Stan Keyes

[Law Enforcement Torch Run, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honour of the annual Law Enforcement Torch Run for the Special Olympics.

The Law Enforcement Torch Run is organized and supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Provincial Association of Police Chiefs, various Torch Run co-ordinators, and over 11,000 law enforcement personnel.

The Torch Run which began last week will see thousands of volunteers and law enforcement officers carry the flame of hope right across the country.

The Law Enforcement Torch Run is conducted with three key objectives in mind: to increase public awareness of the Special Olympics, to raise funds for these Special Olympics, and to create a sense of commitment to the community and Special Olympics programs across Canada in conjunction with local law enforcement agencies.

This year the Law Enforcement Torch Run hopes to raise $1.5 million for the Special Olympics in Canada. I am confident that all members of the House join me in supporting the Law Enforcement Torch Run.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I suppose we have to keep in mind that if the federal government could unilaterally afford to provide students with enough money to carry out their educational requirements it would do so. If the provincial governments could provide the funds necessary all by themselves for students to obtain post-secondary education, there would be no argument. Obviously there has to be some teamwork. Even in question period today we saw the wall going up between the hon. member's party and the Government of Canada. As much as we see that wall going up we are not going to be threatened. The Bloc must understand it cannot do it by itself. Quebec cannot do it by itself.

We can all work better in education if we work as a team. Together we can make that education possible without money being the inhibiting device for our students. Ask any one of our pages in the House today. They know what it is like to work all kinds of hours, go home, grab a meal where they can grab one and get through their education. Do they care whether Quebec is paying for it by itself or whether the feds can? I do not think so.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I want to thank the hon. member for St. Boniface for the question because I would not dare try to speak for our separatist friends opposite.

To answer my colleagues question in its simplest form, the parties opposite, especially the Bloc in this case, have to realize that education is not some sort of commodity like pork hocks or apples. It is a national principle. Education is a national principle. Education is a natural resource and I am now working with

the minister to prove how the country can actually export this natural resource.

We have a natural resource called education. With this bill, as I have outlined, we want to do many things to make post-secondary education accessible to all Canadians, whether they are working or not working, whether they are young or old, whether they want to be retrained or whatever their situation. They must have equal access and not just because they have some money in their pockets they can go to school. That is not very fair.

If the Bloc can take politics out of the issue, if the Bloc can understand that we are not talking about the resource of education being something with which to balance the books or to trade off. If Bloc members say that with the bill the federal government is attempting in some way to make a power grab away from the provinces, especially the province of Quebec, they are missing the fundamental point that education is not a commodity.

Education is a natural resource. Education is something precious that must be made available to all Canadians whether they live in B.C., in the Northwest Territories, in Ontario or in Quebec.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure on behalf of the constituents in Hamilton West to speak at second reading of Bill C-28, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

Contrary to the views espoused by certain members opposite, this bill should have nothing to do with the politics of separatism or the political autonomy of our provinces. All we are trying to do with this legislation is ensure that our citizens have adequate access to post-secondary education.

The government realizes that many Canadian students need financial assistance in order to achieve their academic goals. The government also realizes that the provinces cannot address those needs alone which is exactly why the Minister of Human Resources Development has chosen to work in concert with provincial authorities to try and provide sufficient financial aid to college and university students in this great country.

The legislation before us today provides proof that the government is committed to the principle of protecting access to post-secondary education. This principle is an extremely important one to uphold if for no other reason than simply to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to intellectually empower themselves through post-secondary education and training initiatives.

Debate on the issue of financial assistance to students across Canada seems quite timely and highly appropriate when one considers the fact that thousands of secondary school students will receive acceptance to a Canadian university or college within the next 30 days. Many of these students will apply for and receive financial assistance from federal and provincial sources in order to obtain enough money to finance their post-secondary education.

However unless we act now, many more students will either be unable or unwilling to pursue a college or university education due to a lack of funds.

