Debates of March 12th, 1998

Supply

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his thoughtful question. I am glad he cited section 93 which, interpreted literally, would have made Quebec a prisoner of a religious school division system. Quebec came to us—and it was arguable on constitutional grounds—and said that it wanted to switch to a language system of school organization.

The better, the modern and the progressive constitutional view, but not the most accepted view, was that we could not do it. It was in the spirit of Lord Sankey that the notion of the evolutionary interpretation of constitutions was applied. As I recollect, the House virtually unanimously accorded that change. We did it under the simplest form of constitutional amendment, a federal-Quebec resolution.

In that area I think we have responded to the notion of the evolution of a constitution. The member is right that the imperatives are now world standards in medicine, engineering, science and languages. The notion that one can be bilingual and that is sufficient is dead. The student of tomorrow will have to be trilingual and quadralingual. Every Canadian student will need an Asian language in addition to English, French and other languages.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the erudite and lucid remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Coming from Nova Scotia, the cradle of higher education in Canada, education is very important to me and to my constituents.

I would like to ask the hon. member about his feelings relative to national testing. It is an issue, especially with each province investing differently in education. The investment in education in given communities is largely based on the municipal tax base. Thus a poor municipality, like the one I grew up in, for instance, has significantly less money in its education system than one in a wealthier area. The quality of opportunities for young people are not equal.

I would appreciate the member's feedback on that.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that thoughtful question. Let me personally excuse myself. When I criticized the provinces I should have exempted the poorer provinces of the Atlantic region. They have invested in education. They have set an example for wealthy provinces like British Columbia, Ontario and others that have shortchanged the educational system.

Prime Minister Trudeau once remarked when he got an honorary degree from a Nova Scotia university: “It is amazing that I became a prime minister without being an alumnus of Dalhousie University”. The maritimes are poor provinces but they exported their wealth, their educated people, to other provinces.

The member has identified a key problem. It is out of date and wrong in our federal system to put education essentially in the hands of people who are the creatures of the provinces, the municipalities. A modern federal system recognizes three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. Under the German system the three levels of government all share the tax revenues, the tax sharing agreements.

The municipalities are underfunded. I have already suggested to the minister of immigration that we make grants for English as a second language training directly to the municipalities because the burden is impossible.

I think the member identified one of the key problems in education.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in speaking to the motion I note there is a sad honesty about it. It exposes the shortsightedness in the provincialism that the Bloc Quebecois brings to all issues of public policy. It proposes to “censure any action by the federal government in the area of education”.

However, the Bloc is trying to run away and hide from a world where all levels of government have a duty to be concerned about the education of our youth. The reason is obvious. Canada is part of a fast changing, competitive and interdependent world economy that is increasingly knowledge based.

This is not only because of the new high skilled jobs in high tech industries. There has also been a steady rise in skill requirements in all sectors of the economy and in all types of jobs.

The facts speak for themselves. Since 1981 jobs for Canadians with a high school education or less dropped by two million, but more than five million jobs were created for those with higher qualifications.

Education and knowledge are the keys to personal opportunity, security and growth. This has become a fact of modern life. I know this firsthand as a former educator and secondary school teacher with the Waterloo County Board of Education.

It is also a fact of modern life that not all Canadians are in a position to access the knowledge and skills they need throughout their lifetime to find and keep good jobs in a changing labour market.

Barriers, most often financial, reduce access to post-secondary education for many. While the federal government cannot ensure that every Canadian will succeed, it can enhance the quality of opportunity.

That is what our government has done in the 1998 budget. It has introduced the Canadian opportunities strategy which builds on actions in the 1996 and 1997 budgets and introduces historic new measures. This strategy addresses a core reality of the 21st century life: to get a job, to keep a job, to move on to a better job. There is only one resource that will equip Canadians to succeed, and that is to develop the best skills they can.

Clearly the Bloc would rather see Quebec students, parents and educational institutions do with less rather than be part of the national strategy. By taking this stance the Bloc demonstrates clearly and brutally that it puts its own parochial politics ahead of the future of young Quebeckers and all other Canadians.

