House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 40% of the vote.
United Nations Day October 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I ask the minister if he could tell this House what the department has planned for United Nations Day to honour the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who served on UN missions?
Petitions October 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 70 of my constituents regarding Bill C-225.
Canadian Student Loans September 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the occasion to debate the motion brought before the House by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
The hon. member is asking for substantial changes to the way the government supports post-secondary education. With all due respect, I do not think the hon. member has done her homework before presenting her motion. I will address her points individually.
The first point is proposed changes to the Canada student loans program. The hon. member says the government should reverse the privatization of Canada student loans.
The government has stressed from day one that partnerships are the key to ensuring strong economic and social provisions that will serve Canadians. We still believe that. As for the Canadian student loans program, we can go back to its inception in 1964 and find that the government of the day worked with private sector lenders to finance the Canadian student loans program. That is hardly a radical concept.
Prior to 1995 the Canadian student loans program provided students with financial assistance in the form of 100% government guaranteed loans from private sector lenders. These lenders financed and distributed the loans and were responsible for servicing and collecting them.
In theory this seems like a good system but in practice there was little incentive for lenders to maintain loans in good standing, to prevent defaults or to provide quality service to students. The result was a significant cost to the government.
Hon. members will recall that in the early part of this decade Canadian taxpayers insisted that we get our financial house in order, which we have done. Part of that necessary and beneficial process was to negotiate new financing arrangements for the Canada student loans program, which we did.
New arrangements were introduced in 1995. Under these new arrangements lenders assume responsibility for servicing and collecting the loans.
In return for the risk of loans not being repaid, the Government of Canada pays lenders a premium of 5% of the loan's face value when it goes into repayment. This is a much more favourable arrangement for Canadian taxpayers.
Before these new arrangements were implemented, the Government of Canada held over $1 billion in loans for which it had reimbursed lenders under the guaranteed loans provision, a rather costly situation and one that Canadians would no longer tolerate.
The hon. member may ask how the system is an improvement. As a transition to risk shared system progresses, the cost of claims for guaranteeing loans will decrease dramatically while the cost of the risk premium will increase only moderately.
For example, payments against loan guarantees are expected to decline from $382 million in the fiscal year 1996-97 to a more reasonable $67 million for the year 2000-2001.
But during the same period it is estimated that the risk premium will increase only from $200,000 in 1996-97, the year after risk sharing was implemented, to $73 million in the year 2000-2001.
If we were to adopt the hon. member's motion and reverse this process the result would be forfeiture of the projected savings and there would be a significant increase in costs regarding claims for guaranteed loans. Surely that is not what the hon. member wants.
The government has signed contracts with lenders. Changing these arrangements would mean breaking contracts or renegotiating them, both of which could prove very costly.
The hon. member's motion also calls on the government to reject proposals for income contingent loan repayment. If the hon. member had done even preliminary research she would know that after discussions with our provincial partners it was agreed that a system of income contingent loan repayment was not feasible.
The idea of income contingent loan repayment came about following reforms to the Canadian student loans program and the coming into force of the Canadian Student Loans Financial Assistance Act in 1995.
In the 1997 budget we again expressed our willingness to discuss the possibility of an income contingency repayment with interested provinces. The bottom line is that only the province of Ontario expressed interest and potential lenders were, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about participating in such a scheme.
Ontario and the lenders have not been able to come to an agreement and the Ontario government said an ICR plan would not be introduced by the 1999 deadline it had set.
Last November a national stakeholders working session on the Canada student loans program determined that an ICR scheme was not viable so the government has no intention of implementing an ICR system at this time.
I point out, however, that the February 1998 federal budget is sensitive to a student borrower's income. The budget announced a package of new measures, including interest relief changes and new grants.
For example, eligibility for interest relief is based on income. The 1998 budget increased the threshold for students to qualify for interest relief, extended the interest relief period over a longer period of time and introduced debt reduction measures to assist students in severe financial hardship.
The hon. member for Vancouver East is calling on the government to implement a federal student grant program. Where was the hon. member during the budget speech debate? Is she not aware of the Canada millennium scholarship fund and the Canada study grants? Both have been topics for discussion in this House on a number of occasions and both are student grant programs.
The Canada millennium scholarship fund will start off with an endowment of $2.5 billion from the Government of Canada. Over 10 years scholarships will assist more than 100,000 low and middle income students annually. Grants will average $3,000 a year.
The new Canada study grants for students with children and other dependants which came into effect on August 15 will help over 25,000 students this year alone. Other Canada study grants have been in effect for some time and include grants for certain female doctorate candidates, high need, part time students and students with permanent disabilities. The government is backing its commitment to Canada study grants with an allocation of $100 million in the upcoming fiscal year.
I trust these federal student grant programs will satisfy the hon. member who is also calling on the government to establish accessibility to a new national standard for post-secondary education. Again, accessibility has been a fundamental principle of the Canadian student loans program since its inception in 1964. That is some record. Not only that, but both federal and provincial governments have stated that accessibility should be the key principle in any joint programs offering student loans.
