HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 25, 1999

• 1108

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, let's begin.

As you know, our main item on the agenda is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a status report on the report entitled “Ensuring Access: Assistance for Post-Secondary Students”. However, as we all know, we agreed at the last meeting to carry forward, as the first item of this meeting, a motion by Paul Crête.

I'll be glad to read that motion

[Translation]

unless you want to read it.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): No.

The Chair: Fine then.

[English]

The motion by Paul Crête reads:

That the government be condemned for its weak response to the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development that were made with a view to resolving the crisis in the system of administering social insurance numbers, a matter that was put before the Committee by the Auditor General and, asks to hear the Auditor General in order to ascertain his assessment of the Government's response.

The motion is before us.

An hon. member: Question.

The Chair: I'm quite willing to call the question. Those in favour of the motion—

An hon. member: He's not calling the question, he's calling for a question.

The Chair: Excuse me.

Jean Dubé.

• 1110

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Chairman, I just arrived and I hope that our committee stands united today because we have a great deal of work left to do. I know that some government members are unhappy with the response provided by the Department of Human Resources Development about the problems tied to the SIN number.

We could move an amendment to Mr. Crête's motion, stipulating that the committee is dissatisfied with HRDC's response. We like to criticize the government, but it's not easy convincing government members to vote against their own government.

We could vote together and bring the Minister of Human Resources Development over to our side. We could let the department know that we are unhappy with its response and that it should pay more attention to the committee's recommendations. I certainly think we can get the support of our government party colleagues on this.

The Chair: Do you have a copy of the amendment, Jean?

Mr. Jean Dubé: I'll copy it down for you.

[English]

The Chair: Would you tell us the amendment, please.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I propose that we amend the motion by stating that the committee....

I'm trying to translate this from French to English.

[Translation]

The Chair: A French copy will suffice.

Mr. Jean Dubé: The motion reads as follows:

That the Department of Human Resources Development be reprimanded for its weak response to the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development that were made with a view to resolving the crisis in the system of administering social insurance numbers, a matter that was put before the Committee by the Auditor General and asks to hear the Auditor General in order to ascertain his assessment of the Department's response.

Mr. Paul Crête: I want to be certain that I understand the amendment clearly. You are proposing to substitute "the Department of Human Resources Development" for "government" and to replace the word "condemned" by the word "reprimanded". Is that in fact the gist of your amendment?

Mr. Jean Dubé: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, do you want me to treat that as an amendment and we vote on it, or do we, Paul Crête, accept that as a friendly amendment and proceed with that as the motion?

A voice: No, we have to vote on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We have to put the motion to a formal vote.

[English]

The Chair: You've heard the amendment. Is there any discussion of the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I now call Paul Crête's motion in its original form.

Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Read the motion again, please.

The Chair: Yes, by all means.

The motion reads:

That the government be condemned for its weak response to the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development that were made with a view to resolving the crisis in the system of administering social insurance numbers, a matter that was put before the Committee by the Auditor General and, asks to hear the Auditor General in order to ascertain his assessment of the Government's response.

Is there any discussion?

• 1115

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I'd like us to split the motion in two and vote on each separate part. First, we could vote on the following:

That the government be condemned for its weak response to the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development that we made with a view to resolving the crisis in the system of administering social insurance numbers, a matter that was put before the Committee by the Auditor General.

Then, we could vote on the latter part of the motion:

And asks to hear the Auditor General in order to ascertain his assessment of the Government's response.

Therefore, we could vote on two separate motions, the first condemning the government, and the second, asking to hear the Auditor General.

If the majority of members are opposed to the first motion, then in supporting the second motion, we could take a constructive approach and agree to hear the Auditor General.

[English]

A voice: To withdraw the motion and make it two motions.

The Chair: As far as I'm concerned, we have a motion before us. We have a suggestion here. At the moment I am dealing with this motion as it stands. To change this, I would need unanimous consent.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: You have a motion.

[English]

The Chair: Or we can proceed with this motion as it stands.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to prolong the debate, but from a procedural standpoint, we can split the vote on a motion without necessarily obtaining unanimous consent. Perhaps we follow different internal rules of procedure, but according to Morin and the rules governing the conduct of meetings, a split motion may be put to a vote, thereby allowing us to seek stronger support for part of the motion without rejecting all of its components. That's why I proposing this alternative solution.

I won't appeal your decision and I will go along with a vote on one single motion. I thought that my proposal was standard procedure.

[English]

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair. When a motion is split, do we end up with two motions, or is it still one motion?

Mr. Paul Crête: One motion.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I will agree, and I would move an amendment to delete the first part of this split motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: No. It's the same motion. We have to put it to a vote.

[English]

The Chair: I rule that we have a motion before us. We are debating that motion. I don't see consent for a change from this.

Is there further discussion of the motion before us? Okay, I'll call the vote on Paul Crête's motion as written.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Whoa! Hold on a second, Mr. Chair. There was a suggestion of an amendment. Do we not vote on that?

The Chair: No, we don't. I didn't hear a formal amendment. He was giving some advice to the chair.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion? Okay. Those in favour of this motion as it stands? Those against the motion?

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I see the motion as being defeated.

Mr. Jean Dubé: You saw that?

The Chair: I did so.

A voice: It was five to nine.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we'll call the vote again.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Can Ms. Folco please say something?

The Chair: Ms. Folco.

[English]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'm lost, and I would like clarification. Which motion are we voting on?

The Chair: We're voting on the motion before us, the one originally—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: The original motion?

The Chair: —put by Paul Crête.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Okay.

The Chair: Okay? I will then call the vote again.

(Motion negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Can we now proceed to the main item of business?

But before we do, I'd like to make a comment.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Just before we get started—

The Chair: Yes, Jean Dubé?

Mr. Jean Dubé: I would like to bring something to your attention. I'm not going to go on with this; it's going to be two seconds.

We're going to be voting on the estimates next week, and we haven't received the minister here to defend the estimates. I find it very bizarre that we haven't done so. So I would ask the committee to mandate the minister to come before the committee and defend the estimates before we vote on them in the House of Commons.

The Chair: I note that comment. We know the minister is coming, but not before December 9. The steering committee, Jean, at its first meeting, set out the schedule we're to keep to, and we are keeping to it. But I'll certainly note that.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I'm on the record, aren't I?

