Ronald J. Duhamel

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today, but before I begin, I wish to inform you of something.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington.

It is really quite tempting to raise a number of the issues that were addressed by the last speaker from the Reform Party.

I am extremely surprised and disappointed at the comments that were made. There was a comment that Quebec could not make it alone. What a wonderful way to start a dialogue. There were comments such as “a dog and pony show” that ridiculed the efforts of Canadians and their elected representatives to try to understand and to find solutions. There were other comments too numerous to mention.

I am tempted to talk about issues such as what was mentioned in the last campaign, that no Quebecker should ever again be prime minister. I am tempted—I am looking for some divine help—to talk about double talk, the comment about Stornoway and what happened, but I shall resist temptation.

I want to address the Reform member's proposal, which I find pretty reasonable, perfectly reasonable in fact. Perhaps this is due to the fact that he is new and others around him have not had the chance to socialize with him so far. He came up with a perfectly reasonable proposal, as far as I am concerned, and he wants to promote consultation with Canadians across the country. I applaud this approach. He wants to get Canadians involved. He seems to want to go beyond partisanship and I support that.

But I think he should speak to his colleagues. One of them has just stated that there was nothing accomplished over the last 30 years. Another claims that his party is the only one that can make a contribution. Still another has made comments that are unworthy of this House.

Nevertheless, the proposal we are discussing today should be supported. It should be supported because it refers to consultations with Canadians across the country. What I would like very much to know is the position of this political party and also of each political party on the Calgary declaration. Is it to early to decide on this issue? It is not too early however to tell others what they should be doing. I would like to say a few words on this today.

So obviously, our political parties differ, even if we agree more or less on the proposal that we are discussing today. There are a great number of differences on immigration, the role of aboriginal peoples in Canada, bilingualism and many other things. I could talk a lot longer on this, but the point to remember is that there are great differences, in all areas, and these will never disappear.

The meeting of Canada's premiers called for public consultations. This declaration is a good starting point for creating understanding about our country, about the needs of each region, and, of course, about the needs of Quebeckers. The Calgary declaration has the support of a great number of people throughout the country. It is true that there are people who are completely against it, and that is understandable. But many responsible people endorse this declaration.

It is important that the public discuss this proposal and talk about Canada, and that people gain a greater understanding of each province and territory, and, of course, of Quebec, which is often not well understood. Consultations are necessary because they might go beyond that in terms of creating a greater of understanding of who we are as a community. I am speaking about all the communities within the country. I believe they can promote pride.

We may come to realize that we must work more closely together to be stronger and more receptive to our various needs as citizens of a specific province, or as members of a specific linguistic, religious or cultural group.

I will now talk about certain principles. I will begin with equality. Let me share with you what a Canadian citizen told me. He said “This is a principle with which we cannot disagree, a principle recognized in section 15 of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is clearly stated that all Canadians are equal, regardless of sex, race, religion, social status or wealth. To state such a principle is in itself sufficient to demonstrate its validity”.

Some political parties—and, as I said earlier, I will try to restrain myself—will use something like the principle of equality to make other claims. The fact is that it has been in Canadian law for a very long time. The question is whether the principle is always applied fairly. We could probably find examples where it was not the case, but let us look at the big picture.

Let us look at the equality of provinces. There is but one legal status for the provinces. There are not six. A province is a province. None can pull rank on the others. We know that. Though equal they are nonetheless different, with their own economic, social, cultural and historical characteristics. Though equal the provinces are nevertheless differentiated from one another.

That is what some people misunderstand. They misunderstand it profoundly and they exploit it. They exploit it to their political advantage. As they do so they tear up the country. They are guilty of tearing up this country.

This country, which has supposedly done nothing for the last 30, 40, 50 years, is the envy of the world. It is number one on virtually everyone's list. Millions of people have come to it as quickly as they could.

Let us talk about other principles. Let us talk about diversity, tolerance, compassion and equal opportunities. Let us talk about how we could meet the needs of Aboriginal people, about how we could get them more involved. Let us not forget multiculturalism, which is an undeniable reality.

As stated in the declaration, respect for diversity and equality underlies unity. However, equality does not mean uniformity.

[Industrial Research, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this industrial research assistance program, which is managed by the National Research Council, is an excellent government program, and everyone agrees with that. Every year in Canada, it creates up to 10,000 full time, high quality jobs.

This program provides assistance to 10,000 businesses. Our consultants, the people who provide this information, come from every region in the country. They come from 140 organizations across Canada. This program is especially designed for young people.

