Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Edmonton—Strathcona and on behalf of every Canadian taxpayer, I am pleased to rise to speak against Bill C-36 concerning the implementation of many of the recent announcements made by the government in the 1998 budget.
My colleagues have dealt thoroughly with this legislation in committee. I would like to address only the Group No. 1 amendments concerning the millennium fund.
As this House is aware, the passing of this act would bring into effect the much talked about Canada millennium scholarship foundation. This fund concerns me for a number of reasons, the first of which has nothing to do with the world of budgets and finance at all.
Education is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Any further meddling by the federal government only helps to enhance the frustration felt by our provincial partners about the Canadian federation.
This point is important because the millennium fund will be more than just another ineffective and wasteful Liberal policy. It will be a constant reminder to our friends in Quebec, Alberta and elsewhere that this government refuses to recognize constitutional division of powers.
I recall very well the Bloc supply day motion which opposed the millennium fund because it violates provincial jurisdiction. There were aspects of the motion that were admittedly objectionable to the Reform caucus, but I share the sentiment felt by my colleagues in the Bloc that the federal government has once again overextended its reach.
I would also suggest that the members of the Bloc, like the members of the Reform caucus, are no less concerned about the quality of education than the Prime Minister. They simply appreciate that the federal government should respect provincial jurisdiction. They also understand that the provincial governments are better able to administer programs than is a distant and out of touch federal government.
The premiers of this country are united in their support for a rebalancing of powers that better reflects the original constitution. Yet the federal government refuses to respect this consensus.
I would recommend that if the government is interested in solving the national unity problem, it should look at the new Canada act put together by the Reform caucus. This act embodies many of the concerns felt by our premiers and is a blueprint for positive change.
I mention this to illustrate a point. There are consequences of bad policies which are not readily apparent but that must be addressed fully. We cannot continue to ignore the delicate political reality in this country.
The millennium fund must be opposed because of the potential damage it will do to intergovernmental relations. The Prime Minister is not concerned about national unity or constitutional matters. He is concerned about his political legacy.
The millennium fund will provide the Prime Minister with a legacy, but not for being a champion for higher education. Our Prime Minister will instead join the long list of status quo federalist politicians who refuse to listen to our first ministers who are calling on this government to get out of areas of provincial jurisdiction.
My second concern with the millennium fund is one that has been addressed many times. It is a concern I alluded to only minutes ago. This fund, simply put, will not be effective in improving the financial situation for Canadian students.
Even after billions are spent, 90% of Canadian students will never see a penny of this money. They will face the same financial constraints they always have. If the federal government was concerned about education, it need only to reinvest money in provincial transfers for education. Maybe it could look at such things as an income contingent student loan plan which would ensure adequate funding for students. Or maybe the Prime Minister could work toward building a partnership between educators and industry.
My point is that the possibilities for helping Canadian students are endless. We must look for creative ways to drive down the cost of education and to ensure access to funds for students in need. However the millennium fund is clearly not the way to accomplish this.
While the Reform caucus is opposed to the fund, we have recommended some changes that will improve the current legislation.
First, the millennium scholarship fund should be subject to the Access to Information Act. This is fair. It is hard to argue why the fund should be shrouded in secrecy. If the government is confident the money will be properly spent, it should embrace the opportunity to make the fund open to scrutiny. Second, eligible institution should mean an institution that is a public or private post-secondary educational institution in Canada that is designated for Canada student loan purposes and grants degrees, certificates or diplomas.
I think this amendment satisfies the principle of equality and fairness and should be considered by all members of this House.
Third, it is our recommendation that the provinces and territories be allowed to opt out and enter into agreements with the foundation to use their portion of the fund to suit their post-secondary priorities with no strings attached.
I would be very surprised if Liberal members of this House opposed the amendment, as it is in keeping with Liberal policy on the procedure for implementing federal programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction where the provinces are reluctant to allow federal intervention. This is a part of Liberal policy on national standards, so I expect the government's support on that amendment.
Finally, we recommend that an appeal process be established to consider grant applications which were denied or rejected. Again, this is a reasonable amendment that entrenches a provision for fairness.
The millennium fund will not help Canadian students struggling to pay their way through university. It is a bad program that should be scrapped. However, if it must remain the recommended amendments made by my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat should be given careful consideration and support.
This is only one of the issues that have put a black mark on Bill C-36. For this reason I will join my colleagues in the Reform caucus in opposition to it.