Ethel Blondin-Andrew

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has acted quickly to support the decision of the attorney general of the province of British Columbia to appeal this ruling as quickly as possible in order to protect children. I applaud the quick action of my colleague and that of the Government of British Columbia.

This government will not rest until this issue has been properly addressed and has received the benefit of legal opinion of the appeal courts. Children in our society are vulnerable and must be protected from exploitation. With an appeal court ruling on this important issue we will all be better placed to craft better laws to protect our children.

There are some issues of sheer common sense at stake here. For example, can there be any question that the possession of child pornography is exploitation? I do not think that there can be. I do not think that there can be in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians who in my experience care deeply about children as do members of the House.

We as legislators have a duty to be as smart and as skilful as we can in crafting laws to protect our children. We must use every resource available to us to protect the human rights of children. One of those resources, a very valuable resource, is the appeal court. We have come a long way in the country to ensure that our children have every opportunity to have a good start in life. We work hard to create an environment that ensures their security and their happiness.

Nevertheless, child pornography risks the security and happiness of Canada's children and youth. That is why the Government of Canada has in statute very clear laws defining both child pornography and stating in a concise manner how the possession of child pornography will be dealt with.

The Reform Party is clearly not respectful of these laws or respectful of the Canadian jurisprudence. However I have faith and respect in the Canadian court system. For that reason I cannot support the motion before the House.

This does not mean that I do not stand in solidarity with my colleagues opposite as well as every other member in the House on the issue of the negative and very dehumanizing and demoralizing impact of child pornography. I believe in the court process and I believe in the wisdom and ability of the House to enact laws in this area that can withstand legal challenges.

I believe that our laws are clear. The arguments of my hon. colleagues that the notwithstanding clause in our Constitution should be used in this situation are not persuasive. They think that using it is good politics but it is not the most effective means of protecting our children. The notwithstanding clause was only intended to be applied when all legal avenues were exhausted in sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

I do not believe that the charter as negotiated by our Prime Minister when he was minister of justice would allow in any way child pornography. If we took the advice of the Reform Party the issue would come back to haunt Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

What members of the Reform Party may not understand about the notwithstanding clause is that it may only be applied for five years at a time. While they may think they are sweeping the whole situation underneath the carpet by imposing section 33 of the charter, this issue would rear its ugly head again and again with periodic reviews required for the use of section 33.

I appeal to my colleagues to understand that this is not a resolution. This is a reaction. I believe the attorneys general for B.C. and Canada have chosen a more permanent solution by having faith in our laws enacted by the House, by having faith in the charter of rights and freedoms, by having faith in the international convention on the rights of children and by having faith in our appeal courts.

The debate that this issue would stimulate every five years if the opposition would get its way is unnecessary when the courts can decide to put an end to it once and for all. The Reform Party would try to spin our refusal to support its motion and say that the Liberal government is not willing to stand up to child pornography. The opposite is true. The Reform tactic of trying to score political points by debating verbose and confusing motions can only do more harm than good for children in Canada.

No member on this side of the House or probably on any side of House believes that anyone who possesses, distributes or promotes child pornography has the constitution right to do so. On this side of the House we believe in respecting Canada's judicial process and making it work to our advantage. That is why the Minister of Justice is supporting her counterpart in B.C. That is why the Government of Canada is taking an active interest in protecting Canada's children. That is why I am addressing in the House of Commons this very important issue. As controversial and as sensitive as it might be, I was compelled to do so. We share a common concern. All members do as well as the general public.

This past summer I was fortunate to attend the first world ministers meeting of ministers responsible for youth. This meeting had particular relevance to this issue as one of the resolutions specifically dealt with the sexual exploitation of young women and men. This resolution which has now gone to the United Nations calls on member states to take active measures to prevent this exploitation.

This section of the Lisbon declaration is consistent with what has been previously negotiated on the world stage. The United Nations has specifically dealt with child pornography in its convention of the rights of the child. The convention reads:

State Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes State Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: c) the exploitive use of children in pornographic performances and materials.

As a member state of the United Nations, Canada is part of this convention and fully supports this initiative in preventing child pornography. Pornography in all its forms is unacceptable in any society. All efforts must be taken to stop exploitation of the vulnerable. Members in the House should respect the courts. All of us should respect the processes that have served our country so well.

