Brent St. Denis

[Mining, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

In view of the strong provincial role in managing Canada's natural resources and the particular importance of mining to many areas of the country, especially northern Ontario, could the minister explain why it is appropriate that the federal government declare the second week of May national mining week?

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The fact remains that federal money is being transferred to Quebec and to all the other provinces and territories.

The federal government, by and large, has no regime of standards with its transfers with the exception of health care, but it is transferring vast sums of money. To me it is not unreasonable to negotiate with the provinces standards in areas other than health care. I believe that goes with the responsibility of transferring funds to the provinces.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

The member is attempting to suggest that the federal government is putting the cart before the horse. What we see in this motion is an attempt to detach the cart from the horse.

If the hon. member would re-read the budget reference to national standards it is quite clear that there is no attempt or plan to impose standards. Those standards which exist now in the area of health care are fixed. There is no negotiation and no debate of those standards.

However, when the suggestion is made in the budget documents that the provinces, through the Canada health and social transfer, will have more flexibility, how can that be interpreted in any way except that there will be more flexibility, in concert with the provinces' national standards in the area of social transfer and possibly in post-secondary education. That will be looked at in co-operation with the provinces. There is no hint whatsoever of the imposition of standards.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, just before we broke off for question period I briefly made the point that even though Canadians in vast numbers approved of the recent federal budget, we have in the media almost every day attempts by the NDP government in Ontario to use the budget as some kind of a lightning rod in a desperate hope to win the Ontario election. We also see the Bloc Quebecois attempt to use the budget to further their own ill-founded cause. In spite of Canadian support we see these attempts.

The Ontario NDP failed to recognize that a recent poll indicated that some 72 per cent of Ontario voters supported the federal budget. It is putting out its own numbers which are a twisting of the facts. The Ontario NDP claims that the federal budget, including the Canadian health and social transfer initiative, represents a cut of something like 54 per cent to Ontario even though Ontario has 38 per cent of the population.

This is simply not the case. Even though Ontario has 38 per cent of the population, the actual budget impact on Ontario is something like 35 per cent. The Ontario NDP has attempted to include the equalization payments.

Certainly the NDP in Ontario would not be against the better off provinces helping those provinces which are less well off. In fact, the transfers to Ontario under the Canada health and social transfer represent only 2 per cent of the provincial revenues forecast for the year 1996-97. The treasurer for Ontario has admitted that.

Recently the NDP has put out numerous documents in an attempt to use the federal budget to further its election cause in Ontario but this strategy will fail. The number of phone calls I received after the budget against that budget were very few in number, barely a handful. Most people I talk to are very supportive of the budget.

The central theme of the Bloc's motion suggests that the federal government intends to impose new national standards on the provinces. In fact the federal government is providing an opportunity while at the same time it is taking modest measures to rein in federal expenditures.

The case of Ontario again is typical for the provinces. The cut that the federal government is making to its own programs is greater than the cut in transfers to provinces.

The Bloc motion suggests that the federal government is going to impose new standards on the provinces. Canadians want standards. They have already accepted and want to keep the standards that have been established for many years in the health care area. I repeatedly hear from my constituents that they would like national standards in post-secondary education. These will not be imposed on the provinces.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development have stated that any new standards will be created in consultation with the provinces. Recent polls have indicated that Canadians want to see a strong set of national standards in all areas of health, social services and post-secondary education. I support that but this will not be imposed on the provinces by the federal government.

What we see is an attempt by the NDP in Ontario and the Bloc Quebecois, in the absence of their own constructive agenda, to attempt to use the federal budget as a means to further their own cause. I suggest that this is doomed to fail.

I had briefly mentioned before question period that the Canadian Federation of Students had made a presentation to the finance committee this morning. One of the recommendations of the federation is that Bill C-76 be amended to compel the Minister of Human Resources Development to invite all stakeholders affected by the Canadian health and social transfer to participate in developing a set of shared principles and objectives for it. This is the kind of positive thinking and leadership hoped for from all quarters. I commend the Canadian Federation of Students for that.