In addition to the students trying to enter college or university for the first time, there are several thousand who will graduate this year with a substantial debt load, in some cases as high as $15,000 and even $20,000.

The time has come for the federal government to respond to the increased financial burden faced by those Canadians who seek to further their education. We must work together to provide incentives for people to pursue higher education by replacing the archaic provisions of the Canada Student Loans Act with legislation that is more reflective of the changing financial needs of Canada's student population.

In the process of representing a riding with a high university and college student population, I have had the opportunity to speak with a number of students and parents of students at McMaster University and Mohawk College, both of which are located in the great city of Hamilton.

The students in my riding have brought forward a number of concerns related to the Canada student loan program. For example, with the rising cost of university and college tuition, students are uncertain whether their weekly student loan allocation will cover their basic educational costs. Students who have received loans from the federal government are frightened about the debt and increased burden they will have to bear by the time they graduate from college or university.

In this regard many students are calling for the reinstatement of the six-month post-graduation interest free loan period that was removed by the previous government. Many students who cannot afford to go to school on a full time basis have been forced to attend school on a part time basis while holding down part time jobs in order to earn enough money to keep food on the table. In some cases these students are single parents or re-entry women and men trying to upgrade their academic skills while supporting a family at the same time.

To make matters worse, there has been a ceiling of $2,500 per academic year applied to students enrolled in part time studies even though the cost of part time post-secondary studies often exceeds that amount in tuition and textbooks alone, not to mention room and board.

There is also the issue of the often exceptional costs faced by students with special needs such as students with disabilities and students who suffer from severe financial disadvantages, many of whom would benefit from a national system of targeted grant funding.

These are just some of the fundamental concerns that the government is attempting to address by means of Bill C-28. After nearly 30 years it seems reasonable to think that the Canada student loans program is long overdue for fundamental reform.

When we look at weekly student loan allocations, for example, we see that they have been frozen for over a decade now. Yet in the same span of time, the costs associated with post-secondary education have skyrocketed by some 58 per cent. This scenario is absolutely ludicrous and appears to defeat the principle of trying to provide adequate financial assistance to those who need it in order to defray the rising costs of their education.

In addition to addressing issues of access to post-secondary education, the government is also prepared to address the costly inefficiencies that have been identified in the Canada student loan program as well. Outdated eligibility criteria, inconsistent need assessments, loan defaults and inefficient program delivery are some of the key problems that are recognized and addressed by the proposed legislation.

It should be noted that the proposed changes to the Canada student loans program have met with positive response from many of the students in my riding of Hamilton West. For years student organizations such as the McMaster Student's Union and the Canadian Federation of Students have called for higher weekly loan limits, greater repayment flexibility and a national system of grants for needy students.

The proposed legislation will increase weekly loan limits by 57 per cent from $105 to $165 for full time students and will also increase the part time student loan limit from $2,500 to $4,000. The government also intends to establish special opportunity grants for disabled students and students with serious financial needs.

In addition to raising loan limits and providing needs based grants, the government is also committed to establishing a more flexible repayment schedule for college and university students. The proposed legislation allows the federal government to conduct a meaningful income contingent repayment pilot project in order to determine whether or not this type of funding model which has been implemented with mixed results in other nations is worth pursuing at all.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the proposed legislation is the message it sends out to all Canadians about the degree of importance the government has placed on protecting access to higher education for all Canadians. By proposing the stated reforms to the Canada student loan program, the federal government has taken a giant step toward strengthening our overall system of education and training.

In closing, I want to point out that this legislation is not about separatist politics or the constitutional implications of provincial responsibility for post-secondary education. Bill C-28 is about access to higher education in Canada, plain and simple.

All we are trying to do is ensure that Canadians who have the desire, the ability to pursue post-secondary studies are provided with the funds to do so. A high quality accessible system of education will be the salvation of this society.