Our government will not retreat from the international challenge of our young Canadians and what they face. That is why we have launched the Canadian opportunities strategy. This includes the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation, the largest single investment ever made by a federal government to access and support post-secondary education. The government will fund the foundation with an initial 10 year endowment of $2.5 billion. This investment will provide over 100,000 scholarships to low and medium income students each and every year over the next decade.

The scholarships will average $3,000 per year. They will be awarded to Canadians of all ages for part time as well as full time students. Students at all public institutions, not simply universities but colleges, CEGEPs and vocational and technical institutes, will be eligible to apply.

The foundation will be a private body operating at arm's length from the government. It has been designed to be sensitive to provincial jurisdiction and differences. Once established, the directors will consult closely with provincial governments in the post-secondary education community. Their goal will be to award scholarships in a manner that avoids duplication in any province, to build on existing provincial needs assessment processes and to complement existing provincial programs. The foundation will have the authority, subject to mutually agreed criteria, to contract with provincial authorities for the selection of scholarship recipients.

The millennium scholarship has drawn the most obvious attack in today's motion, but let me remind the House of the other components of the opportunities strategies that I am confident are being supported by the majority of Canadians including Quebeckers.

For example, the opportunities strategy recognizes that the cost of study can be particularly acute for people who have a family. To help them, Canada's study grants of up to $3,000 per year will be made available to over 25,000 students in financial need who have children.

The second thrust of the Canadian opportunities strategy takes bottom line action to help address student debt. The need is pressing. In just eight years the average debt load after a four year program has almost doubled to $25,000.

The budget announces that for the first time ever all students will be given tax relief on interest payments on their student loans. This will be provided through a 17% tax credit. For a student graduating with a $25,000 debt this will mean more than $500 less in taxes in the first year alone. Over a 10 year paydown tax relief could be as high as $3,200.

For individuals who still face difficult circumstances the government will extend up to five years the period in which it will pay all or part of the interest costs of student loans. This will benefit up to 100,000 graduates in financial hardship.

Our third action is responding to the fact that in today's information age, ability to continue earning depends on ability for new learning.

The educational credit is a major form of tax assistance to students. So far it has been available only to full time students. Now part time students will have access to the credit as well. This will assist 400,000 students.

The 1996 budget enabled full time students who are parents to claim the child care expense deduction against all types of income. Part time students will now become eligible to do this, which will benefit as many as 50,000 students.

What about working Canadians who want to upgrade their skills through full time study but do not have reasonable access to the financial resources this requires?

The Canadian opportunities strategy meets this challenge as well. Effective next January, Canadians will be able to make tax free withdrawals from their RRSPs to support full time education and training. This can be repaid over 10 years.

The Canadian opportunities strategy is not just concerned with today's immediate needs. It also looks ahead to the students of tomorrow, assisting parents to prepare and plan for their children's future education.

We will provide a Canada education savings grant to supplement new contributions made to RESPs. For every dollar contributed, up to an amount of $2,000 a year, the government will provide a grant equal to 20% of the total which will be paid directly into the child's plan.

Last year's budget created the Canada foundation for innovation to provide facilities at our hospitals, universities and colleges which will support world class research, underscoring our strong commitment to research and development and the culture which that cultivates. That is very important for Canada and for the jobs it creates for Canadians.

This year we are providing new support for researchers themselves so that the best and brightest can fulfil that promise.

Effective immediately the budgets of the three research granting councils, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, will be restored to their 1994-95 levels. By the end of the year 2001 they will have received $400 million in additional resources, bringing their budgets up to their highest level ever.

A further element of the strategy reaches beyond the lecture hall and the lab to address another problem confronting young people, the dilemma of no experience, no job; no job, no experience.

We are introducing two measures to support the private sector and others in the challenge of hiring and training youth. First, over the next two years employment insurance premiums paid by employers will be eliminated for new jobs they create for Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24. Second, the 1998 budget doubles the resources devoted to the youth service Canada program to assist those particularly between the ages of 20 and 24.