In conclusion, the agenda of the Bloc is obvious. In Ontario, the agenda of the NDP is obvious. We look forward to the demise of those agendas in the months ahead.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of referring to this document is to bring to the attention of my hon. colleagues that the NDP has attempted to hang its success on the federal budget. I dare suggest to the Ontario NDP that this attempt will fail. Canadians have too much respect and regard for their federal finance minister to be taken in by a plan such as this.

In fact, the Canadian Federation of Students made a presentation to the finance committee earlier today. They expressed concerns about the budget but they put forward positive ideas. I suggest that the Ontario NDP should be looking for positive ways to make this country work.

Our Bloc colleagues are attempting to use the budget as an opportunity to make gains on their own agenda. The agenda of the Bloc is quite obvious. There is no need to remind the House and Canadians what the Bloc agenda is. As the motion says in part, the Bloc is questioning what it alleges to be an imposition of standards on the provinces. Nowhere in the federal budget is

the finance minister or this government imposing standards on the provinces which in the first place are not there, or in the second place are standards which Canadians do not want.

I know that during my election campaign in the fall of 1993-

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have a few minutes to participate in this opposition day debate on the Canada health and social transfer initiative put forward by this government.

Many things have been said about the recent budget by the Minister of Finance, mostly good things. Canadians have significantly expressed their support for this budget in poll after poll. On radio and television talk shows they expressed their support in vast numbers for the federal government's recent budget. This budget, I might add, will no doubt go down in history as a significant step forward for this country.

As Canadians see this budget as an opportunity to put the government's finances back on track after so many years of mismanagement, it would seem that the NDP in Ontario see this as an opportunity of a different sort. Our Bloc colleagues in this House see the budget as a chance to take something away from what has become a very positive discussion for Canadians.

Let me take a few moments and relate my thoughts on what the NDP is attempting to do in Ontario by focusing on the federal budget. It is clear that the NDP in Ontario does not have a record it can reliably depend on to get it through the Ontario election which is now under way. In fact, some of my colleagues may have received in the mail a package from the Ontario government called "The 1995 Ontario Budget Plan". It is a small document outlining what the NDP claims to have done and will do if re-elected.

[Financial Administration Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the member for Windsor-St. Clair. She has already indicated to the House that we on this side applaud the intent of Bill C-263 but continue to regard the proposal from the member for Okanagan-Simikameen-Merritt as fatally flawed.

The bill's central proposal, and I am sure we have all reviewed this carefully, is to remove the exemption for five crown

corporations from part X of the Financial Administration Act which sets out a generic accountability regime for crown corporations. These five agencies are the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre Corporation, the International Development Research Centre, Telefilm Canada, and the Canadian Wheat Board.

There are a number of problems with this bill. In attempting to convert the employees of the three exempt crown corporations to public servants, there is the possibility that these employees would come under the workforce adjustment policy. When we consider the overall efforts of this government to downsize, this seems to be an unnecessary complication. It would add approximately 800 more civil servants if this bill were to pass.

I will pick specifically the International Development Research Centre. At the time Bill C-24 was proposed back in March 1984 this matter was raised as a question in the House by the then member for Capilano. A response was given by the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

The enabling legislation passed in the early 1960s allows up to 21 governors of the IDRC, which include the chairman and the vice-president, to be non-Canadian citizens and nationals of other countries. The purpose was to promote a research centre on north-south issues by way of example which would follow Canada's lead in the area of international development.

At the time Bill C-24 was before the House it was intended that the IDRC remain independent of the policy direction of the Government of Canada. For this reason it was named in clause 85(1) of the bill as an exempt crown corporation.

This effort by the hon. member from the Reform Party would attempt to turn the clock back. While we can applaud some of the positive features of the member's proposed bill, the overall effect would be negative.

There are other elements of Bill C-263 which trouble me. These are the consequential amendments to other legislation in the bill to make the officers and employees of the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, or Telefilm Canada as it has come to be known, and the National Arts Centre Corporation to be part of the Public Service of Canada. Frankly, recent experience suggests that this is taking measures in the wrong direction.

