Bernard Patry

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

It is still a social housing unit occupied by an owner-occupant.

I come from a much more prosperous area than you. Your riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is a riding-

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

I thank the hon. member for his comment. As I understand it, the RRAP is designed for owner-occupants. But, as we just saw, that government program could be expanded to other groups.

This program is targeted to owner-occupants, but will it become a form of family support? It could be the case, because if we help those who have difficulty making ends meet buy materials to make their house more comfortable and safer, it becomes a form of direct support. However, the goal is really to make social housing more accessible to a large number of people.

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given that we are just now coming out of the recession, social housing has become an important consideration and an ongoing concern for the Liberal Party. While housing provides jobs, our aims are not economic ones. Rather, they have more to do with social awareness.

As a physician, I see social housing as much more than construction materials and labour. To a large extent, it helps to improve the quality of life of the least fortunate members of our society, and this is what is important.

The federal government's long-standing commitment with its provincial and territorial partners to help Canadians in need to find decent housing has helped Canada earn a reputation for itself as a nation with one of the highest standards of housing in the world.

The federal government ensures that all Canadians, regardless of who they are or where they live, have equal access to federal housing resources.

Social housing in Canada addresses the needs of specific groups, namely senior citizens, single-parent households, disabled persons, native communities and low-income earners. In short, social housing is inextricably linked to the physical structure and social fabric of our communities.

The federal government has made a long-standing commitment to social housing in this country. It currently subsidizes approximately 652,000 units on an ongoing basis. More than half of these units also benefit from provincial or territorial subsidies.

I want to stress again today that the federal government is not shirking its responsibility in the field of social housing, as some circles would have us believe. We will continue to respect our present commitments to social housing.

Annual expenditures of roughly $2 billion reflect the federal government's fierce determination to help Canadians in need.

Moreover, regardless of how much money is allocated to social housing in various regions of the country, the quality of existing housing must also be improved. No one should have to live in substandard housing. No one should have to live in housing that fails to provide the basic necessities.

Providing decent housing for all Canadians is important to the government. That is why the government recently announced in the throne speech it was reintroducing the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for both owner-occupants and disabled persons as well as the Emergency Repair Program in rural and isolated areas.

This means that the federal government will be spending $50 million a year for the next two years, that is to say a total amount of $100 million, to help low-income households bring their dwellings up to safety and sanitation standards.

The RRAP is expected to create thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Of course, the re-establishment of this program will have significant economic spin-offs on the Canadian economy, the construction industry, real estate, the manufacturing industry and related services.

The provinces and territories have been asked to share the costs of this established program. The province of Quebec for instance recently announced the REPARACTION program, a home renovation program for low-income owner-occupants. In the light of the reintroduction of the federal RRAP and the new provincial home renovation program, the federal government will be working in a partnership with the Province of Quebec to

make arrangements regarding how costs should be shared and particularly to try and eliminate to some extent duplication of services.

The federal government is doing its best to provide acceptable levels of service to Canadians and to do so in the most responsible manner, given the present budget restraints.

In the same spirit, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is offering a direct loan program for all public housing to maximize the use of existing resources and cut spending.

With this program, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation expects to save approximately $120 million over the next four years. Through these measures of effectiveness combined with new initiatives like direct funding, the federal government will be able to maintain the current housing stock and, more importantly, have a certain leeway to implement new initiatives in the area of social housing.

All levels of government have now recognized the need for innovative solutions to promote the production of affordable social housing. It will be imperative that the federal government work in conjunction with the provinces if we want a global and concerted approach to be adopted.

Also, the federal government has reiterated that program changes and the gains made in terms of efficiency within the social housing envelope will serve to create new housing initiatives.

At a recent meeting of housing ministers, it was agreed to pursue joint rather than unilateral efforts in that area.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate goal of this government is, as stated in our red book, to put human dignity back into public housing policy.

Before closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank publicly the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation for its involvement in the funding of homes for battered women. Without its support, there could be no such home in Pierrefonds-Dollard.

[Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the United States extended formal recognition to the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and declared its intent to establish full diplomatic relations.

On behalf of the Greek community, particularly in my riding of Pierrefonds-Dollard, I urge our Minister of Foreign Affairs to uphold, unlike the Americans, all United Nations resolutions, including those on borders.

