Ronald J. Duhamel

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have nothing to regret in what I have said. What is happening is that we have two totally different views. What I am calling for is a look at what a federation is. Twice, the majority of Quebecers have agreed with what I have said, every bit of it.

What I find regrettable is that I have heard nothing good said about this federation. I find it incredible that even an Opposition member cannot say "Here are three or four very good aspects".

Now, about the Prime Minister again, he has said: "We will be democratic, we will respect Canadian law and international law".

As you know, in his 1985 book Straight from the Heart , on page 140, the Prime Minister says ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''. That is what he says.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those trying to describe the ties of affection that have long existed, and that still exist, between Canada and Quebec.

I am adding my voice in the House today to those of my colleagues in the government, first to set the record straight for

Canadians, especially Quebecers, and at the same time to respond to the disinformation that is continually being put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

The Bloc would have Quebecers and other Canadians believe that Canada is a prison, that the federal government is a jailer keeping Quebec bound and gagged and thus preventing it from expressing itself on issues that are important to its future. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is the type of hysterical rhetoric we have become used to hearing from the Bloc as it defends its now secessionist position.

Let us look at the motion tabled by the Bloc today which is yet another example of that kind of disinformation. The Bloc would like the government of a country that has flourished for 129 years to remain mute, absolutely mute with regard to a unilateral declaration of independence that would flout the Canadian Constitution in the courts.

Accordingly, the Bloc would like to see the 23 million Canadians outside of Quebec stand idly by and give the secessionist government a blank cheque by abstaining from discussing this matter. It is now the secessionist government itself that has brought us to this point. The Government of Canada now has an obligation to respond even though a majority of Quebecers have expressed yet again their desire to remain within the Canadian Confederation.

As Mr. Daniel Johnson, the leader of the opposition in Quebec has said, this is a phoney problem. But because the PQ has instigated this legal debate, let us do it calmly and coolly. That is the position of the Canadian government. Anger and emotion must not win out over reason. Unfortunately that is how the BQ and the PQ are reacting.

Let us talk about some myths. I will read you a quotation: "We must separate from Canada, this prison, and fly on our own. Once separated, we will re-establish our association with our good partners in Canada". This is what is really behind the Bloc's motion. We are accused of hiding our true motives, while, for them, duplicity and camouflage are the order of the day.

The motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois today is proof yet again. The public is not fooled. It is well aware that the official opposition enjoys in this House considerable freedom of expression that only a country as democratic as Canada would tolerate. It can also tell the difference between reality and the myths the Bloc Quebecois delights in spreading.

I will now speak about the vitality of the federal system.

The Bloc is trying to make people believe that Canadian federalism is outmoded, that it has not changed at all, that it is keeping Quebec in a straitjacket. The truth is very different. Members opposite may not like it but the federal system is doing very well indeed.

The Fathers of Confederation who came from Quebec and three other provinces wisely chose for Canada in 1867 the model of a federal state in order to pool the assets and channel the energies that existed in our wide geographic space. Above all, they wanted as a population to be able to live and evolve within a political system that would be able to adapt, improve and renew itself over time and as needed. It was a system in which each part preserved its distinctiveness but the whole was more than the sum of its parts.

The evidence has been in for a long time that the flexibility of the Canadian federation has allowed and still allows all provinces to develop in accordance with their priorities and their specific characteristics while ensuring that they enjoy the benefits of belonging to this great country of Canada.

Throughout our history the sharing of powers, which has been revised on an ongoing basis, has yielded many benefits in the form of flexibility, innovation and initiative. For example, it has allowed the federal government to set national goals and standards which apply to all Canadians, while leaving it to the provinces to ensure that services best correspond to their own realities.

Quebec has been no exception to that rule, as evidenced by the tremendous progress it has made particularly in the past 30 years. The quiet revolution took place inside a united Canada, yet in all that time Quebec was indeed a part of that same Canadian federation the Bloc is now denouncing.

The distinct nature of Quebec. From its very beginnings, Canada has always striven to improve, to modernize and to secure for its citizens the best possible quality of life. Quebec's contribution to this process has been unflagging and unique, especially because of its French roots. But it has also derived benefit from belonging to Canada, through such things as the support of federal institutions in matters of culture, which has given it considerable influence on the world scene.

Quebec is an asset to Canada, a treasured part of our country. Canadians are attached to the distinct character of Quebec. It is recognized and encouraged by the Canadian government.

It is therefore in this spirit that the Prime Minister asked Parliament to make commitments regarding Quebec and to pass in this House a resolution recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. By

so doing, the Parliament of Canada made official one of the Prime Minister's commitments and, as the only body that can speak on behalf of all Canadians, gave a solemn undertaking. It thus recognized an obvious reality, the distinct character of Quebec, based on its language, its culture and its legal system.