I am reminded of the trials and tribulations of the Government of New Zealand in the early 1980s with its massive debt and deficit situation. Drastic measures were proposed in a number of areas to deal with that awesome challenge.

One initiative was a complete restructuring of the New Zealand public service from the way deputy ministers are appointed and held accountable to the decentralization of departments. Sufficient time has now elapsed from the initial turnaround efforts to allow a dispassionate assessment of the measures put in place. There is a wide consensus now in New Zealand and among knowledgeable observers of public administration in many western countries respecting one very beneficial element of that initiative by the New Zealand government.

I refer to the introduction of legislation to make each department of government a separate employer under the collective bargaining regime established for the public service. This single measure is given credit for a major element of the success of the reform package. It has allowed individual managers to tailor the workforce to the specific mandate of each revamped agency and significantly reduced the inertia and rigidity in the service. If anything we ought perhaps to be exploring the merits of establishing more separate employers, not fewer.

While New Zealand no doubt had very difficult choices to deal with, I think most members would agree that Canada as well has significant debt and deficit challenges on its agenda. The effort by New Zealand to deal with the matter is a clear demonstration that the government's intention to achieve more flexibility in the management of its affairs is the way to go. Attempting to bring these agencies and their workers within the general purview of the government flies in the face of our attempts to downsize, to improve efficiencies and to do a better job with the resources Canadians give us through taxes on their hard won labours. It requires that we be responsible with those resources.

Introducing greater rigidity into the system as the bill is proposing would seem to be the wrong policy instrument for our present ills. No doubt the intention of the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt is to enhance the efficiency of these crown corporations. In this respect I suspect the opposite effect will be achieved.

The hon. member's proposals to integrate the employees of these agencies into the monolithic structure of the federal public service would unravel a very delicate compromise achieved between the government and the cultural communities over 10 years ago with the passage of Bill C-24.

These organizations have developed their strengths by cultivating their distinct corporate cultures over the last few decades. The erosion of those identities by declaring the officers and employees part of the public service would at best be unfortunate. I suggest it would be a backward step.

It risks undermining the longstanding confidence they enjoy from their partners and clients in such practices as peer evalua-

tions and the reputations individuals have achieved resulting from their mobility within cultural industries.

For these reasons I respectfully recommend to all members that Bill C-263 be defeated.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Near Wakefield in the beautiful Gatineau hills.

The hon. member talked about the transfers and what the federal government is allegedly doing to impair the ability of the provinces to do their job. To spend $63 million and counting on a referendum campaign is not exactly the wisest use of money. I submit to him that Quebecers would like the provincial government to focus its attention on economic issues and not so much on the sovereignty campaign. His message and his question should more fairly be put to his provincial counterparts but nonetheless, I will answer his question.

The strategy is quite transparent. Through the proposed CST, the Canadian social transfer, it is proposed through block funding to give the provinces more jurisdiction over health, post-secondary education and social services within a framework of some form of national standards to be agreed on with the provinces.

There is a strategy. It is transparent. It is obvious. I submit that the member for Chicoutimi should really discuss this with his provincial colleagues.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi for his comments and question.

I visit Quebec often. When I am in Ottawa I live in Quebec. That should put his concern in that area to rest.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague, the member for Egmont, in participating in the debate on our most recent federal budget, a budget which speaks to a whole new attitude toward governance, a new attitude by the people of Canada because they see good leadership.

After many years, finally again they are seeing good leadership in their government; the kind of leadership that breeds confidence. Even though Canadians are having to accept a share in the national effort to reduce our annual deficit and ultimately the debt, they recognize it is a small price for putting the country back on track.

Some of our critics take issue with jobs and say we have not addressed that. Fundamentally the budget is about jobs. We cannot properly take our place on the world stage if our financial house is not in order.

When our finance minister was faced with the challenge of creating a budget, he had to deal with the view of our nation from outside and from within its borders. The view from outside

was we had to deal specifically with the problem of our deficit and debt. If we did not we would pay the price over the short, middle and long run with higher interest rates, more instability with respect to exchange rates, more uncertainty with respect to inflation.

