develop as well economic enterprises that would lead to prosperity.

Education also leads to a kind of contentment in one's life because it opens doors to you so that you can develop leisure activities and other activities that simply create a better quality of life. And this brings me back to Windsor. I'm not going to talk about my dogs yet, but I will if I have to. This brings me back to Windsor again, where our quality of life is greater, I would submit, than the quality of life in any other city of comparable size in North America. You might think that is hyperbole, but then again, what else is there to do here this evening?

• 2005

As I said before, I live right across from Detroit. Detroit is in the United States of America, but it was a French settlement. You probably didn't know that, Mr. Chair. It was originally a French Canadian settlement, and when we settled the war of 1812 they tried to give it to us, but we gave it back.

Having said that, in Detroit they have a problem with their quality of life. And one of the reasons they have a problem with their quality of life is that their population in that city is very poorly educated. Education is not something that is accessible in the United States. They don't have a millennium scholarship fund. They don't have a prime minister or a leader who has the vision of Jean Chrétien. They don't have a human resources minister who has the vision of Pierre Pettigrew, and they certainly don't have a finance minister like Paul Martin. In fact, they don't have a parliamentary system at all. Did you know that? They have a congressional system. It's very different. It's different in a whole bunch of ways.

That leads me to another subject that I wanted to talk about tonight. As a result of my husband's education—he has a PhD in behavioural science—we have been able to embark very successfully on a hobby, which is that we breed Irish water spaniels. I just want to take a moment to tell you about this and its relationship to the millennium scholarship fund, which I'm working on.

Keep in mind the recurring theme here: Windsor. Windsor good, Sarnia bad, you know that. Ireland, education and literacy.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: What kind of dogs do you have?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Irish water spaniels. Windsor's on the water.

Now, I can tell you that these dogs are highly intelligent. In fact, according to Professor Coren's book, The Intelligence of Dogs, they are even smarter than many other breeds, but they're about equal with the Labrador retriever.

Now the Labrador retriever, particularly the yellow lab—some people call them golden labs, but that's wrong. Golden retrievers, yellow labs. Golden retrievers, yellow labs. Yellow labs are okay; they're very intelligent dogs. In fact, the chair has one, his name is Rex. I've never met him. I have a friend named David Smith who has a dog named Rex as well. It's a Brittany spaniel.

My husband and I also have a Brittany spaniel, a very intelligent dog but not highly educated.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: What's his name?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Brandy.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is that from Ireland?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Our two dogs, our two water spaniels, are highly educated, and I find that as a result of that training they have a better quality of life. They are less violent than other dogs and much easier to live with.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is that the one that bit somebody?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Yes, but the woman she bit was an American. I don't think we should go into that.

An hon. member: Was that reported in the press?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Yes, it was reported on the front page of the Windsor Star and I was able to note that because, you see, I can read. That's because I have three degrees from the University of Windsor, a bachelor of arts, a master of arts in sociology and a bachelor of laws. Yes, I do have all three of those. Then I also graduated from the bar admission course.

These are the things that education can do for you. As a result of that, I'm making $64,500 a year and I'm working until midnight, at least.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the filibuster, and the filibuster is a way of disrupting the democratic process. During it you can do things like shake your fist at the chair of the justice committee. I'm the chair of the justice committee, and the fist was shaken at me. You can be told to shut up by a member of the opposition. You can be called a clown and you can still stay calm. That's because a filibuster is intended to disrupt the democratic process. It's done by people in the name of democracy, people who call chairs—who are simply trying to do their job—dictators, people who—

An hon member: Yell instead of speak.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: —yell instead of speak, people who raise the level, not of the debate but of the sound of the debate.

Having said that, the filibuster is named after a senator of the United States Senate, and he was great at speaking. He could speak for hours. He was of Irish Catholic descent, as I recall. He was a very talented man.

But ultimately do you know what happens? In the parliamentary system it doesn't work, especially when you have the foresight to have a motion that says this committee must report by a certain date.

• 2010

It doesn't matter what they do with their filibuster. It doesn't matter how long they do it. They can't stop this bill from being reported. This bill will be reported and it will be reported without the content discussed. It will be reported without those amendments the opposition wants discussed. It will be reported without any amendments at all. That's fine with the government.

But it amazes me that someone who could call the chair of the justice committee a clown because she was smiling politely at him across the way; who could tell the chair of the justice committee to shut up because she was asking her friend next to her for a glass of water or something like that—that a man that intelligent can't understand that he can stay here as long as he wants, but the longer they talk the more we're driven toward that inescapable conclusion tomorrow when you report this bill unamended.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on all night. Oh, let me just talk a little more. Maybe this committee could come to Windsor and then Windsor could—

An hon. member: Do you have a cat?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Yes, I do have a cat. Her name is Rosie. Rosie's a lovely cat but she's not very well educated. As a result, she seems to find it difficult to keep away from the water spaniel, so she lives up on things. She can't walk on the floor. If she walks on the floor she'll get caught. I think if she had a better education maybe she could get away from the water spaniel.

Perhaps the finance committee should consider coming to Windsor this year during the pre-budget debate and discussions to see a city that has beaten the odds in terms of the last recession. It came out of it very quickly, has diversified its economy, and has an educated workforce with people making a good living in peaceful surroundings.

In Windsor, as our prosperity increases our crime rate goes down. This is true of most cities where the unemployment rate drops dramatically. It's a city where people enjoy their community and are committed to their community. I think one of the reasons they are is because of their level of education and the fact that they can relate to each other on a different par than perhaps those in other communities. We're very proud of our educational institutions and we're very proud of our ability to educate our citizens.

Thank you.

An hon. member: My name is—

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I don't know if I mentioned when I was delineating the stress on the people who are here that the Bloc has its own staff here. There are thousands of them, it seems to me, coming in and out, playing with their expensive cell phones—

An hon. member: Giving speeches.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: —and helping with the speeches.

An hon. member: And the motions, don't forget the motions.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I'm sure those people would like to be home. There are other assorted staff here as well who we are forced to have here because of the nature of these proceedings. But, you know, filibusters happen and filibusters must go on.

An hon. member: I think you should pay tribute to our staff.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Our staff members have worked particularly hard, and we're particularly glad to have them join us here this evening. I know, though, the one staff person who is here lives in Cornwall, Ontario, and she will have to go back there after this, if she ever gets out of here tonight. I certainly hope she drives carefully and is not in any accident or anything, because it would be a real tragedy.

People who cause filibusters don't think about those things, you know. They think about their own little show, which will lead us inexorably to the same result tomorrow, and that result is that this bill will be reported.

What part of this bill will be reported anyway?

An hon. member: The whole thing.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Do they not understand? What part do they not understand? Wouldn't they all rather be home with their families? It's a wonder to me that these things can go on in such a modern and progressive institution as the Parliament of Canada, but apparently it does.

An hon. member: Maybe you could talk about why the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund is a good thing.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I'm running out of steam here and I'd like to take a little break, but let me suggest to you that if at any time you find the other discourse annoying, I'd be happy to come back and irritate the other side for you for a while.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

• 2015

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I hope the public servants who are here this evening understand how much I personally appreciate what they're doing. If any of them have anything to do with any grant that might be going anywhere in the country, southwestern Ontario is a good place. In Windsor we try to think like this: Toronto bad, Windsor good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, I'm a Quebec MP, I'm proud to be a Quebecker and a Canadian. Since this debate began, all the comments from the Bloc with the exception of the photographs have all been just so much "constitutionitis". Every time they spoke, they turned it into a constitutional debate.

People are in need of this money. The average student debt level is $11,000. I was here when Gérald Larose, the great man himself, representing the CSN said that this money should be given to the rest of Canada where the average student debt load was $25,000 when in Quebec it is only $11,000. He said it would be a waste and that they didn't want any.

We could talk for a long time about constitutional history. I'd be very happy to go over constitutional history. I appreciated my colleague's animal therapy but I'd like to get back to this question of the Millennium Scholarships.

One thing is sure, Mr. Chairman, education is clearly a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I'm in full agreement on this point. According to section 93 of the British North America Act, education is and remains a matter of provincial jurisdiction. But this is an attempt to change the debate when we know full well that the Millennium Scholarships concern access to education. Contrary to our colleagues who are trying to start a constitutional battle, we decided that we would look after students. Instead of playing with history like the Bloc or the separatists and instead of building monuments, we prefer to invest in knowledge and in the future for the year 2000, that is to say we prefer our youth.

I am in full agreement with the government's position on the Millennium Fund. I intend to vote for Bill C-36 when the time comes. It will not be an anti-Quebec position but a position aimed at helping our young people gain access one day to interesting jobs.

They were talking about history a while ago. Today we are celebrating an extraordinary event, the 1943 and 1944 Quebec Conference. Once again, the separatists, let's call a spade a spade, have been attempting to rewrite history, just as they attempt their own version of history and the Constitution. They decided to celebrate Roosevelt and Churchill but when it came to celebrating the person who brought these men together and changed the course of history, that is Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, they would rather erect a statue to people like De Gaulle and totally forget about Mackenzie King. This is the kind of reworking of history that we have to deal with continually with the Bloc. They talk as if they were endowed with the absolute truth. The Berlin Wall has been knocked down but they want to set up borders and their constant refrain is that it's the federal government's fault. I think it's indecent to hear people continually blaming the federal government and at the same time use systematic obstruction, legitimate and legal though it may be.

But we can understand what they're after. They want to make trouble so that all sorts of senior officials who must make a lot more money than I do spend hours and hours looking at this site. I can understand why people, particularly people in Quebec, are very cynical about us. These are the same people who proposed more than 39 amendments. We could have had a debate on the substance of these amendments and then had our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-36 and voted on them. But this isn't what they want, they decided that they would play for time because that's what the bosses in Quebec City told them to do.

• 2020

Make no mistake about it, Madam Chair, it's very clear. For committees and question period the procedure is the same: Quebec City faxes a message to its branch telling them to ask such and such a question or do such and such a thing. Their message was we don't want this bill, do everything you can to block it. We don't care about students in Quebec and even less about single mothers who under this bill would be entitled to a scholarship although at the present time they cannot benefit from the Quebec financial assistance program. This is a good example of the fact that we are not asking for duplication but rather a complimentary system. But we are not allowed to do that.

The purpose is to turn this into a big circus and keep repeating that Canada doesn't work. That's the only thing you have to say, it's provincial jurisdiction and you are meddling in our business.

I decided to enter politics, Madam Chair, to combat this reductionist approach. I've been a member of the Liberal Party of Canada for 15 years, I ran as a candidate 10 years ago and I'm now a happy member of Parliament. I know separatists from A to Z. I know all the ramifications of the Bloc Québécois from A to Z, particularly since I had to run against the Bloc in the 1990 by-elections against the present leader, Gilles Duceppe.

It's easy to be a member of the Bloc, all you need is a little piece of paper with the same message: It's the federal government's fault. If they're aren't any fish in the Atlantic, it's the federal government's fault. If you want things to start working, vote for the separation of Quebec and then everything will be hunky-dory, they claim.

I hope we're going to put an end to this game. Decent and intelligent people will say that they're going to stop this systematic obstruction, do the clause-by-clause study of the bill and adopt it. Let's stop being cynical with this proceduritis and all these constitutional debates. Let's give ourselves the tools we need to develop a strategy for equal opportunities.

It's funny, when I talked to Gérald Larose, he said: "Equal opportunity, yes, you're entitled to that." It so happens that access to education is a shared jurisdiction. But when we talk about helping a student and investing in knowledge so that students are not saddled with $11,000 or $25,000 worth of debts when they are finished, so that there is some light at the end of the tunnel and we can start the new millennium by investing in knowledge, you say no. What do you expect?

I could make a joke. I could talk to you about my dog or my goldfish. But I think it is important for us to talk to each other. What kind of thinking process are the Bloc and the separatists engaged in and what are they doing to the detriment of the people? They do not have the monopoly on truth. They do not represent the consensus. They only represent their personal interest—this interest is in having a country that does not work and a government that is unable to provide assistance to its population.

I find the whole thing disgusting. Since this meeting began at 9 o'clock this morning, I've been sitting on my rearend listening to the nonsense from the Bloc. What ever the debate is, whether it's agriculture, finance or anything else, it's always the same record: "We, the men and women of Quebec, think that it is against our interests and once again is the fault of the federal government."

In some way I'm pleased because you're giving me the energy to stay up awake all night, if you want. It doesn't matter, my own interests aren't important. The important thing is that we can finally adopt Bill C-36 so that the young people in my riding do have equal access to a scholarship system that will mean some light at the end of the tunnel. Nothing complicated about it.

In view of the sacrifice made by Canadians, we decided as a responsible government that we would reinvest in youth and in knowledge. It's disappointing to see that people who say that they represent Quebec talk about the high interest of Quebec and demonstrate nothing but their cynicism and their lack of arguments. They couldn't care less about the people and that is something I find frightening. I intend to fight, Madam Chair, to ensure that wherever there is a member of the Bloc, there will also be Denis Coderre to make sure that people hear the other side of the story.

• 2025

Whatever the debate, as long as they are informed of the facts, they understand and agree with the idea. No one in Quebec is against receiving scholarships. The most convincing proof of this was the Radio-Canada newscast when the Millennium Scholarships were announced, a reporter went out to a restaurant where there were young people and asked them whether they were for or against the Millennium Scholarships. Their answer was that if it can help us reduce our debt, we are in favour of them. They didn't get out their copy of the 1867 British North America Act. In their view, the role of the government is to ensure that they are well represented and specifically to improve their quality of life. This improved quality of life means benefitting from programs that will enable them to advance in life. There's nothing complicated about it.

If we keep on debating structure and constitutional points, who ends up paying at the end of the road? For us it's our job, and for some of us it's a sport. But who will eventually end up footing the bill? The young men and women who are left without benefits because of this phony war that the separatists are constantly engaged in.

Madam Chair, you have full rights. As far as I am concerned, the interpretation is quite clear, at 11:59, whether the bill is amended or not, C-36 will be referred to the House. On third reading, we'll be voting in favour of this bill.

I am a member of Parliament for Quebec, I am proud of being a Quebecker and of being a French Canadian and I'm particularly proud to salute the work being done on behalf of equal opportunity and a better quality of life for our youth, including those who are not as lucky and young single mothers who are unable to obtain bursaries at the present time. Let's work together. We are supposed to be ready for negotiations. The fact of tabling a report does not in any way hinder the negotiations.

Let's stop wasting our time and the time of the officials behind us. Let's us stop wasting taxpayer's money by making them stay here and let's settle this business once and for all. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Thank you. Ms. Guay now has the floor.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to congratulate Mr. Szabo and Ms. Redman for their speeches on the Millennium Fund and Bill C-36. On the other hand, if I were Ms. Cohen, I would feel a bit embarrassed reading the transcription of this meeting.

Although attacks are being made on all fronts against the sovereignists and the separatists, as Mr. Coderre likes to call us, I don't think that we're having a debate here on separatists. It may be something we have to expect but I don't think the debate deals with that but rather with the Millennium Scholarships.

