Ronald J. Duhamel

[Petitions, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a group of residents from Manitoba stating their disapproval of a constitutional amendment to term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.

These petitioners are concerned that this action might set a precedent for permitting any provincial government to suppress the rights of minorities.

[Government Assistance, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

Yesterday the premier of Manitoba made some serious allegations concerning the federal government's response to the disastrous flooding of last spring.

Has there been a response to date and, if not, when will one be given?

[Parliamentary Pages And Interns, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my parliamentary colleagues, I wish to welcome the pages and interns working on Parliament Hill this year.

We do not always realize the importance of our pages. They play an integral part in this operation and many of us would be lost without them. I congratulate them on their new positions and hope that they enjoy their time here at the House of Commons.

I would also like to congratulate the parliamentary interns and wish them an excellent year here with us.

I am sure that they will have much to contribute with their energy, their creativity, their commitment to the parliamentarians who they choose to serve.

On behalf of everyone, welcome to this House. We wish you a wonderful year.

[French Language Communities, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The French speaking residents of the village of Laurier do not have a facility to house the students of the Franco-Manitoban school division. In spite of its constitutional obligations, the provincial government has made no decision acceptable to the parents.

Will the federal government take action to ensure that section 23, dealing with minority language educational rights, will be complied with?

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my colleague should rise and make a few comments. They are as profound as they normally are. We contributed supposedly two-thirds to the debt. Frankly, he is very poor in mathematics or he is really trying to be very misleading because that is totally inaccurate.

I received on my desk today an analysis of some of the statistics that Reform uses when trying to scare the Canadian population about violence in society. It was deplorable. I will give an example. Reformers took a crime rate that was used at one time by Statistics Canada before Ontario was involved. Ontario then became involved and they took that first figure and compared it to the whole of Canada proving that there had been 1,000 and some-per cent increase. They would be great in finance. These kinds of statements are deplorable.

Reformers are down to 7 per cent or 8 per cent in the polls because Canadians do not believe them any more. They make outlandish statements that one cannot even add up. They make absolutely misleading statements that people no longer believe. They were at 20 per cent, went down to 14 per cent, now at 7 per cent and I suspect they will be at 2 per cent pretty soon. I do not know how one can get below 0 per cent, but if it is possible for a political party to get below 0 per cent I am betting it is going to be the Reform Party. I believe this party will be the first party to attain that noble goal. That is what Reformers deserve with that kind of rhetoric, those kinds of misleading statements, the poor research, the exaggeration and the bluster.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Abolition, abolition.

Dear friends, come up with a proposal in due form. I am asking you to come up with a proposal in due form abolishing the Senate. Do it tomorrow morning, I am looking forward to it.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Yes. Come up with a clear proposal.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

He started by saying: "I listened with some interest to what my colleague had to say". I would have rather that he had listened with great interest.

He seems to believe that I want to become a senator. Frankly, I have not spent much time dreaming about it. Certainly not. I do not think so. While I was listening to him, and I did carefully, I seemed to detect a trace of jealousy. When someone says "senators first", I do not have a problem. If someone was to tell my colleagues "you first", I would not have a problem with that. I will not feel put down if I go through the door behind others, in the middle of the pack or anywhere else, I have no problem with that. Frankly, some people have quite a complex.

Personally, I like to see senators go first in front of me. I have no problem with that.

Another thing, you know, what I find really shocking, and I am not kidding any more, I said in my speech that I was ready to talk about Senate reform, and this is why I have been following the debate with a certain interest. But this is not a reform. They are playing politics to try to attract some attention. This is not serious, cutting.

Why not say: This is what I propose?

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

I just heard someone say there will not be any 25 years from now. Well, 20 years ago someone came and told us we were dead ducks, and one of those dead ducks is speaking here in the House of Commons. He has children who speak French and will have grandchildren who speak it as well.

Now, would you please stop saying we are going to disappear? We will never disappear, never.

Finally, I want to talk about a project that is particularly important to me entitled "Improved Reporting to Parliament". The government made a commitment to restore public confidence in government institutions and specifically the role played by Parliament. Without the right information at the right time, Parliament cannot perform its proper function. Furthermore, in order to get government right, we must engage Parliament in a meaningful dialogue of government plans, priorities and performance. In order to have an informed dialogue, parliamentarians need good information.

We are improving the information. We are in the process of piloting new documents. Later this fall we will table 16 pilot performance reports. These reports, supported by the members of my committee, which is an all-party committee and not the people who are yelling in this House tonight. They are being co-operative. They recognize the importance of this project.

These reports will provide Parliament with succinct, meaningful, results oriented information. They will allow parliamentarians to focus on the results expected from government programs and the results those programs actually achieve.

Furthermore in the spring complementary departmental expenditure planning documents will be tabled as part of the estimates process.

Overall improvements to reporting will allow committees to improve the processes by which estimates are considered and disposed of. I am confident that improved information will make parliamentary debate more meaningful and make an important contribution to overall government accountability.

I am delighted to chair this all-party interparliamentary committee. I have received a great deal of co-operation from all of the members who are part of it and I am most appreciative.

In concluding, I want to say that I support this proposal by the government and am rather shocked by the proposals made by the opposition. If the two political parties on the other side of the House continue to react the way they did this evening, they will stay where they are for a long time.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate.

With reference to the motion brought forward in opposition to the funding of the other place, I should remind colleagues that we have a longstanding tradition that both Houses of Parliament work independently to fulfil the important work entrusted to both Houses. Both Houses actively review important legislation and policies in their work as parliamentarians. Both have processes in place for the approval of expenditures of funds.