[Lieutenant Colonel Donald Edward George Irish, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour an officer and a gentleman on his recent retirement. For 35 years Lieutenant Colonel Donald Edward George Irish has served our country as a member of the Canadian forces. During that time he has made significant contributions to the Canadian cadet organization and the youth in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

He is respected by his fellow officers, revered by his cadets-I know because I am one of them-and known to his peers to be knowledgeable, fair and impartial in mediation. In fact, Lieutenant Colonel Irish is considered by many to be the most respected cadet instructor air list officer to have ever served in the Canadian cadet movement.

With his time, compassion and genuine concern he has played a major role in guiding the development of one of Canada's greatest resources, our youth.

I am sure my House colleagues will join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Lieutenant Colonel Donald Edward George Irish.

[Education, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as an educator you will appreciate this.

All too often excellence in teaching goes unrewarded in our society. Fortunately, however, the right hon. Prime Minister has chosen to recognize excellent Canadian educators by presenting them with the Prime Minister's award for teaching excellence in science, technology and mathematics. This year a total of 191 awards were presented by the Prime Minister in Ottawa.

One of the recipients of this prestigious award was Mr. Dave McKay, head of the mathematics department at Sir John A. Macdonald Secondary School in Hamilton. One of McKay's former students said: "Dave's teaching methods stimulated our interest to further explore the field of mathematics".

Indeed Dave McKay is the type of individual I would entrust with the task of teaching my children. He is a credit to his school as well as the community, and by continuing to inspire students to excel and develop themselves academically, Dave McKay and all the teachers like him are a credit to our nation.

Congratulations to Dave.

[Hamilton West Questionnaire, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the constituents of Hamilton West for responding so quickly and vigorously to the questionnaire in my spring householder. In less than two weeks I have received nearly 2,000 responses and they are still coming in.

In addition to providing detailed comments and opinions on a number of important issues such as doctor assisted suicide and peacekeeping, many people seemed to appreciate the fact that someone was actually listening and interested in what they had to say. These are people like Norma who wrote: "I just want to say I appreciate your efforts at getting feedback from Canadians and I feel like there is someone in Ottawa who is actually listening to us".

With all the chirping that is going on about direct democracy from the members over there in the third party, and in this day and age of laptop computers, voice mailboxes, megabehemoth information superhighways, is it ever comforting to know that so far good old-fashioned pen to paper seems to work best.

I would like to point out that this form of direct democracy is available to each and every one of us. I encourage all members of this House to use it.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am curious to what extent the Chair will go to allow the remarks of the member to potentially put into disrepute those individuals of whom the member speaks, especially in light of the result of the report of Mr. Nixon.

[Non-Confidence Motions, April 18th, 1994]

And some of them applaud. Well, congratulations to that party and the solidarity it shows behind its ideology and its ideas about how this country should act and look.

On the position of history, like my colleagues in this House I am privileged to serve my constituents. I am privileged to serve the constituents of Hamilton West. They know Stan Keyes. They know what he stands for. They know what he has no tolerance for. They know his deeply held beliefs, his deeply held convictions.

The hon. member opposite is sadly mistaken if she thinks I or anyone else on this side of the House can be blindly led. If I supported a government objective that went against any of my well known principles I would be laughed out of this office, out of this House, out of this job. I remind the member for Mission-Coquitlam that I was re-elected.

The third point was the issue of freer voting. Since the opening of the 35th Parliament Reform MPs have repeatedly called upon the government to accept the doctrine that "the government not consider the defeat of a government motion including a spending measure to constitute an expression of non-confidence in the government, unless it is immediately followed by the passage of a formal non-confidence motion".

This is directly related to the Reform Party's desire to see increased direct democracy within the Canadian federal system. Reform has long argued that direct democracy is manifested through citizens initiatives, binding referenda, a recall mechanism and free votes in the House of Commons. Let us look at that for a second.

