Ronald J. Duhamel

[Missing Children's Day, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in recognition of National Missing Children's Day.

There is a month long campaign organized by Child Find Canada which seeks to raise the awareness of the abduction of children in Canada.

The green ribbon I am wearing on my lapel today is a symbol of hope. It was conceived by the students and staff of the Holy Cross Secondary School in St. Catharines following the abduction and subsequent murder of a young girl in that community.

The abduction of children is a terrible thing, and I think Parliament should be very much aware of this. We must do everything we can to reduce the number of abductions and, if possible, prevent them altogether.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments.

I was disappointed that this rather comprehensive and bold initiative that responds to actual problems that young people are experiencing has not been applauded by the opposition parties.

I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. From the official opposition we have heard some noises, some rhetoric about our getting into provincial responsibility. There is an opting out clause there. Provinces can opt out if they wish. I do not see why that point was made and I wonder if my colleague would explain why the Bloc Quebecois would want to do that.

We all know that young Canadians need more assistance. That was documented in the 34th Parliament and finally in the 35th Parliament the government has acted. It has not only raised the amount of loans available and grants for those who are under represented and made repayment much more sensitive to those who have to repay but it has taken a number of measures quite apart from the job creation initiatives to make life more bearable for students.

How in the world is that involved with politics? I wonder if my hon. colleague at the same time, because there are two questions, would care to briefly define the Reform Party's position on this legislation.

[Pride Canada, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Pride Canada, the parent Resources Institute for Drug Education, celebrated its 10th anniversary at the University of Manitoba this last weekend.

It met with a variety of Manitobans from different backgrounds, actually with advocates who knew a lot about the drug problem in Canada, particularly among youth. They were international, national, local and adolescent experts. They recognize and reaffirm that the best way to get hold of the drug problem today is to make sure that it does not get started or, if it has started, to intercept it early.

I want to mention that this particular conference focused on prevention, treatment and law enforcement.

On behalf of all members I want to congratulate both organizers and participants who discussed one of the problems of our young people, a problem that deserves the attention of this Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate today. In fact, I have nothing but praise for the efforts of the minister who is responsible for this initiative. There is nothing political about this bill. We are trying to respond to the needs of Canadian students who wish to continue their education, and that includes students from Quebec.

This bill has a built-in flexibility which allows people from Quebec, the Northwest Territories or anywhere else to either participate or opt out. So why make this bill a political issue instead of seeing it as a bill that deals with a number of very important issues? I do not understand this attitude. I wish hon. members opposite would discuss specific points and tell us how to improve the proposed legislation, and I wish they would drop the political references. Look at the bill and tell us how you would improve it, if you have any useful suggestions.

As you may recall, I was in the House during the last Parliament, and the hon. member who just made the presentation was there, and many times he and I and a number of other members condemned the Conservative government's failure to act on the student loans issue. There were many problems, and they did not deal with any of them. This government has listened and reacted very positively.

We heard and we acted, and we acted in an extremely positive way.

What did we do? We need to look at it from two perspectives: the perspective of students generally today and what government has undertaken to try to make life more appealing, more accommodating for them as they pursue their education or work in the workforce; and the specific item in front of us today, the legislation with respect to student aid.

What have we done generally for students, in what kinds of situations do they find themselves today? I am referring to the number of initiatives that the government has recently announced. Let me briefly review them because I want to spend most of my time on the specific elements of the legislation.

As you will recall, there were two components. The first was Youth Employment. It covered a number of programs that encouraged youth employment, including Youth Service Canada, which was an attempt to ensure that young people would be able to acquire job experience that would make it easier for them to enter the labour market. We also have youth internship programs to help young people acquire the training they need to find good, well-paying jobs that will contribute to Canada's prosperity.

Within the same component we had summer employment programs to help young people find summer jobs and acquire job experience relevant to their future education or to the skills they will need in a full-time job. As you will recall, there was also a second component.

The second component was called: Learning Strategy. This component embraced a number of initiatives, including the reform of the Canada Student Loans Program.

What I want to discuss in depth in a little while is that we also had initiatives on learning. They were mostly aimed at setting national objectives whenever possible, not to supervise or restrict any province or territory but to try to agree so that the young and the not-so-young could work in any province or territory.

We also had the partnership-based Stay-in-School Program to reduce the drop-out rate.

These are important initiatives.

These are important initiatives for young Canadians. I believe that most fair minded people would say that there has been a tremendous effort on the part of the government and a number of the ministers, including the minister responsible, to respond to the needs of youth, whether it be for educational or work purposes.

Let me talk briefly about some of the more important components of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. Most people recognize that it increases the loan limits by 57 per cent, $265 a week, which is still not a fortune. One still needs to budget very carefully. It raises the ceiling on part time loans to $4,000 from $2,500. This was a serious weakness in the last program. These are two problems that were really very serious.