I leave the House with a quote from one of the world's greatest leaders, Nelson Mandela, who said about children:

It is my deepest conviction that children should be seen and heard as our most treasured assets. They are not ours to be used and abused, but to be loved and nurtured and encouraged to engage life to the full extent of their being, free from fear.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that there are many exciting and promising initiatives being undertaken by Human Resources Development Canada.

To begin with, HRDC is developing a five year aboriginal human resources development strategy and is in the process of establishing an aboriginal human resources development sector council to improve aboriginal people's access to training and employment in many different sectors of the Canadian economy.

This is an important part of the government's response to a key recommendation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This strategy—

[The Family, May 15th, 1998]

I know they do not care about families over there. They do not care about anything, actually.

We will have made an investment of $1.7 billion by the year 2000. We have made provisions in EI for low income family supplement. We are also working with our provincial partners to develop the national children's agenda. There is much more that can be said.

[The Family, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The government's commitment to families is solid and abundantly evidenced by way of the national children's—

[Human Resources Development, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that we have a $120 million summer student employment program, as well as many other opportunities in other programs.

Unfortunately, because there is such a huge demand for summer employment funding, we have had to redistribute the resources to meet the needs across the country, not just in certain ridings, but in every riding.

This unfortunately has happened and we are dealing with it. We are working on it and we hope that we can reach more students and not ignore and leave some out.

[Youth, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for this very important question.

The member will know that in April alone 26,000 jobs were created for young people, 66,000 since January.

We continue through the Canadian millennium scholarship fund, Canada student study grants, tax relief, tax measures, EI premium holidays and increased funding for SchoolNet.

[Education, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member speak to her colleagues in the Government of British Columbia to deal with the issue of skyrocketing tuition fees.

I think it can be said that the government's commitment is real. We have gone through extraordinary efforts to deal with the costs related to post-secondary education in the budget and in many other measures the government has undertaken.

[Education, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government has successively in various budgets, especially in the last budget, gone through extraordinary efforts to deal with debt relief for students. It has also promoted a number of granting systems such as Canada student grants and the millennium scholarship.

Many initiatives have been undertaken in the budget to help students with the costs that accrue for post-secondary education.

We have gone to extraordinary measures. If that is considered bleeding, I do not know what else we can do to ameliorate the situation.

[Canada Student Loans, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Debate on the hon. member's motion is timely. Today the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled the government's response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The response is entitled “Ensuring Opportunities: Access to Post-Secondary Education”. It is a comprehensive document. It addresses among other things many of the recommendations presented by the standing committee in its report last December.

The standing committee's report provided the government with very helpful advice. I am pleased that many of the committee's recommendations were incorporated and included in our February budget. We are now in the process of working on their implementation.

The Canada student loans program is a model of federal, provincial and territorial partnership. We have been successful in reaching a consensus on the Canada student loans program policy through the diligent work of all stakeholders.

I have had personal experience since 1993 in helping many of the officials, as well as successive ministers on this really important issue, having travelled throughout the whole of Canada to every province and territory to engage students and their advocates, as well as some of their instructors and officials from institutions of higher learning.

Last November the first ever national stakeholders working session on student financial assistance brought together representatives of student groups, educational institutions, banks and credit unions, as well as representatives from the provinces and territories. Working together we identified priorities and followed up with changes in the February 1998 budget.

We are continuing the process of improving the Canada student loans program by pursuing harmonization, which students, financial institutions and provinces have told us is a priority for them, working toward a single loan under the one student/one loan concept. Under this concept a student would receive one loan, rather than a separate loan from the federal government and another from the provincial or territorial government as the system stands now.

The discussions surrounding harmonization are continuing to progress. The hon. member will be pleased to know that this single loan proposal will improve access to the Canada student loans program, provide better service to Canadian students, simplify administration, make communication with borrowers more effective and avoid duplication and overlap.

If the hon. member would like more details on this proposal I would invite her to pick up a copy of Ensuring Opportunities . In fact, I will deliver one to her.

In the meantime the February budget has enabled us to improve the Canada student loans program so we can offer further help to individuals who are encountering difficulties in repaying their student loans.

