Ronald J. Duhamel

[Petitions, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners point out that alcohol is a drug and is addictive. They believe there is risk to the foetus when taken by women who are pregnant. They point out that drinking alcohol is a leading cause of death among young people. They also underline the fact that seniors can get into difficulties when there is an interaction between alcohol and medication taken. They believe that alcohol can lead to health problems and chronic illnesses. They point out that alcohol is toxic if it is taken too quickly in great quantity.

The petitioners want warning labels on containers in order to alert the population to this effect.

[Firefighters, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this motion. I applaud my colleague's initiative, because he raises an extremely important issue, which must be discussed and eventually resolved.

I myself have a particular interest in this motion because, for a number of years, I participated in conferences on this very issue. My greatest wish is for us to find an equitable solution for all concerned.

As you know, the motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing "Right to Know" legislation for the protection of firefighters and other public servants who, in the course of duty, are confronted by fires or disasters involving potentially harmful substances such as toxic chemicals.

As was pointed out, this is an all encompassing motion. I assume it includes not only firefighters but also ambulance attendants and police officers. As I proceed to raise questions I do so in the spirit of trying to strengthen the motion, focus it, and come to some sort of resolution.

No doubt it encompasses police officers and ambulance attendants, quite apart from firefighters and perhaps others. It might be useful to try to define those. No doubt it is also intended to cover goods transported by rail and truck, but it is important not to exclude air and marine modes as well.

As to potentially harmful substances, this is very broad and may require further definition. For example, I believe it includes infectious diseases and infectious material. However, that remains to be discovered; perhaps it does not.

When I have discussed this initiative on different occasions a number of questions have arisen. People want to know specifically what is to be accomplished. They want specifics. They want to make sure no one is excluded, that all who might benefit from this or a similar initiative are identified.

The authorities also suggest there are some systems in place, which my colleague has mentioned, that respond at least in part to some of the concerns that have been voiced here. For example, there has been reference to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. There has also been a reference to the CANUTEC system, an initial emergency response guide, which is really quite common, popular, and useful. It is available in

English and French throughout Canada and the world. I am told it is a useful reference and useful tool as well.

The federal authorities also point out that it need not be the federal government by itself but that there are other partners involved, for example, the provincial and territorial governments, local governments, and perhaps even the private sector. Those are questions that need to be resolved before we can in fact proceed with a definitive proposal.

With respect to an initiative on the part of the federal government, I want to tell my colleagues that the government is monitoring the pilot projects. The government is concerned with the scope of the project, what it is attempting to do and what it has in fact accomplished. They are also obviously concerned about cost. In today's world one has to be particularly prudent about taking on additional initiatives and cost is obviously a high priority.

The federal government also wants to make sure there are partners, all of those people involved who could potentially benefit from the initiative. I have mentioned the various levels of government, but I should also mention that the private sector indeed is involved in certain sectors and needs to be involved.

I want to study what is happening in the U.S. and elsewhere. I give my assurance I shall continue to be extremely supportive of such an initiative.

In summary, the transport department officials I spoke to felt that the proposal was perhaps a little too broad and not specific enough. I think, however, that my colleague is on the right track. We can provide extra protection to firefighters and others likely to be involved in disasters or difficult situations.

The other extremely important consideration is the need for additional, clear information on pilot projects under way elsewhere. I felt that before moving in that direction, the government wanted to know all the facts, including how much it would cost and who the partners would be. It wanted to ensure that this would lead to something that would help not only firefighters but all those involved.

For my part, I participated in a number of forums over several years. This is something I care about and a most important issue. We must realize that we will eventually have such a system. The basic question for me is not only the issues I raised, but how we could proceed, when, with whom and at what cost. I hope that the questions I just raised will be answered soon.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but one of my colleagues across the way felt the need to shout to someone, and I lost my train of thought. Unfortunately, some people are not as polite as others. I now get back to the motion.