The Chair: You're on the record as saying that. I do accept that.

• 1120

I'd like to say one more thing about the discussion we've just completed. At the last meeting it was suggested that I had said this motion would be first on the agenda. I checked the blues of the meeting concerned, and that certainly was not the case, and I want it known that it was not the case. Perhaps some members misunderstood the circumstances, but it was in fact not true that I said it would be the first item on the agenda. I'm glad now we've dealt with it. That's one.

Two, I'd like to say this. I'm new, unlike many of you, to this committee. I come to the committee, by the way, with great enthusiasm. I think you realized, those of you who were on the committee before, that I read the material, I read the transcripts of the committee, and was very impressed by what it had done.

I know and you all know this is a political forum, and from time to time we have to engage in political games. I am more than willing to do that. But I want you to know that as far as I possibly can, I have tried to move the business of this committee along. When we did not in fact get the deputy, we got the deputy. We have now a date. The minister could not come—

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): When you didn't get the minister, you got the deputy.

The Chair: I got the date for the minister. I got the schedule through which we were able to revisit and re-emphasize the work the committee has done. I have signed now the material for us to be on television, which I think is a good thing. I worked to get the second subcommittee out. I'm only saying these things just so, in a non-partisan way.

I am going to chair this committee as well as I can. If I have to be partisan, of course I will be.

I just wanted to make those points clear.

Paul Crête and then Jean Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I just wanted to say that I did in fact review your statement. I misunderstood that we were going to reconsider this matter. I was wrong.

I concur with your other comments about the efficient work of this committee. We're all trying to contribute in some way and I think we should put this whole matter behind us. However, all committee members, regardless of their political allegiance, would have to agree to this.

We mustn't forget that we found ourselves in this situation because a member here present decided to withdraw so that the motion would not be put to a vote. These are the facts of the matter. I admit that I misunderstood what you said exactly, but I wasn't acting in bad faith when I made my representations. I simply believed that we we're going to resume debating the matter because we hadn't wrapped everything up at the previous meeting, since we lost our quorum.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: I too reread the proofs, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: There's a point of order, Jean.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: This is a worthwhile debate and discussion. However, we have witnesses before us who have certain time commitments they should keep. I think it would be appropriate if we heard the witnesses. When the witnesses are finished, we can come back to this debate.

The Chair: That's not a point of order.

Jean Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Dubé: I also had an opportunity to reread the proofs, Mr. Chairman, and I discovered, contrary to what I had thought, that you had not made any such undertaking. You were right.

When I arrived today, I wanted to move an amendment to resolve this stalemate. Our report on SIN numbers was a unanimous report, a rarity for a committee. Nevertheless, we have to be realistic. I tried, in a non-partisan way, to get government members on side. I believe, as you do, Mr. Chairman, that government members are not satisfied with the department's response. This morning, I was hoping that we could have a unanimous vote. However, partisanship has prevailed and we missed an opportunity to reprimand the department for its response. The aim of the motion was not to condemn the government, but rather to reprimand the department.

I think all parties were acting in good faith.

[English]

The Chair: John Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, I'm the guy who walked out so that we wouldn't have a quorum and have the vote, and I'm not happy about that. That would not be my preferred route.

I take the point Jean Dubé makes, which is that we're going to be a more effective committee if we do work together with a unity of purpose. But the lesson I draw from this—and I again apologize to the witness, but I hope you're finding it interesting—is that if we wish to work in that fashion, we would be far more effective. But what was important, even this morning, was that we talked to each other off-line beforehand. If you had put forward a motion—and I shouldn't be saying this, perhaps—which we'd worked out together, a motion saying, look, we're really disappointed with the response of the ministry to our unanimous report and what we would like is for you to be more creative in responding...I mean, that would have.... The important thing was to present a united front.

• 1125

But unfortunately, (a) when it's sprung on us because we only have, through our own fault, three members here and we're forced to vote, of course we can't do that; and (b) when the language is one of condemnation or indeed blame, that's not going to work. But I'm sure there are words we could have found if we'd worked it together. In other words, if we didn't play these little games with each other but actually consulted to find a common ground...in the future we will be more united.

But that's why we behave this way.

The Chair: I felt it was useful to air this discussion here in public. This is an 18-person committee, and Jean, Paul, and Maurice, you all know that. It means that the numbers are unusual, okay? But I wanted to say it because I'm new. You're not, and you all know each other.

We're going to proceed to our very patient witnesses. But before we do, I'd like to mention that representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students are here. We're delighted to see them. They include Denise Doherty, who, among other things, is the editor—if that's the right expression—of Missing Pieces: An Alternative Guide to Canadian Post-Secondary Education.

We welcome you here.

Our witnesses are David Good, assistant deputy minister, human resources investment branch; and Thomas Townsend, director general, learning and literacy directorate.

Gentlemen, I understand that you have other people with you. You may wish to introduce them also. We're in your hands.

Mr. David Good (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here and update you on our department's progress in implementing the recommendations outlined in the Standing Committee's report, "Ensuring Access: Assistance for Post-Secondary Students".

[English]

We last met two years ago when the department tabled its response to the committee's report. Soon after, the Government of Canada released the Canadian opportunities strategy, the 1998 budget measures designed to expand access to the knowledge and skills that Canadians need for better job opportunities and a higher standard of living in the next century.

We in the department, since that time, have been very busy. We've been consulting stakeholders. We've been working with our partners, the provinces, lending institutions, and other federal government departments to basically refine and improve the Canada student loans program so that it continues to meet the needs of today's students.

Those of us who have children or family members who are now thinking about pursuing post-secondary education are keenly aware that the imperatives have changed very much from when we were in school 20 and 30 years ago. The world has been transformed by information and technology. Our quality of life depends increasingly on our ability to think, to innovate, to be creative in the environment that we now face. Indeed, the new knowledge-based economy promises great benefits for all Canadians. Education today is not a luxury; indeed, it's a necessity. In our response to the standing committee's report, we stated that investment in learning pays off in more secure employment and higher earnings.

I will say a few words on the Canada student loans program. The Canada student loans program was established in 1964 and is now the single largest program of financial assistance for students across the country. The program provides loans and grants to individuals wanting to study in universities, community colleges, and vocational and technical institutions. In the 1997-98 loan year, approximately 305,000 students negotiated loans worth an amount of $1.3 billion.