Computer skills have now joined reading, writing and arithmetic as one of the basics of learning. Having access to a computer puts the world literally at your fingertips.

To bring that goal ever closer for Canadians and communities the government is boosting the resources available to both SchoolNet and the community access program.

In addition, the Canadian opportunities strategy is based on a very straightforward proposition that people, regardless of their income level, who are serious about getting an education should have that opportunity.

Of course there will always be a political issue here. There always is. Education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We understand that. The budget makes clear that we respect that profoundly. As the Minister of Finance said in his budget, we are not talking here about the content of what is being taught. What we are talking about is equal access to opportunity.

I would like to finish my remarks by looking back 35 years when two Canadian writers, an anglophone and a Quebecois, published a series of letters addressing issues of Quebec and Canada. One of the issues was education. Gwethalyn Graham wrote to Solange Chaput Rolland: “If French Canada is going to continue to insist that matters of education are exclusively the business of the provinces, then it will indeed be arguing that the rules are more important than the game”.

Our government knows that the rules are important. We are confident that our measures do not violate these rules and that they do not infringe on or jeopardize provincial responsibility and authority. However, we also recognize that helping young Canadians to master and win the knowledge game is even more important. That is what the Canadian opportunities strategy is designed to do. To censure such an initiative is to censure our government for putting people's future ahead of the Bloc's political grandstanding.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments in response to the remarks by the last two speakers from the Liberal Party. One of them spoke of sharing powers, and the other had essentially the same opinions, but expressed them differently.

I would like to know how a power can be shared effectively. Powers and jurisdictions can be shared. If there are 10 jurisdictions, one level of government can look after five of them and another level can look after the other five. You could call that sharing jurisdictions.

However, what this government is trying to do is to share a single jurisdiction. It is as if two cooks were preparing the same soup. One of the cooks adds salt and the other adds a little more to the soup to ensure a salty taste, and get the credit for it. The result is a very salty and unpleasant soup. That is the problem with jurisdictions.

We tell the federal government that we have no objections to its keeping some jurisdictions, like national defence, for itself. But education is ours. We know this field best. Get out of it. The federal government insists on having its own cook add salt to the soup. If need be, it will remove some of the ingredients Quebec uses and use some of its own instead.

That is why we were after the truth. I asked the question of a Liberal member after the budget. I told her that the millennium fund did not suit Quebeckers and the students in Quebec, because we already had our own system. Her response was that it was fine, there would be an extra scholarship for her.

What is important, as far as the Liberals are concerned, as I could see from the remarks of the Liberal member, is the failure to see whether the need was consistent for all students. That was not the case. What counted was to ensure all students would enjoy the same measure so that the federal government would be visible. It is more important to meet the individual needs of each of the provinces than to use the same remedy for all students to ensure the federal government gets the credit for adding the last of the spices to the soup I used as an example.

I would therefore ask the member who spoke just before me to explain this sharing of jurisdictions, as he sees it. Does he share the opinion of the federal member who told me she would have an extra scholarship? Is that really the focus of this government?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for the question. This is not about soup or salt and spices but rather it is about access to opportunity for all Canadians, especially our young people.

What we are talking about here is not about what is content in education, which is solely under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. We understand that, we know that and we respect that. What we are talking about here is access to opportunity for our young people who deserve that very first and important first chance. That is what this government is talking about, that is what we are proceeding on and that is precisely the kind of thing that Canadians from coast to coast want, demand and need. That is what this government is providing.

As an educator I have to tell hon. members that I am very proud of the fact that we can proceed on this basis and provide the kind of solid training and background and ability to our young people and in the process ensure that they get the kind of opportunities that are all important for their future.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, in light of the hour, I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to recess the House for four and a half minutes so we can complete the speech after question period. Would there be unanimous consent to do that?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to rise on this motion proposed by the Bloc. I find the motion totally negative. That is perhaps not the best way to approach the education of our young people in Canada.

