FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 7, 1998

• 0916

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): I would like to call this meeting to order.

I would like to thank all the members who have brought amendments to the clerk. As you know, the committee process is—

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Crête?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Before we proceed with clause by clause consideration of the bill, I would like to move the following motion:

That Bill C-36, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998 be withdrawn.

We have provided you with the copy of this motion in both official languages.

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Excellent idea!

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to speak to the motion, if this is the appropriate time to do so.

[English]

The Chairman: Who's moving that? Mr. Crête?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: I was just making some introductory remarks, if that's okay with you. I was making some introductory remarks, if I may finish those.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes. Excuse me.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, it's not a problem.

I just wanted to once again express to the members who forwarded amendments to this piece of legislation my warmest gratitude for their efforts to improve Bill C-36. This is indeed part of the committee process.

I also want to underline my appreciation to all those members who sat throughout the hearings to listen to the many witnesses about Bill C-36, a very important bill, as you know, related to the budget.

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Riis?

Mr. Nelson Riis: You mentioned the amendments that have been suggested this morning. Is the government suggesting any amendments at all?

The Chairman: I don't think the government has any amendments in this particular....

Mr. Nelson Riis: Does the government plan to submit any amendments at report stage? So the government is suggesting no changes at all to the legislation; is that correct?

The Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Now, Monsieur Crête, my understanding is that you have a motion. I think it reads:

That Bill C-36, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be withdrawn.

Can I ask you a simple question? It relates to the fact that this committee has decided to engage in clause-by-clause study today. I was just wondering if this motion is in contradiction to the spirit of the committee.

• 0920

It basically stated that we would be studying clause by clause. I would like you to speak on it and perhaps reconsider. Go ahead.

[Translation]

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

I have tabled this motion this morning because Bill C-36 would create a major change in the management of financial assistance to the students of Quebec and Canada. Since 1964, financial assistance for students, in Quebec and in Canada, has been managed under legislation that provides for a delegation of power to enable Quebec to withdraw with full compensation and, consequently, Quebec has developed a different model.

The Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Jean Chrétien, and the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, at the end of March agreed on a two-month delay for negotiations to allow for Quebec's jurisdiction in the field of education to be respected and for the federal government to achieve its objectives which, in my opinion, are objectives of visibility, no doubt legitimate, nevertheless, the objective is visibility.

Consequently, it seems to me that undertaking clause by clause of this bill today would flagrantly contradict the mandate that the two first ministers have adopted and, in my opinion, consideration of the bill would be illogical, and even somewhat disrespectful, in view of the mandate that was given to the negotiators by the first ministers themselves.

I think that this is especially important since the Quebec Coalition for Education, which represents all the Quebec groups heard by the committee and some that were not heard, has voiced its opposition. Furthermore, no contrary intervention was expressed.

I will quickly identify these groups: the Quebec Teachers Federation, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the conference of Quebec rectors and university principals, the cegeps federation, the federation of Quebec school boards, the Quebec college students federation, the Quebec university students federation, the Quebec federation of university professors and the Quebec Federation of Labour.

When the negotiations opened, all of the members of the coalition said:

The bilateral negotiations announced by the Canadian and Quebec First Ministers suggest hope for a solution that will be acceptable to everyone. Members of the coalition are delighted, and they would urge all Canadian Parliamentarians to support these negotiations and to actively promote the necessary legislative openness and flexibility.

In my opinion, the "necessary legislative flexibility" would suppose that we do not proceed with clause by clause consideration of this bill until such time of the negotiations have been completed, either because there is an agreement or because it will have been determined that the two governments' positions are irreconcilable. Proceeding today to clause by clause consideration would send a message to all the members of this Coalition and, consequently, to all of the Quebec's stakeholders, the Government of Quebec and the general public, at the opening of the negotiations, which seemed to offer the possibility for an agreement, were merely window-dressing.

In fact, we cannot vote on the bill and then go back. I will quickly explain. If we get involved in reviewing the definitions, the foundation's mandate, and hundreds of similar aspects, and if we passed the relevant clauses, we will not be able to go back. There will be no amendment in three weeks, in a month, in two months or in six months that would correct the situation imposed on Quebec. This situation has to be recognized from the outset.

If Quebec and Ottawa reach an agreement, this will be particularly necessary, so that we can then work in good faith, which we have moreover shown by moving 39 amendments. We have prepared these amendments just in case—because we wanted to be prepared—the negotiations would result with an agreement.

• 0925

We would also be willing to work if there were no agreement, but if the positions of the two governments had been clearly defined, provided that the issue of Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation had been settled, and this would change the whole analysis of the bill.

In short, if Quebec obtained the right to opt out with full compensation, after it had been given all due latitude, our way of approaching the review of the bill would be to enable the Canadian public and Canadian students to benefit from the best possible system. But until we know the outcome of the negotiations, we cannot participate in such an activity. By so doing, we would automatically sanction the intervention of the federal government, which nobody in Quebec wants, in the field of education. We would create relationships between the Foundation's structure and the Quebec Government, that would lead to horrible legal complications.

As a legislator, and taking into account our responsibilities in this issue, I believe that it is very important to clarify these points.

Let me give you some facts that I will quickly list. The members of the Coalition include the 130 members and the 240 unions of the Quebec Teachers Federation, which is the most important educational federation in Quebec; the 400,000 members of the Quebec Labour Federation, the largest labour federation in Quebec; the 245,000 members of the Confederation of National Trade Unions, with 45,000 members working in the field of education; the 900,000 students of the college and preuniversity sector under the auspices of the Quebec College Student Federation; the 135,000 university students at various levels who are members of the Quebec university student federation; the 35,000 members of the Quebec federation of university students in continuing education; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; non-profit companies; and the conference of university rectors and principals, chaired by the President of McGill university.

The latter did not join the coalition because he is a sovereigntist, but simply because under the current Canadian Constitution, education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. From the testimony presented here, you have seen that we are very attached to this right. I believe it is very clear that this was a key element when the Canadian Confederation was created. Furthermore, as Mr. Gérald Larose and others stated, there is a very direct link between all the peoples of the world, their development and their control of education.

From this perspective, it is very obvious for us that the Bill, at the present stage, should not go any further and should be withdrawn, In fact, the whole subject of the Millennium scholarships, which constitutes Part I of the Bill, its important and significant part, should not, in our opinion, proceed to clause by clause consideration at the moment.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've listened carefully to my friend's comments, and while I don't think I'm going to support this motion when it comes to a vote, I do want to raise a related point in terms of proceeding with Bill C-36.

Mr. Chairman, under your leadership we as a committee have sat here now for weeks listening to witnesses from across Canada. They have journeyed here and, in most cases, presented very detailed and thoughtful reactions and briefs. Some are very specific items. Most have been making some suggestions for improvements. From our discussions, I think most of the time we saw the appropriateness of their suggestions.

We have all kinds of people here today, and we've had people.... I don't know much it costs to run this process of committee hearings. But the implication, like the pre-budget consultation we'll soon be into, Mr. Chairman, is that we listen to people. We've invited them here to react as experts in their fields, to provide recommendations to improve the legislation.

Now, I don't understand that with all the people who have come here—and perhaps I'm interpreting the process incorrectly—the government assumes there's not a single change required.

• 0930

I'm concerned about this, Mr. Chairman, not on a partisan basis. We have good proposals here, and maybe we've covered every particular area. But the signal this sends to people across the country is not a good one. People will come and they'll make these presentations, and the impression they will receive, if there are no changes to the bill, is that we will ignore everything they say.

I'm concerned about this in terms of our future. We're presumably going to be here for at least another four years, going through similar processes with legislation. We're going to get into pre-budget consultations now, and we're serious about that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to respond to these questions. What signal does it send that no one's suggestions will be considered at all?

The Chairman: Mr. Riis—

Mr. Nelson Riis: Have I misinterpreted something here? I hope I have, because otherwise I have to question the legitimacy of this process.

The Chairman: Mr. Riis, as you probably recall, this is not the first bill this committee has dealt with. Amendments have been made to other bills.

Secondly, I would draw your attention to the successful pre-budget consultation report, where many, may I say a large majority, of the recommendations made to the Minister of Finance were actually implemented in the federal budget. That speaks to the fact that this committee has worked extremely well.

It's not for me to.... The government members and Mr. Valeri will deal with this issue as they wish. They could perhaps have amendments at report stage. That's not my concern as chairman of the committee.

I think your party has produced five amendments to this piece of legislation. That's correct, I believe.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Yes, and we'll introduce some at report stage.

The Chairman: To describe the process and to describe the contribution that this committee has made as something less than stellar, when you referred in particular to the pre-budget consultation and the contribution we made to the Canada Pension Plan—

Mr. Nelson Riis: Let's talk about the bill. This is the budget bill.

The Chairman: If your comments were simply related to this bill, then I would accept that, but your comments were brushing the entire committee process and the committee, and I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's fair, because we've been quite successful, and the facts speak for themselves for those who follow the proceedings of the committee.

I'm going to go to Madame Gagnon and then I'm going to go to Mr. Brison.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): I would also like to have a word.

The Chairman: I haven't booked anything else for today, so everybody will be speaking.

I'll go to Madame Gagnon, Mr. Brison, Mr. Solberg, and Mr. Loubier.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I have closely followed the work of the committee, and I am rather disappointed by the attitude of the Liberal members in this matter. For once, they had the opportunity to display their good will and understanding of Quebec's realities. All the witnesses from Quebec testified about the consensus that exists in Quebec. The 14 associations that came here and presented their brief emphasized the fact that Quebec should have its right to opt out recognized. The way that you have handled this millennium membership issue shows that the government does not act in good faith. It is well known that Quebec's wishes could be respected merely by amending the Canada Student Loan Act. It could include the scholarships, and then Quebec would have the right to opt-out with full compensation.

With the Millennium scholarships, we once again see the Liberal government's very clear willingness to interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction, particularly in the field of education. This is not a recent development; since 1953 numerous federal prime ministers have wanted to subsidize Canadian universities by providing scholarships. Quebec has always opposed this. There has always been a consensus in the public and among the various organizations working in the field of education, a consensus that the federal government should respect its wishes.

• 0935

Mr. Chairman, I can see by the questions asked by the Liberal government members that they have a very poor attitude toward the recommendations that were made to us. I heard many people, even people from outside Quebec, tell us that they had no problem with Quebec having the right to opt out of the Millennium scholarship program. Student associations as well as other groups told us that. Why precipitate the passage of a bill while the Quebec government and the Federal government are negotiating? I would conclude from this that there is no willingness to reach an agreement with Quebec in this matter.

People came to tell us, in good faith, that the Millennium Scholarship Fund might run the risk of compromising the financial balance in the field of education, which would aggravate the drop out program. We know that Quebec is putting huge amounts of money in the educational system. Moreover, a number of witnesses told us that Quebec has the best educational system.

Why should Quebec be penalized by the proposed distribution of Millennium Scholarship? A number of witnesses mentioned the huge cuts to the Canada Social Transfer, and the impact that this would have on university funding. We were also told that the Millennium scholarship issue has an impact on the structure necessary for the effective management of our universities and on the issue of overall student indebtedness. Lorraine Pagé of the Quebec Teachers Federation was very clear on this point when she said that by addressing only student indebtedness and the awarding of loans and scholarships, you were forgetting the other aspects of student indebtedness, and that this is a very broad issue.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed by the Liberal government's understanding in this matter. Once again, I think that this is very clear. A witness from English Canada came to say that once again he were being misled. In our opinion, this merely reinforces our unfavourable opinion of the Liberal government's attitude in this regard. You should listen to the voice of Quebec, and give Quebec the right to opt-out with full compensation.

What you are doing now could be compared, a number of witnesses told us, with the issue of occupational training. This is a very symbolic issue in Quebec. Perhaps you're living in an ivory tower here and don't hear anything about what is going on. Personally, I have been a member of other committees, for example, linguistic school boards. We know very well that when Quebec makes a request, it falls on deaf ears: you don't want to hear the consensus that expresses the will of Quebec.

Those who are the most affected by this are the students. We know that all the university and college federations came to say that they don't want this. They are even uncomfortable having to negotiate and propose some amendments. We were discussing Quebec's opting out of the foundation. However, the students told us that the proposal had serious flaws and they questioned the transparency of the Foundation. Who will be sitting on the board? Furthermore, the merit criterion is contrary to the whole strategy that Quebec has developed to support students.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that you have been listening, or if you have been listening, I don't think that you are going to implement a number of unanimous recommendations that were made by the various witnesses who appeared before us. Quebec was not alone in expressing concern about how these scholarships would be awarded. Several witnesses from outside Quebec told us the same thing.

Therefore, I am very disappointed this morning, Mr. Chairman. I had great hopes that you might accept an amendment, an amendment that would have allowed Quebec to opt out of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Fund. In fact, I don't think that there will be the will to... We are in the middle of negotiations. As my colleague, Paul Crête, said a little while ago, it will be very difficult to amend this bill later on. It's ridiculous. A number of witnesses said: Why pass this legislation immediately when it will have to be amended if the federal and the Quebec governments reach an agreement?

• 0940

Mr. Chairman, I don't see how you can close your eyes to the overwhelming consensus that exists in Quebec. The 14 organizations who came before us to ask you to allow Quebec to opt-out represented much more than themselves; they each represented from 45,000 to 150,000 members, that is a million people, including those primarily involved, namely, the students and the academic community.

After all the cuts under the Canadian Social Transfer, it was difficult for Quebec to manage its educational funding. Three and a half billion dollars per year is a lot of cents. Three billion dollars per year in less support for students. It also means less follow-up.

For example, in certain colleges it is difficult to hire a psychologist to work with the students. This is shameful! It is due to the fact that many cuts had to be made in the educational system because of the cuts in the Canadian Social Transfer. Mr. Chairman, a number of associations and witnesses came to tell us how the $2.5 billion would be spent: this money would be scattered in all directions and without transparency.

Furthermore, the Auditor General told us yesterday that the federal government had a bad spending habit. In addition, creating a private foundation with public funds is not within the ideology in Quebec. Nor is it what the academic community wishes for student assistance. The issue involves economic and social rights. The question of merit seems to be somewhat unpredictable. You heard this.

We think there is a lack of transparency. There is a failure to analyze the impact of these scholarships, particularly in Quebec. We know that the Quebec government has made great efforts to ensure that education remains a priority. We know that the future of our youth and those who will replace us and fill tomorrow's jobs is at stake.

Mr. Chairman, I would like you to comply with the Bloc Québécois's request and approve my colleague, Mr. Crête's motion. On the basis of the questions that the Liberals asked throughout the committee settings and while we heard witnesses, I can see that they are unaware of the reality in Quebec. A number of stakeholders told us about Quebec's reality and what the impact of these measures would be, even with consultations.

There will be consultations on these various criteria, but we know that it will be very difficult to achieve agreement in view of what has been proposed for the Millennium Scholarship Foundation and because of the very broad mandate with respect to the criteria. Who is going to pay for this? It will be the students. Quebec is not the only province with a structure, and ours has existed for 30 years. For 30 years, we have been able to meet the need. Why would you want to create duplication?

The first time the Bloc Québécois was elected, the main issues we wanted to debate here at the federal level included, of course, Quebec's interests, but also overlap and duplication. By creating the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, this bad habit of overlap and duplication is being continued instead of giving Quebec the necessary funds so that it can improve its system as much as possible.

All stakeholders, even student associations outside Quebec, told us that Quebec had the best school system. Moreover, they too requested amendments during the two weeks of hearings.

• 0945

Witnesses from outside Quebec said that they did not see what the problem was and asked why the money was simply not given to Quebec.

We must recognize that there is no general agreement about the Millennium Scholarship Foundation as presented. In Quebec, there is a consensus. To illustrate that, I will say that a million people are demanding that Quebec be able to opt out with full compensation. They also want to maintain the same system of grants and loans that has been established in Quebec for more than 30 years to continue to be the best grants and loans system. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I would be extremely disappointed if you did not follow up on this demand. You are not offering the possibility of an agreement with Quebec and we can even ask ourselves whether the federal government really wants to reach an agreement with Quebec.

We are being forced to quickly adopt legislation that runs counter to everything Quebec has been asking for for 40 years in terms of education, whereas for once, you have an opportunity to listen to us. You decided to adopt a motion on distinct society in Parliament, but in fact, when the time comes to prove it, you always do the opposite of what you say. You can tell us as much you love us, but you don't keep your promises.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Gagnon—

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes?

[English]

The Chairman: Can you just kindly slow down a bit? We don't want to miss any of your words.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Okay, you scared me. I thought that—

An hon. member: It's the enthusiasm.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, it is in fact the enthusiasm. I thought that you were saying that would accept this motion and that I could stop speaking.

An hon. member: That would have been wonderful.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: When we hear witnesses from Quebec, we often ask them who they are and who they represent. I'm always surprised to hear this question from the members of the Liberal Party, who seem to want to check whether these people are credible. So you were told that they represented more than 10 people. In some cases, it is all of Quebec. If we are talking about education, it can be a group of 135,000 or 45,000 people, as the case may be.

I would also like you to recognize that there are also organizations outside Quebec. I will quote Mr. John Trent from the University of Ottawa who, as we know, is not a sovereigntist, but who has attacked the very foundations of federalism. He told us that this is the worst attack since the end of the Second World War, the worst encroachment into areas of provincial jurisdiction. He said that you were going against the entire federal system, decentralized government, respect for the will of the provinces, and that for once you should listen to Quebec. I do not know if you heard all of the comments made by this man who is perceived as a federalist, but he told you that for once you should listen to Quebec and comply with its demands.

The Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters told us the same thing, namely that Quebec should be allowed to opt out of the foundation. The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation came and told you the same thing. A number of student associations and representatives from the University of Toronto came and made the same comment.

• 0950

I therefore think that some people outside Quebec also realize that the federal government is acting in bad faith. Moreover, as I said before, this issue is as symbolic for Quebec as job training was. In that case, we won out over your desire to disregard areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Professor Trent thinks you are acting against the interest of genuine federalism, which should respect the will of the provinces and the Constitution. You are in the process of centralizing everything, of making the federal government responsible for all decisions and you are not listening to the provinces.

I don't know whether the witnesses from Quebec will be able to shake—and I mean shake—the committee's decision. You are going to show that people of Quebec once again that you are acting in bad faith as regards areas of provincial jurisdiction.

When we say that we are a distinct society, when we say that we have a specific culture and specific needs, your behaviour is going to be judged precisely on an issue such as this—which is such a crucial one for Quebec. People know what that means. You are upsetting the financing of the education system and establishing another structure, a duplicate structure for analyzing needs with the establishment of this foundation. We are very reluctant about this foundation, because we think a private foundation mixed with public monies is the antithesis of all existing structures in Quebec.

In Quebec, Ms. Lorraine Pagé said at one point that even if the Quebec government had made such a decision, it would be out of order, because it would run counter to the entire approach to education in Quebec. All decisions regarding education by the Department of Education are made in close cooperation with students. Students came and told you that they were uncomfortable because they do not really know what it will mean for the negotiations to take place within the federal government. The Prime Minister will select the president of the Foundation, and five of its members will be chosen by the federal government. What type of transparency will there be? The federal government will control the board. The five members appointed by the government will in their turn select the other members of the committee. They will choose the organizations they want as members of the board of directors.