It is not any great pleasure for me to come and speak before the committee on bill C-36, a bill to implement certain provisions contained in the last budget of the Finance Minister, including among other things the creation of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Fund, a subject I'll be dealing with in a few moments.

At the outset, I'd like to draw to your attention the many aberrations of the last budget of the Minister of Finance. The government is constantly singing the praises of the Minister of Finance because he has balanced the budget. I think we have to be clear about one thing, there is no need to congratulate a government that has sloughed off its responsibilities and made the provinces take over, something that I and the members of the Bloc Québécois consider absolutely unacceptable in the last budget.

• 2030

In spite of the unprecedented latitude in the present budget, the party, in power has decided to do nothing to stimulate jobs. There is absolutely no tax reform to encourage employment, no extraordinary budget measures to improve the condition of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians without jobs.

In brief, as far as jobs are concerned, Madam Chair, this budget is a flop. At the same time, the unemployment rate has been remaining steadily at a very high 9 per cent. Instead of creating jobs, the government prefers to create new programs that simply duplicate and encroach—yes, Mr. Coderre, they duplicate and once again encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, in addition to doing what the government has always been such an expert at doing, that is spending other people's money.

A good example of this is the hasty purchase of the submarines at the cost of $750 million, an incredible bargain. Some old submarines that people had no idea what to do with and that will last goodness knows how long. Seven hundred and fifty million dollars for submarines when we don't have the foggiest idea about how long they will be able to be of use. What a fine example of waste. After slashing billions of dollars in social transfers for health, education and welfare, the government is investing in youth and employment by buying weapons of war. That shows you what the real priorities of the government are.

Mr. Chairman, excuse-me, Madam Chair—I don't know whether you intend to change places—imagine what we could do with this $750 million that has been thrown out the window. I put the question to you, members of the Liberal Party. Why not invest this money in providing food for the 1.4 million poor children who now live in Canada? That is one child out of five, for your information. Imagine the amount of good this money could do for the 5 million Canadians living under the poverty threshold and accounting for 17.4 per cent of our population. Once again, we see what the government's priorities are.

The impoverishment of the people of Quebec and Canada since this government has come to power can also be explained by the $3 billion in additional taxes that taxpayers must pay to the federal government. In order to stanch this haemorrhage, the Bloc Québécois asked the Minister of Finance to stop creating any more new programs, among other measures. But as can be expected, the Minister of Finance turned a deaf ear to us and decided to set up two new programs including the Millennium Scholarships, an integral part of Bill C-36.

This is a fund of $2.5 billion that will come into effect only in the year 2000! These Millennium Scholarships constitute an unprecedented and unjustifiable intrusion in an area of provincial jurisdiction, namely the field of education.

The Prime Minister knows full well that there is already in place in Quebec a system of loans and bursaries for education, the most advanced one in Canada, and it has been in effect for 30 years already. This is not the first time that the federal government has made an attempt to interfere in a field of provincial jurisdiction. Let me describe briefly the historical background.

In 1953, the federal Liberal government under Louis Saint-Laurent attempted to subsidize Canadian universities through the National Conference of Canadian Universities. Quebec under Maurice Duplessis at the time blocked this federal project. It was opposed to the federal government's intention to replace essential financial powers for the provinces with federal subsidies and thus penetrate the field of education, an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

In January 1957... My colleague already made this quotation but I think it is important to repeat it, each and everyone of us; Mr. Trudeau himself wrote in L'Action nationale, and I quote:

In such a case, if a government has such an overabundance of revenue that it undertakes to ensure the part of the common good that is not of its jurisdiction, it can only be presumed that this government had taken more than its share of the tax capacity.

• 2035

Today it can be said that the Liberal government has done worse than take more than its share of the tax capacity. It has given itself room to manoeuvre by attacking the sick, education and the poor and by obliging the provinces to do the dirty work; the provinces, that are forced to bring the deficit down to zero, the provinces that have seen their transfer payments cut back by huge amounts simply because of a federal government decision.

The Liberal government is interfering in fields of provincial jurisdiction but at the same time it refuses to take on its responsibilities, including among others providing compensation to all persons with hepatitis C.

In 1961, the Quebec government set up its student assistance program that is known as the loans and bursaries program. In 1964, the federal government under Pearson came up with the idea of offering loans to students and paying back the interest on such loans. Jean Lesage was opposed to this since this payment of interest would become a direct federal government subsidy to education. This took place as early as 1964. In his statement following the federal-provincial conference in Quebec City from March 31 to April 2, 1964, Jean Lesage said, and I quote:

Indeed, we have no choice but to resort to the courts to ensure the province's constitutional rights are respected if there is no follow-up to our observations.

I continue. On April 16, 1964, in a telegram to Jean Lesage, L.B. Pearson said, and I quote:

...the federal government intends to propose arrangements whereby guaranteed bank loans would be granted to university students... If a province prefers to have its own loans program, it may receive equivalent compensation.

The point I wish to emphasize here is that the federal government made previous and unsuccessful attempts to invade the field of education. At the time there was no such thing as Péquistes or Bloquistes.

There was an outcry from federalist, sovereignists and even people from the field of education in Quebec to make known their strong disapproval of this visibility campaign on the part of the federal government. To substantiate this, I have here statements from witnesses who have had something to say about the matter. I would like to quote them because I think they are extremely important in studying Bill C-36. They give you an idea of how strong the consensus is in Quebec. There is reference to the ignorance about the actual situation in Quebec. The intention of Bill C-36 is described as

...illustrating the Canadian government's lack of knowledge of the Quebec system of loans and bursaries and Quebec's educational priorities.

Those are the comments made by the FTQ.

Bill C-36 does not take into account in any way what Quebec has accomplished in the past 30 years in providing financial assistance to students.

That was a comment made by Réginald Lavertu, President of the Cegeps Federation. This federation represents 48 colleges in Quebec. It is fair to speak of a consensus.

With these Millennium Scholarships, the federal government gives us proof of its ignorance and its incompetence in the field of education.

That is the comment made by the Quebec Coalition of Former Student Leaders. Once again, we are not talking about politicians, Madam Chair.

Why duplicate structures and waste money to no avail?

This quotation is from the FECQ.

We must avoid duplication and take advantage of the structures that already exist in the provinces.

That quotation comes from the Quebec Association of Manufacturers and Exporters. It is not a sovereignist political party. They are not nasty separatists, Madam Chair.

Because education is one of the fundamental activities of citizenship.

Those comments come from the CSN. Once again from the CSN, I have three or four comments in a similar vein.

Because education is a tool for the development of a people.

The right of the communities is constitutionally recognized.

Education is not some banal incident in the history of a people, it is a fundamental value.

Once again from the CSN.

• 2040

We have received comments from people everywhere. There was even a federalist, John Trent from the University of Ottawa who came to tell us that the Foundation would inevitably result in a federal-provincial duplication as well as overlapping of already existing programs. It will be in direct competition with the Quebec loans and bursaries program that a number of people consider to be superior. Once again, Madam Chair, this statement does not come from a nasty separatist. It comes from John Trent of the University of Ottawa, a federalist and perfectly entitled to be so.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I want to add that Professor Trent was asked whether he was here as an individual or speaking on behalf of the University of Ottawa. He clearly stated that he was here as an individual and that he would be in some difficulty if his peers knew what he was saying here. So let's not attribute to him more than the comments of an individual.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: A point of order, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Excuse me, Madam Guay, but I wasn't listening. What did you say?

Ms. Monique Guay: I may continue. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Excuse me. I didn't listen to what you said. What did you answer?

Ms. Monique Guay: I didn't say anything. I didn't listen to anyone. I simply mentioned facts, the comments made by Mr. Trent before this committee. That is all. What is the problem?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): There isn't any problem.

An Honorable Member: Continue if you wish.

Ms. Monique Guay: I'd be happy to do so, but stop interrupting me.

No, no. Excuse me but a point of order was made, Madam Chair. It was simply a matter of pointing out that Mr. Trent was appearing here as an individual and not on behalf of the university, is that the case?

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chair, Professor Trent stated very clearly that he was speaking as an individual, not representing the University of Ottawa. But just as importantly, according to my recollection—and I wish we had the blues available here—he also said he would be in some trouble if his proctor or someone like that knew what he was saying. In fact, there was a concern on his part that somehow somebody would find out.

So we're talking about an individual. To emphasize that this particular individual was from the University of Ottawa without also pointing out that he was here as an individual could mislead the rest of the people here. That is my point of order.

Ms. Monique Guay: Okay, your point is made. At any rate, he said whatever he said.

[Translation]

What was said was said. I think that if Mr. Trent agreed to meet the committee members to say what he had to say, even as an individual, he will have to live with the consequences. Whether he spoke as an individual or on behalf of the university, he will have to accept responsibility for what he said. It was his choice.

I haven't finished. I still have some time. I think it is important to stress this. For those of us present this evening, speaking on the Millennium Scholarships, it is important to prove that there is a consensus in Quebec at all levels. This is what the CEQ had to say:

The setting up of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation is not the proper way to improve equal opportunities for university education for Quebec youth.

The Minister of Finance has just discovered that "members of low income families are underrepresented in our institutions of higher learning". This is something Quebec has known for a long time. That is why its system of loans and bursaries is the most developed in Canada.

Those comments come from the CEQ.

This is not the best way of increasing access to post-secondary education.

The comment was made by David Stager from the University of Toronto. I don't know whether he was speaking personally or on behalf of his university. Perhaps Mr. Szabo could enlighten us on this later on.

• 2045

Madam Chair, it is disturbing to see the way this bill has been tabled. It is also disturbing to see, after what we've said, that we will not have a clause-by-clause discussion. I do not know what you will decide this evening. I know that the committee does have the power, if it wishes, to postpone the date of May 8 and have clause-by-clause study of the bill later on, next week or whenever.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: We're on clause-by-clause right now.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Excuse me, Mr. Szabo, may I speak? I did not interrupt you earlier. So please let me speak. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): Are you moving a motion?

Ms. Monique Guay: No, I am not moving a motion, Madam Chair. No, because we, from the Bloc Québécois, have not finished discussing the matter. I have other colleagues...

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney): I'm sorry, but I thought you wanted to change the committee's schedule.

Ms. Monique Guay: That is not it at all. It is not a motion. It's just that after the Bloc Québécois discussed this, and we have not finished yet... In fact, I do not know how long we will be able to discuss it. I hope that all of my colleagues who have something to say about this bill will be able to do so, that they will be able to express themselves freely here, in committee, that they will speak about substantive issues and not about their dog, their cat or their goldfish, like they did earlier, to stall for time or let off steam. In any case, there were some who definitely just let off steam. Personally, I would be embarrassed to read the blues tomorrow if I were them. In any case, it is not my problem.

I hope that members will be able to... Filibustering is part of democracy, as everyone knows. It is a way to thoroughly discuss a bill. It is a way to express oneself, one at a time, one after the other, to express one's viewpoint, to not be gagged, to enable all those who have something to say to improve the bill to do so.

Mr. Szabo, you gave us a good example of that. Even if I do not agree with your ideology, at the end of the day, you did talk about the substance of the bill. You gave us your opinion of it. Congratulations!

Ms. Redman, you did the same thing. I do not agree with you either on this bill, but you did indeed share your views with us. It is true that we have 39 amendments to deal with, but we did not all partake in the debate one after another. We have all discussed it in our ridings. We have all met with stakeholders, each one of us. We all got similar reactions in Quebec, regardless of where people lived. There is a consensus, even in Parliament.

So I think it is democratic for each of us to be able to give our opinion of the bill. And I hope that all my colleagues who must be here this evening...

I, too, would prefer to be at home, with my children, looking after them. But I think this bill is very important. I think we must intervene. Women should also get involved because it affects them.

Earlier on, one of my Liberal colleagues was talking about single mothers, poor single mothers. I must say, Quebec has wonderful programs to get single mothers back to school. We provide free daycare. We have all sorts of existing programs. Quebec is way ahead in that regard, to help women...

Mr. Denis Coderre: Point of order. I think it is time to set things straight. I talked about the Millennium Scholarship Fund. I am proud to have programs that help the less fortunate of our society, especially those in Quebec, since I am from Quebec.

But I think we have to be careful. I said that the Millennium Scholarship Fund was an excellent idea because under the current system in Quebec, a young single mother is not entitled to a bursary because there is no provision for that. That is why I do not think there is any overlap; rather, it is complementary to the Quebec system. That is all I wanted to say.

• 2050

Ms. Monique Guay: Let me continue. We have all sorts of programs for single mothers, to help some finish high school, to get them through college and to help them find a job. So in that regard, I think Quebec is very advanced and forward-looking.

Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone will have the opportunity to discuss this bill. I said earlier that I hoped all members of the committee would be able to vote on a motion. I am not talking about moving a motion, but of voting on a motion for this bill to be studied clause-by-clause. Once we have finished the discussion on the motion tabled by my colleague Paul Crête, this committee will have the power to postpone the clause-by-clause study of the bill, to next week, for example, when everyone is ready. That way, everyone will have the opportunity to review each amendment and express his views.

If you do it behind closed doors, if you ram it through this evening and do not thoroughly review the amendments, you will have failed in your job as parliamentarians. That would be most unfortunate. A bill is important. Studying a bill is not an exercise in futility. It is a serious matter. And a clause-by-clause study of a bill is very complicated.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Monique Guay: Please, when you spoke earlier, I listened to you, so be quiet.

It is important to discuss every clause and to examine each amendment. I am sure that you agree with some of the amendments to the bill and that some are perfectly satisfactory.

Moreover, we all know full well that there will be a meeting between the two levels of government in May. Why not wait until after that meeting? Why pass a bill so quickly, behind closed doors, before there has even been a meeting? Do you already know the outcome of that meeting? Will pressure be put on the provincial government? What is it exactly?

We have been wondering and I think that is perfectly legitimate. We wonder why you want to pass it so quickly. The committee should be able to wait by voting a unanimous motion. It would be appropriate and desirable for every clause to be studied seriatim.

I am very pleased to be involved in this exercise because I find it very democratic and very important for everyone. I hope the next speakers will discuss the heart of the matter and not talk about their cats, their soup or their goldfish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Guay.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Do you have other names on your list?

[English]

The Chairman: Me. I want to talk. Then Mr. Gallaway is going to speak.

I want to remind all the members present that May 7, being today, is the day on which we had agreed as a committee to study clause-by-clause. Just in case you have not noticed, we have not dealt with a single clause yet. This is a reminder that this work eventually has to get done, and that we as a committee also agreed to report the bill back to the House tomorrow.

For all those of you who are going to intervene, keep that in mind, because we want to get our job as a committee done, and done with, I think, the issue of punctuality very much part of it.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Let's go on to clause-by-clause now.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, perhaps other members would like to intervene.

• 2055

I wanted to say that indeed—and this ties in with what you said—we have not yet started clause-by-clause study of the bill, but...

Is there a translation problem? Everyone understands French? There is no problem?

I was saying that I was very interested in what you had to say. We have been discussing this for several hours now, but we have not yet finished with the first motion because there was an adjournment. There is a second motion, not as tough as the first, which basically says that some provisions of the budget should be studied clause-by-clause only after we have the results of the negotiations. We could end up doing clause-by-clause study of the bill fairly quickly if the Liberal majority approved the motion on the table or made a counter-proposal or suggested something that would enable us to reach a positive conclusion.