The people we help represent a diverse group. We help the 18-year-old high-school graduate to realize her dream of becoming a scientist. We also help the middle-aged new immigrant who needs support for their family. Within the department, we take very seriously this responsibility to deliver a program that upholds the principle of access while meeting the needs of students.

Indeed, the standing committee's report reflects the belief that all Canadians deserve the opportunity to study, to learn, and to ultimately compete meaningfully in the labour market.

• 1130

I would now like to spend just a few minutes, given the time, Mr. Chairman, to tell you about some of the initiatives that have emerged from the report of this standing committee.

First, with regard to interest relief and debt reduction in repayment, we are keenly aware that students are carrying greater debt loads than ever before. To help individuals repay their loans and manage their debt, we have put in place a more responsive program of interest relief and a new debt burden reduction measure.

With respect to the Canada study grants—these are grants for students with dependants—the round table of students, financial institutions, provincial representatives, universities, and colleges welcomed the government's decision in the budget to expand the Canada study grants program. Indeed, grants of up to $3,120 are now available for full- and part-time students in financial need who have children or dependants and whose needs are not fully meant by the scholarships and loans programs.

In the 1998-99 loan year, which was the first year for the grant, close to 50,000 students benefited, for a total award of $60.9 million in expenditures. As this standing committee recommended, both parents in a given household are eligible to receive the Canada study grants.

With respect to grants for students with disabilities, in reforming these grants for students with disabilities, the government announced that the amount was increased from $3,000 to $5,000.

I have a few words on the student information project, which is very important, Mr. Chairman. With all of the various partners, that is, the stakeholders, the lenders, and the businesses involved, financial assistance is indeed very complicated. We need to better serve students. To do this, we've initiated a student information project. Information on the loans from both federal and provincial governments has set out an opportunity to set out information for lenders, students, and financial assistance officers, and it is being consolidated and presented in a very clear, concise, user-friendly format.

Indeed, Alberta and New Brunswick have volunteered to move forward with pilot projects and have produced materials for the coming loan year. Both provinces have told us that their provincial counterparts are now pleased with the results we're achieving. Indeed, about four weeks ago, with the support of all the provinces, we launched www.canlearn.ca. This is a one-stop Internet site to help students not only plan but finance their education.

With respect to the harmonization of federal and provincial student financial assistance, in 1997 the committee, along with students and financial institutions, recommended that provincial and federal loans programs be harmonized. I'm very pleased to report today that after much negotiation we have indeed reached two agreements, with Ontario and New Brunswick. We anticipate agreements will be signed with the remaining Atlantic provinces in the early new year and the four western provinces at subsequent dates.

These negotiations are based upon a very important set of principles, which include quality and equity of service, portability, accountability, affordability, efficient administration, and, of particular importance, high-quality service to the students who need it.

With respect to the Canada education savings grant, the Government of Canada established this grant as a means to encourage families and students to save for post-secondary education. The program involves, as many know, a 20% grant on the first $2,000 in annual contributions made to registered education savings plans for a beneficiary up to and including the age of 17.

The new Canadian millennium scholarships represent an exciting opportunity to support both students with need and those who demonstrate merit. In January, the foundation expects to deliver as many as 100,000 scholarships to full-time students across Canada.

Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, let me mention two of our priorities in the coming months. The first is the lender agreement negotiations. Agreements with the financial institutions are set to expire on July 31, 2000. As such, we've been involved in formal negotiations with the lending institutions and expect to reach a resolution without suffering any interruption in the program delivery of that important program. We're seeking agreements in three areas in particular: first, services to students and borrowers; second, accountability to government; and lastly, financial compensation.

As I mentioned earlier, student debt remains a concern for all involved in student loans programs. In addition to measures already implemented to help students repay their loans, we're looking to strengthen the standards by which educational institutions are admitted to the Canada student loans program, and we want to ensure that students taking on debt are receiving value and that upon graduation they will be in positions to secure employment and begin the repayment process.

• 1135

Mr. Chairman, if I can just conclude, in 1997 the round table of stakeholders spoke with one voice on the need to ensure post-secondary education through a strong and responsive system of student financial assistance.

The recommendations put forward by this committee as well as the measures proposed in the budget of 1998 reflect that commitment.

As the Canada student loans program evolves through its harmonization with provincial loan programs, the principle of access will remain paramount.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity for us to appear here to set out some of the recent accomplishments, which, I must add, have been built upon the important work of this committee.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, David.

Thomas, do you have anything to say? Do any of your other colleagues have anything to say?

Mr. Thomas Townsend (Director General, Learning and Literacy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development Canada): I would simply introduce my colleagues from the Canada student loans program at this time.

The Chair: If you would.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: The director of the program is Katalen Deczky, the senior analyst is Diana Kaan, and Rob Chambers is manager.

The Chair: Welcome to you all. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, Paul Crête, then Jean Dubé and then Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question.

Clearly, the millennium scholarship program is a major issue stumbling block for Quebec. As I understand it, the Quebec government and the federal government are still far apart on this issue. My question, however, has nothing to do with these differences.

Right now, Quebec would like to see this money go to graduate and post-graduate students and to first year CEGEP students, whether enrolled in the general or vocational program. Students at this stage of instruction in Quebec have for many years now been eligible for loan and scholarship funds, particularly first-year students in CEGEP, for which there is no equivalent elsewhere in Canada. As for graduate and post-graduate students, it comes down more to a matter of how things have been done in the past.

These, I believe, are the actual points of contention preventing the two parties from reaching an agreement.

Can you explain to me why the parties differ on this point? Is it because there is no equivalent in English Canada to the first year of CEGEP? Wouldn't it be appropriate to provide funding for graduate and post-graduate students? Couldn't the government find a way to...

As you undoubtedly know, the Foundation's current position is not consistent with what we have seen in the area of student funding for the past 20 or 25 years. Have I accurately described the situation? Is the federal government planning to do anything to resolve the impasse?

[English]

The Chair: Before you respond, could I take this moment to introduce Mr. Richard Byer, who is the clerk of the Barbados Parliament. Mr. Byer, it's a great pleasure to have you with us, and we really appreciate your being here. I hope you find our proceedings at least as interesting as your own.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Some members: Hear! Hear!