This open-mindedness of the federal government with respect to the distinct character of Quebec is part of what distinguishes Canada from its neighbour to the south.

I would now like to look at the division of powers, because this is an area in which we differ greatly from a number of other federations.

In the wake of significant changes it initiated to modernize the federation, the government announced in the speech from the throne that it intended to open a new chapter in federal-provincial relations. From now on the watch words will be respect, dialogue, consensus and co-operation. We will be partners in serving Canadians.

Those are not just empty promises. The federal government's commitment has already been translated into tangible measures, such as the approval of detailed action plans to improve federal and provincial services, an action plan that has been rejected by the secessionist government whose avowed aims are to make people believe that the federal government serves no purpose and to break up Canada.

The same secessionist government wanted us to withdraw from labour market training. After investing $1.5 billion in that field in 1995-96 and $433 million this year, we agreed that we would withdraw from labour market training. We did not want to do that to make the secessionists happy. What was important to us at the end of the day was for the governments' actions to complement one another so that high quality services are delivered at the lowest cost to taxpayers by the government in the best position to do so.

The Canadian government has also indicated its firm intention to withdraw from other fields of activity, such as forestry, mining and recreation and to transfer its responsibilities to local or regional organizations or the private sector.

The federal government will respect provincial jurisdiction by limiting its own spending power with regard to co-financed or shared cost programs in fields of provincial responsibility. Together with the provinces, it is also seeking out new forms of consultation and joint management in certain areas, such as environmental management, social housing, food inspection, tourism and freshwater fish habitat. It is also actively pursuing the establishment of a Canadian securities commission.

I see that my time is up. In closing, I therefore invite my colleagues across the way to reconsider this federation, to look at what it has done for us and what it can still do if we work together with the goal of improving it.

[Petitions, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which contains over 330 signatures from Manitoba supporting the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. These signatures are of people from all age groups who firmly believe that discrimination on any basis should not and cannot be tolerated.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a francophone from outside Quebec, I would like to express the disappointment and anxiety I felt when I heard the comments made by a former Franco-Ontarian, who is now the hon. member for Québec-Est.

Strange how all of a sudden the Bloc Quebecois seems concerned about francophones outside Quebec. It recognizes us only as an excuse to criticize the government.

Franco-Manitobans have fought long and hard for the right to speak and live in French. We now have our own school board, the largest French-language university and community college in western Canada, a newspaper, radio and television stations, theatre and music in French, and much more.

I applaud the tenacity and dedication of all francophone communities outside Quebec, which are doing all they can to survive and being quite successful despite the pessimistic and destructive attitudes of a few.

[Petitions, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition. These petitioners believe privileges accorded to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships. They also believe the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the proposed human rights legislation could do just that.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. We are creating jobs for young people and I want to share some facts with my colleagues.

Here are some of the facts with respect to creating new opportunities for youth. I want to share a number of points. An estimated 39,000 young Canadians who cannot qualify for UI today will now qualify for employment insurance benefits once this bill becomes law. Funding for youth is being boosted by 22 per cent from $193 million last year to $236 million this year. That is a substantial amount.

The Team Canada partnerships with provinces and businesses will give unemployed young people opportunities to develop hard, job ready skills. We recognize the difficulties facing many youths and students. As such, the Government of Canada will double its funding for summer student jobs in 1996.

For young people, once this becomes law, every hour of work will now count. Weeks are often a poor measure of time spent on the job, particularly for part time workers and multiple job holders. Four out of ten part time workers in Canada are young people under 25 years of age. Under employment insurance all work will be insured.

Employment insurance will provide income protection for more young people if they work enough hours. The hours based system will remove the glass ceiling that limits part time workers, including many young workers, to less than 15 hours a week. This will benefit many young people who start out with a number of small jobs to gain work experience.

As well, employment insurance will provide fairer premiums to many youth. About 625,000 young people will have their premiums refunded because they earn $2,000 a year or less. This represents nearly half of the 1.3 million who will receive the rebate.

For students the new system will have little impact from one perspective. For example, a student who works 14 hours a week for $7 an hour would pay less than $3 a week in premiums. In return the work is insured which is a very important objective.

Many youth will gain valuable experience with employment insurance's active employment benefits. The government is investing $800 million a year from employment insurance reform savings into direct, proven measures to get Canadians back to work. Several employment insurance employment tools will help get unemployed youth back to work.

Targeted wage subsidies will help young people get to work and get the work experience they need to round out their résumés and to qualify for jobs in the new economy.

Job creating partnerships will bring government and community groups together to give unemployed youth opportunities to gain hard, new, employable skills.

These are but some of the measures.