I move that Bill C-36, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget, be studied clause-by-clause only after we have been informed of the outcome of the negotiations between the government of Quebec and the federal government.

The bill should therefore only be studied clause-by-clause after we know the results of the negotiations. Perhaps that is a solution so that we can indeed proceed with clause-by-clause study of the bill. I think that is what we have been seeking since this morning, namely the solution to enable us to start that study.

We will see what happens at 11:59 tonight, based on the work accomplished, the official commitments made, in the form of a motion. In fact, that is why we wanted to be sure that what we do decide will be contained in a formal motion.

I just wanted to clarify that. I will now give the floor to another member who wants to speak to my motion and who may want to continue the discussion, to see what can be suggested. This is not a new motion. I just reread the motion that had been tabled by saying that there had been a point of order for the government to table something acceptable. We want the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa to focus successfully on the bill. Regardless of whether there is an agreement, the important thing is to resolve this part of the bill. the rest of the bill deals with topics we can agree on or not, moving amendments or not, but which are not quite as critical for us.

I am appealing to the Liberal majority and I hope that you can find a solution to this problem. Personally, I do not feel at all responsible for the delay. I know we took a long time, that we explained our viewpoint in depth, but you had the opportunity to think of how we could guarantee a clause-by-clause study of the bill as it pertains to Millennium Scholarships, once the outcome of the negotiations is known. As far as I am concerned, that is the easiest, most logical argument, and I can see that no one has refuted it. If a Canadian prime minister can commit to a negotiation, the least we can do is to respect the negotiating period. That is the purpose of my motion. I wanted to clarify that point, based on what you said, Mr. Chairman, and let another member take the floor because a few of them have expressed a wish to speak to that.

I think my colleague Mr. Dumas had asked for the floor.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, as chairman, I decide that, not you.

• 2100

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, yes, of course.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Crête: It was just a reminder. I haven't decided anything, Mr. Chairman. I don't claim to have decided anything whatsoever.

[English]

The Chairman: Unless the room is shifting.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Of course, if I were to decide that things would proceed differently, they would.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Come on.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I've heard a number of interesting comments and have observed a number of interesting postures that have been assumed here. I've heard one member who has worked on the basis that the louder you are, the more logical you are. I find that a very interesting posture. The more he screamed, the more logical he was believing himself to be.

I've also heard about the rather pathetic pasts of some of the members here—without naming anyone from southern Ontario. I've heard about their rather trivial home lives, about how they've bonded with certain animals.

I really must apologize to the staff here this evening for having to sit here and be subjected to that, Mr. Chair.

I want to draw attention to and talk about some of the thoughts of the last speaker, because I must say, the last speaker read very well. I should congratulate the researchers from that party for putting together a very nice, selective overview of their beliefs. However, I'm not certain the debate was advanced at all.

I am certain that it was read very well, but I think it should be acknowledged on the record that this individual did not debate, did not think, and in fact only read to us here this evening.

I want to draw your attention to one word she used very often in the latter part of the speech, which she read to us here this evening, when she talked about “le pouvoir”, the power. What we are dealing with here tonight is a matter of power. What we are dealing with here tonight, and what we've been dealing with here today, if I can be biblical for a minute—and I know this will shock some of my colleagues—is that if an objective, dispassionate observer came into this room tonight, they would find that what we have just heard is rather Pharisaic.

That's a very little-used English adjective. It comes from the Bible.

An hon. member: From the Pharisees?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Yes, from the Pharisees.

Perhaps I could take you back to the Bible and to the discussion of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were those people, those rabbis, who in fact literally interpreted every word. They had a very strict regime. Only they, in their infinite wisdom, could discern what was la vérité. Only they could tell us—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, point of order, excuse me, Mr. Gallaway. Excuse me.

You know very well that committees are supposed to be an extension of the House of Commons. So there should be a minimum of decorum shown by those working for the committee.

But I see that Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen has her back turned to the speakers and has both feet on the bench. She is reading a novel. Earlier on, I saw Ms. Torsney barefoot, eating something or other. She was reading her newspaper. She was also staring at the wall. That is totally unacceptable behaviour, Mr. Chairman. We need a minimum of decorum, and your role is to call members back to order. This is total nonsense. this isn't a dump. This isn't a pigsty. This is a House of Commons committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, I would accept that type of preaching from somebody who would respect the chair, for example. You just came back, and prior to leaving you called me a dictator. That's hardly the type of parliamentary decorum you're advocating.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: And by the way, I hope you're—

• 2105

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I maintain that you are a dictator. I maintain that and I will continue to think that. I will now work differently and you are going to notice, but that is not the point. The point is that there are members who stare at the wall, who read novels. There are others who don't wear any shoes. This is nonsense.

[English]

The Chairman: When it comes to decorum and that, I take no lessons from you. I think your behaviour tonight has been despicable, quite frankly.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: And as for the chairmanship and your ability to assume that role, I question your abilities, given what you have just said. I find that totally unacceptable and I maintain that you acted as a dictator earlier on when you stripped us of our right to speak. In any case, we are entitled to maintain our own opinions for as long as we like.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Just a second, Mr. Coderre. I'm going to answer Mr. Loubier. I think, Mr. Loubier, by calling me a dictator you're either hallucinating or you think you're in another country. There comes a time when you really have to start reflecting about which reality you live in.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: There is a special clause called clause 117 which says that the chairman is there to maintain order and ensure the quorum. Personally, as representative of the Bourassa riding and of the 94,000 people who live there, I totally disagree with someone challenging the chairman and attacking his integrity by calling him a dictator and by constantly making inappropriate comments. By being disrespectful of the Chairman, you are also being disrespectful of the extension of the House of Commons. So you are being disrespectful of the House of Commons.

I would like him to withdraw his statements and give the floor to my colleague Mr. Gallaway, because we have been hearing the same thing for long enough. So I would like to hear my colleague, Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I will listen to your colleague Gallaway, but I will not withdraw my statements.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I will resume.

I want to get back to the bottom hole.

The Chairman: Please do.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: But they're here today. The Pharisees are amongst us today.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sanctimonious Pharisees?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Yes, because I've heard that only certain people here can discern the truth. Only certain people here know when the government has gone over the line. Only certain people here in fact know where the line is.... We've heard—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's a hangover from the pizza.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Again, I must say that up until this point there's been a remarkably apparent lack of humour, and at the same time there's been a remarkable lack of decorum in calling you, Mr. Chairman, certain names. And yet those very same people can then discern what is decorum and those very same people tonight can talk about democracy; those very same people can talk about power; those very same people can talk about helping people.

And that's what this budget is about, and here they are blocking it tonight. This budget is about helping our youth. This budget is about our future. This budget is about the future of our youth in this country and here we have people, the Pharisees of this country, coming to us and saying, only we can determine where the jurisdictional lines are, and in fact we have already determined where those lines are, and this is going over that line, and therefore even though the youth of the province of Quebec need and want assistance for post-secondary education—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You don't have any attention from the Bloc and they wanted to chastise us earlier.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Yes.

The Chairman: Excuse me. Can we have some order here?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: They are saying, because of this line, we have discerned you're not able to go over it. It's like, then, the story of the Pharisees, where the Pharisees refuse to stop and help but the Good Samaritan did—I knew that Ms. Cohen would like that—because this is a situation where help is available but the Pharisees are saying, no, sorry, but we have this ability to discern what is appropriate, what is jurisdictional, what is constitutional. Therefore, even though it's needed and it's wanted, it's not going to be accepted.

• 2110

What a very strange way to cut yourself off from your collective future. What a very strange way of saying no to the youth. What a strange way to say no to the collective future of a province and of a country.

In doing so, they are saying, because of our very convincing and self-convincing beliefs in what is jurisdictional, what is constitutional, we are not going to allow these people to be helped and we are going to limit their futures. And in limiting their futures, they're limiting the future of the province and they're diminishing the future of this country.

That's what happens when you become imbued in philosophical—in this case, practically theological—beliefs that blind you from reality. I think this is a very sad commentary on democracy.

I want to talk about democracy for a minute. I don't talk about dogs; I want to talk about democracy.

This, as Ms. Cohen pointed out earlier, is in fact a filibuster, a filibuster being a desperate attempt to thwart the wishes of a democracy, a filibuster being, generally speaking, a last act of desperation.

What we're seeing here today is an act of desperation. It's flying in the face of the democratic process. And, fortunately, a filibuster has a limited lifespan, so we do know that this pointless charade in which we are finding ourselves involved this evening is going to end in a couple of hours, and we do know that we're going to hear more from the Pharisees, who are going to talk now tomorrow about how the democratic process is being thwarted once again because they cannot accept the wishes of the majority, so they have to resort to a process.

In doing so, what they are doing is they're turning their backs on the young people of that province. They can mumble and jumble all they want in here this evening, and at the same time they can make all sorts of extemporaneous remarks. It really doesn't bother me at all. But I think that if people were to come into this room and see this absolutely pathetic exercise that has been promulgated by those opposite this evening—the Pharisees of this country—they would realize that this is a group that is not interested in youth.

What I want to do is get back to the budget. I want to get back to the basics, and this is that now we are saying let us help the youth of this country; let's talk about the future. And what we have heard by the last speaker from the members opposite was a very well-read, very well selectively researched dissertation on the past—the past being the 1960s, the past being the 1920s, the past being the 1870s—with no vision of the future, only the past. And I think it's a sad commentary that in trying to filibuster this today, they have turned to the past and they're not looking to the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: So all those in favour of the motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: He asked you for the floor.

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Ms. Torsney took my name earlier, when I asked the Chair for the floor.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: He asked you for the floor. Mr. Dumas asked you for the floor.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: No, I asked Ms. Torsney.

• 2115

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Dumas, you can speak, right?

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: You can speak, so do you want to speak?

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Yes, of course.

The Chairman: You should tell me.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: You have my name.

[Translation]

You have my name.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to Ms. Cohen with a certain smile. Obviously, I know her well and I am sorry to see her turn her back on me today. She didn't do that when we went on a nice trip together to Cairo.

I don't think we have any examples, but we shouldn't be criticized when we mention filibusters. Ms. Cohen told us all sorts of things about her town of Windsor and about her cat. I could also talk about those things. I could talk about the towns in my riding. I could also talk to you about my four cats, but I won't. I think that what she told us is no doubt more interesting than what Conservative senators have had to endure from Liberal senators when they did their famous filibuster of the GST a few years ago.

That being said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to get back to business. Since the beginning of Canada's federation, section 93 of the 1867 Constitution Act recognizes Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over education. Of course, you have already heard that, but as a former teacher—which I was for 46 years—I know that when you talk to your students, you often have to repeat the same things over and over for them to understand.

On December 1997, section 93 was amended by proclamation of the Governor General of Canada. To be more precise, new section 93A made paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 regarding religious rights inapplicable in Quebec.

New section 93A reads as follows:

93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec.

Only the introductory paragraph of section 93 will apply then to Quebec, namely the one that recognizes exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education.

For Quebec, it reads as follows, and I quote:

93. In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education,...

So Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education is indisputable and it allows no room for a federal intervention.

I just told you that education is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution. The Province of Quebec is committed to fully exercising its jurisdiction in that field.

In 1953, Quebec halted the federal plan to subsidize Canadian universities directly through the National Conference of Canadian Universities.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like to get a clarification. It is the third time that you quote the same document with the same dates. You cannot remake history over and over. With regard to regulations, does redundancy exist? Do you have the right to do that? If so, I would also like to know if the member agrees with everything that Duplessis did for Quebec in the field of education, and whether he feels it was really exceptional.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. True, you cannot remake history. We are interested in history and, if our intention is to educate our Liberal friends who do not seem to know their history, it is only normal that certain things ought to be said over and over. You should know, as the Member for Bourassa, that redundancy is a factor in communications. It is only by repeating a message over and over that it finally sinks in and that people finally come to change their minds. You seem to be turning a deaf ear for the moment, but who knows, you mind end up listening one day.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: I said earlier that a teacher must repeat the same thing several times so that the students finally understand.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Sometimes you repeat things only to convince yourselves.

Mr. Dumas: That would surprise me, Mr. Coderre.

I'll carry on.

It opposes the federal government's intention to replace, through federal subsidies, the financial powers that are essential to provinces, and to get involved in the field of education, which is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Furthermore, it has had its own financial assistance program since 1961 for students, which includes not only loans but also bursaries.

Furthermore, some policies introduced lately by the central government put Quebec in a difficult, if not impossible, situation giving it no choice other than opposing a firm rejection and proposing alternative solutions. I am thinking here of school allowances for students aged 16 and 17 and student loans. For those two measures which have an indisputable effect on the field of education, no arrangement other than those contained in Quebec's brief at the conference was feasible.

• 2120

In the April 16, 1964 telegram sent to Mr. Jean Lesage, Mr. Pearson said:

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to have more order in the room? What my colleague is saying is very interesting, and the Liberals would learn a lot from him.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Could we see the picture again, because it goes with the text?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Unfortunately, I took it back to my office. I did not want you to take it away from me.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: May I carry on, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: I just want to tell Mr. Loubier that when it comes to the forum, the noise levels, and the function of the committee, I'll decide that, as I have throughout this evening.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: But it seems, Mr. Chairman, that we constantly have to remind you of what is a reasonable limit and what is not reasonable. May I advise you to ask for order in the room because I could not hear what my colleague was saying.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't think you have to remind me. I was here all night. You left, conveniently, many times—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You did not speak up while everybody was talking.

[English]

The Chairman: —and you weren't here to listen to all the debate, so don't talk to me about order.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: But what kind of game are you playing, there? What is your game? Please listen to my colleague.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't want to engage with you. It's a game.

Go ahead, Mr. Dumas. We have better things to do.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are the one who is playing with everybody's nerves.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: May I carry on, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Carry on, dear colleague.

Mr. Maurice Dumas:

If a province would rather keep its own loans program, it could receive an equivalent compensation.

By the way, that's what Mr. Bouchard asked for.

As supplementary information, Annex I contains excerpts of the federal-provincial conference which took place in Quebec City from March 31 to the 2nd of April, 1964, as well as Mr. Lester B. Pearson's telegram, which speaks to the Quebec position as well as the federal one.

As early as 1964, Quebec decided to opt out with compensation in accordance with section 12 of the federal Act.

You will notice that at that time, the Premier of Quebec was the Honourable Jean Lesage. I don't think anyone can say that Jean Lesage was a sovereignist. By the way, he was a federal Crown minister some forty years ago. Some members here surely did not know Mr. Lesage since they were not even born at that time.

I'll continue to quote:

It is to be noted that all provinces and territories could avail themselves of the provision and that along with Quebec, the North-West Territories also opted out from the federal program.

Over the years, Quebec always maintained its decision to opt out, with compensation, from the Canadian Student Loans Program.

That is what the Liberal government of Mr. Chrétien does not accept.