I also point out that since post-secondary is the responsibility of both federal and provincial governments, the Government of Canada cannot unilaterally declare a national standard, if that is what the hon. member is suggesting.
I encourage all hon. members to give the new provisions designed to help post-secondary students an opportunity and see how effective they will be. It is far too early to start considering amendments to these programs, and for that reason I cannot support the hon. member's motion.
Stratford Festival September 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the cast and crew of the Stratford Festival for another excellent season of theatre.
The talented cast of veteran and new actors made us feel a gamut of emotions as we sat enthralled by the political intrigues of Julius Caesar , saddened by the heart-wrenching Cherry Orchard , enraptured by the musical mayhem of Man of La Mancha and left laughing by Much Ado About Nothing .
As many of the members of this House can attest, the Stratford Festival is boundless fun. I urge all theatre goers to attend the festival as it will run until November. If not this year, maybe next year.
In closing, I want to extend my best wishes for great success to two Stratford Festival plays that will begin showing in New York City this coming November.
Petitions September 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions containing the names of 247 constituents from my riding of Perth—Middlesex regarding Bill C-225.
Canadian Armed Forces June 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the National Investigation Service is an independent organization. It was established in response to the review done by Chief Justice Dickson of the military justice system. It was recommended by the Somalia inquiry as well.
The head of the NIS, the Canadian forces provost marshal, does not answer to anybody in the chain of command. In addition to a large staff of its own, she has unfettered access to civilian police services if she requires their assistance.
Canadian Armed Forces June 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that hon. members opposite want to discuss this case. However, we are doing the responsible thing and respecting the integrity of the investigation. I would urge the member to do likewise.
Canadian Armed Forces June 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the individual in question has made some very serious and complicated allegations. Serious and complicated allegations must be investigated seriously and thoroughly.
All of the facts, which neither the member opposite nor the media nor I have, must be gathered and investigated. The Canadian forces have an excellent impartial mechanism in place to do just that.
Canadian Armed Forces June 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the National Investigation Service, which was established in September 1997, has been working on Mrs. Dickey's case since September 17, 1997.
We will not know the facts, nor will we ask questions about the investigation, until the Canadian forces provost marshal says that the investigation is complete.
National Defence Act June 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated in committee, we put in place a threefold strategy to improve oversight and review.
First, we are strengthening our co-operation with existing oversight bodies such as the Office of the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Second, we are establishing new and specialized oversight bodies such as an independent and external grievance board and the military police complaints commission.
As the minister recently announced, Mr. André Marin, a former assistant crown attorney and past head of Ontario's special investigations unit, has been appointed the first ombudsman of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces. The ombudsman will be an alternative to the chain of command and will be vital for providing advice to members and superiors as to the best way to go about resolving sources of conflict and grievances to the satisfaction of the members involved.
The appointment of an ombudsman is a clear demonstration of the government's continuing commitment to strengthen the effectiveness and transparency of oversight mechanisms as well as to improve openness and fairness in the Canadian forces. The ombudsman will complement the mechanisms already in place to oversee the DND and the Canadian forces, including the new grievance board and military police complaints commission that I have mentioned.
In our third step to improve oversight and review we will substantially increase annual and public reporting. There will be annual reports under Bill C-25 by the JAG, the grievance board and the military police complaints commission. In short, there would be nothing left for an inspector general. As I said in committee all bases are covered.
I would like to take the opportunity of this third reading debate to address the issue of the removal of the death penalty provisions from the National Defence Act. The removal of the death penalty from the military is long overdue. It was abolished some 22 years ago in the Criminal Code. Since the enactment of the National Defence Act in 1950 no member of the Canadian forces has been executed for a service offence under the act.
During World War II three soldiers were sentenced to death by courts martial but only one was executed for committing murder which was a civil offence and punishable at that time by death. The military advice of the chief of the defence staff is that the death penalty is not required under the code of service discipline for military purposes.
The removal of the death penalty from the National Defence Act will bring Canada's military law in step with its civilian counterpart and with the approach taken by most western nations. For more serious offences involving traitorous acts the punishment of imprisonment with ineligibility for parole for 25 years which is being submitted will provide a sufficient deterrent.
No witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the death penalty. In Chief Justice Dickson's testimony before SCONDVA he underlined the importance of bringing the punishment into line with the maximum punishment available under civil law.
The amendments to the National Defence Act are the most comprehensive in 50 years. The government has delivered on the reports of the Minister of National Defence, the special advisory group and the Somalia commission. Also under Bill C-25 the government has undertaken to review provisions of the act in five years time.
The amendments in Bill C-25 in conjunction with the reforms already undertaken will modernize the military justice system while continuing to meet the military requirements for portability, speed and involvement in the chain of command in time of peace or conflict wherever the Canadian forces operate.
These amendments will ensure that our military remains combat capable and ready to respond to the challenges and missions the Canadian people demand of it, consistent with the values of Canadian society and our constitution. Our country, with the dedication of the men and women of the Canadian forces, deserves no less.
Accordingly I urge all hon. members to support the bill.