The Bloc Québécois is the spokesperson for this consensus, and we ask that you please listen to the various witnesses that came to talk about this. There were many of them, Mr. Chairman. There was the Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec, the CEQ, the FTQ, the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec, the CNTU, the Fédération québécoise des professionnels et professionnelles salarié(e)s et cadres du Québec de la CSN, the Fédération des employés des services publics de la CSN, the Fédération des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec, professor Clément Lemelin from the University of Quebec in Montreal, the Fédérations des associations étudiantes, the Fédération des cégeps and the Coalition des anciens leaders étudiants du Québec. They all came and told us the same thing.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm just reminded by those.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You say, Mr. Chairman, that you remember them. I hope you will not just remember them, but that you will remember what they said, what they called for. They are asking for opting out with full compensation, and they deplore the federal government's bad habit of infringing on areas of provincial jurisdiction.

• 0955

When we say that there will be duplication and overlap because we already have structures in place in Quebec, that may mean that there will be 10,000 fewer scholarships for Quebec students. We're trying to manage our tight budget as well as possible. Our latitude is very restricted because of the cuts to the Canada Social Transfer. The best private sector firms do not create duplication and overlap.

You can afford to do that using other people's money, using taxpayers' money, but people will judge you on that. The Coalition in Quebec is very representative of the population as a whole. People know that less money for education means less staff and thus fewer supports for students. As to the cuts to the Canada Social Transfer, they mean that families are getting poorer and income security is declining.

I think the government should be focusing rather on tax reform. We know there are many low-income families because there is no indexation. Low-income families have suffered tremendous losses. That is a known fact, and you could be judged on that as well. You have $2.5 billion and you think you are Santa Claus, you think you are going to be able to make Quebec students happy. But the students of Quebec have told you that this was not the right way of dealing with the problem of student debt.

I hope you will act on that, Mr. Chairman. The various witnesses from Quebec told us often that they felt that they were voices in the wilderness, that no one was listening to them. Although they represent many people they were asked at where they came from, who they represented. They had the impression that the purpose was to discredit the various Quebec associations and groups. But each one of them represents over one million people, and that means that many people are aware of the problem. As I said before, this issue is symbolic for Quebec, and you could be judged on it.

I will now turn the floor over to my colleague.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Gagnon.

Just for the record, so you understand, I do remember what people say. As a matter of fact, I also remember there was an agreement in this committee that today we would be dealing with clause-by-clause, and we're not dealing with that yet.

As I read your motion, Mr. Crête—and I do have a question for Mr. Crête—your motion basically implies the withdrawal of Bill C-36. But I also, at the same time, am faced with a situation here where you have approximately 39 amendments. Logically, to me, that means your intent this morning was to deal with clause-by-clause. If your intent was not to deal with clause-by-clause, then you wouldn't have produced 39 amendments.

An hon. member:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

The Chairman: No, just one second. Everybody will have plenty of time to talk. Everybody knows this bill will go back to the House tomorrow and be reported. So you have all the time to talk today and tomorrow, right up until when I report to the House. So, no problem. Just relax. We're going to go through every single clause. It's not going to be a problem.

I have a question for Mr. Crête and then I'll—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I have an answer to what you said.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, you don't have an answer for that? Is that why Mr. Loubier is answering? You moved this motion, right?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: So perhaps you want to stand behind it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: In response to what you said, Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that the Bloc Québécois has done a very professional job. We took part in all stages of the committee's proceedings. From the outset, we said that before the clause-by-clause study of the bill, we had to know the outcome of the negotiations between Quebec City and Ottawa on the whole issue of the Foundation.

We have analyzed the bill and we are putting forward 39 amendments which we consider relevant. Assuming there is an agreement between Quebec City and Ottawa, what could we do to ensure we have the best possible bill?

• 1000

This morning, we are supposed do be starting the clause-by- clause consideration of the bill, even though we have not had any news about the negotiations. We asked that Mel Cappe, the federal government's negotiator in this matter, appear before the committee, but he was unavailable. Since the clause-by-clause study of the bill is quite an important matter, I think we could wait until Mr. Cappe is available to meet with us next week. We could begin our work at that time. It would be better if we could meet with him to find out how the negotiations are proceeding, since the deadline set by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec is June 1. A meeting between the negotiators has been scheduled for May 15.

[English]

The Chairman: Could we have quiet in the room? I want to hear every word Mr. Crête pronounces.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to give you a few examples. In the clause on definitions, a provincial minister is defined as follows:

"Provincial minister", in respect of a province, means the province's minister of the Crown who has primary responsibility for that province's post-secondary education.

In my view, if negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa lead to a consensus, that will have an impact on the definition I quoted, which is contained in the first clause we will have to look at in clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

I will give you another example. The bill also defines what a post-secondary educational institution is, whereas the Quebec legislation already provides a definition of such an institution.

The final example for the moment which seems to me very relevant is clause 25 which states, in reference to the Board of the Foundation, the following:

(2) The Board shall not delegate any power or right of the Board

(b) to authorize the granting of scholarships;

Clause 25 of the bill as it currently reads prohibits the delegation of the granting of scholarships. If there is one fundamental point which will be addressed in current negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa, it is precisely that clause. I cannot proceed with consideration of clause 25, which specifies that the Board shall not delegate the granting of scholarships, whereas this issue is currently the subject of negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa. There is a basic nonsense here. That is why we table this motion this morning. Our motion says that we cannot go further in consideration of this bill if we don't know the results of those negotiations. Otherwise, we will produce a bad piece of legislation and also contribute to worsening the general atmosphere.

Among the people who appeared before us on the Millennium Scholarships, just with respect to Part I of the bill, 41% came from Quebec and 59% from outside Quebec. The Quebec witnesses all said the same thing. If the representatives of the unions, presidents of universities, and Mr. Shapiro, who is President of McGill University were here this morning, they would tell you that not enough time has been given to negotiations. No one, either on the Quebec or Ottawa side of the table, has stated today that negotiations have failed. No one told us that they would lead anywhere. No one has thrown in the towel. There are still meeting scheduled. Therefore, it seems to be important that before proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration, we should look into the substance of this issue.

If Quebec and Ottawa conclude that scholarships should be granted through the government of Quebec, then we will have to amend clause 25 which reads:

(2) The Board shall not delegate any power or right of the Board

It seems to me therefore that the motion is in order.

[English]

The Chairman: I was just asking because I personally feel that the intent of today's meeting was to deal with clause-by-clause, and the fact that you do have amendments would lead me to believe—and I think any rational human being would draw the same conclusion....

I'm going to go to Mr. Valeri, who has been waiting to make a comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I will just take a minute, Mr. Chairman. We also, in the Bloc Québécois, have prepared for this morning's meeting. We sent our amendments. It's even likely that we were the first to send them. We did so almost a week ago in order to make sure they were in order. We took every appropriate step to make sure we were ready this morning. It is for reasons beyond our control that we cannot proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill today. It is because we don't know the results of the negotiations with Quebec.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would just like to add one thing if I may, then I will give the floor to Mr. Valeri.

• 1005

I would just like to add one more point to what my colleague Paul Crête stated. As Mr. Crête correctly pointed out, 41% of the witnesses we heard came from Quebec and 59% from the rest of Canada. This shows how important this issue of Millennium Scholarships is and the fact that it is in contradiction with the history of relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada within the federal system.

We were constantly told from the beginning that to adopt such a bill would be ridiculous given that negotiations were taking place between a representative of the Office of the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, and a representative of the Office of the Prime Minister.

I believe we are being consistent with what we've been saying since the beginning. We would have appreciated it if Mr. Mel Cappe had been able to appear as a witness in order to tell us where negotiations were going. Is there any chance that they will be successful? Is the situation deadlocked at the moment? What is happening? It would be quite incongruous to adopt this legislation which concerns the Millennium Scholarship Fund, particularly given, as my colleague from Kamouraska indicated, that there might be contradictions between the current wording and a possible agreement concerning a delegation from the federal government to the Quebec government, that is, opting out with compensation. This could lead to very serious contradictions.

Why work on those clauses while, as we fully appreciate, if there is a little goodwill on both sides we may reach an agreement? As the deadline is June 1, there's nothing urgent about this, in so far as I know. This is not an emergency. The legislative timetable between now and the adjournment of the House is not so tight that we cannot wait just a few days, at least until the deadline of June 1, so as to see how negotiations are going and particularly to give them a chance of succeeding.

Please don't think that this reflects ill will on our part. We are expressing our viewpoint and also the views of all the organizations which appeared before the committee. Therefore, it seems absolutely reasonable to explain to you this morning why we object to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. It simply makes no sense to proceed with that.

It wasn't my turn to speak, but I just wanted to add that to the points my colleague just made. I would like to speak again, after Mr. Valeri.

[English]

The Chairman: I want to raise a point just to refresh people's memories. On Thursday, April 2, 1998, on a motion of Paddy Torsney, it was agreed that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, would be reported back to the House of Commons by Friday, May 8, 1998. This was a decision made by the committee. This is something you ought to also keep in mind.

Mr. Valeri.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Just a moment, please. I would like to come back to what you just said. Mr. Chairman, it was perhaps the decision of the committee at that time, but that was because we hoped that negotiations would move along quickly, as that seemed to be a very logical assumption. We heard the witnesses from Quebec, who were subsequently to establish the Coalition, indicate that Quebec's claims regarding opting out with full compensation, was so logical that they were sure that negotiations would move along quickly.

These policy decisions by the committee are not immutable. To date, as my two colleagues mentioned, we have no idea what's happening with the negotiations. We would have liked to speak to Mr. Cappe and hear him tell us that there was hope of an agreement between Quebec and the federal government. The reason why we are against clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is that it makes no sense to proceed that way. There's no emergency here, and I think we could at least wait until the deadline date of June 1.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll just start off by saying that based on the comments I've heard and the last comment Mr. Loubier made about the understanding that the opting-out provision is the one option that would allow—correct me if I'm wrong—this bill to go forward, I think I can restate again what was stated in the hearings and prior to the hearings, that the millennium scholarship fund is an arm's-length foundation and there is no opting-out provision. The opting-out provision does apply to government programs, but this is an arm's-length foundation.

• 1010

He's correct when he says that the witnesses came forward to this committee and indicated, and quite clearly I think, that there is support on this, from the government members, that Quebec does have a good system in place. At the same time, witnesses who came forward also said that the millennium scholarship fund would be of great assistance and of great need to students, and they were supportive of that.

With respect to the discussions that are ongoing—and, again, those discussions are ongoing—they're continuing within the context of this bill, Mr. Chairman. Certainly no one is saying that the method of evaluating student needs in Quebec would not be adopted by the foundation. No one has said that. That's certainly a discussion that will continue with the members of the foundation. They have as their mandate, and certainly as their goals and outcome, to avoid duplication; to build on existing provincial needs assessment; to put in place complementary existing programs so that you avoid duplication and have efficient use of limited resources, always for the benefit of students.

No one is saying that any savings Quebec may achieve through the implementation of the foundation.... Quebec would be free to re-invest any of these moneys into education, or anywhere else they want to. There's no restriction here.

My point is that the opposition members—and I make reference to what Mr. Riis indicated earlier—seem to feel that there is a great need to legislate various things that, in my opinion, would restrict the flexibility that's been given to the foundation.

Let's understand that this foundation will begin to distribute money. The date was given. The outside date, I guess, would be the year 2000. If those discussions with the provincial governments...because there is a commitment and a requirement that this foundation, within the context of the flexibility that's been provided to them within this bill, must deal with provincial programs and with provinces so that they do avoid the duplication that exists. We need to give them as much flexibility as possible in order to do that.

This is not a government program. Over and over again we heard it, Mr. Chairman, through the pre-budget consultation as well, that students want some help with student debt. They want that help to be in fact de-politicized, and I'm not sure whether one could de-politicize an issue more than establishing an arm's-length foundation made up of experts from right across the country, who are required to put together a foundation and a method of distributing funds that would avoid duplication, build an existing provincial needs assessment, complement existing provincial programs, and increase access to post-secondary education.

We go back to the issue of whether this is provincial jurisdiction or not, and we argued that it is an area of co-jurisdiction, that the federal government and the provincial government do have a role to play in this.

So I would respectfully disagree and argue that this bill is actually required in order to continue the discussions that are going on, because those discussions are going on within the framework of this particular piece of legislation. They're not going on outside of this framework. The flexibility this bill provides allows the discussions to continue, and that's why, rather than the suggestion, as the Bloc indicates, that this bill should not go forward because these discussions are ongoing, I argue that it needs to go forward because the discussions are going forward within the context of what this bill has before us.

Mr. Chairman, that's really all I have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Valeri, for your comments.

Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Further to Mr. Riis' comments earlier, I guess I was very surprised as well that we didn't have some amendments from the government side on this. There are some areas where I really sensed we had some level of consensus. One is the area, for instance, on private career colleges.

• 1015

I hope this doesn't have to be said, but I would like to ask that the government members here look at the individual amendments from a non-partisan perspective and in a constructive way, because that was the intent of these amendments that were generated by our party and by others for this. It takes a significant amount of diligence and work to represent those 88 witnesses who appeared before us.

So I would ask that the government members do look carefully at these individual amendments and do not simply vote against them en bloc. Give the individual merits of those amendments a chance.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me. I believe this issue deals with a fundamental point for Quebec. Also, as my colleague previously mentioned, we have heard from 14 organizations representing not 1 million, but 1.3 million people. It is important to specify that. I added up the numbers when my colleague from Quebec City gave the figure of one million. The figure was in fact 1.3 million, in addition to representatives of 82,000 businesses from the Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec, who told us exactly the same thing, one after the other.

I heard Mr. Valeri talk earlier about political games. That's not what we're dealing with here, Mr. Chairman. Let's look at past examples in the history of Quebec since 1963, when Mr. Lesage had a disagreement with Mr. Pearson on a similar issue. Mr. Lesage was not a sovereigntist and Mr. Pearson even less so. They managed to reach an agreement at the Quebec City Conference in 1964. I'll come back to that later. This is a gut issue in Quebec, a matter of history and one which affects the unique character of Quebec, to use an expression which you will understand, or at least which we believe you will understand.

Fourteen organizations, representing 41 per cent of the witnesses who appeared here, came to talk to us about the Millennium Scholarship Fund and essentially they conveyed seven basic messages. I would like to come back to what Mr. Riis said earlier, and I agree with him. We have been given a very clear message from Quebec, a unanimous message from those people who represent what is really going on in the world of Quebec education: interest groups, students, former students leaders. They all indicated to us that there was a consensus against the Millennium Scholarship Fund, and although this was good for the rest of Canada, it was not at all appropriate for Quebec. Therefore, why is the Liberal majority on the Finance Committee not tabling amendments? I just can't understand it.

If you still believe in the role of committees and the very role of members, we should be listening to differences of opinion expressed regarding government policy, and it seems to me that the members on the government side should be tabling amendments and showing some openness and flexibility in the context of what you refer to as flexible federalism. I do not see any flexibility in what you are presenting as the plan of this Millennium scholarships.

The 14 organizations which appeared, Mr. Chairman, presented seven areas of criticism and fundamental requirements concerning the federal government's Millennium Scholarship Fund. The first criticism was that this plan reflects a total misunderstanding by the federal government of the historical and current reality of Quebec.

I'll come back to each of these points subsequently because I believe that each must be covered a little more explicitly.

The second criticism by these organizations was presented unanimously: this proposal would inevitably lead to duplication and overlapping of what we have been doing for over 30 and even 40 years in some areas of education in Quebec. This is an example of total interference in education, which is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.,

• 1020

As regards the third criticism, all 14 groups made this point and stated that, contrary to the claims by the Prime Minister and the Liberals, this is not an attempt to achieve equality of access to education, far from it.

The fourth criticism levelled by these organizations: this is not a response to the student debt load problem.

Fifth criticism: this is not a way of meeting the real needs of education in Quebec.

Sixth criticism: in Quebec the criterion of need is far more important than that of merit. At the present time in Quebec, we need to help students to get through their education, not to award them merit-based scholarships, which already exist. We have a system of awards for excellence in Quebec.

Seventh criticism: this also is fundamental, and it was discussed yesterday when the Auditor General appeared here. There is a technical defect in this bill as regards the accounting of the money allocated for the Millennium Scholarship Fund. It's not logical to attribute to the 1997-1998 fiscal year the $2.5 billion which will be spent only as of the year 2000. That's not the usual way of proceeding. Even yesterday, the Auditor General explained to the committee why such a procedure was not normal.

Mr. Chairman, how is it given the seven points which were made in criticism of the proposal, nothing has changed over the past three weeks, whereas we have prepared amendments with all the thoroughness and sense of responsibility shown by the Bloc Québécois since the first day it was elected in 1993, and we tabled those amendments to reflect the criticism, including the positive criticism, which had been made? Why is it that you, on your side, you have not shown the slightest movement following these presentations? You couldn't care less about the consensus in Quebec to completely reject these Millennium scholarships. I really wonder about that, Mr. Chairman.

As regards the first criticism, the representatives of organizations told us that the Millennium scholarship plan reflected total misunderstanding of the reality of Quebec. I would just like to quote the statement by the FTQ concerning Bill C-36. This bill:

...illustrates the ignorance by the Canadian government of the Quebec loans and scholarships system and the priorities of Quebec in the area of education.

I would also quote Mr. Reginald Lavertu, President of the Fédération des cégeps, representing 48 such colleges in Quebec. What he has to say must be taken seriously. He stated:

Bill C-36 fails completely to take into account what Quebec has achieved in the past 30 years as regards financial assistance to students.

Mr. Chairman, this is symptomatic. When a representative of 48 cégeps colleges in Quebec states that the government doesn't know the history of Quebec, its needs and current structures, I believe it is a problem. As members of the Liberal majority, you should have been listening to that criticism.

There is also a very important third statement which, in my view, should be quoted.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, you mentioned seven points. I missed your fifth. Which one was that?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'd like to come back to the first point in the criticism made, which deals with the misunderstanding of Quebec reality, and I will then discuss what the witnesses told us regarding duplication and interference. For the moment, I will talk about the first of the seven points of criticism.

[English]

The Chairman: So you'll get to five eventually. Okay. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Is that all right? Mr. Chairman, are you able to follow? I'll try and speak more slowly so as to make things easier for the interpreters.

The Coalition of former Quebec students leaders includes important former leaders of the past 11 years, if my memory is correct, who have influenced the history and evolution of education during the past decade. It has made the same criticism about the federal government's ignorance of Quebec reality. I would like to quote from the brief they have submitted:

With its Millennium Scholarships, the federal government is showing its ignorance and incompetence in the area of education.

Mr. Chairman, these are not minor points of criticism and they do not come from people unfamiliar with the education sector, ignorant of history, or uninvolved in the history and positive evolution of education over the past 10 years. These are former student leaders who have come together to address a threat from the federal governments against the exclusive jurisdiction and prerogative in the area of education which have been so jealously preserved over the past 30 years.

• 1025

As regards duplication and total interference, I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that as is the case today some liberal colleagues were not listening when witnesses appeared and spoke. The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec stated in this regard:

Why duplicate structures? Money is being wasted for no reason.

