FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 5, 1998

• 1533

[English]

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

We have the pleasure to have representatives from the Fédération des associations étudiantes universitaires québécoises en éducation permanente: the president, Denis Sylvain, and Mr. Claude Parent.

Thank you very much for coming. As you know, this is the way we operate in this committee. We give you approximately 10 minutes to make your presentation and then we will ask questions, and I am sure we'll get good answers.

Welcome. You may begin whenever you please.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain (President, Fédération des associations étudiantes universitaires québécoises en éducation permanente): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As representatives of the Fédération des associations étudiantes universitaires québécoises en éducation permanente, we would first like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Finance for giving us this opportunity to present our views on the federal legislation dealing with the Millennium Scholarship Fund.

The vast majority of our members are adults who hold a job and study part time, generally in professionally-oriented programs of short duration. Women make up approximately 70 per cent of that constituency.

In our brief opening remarks, we have deliberately chosen not to go through each section of the bill and present our concerns. The reason is that the federal legislation calls into question a number of principles that we consider fundamental and which must be dealt with on a priority basis.

The FAEUQEP unreservedly supports the very broad consensus in Quebec regarding the need to fully respect the fact that education is a provincial responsibility under the Canadian Constitution. It goes without saying that in our minds, that responsibility includes the student financial assistance program.

So, it is with both surprise and disappointment that we greeted the announcement of the Government of Canada's Millennium Scholarship Fund. We are not opposed to the idea of providing additional funds to support Canadian students, nor do we reject the philosophy underlying this initiative. However, we firmly believe that duplication of existing programs and services does a disservice to Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

Under the terms of an agreement that goes back some three decades, Quebec currently administers its own system of financial assistance. That system undoubtedly has many flaws, if we base ourselves on the student movement's incessant grumblings about poverty and heavy debt loads among students. In the current fiscal context, the imperfections of the financial assistance plan clearly result from the inadequacy of the funding the Quebec government feels it can devote to this area. Thus any additional new money will most certainly be welcome.

• 1535

For these reasons, and in order to improve the consistency and effectiveness of initiatives using public funds, we continue to believe that any program of financial assistance should be harmonized with the Quebec program. That is still the best way to improve the lot of Quebec students who rely on financial assistance and, of course, to offer equal opportunities in education, something which is a common concern all across the country. We therefore urge the Quebec and federal governments to reach an agreement on this issue.

We are also aware that the process set out in the federal bill, namely the creation of a private fund which will have substantial latitude in terms of setting the criteria for awarding scholarships, makes it difficult, even impossible to achieve harmonization with the Quebec program.

Given that all across Canada, there is already a government infrastructure in place to provide financial assistance to students, we see no need for such a foundation, which will be administering public funds without being accountable to anyone. That would certainly seem to be inconsistent with generally recognized democratic principles.

Also, as regards the equal opportunity principle, it is important that scholarships be awarded under the program on the basis of students' economic need, rather than merit.

Aside from the fundamental issues this initiative raises, our Federation cannot ignore the fact that the federal program involves significant amounts of money—approximately $300 million per year for the ten-year period. Also, as regards part-time students, the Federation shares the philosophy set out in the federal paper released in February of 1998, entitled Canadian Equal Opportunities Strategy. It says:

Some people believe that knowledge can only be acquired on a full- time basis, in a classroom, and that it is the exclusive privilege of young people. In fact, knowledge, which is important for all Canadians, whatever their age, is acquired by studying full-time or part-time, in a broad variety of settings...

Experience and skills acquired on the job are also essential components of knowledge. Because equal opportunity depends on access to knowledge and skill acquisition, that access should be universal.

A philosophy never has greater relevance than when it contains the means of its own realization. This is clearly not the case in Quebec, which totally excludes part-time students from its financial assistance program. If Quebec has chosen this course of action, it is not for philosophical reasons but on the contrary, for lack of sufficient means to apply its philosophy.

In 1989, when legislation to define the legal framework within which the student loans and grants system would be reformed was tabled in the Quebec National Assembly, the then Minister of Higher Education and Science, Mr. Claude Ryan, did in fact introduce the idea of possible financial assistance for part-time students, who were excluded from the program at the time, in order to help them defray costs directly related to their studies.