The Chair: Mr. Townsend.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the summer, the Quebec government decided that federal government stakeholders should stop working with Quebec government officials.

Since then, there have been a number of exchanges between the two ministers, but federal officials have not had any further contacts with their Quebec counterparts. Therefore, I'm not in a position to answer Mr. Crête's question.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

• 1140

Mr. Paul Crête: Am I to understand that when it comes to the millennium scholarship program, the main sticking point today between the governments of Quebec and Canada in so far as education is concerned, those responsible for the program are not aware of what's happening? Mr. Townsend, you're the Director General of the Learning and Literacy Directorate. Mr. Good is the Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Investment Branch. Yet, you're unable to answer my question, which is not political in nature. All I'm asking is whether this is in fact the source of the disagreement between the two parties?

Secondly, without getting into the details, can you tell me if the stumbling point is the fact that there is no equivalent to a first-year CEGEP course in the nine other provinces? This type of instruction is not offered anywhere else in Canada. Is this in fact the problem?

I'd appreciate an answer to these two questions. If you can't give me the information I've requested, then I look forward to meeting the minister.

[English]

Mr. David Good: Let me give a general response and ask Thomas to follow up.

We have to recognize that the foundation is an independent arm's-length foundation and it's their responsibility to work out an arrangement with the province. For our part, as Thomas has indicated, we have attempted to facilitate that arrangement in terms of the work that is ongoing between the foundation and the Province of Quebec. We're hopeful, Mr. Crête, that there will be an arrangement worked out. There has been, as you know, a series of discussions over a very lengthy period of time. We are optimistic that the eventual result will lead to the scholarships being in the hands of the individual students in the province of Quebec.

With respect to the first year question, the policies have really been set down by the foundation in terms of the requirements they have within the moneys that have been provided to them.

Now, in terms of the actual specifics, I would ask Thomas if he might be able to shed a bit more light on the details of that. But, Mr. Chairman, with respect, I do have to indicate we are dealing with an arm's-length foundation, independent from the federal government, which has to deal with these negotiations. We're in a position to provide the broad context. I hope you do respect that, given the situation we face as federal public servants.

The Chair: Mr. Crête, very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: In your speaking notes for your presentation to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, one of the sections is entitled "Canada Millennium Scholarships". You are quite proud of this program. The word "foundation" doesn't appear in the summary. In short, we find ourselves in the position where you can't give us a status report on a government program.

This is clear evidence of a problem that we identified, namely that one minister must be made responsible for this foundation. Should the Minister of Human Resources Development be the person responsible for answering questions about the millennium scholarships, or should it be someone else? Who in government is responsible for this program?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: The Minister of Human Resources Development is required by law to table in the House of Commons the annual report of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. However, the legislation also refers to the autonomous nature of the Foundation.

You've asked some very specific questions about the interpretation of a motion by the Foundation's board of directors and about the talks under way with the province of Quebec. I can answer as someone who is knowledgeable of the facts, but not as someone who is involved. I respectfully noted earlier that neither I nor the members of my team were involved in the discussions.

[English]

The Chair: Jean Dubé, then Rey Pagtakhan, then Maurice Vellacott, and then Karen Redman.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have a great deal of respect for you, but not for this particular piece of legislation.

• 1145

[English]

The Chair: Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Thank you very much, David and Thomas. It's nice to see you again.

Just last year I had the opportunity to travel across this country on a subject that was not dear to me, but I had to do it; it was the poverty task force. I was also disturbed to find out that in different universities throughout Canada there existed soup kitchens, in these very universities. I'm certainly glad you're here today and we have a chance to discuss the concerns and the trouble university students are having today.

If we look at the federal transfer payments to the provinces since 1992, transfer payments, Mr. Chairman, have fallen 34% as far as education goes. Now, I have a real problem with that and I'm certainly glad you are addressing the problem of students today.

Also, I underlined some problems in my travels in this country. Since 1990, the average undergraduate arts tuition has increased by 126%; that's absolutely unbelievable. We're saying we're trying to provide the tools to our children in order for them to compete in this globalized market, and it's becoming more and more difficult for them.

I read here in your current priorities that the government has established the Canada education savings grant as a means to encourage families and students to save for their post-secondary education. Again, I can tie this in to the millennium scholarship endowment fund and this program, and I've mentioned this many times. It's fine for me, at my salary base, to put some money away for my children. But if we look at regions of Canada that are trying to get out of that cycle and give the proper education to their children, it's very difficult for these people when it takes every cent they have just to put food on the table. It is difficult for them to save for an education savings plan as well. They cannot do that. Again, the poorest of the poor Canadians are not able to get out of that cycle.

I would like to know if there's anything being done at that level to encourage poor Canadians to get out of the cycle and encourage their families and their children and make post-secondary education accessible to them as well. That's one question.

I'm glad to see we have Denise Doherty of the national office of the Federation of Canadian Students here with us today. You know, as members of Parliament we deal with students every week who come and visit us, and graduates as well. The debt load of these students has risen enormously over the years.

I've got to tell you I'm glad to see you're also looking at the lender's agreement negotiation, because one of the huge complaints I have is after these very students have graduated, when it comes to repayment of these loans. Often the people who come into my office do not have employment and are being harassed by these very institutions for repayment of these loans.

Believe me, it's putting these people in very difficult situations and putting a lot of stress on these people. The result, when we're stressing these people out, is that they often land in hospitals, where the cost of health care in Canada increases as well. It's a cost to Canadians and it's also a cost to families. Often these people have children, and you'll see where these families get divided from this type of harassment.

So I want to know if that has been brought to your attention on these negotiations and if there's something that's going to be done on this matter. This is not coming from me, it's coming from these graduates.

Mr. David Good: Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the first question, and I'll ask Thomas to respond to the second.

• 1150

Indeed, Mr. Dubé, that's a very good question with regard to the Canada education savings grant, and it's one that we have been focusing our attention on. It is the fundamental question of access, how that very important program, which is going to provide and is now providing opportunities for people to begin to save for the educations of their children at an early stage, would be accessible to all Canadians, which is very important.