It has become apparent through consultations that income contingent repayment is not supported by most stakeholders. They prefer other options to help students manage debt. Reforms to the Canada student loans program include: tax relief for interest on student loans, interest relief extended to more graduates, an extended repayment period for those who need it, an extended interest relief period for individuals who continue to face financial difficulty, and a reduction in the loan principal for individuals who still face financial difficulty.

Under the Canadian opportunities strategy we are expanding by 9% family income thresholds that determine interest relief eligibility. This will enable some 50,000 more borrowers to become eligible for the program.

As well, we are making interest relief available for a maximum of 30 months over the life of the loan, not just within the first five years of repayment. Beginning in 1999 interest relief will become graduated.

There is also our debt reduction and repayment initiative under the Canadian opportunities strategy. Effective this year the Government of Canada will, in some circumstances, reduce the principal of a borrower's loan to make payments more affordable. The principal will be reduced if the borrower's annual payments exceed, on average, 15% of the individual's income.

With respect to the implementation of the federal student grant program, the hon. member for Vancouver East proposes that the government implement a federal student grant program. The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation will be awarding 100,000 scholarships every year for 10 years beginning in the year 2000.

These scholarships will average $3,000 each and will help hundreds of thousands of low to middle income students of all ages. It is very comprehensive, very accessible and very flexible. It reaches not just those in university, but also those who wish to go to technical institutes or trade schools. It also has a high mobility factor. Students do not have to study in the province in which they reside. Students will be able to study almost anywhere in Canada. This is the way we engender and create a bit of tolerance and understanding; an accepting of other cultures, geography and other ways of life.

Students studying full time or part time in publicly funded colleges, universities, community colleges, vocational and technical institutes, and CEGEPs will be eligible to apply. This is not necessarily the case now. Ensuring Opportunities reiterates the government's commitment to grants as presented in the Canadian opportunities strategy.

The government has responded to that recommendation through the Canadian opportunities strategy. Beginning this August an annual Canada study grant of up to $3,000 will be available to full and part time Canada student loan program recipients with dependants.

The grant will provide non-repayable aid to over 25,000 high-need students with dependants. This is extremely important as it will enable these individuals to continue their post-secondary education.

We are now providing a Canada education savings grant. This grant will give families an even greater incentive to save for their children's education through registered education savings plans. The grant will pay 20% on the first $2,000 in annual contributions for children up to age 18.

The last part of the hon. member's motion calls for establishing accessibility as a new national standard.

Accessibility is the fundamental principle of the Canada student loans program. It is the driving force behind the program and fundamental to the success of the Canada student loans program since its inception in 1964. However, the standing committee recommended that the government work with its provincial and territorial partners to ensure access, fairness and predictability in any upcoming changes.

The hon. member will be pleased to know that Ensuring Opportunities states “Harmonization discussions with the provinces will be based on a series of mutually agreed principles, including those of access and fairness and, to the extent possible, predictability”.

This is the direction in which we are moving. The legislative authority already exists under section 18 of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. It authorizes the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements with the provinces to harmonize student loans.

But to address any fears that the Government of Canada's jurisdiction might be undermined, hon. members should note that, other than fee for service arrangements, harmonization agreements will not transfer responsibilities or resources to provincial or territorial governments.

For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support the hon. member's motion. I encourage her and other hon. members to read Ensuring Opportunities . It is a well thought out response to the recommendations of the standing committee. In collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners we will move forward to implement its provisions.

The Government of Canada's commitment to post-secondary education and all its various provisions, grants and loan programs is a very real one. We understand the plight of the single mother with dependants who has taken on the opportunity of furthering her education. We also understand the opportunities for persons with disabilities who want to develop some labour force attachment and higher education. We understand that.

We understand that it is not a one size fits all program that we are proposing. What we are proposing is a program to deal with the real world. There are many complications, many different series of events and circumstances that have to be addressed and we feel these measures have done that. In some way they have reached those people who are most in need.

[Youth Unemployment, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this year alone our youth employment strategy is helping over 95,000 youth to get valuable work experience to break the no experience, no work dilemma they undergo.

Under the strategy we are funding worthy projects, hundreds of them, making the bridge between school to work for young people. One great example of this is on May 14 the Minister of Human Resources Development will attend, along with 750 students in Vancouver, the fifth national skills Canada competition. Seventy-five per cent of youth do not go on to university and we need to encourage them—