And here are some more. You certainly know that not everyone needs an employment benefit to find a new job. The national employment service will help young people to find jobs in new and emerging industries and to receive training for 21st century jobs.

At the present time, two million Canadians, including many young people, use information and counselling services to look for jobs. A reinforced and automated job market information system will tell young people where there are jobs available.

Human Resources Development Canada staff will also show young people how to be more efficient in their job search, through new services, especially group information sessions designed to speed up as much as possible their return to the work force.

Investing in our youth is the top priority of this government and an essential part of our job strategy. Youth unemployment is presently around 16 per cent. That is one and a half times more than the national average. Many young people go to school and rely on their summer job, or on a more regular job, to pay for their studies and to acquire the work experience they really need.

The government recognizes the difficult situation in which young people are. That is why it has taken several initiatives to respond to their concerns. We recognize that a post-secondary diploma is becoming an essential element of job stability. The budget is allocating an additional $165 million over three years to help students and their families meet the increasing cost of education.

To assist young people, we are extending the eligibility to the allowance for child care expenses in order to help a greater number of young parents working nights or going back to school.

Easier student loan repayment provisions will also give our young people a break. Young graduates will be in a better position to repay their loans when they have joined the labour force. All these measures show the absolute priority we place on giving our young people a leg up in an increasingly competitive and hard market.

I have just shared with my colleagues some facts which are rarely discussed by opposition members, in fact, which they do not even mention. Members opposite saw it as their role to attack the bill. I recognize that role as basic in a democracy such as ours. But I would have appreciated receiving concrete and specific suggestions, with related costs, as to how the bill could be improved. In addition to criticism, we would like to hear some solutions.

As I was saying, I have shared with my colleagues a number of key points with respect to this legislation. These are facts. If opposition members wish to dispute them, they may do so. I would be delighted to respond.

I find it surprising that they would not have put the positives as well as that which they see as potential negatives in front of us. We would then have a more balanced picture of what it is that is happening.

It is unfortunate there are no specifics costed out, potential responses to those weaknesses which they see. That would have improved not only the dialogue, the debate, the exchange, the discussion but perhaps even this legislation.

Having made those points, I would hope that in the spirit of the democratic ideal of this House of Commons we would look at that which is good and no matter what our political party allegiance, say it. Then look at that which can be improved on and indicate how that might be so.

I conclude with these few comments.

[Petitions, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a group of students, a grade 11 history class from Dakota Collegiate in my riding.

This petition was conceived, drafted and brought forward by this group of innovative and creative students. There are approximately 185 signatures on this petition calling for Senate reform. These students not only call for Senate reform but offer constructive suggestions and ideas on what changes could and should be made to our institutions of government. I commend them for having taken this initiative.

[Cercle Molière Of St. Boniface, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the oldest French language theatre companies in Canada. The twist in this tale is that this company is not now, nor has it ever been, based in Quebec. The company in question, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year, is the Cercle Molière, a French language theatre in the heart of St. Boniface, Manitoba.

Established in 1925, the Cercle Molière has survived in French for 70 years despite all the obstacles, for which we are very grateful. Whether the plays are by Molière, Michel Tremblay or Gabrielle Roy, the great thing is that the whole community is actively involved, either as actors, unpaid workers or audience members.

The theatre is a mirror of the surrounding community, and I applaud the Cercle Molière for its contribution to the growth and development of Manitoba's francophones. Bravo.

[Reform Party, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Reform Party came to Manitoba to try to do something about its declining popularity in that province and elsewhere in Canada. Indeed, it now has the support of barely 10 per cent of Canadians, about a 50 per cent decline since the last general election.

According to a poll conducted by the Reform member for Edmonton Southwest, 55 per cent of his constituents feel that the Reform Party is too radical or extremist.

Don Benham, of the Winnipeg Herald wrote, and I quote:

"Reformers are just as much separatists as Bloc-heads, trapped in the same narrow view that define people by language and region".

This decline in popularity is logical since the Reform Party continues to reject and to condemn its more stable and moderate members, such as the members for Calgary Southeast and Calgary Centre.

The Reform Party is bound to fail because it insists on acting like a regional party frozen in the past and incapable of contributing to unity-

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Yes and I know what the Reform Party members do to polls. They look at them very carefully. It is an indication of what kind of credibility the party has.

Look at the polls since the 1993 election. They are at about 12 per cent across the country which is roughly what the Bloc Quebecois gets in Quebec only.

All that is being said today I understand and some of the people have said it with a great deal of passion. Some may even believe it, although some say it and do not believe it. Clearly there is no evidence that message is catching on. Why is it not catching on? It is exaggerated. It has no credibility. It has no basis. It does not make sense. It is just not hitting the target.