The Student Financial Assistance Act was finally passed in 1990, albeit without Section II of Chapter III, the one referred to part-time post-secondary education, having been implemented. The government pleaded and continues to plead a lack of financial resources to proceed with measures that it nevertheless recognized as being justified. Despite the many representations made by the FAEUQEP to appropriate government authorities and the broad consensus that has emerged on the issue since the States General on Education, some eight years later, Sections 32 to 36 of the Student Financial Assistance Act are still not in effect.

• 1540

Some people blame, not without some justification, the substantial reduction in federal transfer payments in recent years and believe that if federal funding were to become available—which seems to be the case now—priority should be given to topping up provincial transfers.

I would like to just summarize the six main points set out in our brief. Since 1989, when the freeze on tuition fees in Quebec was lifted, there has been a substantial decline in the number of part-time students, and those part-time students who did continue their studies are taking fewer courses per session. It should also be mentioned that 40 per cent of university students in Quebec study on a part-time basis, that 27.4 per cent of these same students earn less than $20,000 per year, and that 12.4 per cent have an income of less than $10,000.

Research has also shown that part-time studies have made it possible for the most disadvantaged members of society to access a university education. What we are asking for is very simple: we are asking for funding to cover tuition fees and textbooks for students that register for between six and eleven course credits. Why that number? Well, clearly we want to ensure that students can complete their studies more quickly and that this financial assistance helps to considerably reduce the drop-out rate.

In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we would like to make the following recommendations:

1. The federal government should review its plan to establish a Millennium Scholarship Fund in order to harmonize it with the Quebec Student Financial Assistance Program.

2. Given that every region of the country already has a government infrastructure involved in providing student financial assistance, there is no point in establishing a private foundation to administer the Millennium Scholarship Fund.

3. The main criterion for awarding scholarships under any system of financial assistance involving public funds should be student need and not merit.

4. Any system of financial assistance must not discriminate between full-time and part-time students.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sylvain.

[English]

We will begin with Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

You made one statement during your intervention expressing your concern about how public funds that were privately administered would be accountable to no one. Of course, public funds are taxpayers' money, and I'm wondering if that would not be the criterion to have the auditor general involved in this. He's not named in the act. We've been told that he could be, but it probably would be an auditor appointed by the board as opposed to someone from outside like the auditor general. I say that because he's already working for the Canadian taxpayers. He already reports to Parliament, which of course has elected representatives. I'm just wondering about your thoughts on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Mr. Chairman, my view is that when you pay taxes to a democratically elected government, you are automatically giving it the responsibility to administer those tax dollars. So, were the government to hand over those monies to a private foundation, it would be showing total disregard for the responsibilities conferred on it by the electorate.

In any case, to answer the Member's question, I do agree that the Auditor General can make recommendations, but they are only recommendations. As taxpayers who have entrusted our elected officials with the task of administering public monies, we are unable to find out exactly what is going on or be guaranteed that those recommendations will be acted on and yield some concrete results. I believe this is an important point you're raising. We have discussed it and we believe it is up to our elected officials to administer the monies we entrust them with.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier.

• 1545

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Sylvain, welcome to the Finance Committee. Earlier you referred to the time when Mr. Ryan was Minister of Education. He promised that as soon as Quebec's financial situation were on a more solid footing, part- time students would be recognized under the loans and grants system. You say that since then, that recognition has never actually come, because the Quebec government's finances were not sound enough to make that possible.

Over the past four years, however, the federal government has taken some $3 billion out of the education sector in Quebec as a result of cuts in direct transfers to the Government of Quebec. Don't you think that probably didn't help matters, and that it's rather offensive for the government to now be establishing a $2.5 billion fund that it will be distributing on the basis of merit, in an area that doesn't fall within its jurisdiction?

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Mr. Chairman, budget cuts were indeed made in order to attain a goal that all Canadians and Quebeckers support, namely a balanced budget. That goal had to be met and thus the decision was made to reduce transfer payments to the provinces. We had to live with that. It is clear that the educational system, including the financial assistance program, has been affected. We have suffered a great deal as a result of those cuts to provincial transfers. And we do find it somewhat scandalous that the government is now preparing to inject some $2 billion into a private foundation. We believe that initially, the federal government should at least try to repair the damage it did to the provinces by cutting billions of dollars from transfer payments. It could at least do something to help the provinces restore their system to what it was before. I think the Canadian government should use that money to beef up equalization and transfer payments, rather than turning this money over to a private foundation to administer.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I imagine that over the last months or even years, you have taken part in all the various initiatives, be it the States General or the multiple consultations that took place, first under Mr. Garon, and then under Ms. Marois. Did either of them say that once the Government of Quebec had its fiscal house in order again, students enrolled on a part-time basis or in continuing education courses could become eligible for loans and grants?