As I said, I am interested in pursuing this proposal and I will do everything in my power to try to find some sort of solution. Clearly not today but hopefully in the near future we can come up with specifics with regard to a pilot project where the partners will be identified, where the costs will in fact have been found as well, and perhaps we can go forward and do something meaningful for our firefighters, our ambulance attendants, our police officers and others involved.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

What is your pension?

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I remind those in the House and Canadians who are listening that the government promised to ensure there was an age of eligibility, which has been done. Before this legislation came forward members could collect a pension at any age after six years of service. Now there is an age of eligibility. The government also promised to eliminate double dipping. This has been done.

The government honoured its promises and went further. It ensured the contributions of taxpayers to the MP pension plan would be reduced by over 33 per cent. It ensured the accrual rate, the rate by which credits are accumulated for pensions, would be reduced by 5 per cent to 4 per cent, a reduction of 20 per cent. At the request of the Reform Party it granted this legislation which will permit members to opt out of the MP pension plan. The government has honoured its first two promises and has gone beyond with three other initiatives.

I am amazed at the boldness of my Reform colleague who has just spoken. He used the terms trough regular and trough light, which his leader so effectively used to try to denigrate what was happening. He ought to be referred to as the MP who introduced trough heavy duty. On May 4 he suggested MPs should be paid $150,000 a year and get regular pensions. If that were to happen it would cost the Canadian taxpayer a lot more. Trough heavy duty has been suggested by the member who had the gall to stand up in the House and try to pretend he would fix things. I am really amazed.

The hon. member quoted testimony. I am surprised he did not quote testimony from C.E.S. Franks, a witness when we examined the bill:

If MPs pensions are looked at solely in comparison with the pensions and pension schemes of other professionals, then the pensions of parliamentarians seem excessive. And that is the comparison normally made.

When these proposals for reform of the pensions of members of Parliament were first made public the media was filled with reports comparing the pension an MP would make after fifteen or twenty years of service with what a school teacher or civil servant would receive after the same period.

Not surprisingly, by comparison the MPs' pensions looked very advantageous. What these reports and experts failed to note is that less than ten per cent of MPs serve in the House for fifteen years or more, and that, after most elections (1993 was an exception) the majority of ex-MPs have served too short a time, less than the required six years, to receive any parliamentary pension whatsoever. In fact, a great many ex-members not only do not have a pension but have a difficult time in finding employment and in re-establishing themselves after serving as a member.

If my colleague is to be selective, I assure the House I will bring some balance into the debate.

I agree the MP pension plan is generous. I will not deny that. However, we must look at it in the total context. If we look at the international scene, France, England, Germany and any number of others, and if we look at the major components such as eligibility, the amount contributed by government, the age a person can collect a pension, number of years of service, et cetera, some countries have provisions equal to or better than

the provisions we have in this plan as it stood and even more so today because of the changes the government has brought about.

If we look at provincial and territorial standards we find the same thing. In other words, in certain provinces one works less than six years. In certain provinces one can collect a pension before age 55. I could go on but I will not. The point is we have to look at it within the total context, which my colleague and his colleagues will obviously refuse to do.

These motions are unacceptable to us for any number of reasons, some which I have mentioned, some which I find extremely misleading, some which do not deal with the topic whatsoever. I am shocked and disappointed it was done so early in the debate.

There is a commitment to allow optional participation for this Parliament only. That was at the request of the Reform Party. The bill extends optional coverage to persons not vested six years so that small amounts of money from the previous Parliament would not remain in the account until a member retires.

Members with more than six years on October 25, 1993 are able to opt out for this Parliament and return their pension as a gift for the crown if they do not want to receive it when they leave office. The deeming provision protects survivor benefits if necessary for members who die before opting in. The requirement to be a Canadian citizen ignores the fact that a pension is deferred compensation for which members have contributed.

For all of the above reasons obviously we cannot be supportive.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, concerning small and medium size businesses, these petitioners point out the following:

They point out that while there has been more access to capital for small and medium sized businesses and while there has been a reduction in red tape in dealing with government that still a great deal more needs to be done.