My colleague from Quebec City and my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques also mentioned earlier that the administration cost for these Millennium scholarships, which amount to approximately 5% of the value of scholarships awarded, are twice as high as Quebec's administration costs, which means that 1000 scholarships a year which could be going to students are sacrificed.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to quote on the subject of duplication and interference, an excerpt from a submission by the Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec. This is what was said not by the Parti Québécois or by the Bloc Québécois, but by the Quebec Manufacturers and Exporters Alliance, a major player in the Quebec economy and the social sector. Their submission stated:

Duplication must be avoided and the existing provincial structures used.

It seems to me that this matter or duplication and interference could not be stated more clearly. Those were just a few excerpts from the submissions, but 14 organizations told us the same thing and they are now part of the coalition because they find that this initiative constitutes an extraordinary attack on Quebec's history and the current reality where education is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, John Trent from the University of Ottawa also appeared. I am always pleased to quote him because he said some critical things about the sovereigntist movement, but even John Trent, who is certainly not sovereigntist and who has no real love for either the Bloc Québécois or the Parti Québécois, told the committee:

...the Fund [...] will inevitably lead to federal-provincial duplication and to an overlap in already existing programs. "It" will compete directly with the Quebec Loans and Bursaries Program, that a number of people consider to be better.

Mr. Chairman, when John Trent takes Quebec side, that should send quite a clear signal.

Let us talk now about the third criticism, Mr. Chairman. Most of the organizations told us that, in contrast to what the federal government is claiming, the Millennium Scholarship Fund will not promote equal opportunity. I would like to quote a union that is knowledgeable about education and about the struggle for equal opportunity, the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec. I will quote their submission, Mr. Chairman, about equal opportunity and the creation of a private foundation:

The creation of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation is not the right way to provide easier access to university education for young Quebeckers.

The submission also states

The Minister of Finance is discovering today that "People from low- income families are underrepresented in our post-secondary institutions." Quebec has known that for a very long time, which is why it has the most advanced system of loans and bursaries in Canada.

It seems to me that, here again, there are clear messages that you should keep in mind. As Mr. Riis said so well a little earlier, there should have been some amendments to this proposal, which is completely unacceptable for Quebeckers.

The fourth criticism was made by everyone of the 14 organizations. There will be three other points of criticism, Mr. Chairman, just to let you know where I am in my argumentation. The committee was told that the Millennium scholarships were not a response to the student debt load problem. The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec was very clear about that:

Student debt load is a problem, but the Millennium scholarships are not a solution.

The CSN added:

Student indebtedness is a problem but is less important than the operational problems of cégeps and universities.

That is a fact, Mr. Chairman, that we also have to take into account. It is clear that student debt is a problem in Quebec, but compared to the rest of Canada, the debt levels are about half of what they are in the other provinces. I am not saying that the concern about debt is not important, but it is much more important in the rest of Canada than it is in Quebec. In that regard, Mr. Chairman, we have always been very respectful of the needs of the rest of Canada. We have never said that the Millennium Scholarship Fund should disappear completely. If it meets a need in Canada and deals with a student debt problem in Canada, go ahead. But we have a right to opt out with compensation, a right that was recognized historically at the Quebec Conference in 1964.

• 1030

The fifth criticism levelled by the 14 organizations which appeared before the committee is that the Millennium Scholarship Fund does not address the real problems of education in Quebec. Mr. Chairman, the real problem was expressed to a large degree by the Fédération nationale des enseignantes et des enseignants du Québec, which is a member of the CNTU. They stated in their brief:

Large cuts have been made in Quebec to the structures of colleges and universities. The only way of resolving this would be for the federal government to give back to the provinces the amounts cut from transfer payments, not to create Millennium scholarships.

Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the House certain facts have been concealed since the beginning of the debate. However, we have made a point of taking every opportunity over the past four years, and particularly since the 1995 budget tabled by the Honourable Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, to remind people of the draconian cuts made to social programs and education as a result of the Canada Social Transfer we are discussing.

These transfer payments, which are used to finance payments in the area of welfare, higher education and health, have been so severely cut that the education and health sectors of Canada as a whole, and particularly Quebec, have been hard hit. Since 1995, in Quebec alone, there have been cuts to the Canada Social Transfer of $11 billion, $7 billion of which was in the area of health, $3 billion in education and $1 billion in social assistance.

Mr. Chairman, you can't carry out grabs of that size without hitting social and education programs. That is basically the message given to us by the Fédération nationale des enseignantes et des enseignants du Québec. It's quite hypocritical—and this was indicated in the 14 briefs submitted to us—for the federal government to claim to be helping students and the education sector in the provinces and to say that it wants to improve the situation, while at the same time being responsible for the chaos in health and in education, which is the subject of concern to us at the moment.

The sixth criticism deals with the merit aspect of the Millennium scholarships. We have nothing against merit. In some cases, it's a good thing. But as regards the Millennium scholarships, assistance to students and the needs of Quebec, we should put to one side the merit principle, which was heavily and unanimously criticized by the 14 organizations which appeared before the Finance Committee, and adopt instead the criterion of need when deciding whether or not to intervene in education in Quebec.

At the present time, Mr. Chairman, if we are committed to equal opportunity and improving the situation of students, it must be recognized that students have needs which are not met by the merit principle of the Millennium scholarships. Mr. Chairman, it's not on the basis of the merit principle that we will really be able to help those students in their greatest needs who want us to improve the quality of access to higher education.

Seventh criticism. Yesterday, I was happy, perhaps not as much as you or perhaps more than you, to welcome the Auditor General here as a witness. For what I think must have been the twentieth time, he criticized the accounting methods used by the federal government, particularly as regards the constitution of the $2.5 billion comprising the Millennium Scholarship Fund.

• 1035

It is abnormal that the amount of $2.5 billion for the operation of the Millennium scholarships be included in the financial statements of the 1997-1998 fiscal year, given that, according to the bill, the Foundation will only be paying out scholarships in the year 2000.

Yesterday, the Auditor General was saying that this challenged the credibility of the government's financial statements and that when a number of actions of this type increase, it became impossible to understand the statements. I would remind you that this is the third such action taken by the federal government, the third time the Minister of Finance has manipulated the financial statements in the last three years. This is not normal, Mr. Chairman.

We should remember that in the negotiations about harmonizing the GST and the provincial sales tax involving the three Maritime provinces and the federal government, the latter had not yet even signed the agreement, which was only to come into effect one year after its signature, and it was already allocating slightly less than $1 billion to the 1996 fiscal year. Compensation to the Maritime provinces was only supposed to take place a year and a half later. The Auditor General denounced this way of playing with the figures in the financial statements.

A second such action occurred in the case of Canadian Innovation Foundation. Here again, the Minister of Finance had assigned the first injection of funds for this project to the expenditures of the previous year's financial statements. He had entered the total amount, which was not to be paid out until one year later.

Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to play around with the financial statements in this way. We have become accustomed to it, because in the last four years, the Minister of Finance has been showing a complete lack of responsibility in the figures he has used. I remember very well that in February 1997, the Minister of Finance expected a deficit of some $19 billion. We told him that it made no sense to forecast a deficit of this size, because, according to our own forecast, the deficit would probably not exceed $10 billion. But he maintained the figure of $19 billion and told us that our calculations were completely ridiculous.

Mr. Chairman, six months later, the Minister of Finance announced that the deficit would be about $9 billion. That was about what we had forecast six months earlier. If we managed to make this forecast with the resources available to us, the Minister of Finance, with his countless officials in his own department and in the Department of Revenue, could probably have come up with the same figure.

The Minister of Finance is knowingly playing with the figures. Manipulating the estimates or the financial statements is totally unacceptable, and that is what the Minister of Finance is doing at the moment. When you raise this issue with accountants and tax experts from other countries, including Commonwealth countries, some of whom I have met, they say that it makes no sense to proceed in this way. If other countries were to follow the example of the Minister of Finance, they would be criticized by their Auditor General. I tell them that the situation has already occurred in our country, and not once, but three times, Mr. Chairman.

Moreover, when Mr. Walter Robinson of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation appeared before the committee, he said, regarding the fact that the Minister of Finance had included the $2.5 billion in the 1997-1998 fiscal statements, "that shows contempt for accounting standards."

When we look at all this, Mr. Chairman, when we look at the broad consensus we heard from the witnesses from Quebec and even a number from the rest of Canada—who said that in the area of education, particularly with the Millennium scholarships, Quebec should be treated differently from the way in which you see the federal government's role in education elsewhere in Canada—we have to conclude that there is a real, fundamental problem in this case. We are dealing with this issue energetically, and that explains our vigourous interventions on the subject. I don't think you will hold that against us, because this is something that is first and foremost part of our history, namely, this close relationship between Quebeckers and their educational system.

• 1040

This is an area on which we are constantly fighting battles in Quebec. As soon as the federal government suggested that it might intervene in the area of education, including scholarships and loans to students, there was an outcry in Quebec against the federal government's plans.

It is important to look back at our history not just at tax and economic considerations. I'm often very surprised that convinced federalists like yourselves often know very little about the history of Canadian federalism. In the last three of four years I have had an opportunity to see that very few federalist MPs are familiar with the Rowell-Sirois Report, which was written around the end of the 1940's at the end of the war, and was supposed to redefine the financial aspects of federalism and the economic initiatives of the federal government. They are not familiar with the very basis of the financial aspects of federalism and economic initiatives on the part of the federal government.

I have come to realize that the situation is even worse in the area of education. In the past three weeks, we have had an opportunity to hear the reactions of Ms. Torsney, Mr. Valeri, Ms. Redman, Mr. Assad and Mr. Pillitteri. Their reactions may not be based on ill will or nastiness, but I sometimes get the impression that they do not know much about history. Perhaps it is the duty of all members of Parliament, before discussing an issue and taking a stand on it, to study the history, particularly the history of relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada in an area that the Constitution recognizes as the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.

Mr. Chairman, for the first time or for one of the few times, at least, the Bloc Québécois wants people to comply with the Canadian Constitution with some determination. That is a document you forced down our throats in 1982, and now you are opposed to what we want. We don't understand. That is even more illogical than the constitutional debate that has been going on between Quebec and the federal government for so many years.

Let us look at some of the dates that are important to all of us in trying to assess the appropriateness of a fund such as the Millennium Scholarship Fund for Quebec. Let us think back to 1953, when the federal government suggested direct subsidies to universities. That very year, Quebec blocked this federal government plan and used the spirit and letter of the Constitution which stated that education was an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In 1964, under Mr. Pearson, the federal government made another attempt and suggested that it would provide students loans. Once again, there was an outcry in Quebec, but this happened at the right time, because Mr. Lesage's government had asked for and obtained a federal-provincial conference in Quebec City in March or April 1964. Messrs. Pearson and Lesage had an opportunity at that time to have some rather revealing discussions.

I would like people to listen, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that during the hearings, some members of Parliament and staff members did not listen to the presentations. Perhaps that explains the misunderstanding and the fact that the members of the government party have not presented any amendments. Could we ask Mr. Valeri to hold his meeting a little further away, outside the room?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Sometimes what happens is that members of Parliament have heard the points so many times they perhaps may already know them. But by all means, please, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You will agree, Mr. Chairman, that this is an important and interesting demonstration.

[English]

The Chairman: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: As I was saying, the 1964 constitutional conference in Quebec City, involving Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage, the liberal premier of Quebec at the time, was a significant time in the history of relations between the Quebec and federal governments regarding Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in the area of education.

• 1045

If we have an opportunity to come back to this matter in the next few days, I will show government members and members from all the other parties an historic photo that appeared in the Globe and Mail three years ago. I got a copy of this photo showing Messrs. Lesage and Pearson going into this historic conference. They did not look very pleased at that time. I was told that there is no photo of them leaving the conference, but those who were there saw some fairly broad smiles at the end of it, because things had worked out very well. Mr. Pearson, unlike Mr. Chrétien—even though Mr. Chrétien is an experienced politician who should know Quebec, because he claims to be a "pure laine" Quebec MP and has always represented Quebec—understood, 30 years ago, that education is the cornerstone of a people's future. And to the extent that Quebec is a people—and no one doubts that—we intend to protect this cornerstone, to defend it and to fight to jealously preserve our prerogative in the field of education.

In his wisdom, Mr. Pearson wrote the following in a telegram to Mr. Lesage regarding the planned student loan program:

If a province prefers to have its own loan program, it may receive equivalent compensation.

What great wisdom on the part of Mr. Pearson, Mr. Chairman! What wisdom! We should have expected the same thing from Mr. Chrétien, particularly 30 years later. I think things have moved not in the opposite direction, but in a direction that makes us want to preserve this prerogative even more jealously than in the past.

Mr. Lesage, after receiving this telegram from Mr. Pearson, did not take long to decide that he would proceed immediately. As soon as Mr. Lesage received the telegram in 1964, his officials went into action and Quebec elected to opt out with compensation, as provided in section 12 of the federal legislation.

I would like to point out that this constitutional conference was historic in a number of respects. However, I think it was historic chiefly because it fostered a better understanding between the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, and the Quebec Premier, Mr. Jean Lesage. It is rather sad to see that 30 years later, all of this has been spoiled. The understanding at that time had allowed two peoples to come closer together, to understand each other and to get to know each other a little better. Unfortunately, there is no one like Mr. Pearson in the federal government today, and we have to deal with aberrations like the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Fund, which runs completely counter to the trends of history, to what we are and to what we want to become in Quebec. I don't think we can let such a thing happen. Moreover, in the history of relations between Quebec and the federal government we've rarely seen both the Premier and the Minister of Education take the trouble to come to make representations to the federal government, as they did less than a month ago. This shows how serious the situation was.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the people in the room who want to have a party or meet in small groups to go outside to do so, because their actions are getting on my nerves and interfering with my privileges as a member of Parliament. Privileges are meant to be respected, and if some people do not want to do so, they should simply leave the room and come back when they are ready to be quiet. Could you do something about this, Mr. Chairman, so that I may proceed with my presentation?

[English]

The Chairman: I agree with Mr. Loubier. Can we kindly quiet down so we can hear Mr. Loubier's speech?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: If someone would like to speak, I would be pleased to turn the floor over to him and to consider that a large aside to my remarks.

[English]

The Chairman: There is no lack of words here today.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: When we talk about the consensus that exists in Quebec about education, you will understand that these are not just empty words. Members on the other side of the House may say whatever they like about the 14 organizations that appear before the committee. Like my colleague from Quebec City and my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I heard a lot of unkind remarks to the effect that the witnesses were Bloc witnesses and were separatists. That shows a complete lack of respect. That is something I heard quite often since we started hearing from witnesses .

I would remind you, and this does not sit too well with the government members, that the Quebec Liberal Party supports our demands about the Millennium scholarships.

• 1050

Since the beginning of history, Quebec liberals, followed by successive PQ governments, have fought to maintain education as an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So this is not partisan in nature, and I hope that some day the members on the other side of the House will understand this. I also hope this will be understood in the context of the overall debate on Quebec. These are not whims, as the Prime Minister of Canada stated in speaking about manpower training. These are not whims and this is not an existential crisis. This debate is not fed by the separatists, it is something fundamental. If there were some Quebec federalists here rather than sovereigntists—which we will always remain—I think they would tell you the same thing.

I was listening to Liberal MLAS who were talking about education and our prerogatives, and I saw that they were saying the same thing as we were. We could have been in their place for a few seconds—not too long, of course—but we could have been in their place. So this is something fundamental, something that comes from our guts and from our desire to be recognized as a people for our history, and for the great men of history, such as Mr. Pearson, Mr. Lévesque and others.

Those are the main points of the message I wanted to convey. There are other points we could come back to during the debate, and which I would be pleased to come back to. These are points about history and also some technical details regarding the bill. I'm sure, given your great understanding, you will give us another opportunity to talk about some matters that may not have been discussed in the last half hour. I would be pleased to come back at that time and to bring a copy of the historic photograph of Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage.

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to ask for the floor, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Monsieur Crête, do you have further comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, before you begin your comments, as chair of the committee I would like to express to the Bloc Québécois my sincerest gratitude for restating, reviewing, and recapping many of the points that have been raised throughout these hearings. This exercise has been, so far, very useful.

I hope, though, that we will not engage in a continuous repetition of the same points, because I think that's part of civilized debates. We need to hear your points of view, as I hope other people will state their points of view quite openly. But I of course have noted many of the points, and it's very consistent with your line of questioning and indeed your comments throughout the debate.

So, Mr. Crête, if you can keep that in mind as you begin to make your remarks....

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, I would like to add some new points, which I do not think have been raised yet. I would like to comment on the suggestion you made, however. I think the liberal majority should take that into account.

You said that the Bloc Québécois had provided a good summary of the arguments that had been presented, an interesting analysis, that there may have been some points that should be considered and that probably the liberal majority could benefit from that information to prepare some amendments if they do consider these points relevant.

I would like to come back to the substance of my motion and provide some additional arguments. As a member of Parliament, why am I calling for the withdrawal of the bill? We spent a great deal of time listening to witnesses, and I can tell you that the bill assumes that we all share the same objective, namely the best student financial assistance system possible, both for Quebeckers and Canadians.

You heard representations from all types of people, particularly from representatives of Canadian student federations, and they told you that Quebec had the best system at the moment.

But in order to have the best system in Canada—and this is why I have asked that the bill be withdrawn—we must ensure that the bill gives all students in Canada the best possible system.

• 1055

However, there is an important variable that is not on the table, namely, what is going to happen to the power that has been delegated to Quebec.

I would like to draw your attention to this example, which is a new point. Clause 31 of the bill states:

31.(1) The total amount any person may receive as scholarships is $15,000.

This contradicts the Quebec system. If there is no agreement between Quebec and Canada on the Millennium scholarships, we will be in a state of confusion, because the bill does not define the word "scholarship", for example. Consequently, this applies to all scholarships. In Quebec, we have legislation that states that the maximum varies according to financial need, and may in some cases reach $17,000 or $18,000. However, clause 31 states that the maximum is to be $15,000. Consequently, until we know the results of the negotiations between Quebec and Canada on this matter, we cannot proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Let me give you another example—subclause 27(2) of the bill. It refers to the concept of merit, even if the student in question is not in financial need. That is a very new point, which is not implemented in Quebec at all. It is not implemented in the Canadian program either, but under the bill, there will be scholarships on the basis of merit, without necessarily any financial need. This situation applies to 5% of the candidates, probably people doing graduate and post-graduate work, and perhaps some rather unique situations. However, it incorporates into the Canadian loans and scholarships system a new feature which is not part of the Quebec system. Once again, this example demonstrates that we cannot vote on this clause until we know the results of the negotiations. Whether the results are positive or negative, we must know what they are.

Clause 43 talks about the dissolution of the Foundation. It states that at that time the moneys shall be distributed proportionally among the all educational institutions whose students obtained scholarships. It is not certain that all this would be the right approach for the Quebec government. It is my impression that in the current negotiations between Quebec and Canada, it will be suggested that on dissolution the portion of the funds which corresponds to Quebec students, be given to Quebeckers. That is another point which, in our view, cannot be settled until we know how the negotiations turn out.

What is my other reason for calling for the withdrawal of the bill? I put myself in the position of a Canadian federalist, that is someone who wants Canada to be a country, to have the Constitution respected, and I ask myself how we are to go about having a Constitution respected without getting ourselves into some terribly complicated situation. I think that one of our responsibilities as members of Parliament, before voting for legislation or studying it in detail, is to ensure that it will not add to society's legal burden, which is already heavy enough. I think there are rather too many references to the Supreme Court.