May I go back here to Jean Lesage's declaration, the Premier of Quebec, who said:

The fact that the federal government is providing only loans for students and not loans and bursaries as it seemed willing to do at a certain point, may at first glance look like an effort to skirt the Constitutional issue which the awarding of bursaries would have posed. Indeed, by controlling credit, the federal government could lead one to believe that it is not overstepping its jurisdiction by granting loans instead of bursaries.

We do not think that such an action will avoid raising the Constitutional issue. The students themselves felt the same way since they overtly opposed the new federal policy.

I should remind Mr. Coderre at this point that perhaps some students were willing to accept those scholarships. Of course, if you offer money to students, they won't turn it down.

Mr. Lesage added furthermore:

The problem stems from the fact that you are not only dealing with loans, but with interest-free loans for students. The loans will be granted by banks based upon the federal guarantee, but the central government will pay back the interest. That reimbursement then becomes a direct subsidy by the federal government for education purposes. Furthermore, the citizens benefitting from it will be students, which is certainly no coincidence, but rather the result of a policy of support for education, an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

• 2125

For these two reasons, the Government of Quebec...

We're talking here about the government of the time, the government of Jean Lesage, the government of a federalist.

...cannot accept that the proposed federal program would apply as it is set up now.

Incidently, we already created an assistance program for students. The bursaries provided by the government of Quebec to the students of Quebec and the loans granted every year add up to a sizeable sum. We are already doing a lot in that field, on top of the huge sums that we devote annually to other areas of education.

In those circumstances, and in order to solve the problem caused by the federal student loans policy, the province of Quebec requests that the government of Canada remit the money under the form of tax points...

That's what Mr. Bouchard is asking for.

...the sums it would have devoted to the payback of the interest on the loans granted to the students of Quebec. In order to establish the relevant proportion, we would accept that the relative proportion of the population of Quebec be taken into account.

I'm still quoting the declaration of the Honourable Jean Lesage, Premier of Quebec, a federalist premier who had been a member of Lester B. Pearson's cabinet:

Finally, very briefly, I will add a few words on two other subjects which were on the agenda. Both are very recent policy actions by the federal government which, in both cases, in our view, represent encroachments in the most important of all areas of provincial jurisdiction, education.

...We absolutely cannot accept that the federal government, although we are not questioning its good faith, mistakenly encroach upon a jurisdiction which is indisputably ours and that, furthermore, we have been exercising for the past three years. There is only one solution that would enable us to avoid a conflict that none of us want. And that solution is fiscal compensation, under the terms of the Diefenbaker-Sauvé formula which early resolved a similar problem for the real benefit of both governments. It is a solution that we could use immediately and which would avoid complications, and even serious conflicts, which would be the unavoidable result of a disagreement.

I am still quoting Mr. Lesage.

Indeed we will no doubt have to resort to the courts to uphold the constitutional rights of the province if our comments remain unanswered.

I quote further the Honourable Jean Lesage.

Furthermore, some policies introduced lately by the central government put Quebec in a difficult if not impossible situation, giving it no choice other than firm rejection and proposing alternative solutions. I am thinking here of school allowances for students aged 16 and 17 and student loans. For those two measures which have an undisputable effect on the field of education, no arrangement other than those contained in Quebec's brief at the conference was feasible.

...A telegram, which all provincial premiers received last Friday, contains proposals stemming from those delicate and difficult negotiations. It goes without saying that we fully support those proposals. They are as follows:

(b) School allowances: the Government of Canada, in accordance with the position that we expressed in our brief to the conference, will remit to Quebec under the form of tax points the sums that it would have granted to Quebec students aged 16 and 17 if we had not already created a similar program of school allowances. That program has been in existence in Quebec since 1961.

May I now read a translation of the April 16 1964 telegram from Mr. Pearson to Mr. Lesage. I'm still talking about the same Mr. Lesage, who had been a minister in the Pearson government and who was a federalist. You will see how he was defending the provincial government.

The federal government hopes to introduce soon legislation that would extend family allowances to children aged 16 and 17 and who remain dependent either because they cannot work due to their physical condition or because they are still in school.

...the federal government intends to propose arrangements under which guaranteed bank loans would be granted to university students in every province, up to a certain sum; the students would be designated by an authorized provincial body. If a province wishes to keep its own loans program, it could receive equivalent compensation.

• 2130

I'll stop here, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Please go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to see you again. You remember that during my first term, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Along with Ms. Cohen and other colleagues which I see here again, we crisscrossed Canada. I mention this because we must remember the context. It was known them as Axworthy Reform. You were parliamentary secretary at the time. That began in 1994 or 1995, and in the fall of 1994, we went on that journey.

I will always remember what the people, the young people were saying. Sometimes, some colleagues opposite were asking themselves: "Yes, but the young people, what do they think about that?" They were worried because the reform was a plan, a Green Paper, and we had discussed this at length. They were talking about cutbacks. I will never forget it because we were talking about cutbacks in education. They also told us that they were smothered in debt. In some universities, the students were saying that tuition was too high and that with the cutbacks, their financial situation would be even worse. Universities were already announcing that they intended to increase tuition and the students were saying: "This is intolerable. They can't ask for more from us because we've already got problems right now."

We met with a certain number of former students who talked about their situation. I recall the numbers quoted then. There was close to $2 billion in outstanding loans from former students who weren't able to find a job and who were saying: "We are willing to reimburse our loans, but it's difficult". Those were very pressing problems for the students.

Now, the government, further to that, ended up doing what it wanted to do, which was cut back the transfer payments to provinces for education. Everything was consolidated with health and welfare and it became the Canadian Health and Social Transfer. But the result was that there were quite a few cutbacks.

It is rather odd that two years later, after another election, another election campaign, all of a sudden, the federal government wants to offer Millennium Scholarships.

I recently consulted students, like I had done before, further to the federal budget announcement. I went to educational institutions, particularly to the Lévis-Lauzon cegep because in my riding, there's a private college as well as a public cegep of 3,500 students. To my surprise, they had organized—not the Bloc Québécois, but the students themselves—a week focussing on problems in the education field, among which were the Millennium Scholarships. The students were saying: "Yes, but the Millennium Scholarships will come to an end one day and there is also the issue of merit which is even more important." They felt that the project presented by the federal government which is supposed to come into effect in the year 2000 does not sufficiently take into account the notion of need. The students said: "We are going to go to university next year and we would need it right now. It would be ideal." Quebec already has a system of student loans and bursaries.

• 2135

Furthermore, as far as I know, the Quebec government is the only one to offer a program of loans and bursaries to university students and to college students. It might be useful to remind those who are not from Quebec of that difference, as well as the fact that after their secondary studies, students who intend to go to university have to go through a two-year general college program. They do not have any tuition fees to pay, only administration fees. Those two years of college enable students to better define their interests and orientation.

In short, the education system is different and that's fine because the Constitution says that education falls under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec, because of its unique character—as some would say—or as a distinct society, has put in place its own system, the famous cegep system.

It was said that ideally, after having reached zero deficit, the federal government was going to reinvest the surplus amounts in transfer payments to provinces at pre-1995 levels, that is the levels that were in place before we had the CHST. Quebec would thus be able to improve not only its own loans and bursaries system but also its education system as a whole. Budget cutbacks made by the federal government forced some provinces—and my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe knows it very well—to reduce their education expenses.

Sometimes young Quebeckers, like many other young Canadians who are experiencing financial difficulties, try to work part-time or do what they have to in order to pursue their studies. Although they compare themselves with their fellow students in Quebec, they are not always aware of what is going on elsewhere. This week, I had an opportunity to tell them that, elsewhere in Canada, students do not have access to a grants and loans system. This is perhaps good for the other provinces, but we are fortunate to have a grants system here.

Student debt in Quebec is twice as low as it is in the rest of Canada. Although the system is not perfect, young people understand that it is more advantageous, ou at the very least, not as bad. When they graduate, instead of accumulating debt in the area of $22,000 to $24,000, as is often the case elsewhere in Canada, Quebec students who have obtained their bachelor's degree have a debt of approximately $11,000, namely half the amount, although this is still too much. Many parents also feel that this is too much and they are right.

Imagine the situation confronting students who have just completed their bachelor's degree and who have already accumulated debts of $11,000, if they live in Quebec, or from $22,000 to $24,000, if they live in the other provinces, and who must now find employment. Since many of them can't find employment, it is suggested that they start their own business. However, this means that they have to purchase equipment and lease an office where they will be able to operate their business. To do this, they have to borrow money. And if they have a girlfriend or boyfriend and they decide to get married, they have to purchase household appliances, a refrigerator and furniture. This all takes money. Accordingly, they have to borrow. Young entrepreneurs turn to the bank in order to get money to buy a car.

But you can only go into debt so much. The student leaving university already has to repay a considerable amount of money. In another parliamentary committee, bank representatives recently described the situation of people who want to get into a business or simply get started in life.

• 2140

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, is it quiet enough for you? Shouldn't you call the people to order because they are speaking too much and we hear them better than we do my colleague? Are you happy with this? No problem? I just wanted to point this out to you.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Loubier it's because I'm very focused on what Mr. Dubé is saying. You have my total attention.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We don't have translation.

[English]

The Chairman: I said I've been listening to your speech very attentively, so perhaps my focus as....

What number should you go to if you want the French language.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: There is no French translation.

[Translation]

Obviously, nobody realizes this because no one is listening. Let's hear more from the trumpets and less from the drums.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: It concerns me, Mr. Chairman, that there is no translation and that people can't hear me.

[English]

The Chairman: I was listening to you via the English translation. It was working well for me. I was paying attention to your speech, and I'm sorry I wasn't aware there was noise in the background. Perhaps I was very focused.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, this worries me. You should see an ear doctor. I see that there may be a problem. Earlier, there was some background noise coming from that side. There is a parallel committee sitting opposite and I could hear it clearly with my left ear. So perhaps you have a problem.

[English]

The Chairman: I've seen consultation take place on both sides of the committee room. I thank you very much for taking care of my health, even though you have no professional accreditation that would tell me you would know better about my health than I do.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: This is simply a comment that I'm making, with no ulterior motive. Sometimes you have to think about your health.

[English]

The Chairman: I take their comments and give them the weight they deserve, as always.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: As I was saying... This interruption gave me some time to take a few sips of coffee and that helps.

My colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau, a former teacher, said that he was interested in education. He said that sometimes you had to repeat yourself to make sure that people understood correctly. I'm a bit concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I know that there are some very sensitive colleagues sitting opposite. I am thinking of Mr. Assad, who was concerned about hepatitis C and who expressed his compassion on several occasions. However, we must also show compassion to students.

At this time of the year, there are only a few weeks left in the academic year at the CEGEPs. Many students tell us they find these academic year-ends difficult. When we were younger—my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will remember this—we lived on peanut butter for the last two months. It was very difficult and, in some cases, this is still the situation even today. Its all the more difficult since young people are concerned about employment opportunities. They wonder what's the point in studying so long if they aren't really sure of finding a job at the end of the line. We have to be attentive to their concerns.

That's why I'm coming back to my consultation about the Millennium Scholarships. People couldnÂt believe these scholarships were being proposed. They said they would amount to a parallel scholarship system to Quebec's system. They wondered how scholarship applications would be processed. Not all questions were answered. People wonder whether two separate applications will have to be submitted, just has they'll have to file two tax returns and send one to the Foundation. You don't get scholarships like that.

• 2145

We have a good system in Quebec, but students nevertheless have to submit applications and sometimes have to include certain documents and supporting documentation. With this second scholarship system, they will have to submit a second application and perhaps complete forms that do not necessarily agree with the others. The approach will be different and they are worried about it. They wonder what this dual system is, why we couldn't continue using the present system and, especially, whether there isn't a way to improve it, since the federal government apparently has money now.

The Auditor General is also concerned. I read in the newspapers that there had been a debate and I know that my colleagues witnessed it.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, we'll talk about it later.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: It was a bit of a special situation since the Auditor General says this is unusual. He wonders whether it is consistent with the normal rules. He no doubt made this statement because he thinks it isn't consistent with the normal accounting rules to enter in the estimates for this year amounts that the government won't begin to spend until the year 2000.

One group of university students that I met told me that this was all well and good, but that they were a little scandalized. They asked me, What's all this about, Mr. Dubé? This is 1998, and next year we'll have our degrees and it'll be our last year. Are you telling us that the government is now announcing a program that won't go into effect until the year 2000 and that we won't be entitled to it? News of this affair has spread around Quebec like wildfire. Everyone has heard about it on the news. And some people who misunderstood thought the program would go into effect starting next year. The Auditor General is disputing the principle. Normally, in a budget, the government announces initiatives that will go into effect during the coming fiscal year, perhaps on January 1 of the following year. Since this program involved education, people were inclined to believe that these scholarships would be paid out starting in September. But no, these are estimates for the year 2000. People are wondering why they are being announced now. It's doubly frustrating for students whose budgets are already very tight.

My colleague, the Liberal member for Bourassa in Quebec, has no doubt heard similar remarks in his riding. I've tried to look at this from a political standpoint, but introducing these scholarships will enable you to please everyone, but there will also be some unhappy people, including students to whom scholarships are being announced, but who won't be able to receive them because they're in their last year. I asked the member for Bourassa to imagine their frustration when they see that they won't be entitled to the scholarships, whereas they might have been able to receive them a year later.

Some have pushed the analysis further and have said: Yes, this is all well and good, but will everybody be entitled to them? They have begun calculating and I calculated along with them. Perhaps I'm mistaken, Mr. Chairman, because I don't think I have the absolute truth. Approximately 250,000 community college and university students would normally be eligible for these scholarships in Quebec. They began to calculate and said that, ultimately, with everything depending on the number and the inclusion of part-time students, between six and seven percent of students would receive scholarships. Some figured 10 percent, but it's a percentage of that order of magnitude. In these circumstances, the member for Bourassa should be concerned. This means that, even extrapolating and increasing the number of recipients to 10 percent, 90 percent of the students who might theoretically be entitled to the scholarships will not receive any. Some 90 percent of young people would be frustrated.

In the circumstances, I don't understand Prime Minister Chrétien's reasoning. A member of the Liberal Party told me, and no one said it wasn't true, that this is an idea that Mr. Chrétien personally supports. It's apparently not Mr. Pettigrew, but Mr. Chrétien who supports it. It's his bill and he in a way wants to go down in history as having announced these Millennium Scholarships for the year 2000.

• 2150

It's a new millennium, so we thought it would be better to offer this to young people rather than to the elderly in other areas. But these young people think that if only 10 percent of students are entitled to them, 90 percent will feel frustrated.

I find that the analysis conducted by the members of the Liberal Party on this point is politically dangerous because 10 percent may perhaps be pleased to have scholarships, but the other 90 percent will definitely be angry at not be entitled to them.

Among those who could theoretically get a scholarship because they need it or because they desire it, some Quebec students told me: Mr. Dubé, do you think we're going to allow ourselves to be fooled? We're not simpletons. We won't let ourselves be fooled by a mirage, a scholarship that would come in the form of a federal government cheque, with a maple leaf on it, even though it is given by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which will be specially created for the purpose. Do you honestly think that we've been fooled and that we will necessarily approve of the federal government by saying it is nice and good?