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Yes, a commitment was made in the sense that Sections 32 to 36 of the Student Financial Assistance Act make provision for financial assistance to part-time post-secondary level students. There was also a commitment in the sense that the Quebec government is perfectly aware that part-time students contribute to the financial assistance program, to the tune of $25 per university course. Of course, the government must set its own priorities. And because its priority is to provide maximum assistance to full-time students, we can understand—even though we do not accept it—the government's course of action. But the government did indeed assure us that once the province's economic situation was on a more solid footing, it would increase financial assistance to part-time students, who are definitely a priority group whose needs the government is anxious to address.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: One last comment. I will have a couple of other questions during the next round.

I found the statistics you present on page 3 quite disturbing. I was convinced that part-time students, particularly those in continuing education, who worked had average incomes. I didn't realize that 27.4 per cent had incomes of less than $20,000, or that 12.4 per cent had incomes of less than $10,000. That represents almost half of all part-time students.

Mr. Denis Sylvain: The 12.4 per cent are included in the 27.4 per cent. Those are not cumulative figures.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but even 27 per cent is a substantial number.

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Yes, it is.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you.

Mr. Denis Sylvain: It should also be mentioned that women form 70 to 75 per cent of this constituency. So, the vast majority of those making up the 27.4 per cent are women.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Riis, any questions?

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Maybe a short one, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Thank you. Some of us appreciate your presentation.

I have only one question. An earlier witness today indicated that the average debt load of students in the province of Quebec was approximately $11,000, reflecting a number of initiatives that the Government of Quebec has taken over the years.

• 1550

One of the provisions in the bill would suggest that the scholarships should be allocated on a fair and equitable basis, or some variation of that term. Have you given any thought as to how that should be reflected?

In other words, if the purpose of these scholarships is to encourage access to post-secondary education, and the debt loads of Quebec students are significantly lower than in the rest of Canada because of, again, initiatives taken by the Government of Quebec, when these scholarships are allocated, and Quebec has 24% or 25% of the population, do you think they then should receive 24% or 25% of the scholarships? Or is there some other variation we may want to consider in this issue?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Mr. Chairman, if the government decides to go with its preferred option, which is to give a private foundation the responsibility of awarding these scholarships, it is important that those scholarships be awarded on the basis of need, rather than merit. Also, if 25 per cent of that money is coming from Quebec, it is perfectly natural to expect that 25 per cent will be returned to Quebec.

Now, how should these scholarships be awarded? It's a little difficult for me to answer that question, because we do not think that money should be handed over to the Fund to allocate. We think it should be given back to each of the Canadian provinces via transfer payments, so that they can at least take back their due, which is complete independence in the area of education, since education is a provincial jurisdiction. The provinces could then take it upon themselves to ensure that those monies will be properly distributed—in other words, to those with the greatest need.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Riis.

Mrs. Redman.

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

Can you define what you mean by “harmonizing” the millennial foundation funds with the Quebec system?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: If the federal government decides to hold the course and entrust these funds to a private organization, we believe they should at the very least be attributed, as we have said before and would repeat—on the basis of need, rather than merit; also any needs identified would have to be consistent with Quebec's real needs. For example, if the federal government entrusts these monies to the Fund to administer, the Fund would have to be sure to award them in the form of grants and loans. That is where there would be a need for harmonization with the Quebec program.

Mr. Claude Garon (Researcher, Fédération des associations étudiantes universitaires québécoises en éducation permanente): The recipients would also have to be chosen in cooperation with Quebec, so as to complement, rather than short-circuit, the financial assistance program currently in place there, and thus ensure not only great efficiency but a fair distribution of available monies.

Mr. Denis Sylvain: It is especially important to avoid duplication which, as has been clearly demonstrated in the past, is extremely costly but not particularly effective.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Basically, then, you're suggesting that whatever the millennial scholarships look like, they would have the same criteria as in Quebec and they would be granted to the same groups as the ones that currently receive funding in Quebec.

I know you've already spoken about the part-time students and that there's been an undertaking by the Province of Quebec that has not yet been fulfilled. The millennial scholarships are directed at a variety of institutions, including students who are enrolled part time. Are you saying that, in your view, you only see harmonization as opposed to something that could be complementary?