We should note that 20% of the amount of up to $2,000 a year is a grant from the government, so there is a $400 grant provided. As you've indicated, that needs to be triggered by a contribution made by the individual family, the grandparent, the father, the mother, etc., into the account for the individual. One thing to bear in mind is that if one were to put aside as little as $10 every two weeks—which for a number of families is not unaffordable, but for some it is very difficult to find that money.... I do acknowledge this. But if you compound that interest over the course of the next 18 years, you would have $9,000 available for that child at age 18 in order to move into university.

We found that since we put that program in place, from 1972 until two years ago an amount of $2.4 billion was invested in RESPs. Since that time with the program it's gone to $3.6 billion, so there's been a very dramatic increase in that amount.

What we are looking at is better ways and means within the department whereby we can get the communications to the low-income families and to those who are most in need and require very much the kinds of investments in their children and in their futures to be able to do this.

Are we as far as we want to be along the way? No, we have some distance yet to go, and it is a very important priority for us to do the analysis and to do the data to ensure that this program is in fact universally accessible to all Canadians, particularly those you've identified. But we are optimistic that with compound interest, with the grant itself, with the time of investment, that $10 a pay is quite positive. So we need to get these messages out to Canadians.

The Chair: Jean, proceed quite quickly, if you could. If your questions are long, the answers have to be short.

Mr. Jean Dubé: Are they long?

The Chair: You're already very close to the time.

Mr. Jean Dubé: I'm going to get back to this 10% of families who can't. I'd like to know if there's any negotiation going on presently with our provincial counterparts to find a way, a mechanism, that would guarantee them that accessibility. It's just as important for these people as it is for my children. If we want to get these people out of that cycle, we all know they need an education. We see the numbers of people with university graduate diplomas and the jobs they're getting and the revenues they're getting from that.

Is there any negotiation going on presently on this very matter affecting the ones who are not able to put that $10 away?

The Chair: I have to say that because we're at eight minutes—and by the way, there's nothing special about eight minutes, but if you multiply it by the number of people in the room, it's a long time—the reply will have to be fairly short.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Mr. Chairman, Canada's provinces and the federal government recognize this as a terribly important priority. Last week the Minister of Human Resources Development and the chair of the Council of Ministers of Education launched a project as part of an initiative in terms of public expectations on post-secondary education specifically in the area of accessibility, where the provinces and the federal government will jointly look at this question.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: The second question—

The Chair: Sorry.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: With permission, the government, in the 1998 budget, greatly expanded the interest relief program, and we've noted this has done a great deal to reduce anxiety among individuals who are having difficulty during the transition from school to work. We've noted a very large increase in the number of borrowers who are taking advantage of this.

What happens is that the government pays the interest so that the loan is held whole; the individual doesn't have an obligation to pay the loan while they're on interest relief. We made the administration of the program so that it's actually the lender that the borrower is dealing with who can initiate the process of the interest relief. Our hope is that this in fact is greatly reducing the stress on borrowers. Our early indications in terms of data are that borrowers are taking advantage of it and it is having an effect.

• 1155

The Chair: It's Rey Pagtakhan, then Maurice Vellacott, and then Raymonde Folco.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you Mr. Chair.

To pursue the interest relief issue, and I have noted your responses and the four steps taken to help in that regard, one thing that would equally help would be to ensure that the interest rate is at its lowest. What is the lowest interest rate that has been charged on student loans?

Mr. Jean Dubé: That's a good question.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: The borrower at the time of consolidation, which is where they begin repaying the loan, has a choice between a fixed rate or a floating rate.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In the initial instance, the first student loan, how much is the lowest interest rate charged by banks? The first time a student applies for a student loan, how much is that initial interest rate?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: I see. The students, when they take the loan out and are studying, actually do not pay interest on the loan. The federal government pays the interest.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: None at all?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: None at all.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Are you sure?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Yes. During the period of studies the government pays that. In fact the benefit that students receive is roughly $200 million a year in interest paid by the government against loans that have been taken out but have not gone into repayment.

At the time of repayment—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, let me pose that question. I do not like to be sidetracked. I just tested the system. My son applied for a student loan and he's charged interest on the student loan, and you're telling me that they ought not to charge any interest rate at all.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Would this be a government student loan or a bank student loan?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: A bank loan.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: This would be a commercial or a consumer loan. My son as well has a loan like that, and generally it's prime plus 1%.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So commercial loans are not covered by this program?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Absolutely not.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Why not?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: A consumer loan issued by a bank that would have a title “student loan” normally would have to be secured either through a co-signator.... In your case and mine, we signed these loans. There's no needs testing, so they're available to all consumers of the bank. The student loans program is based on need. So it's the students with family incomes and individual incomes that are much lower who would qualify for the loans we're talking about here.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'll pursue that later on, because I'm not aware and I do not think that all the students in the country are aware of the difference between the two. If they are, and I'm not, then I apologize for my ignorance. But I know some of my constituents do not know. They look at the student loans as student loans, whether you do it through the banks or not.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: You're quite right. There is confusion between commercially available products and government-sponsored loans—hopefully not too much, but I have heard of instances where there is confusion between them.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will pursue that later on. On the question raised by Mr. Dubé about the Canadian education savings grant and the Canada millennium scholarship, is there an interdependence or an interaction between the two? That is, when one has been given benefits via the Canada education savings grant, is that taken into account when the millennium scholarship is given, particularly as it relates to the general awards?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Yes. The way in which a student applies for a government-sponsored student loan is that through their application they do a declaration of their resources, which would include income prior to their period of studies; in some cases, if they're a dependant, their parental income; and it would also include things like RESPs, RRSPs, liquid assets they would use to contribute to their education. So the Canada education savings grant contributions from the government, coupled with the RESPs, would always be taken into account in the student loan application.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There are two types of awards under the Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund. There are general awards and exceptional merit awards. Are you able to tell the committee, of the total amount disbursed for any given year, what percent of the total amount will go towards general awards and what will go to exceptional merit awards?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: The act provides for 95% of the awards going for the regular and 5% going for the exceptional merit awards.

• 1200

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I like that approach.

With respect to harmonization—and this is the last phase of my questioning at this point—why is there a delay in the west and in the Atlantic provinces? Did they start negotiations at the same time, or did you start with Ontario first and then New Brunswick? If they started at the same time as all the provinces, why is there a delay?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Discussions with all the provinces started at the same time. A number of provinces went through provincial elections during the course of the discussions, which caused a delay.