They also emphasize that the GST is still a problem in terms of overhead. They want the government to address these problems because they point out that they contribute to 85 per cent of the new jobs to the Canadian economy.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in my enthusiasm in responding to the previous questioner I made a reference to the debt being $179 million and it should have been $179 billion. I apologize if that slipped out the wrong way. I do know the difference. There are 1,000 millions in a billion. I know my colleague will be happy to know that.

With regard to his question, it is a very serious problem. That is why we have reduced as much as we have. We recognize more could have been done but we also recognize that if we do it too dramatically we can destabilize society.

What is important is we made a commitment in our red book before the election and during the election that we would reach a 3 per cent of GDP target and we will do that. Once we have done that we will start attacking the debt. It is accumulating. We wish we could wish it away. There are no panaceas here. There are no magical solutions. There are no simple answers. That is what is sometimes offensive.

There is a suggestion that we could sort of wish it away. It cannot be wished away. It will take planning. It will take hard work. It will take the decisions that have been made, continuing in that direction.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions and I will attempt to answer them all.

It is true taxes are quite high. It is also true that in the foreseeable future as a result of a debt that was more than doubled by the previous government, a debt we will have to continue.

Let us look at figures. When the previous government came into power the debt was roughly $179 billion. That is the figure from the auditor general. When this government came into power it was almost three times as much. Let us put it in perspective.

That is one of the reasons the Reform Party will never get anywhere. It does not understand the big picture. It exaggerates. I am surprised that my colleague did not mention we are now spending $7 billion less than in the 1994-95 estimates. I am surprised my colleague did not mention that as a result of the program review, a rational review to make sure government was doing what it ought to be doing, we have saved $3.4 billion.

How I wish I had more time. I have a series of quotes, because I had anticipated the question from one of my Reform colleagues, applauding the Liberal budget, recognizing nothing is perfect. I have other quotes and I tried to find one positive one about the Reform budget in which the figures did not add up.I could not find one positive quote.

I find it very difficult to have a member of the Reform Party telling us we do not have it right when the majority of Canadians

think we are doing it right. It does not mean it cannot be improved but we have started in the right direction.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the matter of full supply of the estimates for fiscal year 1995-96. This year the main estimates total $164.2 billion of which the government is seeking parliamentary approval for $48 billion and new spending authority. The balance of $116.2 billion represents statutory payments which have already received parliamentary approval.

The main estimates incorporate $2.3 billion worth of the $3.4 billion of 1995-96 expenditure reduction measures achieved through the government's program review. The comprehensive review was undertaken last fall to identify the federal government's core roles and responsibilities and to reallocate resources to priority areas in order to provide effective affordable government.

This program review was much more extensive than any previous across-the-board expenditure reduction initiative; every department was reviewed. As a result, all sorts of spending

cuts and resources adjustments were decided, as evidenced by Mr. Martin's budget for 1995.

It all goes to show that the government is committed to cutting expenditures, streamlining operations and making drastic changes in terms of program availability and delivery. In a word, we are determined to redesign the federal administration.

Beyond the program review savings, measures already included in the main estimates are cost recovery measures which will generate new non-tax revenues, initiatives which require prior legislative approval, and other changes announced in the 1995 budget which simply were not finalized on time for inclusion in these estimates. In the latter cases the savings will be achieved through the lapsing of appropriated funds.

Let me give some examples of the types of changes resulting from the program review exercise. Government departments will focus on their core responsibilities. Federal and provincial overlap will be reduced, which is something a number of people have been asking for. Technological improvements will create efficiency gains. Costs of services will be recovered by new or increased fees charged to those who directly benefit from the services. Where feasible, similar programs will be merged to improve efficiency.

By concentrating our efforts in key areas of responsibility and improving program delivery patterns, we will be able to carry out the most significant downsizing of the federal public service since World War II.

If and when all the decisions made following the program review are implemented, the public service workforce could be reduced by as many as 45,000 positions over the next three years.