The international marketplace, whether we like it or not, does influence the domestic marketplace. Our finance minister-great credit due to him-has found that delicate balancing point between dealing with the need of the international marketplace to have confidence in the future of our economy while at the same time respecting the need of individual Canadians and their communities to have confidence in their government, to know their federal government is there standing behind them even though we have had to take difficult measures at this time.

No doubt we face more challenging budgets in the years ahead. I can refer to a recent Angus Reid poll that indicated some two-thirds of Canadians who were polled support the budget.

They have concerns. My constituents of Algoma are like other Canadians. They support the budget but they know they will feel the effects one way or another. The budget was fair because Canadians will feel it but they will also know and feel those efforts are worth the trouble.

Our finance minister in finding that balance has created a situation in which the cuts are as evenly spread across the country as possible without hurting the most disadvantaged. As the member for Egmont emphasized, he did it without increasing personal income taxes. That is of great credit to him. He listened to Canadians. He listened to the finance committee, which held prebudget consultations last fall.

I am honoured to be a member of that committee. When we listened to Canadians last fall from all areas, they told us in no uncertain terms we have to do something with the deficit.

The absence of whining among the witnesses was remarkable. The absence of whining after the budget is remarkable. Canadians understand something had to be done. It is testimony to the quality of leadership that the budget met the objectives of the international community and the objectives of most Canadians.

The finance minister had to respect the traditions of the country. One of the most fundamental traditions is the network that is our social safety net. It is one of the features of our country that sets us apart in this world. It is one of the features of this country that makes us one of the most desirable nations in which to live.

All of us are aware the safety net is under review and we are expecting legislation later this year. The best way to secure the safety net is to have a strong and vibrant economy. The government and our finance minister have done just that.

I want to address some of the things my constituents will have to face. We have a transparent government. We consult with people and we share with them what needs to be done.

For some, their deepest worries are about pensions. They need not worry because the minister has done nothing to create concern in that area. In fact, he virtually has not touched the whole issue of RRSPs.

My constituents will have to share with Canadians everywhere as we cut expenditures. Some of those areas include the string of several dozens of small craft harbours in my riding of Algoma in northern Ontario. These are small recreational harbours and some not so small. They have developed over the last 20 or so years in support of tourism in the marine industry.

This government is not throwing out the baby with the bath water. What this government is saying to the provinces and in my case to the local governments: "Work with us, let us find a way to continue these local facilities. Let us do it in a way that gives you more local control over these facilities".

I have spoken to a number of municipal leaders in my riding. The response has been very positive to this government's initiative to say: "Let us partner with you. Let us preserve these facilities. Let us work with you so the local governments can take these over and manage them themselves, instead of having management from Toronto, Ottawa or elsewhere".

Many of my constituents had concerns about the federal RRAP program, which is a CMHC program that assists lower income people with needed home repairs. To the credit of this government the program has not been cut. I want to assure my constituents in that regard. The funding for the rural residential assistance program which was committed in the 1993 campaign is still there. Unfortunately there was a large backlog created in that program because the previous government cut the program. Now many people are lined up who need important work done on their homes so they can safely and healthily live in them.

There is a federal mining research laboratory in Elliot Lake. It is a CANMET lab. Likewise with this lab, the federal government did not say: "We are closing the doors. This laboratory has to be closed because the mining industry in the community is on the verge of total closure". Instead, the federal government has said to the community: "Let us partner. Let us find a way to attract other research into this facility so we can make a more viable research effort in this community. Let us partner with the province; let us partner with the private sector and others to create a viable situation for mine related research and other kinds of research in this community".

The government did not take the old hatchet to programs like we have seen previous governments do, when they had the nerve to even try. When they did do it, it was done without thinking. This government did not and does not do that. A tremendous

amount of forethought has gone into the planning of the required adjustments needed to the finances of this country.

The budget sets us on the road. It is a complement to last year's budget which I believe will lead to a balanced budget in a few years time. It will cause investment, jobs and all the other fruits of economic growth and strength this country and the people of Canada deserve.