This weekend the hon. member's party, the third party of this House, tried a little experiment in direct democracy. According to an Ottawa newspaper: "Reform leader Preston Manning learned democracy does not always go as planned when a majority of people watching a televised town hall meeting last night voted in favour of allowing doctor assisted suicides. To quote Mr. Manning, care has to be exercised in making a simplistic interpretation of the results".

Well what about the simplistic, shallow, minimal amount of time presented by both sides of that argument. It is very easy to get on national television to present arguments pro and con on any matter and then ask everyone on the basis of those arguments to phone in, if they can afford to have a touchtone phone and there are many Canadians who cannot. That process shuts out how many Canadians who either cannot afford to have a phone or have a dial phone so they cannot participate in that party's direct democracy. Then a decision is made based on those arguments by dialling whatever number for whatever decision a person wants to make, yes or no, right or wrong, pro or con.

How does one prevent the process of stacking in such a process? We know what stacking is. Some of us here in this House went through the abortion debate. Stacking means the ability of one organization to overcome the organization through organization. It is the ability to put the process together better than the other guy because maybe they have more money than the other guy. This is where the faultlines and cracks are in this party's ideas.

Is the decision that will be made by the caller on the particular weekend based on all the facts presented to them? Or has that decision been made as a result of what could be a very moving, a very powerful statement made by one individual over another?

We have heard some of the debate in this House. Some of the members have the most powerful arguments, the most powerful delivery. If we get into a passionate subject where life or death is involved we know what kind of arguments can be put forward. Because one is presented more passionately than the other, does that make that argument the right one and there can be no other conclusion but to vote for that particular person's point of view? "I will not even hear the other side. That guy was so good I am voting yes", or "I am voting no". It is a dangerous policy.

To secure freer votes Reform would release the government from demonstrating that it retains the confidence of the House except for those occasions when the House is asked to express itself on a formal confidence motion. Members in turn would be able to vote as they choose on any given issue secure in the knowledge they would not be subject to party discipline.

According to Reform these two practices would allow members to better represent their constituents, particularly when issues arise where constituents clearly indicate they do not support the member's party's position on that issue.

In the leader of the Reform Party's point of view when confronted with such a situation that member's choice is clear: "If push comes to shove in my view", says Mr. Manning, "the will of the constituents will prevail over my personal view or my party's view". Mr. Manning however then goes on to say: "I am not talking about turning members into a voting machine where all they do is go home on the weekend, count noses and come back here and stick up their hands. The relationship between a member and his constituents has to be one of dialogue".

Both the Prime Minister and our government House leader have indicated the government's desire to see more free votes in the House. What we have not done is to accept the Reform's interpretation of free votes. While not rejecting Reform's view completely, the Prime Minister and government House leader both have argued there are valid and longstanding reasons for the government to approach confidence from a more comprehensive perspective.

The Prime Minister for example has referred to the mandate given the House in the recent election: "This House is not a group of independents who have been elected on their own. We too are members of a party and we had a program. It is the red book and it will be implemented".

That is what we stand for here as a group. It is not the individual vote; it is the collective. It is the understanding of what we believe to be in the best interests of our constituents, of our riding, of our province, of our country. That is what we are doing here.

This motion cannot be allowed to undermine that Canadian democratic process. I am sure the people who elected me would not approve.

[Non-Confidence Motions, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak to motion M-89 of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. Right off the top I want to say I do not accept the position of the hon. member's party on confidence.

I would like to address the three points put forward by the hon. member, the first being relaxing the confidence convention, the second being history, and the third being the aspects of freer voting.

The first concerns relaxing the confidence convention. If there is one conclusion that can be drawn from 300 years of political thought it is that there is not one correct interpretation of confidence. Reform's view is that confidence need only be expressed in formal votes. I think this is a mistake in the thought process.

To quote the hon. member's remark to "feel free to vote with the government members from time to time", I assume she was speaking of the opposition. I asked the table clerk to provide me with the number of votes we have had since the beginning of this 35th Parliament. We have had 31 votes and not once from day one has anyone from that hon. member's party broken ranks.