I am convinced such a policy would be conducive to greater stability in an area where it is badly needed.

[Anti-Smuggling Program, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, reading the various reactions from across the country to the anti-smuggling program announced yesterday by the federal government, one might tend to believe that it is a regional problem affecting only Quebec.

I would like to point out that these measures, which we very reluctantly accepted in view of their health implications, had become unavoidable and necessary. I do believe that the other Canadian provinces should learn from Quebec's unfortunate experience, stem the emergence of civil disobedience and prevent the accompanying criminal activities.

With a contraband rate of 33 per cent, some provinces can ill afford to ignore this plague which is no longer a regional problem.

[Cardiovascular Diseases, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that February is Heart and Stroke Month in Canada.

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death, disability and illness in our country. They claim 75,000 lives each year.

These diseases cost our economy about $17 billion a year in medical care, hospital costs as well as salary and productivity losses.

The staggering total of this disease requires the development of more effective prevention and intervention strategies. A balanced approach is necessary where preventive practices are incorporated early in life and communities are healthier places to live.

I am sure that many of us have been personally affected by cardiovascular diseases and that is why I support and thank the organizations that work towards preventing and controlling these diseases.

[Tax Cut On Tobacco, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. For two weeks now, we have been talking here in this House about cigarette smuggling, which is causing major problems, like an upsurge in crime and civil disobedience.

It is high time for Canadians to face reality. As a physician, I am very concerned about the unavoidable lowering of taxes on cigarettes, since that would undoubtedly encourage young people to take up smoking. However, as a parliamentarian, I cannot help but to consider decreasing taxes to put a stop to this social and economic evil.

If the taxes on cigarettes are lowered, can the Minister of Health tell us if she intends to introduce preventive measures to fight the increase in smoking among young Canadians? If so, what would these measures be?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I learned something earlier from the member for Portneuf, who represents the same political party as the member for Richelieu, to the effect that it would cost each Canadian taxpayer 25 cents a day to maintain Canada's peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia.

I think this is a very small price to pay to maintain our humanitarian aid over there, and I would be prepared to fight in the Liberal caucus for the monies and credits required to ensure that peace.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to answer that question I would say that this is a very personal issue. The Government of Canada should immediately engage in negotiations with the concerned parties, especially with the UN, to somehow renegotiate the agreements ensuring its presence in the former Yugoslavia because, for all practical purposes, Canada must remain there to maintain peace in that area. We must not in any way avoid our obligations at the international level. And Canada's role on the international scene is a humanitarian role. Therefore, in my opinion, Canada's peacekeeping role must be maintained in the former Yugoslavia.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the situation of our Canadian UN troops in the former Yugoslavia is worrisome. Mr. Boutros-Ghali said last weekend that he was thinking of using air strikes to free a Canadian contingent stationed in Srebrenica. Obviously, the UN troops' mission is in jeopardy.

Since 1947, Canada is the only country to have participated in all UN peacekeeping missions. This participation has made Canada's presence felt throughout the world. Our peace missions are recognized. They contribute to Canada's international prestige. We have become leaders in the art of keeping peace in the world.

For that matter if we go back a few years ago, members will recall that Mr. Lester B. Pearson was the recipient of the 1957 Nobel prize for the promotion of peace.

The first Canadian involvement in a peacekeeping contingent goes back to 1947 in the Kashmir but it was not until 1956 at the time of the Suez Canal crisis, at the initiative of the Canadian government, that the peacekeeping operations began as we know them today.

On that occasion the then minister of external affairs, Lester B. Pearson, proposed sending troops under the United Nations flag in order to permit the orderly retreat of belligerents from the canal zone. Since then Canadians have never missed a single peace mission.

In 1988, a second peace Nobel prize was awarded to the United Nations international force. At home we pay tribute to our troops. In the fall of 1992 during a monument unveiling ceremony by the Governor General, Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn, the monument was named the Reconciliation.