That's why I was very surprised by the Prime Minister's answer to a young member during Question Period. One day, during Question Period, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, the youngest member of Parliament, Stéphan Tremblay, asked the Prime Minister to admit that the Millennium Scholarships had been created for reasons of visibility, to which the Prime Minister candidly answered that it was indeed time for the federal government to make its action in the field of education visible so that young people could realize that action is valid.

In other words, visibility is the only thing that's important for the government. But, as I emphasized earlier, this visibility may suffer a setback. The Bloc Québecois is giving you the opportunity to withdraw all this before you run into trouble. You are definitely going to have trouble. You think you are going to make people happy, but in fact you're going to displease nine out of 10 individuals. Furthermore, those who receive the cheque will not necessarily change their opinion on anything. Students will definitely find that the system is unfair since it is not based on needs, but rather on merit. I believe we should talk a little about this notion of merit.

Merit means performance. Students have sociology professors who tell them that teamwork is the way of the future. Individualism is not the way of the future. The idea is not to think you're better than the next person. It's not to think that the highest marks make the best people. It would be disturbing if things were that way. We are told that, to perform well in the professional world, we have to have team spirit and work in a good social environment. I believe young people share this view. They believe in collective merit.

Furthermore, people ask us on what basis performance will be judged. Strictly on the basis of marks? Madame Chair, how do we compare two different university disciplines such as dentistry and medicine? Can they be compared? I can foresee a whole series of disputes over the notion of merit. You can name all the different types of university and community college fields of training. There will be a certain quota for medicine, literature, history and anthropology. Every field is just as important, but some will say that medicine is more difficult than anthropology. Others will say that pure sciences are harder and that marks should be up to a certain level. There are a lot of disputes in the offing.

• 2155

What students are currently focusing on is getting knowledge, notions of personal development and the desire to master a field of knowledge that interests them.

However, the Millennium Scholarship Foundation will only be concerned with marks. Students will have to have the best marks, always the best marks. So they will develop strategies to get the best marks. The objective will no longer be personal development. The day I first heard about the Millennium Scholarships, I thought we were talking about a holiday. I'm a serious guy, but it was as though, on January 1 of the year 2000, we were suddenly going to receive scholarships and other prizes. I saw that as a New Year's Eve party with balloons, whistles and everything else. The one who shouted the loudest would get the biggest balloon. For students, the one who shouted the loudest would get the teacher's attention.

I won't describe my education, but I studied social development for a long time. There are many ways to get the teacher's attention. You can do all kinds of things. You can try to ask the most questions and ask questions that the teacher finds most interesting. You can go on about that at length, but I'm sure you understand perfectly well what I meant.

Coming back to the member for Bourassa, whom I like, he is definitely from a relatively well-to-do riding, but I believe he worked very hard. So he might perhaps have been entitled to one of Mr. Chrétien's Millennium Scholarships.

I believe he has some political merit and that he might have deserved a small scholarship, a bonus for the perfect Liberal candidate who has at last managed to become a member. I'm joking, of course, but I know he has worked very hard to get here, to this Parliament. I suppose he will continue to work very hard to stay here. He is legitimately entitled to do so, as are we who have come here as well. We didn't get here by chance. It's not because people found us better looking or nicer, but because the position and arguments put forward by the Bloc Québecois candidates were what Quebeckers wanted to hear. That's why they voted for us.

I know that we are being listened to on Parliament Hill radio, but I am not ashamed to speak out this way this evening because what I am saying is based on what I have heard from more than one or two people.

I remember Mr. Parizeau, who attracts quite a crowd. He was expected this week at the Lévis-Lauzon CEGEP, but it was Maundy Thursday and there were no rooms available. In addition, everything at the Lévis-Lauzon CEGEP closed at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Parizeau was asked a few questions on the gains of the Quiet Revolution and a few questions about education.

How many young people do you think there were in the room on Maundy Thursday to listen to Mr. Parizeau at the Lévis-Lauzon CEGEP? There were 700 students and 50 more outside the room who couldn't get in. The subject was the Quiet Revolution and the main theme was the democratization of education.

• 2200

The MP for Gatineau, Mr. Assad, remembers the time of the classical colleges. I remember them as well because, in my region, the classical college was the Petit Séminaire de Rimouski. I had the misfortune to be the fourth boy in my family and my parents couldn't afford to send me.

So I had to wait my turn for a year or two. Fortunately, a CEGEP, the Cégep de Rivière-du-Loup, opened up in my region in 1968. This was part of this revolution that I call the Cultural Revolution. We were able to have access to college-level instruction. It was free of charge and still is, except for the related costs, administrative costs. And the affordable costs of university enabled me to register. But before that happened, I was very concerned because, since I was the fourth boy in a family of eight children—there were also four girls—it was absolutely impossible for my father, a farmer by occupation, to pay for that kind of education for me.

So this revolution occurred in education. Mr. Parizeau recalled this before the students, young people who never knew anything about this situation. He told them these facts. Today, in 1998, people are talking about the thirtieth anniversary of the events of May 1968 in France. They were related to a world revolution, but in Quebec, it was the time of the democratization of education: the accessibility of education, access to education. It was an extraordinary opportunity.

An entire system was erected at the time to enable more young people to go to CEGEP and to university. It's extraordinary. I know that this also happened in the other provinces, but for us... We were talking about this with Mr. Dumas, who is of an even more respectable age than I am and who remembered the time of Duplessis.

I was born in 1947, the first year of the Baby Boom generation. I was younger, but the change made to the education system was for us, and we can never repeat this enough... Education for a Quebecker, the French language, our struggle for respect for the French language, for the promotion of the French language... But culture is even more than language. It's more comprehensive than that.

I've always adhered to Guy Rocher's definition of culture as being a different way of thinking, feeling and acting. We Quebeckers say we are distinct, but not because we are better or nicer. By that, we don't mean that people in the other provinces are less intelligent.

That's why the notion of merit... It's a way of being different that we're hanging on to, like the colour of our eyes. A while ago, I heard people ask why we were doing all this. I heard Mr. Gallaway say that he didn't find what we were doing very democratic. We have to explain things we thought we had already explained.

That's why we are explaining them to you again. I believe that there is a kind of misunderstanding and that's unfortunate. I would say that there would definitely be something to do if we really listened to each other and if we took the time to understand our differences in the most respectful way. That would be the solution. But you would still have to understand why we are attached to our education system.

Why are we so allergic to national standards, as Mr. Parizeau has always stated? Mr. Charest is now the leader of the Liberal Party, after being leader of the Conservative Party. Mr. Parizeau asked us to reread the Conservative Party's platform. On pages 30, 31, 33 and 34, if my memory is correct, Mr. Charest spoke of tests, even at the elementary level, of national tests starting in grade three, I believe. He proposed tests on at least three occasions to ensure that young Quebeckers are at the same level as students in British Columbia and the Yukon. That's ridiculous.

We don't want to be the same. It's not that we're opposed to the idea, but we want to remain who we are. We want to develop in harmony with our culture, in accordance with our own values, etc.

I hope he's not doing that on purpose, Madam Chair, but it disturbs me a little.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A point of order, Madam Chair.

• 2205

Your colleagues thinks they're funny. Incidentally, I would say that I find you much more pleasant than the Joint Chair, but that's another question.

I don't know whether they think they're funny, the gentleman seated at the other end who has been making a noise with his chair for some time now and Ms. Cohen, who's playing with non-alcoholic drink cans. I would like them to show a little more respect for my colleague. I find this infantile. I find this ridiculous and I find they are acting like clowns. Would it be possible to have a little order in this room, Madam Chair? I'm appealing to your kindness and intelligence especially.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Karen Redman): Thank you, Mr. Loubier. I believe we have the appropriate decorum, and I think my colleagues at the end of the table are listening intently. Perhaps you would like to continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: So I suppose that the chairs could be greased because if they only moved them, we wouldn't hear them. But in this situation—I wouldn't want to make a bad joke—since it really bothers me, perhaps we could ask him to change chairs because that one really looks broken.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, we could get a leather chair.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: That said, Madam Chair, I'm going to continue talking about the 700 students who were present when Mr. Parizeau spoke about the Quiet Revolution. One part of his speech concerned education and, in particular, national standards. I know that Ms. Cohen took part in the tour on the Axworthy reform. I remember that, when she came to Quebec, to Montreal or Québec City, I thought I detected some sympathy in her for this difference, this...

There's a problem here.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, could we ask the big fat gentleman who is seated at the end of the table to stop moving in his chair? Could he sit still for five or 10 minutes? Perhaps he can try to do so for just five minutes to see whether he can sit still, stop making noise and stop bothering my colleague.

This really irritates me, Madam Chair. I hope you are more effective and have better hearing than the Chairman who preceded you. This is beginning to get on my nerves. I would ask you to intervene and tell the gentleman in blue...

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Karen Redman): I'm heartened by your concern for all of our health. I would ask my colleague if he's comfortable in that chair and feels quite safe.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'm very comfortable. I've taken my place at this committee; I've taken my seat. I'm quite surprised to hear that a member would suggest that one must be totally still. I find this a rather shocking form of censorship being applied by members opposite.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I also hope it's not in question of somebody's physical characteristics.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'm very impressed by the fact that the speaker is not reading notes tonight, like his predecessors. I'm sitting here. My colleague and I have been discussing some of the finer points being raised, and from time to time I have to shift.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Karen Redman): I'll rely on your good judgment not to shift overly often.

Would you like to continue?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You know there are drugs for that?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: It might have been interesting for the debate to be televised this evening. I remember the time when the debates began to be televised, in Québec City and here too, in Ottawa, both in the Parliamentary Commissions and in the Committees. Decorum immediately improved.

Otherwise, and sincerely, Madam Chair, I am trying... I have come here this evening to say what I think and to say what the students in my riding have said about the Millennium Scholarships. It is sincerely with this very firm intention of trying to convince you. This is an expression of democracy. We are in a Parliamentary system.

We want to try to convince you, before it is too late, to amend or withdraw this bill, as we have asked you to do, at least for the length of the negotiations. If an agreement were possible, it would work to everyone's benefit. We would really like to convince you of this. When we say we are attached to Quebec, we aren't saying it for no reason at all, it's not a whim, it's not to act like children, it's not for superficial reasons. It's for very profound reasons. These are things that go to the very essence, to the nature of our people, of our culture, of our being and of our soul as a people.

• 2210

Perhaps others may be more successful than I. Thus far, I admit I am not discouraged because I am tenacious, but I also sense your benevolent look and your attention. I find this interesting and encouraging. So I'm going to continue.

When you want to convince someone, you at least have to... However, I see that the member for Pontiac, or Gatineau—Labelle...

Mr. Yvan Loubier: For the Outaouais.

An hon. member: The gentleman is from the riding of Gatineau.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Gatineau. Our colleague is from Gatineau.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I should tell you that I live in the city of Hull, after spending one year in Gatineau. I live on the Quebec side to feel at one with my fellow citizens of Quebec, those from this area. It also feels good because, in everyday life, I can...

The point of that aside is that, upon leaving Parliament or before we get where we are going, to breakfast or whatever, we may meet people who, like those in the Québec City area, from the riding of Lévis, where I am from, react in the same way to the Millennium Scholarships. I have observed that, even in the Outaouais, when you ask a student what he thinks of this Foundation, his reaction is relatively similar. People tell me that Liberal MPs don't understand anything. People ask me how they can allow this to happen.

People tell me that Liberal MPs from Quebec should know just how far people, both federalists and sovereigntists, those who are not prisoners of their party line, will not back down on things that are important to them. This is a debate on which there have already been polls and on which there will no doubt be others. People agree on the Bloc Québecois position. The polls I've seen show 65 percent to 70 percent support for our position. That's a very solid level of support. I would like to convince you of that fact.

I would like to welcome you once again, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure for me to see you back here. I know that this has been long and that it seems tedious. But this surprises me from you, who were a member of the Human Resources Development Committee and did the tour. I'll always remember that. When you were Parliamentary Secretary to Mr. Axworthy, in every large city where we went, across Canada and also throughout Quebec, there were demonstrations by students and people who said they were afraid of the cuts, etc.

In Quebec, you will no doubt remember, Mr. Chairman, in Montreal—I'm not saying this was the best thing—tables were overturned, people said that education in Quebec was different. You remember that. You can't have forgotten that. That was in November 1994. You were in Montreal and you were the unfortunate member designated by your party to face the media and demonstrators while keeping your cool. That time, I have to say, you impressed me because you kept your cool. You never lost patience with the demonstrators and you didn't try to escape. You showed a genuine ability to listen and to pay attention.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Those were the good old days.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: However, I'm not sure that... I'm not talking to you. I have the greatest respect for the Chair, but I admit I don't understand.

I could review all the arguments, but instead I'm appealing to the sensibility of the elected members. We are in a committee, on our own or virtually so. Honestly, is there anyone here from Quebec who can say that what I am saying, that our attachment to our education system, to our loans and scholarships system is unreal, that this is not what people really think in Quebec? Is there anyone who has come to question Quebeckers, young people and people of other ages? You don't need polls to see this. This is apparent from the discussions, daily life, all the reports, in the newspapers, everywhere.

• 2215

Look at the editorials. And yet these people are not necessarily on our side. We are living in a free country and we know that there is freedom of the press. I have not seen any editorialist or commentator say that the Liberal government was right to create the Millennium Scholarships or that it was on the right track. And even my friend behind me, who reads all the newspapers much more assiduously than I do, is shaking his head to indicate that he has not seen any either.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, none.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You have to be aware of this. The government says it wants to please Quebeckers and it proposes to create the Millennium Scholarships, but their reaction is contrary to what it hoped.

I don't know whether the member for Bourassa wants to have a long career in Parliament, having had to run for office four times, somewhat like the former Prime Minister of Canada who had to take his bar admission exams two or three times.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, a point of order, please, you know that you find this funny too and that's why I doubt your ability to resume the Chair of the Finance Committee. But there is a clown at the other end of the table wearing a blue shirt who will not stop making noise with his chair. This is the third time we have made this point of order.

An hon. member: Excuse me.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: And this is the third time he's clowned around like that. Stop pretending not to notice, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to take your role seriously. You shouldn't forget that everything we say is being recorded. I believe you have problems, including serious credibility problems. We are going to complain to the Speaker of the House of Commons. I find utterly indecent both the way you are behaving and the fact that you allow the big fat gentleman at the other end of the table who has been acting like a clown for approximately half an hour by making his chair squeak to go on as he does. It's not normal for a Chairman to find that funny, to laugh and to let something like this continue.

We can play that game, but I can assure you that we will remember this and that we will play the same game when our turn comes. The next time you ask for our cooperation on the Finance Committee, you're going to run into a heck of a wall. You can be certain of that; you have my word on it, and it's going to last a long time.

So I would ask you at least to take your role seriously for the next few minutes and to tell the big clown at the other end to stop making his chair squeak.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't understand why you have to be confrontational and always kind of lecturing people. Tonight you called me a dictator. Your colleague, Mr. Crête, said basically the officials were working for a party rather than.... When you do that, if you want to talk about credibility, you erode your own credibility, because, quite frankly, any decent human being would not resort to that type of language to describe anybody.