It would be absolutely appropriate to bring to the focus of this House what is needed in education in Canada. I have difficulty with the millennium scholarship fund in that it will affect only about 6% of the post-secondary students in Canada today. The cuts the Liberal government made earlier will affect every student. There is an unfairness in the whole proposition. Not only do I want to address that part, I want to address a positive direction that ought to be taken.

The biggest criticism I have of the millennium scholarship fund is that it has no substantive direction to education and to the education of our young people in Canada today. Let me put the context together for us. It is pretty clear that we are moving to a knowledge based economy. Knowledge based industries are going to be the big thing. Canada is rapidly moving from a resource based economy to a knowledge based one. Many factors are influencing that change.

Moving and sharing information has become the new economic engine. Outfit and employment are expanding the fastest in the knowledge intensive service sectors such as education, communication and information. This is where our young people ought to be trained.

The costs of communication and information processing have fallen dramatically. Today's computing costs are one-one ten thousandth of what they cost 20 years ago. This has swelled computer use and has heightened international trade and accelerated globalization. These factors have profound effects on the way people live, work, play and learn.

What this means is, for example, microchips today are doubling their ability to process every 18 months. To succeed in the face of such rapid change means continual vigilance to keep current with the technological status quo.

Competition is going global. We need to recognize that distance is no longer a relevant issue. I was speaking to someone who is doing a major telecommunications expansion and developing a program into China. I asked this gentleman if he is going with a line system into China or with wireless digital communications in terms of telecommunications. He said wireless digital communications.

With the developments of low orbiting satellites it will be possible for literally every nation on this globe to be serviced by wireless digital telecommunications. Where are the young people who have the skills to meet that new world?

If there was thing this scholarship fund should have done it was provide some incentive for our institutions to provide the kind of preparation for graduates to meet that kind of demand.

I draw the House's attention to a recent article, February 21, in the Financial Post . It says very clearly that we are experiencing a shortage of skilled people in our knowledge based industries. Many of the courses that our universities and post-secondary institutions are offering are not adequate in order to meet the demands for new graduates.

We had appear before the Standing Committee on Industry immigration people and HRDC people who said very clearly that we are scouring the world to find adequately trained and skilled people who can help us bring our computers to meet the demands for the year 2000 transition when we are going to have to be ready for a whole new system. We do not have them here in Canada. A large group of about 1,800 have just been brought in on the emergency immigration system to do exactly that.

We have a major issue before us. This program should have moved in that direction.

I see in light of the time that my remarks will carry on after question period.

Hepatitis C

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, Justice Krever concludes that the treatment of victims in Canada's blood scandal has been unequal and that compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot be justified. Yet the federal health minister still continues to deny compensation for the estimated 60,000 Canadians who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood.

More insulting to many of these victims is the likelihood that the federal government will in a truly meanspirited gesture only offer compensation to those who contracted the disease between 1986 and 1990. Apparently the bean counters and lawyers over at justice and health are confident they can limit the government's financial liability by cheating about half the victims who contracted hepatitis C out of compensation.

Reformers call upon this government to immediately offer compensation to all hepatitis C victims and not just those who contracted the virus after 1986. Shame on this health minister for not having done so already because to those seriously ill or dying, justice and compensation delayed is justice and compensation denied.

Hungary

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this House the very special significance of Sunday, March 15 to Hungarians around the world.

In 1848, 150 years ago, Europe was in upheaval. It was the year of revolution. Absolute monarchies were decaying and freedom and liberty were attempting to break free of the chains of tyranny.

On that day in that year, the Hungarian people announced their revolt from the absolutism of the Hapsburg monarchy centred in Vienna. This was a bold act. It led to short lived freedom, to be followed by a generation of repression by the last vestiges of the regime.

The spark lit on March 15, 1848 ultimately led to a workable arrangement between Austria and Hungary lasting 50 years and ignited the flame of liberty in 1989, finally resulting in a free, independent and democratic Hungary which this year became one of our newest NATO partners.

Best wishes to Hungarians everywhere on the 150th anniversary of Hungary's national day.