There are issues we are discussing with the western provinces that are more fundamental than we had in eastern Canada. In some cases, provinces did not have equivalents of the federal measures in place to harmonize the loans. An example would be that the Province of British Columbia did not have an interest relief program. That province has just now announced an interest relief program, so they're now able to harmonize their program with the federal program.

There was a series of different reasons, but each provincial student loan program is different from the federal program. That's what really created the need for harmonization. We talked about confusion between a consumer loan product and a student loan, but there was tremendous confusion between government student loan programs of various natures, as well.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On that issue, you indicated that for the west it would be on subsequent dates. Then you indicated it would be early in the new year for the Atlantic provinces. Would subsequent dates be within 2000 and not beyond?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: We would like to have all the loans harmonized by August 1, 2000, so that's the date I'm working toward.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Rey.

Maurice Vellacott, and then Raymonde Folco.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'd like to thank both of these gentlemen for being here today. I have a son in third-year college and a daughter in first year, so I know from firsthand experience, you might say, about the increasing personal debt loads they have. We talk, as they come up to each semester, about what those debts are growing to be.

Their debts are considerable and have become very significant, compared to when I was completing a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in the 1970s and 1980s. There were better grants and loan programs at the time, without doubt. I came from a low-income family and there was no possible way I could have completed my education to doctoral and beyond if it had not been for a more generous and adequate kind of program at that time.

To what degree have you looked at or given consideration to interest-free, income-contingent loans? It's something the Reform Party has carefully examined and considered. It wouldn't be the Milt Friedman kind; it would be interest-free. If the person were a doctor, obviously he would be able to pay it off and would be required to pay more monthly. If someone were in some low-level employment job, they would pay less. But you wouldn't get killed by interest because the interest would be swallowed, if you will, by the government.

Is that something you will take any kind of serious look at over the months ahead?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: The federal government, in conjunction with the provinces, has taken a look at income-contingent loans. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't looked at any that would be interest-free. We have looked at varying rates of interest, in particular in our examination of other countries' approaches, particularly Australia. It was one of the first countries to introduce an income-contingent repayment plan.

We've looked at loans at very low rates of interest. As you would know, a major problem with any form of income-contingent repayment, where the individual does not have a strong income base, is the possible inability to pay even the monthly interest payments, and therefore there's a compounding or capitalizing of interest problem.

• 1205

An interest-free scheme would, of course, obviate that problem. Even at low rates of interest, these programs would be extraordinarily expensive to implement. With the ones we looked at, there was very little support from student groups and the educational institutions in Canada for the implementation of income-contingent repayment schemes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can I suggest, Mr. Townsend, why I think that is the case?

I've had discussions with different student groups over the last couple of years, and I think it's because they're always thinking that if it's income-contingent, even nominal interest can kill you. As you say, and I quite rightly acknowledge, if you have very little income, or just kind of get by on minimum wage, what kills you is the interest. I think if you were to go back to those groups, you would find that's why.

I've had discussions too, and sometimes it's a misunderstanding. They're linking it to Milt Friedman income-contingent kind of stuff—that style. Frankly, I think that's what the greatest resistance might be. If we went back to them and said they would be interest-free, income-contingent loans, admittedly there would be an outlay to the government of significant dollars, but I believe there's benefit to the student when they get a good education—how many years that would require. Then society benefits as well. So the student won't be thinking “I'm off the hook. I need to be contributing, putting into it, but so does society.”

You're giving me an impression it might involve significantly more than any kinds of dollars expended now if we went to interest-free, income-contingent loans. Is that your estimate of things?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Yes. For instance, if we look at the in-study portion of the portfolio where the government pays the interest, that expenditure currently is $200 million a year. The portion of the portfolio that is actually in repayment is somewhat larger than the portion for which the government is paying the interest. Off the top of my head, we would be talking expenditures in excess of $400 million a year in interest.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Again, I would just say that in view of the great reductions there have been in post-secondary education funding and so on, it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable amount. Maybe the department could go back and pick that up again. I guess it's the dollar figure that governments would have to wrestle with, but the total interest-free, income-contingent concept merits.... I don't know if I got a sense from you that you had ever looked at a totally interest-free, income-contingent plan, aside from some crossed issues.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: We had not.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Have you ever proposed that to student groups or other key players in the whole scenario?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Our discussions on the subject of income-contingent repayment were primarily in the spring and fall of 1997. The resistance of the groups to income-contingent repayment was so strong that it was not seen as a viable course of action.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Maybe it was because of that misunderstanding about interest that would kill you, nominal as it might be.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: There was another reason given by student groups, in particular, at that time. They associated income-contingent repayment schemes with a deregulation of tuition at the post-secondary level. Their concern was that such a scheme would permit increases in university tuition.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not sure how they would have drawn the connection you've given, but I suppose that would be a concern.

My suggestion, in closing, is that it be looked at again some time, albeit the cost involved.... I guess it would be for governments to decide if that was a fair tradeoff in terms of the investment in people—our choice of people, resources, developing them, equipping them for vocations.

The Chair: It's Raymonde Folco, and then the chair.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have two questions for you. As well, I'd like some information which perhaps you could forward to us at a later time.

My first question concerns loans. In its report, the committee had asked that the penalties assigned to students who earn more than the maximum amount allowed during the year in which they accepted scholarship funds be eliminated or reduced.

• 1210

As everyone well knows, the vast majority of students cannot cover all tuition, food and housing costs with the money they receive. That's why the committee made this recommendation. Have you succeeded in eliminating or reducing these penalties?

My second question is related to the first and concerns loan ceilings. Again, the cost of living is obviously increasing, along with tuition fees charged by most Canadian universities. In our report, we recommended that the ceiling on student loans be reviewed. Have you in fact done this?

Since I have enough time, I'll ask a third question of you, although I don't expect an immediate answer. One of my colleagues asked me to put this question to you.

On page two of your presentation, you mention grants for students with dependents. You note that grants of up to $3,120 are now available to full and part-time students in financial need. Exactly what kind of financial need are you referring to?

Lastly, in this same section, you mention grants for students with disabilities. Can you tell me how many students have applied for this type of grant? I'd also like to know how many applications were received overall and how many of them were rejected.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, that's an extraordinary example of what you can do in two minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I'm not a woman of many words, but I do have a habit of speaking too quickly.

