Madam Speaker, let me start off by saying that the 1998 budget set up the arm's length foundation to manage the millennium scholarship fund. It is intended to increase access to post-secondary education for deserving students from lower income families. It is a priority that has support right across Canada. It has been discussed at the first ministers meeting and in other fora. Federal and provincial officials have been working together co-operatively to address the issue of student financing for post-secondary education.
The foundation has been mandated to undertake an extensive consultation with the various stakeholders, which would include the provinces, on the definition and administration of the scholarships. We heard during committee the concern that individuals have with respect to overlap and duplication. That is why the foundation has been mandated to take on those consultations.
Let us be very clear. The millennium scholarship foundation will not be a federal program. Scholarships will be distributed from a private arm's length organization which will deal directly with the students. That means the foundation and the scholarships will not be under the control of the federal government, nor will the government be able to dictate to the foundation the parameters of these scholarships or their distribution.
The scholarship fund will provide 100,000 scholarships a year to students in every province and every community, up to $3,000 per year for full time and part time students. It is about increasing access to knowledge and skills. It is the country's dividend for balancing the books. It is the recognition that Canadians from coast to coast, province to province deserve equal access to the opportunities that will secure a better future for them and their families.
I have said it in committee and I will say it again here. Something as important as this should be taken out of the hands of politicians and put into the hands of experts. That is what this millennium scholarship fund is doing. The foundation will be administering the scholarships and over time will attract private sector endowments so that it can grow and help even more young Canadians.
With respect to the motions in Group No. 1, the member for Kings—Hants talked about his amendment and the idea that private schools should be designated by provincial law as eligible for the millennium scholarship fund. Under the current legislation, universities, community colleges and CEGEPs will be eligible institutions.
The current legislation also provides the foundation with the flexibility it needs to determine the eligibility of privately funded institutions. This flexibility gives it the means to designate bona fide credible private institutions as eligible institutions. There is no intent in this legislation to exclude such institutions.
I go on to the Reform motion that would require the foundation to establish an appeal process for applicants who do not receive scholarships. I said it in committee and I will say it again. There is nothing in this legislation to prevent the foundation from establishing an appeals process.
We have to understand this is an arm's length foundation. It is completely within its purview, and the legislation allows for this flexibility, to establish an appeals process. Establishing an appeals process pursuant to regulations established by the government would undermine the arm's length nature of the foundation. We cannot have it both ways.
The Conservative Party proposed an amendment that calls for the Auditor General of Canada to be appointed as the auditor of this foundation. There is really no need for this amendment because the auditor general could be appointed as the auditor for this foundation. There is no legal obstacle to naming the auditor general. It is completely within the purview of the foundation to choose the auditor general as its auditor.
The same member from the Conservative Party calls for the Minister of Finance to remove the auditor of the foundation from office. I could not believe this amendment when I read it. The hon. member's motion gives the Minister of Finance the power to remove the auditor chosen by the foundation. This amendment compromises the arm's length nature of the foundation. It gives the minister a direct role in the removal of the auditor. That role properly belongs to the members of the foundation.
What is actually being said is on the one hand there is a call for transparency and accountability and on the other hand this amendment says if the Minister of Finance does not like the particular auditor, the minister can pull him. I do not think we can support that amendment. We are looking for independence, an arm's length relationship, accountability and transparency.
Motion No. 65 makes reference to the booking of this foundation. The auditor general came before the committee. As I have said before, the accounting issue has also been discussed by the public accounts committee. In its majority report the public accounts committee supported the government's accounting policies with respect to the booking of such non-recurring liabilities. It is certainly very clear.
The member from the Bloc spoke eloquently at the meeting. I believe that member is in agreement with me that there is disagreement within the accounting profession with respect to this issue. That means professional judgment should be exercised in such cases, which is exactly what the government is doing and what it will continue to do.
When the government announces a program and commits to funding a program, it is incumbent upon the government to pay for that program. When we came to office there were a number of unfunded liabilities on the books. There were programs that had been announced but not funded. We came to office and there was a $42 billion deficit and decisions needed to be made.
What we are saying is no more. We are saying that when a government makes an announcement and makes a commitment to a particular program, the government should pay for it. I believe Canadians will support that. Canadians want to know that when an announcement is made and a program is put in place that the money is there to pay for it, even if the program is going to begin down the road, as long as certain criteria is met.
That criteria was certainly discussed at the finance committee. What we have here is a disagreement within in the accounting profession. Professional judgment will be exercised as it has been in the past and as it will be in the future.
The other point brought forward by the hon. member from the Conservative Party was about access to information. Again the foundation is an arm's length entity and it is independent of the federal government. Let us talk about what it is required to do.
Sections 36 and 39 of the bill talk about what the foundation is required to do with the annual report. It needs to outline its investment activities. It needs to include the auditor's report. It needs to include the portfolio on the policies, the statement of outlook, and the results achieved with respect to the foundation's scholarships which are placed. Finally it is also required to hold a public meeting every year. It is required to provide ample advance notice of the public meeting so the public can attend, scrutinize, ask questions and discuss what the foundation has done over the past year. So it is not about access to information.
I should also say that the annual report which is then tabled in the House of Commons is certainly open to the auditor general to review and comment on it, as is any other document that gets tabled in the House. It is completely within the purview of the auditor general. There is transparency and there is accountability.
I will close by saying that this is not a government program. It is an arm's length foundation. The opting out option is not there because it is not a government program, it is an arm's length foundation.