Lieutenant-Colonel William Barker

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this date 68 years ago one of the pioneers of Canadian aviation and Canada's most decorated war hero, Lieutenant-Colonel William Barker, was killed in a plane crash on the Ottawa River just a few kilometres from here. He was 35 years of age.

In his day Lieutenant-Colonel Barker was a hero's hero. His state funeral was reported to be the largest in the history of Toronto. The cortege was two miles long with 2,000 uniformed men as escorts and 50,000 spectators looking on.

When he ended his military career he held no fewer than nine gallantry awards including the Victoria Cross as well as two foreign decorations. He had 50 great war air victories to his credit. Flying alone in his last air battle, he was seriously wounded three times, fell into unconsciousness twice, but still managed to destroy four enemy aircraft.

Lieutenant-Colonel William Barker is one of Canada's forgotten heroes. He is also one of this country's greatest heroes. It is high time Canadians recognized his extraordinary achievements.

Tainted Blood Victims

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled that hepatitis C victims had the right to launch a class action suit against the federal government, the Quebec government and the Red Cross. Yesterday, a group in Ontario took similar action before the courts.

This is food for thought for the Minister of Health and his finance colleague. After chopping federal transfers for health and piling up surpluses in the EI fund, this government does not have any legitimate reason not to follow the recommendations in the Krever report and develop a financial compensation plan for those directly or indirectly affected by this tragedy, regardless of when they were infected.

It is time this government stopped hiding behind the provinces and fulfilled its responsibilities to the tainted blood victims, who have been waiting far too long.

Responsible Government

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, founders of responsible government in Canada, Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine, worked to make Canada a country in which both francophones and anglophones could live in harmony.

In 1841 Baldwin was easily elected to represent the communities that make up my riding of York North. Monsieur Lafontaine however was defeated in his Quebec constituency. In a gesture that has since become the stuff of Canadian legend, Baldwin gave up his seat in York North for Lafontaine. The people of York North readily elected Mr. Lafontaine.

Baldwin and Lafontaine were reformers in the true sense of the word. They fought for greater tolerance, co-operation and democracy in our political system. They worked to show what Canadians have in common, not what keeps them apart. Perhaps today's Reformers could take some inspiration from their example.

Long live responsible government. Long live the spirit of tolerance among all Canadians. Long live the true memory of Baldwin and Lafontaine.

Gabrielle Léger

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a highly respected Canadian woman. We were saddened to learn that Gabrielle Léger, the wife of the former governor general, His Excellency the Hon. Jules Léger.

Her courage and strength of character earned Mrs. Léger the respect of all Canadians. When the governor general became seriously ill, she stood by his side. Mrs. Léger became the first woman to deliver the Speech from the Throne after the governor general suffered a stroke that left him unable to speak clearly.

Her contributions to Canadian heritage were recognized when the Gabrielle Léger award was instituted by the Heritage Canada Foundation and when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau announced a scholarship was being created in her honour and that of her husband.

Let us pay tribute to the memory of Mrs. Léger and her many contributions to Canada.

Research And Development

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic success in the next century will depend largely on a vigorous and accessible research and development infrastructure.

In its 1997 budget, the Canadian government set aside $800 million to establish the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The government also promised to increase the funds earmarked for granting councils by $400 million over the next three years.

The Canadian government is pursuing two specific goals. First, it is strengthening partnerships between universities and industry. Second, our government is increasing assistance to graduate students in the form of postdoctoral research scholarships.

The Canadian government will continue to play an active role in the field of research, which it sees as the key to the prosperity of all Canadians in the economy of tomorrow.

Gabrielle Léger

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we offer our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Gabrielle Léger, who died Tuesday evening in Ottawa after a courageous battle with cancer.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that in 1976 Madam Léger read the Speech from the Throne in this House, a most unique event in our history.

In 1978 Heritage Canada created the Gabrielle Léger award in honour of this great lady's contribution to the preservation of our Canadian heritage. The award has since become Canada's premier honour in the heritage field.

This distinguished recipient of the Order of Canada was chancellor of the University of Ottawa from 1979 to 1985.