The Chair: Perhaps you will receive very long answers.

Mr. Paul Crête: These were very specific questions.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member asked four questions.

The first question concerned exemptions on income earned while in school. The Department of Human Resources Development undertook a study, which is now completed, and a number of recommendations were made to a committee of provincial and federal government officials. We are currently considering these recommendations.

The committee proposed that this exemption be increased from $600 to $1,500. The report recommended that the exemption amount be based on a percentage corresponding to a moderate lifestyle. I can give committee members a copy of the consultants report.

[English]

The Chair: So you will table that with the committee as well?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Yes, I can make that report available to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Regarding your reference to loan ceilings, a mechanism is already in place. We have not yet made any changes, in part because plans are in the works to make some major changes to provincial and federal programs. Before we do anything, we're waiting to see what these changes might be, because in many instances, access to student grants will be affected.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Before I go to my next question, can you tell me when you'll be able to provide a more detailed response to this question?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: I could describe to you the mechanism that we have put in place, although we haven't recommended any changes to the loan ceiling.

• 1215

The mechanism takes into account the rate of inflation. Inflation has been quite low in the past several years. We've been advised by a committee not to consider the inflation rate, but rather inflation as it affects tuition fees. One advisory committee member pointed out that tuition fees had increased dramatically over the past 10 years, much more rapidly in fact that the national inflation rate.

We are thinking about adopting another method which would more accurately take into account tuition fees and expenses incurred by students in order to receive an education.

[English]

The Chair: Raymonde, I'm sorry to interrupt again. Just so I know exactly where we're at here, as I understood it, one of the concerns of the committee was in fact these tremendous increases in tuition fees you're seeing, and, by the way, in other costs.

I heard the point about taking inflation into account and the fact that in Ontario the fees have gone up 100% or whatever it is.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: The current mechanism we use uses the national rate of inflation, not a package of educational goods.

The Chair: But going beyond inflation—

Mr. Jean Dubé: It's 134%.

The Chair: He said it's 134%.

I understand the inflation point. Do you mean inflation in the costs, so you include tuition in that? Or do you mean the national or provincial inflation rate?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: It's the national inflation rate.

The Chair: I thought the committee was very interested in tuition fee increases.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: But the mechanism, as I described, uses the national inflation rate. Our advisory committee, composed of student groups of the academic institutions, has suggested to us that another bundle that is much more closely related to the costs that students actually incur might be a better mechanism.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I didn't mean to interrupt, Raymonde.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: It was probably an imprecision on my part.

The Chair: No, it's my hearing.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I would like to follow up on this. My ultimate question is still on the same subject.

I understand there is a mechanism. I understand that you're still waiting for other people to make up their minds and so on, but the end result of all this is going to happen when, roughly a year, two years, never? We're still sort of in limbo.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: We look at it annually. One of the things we've been looking at very closely is, is there need assessed in the applications of students that the financial aid systems are not being able to cover?

One of the things that has happened since 1998 is that a number of provinces have brought additional non-repayable aid, and so we're looking at the situation. In fact the student situation appears to be getting better since 1998, and so we're having to watch that quite carefully. At this point, our judgment would be that it would not be the best course of action to raise the loan limits, but it's reviewed every single year.

The Chair: Raymonde, you have one more question?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Two more.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: On the other two, I'd be willing to have something sent to the committee later on, with numbers and so on. I think it will save time.

The Chair: Would that be okay?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Yes.

The Chair: There are a couple of things. As you know, I wasn't on the committee, but we're concerned about this question of access and the effectiveness of the student loan program, and stuff like this. This doesn't relate directly to your reply, but have you or has anybody else given consideration to changes in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for students?

It seems to me that students are a special case. We recognize that, because we have this very special, well-subsidized loan program. Nevertheless there are still students who will come out of it; we heard some discussion here about the pay some of them receive. That's the first question: thoughts about changes, and what might be done to change the definition of bankruptcy in the case of students.

• 1220

The second thing I would like you to do—and I know you've already done this—is talk a little bit more about the review of the needs assessment process for the Canada student loans program, including what changes have been made, how it demonstrates flexibility in the way students go through school—part time, full time, that kind of thing—how it extends the time of completion for students with special requirements, and how it deals with the problem of reducing social assistance by the amount of a grant to a student. So it's bankruptcy first and needs assessment second.

Mr. David Good: Mr. Chairman, let me just give an answer on the bankruptcy question, and then Thomas can handle the other one.

As you know, an amendment was made in June 1998 to prohibit the discharge of student loans pursuant to a declaration in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and that was put in place.

I think a couple of pieces of information are relevant with regard to where that now stands. In 1990 we had about 5,500 bankruptcies for a total of $39 million. That was rising very dramatically, and by 1996 we had over 9,000 bankruptcies from students, for a total of $87 million. Since that time and since we put in place the provisions under the act, we actually reduced it in 1998 to a level just under 2,000 bankruptcies for a total of $14 million. In this year alone—and we only have data up until September—we now have 440 bankruptcies for an amount of $3 million. So we have indeed had an impact in terms of an actual reduction in the number of bankruptcies.

We think it's a positive approach we've undertaken. I know it has been a difficult one, but we did want to ensure that the overall financial integrity of the rest of the program remained in place by examining these particular cases.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

The second issue is the needs review process.

We're finding out what the bells are for.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: In terms of the needs assessment, we have made a couple of changes. There are a couple of things, Mr. Chair, that I think are important. One is that the needs assessment process is covered in our discussions on harmonization with the provinces, so much of the discussion is contained within that ongoing process.

One of the areas where we felt there had been an important, positive change to the program was the—

The Chair: I'm sorry, Thomas, but I'll have to interrupt. To my colleagues, there was a call for votes, but they've been deferred until Monday or Tuesday. Please continue.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: A great deal of work was done to ensure that the needs assessment process being used in each of the provinces corresponded to a generally accepted framework. This involved essentially agreements between all of the provinces participating in the Canada student loans program and the federal government.

That said, as we propose changes and work with changes—I could use the example of the in-study earnings—we've been taking a consensus approach. That means the discussions are much longer, so I can report only a small number of changes to the needs assessment process subsequent to this committee's report.