If that's your style, fine, and you can live with it, but it's not mine. I've dealt with better men than you for most of my life.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief point of order concerning what you've just said. This is not the first time I have pointed out to the Chair that there is a lack of order here. A moment ago, when you left, when Mrs. Redman took your place, the large gentleman in the blue shirt at the other end who is making his chair squeak also made his chair squeak in an attempt to unsettle my colleague.

And, a moment ago, I caught you looking at the large gentleman in the blue shirt at the other end of the table, laughing and finding that funny. So there is something somewhere here that's not working. How can we respect the Chair when the Chair acts in this way? It's inconceivable. Think about it for two seconds. Have a little intelligence for five minutes.

We're going to have to work together for three more years. You have a choice, Mr. Chairman: either you continue to do what you're doing or you get back into the right frame of mind.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, look—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You can stop clowning around too. I'm beginning to be fed up.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you know something? I think, quite frankly, you're picking on the wrong person when it comes to credibility. Mr. Dubé and I worked together for a number of years. When he speaks to me about young people—we've spent many nights sharing our opinion on youth. As a matter of fact, if you want to know who initiated the youth internship program and the Youth Service Canada program, it was me. Who chaired a national task force on young people? It was me. Who helped them develop an employment youth strategy? It was me. So don't go on like this.

When it comes to contribution to the public policy process, you have a long, long way to go. Don't attack me on that because you—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, you constantly mix things up. Look, I never questioned your political contribution or your political work. And you shouldn't put on important airs.

[English]

The Chairman: Don't go down that road.

• 2220

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What I asked you a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, was simply to tell the gentleman at the other end to stop making his chair squeak and to stop laughing. That's all I'm asking you and it is your role to maintain order here. So allow my colleague to finish his speech in better circumstances. It seems to me that would be a good idea, and we'll talk about that another day.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, but don't personalize things. I've seen you laugh during committee hearings. As chair, I've seen that. You've broken out in laughter sometimes. I've seen that myself. So this holier-than-thou attitude is unbecoming to you. You know that's true.

You can do that gesture with your hand to somebody else, but don't do it to me. No, really; I'm taking you up on it. Don't do that to me, because it doesn't work. If your style is to try to bully your way through parliamentary procedures, it's not going to work, either.

You're going like this. What does this mean?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What did I do when I asked you that question? What are you insinuating that I did in your direction? That's important. What's the problem?

[English]

The Chairman: You were going like this. You don't have to do that to me. Learn some manners. We live in a civilized society.

I can lecture on this because I've shown a lot more manners and dignity than you have tonight.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Chair, I think it's unbecoming for any member of this committee to call another a clown. The circus was not created on this side, it was created on the other side.

I do note that the chair expert for that party has just arrived. This room is very warm this evening. It's very distracting this evening. Perhaps the member opposite would like to call the janitor of this building names, or those who operate this building.

If he is so distracted by noises made by a chair, then I would suggest he's been here much too long this evening, and his attention span has shrunk to the point of being meaningless. But that doesn't justify an attack upon a member by calling a member a name that is unparliamentary.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue. These altercations somewhat disturb me, but I can continue. In a few minutes, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean will succeed me and he will do so in every sense of that term, because I am 50 years old whereas he is barely 24. He recently did a tour with other young Bloc members, the under-thirties, and he will no doubt talk to you about that.

I would like to continue talking about the discussions I had during the week I spent with the students from Lévis-Lauzon CEGEP. We touched on many subjects, but I will stick to education. People are sad about having demonstrated at one point before the National Assembly because a number of them had not understood that the budget cuts to education were largely due to cuts in transfer payments. The idea was not to simply to toss the ball back and forth, since there are facts. This is closely related to the example I referred to concerning our tour on the subject of human resources, which you no doubt remember. Very major cuts were made to transfers to the provinces in the field of education. Students have trouble making ends meet and they are very concerned that there are more and more cuts to the education system and that there is another risk that several millions of dollars will be cut from the CEGEP budget in the near future. Although there are negotiations with the teachers, they are protected by agreements which are being respected. However, the budget cuts are being felt more by guidance counsellors, for example. Young people 18 or 19 years of age still need guidance counsellors and perhaps even professionals in psychology or in other fields so that they can keep up their morale and manage to make it through this process.

• 2225

They also need to get involved in student life. What's required in an educational environment is proper conditions for students to study in the best way possible and for people to think of the academic aspect, but we also need to train good citizens. Students must have the opportunity to get involved in their student associations, on other committees and in other fields. This all forms a whole.

I won't take any more time because I know that our spirited member for Lac-Saint-Jean has a great deal to say. I'll take this opportunity to pay tribute to him. Recently in the House of Commons, I wanted to pay homage to him during the debate on the Millennium Scholarships, which was held before the event which many people subsequently spoke of. I wanted to tell someone who was a Baby Boomer that there really is no single model in politics. There is no single way to express yourself. There is always politically correct language, which should be respected and used by articulate people.

But there are people like him, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, who have the sensitivity, who speak from their hearts, and who have first listened to their fellow citizens and who know how to listen. This carries through to all other areas of life, including Parliament, committees and even in situations where there are fairly intense debates that can last quite a long time.

This a characteristic that can be recognized in a member of Parliament, the ability to put oneself in another person's shoes, to listen to that person, even if his or her point of view is very different. In my view, no change is possible in everyday life if you can't get around this block or preconceived or stereotyped ideas that another person may have and listen to others.

I say all this for the people here who have extensive experience, in particular for Mr. Bevilacqua, our Chairman, who has been responsible for youth issues for three mandates. I know he is very much concerned by the issue, but I would like you to listen to him. I'm 50 years old and have quite a bit of mileage on me, but what he has to tell you is very important.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. Bevilacqua. I am happy to be here with you today. Madam Clerk, Mr. Clerk, Mr. Valeri, Mrs. Redman, Ms. Shaughnessy, Mr. Coderre...

An hon. member: It's Ms. Cohen.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Oh, excuse me. I am pleased to come and discuss the Millennium Scholarships bill with you.

I believe this is an incredible opportunity that we have to meet here today to talk about the most important bill of the year, or at least one of the most important. There are lots of things that we question in our society. I don't want to scare you right off the bat and I'm going to try to be clear.

The Chairman: Please do.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: This is important, particularly since when we say millennium Scholarships, that makes me think of the third millennium. I noticed a little while ago that there are 306 days left before the millennium. When we say millennium, that mans the future and orientations for the future.

This really makes me stop and think. We're talking about scholarships for studies and, when we talk about studies, we're talking about education. And education, once again, means the future. It means what we decide to do with a society. It means the sacrifices we are prepared to make today for the future.

And I get the impression that this is not a strong point in politics. A serious problem in politics today is the absence of long-term vision. I don't want to put society on trial, but I believe you all recently witnessed something I did that came from my gut. When I removed my chair from Parliament, it was a cry from the heart.

• 2230

The Millennium Scholarships idea ultimately stems from very good intentions. I want to start off on a positive note because, if we want to build a society, we have to look at the positive side of things. I think it's good to say that young people are going into debt and that this situation has to be corrected and I congratulate the people who thought about doing it.

Starting from that point, our role in politics is to reason from a premise, goal or objective and to find ways of maximizing all the efforts society can make.

Allow me to explain that. I often say that our role as parliamentarians is of course to represent the people and to guide them with respect to certain decisions.

I'm so tired that I forget what I wanted to say.

[English]

The Chairman: Take your time.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Yes, yes, of course.

An hon. member: Don't get distracted.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: I'm not getting distracted. Far from it. I intend to try to explain what I have to say today.

Our goal as parliamentarians, when people in the community make an effort, is to maximize their impact and to try to organize society. If we have gotten organized to pay taxes, I have a duty as a politician to maximize the use of every dollar a citizen gives me. And if someone tells me that part of that dollar has to go into an investment for the future, into education, for example, I then have to ensure that portion of the dollar is maximized so that the young and the not so young go to school learn that, as a society, we have decided to say that we are going to learn common things. That has to be maximized at the community level. This is fundamental in a society.

When I say today that this is probably the most important bill of the year, and even for this entire Parliament, it's because we're talking about education.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that the member opposite knows what we're here for. We're here about Bill C-36.

There are a number of components to the bill. One part of it happens to be the millennium scholarship, which some of the members opposite have been talking about. This particular member isn't speaking about anything related to Bill C-36 to date.

Maybe you can open your briefing book or something. Let's get to the point.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Pardon me, but we make bills because we have observed that there are things that aren't working well in society. We therefore have to analyze what isn't working. If we can't understand fundamentally what isn't working, such as, for example, student indebtedness problems, that's too bad. If we want to engage in superficial politics here...

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe I could give the member some talking points so that he knows what to talk about.

Students in Quebec average $11,000 of indebtedness at the end of their degrees. The millennium scholarships are $3,000 grants. They would be available to students all across the country. They'd be able to study wherever they chose.

The bill also contains some information about debt relief for students who have high indebtedness. There are also plans to have RESPs available.

Maybe you could talk to the substance of the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: On point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't doubt the member's good intentions, but my colleague is entitled to speak. I fail to see how he is out of order or beside the point when he talks about the Millennium Scholarships, which are part of Bill C-36.

• 2235

[English]

The Chairman: I think Ms. Torsney was being helpful, but I do appreciate the fact that you were looking at this issue in a global context. Continue.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we get to, like, even in this country soon?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I apologize if the nature of the discussion as regards explanations of this bill may be different, but I believe it is quite relevant. I very much emphasize how important it is to say that serious consideration of this bill requires us to question many points. We cannot build a house if we don't have a structure, Madam. That's fundamental. If we decide to put paint on rotten wood, we're not any further ahead. It will only look good for the next four years or a little more.

We have to realize that the wood we are painting is rotten or worn out. This seems to me to be fundamentally important. I'm not here to make a scene.

When I say that education is the future of our societies, I believe that everyone agrees on that. I'm coming to the heart of the matter. There are things that bother me in this bill. If it troubles you that I am trying to discuss them in a comprehensive way, I apologize, but many fundamental things are addressed in this Millennium Scholarships bill.

We note that access to education is something fundamental. Access to education is a basis. At present, in this scholarship bill, what proportion of scholarships will be awarded on the basis of merit as compared to the proportion of scholarships that will be awarded on the basis of need?

When I said a moment ago that this was an important bill and that it called a lot of things into question, those are fundamental issues. As parliamentarians and representatives of a public that cherishes the idea that education should be accessible, we must create mechanisms to facilitate access to education. Since student indebtedness is a barrier to education, we must find mechanisms that facilitate access to education.

Fundamentally, that's what this bill means. But the government starts saying that scholarships will be awarded on merit. I have no problem with the idea of encouraging a certain amount of elitism. I believe that there are people who are more gifted in society and that we should not hold them back. I agree on that and my aim is not to achieve an egalitarian society. My aim is to achieve a fair society. When you argue from the premise that students are indebted, indeed even highly indebted, and that we should help them, I agree with you up to that point.

When we seriously study this bill, we can't even determine its initial basis. Was the idea to promote access to education or to change the direction of our societies and award scholarships to those who are reasonably well off, who come from well to do families, who don't need to work between terms, who have the time to study, who have had proper training, who have had opportunities in life and who ultimately have been good?

I'm going to tell you something incredible that greatly affected me and it occurred in my riding. Last week, a boy won the Governor General's medal and a $500 scholarship. He had to negotiate a time with the head of the school because he turned down the $500 scholarship. That's incredible. I forget his name, but he was a boy from Alma. His mother and father work, he has never had to work and, in addition, he found it easy to learn. He was aware that his friends had a lot more trouble. And he was offered a $500 scholarship. He is not part of this kind of society and he went to see the people who wanted to award him the scholarship to tell them that he was turning it down and that they should give it to someone else. This wasn't a movie. I saw this last week. This case is an illustration of the fact that we have to call things into question.

• 2240

When we talk about this Millennium Scholarships bill, we don't even know what proportion these gifted students represent. As I said earlier, although I may be in favour of our society encouraging certain Einsteins, a certain elite, perhaps it should do so in a proportion of five to 10 percent. Unfortunately, we don't know what percentage they represent.

The bill proposes the establishment of a board of directors, six members of which would be appointed on the recommendation of ministers. Ultimately, you, members of Parliament, agree to be elected, as parliamentarians, to take on responsibility for providing us with a certain education. And if we are not happy with the way this works, in four years, we can elect another government. However, this bill proposes to confer control over the awarding of these scholarships to people who will not be accountable to us. Ultimately, it's not members of Parliament who will decide. This is an important issue.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sometimes it's hard to hear the interpreters because

[English]

the volume of the voice is a little....

[Translation]

Did the member say that we members of Parliament are responsible for education?

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: We can be responsible for many things, but we can also be responsible for saying no to certain things.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But you said that we were responsible for education.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Elected representatives in general...

Mr. Antoine Dubé: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

As I have experienced the same situation, if the debate in a committee meeting takes on the aspect of a heckling session, there is a risk that a person making a speech will lose his train of thought because it can be broken. It seems to me that this is what is happening here. I don't sense any bad will; I take the liberty of calling on members to return to the spirit of the committee. He asked to speak and I believe it's worth the trouble listening to him.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: It's too bad that this is the way it is because I really would have liked to discuss fundamental issues. I'm not a technocrat and I'm not going to change any commas in this bill. But I believe it is my role to conduct a more thorough analysis of its social impact. I was talking earlier about our responsibilities. Ultimately, there are so many things to say on this point.

First of all, I am opposed on principle to the idea of the federal government concerning itself with education. My colleagues must have spoken to you about this for a good portion of the day. If you haven't understood by this time, there is a serious problem.

• 2245

I say that this is what you've decided. However, you did so because your Prime Minister made you do it. I regret that I have to tell you this, but I know perfectly well that, even though this was not really your idea, your Prime Minister had a dream of establishing the Millennium Scholarships. We also know perfectly well that there are people in your caucus who do not support the bill. In any case, you have to be here and you have to support ideas that are imposed on you.

These are the things I wonder about. Ultimately, you have accepted the idea that the federal government can concern itself with education. I started from that point. That's where I was a moment ago. I said that was a premise that I condemned. Let's admit that, by doing that, you are using your power. What I'm telling you now is that when you want to concern yourself with education, you must bear responsibility for it. That's what I said in my preamble. I talked about the importance of education and of its impact. You seem to be embarking on this course as you would on the construction of a railway. This is much more than that.

Awareness of the world is the way of the future. We have come to the point where we post advertising for McDonald's and Burger King in schools to finance courses. Is that objective education? It's incredible. That's the type of society were headed towards.

Mr. Chairman, I believe there are so many things that don't work in a fundamental way. I find it scandalous that we should be here looking at me, without discussing the bill, when my speech goes to the heart of the bill, to its very skeleton.

At some point, it has to be given a structure. In this case, that structure is access to education for everyone. Structure also means that it is up to the people to decide on the type of society they want. If they are not happy with the structure we try to impose on them through our political decisions and if politicians are no longer accountable for their decisions—which is another fundamental aspect of this bill—I have some serious questions to ask.

