Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I remind him that, on page 14 of the budget speech, reference is clearly made to criteria, and I quote:
—In particular, the Foundation will have the authority, subject to mutually agreed needs, merit and mobility criteria—
So, when we say the fund will be based on merit, it is not a figment of our imagination. The budget speech clearly alludes to needs, merit and mobility criteria.
As for mobility, one wonders what it means for Quebeckers. It may be a good thing for Canadians, but it is not necessarily the case for Quebeckers.
We also believe that Canadians should get to know their country better. Therefore, recipients of the Canada Millennium Scholarships who want to travel to study outside their home town or province will be provided help to do so.
I do not believe such opportunities are a priority for Quebeckers.
Since I could not do so earlier, I remind the hon. member that when the Minister of Human Resources Development says the federal government makes an enormous contribution to loans and grants in Quebec, he may not realize it but he should know that this supposedly enormous federal contribution has been of the order of 15% to 20% since 1990.
This is no big deal, particularly because every time the government gets involved in education, health and social programs, it directly contravenes the letter and the spirit of the Canadian Constitution, which it is supposed to respect. It is like the rules of the House of Commons, which are trampled whenever it suits certain people.
The same goes for the Canadian Constitution. When it does not suit the needs of this Parliament, of this government, it is simply flouted. This is probably one of the main reasons why it is in the interest of Quebeckers to leave this country and to deal with Canada on an equal footing, so that the rules of the game can be redefined, that we can be recognized as a people and that our province is no longer the laughing stock of this country.