The President of the Treasury Board has prepared a set of options to ease the transition for affected employees as part of a program that is fair both to the people involved and to Canadian taxpayers.

The bottom line is that these main estimates are $3.5 billion higher than those for 1994-95. However, as I just explained, some of the increase is actually overstated due to the program review savings not yet incorporated into these figures. Even so, at first glance any increase seems inconsistent with our major expenditure reduction efforts.

It must be noted though that the bottom line change is principally the result of an $8.5 billion increase in public debt charges, to $49.5 billion. The rising interest and servicing costs on the debt more than outweigh the significant savings achieved through the program review and previous expenditure reduction measures. This underscores our acknowledged need to live within our means and the need for continuing deficit reduction aimed at moving us in the direction of declining debt charges.

Program spending excluding public debt charges is $114.4 billion or $7 billion less than the 1994-95 estimates level. This is an important figure. By 1996-97 the impact of the program review savings will result in a decrease of 10.8 per cent relative to the 1994-95 level. By 1997-98 that decrease will amount to an impressive 19 per cent reduction in program spending.

Public debt charges come under statutory spending, that is to say expenditures already approved by Parliament. Statutory spending for fiscal year 1995-96 amounts to $166.2 billion, or approximately 71 per cent of the main estimates. This is a $4 billion increase over the 1994-95 main estimates. Besides public debt charges, statutory spending also includes the main transfer payments to Canadians for old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, spouse's allowance and unemployment insurance.

In addition, statutory spending includes federal transfers to the provinces under the fiscal equalization program, the Canada assistance program and established programs financing, providing assistance to Canadians for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance.

Established programs financing assistance to the provinces and territories takes two forms: cash transfers of about $9.1 billion form part of these main estimates. Beyond that amount a further $12.6 billion worth of tax transfers do not appear in the main estimates.

The total consolidated budgetary main estimates, both statutory and voted, of $164.2 billion can be categorized into 11 sectors. Of these, spending in three sectors comprise over 76 per cent of the total estimates: social programs excluding the federal contribution to provincial and territorial social spending account for 30.6 per cent, public debt charges amount to 30.2 per cent, fiscal arrangements with the provinces and territories represent a further 16 per cent of the total. The balance or about 24 per cent is spread between defence, general government services, natural resource based programs, foreign affairs and international assistance, industrial, regional and scientific technological support, justice and legal programs, heritage and culture and the transportation sector.

Social programs comprise the largest area of federal spending at $50.2 billion in 1995-96. This does not include an additional

$16.4 billion in major cash transfers to the provinces and territories for social purposes.

The objectives of the social programs are to promote the health and well-being of Canadians and to foster equality of access by all Canadians to the benefit of Canadian society. Benefits and services are directed at those most in need through a broad range of assistance programs. These encompass employment, health, housing and other initiatives which benefit aboriginal peoples, veterans, senior citizens, children, immigrants and the unemployed.

Generally speaking, the program review helped strengthen the primary mandate of the departments responsible for social programs, including Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Health, Human Resources Development, Citizenship and Immigration, as well as Veterans Affairs.

Reducing spending in priority social programs, a large number of which are closely related to the population increase, is a particularly difficult challenge.

These departments will have to pay greater attention to the streamlining of their operations, in order to function with reduced resources. This means that, more than ever before, social benefits and services will have to be provided to those Canadians who need them the most.

A larger proportion of the costs related to these benefits and services will also be recovered from users who benefit directly from them.

Similar approaches are reflected in all program expenditure sectors within these estimates. For example, natural resource based programs in the 1995 main estimates are $463 million lower than in 1994-95. The departments of agriculture, environment, fisheries and oceans and natural resources have redefined their core mandates in areas of expertise. More emphasis will be placed on the strategic use of public funds to promote sustainable development, enhance Canadian competitiveness and rationalize and recover costs.

The transportation sector estimates show a $329 million decrease, as Transport Canada moves from direct involvement in transportation operations to focus on its core roles of developing policy and legislation, and setting and enforcing safety and security standards. Reduced subsidies paid by or to the transportation crown corporations and agencies also lead to significant expenditure reduction in this sector.