When there is no basic structure, we have to start changing commas. I'll come back to my example: the government wants to put paint on rotten wood. It's going to look good, really nice, but it will eventually fall apart.

As for the social debate that you seem to be so concerned about... In any case, I consider myself lucky, at my age, to be able to speak out in front of a few parliamentarians who, I hope, listen to me from time to time. I also hope that my speech was coherent because it was not prepared. For some, coherence is completely related to the degree of understanding. However, no one should confuse the two, but I respect that point of view.

An hon. member:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: No, not at all! I know perfectly well where I'm going. When I talk to you about the structure of our society, I'm building it.

Mr. Chairman, there's a point here. All right? But in addition, and I can't get over this, there's another point to debate in all this. My colleagues have already had to raise it. And that's what we have already said, that, at some point, all the scholarships were only supposed to give the federal government visibility. That's an unacceptable insult. That meant, my dear government, that ultimately you are not working for us, but for you, to make yourself visible. You say that this isn't believable, that this can't be. I put the question to the Prime Minister, to your leader, and he admitted it, in the House of Commons. Yes, it was for visibility. Bingo!

To spite the absurdity of the matter, he acknowledged it, he admitted it and he said it. It's incredible! It's unbelievable, Mr. Chairman. It's incredible! It's incredible!

• 2250

An hon. member: They don't even try to hide it.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, certain things are being attributed to the Prime Minister and to the House of Commons. I wonder if the member opposite could cite those references in Hansard, because I'm not sure the information is as it was presented.

[Translation]

An hon. member: He's the one that asked the question.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Then give me...

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Yes, but, Madam Chair...

Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Oh, no. A little decorum, please.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You thought I insulted you.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: I'm disappointed that people should laugh about little things like my saying madam Chair, that everyone should start laughing, when I'm talking about fundamental aspects for our society. I make a mistake in addressing the Chair and everyone starts laughing.

An hon. member: Don't leave with the chair.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Yes, that's right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You're right to leave with your chair. I approve right now.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: I almost feel like leaving with the entire desk.

I was answering my colleague who asked me if I was going to leave with my chair. But that's another matter. What I can say is that the bitterness I have accumulated over the past two years in this Parliament... When I removed my chair... I'm surprised to be talking about it this evening because I said I wouldn't do it, but it's directly...

Mr. Denis Coderre: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, it's directly related to my point, the Millennium Scholarships. I know what I'm talking about. It's the issue I've been following.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Wait a minute. There's a point of order.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm rising on a point of order.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: You'd better rise in a good one.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like to hear the member talk about the Millennium Scholarships. I didn't come here to hear some kind of therapy or personal issues. So talk to me about the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, please.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: All right. Mr. Coderre, I'm pleased that you have called me back to order. I respect that and I thank you very much.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I remember that it was you who put the question to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Yes, there you go. We were referring to the remark by my Liberal Party colleague, who asked me if I was feeling blue. I'm not feeling blue, but I nearly did when I heard the Prime Minister's answer. I asked him if the ultimate purpose of all this was to give the federal government some visibility rather than help students. His answer was yes. He said yes. It made the headlines the next day. I was bowled over.

An hon. member: That's the direct approach.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: It's direct. The political columnists were surprised. They said they did not understand how he could admit it, how he could spill the beans.

I have nothing against Mr. Chrétien. The guy does what he can and it's not easy.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: A Prime Minister's life is not an easy one. Perhaps he was tired that day and that made him abandon the ruse and say what he really thought. And what he really thought was that! He wanted visibility.

He couldn't care less about students. I'm inferring a little here, but we nevertheless have to analyze his answer. It was virtually that. At least that was completely right.

Mr. Denis Coderre: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: I'm talking about the Millennium Scholarship Foundation this time.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't accept your inference that the Prime Minister couldn't care less about students.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: All right, it wasn't an inference. It was an analysis, an interpretation. That's right, it could have been an interpretation.

I am pleased that there's still a certain dialogue. Mr. Coderre, I encourage you to keep on listening.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: He's getting better. He's better than in the House.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: So when you publicly admit that the ultimate purpose of these scholarships was not the primary intention...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A point of order please, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Really, my colleague is trying to give us his thoughts on the Millennium Scholarships. The shouts we hear are incredible. How can we possibly have a constructive dialogue? I'm beginning to understand why, after two years in the Parliamentary system, he felt the need to do what he did, to walk out with his chair and to say he was fed up with talking to the walls and seeing nothing move. This evening we have proof that he was right. He's trying to carry on a dialogue and move the debate forward, and no one is listening to him. I believe that justifies the action he has taken.

• 2255

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just want to get some clarification. I know you're totally in control of things, but we seem to have three members who all keep talking. I think only two people in the committee can speak at any one time, so if we could get some clarification as to who to listen to on points of order and things, it would be helpful.

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier and Mr. Tremblay are the two.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Dubé was speaking just seconds ago, on the record.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: We're going to obey the rules with pleasure. We're going to obey the rules, but I hope you will obey the rule that, when a committee considerers a matter, it must study all its aspects and consequences. If it is difficult for some of you to consider the long-term consequences, please excuse me for doing so, but I have no other choice. I feel very much concerned by all this.

The question is not whether I am personally indebted, far from it. However, some of my best friends, people I see in the evenings and on weekends, are affected by this. I admit that some have admitted what you said, Mr. Coderre: it's a question of money. Students don't spit on money. That's true.

The truth has to be said. I agree. A certain proportion of students have in a way taken the easy way out. We sometimes say of someone who is not too politicized that he is in over his head. I can explain what that means and give you the reasons why he is not politicized. Believe me, many students have to work while they're at university to support children they have already had. How can they worry about society's problems when, on an individual level, they can't even make ends meet?

In some situations, federal-provincial politics may seem very far away. Some students hear the member for Bourassa say that these scholarships will provide young people with money and this is a good thing. Young people are indebted and there is a proposal here to help them. Some of them will definitely say that this is true. They'll read the headlines in the newspapers and see what Mr. Coderre said. They'll think that's marvellous.

However, you have to go to the bottom of things and that's what we're trying to do today. They trust us. We are paid to consider these questions, not only to read the newspaper headlines, but to go into issues in depth. We have to conduct a thorough examination of what politics should be.

I wonder how many people around this table were truly pleased when they learned about this bill. If we had a lie detector here, I can tell you that the needle would be swinging wildly because this goes against your mentality. I heard your Minister Stéphane Dion say that the areas of jurisdiction had to be respected.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, I'm going to need some clarification. I'm not sure that I heard it properly, but was there something about a lie detector and—

A voice: You can't call their members liars.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: —the needle being off the scale, the implication that we're all liars. Let me tell you, you are also in this room and that would be completely inappropriate to betray your colleagues, on that side of the House and this side of the House, in that manner. You are the staff—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I formally apologize. I considered my remarks more metaphorically and not as representative of the actual situation. I let myself get carried away and would like to apologize to my colleagues if they were offended. I entirely agree with what the member said. If I ever make mistakes of this kind again, I ask you please to let me know. Sometimes when you're tired, you say more than you mean. This happened to your Prime Minister the day he admitted that the purpose of the Foundation was visibility. I believe he was tired too. However, no one could call him to order.

That would have been quite funny in the House of Commons. I could have stood up and said, 'mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister is somewhat tired this evening. What he just said does not really mean anything. If he wants to come back to it tomorrow, I think that would be all right. But no, that's the way politics is. What can you do?

We should nevertheless talk about the Millennium Scholarships. The issue covers a great many things. There is still one other point to consider. Are we here to improve our education systems?

• 2300

If I introduce laws in society and people don't want to obey them, people who all live in the same place, that won't bother me. Why not leave them alone and give them that freedom? That's exactly what's happening now.

We have a government in Ottawa that wants to pass a bill which I believe provides a good plan for some, in particular these students of Manitoba. We examine their situation and they are perfectly right in believing—provided they forget that the jurisdictions have not been respected—that it's a good thing for them. And if they want to accept it, that's perfect and normal.

However, it so happens, and excuse us for it—or rather don't excuse us, but rather respect us—that we have a different way of seeing things. We don't want to trouble those who don't see things as we do, but we would like to continue managing what we have set up. What we have built is ultimately a loans and scholarships system that operates in accordance with our values concerning broader access to education. That's what we want. We don't want to disturb others. Personally, I don't want that. If others don't want to adopt the same social principles as we do, I see no problem with that. All I want is for people to respect what we have decided as a society.

We have established a good system of loans and scholarships, probably a perfectible one, I admit. What can you do, nothing is perfect in nature. As a result of this system, and we can see this, Quebec students are less indebted, which is a very good thing. I think it's too bad that students from outside Quebec are somewhat more indebted. If they want to see how we have set up our loans and scholarships system... When I say we, I am speaking as a Quebecker, because I wasn't there. I wasn't even born.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's too bad that what we have built, and what we ultimately wanted to continue in the same way, is not being recognized. We are being told that what we have built is not good, or, if it's good, that no one cares because the government has decided to impose its own way. It has decided to establish a scholarship system that does not respect the fields of jurisdiction, which will result in duplication, inefficiencies and higher costs.

If at least we could seriously consider this bill. I say seriously because it's lacking some essential elements. For example, as I said a moment ago, we don't even know the make-up of the Foundation's board of directors.

I can't offer a blank cheque like that. I would like us to recognize, as parliamentarians, the fact that we cannot hand over our responsibilities to people who will no longer be accountable to us. That's one thing that I cannot accept but, if you accept it, let's take a look at it. Then to those to whom I would be giving these responsibilities and would no longer be accountable to me, I refuse to... I don't even know them. I don't even know to whom this would be entrusted, who will belong to the board. So this is a double blank cheque. It's incredible.

Furthermore, from the outset, it's not even said whether these scholarships will be awarded on merit or according to need. As I said a moment ago, if we at least knew that, we could move forward. If you think that 80 percent of the scholarships should be awarded on merit, we could at least talk about that. What kind of elitism, in percentage terms, should we encourage in our community? We could have a debate on that.

And what percentage of people will we as a society help acquire a better education that will make them better citizens? It's with better citizens that you build a better society. That's my goal; it may also be yours. However, here we're not even talking about these matters, which I think should form the basis of the bill.

So you see, there are lots of things that don't work here. So even if we tried to change the commas in the text...

• 2305

Coming back to the painting I was talking about earlier, I think it's too bad that we have not even had a debate on elitism. We don't even know what choices we want to make. If we at least admitted them, but we can't even discuss them. Why are the members being paid? Why are they being paid to consider bills if they don't even have all the information?

Where's the trick in all this? What purpose do we serve? I'm asking you because this concerns you. Are you puppets? I at least allow myself the pleasure of speaking my heart and can express myself freely and describe my genuine interest in holding a major debate on issues such as this one.

But no, your hand has been forced and you agreed to have a committee set up ultimately to... No, not only to change the commas, that much is certain. Many things are being discussed in this committee. However, as I said at the outset, when we don't have basic information, the important information, as to who is going to manage this, how they're going to manage it, to whom they will be accountable for their decisions, decisions as important as those concerning the education and the definition of our society...

And speaking of education, I said a moment ago that, in some schools, particularly in Ontario—I've even seen this at HEC in Montreal—everything is sponsored in the extreme. I have nothing against sponsorships, but in the field of education, we really have to reflect on the matter and consider whether we see it as a cultural heritage that is to be transmitted to future generations.

But if the public no longer even decides on the values that are to be transmitted to future generations and we allow Burger King to make the decision because it funds a particular chair... I don't know what it can really finance, but this is very important...

No, I don't want to advertise for Burger King, far from it. But it's terrible! Damn, it's terrible. I feel like crying! I'm a bit disappointed.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, despite the arguments put forward early in the evening, do you think the attitude of your colleagues is normal? If you find it normal, I can tell you that I am very disappointed. This is the first time I've ever seen such chaos in a committee. I've never seen anything like it. People are laughing, making noises with their chairs, talking about this, that and the other, are barefoot and staring at the wall. They're all Liberals, Mr. Chairman.

In closing, since you mentioned 11:59 p.m., is there any way we can respect the wishes of the youngest member of the House of Commons? There are things to be done, and when you affront him in this way, you are also affronting all young people of his age. Rest assured the message will go out into the field. I would therefore ask you to intervene and show your good faith from now until the end of the debate. Ask your colleagues to calm down. That would be a good idea.

Can you intervene, Mr. Chairman? I ask you quite calmly, relying on your good faith.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, that's a switch. From “dictator” to “good faith” in one night. There were members of Parliament walking in just recently—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: From both sides.

The Chairman: For me, it's not a question of whether they're Liberal, Conservative, Reform. Members in general have just walked in. I thought, unless I was seeing things, that there was a point in time, not even five minutes ago, where everybody started laughing, for whatever reason—I guess, Mr. Tremblay, you must have said something that was humourous. Humour is part of life and sometimes people express it by a smile or laughter. I'm not a control freak and I'm not going to legislate when people can laugh or when people can smile. That's something you have to decide on a personal level.

In reference to Mr. Tremblay, on a personal note, I've been listening to your speech very attentively and if you want me to recite some of the points you've made, I can do that off the top of my head. You know that, because we've spoken about youth issues on a number of occasions, as I have with Mr. Dubé.

• 2310

If you want to continue your speech.... Do you find this—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: No, I want to continue and I want our proceedings to continue in a respectful manner.

[English]

The Chairman: Are you okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Yes, we could...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: We can understand that the atmosphere may be tense this evening and that it is harder to conduct a dialogue because people are tired. That's a quite human reaction.

Perhaps you feel frustrated because we may have taken a great deal of time to express our point of view. Quite apart from what we have done here this evening, I was very happy to come to this committee meeting because the issues we are discussing are fundamentally important. It is also rare for us to have the opportunity to continue our proceedings until 11:30 p.m. Perhaps the atmosphere is more familial at this time and perhaps it's not necessary to comply as rigorously with all these strict little rules. Perhaps we can more efficiently debate basic issues at this time of day. In any case, perhaps because I'm a night person, I like to talk politics in the evening, but from another angle, an extremely important angle.

The Millennium Scholarships raise many issues. If they ever went into effect next year, in two years, no one would come and say, Oh Lord, this is terrible. There are people who are tearing their shirts to denounce this bill which makes no sense. Most people will say the Millennium Scholarships are not as bad as all that. We could definitely have that kind of reaction and decide to see things with our noses against the wall. But we have to pull back from the wall and see them as a whole. Painting... I won't talk with images.

So many things call our society into question. We can talk all we want about the Millennium Scholarships, but we have to look at what happened before them. We cut on one side and that hurt. Now we're putting a bandaid on the wound to stop the bleeding for three or four years. I can't conceive of this kind of situation for three or four years because, at some point, we'll have to take the bandaid off. And if I don't do it, my children will.

I've just come back from a tour to the four corners of Quebec. Through the Internet, we can see everything that's going on in the world. I walked around my home town and visited the schools. I believe you have observed the same situation in all the provinces. It's not a very pleasant situation. These days, as history has shown, it is very difficult to practise politics in a context of budget cuts, in a social context where all the social gains we have made are being called into question, including one of the greatest gains, our education system. I was happy that my parents left me an education system which I thought was good, although of course perfectible, and where authorities invested the necessary sums because they thought it was important.