So what should be included in this bill to ensure that it complies with the Canadian Constitution? I'm very surprised there are no amendments from the Liberals to take this fact into account. This is another reason why we, in the Bloc Québécois, cannot proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill today. We don't know enough about the negotiations yet. And we don't have enough guarantees about the constitutional aspects. Moreover, we have been told that negotiations are continuing.

However, we learned something new: yesterday evening Ms. Marois, the Quebec Minister of Education, and Mr. Pettigrew discussed the issue of the Millennium scholarships and the way in which the negotiations were proceeding, I was not present, and I have not had any details about the negotiations, but if the matter got to the ministers' level, that is either because things are going well and that negotiations will produce a result, or it means that the negotiations are not going anywhere and that another approach will have to be found. Either one of the parties will decide to end the negotiations, or they will decide to find some common ground. In view of this, I don't think it makes much sense to ask us to vote on the clauses of this bill today, because at any time, they could be changed as a result of these negotiations. I think we have enough time to wait until we get the results of the negotiations.

• 1100

I would like to repeat the request we made before. Perhaps we could find out about the state of the negotiations during question period, given that we weren't able to meet with the negotiator, Mr. Cappe.

I could understand that the Canadian government would not want the negotiator to appear before the committee until the negotiations are over. That may be what the Canadian government has decided. However, in that case, it must accept that members of Parliament be able to exercise their rights and not be treated as puppets. We must have an opportunity to vote on amendments to a bill which is very real.

We must not live with our heads in the clouds. We are not on Mars. This is the federal Parliament of Canada. We must have some assurances about what we will be voting on in the end. I don't think anyone here is interested in seeing a new bill that would include the results of the negotiations between Canada and Quebec, on June 2, 3 or 5.

By that time, Parliament would have voted for a bill, the government would have started distributing information throughout the country about the Foundation and its role, and then, all of the sudden, one month and a half later, the whole machine would grind to a halt and people would be told that since there had been an agreement between Quebec and Canada, all the advertising and brochures were now inaccurate. People would be told to apply to Quebec and that the funds would be transferred from the federal government to the province.

Another major legal mess could also happen. If we vote to establish the Foundation as proposed today, and then another proposal comes along and changes its mandate, in the meantime, the Foundation would have existed and would have been entitled to administer the provisions of the bill. We have no idea whatsoever where all of this could lead.

As a result, it would make perfect sense to set the bill aside until we know how the negotiations turn out. When we come back, we could take into account the testimony we heard and the results of the negotiations, and pass a bill that would be totally satisfactory. At least, we could vote on a bill that we would have debated knowing all the facts, even though we, in the opposition parties, would not necessarily be satisfied in all respects. It would be preferable to proceed in this way.

I also think we might ask why so much importance is attached to this kind of exchange. If we were a unitary country and there were a single Canadian loans program that we wished to improve by setting up a system of loans and scholarships... As a matter of fact, that is a choice that the Canadian government could have made. It could have decided, instead of enacting new legislation to create a foundation, to amend the existing Federal Student Loans Act and include scholarships. That is the major element, the one at the very heart of the Bill.

Instead, it was decided to set up a completely different structure and we, members of Parliament, must ask ourselves why this is being done. We must ask ourselves what caused the government to make this choice. Our response in the Bloc Québécois, and if the Liberals have a different view they can make it known, is that Quebec would then have been able to exercise its right to opt out. The present Act relating to loans and scholarships does provide that a province may opt out if it wishes to do so.

In my opinion, all this window dressing, the entire structure that is being set up is an attempt to camouflage the fundamental aspect of the Bill, namely the matter of the Foundation. How can we vote on clause-by-clause today? There is a fundamental aspect, that is the structure of the Foundation, that we do not yet know anything about. First of all, we do not know whether it will apply as such to Quebec and at the same time, we do not know if the result of the negotiations with Quebec will have an impact somewhere else. It is quite possible that other provinces or territories might seek to develop their own loans and scholarship systems. There is already one territory that has done so. Others might be interested. So the ongoing negotiations with Quebec could have an effect on that.

• 1105

If we were to vote on the Bill today, it would be like selling a house before painting it, before furnishing it and adding those extra touches that would underline its appeal. In this respect, the Foundation as it is presented here, does create a problem.

It is important to realize that in the system between Quebec and Canada, a certain balance has been established. We cannot start meddling with the loans and scholarship structure without taking into account the entire method of funding the Quebec system, and the same is true for the Canadian network. It is important therefore to ensure that this balance is maintained.

How can we start interfering in this without knowing the result of the negotiations when this Bill displays a total lack of respect towards Quebec's priorities? There is a delicate balance between the level of tuition fees, the level of student debt load, the loans system and educational choices. All these elements are important to ensure that the Quebec system retains its balance.

So Bill C-36 does contain a number of potential impacts directly linked with the negotiations. Some progress has already been made by the government of Quebec and the representatives of the Quebec Coalition, namely a certain recognition of the Federal government's legitimate desire for some visibility with respect to the source of funds. Some opening has been shown in this respect and there may be interesting developments.

On the other hand, the other objectives may result in duplication, a failure to take into account priorities, unfairness and arbitrary decisions. In actual fact, we are in agreement about settling the problems of loans and scholarships and financial aid elsewhere in Canada. But when it comes to Quebec, the Federal government should not attempt to settle a problem that doesn't exist. In the Canadian provinces, there is no substantial scholarship system nor an efficient structure. We can understand this. But in Quebec, it does exist.

There is no reason for Quebec to opt out of its present system or of a federal initiative that is not yet in existence. As we see it, the federal government should avoid taking an initiative in Quebec that would result in duplication and impacts going against the priorities of Quebec post-secondary education.

The federal government comes at a time when the situation in Quebec is radically different from that in Canadian provinces. All these reasons add to the argument that we are presenting today to abandon the Bill in the present context. It is not because the Canadian student loan system cannot be improved.

We are now at a stage where we cannot take a single step without knowing the results of the ongoing negotiations. It boils down to one of two things: either the Foundation will reproduce the priorities, choices and processes of the Quebec post-secondary education system or else the Foundation will establish its priorities, choices and processes as opposed to those of Quebec. In the latter case, this would constitute a hindrance to the achievement of Quebec's objectives.

Those are the two possibilities we are faced with. That is what the negotiators are examining. The two parties are meeting with each other. The position of the government of Quebec is that if the Foundation does not go against its priorities and allows it to respect its jurisdiction, it is willing to examine how such an undertaking would operate. The federal government, for its part, could say that if its visibility is indeed sufficiently guaranteed, then it would be willing to allow the criteria of Quebec. That is the present stage of the negotiations. Those are the two elements that we can see just below the surface in all the clauses making up Part 1 of the Bill. Each of the clauses relating to the Foundation brings up the issue of negotiations with Quebec.

It would thus be absurd for us to start studying the Bill today when we could say that each of the clauses should be set aside until we have full information. When we are studying other bills, we often say that a particular clause requires further information or the opinion of the Auditor General or someone else. In this present case, we would have to say this for each of the clauses. We would have to keep bringing up the point that we do not know what the present stage of the negotiations is. There is always the question of whether a certain point should be added to the Bill.

• 1110

The Quebec Coalition made the following remark in its message after the appointment of the two negotiators. I would like the members, particularly the liberal ones, to pay attention to this because it is important. The Coalition said in reference to the bilateral negotiations:

The members of the Coalition wish to indicate their satisfaction and at the same time urge Canadian members of Parliament to support these negotiations by displaying the required openness and legislative flexibility.

In the light of this kind of statement, I can understand that the Quebec Coalition does expect a message from the liberal majority to the effect that the negotiations have made some progress and that it would be possible to amend the Bill. For example, it is now possible to amend clause 25 defining the right to grant scholarships.

If we were to hear this kind of message from the liberal majority here today, I think that we could consider the possibility of carrying out a clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. It would be quite different from the message we have heard so far to the effect that the Foundation is not able to delegate anything at all.

In short, the Coalition's message is that the legislator will be assessed on the sensitivity he displays relating to this negotiation. People will want to know whether an attempt has been made to predict the results and examine the contents. The message that we are sending here today is that we have given so little consideration to such matters that we want to bulldoze this Bill through in clause-by-clause study without even attempting to find out what the situation is.

No one here has received, at least publicly, a message from the negotiator, Mr. Mel Cappe, Deputy Minister responsible for Human Resources Development and spokesman for the federal government in the negotiations. He hasn't come to give any of us information on how the negotiations are proceeding and how certain clauses of the Bill might be amended unless some of you have some clarification to bring on this subject.

We've had no precedent for such a situation. Therefore, it seems to us that our motion is in order considering the circumstances and the present political context and should allow for such a debate. It should enable us to come up with a solution and decide what we have to do to take into account the results of the negotiations.

If we happen to be interviewed somewhere in Quebec tomorrow morning and we are asked our opinion on this, we would have to say that these negotiations are only for show, in part at least. One of the two parties is taking part with no real conviction. The proof is that the federal government agreed to hold such negotiations but is unwilling to take into account the results when it comes to taking the decisive legal act, that is adopting the Bill.

Even in the case of special legislation, when there are negotiations... Let me come back to the example of the postal legislation. While the debate was taking place in the House and elsewhere, there were parallel discussions between negotiators representing the employer, the unions and the government. This was reflected in the debate. If there was an agreement among the parties, everyone considered it to be a good thing. There was never any attempt to vote on the Bill without taking into account this specific reality.

Today that is what we are doing. We are faced with a Bill that is much less urgent. We are not talking about the interruption of public service. We are talking about the implementation of a system of grants and loans, of Millennium scholarships, under a federal system that will only come into effect for students in the year 2000. We must ensure that we do have the most accurate information possible as far as students are concerned.

I am very surprised to see the silence that rings among the liberal majority. I can understand that they may wish to see the debate conclude as soon as possible but that is not the way to solve the problem. The problem is solved by having a debate and by ensuring that the final content of the Bill is as appropriate as possible.

When we passed Bill C-44, the Canada Marine Act, we reflected on the matter, we had a debate, we made amendments and we negotiated. The end result, the Act, even though not perfect, is certainly far better than it was at the beginning. In the present situation, with the Bill we have before us and all the testimony we have heard from all sorts of people in Quebec... There were institutional witnesses, and I'd also like to remind you that we did hear from teachers, particularly Mr. Lemelin, who spoke as an individual and gave a very interesting demonstration. It was not the demonstration of a sovereigntist but rather of someone who was looking at the impact of this situation. That is the point we are making today. What will the impact of adopting this Act be when there is a good likelihood that it will have to be amended in the next month or month and half?

• 1115

Let us consider another possible scenario. What will happen if we pass a bill today and a month later, the federal government says, "Well, the negotiations are not succeeding; our bill has been passed and you have to live with the results"? If I were a Canadian federalist, I'd be looking right now at the impact of this kind of behaviour, not only on the Act for Financial Assistance to Students, but also on relations between Quebec and Canada as a whole.

Liberal members from other provinces are perhaps not aware of that because they do not know the details, but I should remind you that, when Quebec entered into the Canadian Constitution, it was given a constitutional guarantee regarding education. That was the basic principle whereby Quebec accepted joining the Confederation. It wanted to keep all its powers regarding education. At that time, we accepted to set aside powers which we would have really needed, but that one is a basic principle. It is something which allows no compromise. Quebec must absolutely keep its control over education. Financial assistance to Quebec students is a very important element of this.

During the past 34 years, at least five very large student movements have arisen. Students would say, "The Act in its present state is not to our liking. It must be amended. We will strike if necessary. We will act if necessary." Elections were called on this very question.

Let me remind you that last fall, there were demonstrations to prevent any increase in tuition fees in Quebec, and the government did what was needed to respond to this request. So, over the years, we have built a very water-tight model. There is still room for improvement, but this is the system we want. If you come bulldozing through, if you decide to go through the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill without taking this into account, you will not be pleased with the message that we will send out to our voters. As we return to our ridings, we will tell people, "At the federal level, we can never form a majority. We can never make our voice heard. We will never be more than 25% of the members and we will never get what we want." And here is yet another even more obvious example of this important thing. While transfer payments are cut, on the other hand, surplus money is being taken for purposes which are not those you want for your children in Quebec schools, in primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities.

As parliamentarians, you should reflect on this basic fact. Perhaps you should hold a few caucuses to find the key that might provide us with a solution.

Our motion requesting that the bill be dropped is, basically, a message we are sending to you, and an important message at that. Sometimes certain debates are of a more partisan nature. You could pretend that we do not speak for Quebec, but regarding this issue, no one can declare that we do not speak for Quebec. The present coalition is made up of all members from all the education networks, a broadly based group of organizations in the field of education. The strength of our position rests on our consensus.

If some groups from Quebec had proposed amendments requesting that the Foundation be enabled to do certain things, that the merit factor be played down or an integration of these scholarships into our system, our attitude would not be the same. We would not be able to come forward as a common front. But we can say now that we do speak for Quebec regarding this matter because every single sector of education is backing us.

If you feel the need to look into the testimony of witnesses who have not been identified with the sovereingntist movement, well, I invite you to see, for instance the representative of the Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec, who is from McGill. He is certainly not a supporter of the sovereigntist cause, but he knows how important it is for the Quebec education network to see the results of the negotiations. Moreover, Quebec federalists are setting high hopes on the present negotiations.

• 1120

We will see how the negotiations will develop. If I were a Quebec federalist, if I were Jean Charest, I would be telling the federal government today: "Take your time. Wait before ramming this down their throats. If you do this, I will be the one to pay for it in the end." This is a very important factor to consider, because we are dealing with politics. We must reflect the opinions of our fellow citizens.

We could draw an interesting parallel between this issue and the school boards matter. Regarding linguistic school boards, the federal government finally accepted the consensus that Quebec presented to it. In the school board issue, there was a small minority of people from Quebec who more or less agreed. I think that in the case of the Millennium scholarships, we have an even stronger consensus than was the case for the school boards. In the other matter the question of values was raised. It was all linked to religion and to many other factors. In the present case, there is nothing resembling that.

The suggestion to drop the bill, within the present situation, is not aimed at stopping the implementation or the adoption of budgetary measures. I have never said that we should not have a bill allowing implementation of the budget, but there are many factors on which the government should reflect. It could decide to go through the clause-by-clause consideration of a new bill. We could agree to split the bill. I've seen in the Standing Orders that this can be done. We could put the scholarships question on hold and study the other provisions of the bill. If we ever came to a debate of parliamentary procedure, I would be ready to join in.

We could simply delay the study of that part of the bill which deals with the Foundation, until the negotiations are over. In my mind, it's up to the Liberal majority to reflect on this. I would like the Liberal members to reflect on it with us, but if they would rather do it privately, let them take the time that is needed to discuss the matter and come back to us with some counterproposals.

If we had to choose between the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill without any information or withdrawing the bill, we would choose to withdraw the bill. Thus, we would in no way be betraying the existing consensus in Quebec.

No member of the Bloc Québécois, and I hope that this will also apply to Quebec members of the federal Parliament, will accept to go back to their riding after having accepted that. All members, from whatever party, be they? Conservatives or Liberal, will be unable to return to their ridings and ask their electors whether they were right in voting against that and in asking that the bill be considered even without the results of the negotiations. If they do that, people will sound the alarm. We have heard coalition members at the national level. In every riding, there are regional groups, local groups, and there are individuals who will tell: "You did not have to vote on the adoption of this bill"???

For the rector of the Université du Québec à Rimouski, which is a very small university in my region, the funding of his university is at stake. Imagine what would happen if we were to go home and say: "We did not find that it was all that bad. In any case, we accepted to vote even if the negotiations were not over. We agreed to lose our bargaining power". This is what is at stake. We can lose our bargaining power and we are not ready to accept that. In these negotiations, we are hanging on to our end of the rope for this reason, and you are very aware of it. And that is why we're telling you now that we are not yet ready to study the bill clause-by-clause. We are awaiting the results of the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa before deciding to speak out about this.

• 1125

I hope that these arguments will bring the Liberal majority to consider other avenues. This is a fine opportunity to put our heads together and try to come up together with a possible solution. No one wants to prevent the budget from being operational altogether. We might oppose some parts of it and propose some amendments, but certainly in the end, we all want to have an operational budget, as the State is responsible for it. But, given the present draft, the best way to show a sense of responsibility is to move that the project be dropped. This is the motion that we have tabled and for which, in my mind, we will be able to garner substantial support.

I appreciated the comments from the members of the NDP, of the Reform Party and of the Conservative Party. Given the numerous witnesses whom we have heard and all the proposals which we have received, it is surprising that the government would confess that it is not considering tabling any amendments, not at this stage nor at the report stage. They pretend to have achieved perfection here on earth and to have drafted the perfect bill, without even having met the witnesses. It is almost as if we had already created a perfect instrument for the work which will be done later, whereas witnesses have come forward to tell us that this was not the perfect tool.

Moreover, the Auditor General came yesterday to tell us that there is still much work to be done and many factors to consider.

Let us set aside the Millennium scholarships problem. We have heard presentations regarding employment insurance and various aspects of the bill. For instance, there are factors which remain to be studied regarding the education savings plan. There are other things we must look at.

So, the fact that there are no government amendments for this bill as a whole and that there are none to be expected, strengthens our position even more. Even though we are opposed to the Millennium scholarships, other parties might have reservations regarding the scholarships or other parts of the bill.

There is no way that we can consider reporting to the House before having decided on what is acceptable and before having gone through a proper clause-by-clause study of the bill. If, when our time expires, we come to the conclusion that we will not go through the bill clause by clause, we will have done a poor job as legislators. First of all, we must discuss when we will be ready to hold this debate, estimate when we will have the relevant information and then proceed to analyze the bill clause by clause. Contrary to the present position of the government, I am convinced that a good law is one which has been chewed over by the legislator, while taking into account the comments that have been made, and finally, the bill should stand the test of time. Often, amendments moved by various members can contribute to this.

I think that I have made an interesting case and I hope that the Liberal majority will reflect on this matter. I invite other members to participate in this debate if they think that they have further elements to add.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Crête. Madame Picard's not a member.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Ms. Picard is an alternate member.

[English]

The Chairman: No, she's not.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): I am an associate member.

[English]

The Chairman: So we'll have to move to—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I had asked you for the floor, Mr. Chairman. My colleague is an associate member and she can take the floor.

[English]

The Chairman: Can you please quiet down? I can't hear the clerk, and she's right beside me.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I will yield the floor to my colleague from Drummond, for a few minutes.

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, that's it. Ms. Picard is replacing Mr. Loubier.

[English]

The Chairman: Substituting for Mr. Loubier is Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have come here because I hope that the Finance Committee will take seriously the motion which was tabled before you this morning. The Bloc's motion reads as follows:

• 1130

That Bill C-36, an Act to implement certain provisions of the Budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be abandoned.

For the last few minutes, my colleagues have been asking you why you want to proceed so quickly with the study of the bill when we know, in Quebec, that this bill is a part of ongoing negotiations and that we might have to amend it if we adopt it too rapidly. So we would not be serious if we wanted at this time to go forward so quickly. Why not let the negotiations run their course and give the government the chance to show how serious the situation is?