There is increased flexibility in each of the jurisdictions with regard to the treatment of costs associated with travel to institutions. For instance, individuals who live in rural communities are much more dependent on owning a car in order to get to their studies. In the previous assessment automobiles were considered assets. Now the provinces have the option of looking at these in a much more flexible way. They can look at the student's conditions and decide that in fact that would not be considered an asset when looking at the resources. So we have been successful in implementing that kind of flexibility.

In a number of other areas we're looking at the progress is very slow at this point. We anticipate, though, that probably over the course of the next 12 months we'll have a couple of things. For the in-study earnings in particular, I think we're starting to move much more toward a common viewpoint on how that would be treated.

• 1225

The Chair: I understand your point about a consensus approach.

Is there going to be a review, which I think was indicated, and is it going to be finite or infinite?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: The review has been completed. The review has been tabled with the federal-provincial committee on student financial assistance, and that committee is now looking at each of those recommendations. The conclusions are there. We're confronted with very clear recommendations to us on how to proceed, and as administrators we have to sort through that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jean Dubé.

Mr. Jean Dubé: On this very topic, in your studies of bankruptcies, do you have an indication of what's happening to the people who have a high debt load, no job, and are prohibited from declaring bankruptcy? Do you have an analysis of that?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: We do not have an analysis. We have been in communication with credit counsellors who often see these individuals, so that we have some anecdotal evidence of particular situations. But by and large we're not having a lot of these cases identified to us. I met two weeks ago with the chair of the Canadian Federation of Students, which has been following this file very closely. They've agreed to share with us the information they've accumulated over the course of the summer. That will allow us to build a better understanding of this group you're speaking of.

Mr. Jean Dubé: So you plan on pursuing this issue a lot more than you have in the past. You're saying that you're communicating more with the Canadian Federation of Students. As a department, are you going to put more pressure on these institutions in order to find out exactly what's going on? You seem to be leaving it up to the federation to come to you and give you the details, but I think as a department, as a government, it's up to us as well to find out what's going on.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: There's not a mechanism under the arrangements we have with the financial institutions. Essentially the banks, caisses populaires, and credit unions that are participating in the program have the loans with the borrowers, so if that loan is distressed or has gone into default, we will get an indication of that. If, as a result of other debts or whatever, the individual is in extreme financial distress, we won't have an indication of that. We simply have information on that narrow portion of indebtedness the individual has through the sponsored student loan.

That's not a good vehicle for us to gather information on this, so we thought that if we communicated with the credit counsellors, we would be able to assemble a better indication of where there was distress. As I said, the Canadian Federation of Students made an appeal to any individual who is having trouble in this regard to communicate with them. We also have a 1-800 number.

As I said, to have a systematic approach to this is very difficult for us at this point, but we are trying to garner as much information as we can. As David said, we felt this was an important thing to do in terms of protecting the integrity of the program. We do understand there are unwanted consequences associated with this.

The Chair: I'm going to draw this to an end. I would be grateful if you could table with the committee the results of that process when they're available. We would be interested in receiving information from time to time on how it's progressing.

On the matter Jean Dubé was discussing, I recall that at one of our meetings Judi Longfield raised the issue of harassment of students by collection agencies and that type of thing. It's my sincere hope that within the system we're working to minimize that kind of thing as much as is humanly possible.

As has been indicated, I think at the moment students function in a very complicated environment. I don't have to tell you this. Their expectations when they go into school have to be completely changed three or four years later, not simply because of what they've learned but because the future they envisaged has gone because of changes and so on. So this is a very important matter.

Maurice Vellacott.

• 1230

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I wasn't totally clear. This very concrete report of recommendations that has come to you, and I guess has been passed on—when will that be coming to us? It's not confidential. You can release that to us within the next month or...?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: We're speaking here in terms of the Canadian Federation of Students' material on bankruptcies—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, I was just talking about general recommendations that apparently have come your way, and I thought I heard you say that you would—

The Chair: The needs assessment.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Oh, on the needs assessment. Sorry. It's complete and I will make it available to the clerk immediately.

The Chair: Maurice, is that okay?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's fine. So the needs assessment was one report. Is there any other...? The Canadian Federation had a report. I thought there was something that came from an advisory group, of which they are one, that has a whole range of things they recommend to do an inspection of the student loans program.

The Chair: I think it might touch the thing on the upper limits on student loans perhaps.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Whatever material comes out of that I can make available to the committee. The National Advisory Group on Student Financial Assistance meets two or three times a year and advises us on a wide range of issues. I can make available that portion of the material that relates specifically to this item.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: There were some very concrete specific suggestions. Is that what I understood you to say?

Mr. Thomas Townsend: I believe so. I don't have the material with me here, so I'd have to verify it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But that's more wide-ranging. It's not just on ceilings or accessibility. It's on the whole gamut of issues.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Exactly, a large range of issues. We have a number of things that we take to them where we're seeking advice, but they can also suggest to us particular areas of interest or study.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And that can be made available forthwith, or soon.

Mr. Thomas Townsend: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. Those are my questions.

The Chair: Paul, I note that you've submitted notice of motion to the clerk for two motions, which we'll consider at the next meeting, I hope under other business, but whatever is appropriate at the time.

I want to thank David Good and Thomas Townsend and their colleagues for being here today. We do appreciate it.

As you can see, there is a lot of interest in this committee, and I don't know if you heard me mention before but there are 18 people on it, which is more than usual. There are various reasons for that, but one thing it means is that people are rotated in and out of this committee according to what we're considering. There are people involved with our committee, as members or associate members, whose particular interest is this one. So whenever you can supply us with information, you can be sure it will reach people who are interested in it. I'd be most grateful if you could.

I do want to thank you both for being here.

Colleagues, our next meeting, which is November 30, is the consideration of the report on older workers. The meeting of December 2 is the report on the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. It is our hope, but it has to go through the House of Commons, that those two meetings will be televised. The other meeting we have scheduled, we think, is December 9, which is the day on which the minister will in fact be here.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: We'll have another meeting. Does the 9th fall on a Tuesday?

The Chair: Yes.

The Clerk: I believe it's a Thursday.

Mr. Paul Crête: The following week, we could have at least one other meeting on Tuesday.

[English]

The Chair: We have some free dates, if that's your question.

Colleagues, thank you very much, and again thanks to the witnesses.

The meeting is adjourned.