It creates a national program of special opportunity grants for special target groups; students with disabilities, high need part time students, women, and doctoral studies. We recognize that these groups are under represented. We need to make a special effort to make sure they are represented.

It establishes a regionally sensitive approach to assessing student need. This was a need and continues to be a need. I am delighted that we have responded to it.

The bill also addresses the whole question of the repayment burden on recent graduates. This will be alleviated by offering deferred grants and by expanding interest relief. These measures make sure that students who have debts can pay them back in a way that responds to their unique situations.

It also addresses the whole issue of consistency and fairness. This would be reinforced by revising eligibility criteria and by using a common approach to the decimation of educational institutions. These were great weaknesses and they have been addressed. That is not all.

It goes on to address new financing arrangements for student loans based on lender risk sharing and access to loans and income sensitive terms and repayment. This will also reduce costs to taxpayers.

For some members the opting out provision is very important. It is maintained. I find this totally supportive, sensible and sensitive. It also addresses the question of provisions which would be made to harmonize federal and provincial student assistance programs by streamlining financing and administration. It also addresses new approaches to providing aid and is prepared to explore income contingency repayment of loans. In fact, there will be some pilot projects on this.

As I just mentioned, this bill raises many questions which should have been addressed a long time ago. Unfortunately, it has not been done. I am not saying that this bill is perfect. After all, what bill ever is?

But I believe that if we look at this bill, at the situation students now find themselves in, at our labour-force initiatives, at the various programs put in place by this government; if we consider this bill in the light of today's situation; if we recognize that there was not enough money for students to continue their education, that there were major weaknesses with regard to part-time students, that we were often insensitive to the problems of students who had trouble repaying their loans; if we recognize all this, Madam Speaker, I believe we will agree that this commendable initiative should be encouraged and supported.

I hoped that we would take the politics out of this bill. I hoped that people would look at it for what it is, a serious and comprehensive attempt to respond to students and their needs across the nation.

If members have specific suggestions to make in order to improve this, we welcome them.

[Victims Of War, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the deplorable situation of children living in war torn regions around the world has been condemned by several members of this House.

Whether it be the situation in Rwanda or the situation in Bosnia, we have all witnessed the senseless slaughter of human life. We have mourned such waste and violence.

What is most unfortunate is that innocent children are caught in the middle of such violence between the bullets, the bombs and the carnage-

-and must suffer the consequences and be the victims of the foolish actions of adults. I applaud those European countries which have opened their hearts to these children and I hope that Canada, a just and humanitarian nation, will see fit to do likewise.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to the hon. member and clarify yet again the federal government's role in this important matter.

All members will surely agree that the availability of influenza vaccine for school children and the elderly across Canada is an issue which should be far removed from partisan political considerations. The health and safety of Canada's children and the elderly is this government's first priority. I hope the same is true for my friend across the floor.

I am proud of the role that the department of the minister to whom I am parliamentary secretary and the federal government have played for the past twenty-one years on behalf of the provinces and territories.

With Public Works and Government Services acting as the purchasing agent of the vaccine on behalf of a joint federal-provincial-territorial committee, we have been able to achieve the economies of scale which bulk purchases represent. The price per dose for one large national order is lower than if a number of smaller purchases are made by the different jurisdictions.

The result is a sterling demonstration of joint federal-provincial-territorial cooperation and efficient use of taxpayers' dollars.

Members should note that the value of these purchases is now approximately $7 million per year, of which 99 per cent is paid for by the provinces and territories. The federal government uses and pays for less than 1 per cent of the vaccine.

As has been announced in this House on several occasions, and following a competitive process, an agreement in principle was concluded on April 13, 1994, between the federal-provincial-territorial committee and two Canadian drug manufacturers. The contracts will be split 50/50 between IAF BioVac in Laval, Quebec, and Connaught Laboratories in Willowdale, Ontario. These contracts are scheduled to be signed later this month. I should point out to the House that the hon. member mentioned that there was a significant reduction in one particular year, but if we look at the average for the last three years, the proportion has gone from 38 per cent then to 50 per cent now. That is 12 per cent more.

Prices are lower than in past years, and they are going down. This year's price of $1.77 per dose is lower than the 1992 and 1993 prices.

To reiterate, both companies, the provinces and territories have agreed to this arrangement. In questioning the government on this issue, the member and her party have made a number of factual errors. If one did not know better, one might conclude that there is a deliberate attempt to mislead members of this House and the Canadians we represent.

I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

[Government Infrastructure, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this department, government services and public works, now provides 70 per cent of the telecommunications services for the government.

It is profiting from the new electronic infrastructure programs that are available. Let me give examples very quickly. We have a program, the Electronic Mail Network, which connects 120,000 public servants across the country. It saves Canadians $55 million per year. We have introduced an automated public service compensation system that saves Canadian taxpayers $44 million a year.