If we go ahead so rapidly to set up the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the Foundation will not have all the necessary powers to deal with these negotiations. After all this work, all the witnesses we have heard and questioned, we should really take Bill C-36 seriously and not rush it through on the sly.

I really wonder what the basic reason is for wanting to go ahead so fast. I just heard my colleague Mr. Loubier saying that some Liberals were not taking the Quebec witnesses seriously as they appeared before the committee to give their opinion on the bill and especially on the Millennium scholarships. I am very surprised at the way that the witnesses were treated because they are very important people working in the Quebec educational system. Among these witnesses, there were 14 student federations representing 1.3 million people. There was also the business sector representing 89,000 SME managers. I am therefore very surprised to hear that these people are not serious and that they're just a bunch of separatists. We think that the rest of Canada also has that point of view. It seems to us that this is the anglophone perception of Quebec. They consider us merely as a gang of so and so who have come before the committee to blather pointlessly.

Allow me to quote the list of Quebec witnesses. There was l'Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec, the CEQ, the FTQ, the Fédération étudiante et collégiale du Québec, the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec, the CSN, the Fédération québécoise des professionnels et professionnelles salarié(e)s et des cadres du Québec, the Fédération des employés des services publics de la CSN, the Fédération nationale des enseignants et des enseignantes du Québec de la CSN, there was professor Clément Lemelin from l'Université du Québec à Montréal, the Fédération des associations étudiantes universitaires québécoises à l'éducation permanente, the Fédération des cégeps, the Coalition des anciens leaders étudiants québécois and the Fédération québécoise des professeurs et professeures d'université.

If you do not know what the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec is or the CEQ, I will tell you. The CEQ represents around 130,000 members, and 93,000 of them are members of the professional teaching personnel and of the educational support staff. It has among its members about 240 affiliated unions, divided into 12 zones or federations. CEQ members work at more than 350 types of jobs, at every level of the education system, as well as in fields such as educational care, health and social services, recreation, culture and communications. The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the FTQ, is the largest labour confederation in Quebec. It represents nearly 480,000 members working in every field of activity, and in Quebec it includes the members of unions affiliated to the Canadian Labour Congress.

• 1135

There was also the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, with over 245,000 members, 45,000 of whom work in the field of education. In this field, 25,000 persons are working at the college and university levels as support staff, technicians, professionals, teachers, lecturers and professors. The other members of the CSN, are found all over the territory of Quebec, working in various fields such as paper mills, hospitals, metallurgy, hotels, communications, construction and other public services.

The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec has more than 90,000 students at the college university prep and technical levels, covering more than a dozen regions in Quebec and including 48 cegeps.

The Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec includes more than a 135,000 students, at the three university levels, from all the regions of Quebec.

The Fédération des associations étudiantes universitaires québécoises à l'éducation permanente has around 35,000 members. Most of these members are adults who are holding down a job and studying part-time. Seventy per cent of the clients are women, which means 52 per cent of the population.

The Fédération canadienne de l'entreprise indépendante, a non- partisan and non-profit organization, covers every sector and every region. It represents 89,000 small- and medium-size company directors and visits SMEs 3,000 times per week.

This could mean that the depositions of all these people who came here have been in vain. These people came to tell us that it makes no sense to introduce Millennium scholarships without taking heed of the education system which Quebec has been building for the last 34 years, and which is recognized all over Canada as the best education system. They say that those people are merely separatists and that their opinions bear no weight.

I am sorry, but I really feel insulted. I have never heard anything as frightening as this downgrading of Quebec witnesses, who have come to speak for the majority of the Quebec population and to say that imposing a Millennium scholarship system on us made no sense at all. We demand our right to compensation.

I must say, in order to truly corroborate the testimony of the groups who came forward to request the withdrawal of the provision in Bill C-36 which creates Millennium scholarships, what the witnesses themselves thought of it.

I will quote what was said by the groups. The FTQ said that the project, as drafted in Bill C-36:

...illustrates the Canadian government's poor knowledge of the Quebec system of loans and bursaries and of Quebec's priorities in the field of education.

Bill C-36 completely ignores what Quebec has accomplished over the last 30 years in the way of financial aid for students.

These statements were made by Réginald Lavertu, the President of the Fédération des cégeps, which includes 48 colleges in Quebec.

We also heard the Coalition des anciens leaders étudiants québécois who told us, and I quote:

With its Millennium scholarships, the federal government has demonstrated its ignorance and its incompetence when it comes to education.

And the FECQ spoke about redundancy and interference:

Why should we have redundant structures, and waste money needlessly?

The Alliance des manufacturiers et des exportateurs du Québec said:

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

Why should there be no interference? Because Quebec is doing a good job, but also, to quote the CSN:

Because education is one of the most basic activities of citizens, individuals and persons.

It also emphasizes:

Because education is a tool for developing national identity.

It also says:

Collective rights are recognized by the Constitution. Education is not to be trifled with; in the history of a nation, it is a basic driving force.

Even a federalist like John Trent, from the University of Ottawa, came forward to say:

...the Fund [...] will unavoidably involve federal-provincial duplication and the overlap of already existing programs. (It) is in direct competition with the Quebec program of loans and grants, which many consider to be superior.

• 1140

Mr. Chairman, there is also the CEQ, the main labour confederation in the educational field in Quebec, which stated:

The implementation of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation is not the right way to improve equal access to university for Quebec youth.

The Finance Minister has now discovered that "members of low income family are underrepresented in institutions of higher learning." Quebec has known this fact for a very long time; and it is moreover for this reason that it has the most highly developed system of loans and bursaries in Canada.

David Stager from the University of Toronto said:

This is it not the best method for creating greater access to post- secondary education.

Intervenors as a whole are concerned with the lack of transparency of the Foundation itself. The main concern that was raised has to do with the appointment of six members by the government. Will these members have any real knowledge of the needs and priorities of students? This is too broad a mandate to give to a board of directors. A private foundation managing public funds on the order of $2.5 billion, is truly unbelievable!

Student debt was also mentioned.

Student debt is a problem but the Millennium Scholarships do not provide a solution.

The FECQ said this and also added that it would not be the case if the money were handed over to Quebec.

The CSN said:

Student debt is a problem but of lesser importance than the operational problems of cegeps and universities.

Liberals will try anything to suggest that we consider that there is no problem with debt in Quebec. Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost all the intervenors recognized this problem, but they also recognized that awarding scholarships for excellence is not a solution to this problem.

The CSN mentioned some real problems with education in Quebec:

Serious cuts were made in Quebec to the structures of colleges and universities. The only way out of this would be for the federal government to hand back to the provinces the sums which were cut from the transfer payments and not create Millennium Scholarships.

This was also said by Hélène Boileau from the Fédération nationale des enseignantes et des enseignants du Québec of the CSN.

Let us talk about youth. Eric Morin from the Comité des jeunes de la CSN came forward to say that our students need a structured framework of guidance in their schools and that "the Millennium Scholarships are not addressing the problem".

Practically all the intervenors from Quebec said the same thing. They spoke about the causes of the deterioration of the Quebec system:

The budgetary and fiscal decisions of the federal government contributed directly, over the past years, to the deterioration of conditions for students, as well as of public education systems under the provincial mandate.

This happened especially when the Canadian Social Transfer Payments were cut. This is what Bernard Normand said, as General Director of the Canadian Institute for Adult Education.

Mr. Clément Lemelin, from the Université du Québec à Montréal, said regarding the deterioration of the system:

The series of measures found in the most recent budget might unfortunately undermine the line of action of the provinces.

The Coalition des anciens leaders étudiants québécois, regarding the same matter, said:

The Chrétien government, after having contributed to the deterioration of the quality of education in colleges and universities, is now shamelessly stepping forward under the guise of a defender of access to higher education.

All the Quebec witnesses spoke out against the cuts made to the transfer payments to provinces and recognized that this measure taken by the federal government was one of the chief causes of deterioration in post-secondary education.

People are also saying that the bill has some technical defects, and complaining about lack of consultation. The government is including the $2.5 billion for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation in its financial statements for 1998. There is an article in La Presse that I think my federal liberal colleagues should read. It's by Manon Cornellier, and if you read it you will learn about what people think of the government's cooking the books.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Picard, which article is that? Which date?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Today.

The Chairman: It's today?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes.

• 1145

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to table that with the committee so that we can all read it? Do you want to have it photocopied so that we can distribute it?

Okay. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Mr. Chairman, according to Walter Robinson of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation:

This shows disregard for accounting standards.

He talks about fiddling with accounting practices and says that the government is including the $2.5 billion for the scholarships in the books even though the bill hasn't been passed yet. So this Mr. Walter Robinson of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation came and told us that it showed disregard for accounting standards.

People have also been saying that merit will be the main criterion for the Millennium scholarships. All of the Bloc members and most of the stakeholders in Quebec think that the system should not be based on merit, because this will further penalize students who have to work. They don't have the money to pay for their education, and so they have to work 20 or 25 hours per week, sometimes at night. It's tough for them to study so that they can pass their exams. People from more affluent backgrounds who do not have to work 20 hours a week will be able to fully devote themselves to school, and get scholarships, even though their parents already have the money to pay for their masters degrees and their PhDs.

It's completely discriminatory. Most students are poor, and the government is setting up a foundation that will hand out scholarships on the basis of merit. It's incredible. They're going back nearly 50 years in time. Our education system in Quebec does not provide scholarships based on merit. Everyone is entitled to a loan and to a bursary so that he or she can successfully get an education.

The FECQ warned us of elitism, and said:

The vast majority of witnesses do not think that merit should be the primary deciding factor. Furthermore, many witnesses from Quebec have pointed out that Quebec already has merit scholarships, but that need is the main deciding factor, thereby providing greater access to higher education and a truly level playing field.

Witnesses have been telling us that the people of Canada and Quebec do not want more bickering as was the case with labour force training. That's what going to happen if Bill C-36 is rammed through, without giving the federal government's and Quebec's negotiators time to look at what can be done, before we get a report out of these negotiations. We can just expect more endless bickering. Even the provincial Liberals don't want you to ram this Bill through, before the negotiations end. They too are asking for fair compensation if you do not withdraw this provision from the Bill. The government should at least give us full financial compensation so that we can help our students more and improve an educational system that is recognized throughout Canada. We could also make things easier for people who are already in school. The witnesses are also asking us for the right to opt out with full compensation, as I was telling you a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman.

Let me quote the CSN:

Bill C-36 cannot be improved through administrative measures, which would merely make minor, superficial amendments. This is a political issue, and it must be settled at the political level by allowing Quebec to opt out with full, fair compensation.

• 1150

The CSN is saying that by choosing to opt out with full compensation, Quebec is not making a political faux pas. This is not something new, because Pearson and Lesage used this arrangement in education as early as 1962. We must spare Quebec Bill C-36, which would force that province to negotiate with a private foundation.

We know full well that this Foundation has no power. I wonder how we could negotiate with the Foundation given that the government is the one who has the power to amen this legislation.

I may be paraphrasing somewhat, but this is the general position expressed by all the witnesses from Quebec and most of the stakeholders from Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to quote the testimony given by Gérald Larose, who is the president of the CSN. In response to a question from Denis Coderre, he said something along the lines of: Let us do it our way. We have been building this educational system for 34 years. We can improve it, but right now, this educational system is recognized. If they would let us opt out of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation and give us the compensation we deserve, we could lighten the load for our young Quebeckers.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I demonstrated to you just how important it is right now to support my colleague's motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Can we have some order here? I want to listen to everything Madame Picard is saying.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: So, it's important to support the Bloc Québécois' motion, to wait for the negotiations that are currently underway in Quebec and to really take what's going on seriously. You can't ram a bill through and say that it's no big deal because you can amend it later. Frankly, if you did that, I think you would be showing that you don't attach very much importance to debate among parliamentarians in committee.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, could I have the floor?

[English]

The Chairman: No, I'm going to go first to....

Are you finished, Madame Picard?

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation, or should I say your intervention.

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know Mr. Crête, in his remarks, said the Liberal side of the table was silent, and he was quite surprised that we were silent. I just want to reiterate that in fact what we were doing was allowing members of the opposition the opportunity to state their case, and in fact that is essentially the way democracy works. We allow them to state their case and we have an opportunity for intervention as well. I just wanted to make sure Mr. Crête understood the process.

I'll start by saying that the key objective of the foundation is, again, to provide access to knowledge and skills. Bill C-36 provides the foundation with the flexibility to meet Quebec's concerns, and we've heard a lot about Quebec's concerns this morning. It requires the foundation to award scholarships in a manner that complements existing provincial student financial assistance programs, to avoid duplication by building on the processes of existing provincial student financial assistance.

Essentially, I guess, the basic argument being put forward is that we should not proceed with this particular bill and that we should in fact legislate the changes that are being asked for. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that what the opposition party is asking us to do is to legislate restriction.

The basic difference in the interpretation of what we have before us is that the government believes the foundation should have flexibility to meet the needs of every province, and the government believes this issue is so important that we want to de-politicize this issue by creating an arm's-length foundation that will be comprised of individuals from right across this country, experts who can then deal with the challenges we face in helping students. The flexibility allows the experts to decide. It will allow the experts to avoid the duplication that's part of the mandate of this particular foundation.

• 1155

To legislate it, to do what the Bloc is asking for, would essentially make it a government program, that the government knows best how to deal with this, and would not allow experts to work with various provinces and meet the needs of students. That's the basic difference here.

We heard that Quebec was concerned with the foundation's discretion with respect to eligible institutions, conditions on granting of scholarships. Again, I would point to the fact that discretionary powers allow the foundation to go forward with the flexibility to respond to provincial priorities and talk about the fact that Quebec has a comprehensive system that the foundation will duplicate. Again, clause 28 of the legislation requires the foundation to make every effort to grant scholarships in a manner that complements existing student financial assistance programs and avoid duplications with the processes of the programs.

We heard that Quebec is asking for its fair share by being allowed to opt out. I want to restate that the objective and the purpose of the foundation is to grant scholarships to students in a fair and equitable manner across Canada, to students who are in financial need and demonstrate merit.

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier in the intervention that the discussions are ongoing. Those discussions are ongoing within the framework and the context of this bill. Certainly the government is satisfied that the goals will be met—the goals of avoiding duplication, the goals of building on existing provincial needs assessment, the goals of meeting, putting in place, and complementing existing provincial programs, and ultimately increasing access to post-secondary education everywhere in Canada for low- and middle-income Canadians.

Mr. Chairman, I think we can agree to disagree. I think there's an agreement on the objective of what we should accomplish. The government believes in and has put forward a bill that contains an arm's-length foundation made up of experts. It has all the flexibility required to address the issues being put forward this morning with respect to the provincial concerns in Quebec, and those board members will endeavour to do so. What this bill in fact does is provide the framework for them to meet those objectives.

They want us to legislate, essentially, and not provide any flexibility. I would respectfully disagree, and I would say, Mr. Chairman, that an issue as important as this, an issue that was brought forward by students right across this country, who asked for assistance, an issue that came up with the first ministers, is so important that we are de-politicizing this issue and allowing experts to deal with it within a flexible framework.

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues across the way and submit that the legislation needs to go forward in order to provide that framework so that the discussions with Quebec can continue within that framework. I would also submit that ultimately effort will be made to ensure that there is no duplication, that there is a complementary system in place, and that the outcome is one that will benefit students not only in Quebec but right across this country.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Valeri.

Do we have any comments from Mr. Brison?

Mr. Scott Brison: It's my feeling that at this time we should be discussing amendments. We should be moving forward. I call for the question on the Bloc motion. We should simply move forward and start discussing amendments so that we can create some constructive dialogue over the next several hours.

The point has been made by the Bloc members, and at this point I think we owe it to everybody involved to start moving forward and discussing the amendments in a very constructive, non-partisan way.

The Chairman: Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I've been enjoying the conversation.

The Chairman: Madame Gagnon, I hope I've given you a lot of time to speak today. I was just asking Mr. Riis if he had any comments.

• 1200

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That's no problem, as long as you then give me the floor.

[English]

The Chairman: I recognize that, of course. There's a motion we still have to deal with.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We are not ready to vote. We made our point a few moments ago, but given the impact of these provisions on Quebec, we should discuss this motion further. The Liberal Party and our other colleagues from the House should support this motion, because it is in the best interest of Quebec and its educational system. So, we are not ready to agree to move on to clause-by- clause.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: It was determined on April 22 that the deadline for submission to the House would be the 8th. Is that accurate?

Government members lose very little if we do not have an opportunity to discuss the amendments. It's the opposition party that has amendments to move forward and discuss rationally. The government members lose nothing if we don't have time to discuss those amendments. But all of us, including the members of the Bloc, benefit if we can move on and constructively discuss the amendments, and move forward. We will effectively run out of time and we won't have an opportunity to discuss any of the constructive amendments. That does not serve the members of the Bloc, the New Democratic Party, the Reform Party, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party.

The Chairman: I take your point. I stated earlier in the day that this bill, as agreed by members of this committee, will be reported to the House tomorrow. However, I have no intention of stopping anybody from expressing their point of view.

I must tell you that some points are being repeated, and I'm taking note of that because when the debate is exhausted, as articulate and passionate as your arguments are, I certainly don't want to keep hearing the same thing over and over again.

I'm not at that point yet, but I've noticed that some of the points have been repeated more than once, which is fair. I know what you have to do. You're getting your points on the record and that's a very important part of the democratic process. But there will also come a point today where I will have to do my job, and that's when I will determine that the debate has been exhausted and we will move on to the next order of business, which is the original order of business, which is clause-by-clause.

I just want to make sure you understand that very clearly.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I want to be very clear about this, Mr. Chairman. Standing Order 116 is very clear about this. I will read it out to you, because it somewhat undermines the argument that you put to us in order to restrict the debate. Standing Order 116 reads as follows:

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

Mr. Chairman, just to be sure that we understand each other, that means we can speak to a motion until the debate winds down. That means, as long as there are speakers to speak to the matter being discussed, the speakers can keep on going pursuant to Standing Order 116.

Here's something else about this matter. You mentioned May 8. I want you to know that we are in no way bound by that particular date. It was an interim date, an administrative thing, and we have to take the necessary amount of time to thoroughly explore the issue and then go to clause-by-clause.

• 1205

I want to tell you that we intend to develop our arguments fully, because we think this is a fundamental issue. As I was telling you, you do not have the power to limit the length of our speeches.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman—and you know I have a great deal of respect for you—in this particular case, we will continue discussing the motion that we have tabled until the topic has been covered. We will keep on going until we get the feeling that we have explained the motion properly, that we have managed to explain each one of our arguments properly, and above all, we want to be sure that these arguments have sunk in with the Liberal majority. Despite three weeks of discussions and testimony from witnesses whose messages were very clear, no one on the other side of the room has understood the fundamental consensus coming out of Quebec. We expect that by the end of this debate, after we have reiterated our arguments, put them again, and refined them further, you will understand that in the final analysis, "distinct society" or "unique society" means something, that it's not just words, words, words.

We are different, and we have proven it to you. Fourteen organizations came and told you so. They represented 1.2 million people. They represented 82,000 companies. If it still hasn't sunk in, well, this discussion on the motion will allow us to ram it into your head so that you table amendments that respect the consensus in Quebec.