Mr. Claude Garon: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Redman.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: That's correct. If the government decides to proceed, rather than duplicating the current program or creating parallel structures, the Millennium Scholarship Fund should in fact meet the criteria set not only by Quebec, but all the other provinces. It is important that the scholarship fund be harmonized with the systems in place in all of the provinces. Otherwise we will simply be creating duplication and overlap, and we will end up with two completely different, yet parallel structures. Under the circumstances, students would be likely to get lost in the administrative maze and, as I already said, that simply isn't cost effective. We want to ensure that all available funds are used as efficiently and cost-effectively and effectively as possible.

• 1555

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Just as a supplementary, if eventually the Province of Quebec is not funding part-time students, you're saying you'd rather not have the money than see a group of students who are part time and are continuing to have their education, and will not gain access, but could through the millennium foundation.... You're saying that's not something you think would be good for the students of Quebec.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the Member asked me that question, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify something. There is provision for financial assistance for part- time students in Quebec. However, particularly since transfer payments were cut, Quebec has not had adequate funds to implement those sections of the Student Financial Assistance Act that relate to part-time students. If transfer payments were restored to the level they were at four years ago, the government could implement Sections 32 to 36, which provide for financial assistance for part- time students. If the federal government proceeds with the Millennium Scholarship Fund, it should at least ensure that the Fund is completely in step with the Quebec system, so that Quebec can implement the appropriate sections of its own Student Financial Assistance Act.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Just for clarification, when did the Province of Quebec stop funding part-time students?

Mr. Claude Garon: They never have.

Mrs. Karen Redman: So they never had funding. It's merely something on the books.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Yes, as you say, it is merely on the books, and has been since the Act was passed in 1990. The only thing left to be done is to set the eligibility criteria and put in place the appropriate administrative structures. We had actually begun that work, but everyone is aware of the difficult financial situation that not only Quebec but Canada faced between 1992 and 1997, when budget cuts were implemented. As a result, those provisions that were supposed to take effect were never actually implemented.

[English]

The Chairman: Further questions?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I guess I'll go back to my original question. If it's on the books of Quebec, and it is not being funded currently, and it would be funded by the millennial money, then it strikes me that this is harmonization. If it's funding students to have access to post-secondary education that would otherwise not be funded, and this is a way to accomplish that, then in my opinion that is harmonizing the two systems.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Yes, it is important to take into account Quebec's eligibility criteria.

We believe that education and financial assistance are a provincial responsibility. We believe it's important to avoid—and that's why we are talking about harmonization—any duplication of existing structures or the creation of parallel systems; what we want is to ensure that what the provinces now have can continue to exist. We would not like to see either duplicate or different structures from one level of government to the next.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Just quickly, I would like to acknowledge that I have seen nothing in the legislation that would preclude using the criteria that exist in Quebec. I think some of the arguments that have been made are predicated on assumptions that aren't actually in the legislation. So I appreciate your clarifying your position.

The Chairman: I want to thank the researcher for bringing it to my attention that clauses 28 and 29 indicate that the foundation could cooperate with provincial governments in determining eligibility criteria and in drawing up lists of eligible students. The scholarships would complement—I underline that word—existing provincial programs, not duplicate them.

• 1600

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: We are presenting the views of our membership as a whole. As regards the Millennium Scholarship Fund, our members firmly believe that the money paid to the Government of Canada by taxpayers should be administered primarily, and I would even say exclusively, by elected representatives.

Secondly—and Federation members are unanimous on this point—we believe that education and financial assistance are a provincial responsibility. Thus we do not think it is appropriate for the federal government to be interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Claude Garon: We just don't understand why this is being done, yet at the same time, it's essential that we do. We have discussed this issue at great length, but no one understands the need to establish a private foundation to provide financial assistance to students. Nobody understands why this should be necessary, when there exists a public, government-funded infrastructure to do precisely that. One gets the feeling this is nothing more than a whim, and in a democracy, that can be a problem.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): About the current system in Quebec, maybe it would be helpful if you could just advise us of your understanding of how much of the Quebec system in terms of education support right now is the loans-based system versus scholarships, which are in the nature of bursaries or grants.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: To answer your question, I would say that grants are declining these days because of cuts to transfer payments and the current economic situation. There has been a significant decline in the number of grants and a corresponding increase in the number of loans. As I recall, the latest statistics available to us indicated that approximately 65 per cent of available funding goes to loans, compared to 35 per cent to grants.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: That was my understanding as well, that is, that the proportion of scholarship moneys has been declining. We've seen it in other provinces as well, and it causes me some concern, maybe because of the fact that the millennium fund is a scholarship fund, not a loans fund, and that the interest is with respect to student debts.