Today, in a short space of time, everything has been ruined. Somewhat lame attempts are being made to correct the weaknesses of this historical context. A very deep cut is made, the body bleeds and, it's incredible, a liquid is applied to staunch the wound, but it still won't heal.

I just spoke to you about another major factor that is not reflected in the Millennium Scholarship bill. But we should not forget the background to the Millennium Scholarship that the government proposes to introduce to meet a need. That need stems from the fact that students are indebted. Why are they indebted? Because education is expensive. Why is education expensive? Because we are investing less and less money in it. These are all the fundamental questions that must be asked.

• 2315

I wouldn't want to debate this issue, but the decision was made to make cuts in education and I don't know how necessary that was. As I told you earlier, nearly every country in the world has had to do so, except those that wanted to encourage elitism. In many cases, only those students who have money can pursue a university education. One need only look at the United States, which is sometimes an interesting model to study. Its system has some good aspects, but also certain deficiencies. You can see, to an extreme degree, what could occur in our societies. An education that is accessible only to those who have money undermines the principle of equal opportunity. Why did we pass a charter of rights and talk about the right to education? Why do we adhere to an international charter which promotes access for everyone and equal opportunities? Education is a way of ensuring equal opportunity. I wonder what will happen if we adopt an orientation more like that of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and France, or if we introduce these Millennium Scholarships.

If no one wants to change the commas in the bill this evening, we could at least take this opportunity to discuss these fundamental issues. In any case, that would give me hope.

Mr. Chairman, since some of my colleagues wish to speak and my time has elapsed, I will give them the floor, even though I still have a lot of things to say. I'll come back later.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You can come back at the report stage and on third reading.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Yes, of course. I'm disappointed, Mr. Chairman. I would at least have liked someone to say Look, Stéphan, tomorrow morning, we won't change anything in this bill, but we'll at least take the time to have a good discussion. I would have liked to know what you really think and whether the colleagues I work with really believe in this bill and in equal opportunity, which is the result of education. It's all this that we are questioning today.

What's the point in passing charters that form the basis of all our societies and saying that equal opportunity is a good thing and that education is something normal if society today is headed in this direction? This is disturbing. What example could I give you? I feel like I'm driving in a car at night without my headlights on. I might stay on the road, but than again I might not. I would at least have liked to switch on a light. I would have liked to hear you on this point.

I will be in the hall shortly when my colleague takes the floor. Before you go to bed, I invite you to come and discuss this with me for half an hour if you wish or if you don't have the courage to put your remarks on record here in committee. I would like you to have the courage to come and talk a bit and tell me what you think of all this, including equal opportunity in education. I don't want to have a superficial discussion and to hear you say: Here's some money for students. It's going to help them. It obviously will help them, but I would like to discuss the matter a little more in depth.

I know it isn't always easy to be a member of the government. I understand you and I've seen you operate. I saw you vote the other day, but sometimes the party line is part of political reality. I know that you find that difficult at times. You won't make me believe the opposite.

Perhaps you're not at all inclined to defend this Millennium Scholarships bill, but you will have to do so because you've been told to defend it. The member for Gatineau opposite made me reflect on this a great deal this week. I know he fought valiantly for a cause that he defended and that he had to toe the party line. I sympathize with you because we are all in the same boat and it's not easy for you or for us. That's part of the game. If you can't say the truth in public, I invite you to discuss it in a friendly cordial way in the corridor for half an hour. We're doing the same job, we have the same responsibilities and we live in the same society.

• 2320

If you agree to come and talk with me, that would give me a little hope. I would like some of my colleagues to come and tell me, not necessarily publicly, that I'm right on certain points and that they agree that education is a right for everyone, even though they may not be inclined to come and talk about it publicly today. It's a reality we're all facing, but I would like you to give me some hope. I would like to go home this evening having at least heard some of you concede that this isn't fundamentally a really good bill. We are in politics and the imperatives of political life bring you here around this table to defend this bill. I would like to know whether any questions arise in your minds. It would be disturbing if certain questions weren't asked here, in this Parliament, whereas we are paid to reflect on the type of society in which we will have to live in the future. In any case, you could give me some hope.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to give the floor to my colleague and I hope I'll be able to discuss this matter further later this evening.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Chairman, I'm sitting here listening attentively to a number of individuals who made comments from the Bloc. I thought I'd take a moment just to respond to some of the comments that were made.

Madame Guay, a little while ago—this was actually quite surprising—made reference to the fact that as a federal government, what we were doing was in fact devolving too much responsibility to provincial governments and thereby shirking our responsibility. I found this quite surprising because I thought the Bloc's position in particular was that they wanted more flexibility in federalism and more opportunity to do what they feel is the right thing.

So I would just point out that, in negotiations with the provinces, labour market agreements and natural resources were devolved to the provinces, and social housing is being devolved to the provinces. Some provinces will sign agreements. In fact, we've responded to requests by the provinces for greater flexibility.

She also made reference to the fact that there were no jobs created and that in fact the government was again shirking its responsibility because we're not in fact creating any jobs. Again, I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Chairman, that I've always been of the opinion that governments don't create jobs; the private sector creates jobs. What government does is create the framework for the private sector to in fact be successful so they can create employment for Canadians.

I just want to point out the fact that, since 1993, more than one million jobs were created in Canada. Just in the first three months of 1998, up to 100,000 jobs were created. In Canada, housing starts rose 3.1% in March. Our national net worth rose 3.6% to $2.7 trillion in 1997.

So I would just take exception to some of the comments Madame Guay made.

Mr. Dubé was here and made some comments about the Auditor General, who appeared before the committee just the other day. Mr. Loubier was here and had an opportunity to question the Auditor General. Certainly comments were made that the credibility of the financial statements of the government were in fact in question.

I want to state that the Auditor General did also say—

Mr. Yvan Loubier:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Loubier, if you would please give me a moment, I'd like to take some time and express myself rather than listen to your voice. I've done that for most of the day.

I'll also say that the Auditor General in fact did say Canada was, of course, leading the world in terms of the quality of financial statements we were providing. Of course, Mr. Chairman, if I'm correct, you also made the comment that you were very proud in fact that Canada had taken the lead in this particular instance and that we were on the road to transparency and ensuring that our financial statements were quite credible.

• 2325

Mr. Dubé also made a comment on why we were announcing this today if in fact the first scholarship wouldn't be until 2000. Again, I think my response to that would be that as the first scholarship is to be delivered in 2000, it gives the foundation a year and a half to ensure that provinces are given every opportunity to work with the foundation and have input to ensure that there's the opportunity to meet the objective of the foundation, which is to avoid any duplication and to ensure that there are efficient and good outcomes with respect to the scholarships.

Mr. Tremblay, who we were listening to just a few minutes ago, made a very passionate statement about youth and the importance of education. Certainly, we all respect what he had to say. He talked about federal transfers and the cuts to those. I'm sure members of the committee who were here heard a number of members from the Bloc Québécois talk about the federal cuts and that the reason there's great turmoil in provinces today is because of federal transfer cuts.

I just want to put a couple of points on the record. Cumulatively, $17 billion was cut from the Canada health and social transfer in cash transfers between 1993-94 and 1998-99. At the same time, I think if individuals are going to make that comment, they should also take note of the fact that tax points grew by $9 billion, equalization payments grew by $3 billion, and lower interest rates have resulted in an average annual savings of approximately $1.1 billion for all provinces. In fact, this means that a total of $4.2 billion could be saved by provincial governments between 1995-96 and 1998-99. So transfers and interest savings to provinces combined for a decline of approximately $400 million between 1993-94 and 1998-99.

Mr. Chairman, I think the point I'm trying to make is that yes, there were cuts to transfers, but provinces have the ability to make choices, and I think they have to stand behind those choices. In standing behind those choices, they have to take responsibility for what goes on in their individual province.

Those were just some initial comments, Mr. Chairman. What I really want to do now is talk about—again, I could also make a reference to the Auditor General—the beginning of the millennium scholarship fund. This also came up yesterday, because the Auditor General made a comment that this new flexibility that the federal government, or federal governments of the future, may exercise may give them the opportunity to then just decide, come a year in adjustments, to book liabilities as an afterthought in fact.

I would just point out once again that the millennium scholarship fund, or the intent to create the millennium scholarship fund, was part of the throne speech. The Prime Minister, in his reply to the Speech from the Throne, announced the government's intention to establish the Canada Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund.

Its purpose, Mr. Chairman, would be to help young Canadians prepare for a knowledge-based society for the next century. The income from the fund would certainly reward academic excellence and would provide thousands of scholarships each year, beginning in 2000, for low- and moderate-income Canadians.

Why? Mr. Tremblay made a reference as to why. The answer would be to help them attend universities and colleges, to improve access to universities, to post-secondary education, a jurisdiction that has been shared with the provinces for years, and will continue to be shared with the provinces.

There's no question that the Bloc has continually said that this is an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. I respectfully disagree with that and state that the federal government has always had a role to play with respect to access to education.

Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of forward-looking initiative that will leave a true and lasting living legacy of our commitment to the future of Canada. It's our hope, Mr. Chairman, that the endowment fund will do for young Canadians in Canada what our historic investment after World War II in post-secondary education for our returning soldiers did to lay the foundation for the prosperity that we've enjoyed as a nation.

I think the fund will help address two key priorities set out in the throne speech: investing in the knowledge and creativity of Canadians, and giving young Canadians a chance to thrive in a new economy by again creating that access to post-secondary education.

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe any fair-minded person can construe this fund as constituting interference in the provincial jurisdiction of education. Indeed, as we said over and over again, it would only complement the province's efforts to provide accessible, affordable education to Canadian citizens.

• 2330

Federal and Quebec officials continue to meet to explore ways to find a solution that would meet the objectives of both governments. The view expressed by our Prime Minister is that the legislation provides considerable scope and flexibility to resolve any legitimate provincial concern. Those concerns, quite rightly, are duplication and complementarity, including the possibility of entering into agreements with provinces. In fact, the announcement leaves a year and a half to address these issues by the time the first scholarship is actually awarded.

Delaying the legislation will serve no useful purpose. In fact, there are many other benefits that are part of this bill and part of this legislation, things like student loan relief, EI new hires, RESP grants, Canada education savings grants, and the amendments to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, which would allow for loan principal reduction for full-time and part-time students and the repayment of principal during the special interest-free and interest-reduced periods.

There will be loan principal reduction and the repayment of principal during special interest-free and interest-reduced periods. The Canada child tax benefit will come into effect. It will amend the Employment Insurance Act to provide a premium holiday for 1999 and 2000, which would assist young people in obtaining their first jobs, which Mr. Tremblay was so concerned about, and I think rightly so. As you indicated, the work you've done in this particular file has been exemplary.

There's more to this particular piece of legislation than just the millennium fund. I know the focus of the discussion this evening has been on the millennium fund, and that's fine, because I believe it needs to be discussed and the opportunity is here today to voice those concerns, but there's more to it. Slowing down the implementation of this particular piece of legislation harms and does a disservice to those very people the Bloc is attempting to assist.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to you that what we are trying to do with the Canada Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund is help about 100,000 students annually. We said the fund foundation will manage an initial endowment of $2.5 billion. We said scholarships will be awarded to persons who need help financing their studies and who demonstrate merit. We said the scholarship will be available for up to four academic years and individuals can receive up to $15,000.

We also said quite clearly that this will be an arm's-length foundation and we do not want to politicize this particular foundation. We want to ensure there will be experts on the board who can deal with this issue, quite independently of playing politics, and deal with the needs of students, which is what is most important,

We indicated the board of directors will be comprised of private citizens. There will be a student council of ministers of education of Canada representing provincial governments, as well as the post-secondary education community. They will all have a role in identifying directors.

This is all about trying to build Canada for the 21st century, and it's a Canadian opportunity strategy. The millennium is part of that opportunity strategy, but it's not the only component of that strategy. It is one initiative.

The millennium scholarships will not be part of a federal program. They will be designed and distributed from a private arm's-length organization that will deal directly with students. It means the foundation and the scholarships will not be under the control of the federal government, nor will the federal government be able to dictate the parameters of the scholarship fund or the distribution to the foundation. I would also suggest we are increasing access to post-secondary education; that's the whole intent.

I would say we've heard a number of interventions by the members of the opposition. But I'd also like to say this about the Canadian opportunity strategy, and I'll close on this point. This is a comprehensive strategy that focuses on expanding access to opportunities, knowledge, and skills. If you're a student today hoping to enter post-secondary education, then it's about the 100,000 millennium scholarships that will be awarded each year. If you're one of the more than one million Canadians paying off their student debt, it's about tax relief for the first time ever on the interest portion of your student loan. If you're an adult hoping to return to school or acquire new skills, it's about tax-free access to your RRSP. Or if you're a parent or a grandparent, the Canadian opportunities strategy is about the Canada education savings grant, and it is meant to help you save for your children's and your grandchildren's educations.

• 2335

With that, I'll close and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this particular issue.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Crête, are we ready for the vote on this motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We have no more speakers, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. We'll have a recorded vote on Mr. Crête's motion. I'll read it to you.

I propose that Bill C-36, an Act to implement certain provisions of the Budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be studied clause by clause only after the result of negotiations between the Quebec government and the federal government have been reported to the standing committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee's decision of April 2, that Bill C-36, an Act to implement certain provisions of the 1998 budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be the subject of a report to the House of Commons on Friday, May 8, 1998, be set aside.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête has requested a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

The Chairman: There's another motion.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I propose that the decision of the committee taken on April 2, 1998, that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget, tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be reported back to the House of Commons by Friday, May 8, 1998, be cancelled.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I request the committee's unanimous consent to withdraw the amendments that we previously made.

• 2340

[English]

The Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent for that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I'm proceeding to put forthwith and successively, without further debate, every question necessary to dispose of all proceedings of this committee with respect to Bill C-36, pursuant to the motion of this committee adopted on April 2 and subsequently reiterated in the motion adopted on Tuesday, May 5.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble in clause 1 is postponed.

(Clauses 2 to 47 inclusive agreed to on division)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Have you reached clause 133, Mr. Chairman? Haven't all the clauses been agreed to on division up to clause 133?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Paul Crête: All right.

[English]

(Clauses 48 to 133 inclusive agreed to on division)

(Schedule agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Please, Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, we request a recorded vote on the bill as a whole, please.

Mr. Paul Crête: To determine whether the bill has been agreed to.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A recorded vote on the bill as a whole, please.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to have a vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes.

• 2345

[English]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On behalf of all members, I think it might be a nice idea to thank all the officials who have worked with us over the last couple of weeks—from all the departments and our own officials. They have certainly spent a good long time here today and have served us well.

The Chairman: I second that, Ms. Torsney, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to sincerely thank all of you who have taken the time to sit through the entire proceedings. I certainly enjoyed the debate on this particular bill, and I'd like to thank the members of the committee for their work.

I'm very glad to adjourn this meeting.