So, for once and for all, listen: we don't give a fig about May 8. We are going to have this debate. We have privileges. As members of Parliament, we have rights, and we are going to make full use of them.

[English]

The Chairman: I have no doubt that every right of every single member will be respected, including my own. As chair, I have to remind you—I may from time to time disagree with you, Mr. Loubier—you referred to Friday, May 8, as a tentative date, and that's not the case. I will read the motion going back to Thursday, April 2, 1998.

I also note here, by the way, which is extremely important in your case, your presence at that meeting.

On a motion of Paddy Torsney it was agreed that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be reported back to the House of Commons by Friday, May 8, 1998.

To me this is about as crystal clear as this committee can make a motion. There's no question in my mind that as chair of this committee I will be reporting the bill to the House on Friday, May 8, 1998, taking into consideration the present motion, of course—just so we all understand which committee we're part of.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, let me remind you of the context as well as the remarks I made at that time. When we arrived at that meeting, which was to plan future business, you had already imposed May 2nd on us as the deadline at that particular time. You remember. Everyone around the table remembers that we were not at all keen on May 2nd. The Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec had just made a commitment to try to bring the two parties together and to come to an acceptable and honourable compromise for Quebec regarding the Millennium Scholarships.

We tore our shirts, as they say, and you relented slightly. But remember what I told you at that time. I've ordered the blues, and we will be getting them soon. I told you that we were not bound by that, that an inordinate number of witnesses had asked to appear, that this issue was of the utmost importance to us, and that we would not be satisfied until we had had enough time to hear from all the witnesses and thoroughly explore the issue.

• 1210

Let me refer you to yesterday. The day before yesterday, I asked you, in front of all the committee members, to ask Mr. Mel Cappe to appear before us so that we could hear how far he had gone in the negotiations. Furthermore, at first it was not the 2nd of May that you were imposing on us, but rather, it was Friday, May 1st. Yesterday you told me that Mr. Mel Cappe was unavailable.

That's a problem. As I was telling you a few moments ago, we cannot move to clause-by-clause since we don't even know how the negotiations are coming along, and we have asked Prime Minister Chrétien's negotiators to appear before us and give us an update on the negotiations. Furthermore, all the witnesses said, without exception, including a senior official when he first appeared, that once we have passed such a bill, if there is an agreement between the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada, we will have to review the bill completely, because we would not be able to implement the bill if an agreement like that of April 1964 were entered into. At that time, the federal government withdrew from student loans and bursaries.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for your role as Chairman, but even so, you have to follow the Standing Orders. They clearly say that we can speak for as long as we wish and that as members of Parliament, we have rights and privileges. Let me repeat: until we have the impression that we have thoroughly explored the issue, and above all, until we are quite sure that we have allowed the negotiations to continue and succeed, you will be hearing us expressing our viewpoints and you will be respecting our rights and privileges.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I just want to review with the committee a couple of things.

We were in full committee on April 1 when we passed a motion saying we would report this bill on May 2. Unfortunately, there were no Bloc representatives there. The following morning, on April 2, they were quite upset about that date and suggested we needed a change in date. So the motion you are referring to was adopted on April 2, with the Bloc's input and support, because there were no dissents. It was a full committee meeting and we decided that May 8 would be the date we reported.

I find it ironic that on Tuesday we all sat here in camera and worked on a work plan. That work plan clearly identified that May 7 would be the date for clause-by-clause and May 8 would be the date for reporting. Again, there was no dissent from any party. There was certainly no dissent from the Bloc. It was a full committee meeting and we agreed on this plan to do clause-by-clause today and report the bill tomorrow.

I'm not sure how, in the 36 hours from Tuesday afternoon to now, it suddenly became tentative in Mr. Loubier's mind and how it suddenly became a chance thing that we would not do this today and report tomorrow. It was pretty clear in everybody's minds and it was written in black and white what we would be doing today and tomorrow.

While I certainly wouldn't want to tell members what to do and to always be respectful, perhaps we will continue to hear repetitive things from the Bloc. Perhaps because the rest of the parties seem quite ready to go to clause-by-clause and we have numerous amendments from the Bloc, we could go to the clause-by-clause hearings now and discuss the issues related to the clause-by-clause. Then all of us could get going.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Torsney.

Mr. Riis, followed by Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Following up on the point Ms. Torsney made to get at the amendments, one would assume that if we're going to discuss all of the amendments proposed by the variety of parties, there should be some point to this.

Perhaps I'll direct my question to the researcher or to the legislative assistant. Is there a record of the finance committee, when doing clause by clause, ever accepting amendments from opposition parties? Has it actually ever happened in recent history?

• 1215

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Nelson Riis: We have people here who have been at the finance committee, Mr. Loubier for one. I mean, if there's no record of the finance committee ever accepting an opposition member's amendment, I suppose it's irrelevant how we spend our time here. We may as well spend the time talking about the millennium fund and the provincial-federal powers, or not.

I'm actually trying to be serious here, Mr. Chairman. I'm not making some kind of a political statement. But if that is the reality, and I don't know if it is—I'm told that it is, but I haven't done the research and don't have the information, but Mr. Loubier seems to agree.

The Chairman: Each party will of course debate each amendment, and I'm sure that the—

Mr. Nelson Riis: What I mean, Mr. Chairman, is that if it is just false, if it is an empty exercise, if it is just some routine we have to go through knowing what the outcome will be, then there's no point. I mean, we might as well do what we're doing now.

A voice: And waste all these people's time now.

Mr. Nelson Riis: No, let the officials go. Quite frankly, we've wasted too much time already. But if the records show that all of the amendments will be rejected and this is just a pro forma process—we just do this to kill some time—then I say let the officials go and do something worthwhile, and let Mr. Loubier and his colleagues talk about the concern they have in terms of educational powers, and we can all relax, go for lunch, and just, you know, enjoy ourselves for the rest of the day.

The Chairman: Maybe, Mr. Riis, if you want to go for lunch, we'll stay here and work. That's your option.

Mr. Nelson Riis: This is not my idea of work, to sit here and just go through an exercise—

The Chairman: Well, is your idea of work going for lunch?

Mr. Nelson Riis: No, but it's at least useful. This is not useful.

An hon. member: No debate on that point at all.

The Chairman: Anyway, the point is, the officials are here because we're going to eventually get to clause-by-clause. Second, the committee process is what it is. You've been around for a long time and you know how it works.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I want to change it, Mr. Chairman. That's the point.

An hon. member:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Nelson Riis: No, no, the procedure is fine; it's just.... We need to have a will to make this place work. At the moment there is no good will here, and that's why we do these things, and fair enough.

But we have all these people sitting here, Mr. Chairman, who are well paid, who have a job to do, but only if we're going to do something worthwhile. Quite frankly, I just feel it's a complete waste of their time.

Ms. Paddy Torsney:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Nelson Riis: Well, I mean yes. I'm a historian.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's not always the same.

Mr. Nelson Riis: If there's been a pattern, Mr. Chairman, for many years, I suspect it's going to happen again. I hope it doesn't, quite frankly.

The Chairman: But I've been in committees where opposition motions and amendments have been accepted.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I have, too. But I'm saying the record here is that doesn't take place.

An hon. member: That's not true.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I stand to be corrected.

An hon. member: I don't remember.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): One amendment I'm going to be speaking in favour of—

Mr. Nelson Riis: That's not saying it's going to pass. I'm going to be speaking in favour of some amendments too, but I mean so what.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Is it to add a comma to one of the amendments?

Mr. Paul Szabo: No, one of their amendments. I will be supporting a Bloc amendment.

An hon. member: There you go.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe we should start talking about amendments.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I'm suggesting there's no point in talking about amendments.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Why? You might just be surprised.

The Chairman: Order. Ms Torsney. I think we're going to have to give Mr. Scott the floor here.

Before I do that, Mr. Riis, I'm somewhat puzzled by your comments, quite frankly, because when you look at the record of this committee, even in this particular session of Parliament, it's been.... I mean, I've never seen a committee give recommendations to a Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance accept a large part of the recommendations for his budget, and that was the work of this committee. So I don't understand why you're trying to kind of be very dismissive of the work of the committee, unless it's a reflection of what you feel about it and maybe a lack of enthusiasm you may have.

I certainly view this committee and also what the Bloc is talking about today.... I'm quite energized by the fact that they've taken the time to so eloquently state their point of view. I might not necessarily agree with it. Mr. Valeri has done the same thing. I hope you will do something in reference to this particular bill as well, and I look forward to your comments.

• 1220

Mr. Nelson Riis: Perhaps I can respond, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, of course.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Just for clarification, we went through a process on the pre-budget consultations in the last round.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Nelson Riis: In your judgment, are you saying that the process we follow then will likely be duplicated this time? Is this your idea of an ideal process?

The Chairman: An ideal process?

Mr. Nelson Riis: Yes.

The Chairman: Well, for those of you who strive for ideals and perfection, I think there are things that you can do for improvements. But quite frankly, was I happy with the fact that because—

Mr. Nelson Riis: This is from a due process.

The Chairman: No, but results also count. Don't get caught up in process. You know, you can't be like a plane that never lands. You've got to get a job done. When you look at the number of recommendations we made in the pre-budget and that the Minister of Finance adopted as part of his budget—it's an exercise maybe you might want to do—it was an unbelievable success. It was probably the best actually since the pre-budget consultation process took place.

I take a great deal of pride in the work of the committee, quite frankly, and I don't know why you have those feelings. You might have a totally different perception of committee work than I.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've been holding my tongue, as I'm not a permanent member of the committee, and I've been respectful in listening to the conversation, but I would advise you that my colleague, Mr. Solberg, before he left, was briefing me and telling me what was going on here today. He did advise me that in all the time the Reform Party has had a presence on this committee, going back to 1993, not a single amendment has ever been accepted on budget implementation bills—not one. That's in five years.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think, following up on what Mr. Riis has said, there's some validity to the exasperation felt by committee members. As I say, I'm not a permanent member of the committee, but I offer that as an observation. People feel frustrated when they don't believe that the work they do is actually going to be taken seriously by the government.

The Chairman: The point you raise is quite interesting. In the minority report by the Reform Party, there were two recommendations. One is on the reduction and elimination of the 3% personal surtax—by the way, this was in the majority report—and the second is on raising the basic personal exemption, which was also in the Reform Party's minority report and the Liberal's majority report. Both of those things were accepted by the Minister of Finance. They're in the budget.

You see, I don't like people to get away with the development of popular mythology that's not based on fact. I think before we make statements, we had better be serious and know what we're talking about.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I think that with the next comment, I'll be able to bring the two parties together. I agree with Mr. Riis and Mr. Scott when they say that the government didn't listen very carefully to the amendments that the opposition brought in in the past here on the Finance Committee, and perhaps on other committees, although I don't know exactly how things work there. I find it deplorable, because the opposition has a fundamental role to play. You represent one side of the coin, and we represent the other. At times it may be possible to bring the parties together.

Where I disagree with Mr. Riis is that I believe in this process. I believe in it even more than ever. I am convinced that the debate that we're having this morning is useful and that we should not trivialize it. We are not doing this to be a pain in the neck or to delay the work in any way. We are doing this in the hope that we will be able to make Quebec's views heard. Quebec expressed itself through 14 organizations that appeared before the committee and that were completely non-partisan. We still believe in that.

Mr. Chairman, I would not like it if what we have to tell you is ignored or if we are accused of repetition or told that we have to keep to the deadlines. At the beginning, this deadline was a very tentative one because we wanted to let the negotiations take their course. I would not want this debate to be disposed of and to be told that we have exhausted all our arguments. There are people who are going to come here throughout the day and over the next few hours will expressed to you in different ways what Quebec's views are.

• 1225

I hope that you will show respect, as we respect this institution, which is an extension of the House of Commons that we have also always respected, by hearing us out. We are convinced that we will be able to convince you. Somewhere, I still believe in this and my colleagues do as well. We still believe in the democratic institutions. Democracy is not a perfect system, but until something better comes along, we believe in it. I do not believe that dictatorship is a good thing, either on the left or the right. We must not trivialize the exercise we are carrying out this morning, which we feel is fundamental and believe in with all our heart.

Ms. Torsney was talking about our obligation to do clause-by- clause studies. I know there is an obligation to do that, but there is another obligation that is more of a moral nature, and that is to present the point of view of the various regions of the country that we come from. We have that mission, which is not some abstract notion, since we have 44 of the 75 members of Parliament from Quebec. The 14 organizations that appeared all said what we have been repeating to you since this morning with various arguments.

At least have enough respect to hear us out and to change your minds. You can change your mind. You have a right to do that. It is not because you are in the government that you have no right to change your mind. You could, as a result of our representations, which are presented with convincing arguments, change your mind. You could yourselves introduce amendments that reflect the Quebec consensus. Why not do that? It seems to me that it would be quite unusual and that you would show the public that the government members are not just reflecting the position of ministers, without accepting the testimony presented to the committee, even where that testimony represents a consensus.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of keeping the record perfectly clear, to which you alluded a few minutes ago, I want to make it very clear that what I was talking about and what Mr. Solberg had advised me was not that there was no consideration in pre-budget discussions of opposition ideas, but that when it came to the clause-by-clause review of a bill by committee at report stage, there has never been, in the time the Reform Party has had representation on this committee, an opposition motion accepted by the committee. I'd like to make that very clear. That's what we're dealing with now: clause-by-clause. We're not on pre-budget or general discussions. We may get on clause-by-clause.

The Chairman: I was referring to the policy process that eventually becomes the law of the land. Take the budget, for example. There were contributions made by all parties in that debate.

But really, what I'm defending here—

Mr. Mike Scott: I appreciate that, but if we're in clause-by-clause and the opposition feels there's no hope of having any amendments accepted in clause-by-clause, then you can understand the frustration. Why are we all here?

The Chairman: Yes.

Can we suspend for 10 or 15 minutes and come back?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: As long as we have the right to have the floor once again.

[English]

The Chairman: It's for 15 minutes. Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A suspension of our deliberations.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, because we are afraid that you will weaken. • 1228

• 1245

[English]

The Chairman: I'd like to call the meeting to order.

The next intervention will be made by Madame Gagnon. Mr. Loubier has been benched and is being replaced by Madame Bujold. I understand it's just temporary, Mr. Loubier.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I know that you have a great deal of respect for what is going on today and that you are showing a certain amount of openness by allowing us to debate the motion presented by our Bloc Québécois colleague.

Like my colleague, Mr. Loubier, I want to say that we are holding this debate out of respect for all those who came before the committee to debate Quebec's position on the Millennium Scholarship Fund and who asked the federal government to allow Quebec to opt out with full compensation.

It is not a matter of partisanship, as claimed by certain Liberal colleagues. Thirteen hundred people, through their federations and associations, expressed themselves with a single voice to ask for flexibility for Quebec, for a way to respect what Quebec wants to do in the education field. The committee was told that this was a fundamental issue for Quebec, and that is what we are defending today. Thank you for allowing us to bring up this matter.

We have taken our work very seriously. You have recognized this and said that you found this edifying. This matter must not be trivialized because, for Quebec, it is a fundamental issue. There will be repercussions as a result of the decisions that this committee will make.

A number of people are asking themselves questions in Quebec. There has already been mention of 82,000 companies and 14 associations that represent 1.3 million people in Quebec. Mr. Chairman, at the risk of going a little off topic, I would like to draw your attention to the reaction to this decision and to the media who have pointed out how the Chrétien government is defending its Millenium Scholarships. We can see by the attitude of some colleagues on the Liberal side that this attitude still persists and that the debate has not really been heard.

Forty-one percent of the witnesses dealt with the Millenium Scholarships. That is a high percentage. Forty-one percent of the witnesses were from Quebec, with 59% from outside Quebec. The 41% unanimously expressed support for this call for recognition and respect for Quebec's rights in the education field and for compensatory measures that would take into account Quebec structure.

When the Millenium Scholarship Fund was announced, all the newspapers talked about it. There were questions about the real vision of the Millenium Fund. People certainly defended the idea of helping students, but Quebec students told us that the Millenium Scholarships will not help them at all resolve the problem of student debt. That is not how they would like to be helped.

Even Mr. Chrétien revealed his true colours when he stated that he absolutely wanted people to understand where the money was coming from.

• 1250

It is a very selfish way of resolving a student debt problem to be motivated to introduce the Millenium Scholarship Foundation first and foremost by personal ambitions of visibility. The newspaper La Presse quoted Mr. Chrétien in a headline. I think that the committee is somewhat motivated by the same desire for visibility that is being deplored in Quebec.

A recent poll indicated that the people of Quebec are not being fooled and that they can see the game that the federal government is playing. The people are seeing once again just how the federal government respects the consensus in Quebec. The poll also shows that students are very aware of the kind of maneuvering that the government is doing through the Millenium Scholarship Foundation. People say that this proposal is cumbersome and feel that it would be much more helpful to invest in the whole education system, since the duplication and overlap will be very costly and the public will have to pay the price in the end.

That is what we heard. Mr. Chairman, it is with a great deal of honesty that I followed all the deliberations, all of them. As you know, we sat one night until 9 p.m. A single theme ran through the testimony from Quebec. If there were others, I can honestly tell you that that is not what I heard and that there were certain nuances. But with a single voice you were asked to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces, especially that of Quebec.

Many witnesses from outside Quebec, whom I will not name again, told us that we should take Quebec reality into Quebec. I hope that we will take into account the views that they expressed.

We are here to hear witnesses and make decisions that reflect all the testimony received. We have done a comprehensive job and examined all the testimony. Overall, people from outside Quebec seem to want the federal government to show understanding to Quebec. Asking us to adopt a bill too quickly, even before the negotiations in Quebec are finished, is unacceptable. We are giving you yet another chance to demonstrate your open-mindedness regarding Quebec. If I told you that Quebec is a distinct society, I would certainly not be insulting you or telling you that we think we are superior, but it has been acknowledged that in Quebec, the system is different and that it is the best in Canada. You were there and heard it, Mr. Chairman, and we are the spokespeople and the extension of all the testimony that was given here. We don't feel that we are wasting our time today. There are extra members of Parliament on the Liberal side, who have not heard this testimony. Today, we are here to reiterate this testimony. All the witnesses who came before the committee are counting on us to summarize the debates that took place during the deliberations of this Finance Committee with respect to the Millennium Scholarships.

The Chrétien government, through its Millennium Scholarships, is primarily looking for visibility in education, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. He has not hidden this fact and that has made the headlines. Mr. Pettigrew then went on to say: "No, we do not want friction and there is no question of our intervening in provincial jurisdictions." This is a bit of a cat and mouse game. What is the government doing, if it is not jumping right into the middle of provincial jurisdictions? We have seen the whole history of the federal government's desire and obsession with interfering in provincial areas of responsibility. It has been pointed out to you that every time the Prime Minister of Canada has wanted to do that, Quebec has used a common front to make the federal government give back to the provinces, including Quebec, all the measures that the federal government wanted to take to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction over education.

• 1255

If the rest of Canada outside Quebec wishes to have such a Foundation—but this is not what we heard in the testimony as a whole—I am a little bit surprised that no amendments were proposed by the other side. There should have been amendments because many people are concerned about the criteria and the mandate of this partly private, partly public foundation. A lot of questions were asked.