Until this latest mission in Bosnia, we had lost 80 lives. Our soldiers have often had to live in frightful conditions, but they have managed to carry out their mission. This time, the former Yugoslavia is at war. Will we suffer more loss of life in a single mission than in all the previous ones? Our men and women now have to undergo armed attack without the ability to react. Their families and their children are worried about them. A climate of fear and uncertainty is setting in. They are witnesses to a war, they are not allowed to use their weapons and they stand by powerless as people are massacred. Can we call this a peace mission?

Nevertheless, the UN troops' intervention in Bosnia is important. Canada faces a dilemma. We cannot accept depriving these people of our humanitarian aid and we cannot send our troops on a peace mission in a country at war. We cannot keep peace if there is no peace. We cannot restore peace against the will of the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims. In this context, Canada is in the best position to help set new rules for peacekeeping. Our action to date has been preventive and it must remain so. We are there to maintain the peace; we represent the peacekeeping forces.

In some incidents during this war in Bosnia, tension was so high between these peoples and the line between legitimate defence and provocation was so thin that action taken by our

men and women could be interpreted as aggression by the belligerents. It would be a pity if Canada's peacekeeping reputation were tarnished because of a situation where the violence and horror of war cancel out our efforts for peace. Can we prevent the recurrence of such dramatic events? Can we afford to continue our peace mission in the world?

All these questions remain unanswered, but we cannot overlook the fact that peace missions cost Canadians dearly. Nevertheless, we think they are essential. When we aim for the essential, we eliminate the superfluous and we avoid waste. If we want to maintain these missions, I am afraid that we will have no choice but to exercise tight control over the expenses incurred and future spending. That is the price we will have to pay if we want to continue to ensure peace.

Peace missions are essential for their humanitarian work, for the relief they provide to the most disadvantaged countries, but also to the men and women who could not have survived the misery created by the famine, drought, floods and devastation of war.

They are also essential for Canada. We have built an excellent reputation, we are present on the international scene, we are the number one peacekeepers in the world. This is an essential role for Canada. Is our presence in Bosnia too costly, will it force us to forgo other missions which could bring peace? Should we withdraw from Bosnia?

British troops are now threatening to withdraw from the United Nations contingent in Bosnia. Let us recall that the United Nations has chosen to name the peacekeeping troops the blue helmets so that the Canadians will be differentiated from the British because of their almost identical uniforms. It is my opinion that threats will not do anything and that we would rather concentrate our efforts to assure that the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia will fulfil the mandate which justifies their very existence and that serious proposals be put forward to end this conflict.

So far, all efforts by the west to end this conflict have failed. The whole situation is very disturbing. What should be the role of Canada in order for it to be the instigator of solutions for this conflict and to prevent the resurgence of similar conflicts elsewhere? Shall we have the means to maintain peace in Yugoslavia after this war has ended or will our position be so weak that for all practical purposes it will be the end of our peace missions?

These are all questions that deserve serious thinking and proper answers if we want to assure the success of our future interventions.

Canadian experts are already present in several developing countries as well as in Russia and Ukraine to initiate these countries to peacekeeping operations. Following the appeal made by Boutros Boutros-Ghali to preserve peace in a more energetic way, it has been suggested that an international training centre for peacekeeping be set up in Lahr, Germany. We all know that Canada will close its base there in 1994. Would this training centre enable us to maintain our role as peacekeepers as well as to make good use of existing facilities? Canada could thus continue to be a leader at the international level. This suggestion certainly has some merit and deserves careful consideration to determine the likely benefits of such a centre, whose objective could be the prevention of other conflicts.

The war in Bosnia is serious and tragic. Not only because of the hardships and the violence which prevail in that country, but also for the families of our soldiers who live in fear while waiting for the return of their loved ones. Those families hope that Canada will continue to fulfil its peacekeeping role in a climate of peace.

One cannot maintain peace if there is no peace. Canada is a peaceful country. This was implied and demonstrated and our reputation is solid on that matter. We have an important role to play on the international scene as a peacekeeping country. The members of our peace missions know that their involvement is crucial and very often is the last hope of populations that are continuously living in a state of disturbance and dissension.

Canada can fulfil its peacekeeping obligations. Peacekeeping means that we can act before a situation degenerates into a conflict and that we can maintain peace after a conflict has ended. We have a role to play both before and after a war. If we intervene before a conflict occurs, we may be able to avoid wars and preserve peace.