Possibly you could shed some light on this or give some indication as to whether you can explain what reasons there might be for the fact that basic tuition costs in Quebec are so much lower than they are in the rest of Canada.

Mr. Claude Garon: It was a choice of society.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: Yes, as my colleague just said, Quebec made a societal choice, and that choice, which has always defined our society, must be maintained. So, my only real answer to your question would be that it was a societal choice.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Do you think it might be reflective of any distinct conditions or characteristics within Quebec, compared to other provinces? Is that possible?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Garon: I believe there are some historical reasons for it. Just before the Quiet Revolution, Quebec was significantly behind in terms of educational attainment. That choice was made in order to allow more people to gain access to higher education, and that choice was maintained, because despite the progress made in Quebec with respect to educational attainment, we are still behind, compared to the other regions of Canada. I believe that effort must be maintained over the next 75 or 100 years, because it simply isn't possible to reverse the situation in thirty years.

• 1605

Obviously, we believe that this is an excellent choice, and we continue to support it.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I've heard this before, and I tend to agree that it's responsive to a need to promote the need for post-secondary education. I know that one of the statistics that shows a little difference is about the high school drop-out rates, which are quite high in Quebec relative to the national average. That means that proportionately the pool of talent available to proceed is a little smaller per capita. It could very well be that tuition has been used as a necessary inducement to make sure that enough people are proceeding into post-secondary education. Does that sound plausible?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Sylvain: I guess you could say it's plausible, particularly since individual and family incomes are lower in Quebec than in other provinces. Under the circumstances, one has to consider the option of providing financial assistance to Quebeckers in order to achieve some balance in relation to individual or family incomes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Monsieur Sylvain and Monsieur Garon, for your presentation. You were quite helpful.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I didn't think the meeting was over yet, Mr. Chairman. I have other questions and comments.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Members have to remember that they have to get my eye if they want to ask a question, so be sure to raise your hands.

Go ahead, Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Did we only schedule a half-hour for the witnesses?

[English]

The Chairman: No. It's 4.15 p.m. You have time.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have a couple of comments to make in response to what I heard from members opposite. I want to be sure that the message Mr. Sylvain and Mr. Garon were trying to convey was really understood, because it is my feeling that members opposite are trying to put a different spin on what they heard so that it jibes with their plans for the Millennium Scholarship Fund.

I heard some saying that you don't want any money, or that you don't want any assistance from the federal government. But that is not at all what our guests said. They simply said that as Quebec taxpayers, we are already paying some $30 billion a year in taxes to the federal government, that we are entitled to our fair share of that money, and that in recent years, when in fact we could have extended the loans and grants program, which is what Mr. Ryan, and later Mr. Garon and Ms. Marois wanted to do, the federal government proceeded to make $3 billion worth of cuts to transfer payments in the educational sector.

So, I would appreciate it if people would stop saying that we don't want any money. We've been hearing that for the last three weeks. It is such a ridiculous argument that I can hardly find words to describe it. There is concern about the decline in the number of grants. Mr. Szabo seems to be concerned about that decline, Mr. Chairman. But for the past four years, we have seen Paul Martin, here in Ottawa, make a series of cuts to education, health care, and social assistance. I don't understand why Mr. Szabo is concerned. You are the architects of that decline in the number of grants. We have more powers in Quebec than you do now, even with your $4 billion surplus this year. So stop being concerned and stop playing the offended virgin, because it makes no sense.

I just want to get some assurance from our guests that my understanding is correct. I will keep it simple and go straight to the point. As regards the Millennium Scholarship Fund, you are telling the federal government to mind its own business because education is an exclusively provincial responsibility. If people want proof with respect to Quebec's uniqueness or it's forming a distinct society, maybe that is where they should be looking. So, education falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.

The structures are already in place. The Department of Finance is saying that it will cost the Millennium Scholarship Fund 5 per cent to administer the program in Quebec. But that is twice as much as what we are paying to administer our own program in Quebec! It's not because we are better than anybody else, but simply because we have already put a system in place and developed that expertise. What more do we have to say to get through to you? That represents 1 030 grants that are to be sacrificed on the altar of administrative costs. We have already said that repeatedly. I am pleased that our witnesses this afternoon have again made that point, which is almost like stating the obvious. Indeed, it is so obvious that I don't even know what more I can say. Will you one day recognize that things are different in Quebec, and it's not because we're better than you?

