Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the Group No. 1 motions respecting Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. In particular I want to speak to the three motions being brought forward by the Reform Party and explain why we think it is important that the House consider them seriously and give serious thought to accepting them. We feel very strongly that they will improve greatly what is being proposed in the budget.
The first motion I want to speak to is Motion No. 3. This amendment would ensure that an eligible institution for a millennium grant would be any institution that currently is eligible to receive a student loan from the federal government. In other words, what we would do with this motion is spread the eligibility from the current proposal which is just for students who attend publicly funded institutions to all institutions, including institutions for instance like Trinity Western University in British Columbia.
We feel very strongly that publicly funded institutions do not have the monopoly on good education. The federal government in the past has seen that these institutions, like Trinity Western, provide a good education which is why it allows student loans to be used to go to school there. We think it just makes sense if the government is going to be consistent that the millennium fund should apply to those sorts of institutions.
We are suggesting that the government should hear what we are saying. I also believe that this was supported by witnesses who came before the committee. We hope the government will hear what we are saying and adopt this as part of the budget implementation act.
The second motion we want to address, Motion No. 42, deals with the establishment of an appeal process whereby a student who was turned down to receive a scholarship fund would have some way of appealing the decision. Governments are notorious for making bad decisions. They do it all the time. They get information wrong and based on that information they may make a faulty decision.
We think it makes sense to have an appeal process so if somebody is turned down because of a bureaucratic bungle, a problem at the government's end, there is some way for the student to come back and say “these are the facts, you have it wrong, you made a mistake, let me have another chance to apply and have access to the grant”. It is a mechanism that will ensure fairness for students.
The final motion we want to discuss and the one that is most important is Motion No. 67. It is a motion to allow a provincial government to opt out of the millennium scholarship fund and enter into an agreement where the foundation pays the province the amount that would have been spent in a particular province. The province would then use the funds for its own priorities.
There is a bit of history required in order to understand why Motion No. 67 is so important. In the 1993 leadership debate the current Prime Minister was questioned by the current Leader of the Opposition about transfer payments for health care and higher education. The Leader of the Opposition asked the current Prime Minister if he would keep them at the current level. The Prime Minister replied: “I said yesterday in reply to Mr. Bouchard that I promised that they will not go down and I hope that we will be able to increase them”. That was a few days before the election.
What happened after that is history. I think we all know what happened. There were $6 billion in cuts to the provinces for health care and higher education. After the Prime Minister promised they would not go down and in fact might even go up they were cut by $6 billion. That means the provinces have $6 billion less to give to their health care systems and higher education.
The impact was devastating. It meant that tuition costs had to go up dramatically. We know as a result of tuition costs going up dramatically all of a sudden students had to bear more of the cost for their education. That is why we have student debt levels of around $25,000 today. But that is not in all provinces.
Quebec provides more money for its university system and education is much more heavily subsidized. Student debtloads are much lower, about $11,000. We heard that over and over again from witnesses who came from Quebec. They said their student debtloads are not nearly as high. They said they do not need the millennium scholarship fund to address those things.
Once the federal government created the problem it then stepped in with the millennium scholarship fund, this great monument to the Prime Minister, and said “now that we have created this problem and the provinces are taking all the heat for it we are going to step in and be heroes and get all the credit for fixing it”. It is like the arsonist who starts fires so he can come back later to put them out and get credit for putting out the fire.
So we are saying let us not let the federal government get away with that. Let us ensure there is a clause that allows the provinces to opt out and if they so choose to take the money that would come to their province through the millennium scholarship fund and use it to lower all tuition costs, not just for the select few who have access to the millennium scholarship fund.
I think what the government did was duplicitous.
It set out in 1993 to convince Canadians it would somehow fix all their problems without having to make any cuts of any kind and then turn around immediately and slash funding to the provinces for health care and higher education. Then it steps in with a fund that is clearly in provincial jurisdiction and wants to get credit for fixing the problem it created.
We do not want to let it get away with that. We want to ensure the money gets back to the provinces so they can use it in a way they choose. They may choose to stay in the millennium scholarship fund and if they do that is fine, it is up to them. But they know their own priorities a lot better than the federal government does 2,000 miles away.
Let us give the provinces that option. In a day and age when the federal government is talking about co-operative federalism it would take a giant step toward healing rifts if it would adopt Motion No. 67.
All we are asking is to give provinces the options. The federal government needs to have some faith in the people of Canada. If the people of Canada do not want their provinces to use this money for something else, they will send a strong message to their provincial governments.
The federal government should have some faith in the people. That is exactly what they will do. We are encouraging the House to seriously consider adopting Motion No. 67. I am very sensitive to the issues raised by my colleagues from Quebec that over and over again we had witnesses coming from Quebec saying they did not necessarily need this for scholarships in Quebec. Student debt levels in Quebec are only about $11,000 compared to $25,000 elsewhere.
I urge colleagues to consider the good this motion would do in terms of building bridges with the provinces, in terms of uniting our country and strengthening the union. I urge members to support Motion No. 67 and the other motions Reform has brought forward.