The streamlining of our operations, combined with the greater efficiency achieved through technology, has resulted in savings of $209 million in general government services.

The main estimates also mark the implementation of a new expenditure manager system, one which reflects the government's commitment to funding new requirements by reallocating existing resources. The system will necessitate an ongoing evaluation of priorities, both within departments and government wide, and will lead to more informed spending decisions. Centrally funded policy reserves to support new initiatives have been eliminated.

The operating reserve managed by Treasury Board has significantly diminished, and its role has also changed. Traditionally, the reserve was used as an emergency fund to cover additional expenditures related to existing programs. Under the new expenditure management system, the operating reserve will, in most cases, fulfill the role of a banking institution.

Its main responsibility will be to provide additional financing for projects which have a significant impact in terms of productivity.

Departmental business plans will focus on strategic changes to programs and lines of business while the related outlook documents, a new initiative, will enhance parliamentary review of estimates and future year expenditures with emphasis on performance.

It is recognized that effective management within a fixed level of resources presents a challenge to ministers and departments. In that context, treasury board is examining ways to enhance managerial flexibility and to support reallocation efforts.

The 1995-96 main estimates, along with the related initiatives which I described today, clearly show that the government has taken a new direction as regards expenditure management.

Canadians have responded favourably to the changes put forward in the budget. They recognize that tough choices had to be made, that real change is necessary in order to implement the jobs and growth agenda and to get the country back on track. This year's estimates confirm that those changes have begun.

As I listen to the comments that have been made concerning the government's budget and the ensuring activity, I hear mostly favourable comments directed at the government. The Canadian

people recognize it is easy to cut. But at the end of each cut is a victim, someone who is going to suffer as a result of the decision.

Surely the government must be doing things right. The official opposition suggests that we should not cut, we should be spending more. The third party suggests that we should have cut even more dramatically, recognizing fully that a lot of people have suffered as a result of budgetary decisions.

Canadians understand you must go at this kind of exercise gradually. They want this kind of government. They do not want their co-citizens to suffer unduly.

If anyone is going to be fair minded about the budget and the ensuing activity, he or she will need to acknowledge that the government has taken an important first step at addressing the question of the deficit and the debt, at creating long term, well remunerated employment for Canadians and at addressing the whole issue of social programs that Canadians want for those who need them.

As I indicated, the government has taken a very important first step.

[Public Service, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to ensure there is a level playing field between determinate and indeterminate employees. It wants to be fair and up front.

For the first time there will be a formal written notice given in cases of layoff or end of employment. Also for the first time there will be access to transition services for employees with two years of service or more. That will help them in relocating and finding other employment.

When a term employee nears five years of service there will be less probability of losing employment because of it. That is all in the spirit of fairness and ensuring a level playing field for everyone.

[Official Languages, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

The motion being debated today includes two proposals. The first one is that the government should thoroughly assess the way the Official Languages Act is applied in Canada, by appointing an individual to carry out a detailed and balanced review of the work done so far. The second proposal is that the government should reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just and adequate policy on official languages. These are good intentions, no doubt about that.

However, do we not already have all the required processes to ensure that the act is properly applied and to see how it is implemented? I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. It is true that the implementation of the Official Languages Act could be improved. It is that aspect that we, parliamentarians, should look at.

I heard about a number of flaws, but I did not hear anything about the positive aspects, and that makes me feel uncomfortable.

I also want to say that, from what I understood, the former MP, now a senator, had proposed something very similar in terms of assessing the way the act is applied across the country, from coast to coast. He was interested in reviewing the application of the act. So, I will discuss the topic from this perspective.

Let me explain. A number of mechanisms are available today. The Official Languages Act confers very clear responsibilities and rather precise mandates on three federal departments with respect to its application. These are the departments of justice, treasury board and Canadian heritage.

