Brent St. Denis

[Ontario Election, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Ontario voters will soon elect a new provincial government. By most accounts it will be a Lyn McLeod led Liberal government. I say it is about time.

Soon after the campaign started the Lyn McLeod Liberals released their plan to get Ontario back on track. York University economist Fred Lazar said:

I have had a chance to review the assumptions and the numbers in the Liberal balanced budget plan. This plan to balance Ontario's budget in four years while providing stable multi-year funding to the transfer partners in health, education and the municipalities is a realistic doable approach to re-establishing fiscal responsibility in Ontario. A balanced budget is key to creating a healthy economic climate that will in turn stimulate investment and bring jobs to Ontario.

Only a plan that aims to balance a budget within the term of a government can be considered to be a balanced budget plan.

Ontario needs a new provincial government; it needs a Liberal government led by Lyn McLeod.

[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.