[Youth Employment, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, they are not interested in jobs.

It hires young people to help small business in science and technology.

Second is the international trade personnel program which has enhanced exports and has created approximately 400 jobs.

Third is the western youth entrepreneurial program that encourages young people to get involved and start out in small business. It has created almost 500 jobs.

[Youth Employment, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, western diversification has made great progress specifically targeted to young people.

The first area is in science and technology where it has created almost 100 jobs. It hires young people to help small business—

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a series of questions for my colleague.

First, with respect to the additional spending he mentioned in certain areas that obviously could use that kind of assistance, does he have any indication of the costs involved? He mentioned a number of proposals.

Second, with regard to reductions in certain tax measures, how much would that cost the federal treasury? If we were to look at both the expenditure levels and the dollars lost in terms of the adjustments to some programs that he suggested, could he put them in the current framework of the deficit and the debt?

I also have two very brief questions with respect to his intention to have banks invest some of their profits. Has he, his party or anyone else done an analysis of how much money is involved, what it would produce in actual tangible results and what impacts there might be on the operations of banks?

For example, might they need to or feel they need to do something in terms of reduction of employees?

I have a final question. Are there lessons to be learned from the New Democratic governments in power today? I do not say that facetiously or tongue in cheek. For example, in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, unless I am badly informed and I do not think that is the case, there are opportunities in terms of some proposals made by my colleague that have not been followed up.

Perhaps he would answer those questions.

[Science And Technology, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been done. First the Canada Foundation for Innovation has been set up to strengthen research capacity. Second, centres of excellence have been financially stabilized. Third, the government has made a commitment to hook up all schools electronically, including all libraries, to a number of communities by the year 2000.

We are this week celebrating science and technology week. Everyone can help to appreciate it.

Science and technology are for women as well as men, and in French as well as in English.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to my colleague's remarks and there are two points I want to raise with him.

Would he please share with the House once again the expert's view on pension plans. I would much prefer that rather than the rhetoric from the opposition whose only purpose is to try to ridicule and diminish something to which a lot of people have given a great deal of thought. They are people with a whole lot of background. They are people with a great deal of expertise and people who know what they are talking about. Perhaps my colleague could mention that. I would like to contrast that response to that which I have just heard, which was pompous.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Yes, including Quebec. We have a different vision. For me, Canada is also Quebec, dear colleague.

In addition, what I would like to do, with help, I hope, from a few colleagues, even from my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, is to talk frankly about what we can do together to ensure that science, innovation and technology can help us meet the great challenges facing our society.

If, for example, we look at the challenges facing Canada today, we see no magic answers coming from science and technology, but we see some answers, whether with respect to poverty or improving the health care system. I would like us to be able to debate serious issues such as that one, and there are others.

Another thing I would like to do, and this is in reply to my colleague, is to ensure that we get our fair share of budget spending.

I want to make sure that research, science and innovation get their fair share of the budget. This is one of the soundest investments that we can make for job creation and for our young people who are graduating. We have any number of programs that are there to ensure that young Canadians who graduate from any number of disciplines can have internships that will permit them to hold and refine the skills they have polished over the years.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I mentioned before and I will stress again that it is generally recognized that unless Canadians invest substantially in science, innovation and technology, we cannot continue to be leaders. We will automatically become followers. It is also accepted that while there are a number of Canadians who are sympathetic, appreciative and understanding of what science, innovation and technology can do, there are many many others who do not. I will try to explain.

Science, innovation and technology can help improve the quality of life of Canadians everywhere in Canada.

If we look at—

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will not make comment about seniors and sexuality because that could be particularly sensitive, but I will talk about what I said.

I said that one of the initiatives we mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is the expansion of opportunities in aboriginal communities. The point I was making and which I found surprising, in spite of a number of comments from journalists in television, radio and print, not one of those things was mentioned by one of my colleagues in the opposition. That is the point I was making.

Of course we recognize there are problems but unlike the Reform Party, we are not into magic or simple solutions that will go forth and resolve complex problems. That is why I said that we want to see aboriginal communities become stronger and healthier. We are working to further their progress toward achieving self-government, well-being and economic independence. We are ready and willing to work with all interested parties to develop a long term comprehensive plan of action in partnership with aboriginal leaders and people.

That member must not for one moment suggest that his party has even close to the amount of support and credibility that we have with the aboriginal people. It is not perfect but we have gone a long way. I would hope that my colleague would join us in trying to help as opposed to trying to solely embarrass the government.