The Department of Justice has special responsibilities in the area of the administration of justice in both official languages under the act. The act clearly stipulates that English and French are the official languages of the federal courts and that either language may be used by any person in any oral or written proceedings.

The act further stipulates that the federal government is required to use the official language chosen by the other parties in a civil case to which it is a party before a federal court and that any final decision, order or judgment issued by any federal court must be made available simultaneously in both official languages under the circumstances specified in the legislation.

These are fundamental rights which guarantee all Canadians, whether they are English speaking or French speaking equal access to justice. This access is reinforced by the fact that the Official Languages Act requires all federal institutions, including the federal courts, to comply with the provisions of the act.

The second department with a specific mandate regarding official languages is Treasury Board. It is responsible for developing and co-ordinating the official language policies and programs of our federal institutions.

Treasury Board's mandate covers all federal institutions, including Crown corporations, and all agencies which have obligations regarding official languages under any other federal act. By virtue of the scope of its mandate under the Official Languages Act, Treasury Board is a key player in the management of the official languages program.

It is the responsibility of treasury board to ensure that federal institutions respect official language obligations regarding services to the public and the language of work with regard to the language of services. Federal institutions are required to provide services to the Canadian public in the official language of its choice in those locations and under the circumstances prescribed by the legislation.

Federal institutions have a further obligation to inform the public of the availability of services in the official language of its choice.

The official languages regulations adopted in 1991 identify the circumstances under which federal institutions are required to provide their services to and communicate with the public in both official languages. These regulations are essential to the application of the legislative framework enacted to ensure that Canadians receive the services they require from federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

In so-called bilingual regions, federal institutions must also provide a work environment which promotes the use of both official languages in the circumstances covered by the act. In particular, the federal institutions in question must provide bilingual human resources and central services, among others, to their employees, and must provide them with the general and common working tools in the language of their choice.

They must ensure that supervision is available to employees in both official languages, when this will contribute to the creation of a work environment promoting the use of both official languages. These institutions must also ensure that senior managers are functional in both official languages and that general and common information technology tools can be used in both official language. Lastly, federal institutions must be able to provide a comparable level of service in either

official language from one predominantly unilingual region to another.

The third element of the program, the equal representation of French speaking and English speaking Canadians, bears witness to the commitment of the government and Parliament to official languages.

This commitment means that federal institutions must ensure that their workforce reflects the presence of both linguistic communities in the Canadian population. Under the terms of this commitment, federal institutions must see to it that French and English speaking Canadians alike have equal employment and promotion opportunities.

[English]

It is the responsibility of treasury board to see to it that federal institutions effectively fulfil their legal obligations under parts IV, V and VI of the act and to report to Parliament annually on the status of official languages within the federal institutions covered by its mandate.

To this end, treasury board has been given the authority to recommend regulations and to give effect to the provisions of the act. It is also empowered to issue directives, to monitor and to audit the general compliance of federal institutions with official languages policies, directives and regulations. Treasury board may also evaluate the effectiveness of policies and programs of federal institutions and provide the public and federal employees with information on these policies and programs.

These are powers that the Treasury Board exercises every day in one way or another. These powers enable the Treasury Board to ensure not only that federal institutions fulfil their obligations but also that Canadians receive the services they need in the official language of their choice where prescribed by law and that they have equal employment and promotion opportunities in federal institutions.

The third federal department given specific responsibilities in terms of official languages, which I mentioned earlier, is the Department of Canadian Heritage. This department is responsible for encouraging and promoting a co-ordinated approach to the implementation by federal institutions of the government's commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minorities and to promote both French and English in Canadian society.

I had so many things to say, but I am coming to the end of my 10 minutes. I would simply want to add that I have not yet mentioned the fourth major player, the Commissioner of Official Languages, who also plays a key role in this matter. The Commissioner of Official Languages has the duty to ensure recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of the act, in particular as regards the advancement of French and English in Canadian society.

Unfortunately, I must conclude my presentation. I had so many things to say, but if some of my colleagues are interested in my speech, I am ready to share it with them.