Mr. Speaker, as a member of the finance committee responsible for reviewing Bill C-36 as it relates to the millennium fund, I am very pleased to take the floor today.
In my opinion, the millennium scholarships are as important as manpower training. It would have been a symbolic gesture on the part of the government to comply with the consensus that has been expressed in Quebec, concerning the possibility of opting out, with full compensation.
I believe that the millennium scholarships are a test of the flexibility of federalism. This is the kind of attitude we are up against. We saw 34 groups, 41% of which came from Quebec. All Quebec groups were in favour of opting out with full compensation.
Once again, this is a demonstration of the government's bad faith. Had it wanted to show good faith in this matter, it would have amended the Canada Student Loans Act. All that would have required, as we know, was to add these scholarships on to it, and then opting out with full compensation would have been possible.
First, I would point out the bad faith of the government, and then there is another point to be made as well. They could have given the current negotiations a chance without rushing to pass a bill which, as we know, does not give the power to the foundation and does not allow a province to opt out with full compensation.
Why do we want to do so? Clearly, as the Prime Minister himself has said, he needs visibility. He is therefore creating a bill that does not allow opting out with full compensation.
The board will not have the power to delegate to the provinces. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will speak today on this Bill C-36, which we oppose because the millennium scholarships do not reflect the reality of Quebec.
Had it not been for pressure from the Government in Quebec and the coalition for Quebec's withdrawal with full compensation, we would never have had the opportunity to speak for Quebec. Forty one percent of those who testified through their various organizations, or 1.2 million people, have been heard by the committee, including 89,000 small businessmen and women.
We know that the business community, Quebec's Conseil du patronat and Chamber of Commerce as well as manufacturers and exporters from both Quebec and Canada came before the committee to ask that Quebec be allowed to manage education and to opt out with full compensation, so that funds can be allocated based on the needs and realities of Quebec.
I am very disappointed. I sat on this committee with a great deal of good faith. I was able to see once again how little attention is paid to Quebec's demands, consensus and reality. These were ignored since the government members, after having heard all the witnesses, do not have a single amendment to propose in this place. I am disappointed as a member of the committee who took part in the proceedings in an honest and open fashion.
I can say that all witnesses from Quebec were once again unanimous. I did warn the committee that the people will judge their performance. It shows just how inflexible this federal system is. In fact, John Trent, a university professor and a federalist, told us that this was poor federalism and that, once again, Quebec's demands were being ignored. This is not a sovereignist speaking, but a federalist who testified before the committee.
This is all very disappointing. Many students' associations outside Quebec came to tell us to listen to Quebec. They believed Quebec's demands should be listened to for once. I attended almost every discussion and meeting with the various representatives, associations and witnesses, and I can tell you that several witnesses noticed the government's bad faith in this matter.
The consensus in Quebec includes the education sector and the unions, but polls have also been conducted. According to one public opinion poll, 71% of respondents preferred an increase in the Canada social transfer. They felt that it had been extremely difficult to go through the period of restraint created by the cuts and that the surpluses might not be properly managed. Considering the $2.5 billion to be allocated to a private foundation which, as we know, will have a rather broad mandate, I do not think we can expect a great deal of transparency from that foundation. So I am very disappointed.
I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to postpone consideration of the bill until we have seen the results of the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa. Why not do that? I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to seek the consent of the House to postpone the study of this bill. I think the government is acting in bad faith.