• 1610

In Quebec, we are no worse than you are. What I mean is that we do things differently, and some time ago, it was decided that education was within the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. Consequently, out of a desire for efficiency, you should stop insisting that Quebec be on board. Go ahead with it in the rest of Canada, if you want to. The rest of Canada wants it.

In your own riding, Mr. Szabo, people want this; the same goes for Ms. Torsney and Mr. Telegdi. But back in Quebec, nobody wants this. I think this is the thirtieth witness from Quebec to appear, one that represents thousands of people and is saying exactly the same thing as the others. How many more witnesses do we need?

Mr. Claude Garon: Students from McGill University and the Université du Québec à Hull are also members of the Federation. These views are held by the vast majority of Quebeckers who study part time.

Mr. Denis Sylvain: I just want to say that we fully agree with what the Member just said.

[English]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's my question.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Believe it or not, Mr. Sylvain, we caught that.

Thank you very much for your contribution.

Do you have a comment, Mr. Valeri?

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): I would certainly like to take the opportunity to comment. I certainly don't think anyone's surprised that your viewpoints are somewhat similar; I'd be surprised if they weren't, in fact.

Just to pick up on some of the comments made by Mr. Loubier when he talks about the fact that people from Quebec pay taxes to the federal government, let me say that people from right across this country pay taxes to the federal government.

It should also be pointed out that Quebec does in fact get more out of transfers from the federal government than it pays in, but I'm not here to point that out. It's just a fact. That's the truth. That's the reality of it.

When the cuts were made with respect to the transfer payments.... Everyone would certainly agree that cuts were made—no one is saying they were not made—but at the same time, equalization payments were not reduced, because equalization payments are made to those provinces most in need of transfers. So the cuts were made, but the attempt was made to do so with some sort of compassion.

I also want to say that every attempt is being made.... As you're well aware, I'm sure, negotiations are going on to try to harmonize and deal with Quebec and how it deals with its particular system. I think it would be unfair to say the federal government is not in any way trying to accommodate what is going on in Quebec, because Quebec has been quite successful in how it has dealt with this particular area.

At the same time, I'd have to take issue with the comment made by Mr. Loubier when he says there is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Over and over again I think it's been said quite clearly that education is a provincial jurisdiction with respect to setting curriculum and everything else that goes on with education and that access to education is a joint jurisdiction. The federal government is merely participating in trying to improve access to post-secondary education for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

We don't sit, as Mr. Loubier has so often said, on “this side” of the table. I don't view us as being on this side of the table and them being on that side of the table; I view us as Canadians from various parts of this country trying to improve, in this particular case the welfare of students and in general the quality of life for Canadians, whether they be Quebeckers, Ontarians, or people from Atlantic Canada.

I want to close by thanking you for coming to the committee and sharing your viewpoints. I can assure you they'll be taken into consideration. Certainly for me, they've been quite valuable.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Valeri.

Are there any further questions from either side of the table?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I simply want to make one comment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Valeri's insinuations with respect to our witnesses are quite tiresome. He would surely have been surprised to hear them say something other than what the Bloc Québécois has been saying.

Let me just repeat what Mr. Sylvain and Mr. Garon said earlier. They are Quebeckers just as I am and as are others here. They told us that students at McGill share their views. You have indeed heard from Anglophone representatives in Quebec who told you they support the position around which there is a clear consensus in Quebec. So please stop the demagoguery!

• 1615

This is getting us nowhere and is simply creating animosity, which is completely counterproductive.

[English]

Mr. Tony Valeri: I was merely reflecting what you said into the microphone, Mr. Loubier, nothing more than that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Sylvain.

Mr. Denis Sylvain: To conclude, I just want to say that there is also a strong desire to improve the system in Quebec. So if we had only 25 per cent of the monies that are to be invested in the fund, we could work on meeting the same goals, including achieving a general improvement in conditions.

I think we all share the same goal, which is to improve conditions. We only disagree on the means. We believe that if 25 percent of the $2 billion set aside for the Fund were handed over to Quebec, we would be able to attain that same goal.

Indeed, I would even go further, Mr. Chairman, and say that the Canadian government's goal is to improve the situation via the Fund, and yet it is insinuating that Quebec does not have the same ability or desire to do that. I think that's kind of a shame.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your comments.

We're going to suspend for two minutes.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]