If some members are falling asleep, perhaps there is a place other than the committee to relax in.

One really wonders why the Liberal government is adamant about wanting to centralize everything. As I reminded you this morning, a professor from the University of Ottawa came before the committee and said that this proposal reflected an overbearing, centralizing type of federalism and that it was the worst interference in provincial jurisdictions since the post-war period.

Once again, you have scored points, but not as you wanted to. You are not scoring good points, but rather bad ones. We will be there to remind you that you did not follow up on the recommendations not only of the Bloc Québécois but also of the witnesses that we had in Québec.

You are not in line with the traditional vision of education in Quebec. I would remind you that the poll shows clearly that Quebeckers are not fooled. They know what the true motives of the Liberal government are. It is easy to see that the Liberal members on this committee are thinking that they can, first and foremost, gain some amount of visibility to the detriment of students. We will certainly remind you of this later.

You know that Minister Stéphane Dion met with students and former students of the University of Montreal. Do you know what they asked for? They asked the Minister to apologize for what is happening and for all the cuts that have been made on the backs of students and the unemployed. Nobody finds it funny.

I do not find it funny. This is my second term, and I can tell you that it has been very difficult, and even horrible, to suffer all those cuts to education and health.

You need to go and see how things are working in the provinces. Here, we are in an ivory tower. The Canadian Parliament is beautiful. We have a beautiful building, but as soon as we leave this building after work and we go back to our ridings, we see that it is impossible to meet the provincial governments' demands in the fields of education, income security and health.

Meanwhile, what is the federal government doing? It is setting up some nest eggs to be able to bring certain groups on side. I can tell you that students see through this. We are here, therefore, to make Quebec's voice heard, and Quebec's voice is telling you that you have to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction.

Look at Alain Dubuc, who often writes fine editorials. Even Alain Dubuc says that this is an ill-considered project. We have told you the same thing and that there was no justification for the federal government to refuse to let provinces manage their funds. There is no justification for it. Alain Dubuc has told you also, as we have, that this move will create a parallel system in Quebec.

I am going to mention another editorialist because there has been reaction in the media.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think if we're going to show some respect, we need to respect the translators, and the speed at which they're being given information is really not appropriate.

The Chairman: As is tradition in committees—correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Interpreter—at any point in time at which you feel a witness or a member of Parliament is going too fast, just let me know.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would say to you that it is my passion for this issue that makes me speak quickly, as is the case for some of my colleagues, and that I am grateful to you for bringing up this problem, since the Bloc Québécois often has to use translation.

You are becoming aware of a problem that we certainly experience much more often than you do, since we are often the ones that need the English-French translation and we very often have difficulty understanding. I am therefore glad that you are having that experience today.

• 1300

I am now going to tell you about "Millenium Scholarships, a costly mirage." Jean-Luc Migué, a professor at the École nationale d'administration publique, tells us once again that the federal government is wasting the surpluses, especially since these surpluses are taken from taxpayers' pockets. He is very critical of this initiative. He says that 10% of students will be entitled to this manna from heaven and that the question is whether it will give greater access to post-secondary education. We have strong doubts.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you something. When we raise our voice, we speak more quickly, but if I have to raise my voice, it is because people on the other side are talking and there is noise. Maybe there is a little bit too much action in the room. Could you ask people to be quiet?

[English]

The Chairman: Can we quiet down a bit? Your voice is carrying. It's a quadraphonic room, it seems.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I will continue in the same vein, since we are being told that we are repetitive. I think that we have tried to give more details. You are laughing, Mr. Coderre, but you should be the voice of Quebec even if you are a Liberal.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): But I am the voice of Quebec. We are here for that reason.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Look. I quoted a number of editorials. Even Lysiane Gagnon, who is often on your side and who often tells you that you are good and that you are wonderful, talks about this as being a "a popularity-seeking and provocative project." She also says that Jean Chrétien is determined to make his mark on history. It is not by being self-centered and thinking only of one's self that the debt problem can be solved. Stéphane Dion certainly did not need another hot potato.

She also tells you:

The Canada Millennium Scholarships will also, God knows how, be grafted onto an already existing granting system. Either they will use different criteria, and those will go against existing provincial policies, or they will use the same criteria as those for current grants, in which case it will be a blatant case of duplication of services.

We have often heard this kind of testimony. I would like Liberal Party members who have decided to be here today to be serious and to listen to what we have to say because often they have not heard what witnesses have told the committee. I would like them to listen, but if they are not interested, I would prefer a one-on-one discussion or talking to empty chairs, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Gagnon—

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

Madame Gagnon, I was present at virtually all the meetings, and I can tell you that as chair I was impressed by the quality of questions and answers by both sides on Bill C-36.

So I'm going to interject and tell you that I don't share your assessment and presentation of the committee hearings. As a matter of fact, I think it's quite inaccurate.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In any case, Mr. Chairman, it's rather obvious today. We have been talking for ten minutes and I have started my statement.

Therefore the Millenium scholarships are a real waste.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: On the contrary, the member has spoken today for 40 minutes, not just 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I've heard everything she has said in the last 10 minutes at least twice before from her, as well as by each and every other member of the Bloc Québécois.

If the member is frustrated because I don't want to listen to the same points repeated time and time again—I believe it's disrespectful to other members as well. If the member wants to have our riveted attention, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member of the Bloc bring out a new point somewhere in our lifetime.

The Chairman: Or perhaps today.

Go ahead, Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In fact, I am trying to present a broader picture of the issue. These are not the words of only the Bloc Québécois, and it is not only those of the different witnesses we have heard. There are the editorial writers who have spoken out in Quebec. That's to give you a more accurate picture. When we are here in this Parliament we may believe that it's only the 14 groups that have come to speak to us that have an opinion.

• 1305

We have often asked witnesses where they came from and who they were. I have seen that when we had witnesses from Quebec, we always wondered who they represented. We wanted to know if they truly represented the Quebec consensus.

Today I am bringing you other testimony from people who see clearly through the Liberal stunt in the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation issue. I am doing this in order to try and change the Finance Committee's mind on the millennium scholarships. That is my hope today.

When we know that 41 per cent of the people came from Quebec to ask, with a single voice, to change the bill, you have to admit that that is serious. That's what they asked you.

We are currently in negotiations and they hope that this negotiation will lead to an agreement between the federal and provincial governments. The students have clearly said that they will be the first victims of this federal intrusion in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Mario Fontaine is another editorial writer who has said that the millennium scholarships are a real waste. It's more testimony, another editorial. On the other hand, an economics professor from the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre d'études sur la gouvernance, Mr. Paquet, has told us he is very critical of this federal intrusion in provincial jurisdiction. Dropping out of high school and the undervaluing the technical sector are much more serious problems, according to him, than the one the federal government thinks it can solve with these scholarships.

That is the reason Quebec is asking for compensation because there is already a system in place in Quebec. We don't come here to tell you that It's the Bloc Québécois that wants all that. We are trying to get you to listen to the voices of all the speakers from the field of education and the student groups. And we are asking you to respect Quebec's wishes.

The USFQ, the University Student Federation of Quebec, rejects the millennium scholarships. That's another witness that we have spoken about and whose words were reported in the press. Mr. Pettigrew even met with students but was unable to convince them.

Once again, we face an outright rejection. We repeat that this will destabilize the Quebec education system. We note, however, from the way the government has received Quebec's request, that Mr. Chrétien is mocking criticisms that are made.

However, I hope the committee, having heard the various testimony, will be able to change the government's mind so that we can get full compensation and see a federal withdraw.

It may be a Canadian solution but it is not a Quebec solution. And even if it were a Canadian solution, Mr. Chairman, we know full well that the witnesses have come to tell us that major amendments need to be made in order to take certain Canadian realities into account.

You know that there are already $2.5 billion in the 1998 budget. That is absolutely shameful and it was denounced yesterday. A little while ago, you seemed intrigued by the follow-up on the Auditor-General's visit. You seemed very curious about what was said in the press.

Manon Cornellier, who is a journalist, said in her editorial— I will only give you a brief summary—that it's not the first time the federal government uses this way of increasing its deficit or hiding its surplus. She also said that the government has used this method on two other occasions, among others.

During that time, who was suffering? The population was suffering. The people were suffering from the cuts in Canadian social transfer payments while the government was bloating its deficit through harmonization of the GST or in a foundation that had not even been created. But the expenditure had already been included in the budget. That's a strange way of doing things, Mr. Chairman.

Instead of reviewing the tax legislation and deciding to put a little more money into taxpayers' pockets, you decide to put another $2.5 billion in the expenditure budget while we have a human drama like hepatitis C for which you say there isn't enough money.

• 1310

I do not understand why we put an amount of $2.5 billion in this year's expenditure budget that will only be spent in two years and over a period of ten years. If a taxpayer made the same reasoning in his or her income tax, the Auditor General would certainly have something to say about it. Everyone knows how tax works.

If you wish, I will now yield the floor to my colleague, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: You can give the word to your colleague when you become the chair.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, I said if you wish.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to go to Mr. Brison, who has not said very much today.

Mr. Scott Brison: It's interesting that now we are speaking about a different angle of concern, and that is specifically the booking of the millennium scholarship, the $2.5 billion, now as opposed to how it would be handled under traditional public accounting procedures. I would suggest that this is a wonderful segue into discussing the amendments, because there are amendments that do address that particular issue. Perhaps I would call for questions such that we can move on and discuss these issues as part of the amendment process.

The Chairman: No, we're dealing with this present motion.

Mr. Scott Brison: Well, call the question.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we vote on the motion?

The Chairman: No, we have to deal with this first.

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Chair, if at some point it does not seem there will be adequate time to discuss amendments prior to tomorrow, we may wish to withdraw some of our amendments. Is it possible to do that and present them at the—

A voice: Absolutely.

Mr. Scott Brison: Part of unfettered democracy sometimes involves denying some of the participants from participating. I fear that may be what is occurring today. While I respect the decision of the Bloc members and their position and their opinions on this, I do believe it is somewhat unfair to deny this opportunity to other opposition parties, for instance, that have presented constructive amendments and that also would like to participate constructively in the democratic process for which we were elected today.

The Chairman: Does anybody else want to make any points on that?

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Despite the respect I have for the Conservative Party and Mr. Brison, I would remind him that he has the right to intervene if he so wishes, that it his right and his privilege as an MP to table whatever motions he wants, and also to ask for the time he needs to debate them until the question has been fully discussed, just as we have the right to do so.

I am putting down to inexperience what Mr. Brison has said since the beginning of the debate on this issue. First, it is not a waste of time to debate such parliamentary questions, and a parliamentarian debates such questions hoping that in the end he will have proven some if not all of his points. We tried that with the member from Bourassa in a meeting and we maintained our positions.

Secondly, I would remind him that his outgoing leader, Mr. Charest, who then seemed to agree with him, is not at all in favour of the millennium scholarships. So if I was in Mr. Brison's shoes, I would think about this issue because there is a question of coherence. When his leader was the leader, he was for it, but now that he is no longer the leader, he is against. So there is a problem somewhere.

Thirdly, and that is why I was speaking of experience earlier, I would tell you, Mr. Brison, that between opposition parties...

• 1315

[English]

The Chairman: With all due respect, we know that Elsie Wayne is not the leader.

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Chairman, if I may, my intervention—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have only one last point before concluding.

Some day, perhaps Mr. Brison or the Conservative Party or both will need help on an issue that is very important to them and that perhaps then the Bloc Québécois will react in exactly the same way. There is a certain respect required between the parties on issues that are priorities for them. Our priority is the millennium scholarships. At some other time, for the Conservative Party, it will be another issue. At that time, we will have enough respect to listen to them and even to participate in the debate if we are called out or asked to do so. But in the meantime, stop beating us about the ears saying we waste time and we are impeding other people's privileges. Privileges exist and need only be used. On the other hand, this is not a Cub Scout troop, this is politics. If he can't make room for himself, that's his problem.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that my intervention had less to do with my relative inexperience than it did with my understanding of the relationship between rights and responsibilities. We do feel very strongly that there are parts of this legislation that need to be and can be improved, and that is why we devoted a significant amount of time to writing amendments, as did the Bloc, and I respect that. I'm sure that with the investment of time the Bloc has provided to their amendments and the investment of time that we've provided to our amendments, we would all be well served to then proceed to debate or vote on those amendments.

It's not a question of experience as much as a question of the understanding of rights and responsibilities, and respect for others' democratic rights as well.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Everything in life is relative, Mr. Chairman. For Quebeckers who have appeared here as witnesses and for us, who are also representatives of Quebec, the millennium scholarships and the field of education are extremely important. We fought hard in the past to defend this area of jurisdiction. If you take a smidgen of that away, it's like taking part of our soul. And if we put a bill before this House—let's turn this situation around for a moment—that took away part of the Canadian soul to give it to the Americans, I wonder how Mr. Brison would respond to a reaction such as the one he gave us. I wonder how he would consider that remark. I think he would tell me to go away, to go to hell.

I haven't done that, Mr. Chairman, because my mother raised me well, but I would like Mr. Brison to understand that we have rights, privileges and that we intend to use them. That's the reason democracy exists. That is why, as parliamentarians, we have rights and privileges and we shall use them, whether Mr. Brison likes it or not. And that does not take away any of his rights.

If Mr. Brison had taken part in the parliamentary debate and if he had understood his role from the start, he would have demanded that the date that you consider cast in concrete, May 8^th, be remanded in order to be able to debate these amendments, to debate ours and to continue the debate. But instead of doing that, he chose to attack us.

As for you and Mrs. Torsney, ask to speak if you have something to say and stop insulting us like that and spitting on Quebec. You have been spitting on Quebec since the beginning of this debate. So either shut up or have the courage of your convictions. Ask to speak and say what you have to say about Quebec. Say it and say it loudly and clearly.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have a call to order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like to call the committee's attention to the fact that even if Mr. Loubier was well brought up, his comments are starting to be disrespectful.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Be polite about my mother.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I love your mother, believe me. In fact, she is an admirable woman. But I would also like to say that when one goes on repeating the same thing, perhaps it is not others he are trying to convince but himself.

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead, Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Thank you for giving me the opportunity of coming before the Standing Committee on Finance to support the proposal tabled by the Bloc Québécois this morning.

I would like to say, without a doubt, that what is going on here, what is going on in Quebec and all that has gone on across Canada regarding this millennium scholarship project is unacceptable to people in Quebec and to all of Quebec.

• 1320

I can tell you that in Quebec there has been an angry outcry. It is not only because of the stubbornness of Bloc members or sovereigntists. It is unfair to say, as many people seem to be doing, that it is because of the stubbornness of Bloc members or of sovereigntists. No, sir, it is because of the stubbornness of Quebeckers who want all matters related to education to belong to Quebec. They want all decisions, all grants, to be decided by and granted by Quebec. That's not stubbornness, that's reality, because, as you know, Quebec didn't get this right yesterday.

I was reading old newspaper clippings. I don't know if members opposite have read them. These are clippings that go back to 1953. I believe that in 1953, the Liberals were in power, both at the federal and provincial levels. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage had had discussions, at a federal provincial constitutional conference, and had decided, will well-thought out clauses, on April 16, 1964, that everything that affected education was under Quebec jurisdiction. I wonder if everyone knows how to read. I don't know if the translations were badly done, but I can tell you that anything related to education is under Quebec jurisdiction. No one can override the Quebec government on that matter and tread on our ground.

You have seen students, workers, cross-Canada federations and other people testify before you. I have not been here for all of it, but I have read the testimony. They came here to tell you, loudly and clearly, that anything related to education is under Quebec jurisdiction. I don't know if everyone understood and I would like to repeat it for those who didn't understand. It can happen that people don't understand right away. There are also people who don't understand easily. There are still others who believe that by acting in this way that can tilt the balance in favour of a no.

I don't think we can bargain what is related to education in Quebec. We must respect what has been decided in the past. Everything that touches on grants, everything that touches on education is under Quebec jurisdiction.

As for the students, I would like to tell you that I am very close to our student movement. I did a little survey at home and I can tell you that people in the riding of Jonquière, which I represent, have said that what is proposed doesn't make any sense. They have even asked if that's what Canada really was and that was the reason they wanted to keep Quebec. But we are starting to say that it may be true that they want to keep us. I understand that they want to keep us by giving us candies, but for us, candies don't work any more. They have never worked and they work less and less.

You know that the money the Canadian government decided to take from the 1997-98 and 1998-99 budget is money that was taken from us in the transfers to the provinces. We must never forget that. They cut. The Liberals made the cuts. They cut in the transfer payments that affect education, health and social benefits. It doesn't make sense. Then they tell students that they want to give back the candies. I don't know if you, at home, call them candies, but that's what we call them. Even if we are 99 per cent francophone, we call them candies. But we no longer live on candy time.

For the students and the federations, everything that remotely touches education is under Quebec jurisdiction. I met some senior citizens last week. There were 500 of them who told me what they thought of all this. They asked me what you were trying to prove. Perhaps you could give me the answer? But they added that maybe you wanted to prove that Quebeckers were still your vassals. But we have paid and continue to pay federal taxes and governments must respect the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. They also told me to tell you that Quebeckers want their students to get their grants and loans as before.

I believe that in Quebec we have the best education system in the world. I have had the pleasure of working in Quebec for many years. I have long worked with the Ministry of Education in Quebec, especially on everything related to grants and loans. I think that over the years the Quebec government has listened to people because it has always improved its grants and loans system.

• 1325

You only have to read the history of the Quebec grants and loans plan. It has been changed every year. It listens to students' needs. You know that Quebec is the only province in Canada where tuition fees are so low. They have not been increased in years.

I worked for the Quebec government ten years ago. Tuition fees are the same now as they were then. They have not gone up. Moreover, the Quebec government does just give loans, it also gives grants.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I think there's been a misinterpretation or something, because we heard the testimony from people in Quebec that in fact tuition in Quebec is now $1,600 a year and it used to be $570 as recently as about 1990.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's it. They are the lowest in Canada, madam.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So in fact the Quebec government has increased tuition by about 300% in the last five or six years.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no. If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will explain for the twentieth time to Mrs. Torsney what tuition fees are in Quebec and what they are in Canada.

In Canada, tuition fees are more than double what they are in Quebec. It is normal for them to have increased a little in recent years, but they have not doubled and reached the Canadian level. I know it's your hobby horse to say that Canadian students who come to study in Quebec universities are poorly received because their tuition is higher. But that tuition is still less than what they would pay in their own universities.

So stop trying to beat us about the ears with that. In fact, it's Mrs. Girard-Bujold who has the numbers. She will give them to you. I believe it is her turn to speak in any case.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Allow me, Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm sorry, but I'd like to ensure that we're comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. While the points about fee differentiation between different provinces may be correct, my point remains, and it was confirmed by all of the witnesses, that in fact tuition fees in Quebec for one year of university are $1,600 right now. As recently as 1989 or 1990 they were $570. The facts remain the same.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, that's right.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That is approximately a 300% increase in the last six years. Don't suggest that they have remained the same for the last 10 years when (a) it is not correct and (b) it is a gross misrepresentation. I was listening to the witnesses.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I can provide him with a table with all the tuition fees in Canadian provinces, compared to those in Quebec, for 1996-97. Let's talk about Newfoundland.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Go slowly. Take notes, Mrs. Torsney.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: In 1996-97, tuition fees in Newfoundland were $2,700; in 1997-98, they were increased to $3,185, an increase of 18 per cent. In Prince Edward Island, they were $2,850 in 1996-97; in 1997-98, they were increased to $3,056, an increase of 7.25 per cent. In Nova Scotia, they were $3,576; they were increased to $3,865 in 1997-98. In New Brunswick, they were $2,785; in 1997-98, they went up to $3,015 . In Quebec, they were $1,690 in 1996-97, and, in 1997-98, they were $1,690. In Ontario, they were $2,973 in 1996-97; in 1997-98, they were $3,286, an increase of 10.53 per cent. In Manitoba, they were $2,774 in 1996-97; in 1997-98, they went to $2,896, an increase of 4.4 per cent.