Mrs. Léger was devoted to charitable organizations here and in the third world. She was especially committed to the foundation named after two brothers, Paul-Émile and Jules Léger, and served as honourary president—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laval East.

Ottawa Sun

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Earl McRae's column in yesterday's Ottawa Sun was particularly edifying.

Mr. McRae, through his friend Al, called sovereignists “bastards”, “blocked heads” and “conspiring traitors”. His friend Al mentioned that if he were a Liberal, he would have charged across the floor and planted a Canadian flag in each and every one of us “where the sun don't shine”. All this on page 3 of a Conrad Black newspaper.

There is no doubt about it, Canadian patriots can be proud of themselves. Canadian patriots are great. Canadian patriots love us. And by the way, why are these great columns not translated and published in Conrad Black's French newspapers? I believe Quebeckers would like to know in what high esteem they are being held.

This is the result of Plan B. This is the reason why more and more Quebeckers want Quebec to become sovereign.

Member For Edmonton North

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the anniversary of a special day for me and Reformers everywhere. On March 13 nine years ago the hon. member for Edmonton North made history as the first modern Reformer elected to this House.

Born on the first of July, she is known by many names: the first lady of Reform, the iron snowbird, and Biker Spice, a tribute to her love for her Honda Goldwing. She is also known as the loving wife of Lew Larson.

The first few years of my friend's political career were lonely. She endured undeserved scorn from politicians terrified of the forces of change she represented. As a tiny caucus of one, she absorbed unbelievable rudeness from a governing party that was soon itself reduced to two seats. A lesser woman would have become dejected or hard hearted but not my friend. She only became more determined and more enthusiastic.

A great big thank you and congratulations to the member for Edmonton North, first in the House for Reform and always first in our hearts.

[The Speaker]

Happy anniversary, Deb.

Maurice Richard

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we were shocked to hear yesterday that our beloved champion Maurice Richard recently started the fight of his life. Fortunately, he seems to be responding well to treatment, but cancer is an insidious disease, and Maurice must be vigilant.

We only have this to say to our champion: Maurice, you must get better. For a whole generation of Canadians you are a shining light. Maurice, young people still need the advice you alone can offer. Older Canadians still talk about your great plays in the National Hockey League. A true professional, you are an inspiration to all those who want a challenge in life.

Maurice, we will let you have a rest between periods, but no more. Take good care of yourself and surprise us once again. Make this the finest moment of your career and come back to us stronger than ever, standing tall in the stands or at centre ice in Molson Centre.

Windows Of Opportunity

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to the national children's agenda? Where are the funds to match the announcement that the Liberal government is committed to helping children and families in need?

I would like to get the answer to this question because in Vancouver a unique and excellent proposal has been developed by the Vancouver school board, the Vancouver Richmond regional health board, the provincial government, the city of Vancouver and community organizations. If supported, it will provide a significant investment for healthy child development in Vancouver.

Windows of opportunity is a powerful reminder that action is urgently needed. The Minister of Human Resources Development has received the proposal and we hope for a prompt and positive response.

I have asked the Vancouver Liberal MPs for their support. I hope they will join me to secure the necessary funds. Windows of opportunity is of national significance and must be funded as a model of a community based approach for the health and social development of children.

Dna Identification Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3, the DNA Identification Act was tabled in the House last September.

I believe we must ensure that any piece of legislation that creates a DNA data bank should be balanced to protect the privacy rights of all Canadians. Although this issue is fundamentally important, DNA analysis is not just about the potential threat to the right to privacy. DNA analysis is an opportunity to make our justice system more efficient, effective and fair. Not only does DNA evidence help police solve crimes, it also helps to ensure that innocent people will not be unduly prosecuted.

It is my opinion that Bill C-3 in its present form does not go far enough. The preconditions to collect DNA evidence samples are so strict that they limit the opportunities for police to take full advantage of such an important crime fighting tool. They also extend the period for which innocent people remain cloaked in a veil of suspicion.

I respectfully request the Solicitor General of Canada to re-examine Bill C-3 and amend it to allow police officers to collect DNA samples at the time of arrest.

This would enable our justice system to build a case against those—