[Advertising Contracts, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it was on November 4 that the Prime Minister made a clear and unequivocal statement to Canadians that the former government policies with respect to polling, advertising and communications would be reviewed.

This review is now complete. There will be new guidelines announced in the very near future. They will respect the principles of accountability, fairness, openness and transparency.

It is because of efforts such as those undertaken by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who have spearheaded the charge for change in this area that this government will return integrity to government and will return integrity for Canadians.

I am very pleased to announce that new guidelines will be adopted. These will show that our policies are equitable, fair, open and transparent for everyone.

[Recall Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Beaver River for raising this issue, which is a very important one. This is not a new idea; in fact, it has been around since at least the 19th century. As you know, we have always wondered about the possible benefits and the effectiveness of such a measure.

This idea seems to be very attractive, even popular, but we still do not have any proof that it would work. Personally, I do not believe that a simple act would change a great deal the behaviour of hon. members. I would like to believe otherwise, but I think that the behaviour of hon. members cannot be managed by legislation.

In the United States, for example, since 1908, if my memory serves me correctly, there has been only 11 recalled elected officials. You are certainly aware that hundreds, even thousands, could have been recalled, but since 1908, only 11 were.

There are a number of questions that I think need to be answered before we could possibly support this piece of legislation. I will go back to something that the leader of the Reform Party said and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. The leader indicated that whenever a new initiative is undertaken one has to ask at least three questions: What will it cost? How many people will be involved? Where will the money come from?

I have read the legislation. I have had some people take a look at it. I have had independent parties do an analysis for me. These questions have not yet been answered and they are important questions.

I want to raise another couple of points. Perhaps there are answers to these points. If you look at the last elections in Canada you will find that some members of Parliament were elected with majorities in excess of 80 per cent. Others had majorities of 30 per cent plus a little bit. Is it appropriate to treat both of those individuals, if they were to be made subject to recall, in the same way even though there is a 50 per cent difference in their win? That is a point that I raise that concerns me.

The other point of course, and I indicated that initially in my remarks in French, is it is appealing. There is no question about that. I think the notion by itself is an appropriate one. However it is much more complicated than it appears. How litigious would it be? I suspect that anyone who would be the object of recall would have many opportunities along the way to question whether or not the process had been followed and whether or not it had been followed properly. I think it could probably be stalled for weeks, perhaps even months.

I will give a simple example. Once you were the object of such a process and someone brought in the required number of names, you as an individual would probably want to make absolutely certain that every single one of those names qualified. First, putting that list together would be a mammoth task and, second, ensuring its absolute accuracy would be extremely important otherwise we could be open to litigation. Of course all of that would be extremely important to do and extremely expensive. Some of you will know that the Lortie commission, after having taken a look at it, indicated that this was not the best way to proceed.

Some of you will know as well that Dr. McCormick, who is a supporter of recall, left a lot of questions unanswered. In fact he could not persuade people that this was the way to proceed.

I want to remind the House that on February 7-I believe that is the accurate date-the government asked the Standing Committee on House Affairs and Procedures to examine a number of measures. Among them were, and I quote: "Measures to achieve more direct participation by citizens, including citizens' initiative, the right of constituents to recall their MP". Therefore, there is a process in place in order, I hope, to address that very question in a very serious kind of way.

Until that report is in, until the questions that I have raised are answered-how much will it cost, how many people will be involved in such a process and where will the money come from-it seems to me that it would be wise to withhold support.

I come back to a point that I made initially. While it seems terribly appealing to think that such a process, such a law, such a bill would reform Parliament or the behaviour of parliamentarians, I am very, very cautious about that. I say it in no way to denigrates the idea, an idea I think which is motivated by a member who believes that if it were to work, as she believes that

it might, it could bring about some additional refinement to Parliament. We all know that on particular days it could stand additional refinement.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, even if the idea seems attractive and even if there is some good in it, there are a number of questions about its effectiveness, its advantages and its cost, that must be studied before going ahead.

But the main reason is that the government already launched an initiative which will deal with a number of questions. I personally think that the matter must be considered as a whole. If it is not considered that way, I am not convinced that it will change very much the behaviour of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I should have said initially, and I hope that you and the members will permit me, to share my time with my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.

[Housing, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have to consult with the provinces; we are asked to do so. We have met with ministers and we will continue to do so. I said that the project would be carefully considered; we will see what other ministers propose.

To say that the government did nothing for social housing is not true at all. Across the country, there are over 559,000 units costing annually $2.1 million to the federal government. Also, we will spend $100 million, over a period of two years, to renovate dwellings. There are several other projects which I do not have the time to mention. There are several projects, including in Quebec, and I would appreciate it if the opposition recognized that great efforts have been made. Moreover, the minister said that the savings of about $100 million would be used to support other initiatives.