I would argue that hon. members of the third party had an excellent opportunity to participate in the reform of the other House but chose to oppose the Charlottetown accord.

I would vehemently argue that the motion of the third party simply tinkers at the fringes, tinkers at the edges. Those members have chosen to attack the other place in such a manner that they are

unable to defend themselves. I would therefore argue that this is yet another example of the third party's opportunistic approach.

It is quite simply meanspirited.

Rather than deal in a meaningful rational kind of way with change, rather than look at the reasons why one might go about changing an institution and bring forward hard data and rational arguments, they play politics. Cut a bit here, cut a bit there. That is the approach of Reformers. They do not know where they are going, so why in the world would they know what to do with the other House?

The parliamentary system needs a chamber of second thought to pass good legislation. Perhaps it needs to be changed. Yes, I would agree and so would they, but what is being proposed is not change. What is being proposed is to use another House as a target to try to enhance their imminent electoral defeat. That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to deflect. They do not know what they are doing so they are thrashing about trying to find an issue. That is what is happening.

Parliamentarians in the other House come from all backgrounds. We know many of them. They have much experience and a great deal of knowledge in many fields. Some of them would embarrass members of the third party in terms of what it is that they know about Parliament, about democracy, and about the Houses in which we sit and serve. They bring a great deal of wisdom and a wealth of information to various committees and discussions held throughout the dominion.

But they want to grandstand. That is what they want to do because they have no plan. They spoke about the deficit and the debt. That did not work, because Canadians did not believe them. They spoke about violence in society and proposed extreme measures that would have solved absolutely nothing. So what do they do? They try to find a target, something to bring them back to life. We cannot revive a political party that is so feeble.

I am surprised members of the third party did not congratulate and commend the government for its performance and fiscal management. They know the government took a hard line on deficit reduction. They know the government is meeting and exceeding its targets. It is keeping its promises in the red book. They know interest rates have declined. They know inflation is at the lowest sustained level in 30 years. They know that as a result of job creation efforts on the part of government and the private sector close to 700,000 new jobs have been created since November 1993. They know Canada is projected to have the highest employment growth of any G-7 country, but they refuse to accept it.

They know very well that the government has made enormous progress in a number of areas. I have mentioned them: interest rates, inflation, reducing the deficit, the debt, job creation. They know that the vast majority of Canadians feel that the government has been very successful. They know it, but they do not want to admit it.

They know we have a great deal to be proud of as Canadians. They know we should be applauding what we have as a nation, what we have as citizens.

I will spend some time discussing some of the many changes we in government have implemented. The main estimates for 1996-97 represent the results of a number of initiatives by the government designed to reduce the budget deficit while providing the services Canadians need. It is a challenge to reduce what is spent and provide equal or better services.

The federal government's goal was to clarify its role and its responsibilities in order to make the federation more effective. It wanted to follow up on the public's call for better and more accessible government.

This means modernizing federal programs and services so that they better meet the needs of Canadians as citizens and as clients, today and in the future.

As pointed out by the President of the Treasury Board, this year's main estimates show $157 billion in planned budgetary expenditures compared with $164 billion last year, a difference of $7 billion.

The government has set clear priorities to guide the process of deficit and therefore debt reduction. It has articulated the roles of the national government thereby identifying areas where it is uniquely positioned to best serve Canadians.

This improves on the traditional techniques of modernizing public administration practices through doing more with less or through across the board cuts. These approaches have been replaced by more strategic choices about what programs and services should be treated as priorities and how best to deliver them.

The House will recall that the federal government launched program review and sector specific policy reviews to assess all policies and programs. It will also recall that the chief achievement or program review will be structural changes to the business of government, for example withdrawing from programs providing direct financial support to industry and not renewing resource sector regional development agreements when they expire while

maintaining a presence in areas such as international trade, science and technology.

It will address overlap and duplication by consolidating activities to make program delivery more efficient and effective, for example merging the Canadian Coast Guard fleet with that of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Federal spending has been refocused to meet changing priorities. Departmental spending devoted to economic programs will decline significantly between 1994-95 and 1998-99, reflecting the shift in the government's role from providing direct support to business to setting framework policies.

Therefore it should be completely and totally evident from these initiatives that the government is acting responsibly. It is reducing spending while putting priority on programs which are the real business of the federal government and are delivered in a cost effective manner.

For this reason members of the House should concur with the government's request for full supply.

By the way, I am absolutely astonished, I would even say appalled, by the motion of the Bloc Quebecois member for Richmond-Wolfe who proposes to cancel the grants and contributions under Heritage Canada. Do you realize this means the hon. member is actually proposing to cancel subsidies to francophone communities outside Quebec? Yes, to cancel subsidies to francophone communities outside Quebec.

I would have expected this kind of gesture or initiative from the Reform Party, perhaps, but not from the Bloc. Someone must have failed to consider the consequences.

The hon. member also wants the government to stop subsidizing programs for native communities, which are included in this budget. Imagine. That is what he suggested. I think it is appalling.

He wants to do away with bursaries for athletes in amateur sport, with exchange programs for students and all multicultural programs. This motion hits at francophones outside Quebec, native people and participants in multicultural programs. Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, which seems to have no compunction about abandoning these programs, we will never abandon the multicultural aspect of our country. We will never abandon Canada's francophone and Acadian communities. Never.