Tuition fees in Saskatchewan were $2,684 in 1996-97; in 1997-98, they were $2,877, an increase of 7.19 per cent. In Alberta, in 1996-97, they were $2,984 and in 1997-98, they were $3,241, an increase of 8.61 per cent. And finally in British Columbia they were $2,489 in 1996-97; they were increased to $2,525, an increase of 1.45 per cent.

Therefore you see, Mr. Chairman, that since 1996 Quebec has not increased its tuition fees. Let's talk about the numbers we have on hand; tuition fees have not increased.

• 1330

You know that Quebec has the education system that reaches the greatest number of people possible. The Quebec grants and loans system has been changed, as I told you before the intervention by the Liberal MP. It has been increased, it has been modified to better conform to the students' real conditions.

Since 1996, it has been extended to the high school level to give those students access to grants and loans. So I think that what everyone has been saying, what all the witnesses have said, is that loans... I know, because I have a daughter who is in university and who has to pay back her loans. It's not easy for indebted students today. I don't question that. I would like it if we could give it all to young people and if we could always give them grants.

But the Quebec government is the only one that has a grant program that allows the poorest young people to have access to education. It doesn't just give loans, it also provides grants.

On that topic, we also have data on the indebtedness level of Canadian students outside Quebec, which is enormous compared to that of Quebec students. I understand why there are negotiations between Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Bouchard; they are negotiating so that the money will go back to Quebec.

In the final analysis, what is going on now—we see it in the press clippings—is that there are no negotiations. There are none. Mrs. Pauline Marois was saying that again yesterday. She took the time to call Mr. Pettigrew to tell him that the federal negotiator did not have a mandate to negotiate and to ask him if he wanted to know how the Quebec grants and loans program worked.

For us, the grants and loans program comes under the Access to Information Act, but that is not the case for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. I find that...

I don't know why you are signaling to me.

[English]

The Chairman: Are you guys looking for somebody?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no, no. It's because he has a tic.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't know you had a tic. Thank you for telling me. Even the Chairman... Oh, oh!

[English]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Can you imagine at midnight?

The Chairman: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I find it unacceptable that a government that says it is responsible takes money that belongs to all Canadians to establish a private foundation that it then exempts from access to information. That makes no sense. That's our money we are talking about.

That means they have something to hide. When you want things to be nice and clear, and precise, you allow the Access to Information Act to apply to what you set up. In addition, they are appointing the people. The government appoints its people, who appoint their subordinates, who in turn will then appoint the rest. That's enough. Too much is too much, Mr. Chairman. I like turkey, but not being a turkey, really I don't.

You know, Mr. Chairman, that we have to be aware of the fact that everything people have come to tell this committee was full of common sense. My father always says we have to go back to the common sense of ordinary folks. The government, actually the Liberal Party, which decides all this, will have to have the common sense to recognize the reality of down-to-earth people and respond to their expectations.

I believe that members of the Liberal Party, who currently hold the decision-making power, are not close to the people. I apologize to the member from Bourassa. We have often had verbal exchanges. I believe we are both able to tell each other that we always have to find a way to get closer to everyday people. Currently, with this decision, the government is getting further away from the people, is not meeting their expectations.

You know the current impoverishment of people, of our young people. Of course! Are they going to stop thinking that what we say isn't true? It is the truth! Are they going to stop saying we live living in the most beautiful country in the world, in one of the greatest countries in the world, and whatever else. Stop saying that.

I am not happy at home. In Jonquière, we now have two soup kitchens. My mother told me that there were soup kitchens in 1920. She also told me that the day I saw them come back, I could tell myself that we were in a bad way.

• 1335

That's where we are now in our cities, across Quebec and across Canada. We have soup kitchens.

I went there for a day; I was discouraged to see the potential of these young people who came to help us while asking for the right to one hot meal a day. It was awful to see that.

In addition, you would like to take the money that belongs to these people and establish a private foundation. A private foundation! Think about it, Mr. Chairman! Not everyone will have access to it, as is the case in Quebec with the grants and loans program. There will be criteria. That's not it at all. It will be the friends of the people who will set it up who will have to decide what clientele they are targeting. That is unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

Me, I' m a kid from the Saguenay, as we say at home, and I don't accept that. And I hope that you, the members of the party in power, won't accept it either. Accepting such things would make no sense.

I think we have what is needed in Quebec. You have to give the money back to us. We have the best grants and loans system in Canada. If you want to use it as model and export it to the rest of Canada, fine! We'll open the books and show you how to do it. But stop thinking you can do anything you want on our turf. No! No! That's enough.

At home, no one walks into my house without my permission. People in Quebec have not given the government of Canada permission to stick its nose into what belongs to them, that is within their rights and privileges. Those are their rights. They are theirs and you have no right to come and... Education belongs to all Quebeckers, and it is the government of Quebec that must administer its education system.

I even recall things that happened during the time or Mr. Lesage and Mr. Pearson—I wasn't old at the time—and even in Mr. Trudeau's time. In any case, I loved the quote from Mr. Trudeau. I thought it was wonderful. Mr. Trudeau wrote, in the Action nationale, in January 1957. I was young at the time.

As soon as a government has such a surplus of money that it undertakes to ensure part of the common good that is not under its jurisdiction, there is a presumption that such a government has taken more than its share of the taxable capacity.

That is what the government of Canada has done. It wants to use this money that it has taken from others to say "Look at how beautiful I am". That's the behaviour of a peacock. "Look at me! I turn cartwheels and I'm beautiful!" We've left that behind. We are in 1998, at the dawn of a new millennium. We are dealing with the essence of things. Real things must be said and must be done. They are those that affect people, that help them and meet their real needs, not the needs you find in fairy tales. We are no longer in dreamland, Mr. Chairman.

You know how hard life is today. Our young people have fewer and fewer jobs. They have more and more diplomas. Quebec can be proud of that. Young people in Quebec are more and more educated. For the last 20 years, it's extraordinary how our young people have become loaded with diplomas in Quebec. What they want is the opportunity to become even better trained to become the best, to become competitive on a global scale.

Globalization is what counts. We are no longer stuck in the corner of the world we see from our window; we are competing with the entire world. And Quebec is prepared to get into this arena. But don't come and tell us that this money belongs to you. It does not belong to the Canadian government. The part withheld by the government of Canada to be included in the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation belongs to the Quebec government. And it is the Quebec government that must administer it so that the education system will be accessible to the majority, to the greatest number of people.

• 1340

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the people who have been on this committee since the beginning, who have heard all the testimony, to re-read that of the people from Quebec as well as that of people from other parts of Canada.

They should resolve to sit down and respect the opinions they have heard. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage came to an agreement, on April 16,1964; in a letter in which he was responding to Mr. Lesage, Mr. Pearson recognized that education was under Quebec jurisdiction. Everything that affects education is under Quebec jurisdiction. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that's common sense. Let's get back to common sense. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Pillitteri, do you have any comments?

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): The only comment I have to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I have a very bad pain very close to where I sit, and some of these proceedings are applying a lot of pressure to it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, I will have more that one comment. However, regarding what Mr. Pillitteri said, he could rest.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak one again. I am living up to my word. This morning I told members of this committee that I had a historic photo that I obtained in March 1994. Why that date? Because March 1994 marked the thirtieth anniversary of the historic Quebec conference between Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage, a conference that was historic not only for Quebec, but also for Canada. I first saw that photo in the Globe and Mail in March 1994.

We had been here for a few months and sitting in the House for a few days when this photo caught my attention. I thought it was really beautiful. I thought it was symbolic of what had been happening for the last 30 years. In fact, I am showing it for everyone's benefit. You see Mr. Pearson smiling here. I don't know the person in the middle; it's someone from the RCMP. Mr. Lesage is on the extreme left.

Mr. Pearson's smile is that of someone who is sure of himself. He had a very nice open attitude towards Canada and the rest of the world. In fact, he had received the Nobel peace prize for his contribution to the creation of the peacekeepers.

On the other hand, Mr. Lesage looks a little sceptical. The photo was taken at the opening of the federal-provincial conference in 1964. Listen carefully to what is written under the photo; it's worth hearing.

Some voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It's also worth hearing the background on this photo. When I saw it in the Globe and Mail, I phoned the newspaper to get it. I was told it belonged to an American. I then communicated with this American, who told me he wanted $4,000 for it.

A voice: Did you pay that price?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I told him it was not for publication but to keep as a souvenir because it was an historic date. The end of March 1964, more specifically the opening of the conference, March 31, 1964, is a historic date. I said I wanted to keep a copy of it. Not only did he offer it to me for free, he offered me two copies. There are now two copies in Quebec, one in my office and one in Mr. Bouchard's office in Quebec. In fact, it is an historic date for him also and the photo showed two historical figures who made a great contribution to Quebec.

I therefore come back to the faces of Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage in the photo. It was at the opening of the federal- provincial conference. Do you know why Mr. Lesage looked like that? It is because the debate had just started with a federal intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction, namely education. At that time, the federal government, for the second time in ten years, had tried to meddle in the field of education. Education was an area recognized beyond doubt in section 93 of the British North America Act.

It's worth quoting all of Mr. Lesage's statement. It is very brief and has only five paragraphs. It was in response to Mr. Pearson's opening statement of that historic federal-provincial conference. You will understand why Mr. Lesage looked a little sceptical while Mr. Pearson looked a tittle triumphant.

• 1345

Mr. Lesage said, and I quote:

The fact that the federal government is offering only loans to students, and not grants and loans as had seemed to be the case at one time...

I believe he was referring to 1953.

...can at first glance seem to be an effort to avoid the constitutional problem that grants would have created.

Even at that time it was recognized that giving grants created a constitutional problem under section 93. Mr. Lesage also said:

In fact, by controlling credit, the federal government can give the impression of staying within its jurisdiction by giving loans instead of grants.

We do not believe that this way of doing things avoids the constitutional problem. The students themselves have felt it since they have openly opposed the new federal policy.

And now, 34 years later, we could believe that we are at that historic moment of March 31, 1964. The former and current student leaders have come to tell us, speaking for Quebec students, that they don't want these scholarships.

I continue with Mr. Jean Lesage's opening statement:

The difficulty stems not from the fact that these are loans, but interest-free loans to students. The loans will be granted by banking institutions on the basis of a federal guarantee, but the central government will take care of reimbursing the interest. This reimbursement then becomes a direct federal subsidy for education. In addition, the citizens for whom it is intended are students, which is not happenstance, but more the result of an education assistance policy, an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. For those two reasons, the Quebec government cannot accept that the proposed federal project be applied as is currently envisaged.

Mr. Chairman, the next paragraph of Mr. Lesage's statement could also apply today:

Moreover, we have already set up a student financial aid system; the grants that it gives Quebec students and the loans that it makes each year represent a considerable amount of money. We are already making an especially important effort in this area, not counting the other enormous sums we are spending in other areas in the field of education.

Under the circumstances,...

That was Mr. Lesage's message.

...and in order to resolve the problem created by the federal student loan policy, Quebec asks the that the government of Canada return to it, in the form of a fiscal equivalent, the amounts it would have spent on reimbursing the interest on the loans given to Quebec students. To establish this equivalence, we would accept that the relative proportion of the Quebec population be taken into account.

Mr. Chairman, we could have taken this opening statement by the Honorable Jean Lesage, for whom I have the greatest respect, and applied it today. Essentially, the arguments of March 31, 1964 presented by Mr. Lesage are the same as those presented now in a slightly more modern fashion, given the evolution of things and of the terminology related to education. But essentially the message is the same. Education is strictly a Quebec jurisdiction according to section 93, including the recent amendments, and the federal government must not intrude directly or indirectly in this area where we jealously guard our prerogatives.

You will understand, Mr. Chairman, that thinking of this federal attempt to intrude, Mr. Lesage had somewhat of a long face and Mr. Pearson seemed fairly sure of himself at this federal- provincial conference. He seemed convinced, as Mr. Chrétien was at the start—I don't know if he still is today—that he was doing a good thing.

On the other hand, a lot of things were said at this historic conference. Representatives of different provinces, including Quebec, presented their points of view, debated, talked about the constitution, rights, Quebec's privileges in the field of education and about precedents. In 1953, a federal government attempt had failed; at that time it had understood that the field of education was sacred in Quebec and we had won that prerogative in that field with all the rights, including constitutional rights. Since we entered into the federal system in 1867, education has been sacred to us.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I don't have a photo for the end of the March 1964 conference, but I am convinced that Mr. Pearson was smiling a little less and that Mr. Lesage had a big smile. Maybe they were both smiling? I don't know.

• 1350

Some people were there and saw it. I had the opportunity of meeting some former senior officials who told me that Mr. Lesage did in fact have a big smile. Let me express to you, Mr. Chairman,...

[English]

The Chairman: Are you going to have a slide show this afternoon?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No.

[Translation]

Some voices: That would be a good idea!

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, I don't need that. In fact, I have your attention. It's necessary to present original things to you to get your attention. I get the impression that the presentations...

Mr. Denis Coderre: News and photos.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, and if you want some, I will be pleased to give you the address and other necessary data. Those are historic moments.

At the end of the 1964 conference, Mr. Pearson sent a very interesting telegram to Mr. Lesage. That's how we can explain what people told us and Mr. Lesage's smile after the constitutional conference.

The telegram said: "The federal government..."

It might be worthwhile for you to listen because Mr. Chrétien might be sending such a telegram to Mr. Bouchard using more or less the same words. It's a translation of the telegram from Mr. Pearson and I quote the three paragraphs:

The federal government hopes to introduce legislation shortly that will allow the continuation of family allowances for children aged 16 and 17 and who remain dependents either because they cannot work for physical reasons or because the are continuing their education.

Given that the Province of Quebec already has a similar program, these extended allowances will not be given to Quebec residents. However, there will be compensatory fiscal arrangements similar to those that exist in the case of university subsidies.

That's marvelous, Mr. Chairman, it's marvelous. To continue:

...the federal government intends to propose arrangements whereby guaranteed bank loans would be given to university students in each province, up to an amount determined for designated students by the recognized authority in the province. If a province prefers to keep its own loan program, it can receive equivalent compensation.

Marvelous, Mr. Chairman! What a marvel that Mr. Pearson! If he were still alive... Oh, we would like it if Mr. Pearson were still on the political scene because he would understand. You should also understand because you must experience this if you are what you say you are, good parliamentarians and also federalists.

You should know that story, as well as all the subtleties that exist in the field of education and in the history of the debates between Quebec and the rest of Canada whenever the issue of culture and education, which are the backbone and the basis for survival of a culture, have arisen. You should have understood that by presenting a project such as the millennium scholarships there would be an outcry in Quebec.

In fact, Mr. Pearson had understood this. We would like the federal Liberals to understand it also, because Mr. Pearson was nothing if not a liberal, but a real liberal, an open-minded guy. I think that expression describes him well.

Perhaps today, given Mr. Pearson's expertise, you would have understood that the 14 organizations that testified before you and said the same thing about rejecting the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, translated this rejection into the seven basic arguments that I have presented to you this morning and proposed amendments to satisfy Quebec.

We cannot continue this debate, Mr. Chairman, and go on to the clause-by-clause study, to the report stage and third reading while ignoring the consensus that exists in Quebec. It cannot be, Mr. Chairman, that we say today that because of administrative constraints we have to go on to the report stage and that we have cut-off dates to meet. That would mean we are totally ignoring the case of the population of Quebec, one of the two founding peoples that came to tell us that it had basic disagreements with a federal government orientation.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of the 1964 conference, there were a number of other attempts to intrude into Quebec jurisdiction. In the field of education there was another recent attempt, aside from the one we are debating today. In May 1991, during the Speech from the throne, the federal government expressed the desire to intrude further into the field of education.

• 1355

Again, at that time there was an outcry in Quebec, and it wasn't by the PQ government because it was a Liberal government. In 1991, the Liberals and the Parti québécois members agreed to oppose the claims of the federal government and the recent correspondence between Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Chrétien is virtually identical to the ones from 1991, 1964 and 1953. I would simply like to read an extract from a recent letter Mr. Bouchard sent to Mr. Chrétien recently. He said, and I quote:

Quebec refuses to have any orientation dictated to it in regard to student financial aid, an area within its jurisdiction. In addition, as far as the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation is concerned, you understand that the since the Quebec government already has its own grants program, it expects to receive just compensation that it can use to improve its student financial aid program and reduce their indebtedness.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why, in 1998, we have to repeat, as Mr. Bouchard has repeated in a letter to Mr. Chrétien, the whole debate we have had for 40 years about education. It seems obvious that in proposing a project of this nature there would be protests from Quebec and serious fights. In fact, those are the terms used by the 14 organizations that have appeared before us and that we should have understood by now.

I have often heard Liberal members, Mrs. Torsney in particular, tell us that the federal government was investing enormous amounts, that it was financing a good deal of education, that we had to take into account the fact that the federal government needed to have some visibility and that Quebeckers should know what the federal government was contributing.

We have gathered some data, Mr. Chairman, on investments in Quebec and we note that the federal government's share, in 1996-97, for the financing of education was 15 per cent. It has surely been less since because there have been cuts of $10 billion in the education sector, $3 billion of which were in Quebec. We therefore find these assertions go a little too far. It's a bit much.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I understand you want to adjourn the debate to move on to the question period and that we will resume after that.

[English]

The Chairman: No, actually, I want to move to clause-by-clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'm sorry?

[English]

The Chairman: Just kidding.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: No problem.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: So you are adjourning for question period and we will then resume. Is that right?

[English]

The Chairman: Can I get agreement to come back at 4 p.m. or 4.30 p.m.?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: To return to the debate about the motion? I don't see any inconvenience.

[English]

The Chairman: At 4.30 p.m.?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: At 4 or 4:30 p.m.?

The Chairman: At 4: 30.

[English]

Is that okay? You've agreed, right?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Wait! Let's be clear on this. I will speak very slowly. I agree to suspend the debate until 4:30 but at 4:30 when we will come back, I will finish my demonstration on the motion. Other colleagues from the Bloc Québécois or other parties who wish to continue to intervene on the motion tabled by my colleague, the member from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup— Témiscouata—Les Basques, may do so.

[English]

The Chairman: So that everybody is aware, Mr. Loubier has agreed to come back here at 4.30 p.m., today, aujourd'hui.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are witnesses to the fact that Mr. Bevilacqua agrees that we take up the debate at 4:30 where we left off and that we continue the debate on the motion of my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques until it is finished.

[English]

The Chairman: Make sure you hold your thoughts until then, okay?

This meeting is adjourned.