Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to say how disappointed I am with the motion before us.
Even though I agree with the underlying principle of the motion, its wording prevents me from supporting it.
I agree with the principle of the motion since I recognize that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction and I agree with the Bloc that the millennium scholarship foundation is in violation of this principle.
However, I believe the Bloc erred by wanting to censure any action by the federal government in the area of education. If I could have amended the motion, I would have clarified the issue of transfer payments because the Reform Party believes it is a federal responsibility, which is not clear in the motion.
Besides, I believe the issue of national testing is a separate issue. The relationship between federal and provincial governments in the area of education must be clarified in order to maintain national standards without encroaching on provincial powers.
However, the Reform Party agrees with the Bloc to condemn the millennium scholarship foundation. We believe it has nothing to do with education but everything to do with the political image of the Prime Minister of Canada, who made this announcement two years ahead of time just to look good.
The Liberal government is trying to hide the fact it cut $7 billion out of health care and post-secondary education, and is making up for these cuts by promising $325 million a year starting in the year 2000. This money will only help 6% of Canadian students while the other 94% will get no help whatsoever.
Moreover this fund will do nothing to lower the present debt load of students. The average student debt is around $20,000. A $3,000 scholarship for 6% of students will not improve the situation very much.
Eligibility criteria are fuzzy. Will the scholarships be granted on the basis of merit or need? If it is on the basis of need, they will overlap the Canada students loan program as well as provincial programs. If it is on the basis of merit, a whole new bureaucracy will be created to decide who will get help.
By making the foundation a private and independent body, the Liberal government is creating a new opportunity for patronage. This fund will only benefit a minority of students, whereas an increase in the CHST would have benefited every student.
As I mentioned in my speech, and I would like to go over that one more time to make it clear, the Reform Party is committed to education. We campaigned on that during the last election campaign. We wanted to reinvest $4 billion back into health care and education. It is not a question of Reform not being committed to education.
We have seen that on the part of the Bloc too. Its amendment and the direction that it is heading with this motion is quite clear. It cares about education. I would agree with the Bloc. As I mentioned, education is a provincial responsibility. We have said in past debates that the Reform Party would like to get back to the constitutional sections that show exactly what are the provincial responsibilities and the federal responsibilities. We do agree with the Bloc on that level.
I was reluctant. I really wanted to support this motion but it was so vague in its explication of how the relationship of the federal government to the provinces in education would actually develop. There still has to be some sort of a relationship in the area of transfer payments and in the area of potentially national standards. As I said, that is up for debate.
This motion does not at all address that issue and that concerns me. I know that one of the things that educational institutions, especially at the post-secondary level across this country, have had to do is catch up with the heartless cuts that we have seen on the other side of this House. That is something that we can share in our feelings of dismay with the government and this attempt with this millennium scholarship fund. We have no idea who it is going to help and how and what sort of bureaucracy it will create in the process.
In that frustration that we in the Reform Party feel with the Bloc, I can understand and share that same sense of frustration. We want to see more of the responsibilities that are provincial responsibilities returned to the provinces.
It is very, very important that we have this definition clear as to what it will mean when we start changing the relationship between the federal and the provincial governments. We are open on this side to that debate. In future maybe the Bloc could have some correspondence with some of the other parties in developing motions. Maybe we can work together to create something better in this country.
I appreciate the Bloc's motion, but I am sorry I cannot support it.