Ronald J. Duhamel

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was on February 22 that the President of the Treasury Board made the announcement with respect to MP pensions. A backgrounder was also available on that day indicating very clearly the conditions under which the legislation would come forth. It is an opportunity for people to opt in once the legislation is in. Everybody will be treated in a very similar way.

I might add that the member for Calgary West and the leader of the Reform Party were in attendance at the meeting. I do not know why there are any particular surprises. If there are suggestions to be made, they can be made in this House when the legislation is debated. They can also be made in committee.

[Rights Of The Child, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was recently saddened to learn about the death of a young boy, Iqbal Masib, who was campaigning against the use of children in Pakistani carpet factories. Although his protest campaign resulted in the closure of several factories, it also led to his death at the hands of killers.

Children are hired as factory workers in several countries not only because they have small fingers but also because they do not complain about abuse and constitute a source of cheap labour for employers. That is very, very sad.

Canada must be vocal in its denunciation of child labour in all its forms. We must convince governments with existing legislation to enforce their laws with respect to the bonding of children as labourers. Those without existing laws must be singled out and denounced. Abuse of children is unacceptable. It is barbaric and it must not be tolerated.

The children of the world must be given a chance. Canada has a responsibility to help them.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a certain amount of confusion in the member's mind and I do not say that unkindly.

Would the member take the time to rapidly identify the expectations from the federal and provincial governments in the

ideal health care system he described? Many of his expectations in his comments do not belong to the federal government, constitutionally speaking.

Just to give a very quick example about the confusion, in the Canada Health Act there is no prohibition on profit. There is a section where it is not possible to have a health care system that makes a profit. It must be operated on a non-profit basis.

My colleague seems to confuse the two in the Canada Health Act on that particular feature. I get the impression that my colleague is looking for a Pizza Pizza health care system. That is what it sounds like to me. Would he care to comment?

[Income Tax Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, one of the main responsibilities of the government is to use taxpayers' money in the best possible manner. When it makes decisions regarding contracts, the government seeks to get the best possible value for taxpayers' money and relies on good management.

While the government is concerned about taxpayers' money, it is also conscious of the fact that it is a major employer. As such, it must also be concerned about its employees. We are facing a smaller public service and this will translate into difficult times for many of our employees.

We need only read the newspapers to realize the extent to which the President of the Treasury Board is concerned with employee well-being. He has been meeting with union officials and has said on a number of occasions the government wants to treat public servants fairly and humanely during the period of downsizing.

This means, among other things, living up to our commitment to find alternative employment for as many affected indeterminate employees as possible. In this regard the Treasury Board expects public service departments to examine their contracts for services as well as other internal employment opportunities with a view to offering these opportunities to affected employees. There are currently staffing controls in place in the public service.

The Treasury Board secretariat in consultation with departments and central agencies has been re-examining human resources management and employment practices to identify what new or modified measures should now be adopted.

Again, our goal is to make the best efforts we can to reintegrate affected employees. Increased emphasis is being given to this very activity.

The President of the Treasury Board has asked the Standing Committee on Government Operations to review government contracting services. The committee held extensive hearings during the fall. It continues to do so and is coming quite close to the completion of its task. It will be submitting a report, which government awaits with great interest.

We will still need to contract out for services. There are fluctuations in workloads, for example, during the taxation period. There is a need for specialized services for fleet management of government vehicles. There is contracting for services during emergencies. If a boat is caught on a reef when no government coast guard boat is available we would need to ask someone for help.

I believe this approach in the management of government affairs is truly fair, both for federal employees and Canadian taxpayers.

[Financial Administration Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to continue my address on the bill presented by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. As previously stated, I believe that the objectives of the bill are well intended. My colleagues and I are in favour of ensuring adequate accountability for all crown corporations. However, the proposed bill has a number of shortcomings which I will continue to review today.

The last time I spoke on the bill I examined some of the reasons for exemptions. Exemptions reflect some of the very special sensitivities in the relationship between the government and these particular corporations. Each has been created by a special act which carefully outlines a very specific mandate. For some the act sets out requirements for the administration of resources. This becomes of particular importance in ensuring the accountability among these crown corporations which provide, for example, grants. A case in point is the Canada Council.

It is of paramount importance that the Canada Council be permitted to freely select recipients of grants and that this be the public's perception. I am of the opinion that the artistic value of a work is not a political issue and that it is inappropriate for the government to set conditions in this area.

Similarly, I believe strongly in protecting the mandated freedom of the CBC in areas of programming and journalistic independence. This freedom led to the provision that the CBC also be exempted from part X in 1984.

I recognize that the hon. member deliberately left out the CBC in order to remove, as much as possible, contentious issues. My concern is that the reasons for granting exemption from part X for other corporations, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, present issues which may be viewed as equally contentious, especially by Canadians or groups of Canadians these corporations serve.

Should we not first hold comprehensive consultations with the affected parties to examine these issues in depth?

It appears to me the bill fails to recognize as much as it should that the unique mandates of the affected corporations require more serious consideration in developing an appropriate accountability framework.

Clearly there are reasons for some of these corporations to be agents rather than non-agents of the crown. There are also reasons why their employees are not public servants. Bill C-263, in my opinion, does not deal with the importance of these reasons sufficiently clearly.

Experience over the last 10 years has shown that generally there may be merit in bringing other corporations under a modified form of accountability framework similar to the regime now in place for the CBC. Bill C-263 does not provide for these modifications which I believe are necessary.

I am confident that additional efforts will be made by this government to balance improvements in accountability for exempt crown corporations with the desirable degree of independence. In fact, the bill assists us in doing this.

Owing to the reservations and inconsistencies in the approach reflected in Bill C-263-and I do not say that unkindly because I recognize that the hon. member did not have all of the resources available to him-I must declare that I cannot recommend support for this bill as presented in the House. However, I wish to state that, notwithstanding my opposition to the bill, the government is committed to sound financial management for all of its crown corporations. Improvements can always be sought and we will make them.

We recognize that the situation for the exempt crown corporations named in the hon. member's bill is unique and that the bill fails to adequately deal with that fact. This does not mean that we are blindly opposed to a re-examination of how to best ensure appropriate accountability.

The President of the Treasury Board will therefore communicate with his colleagues responsible for these corporations asking them to review once more the opportunities to improve the accountability system now in place for each of them. This examination process would be done on a case by case basis respecting the special needs of each corporation's mandate. It would include examining the need for changes to legislation paralleling the model for CBC if appropriate.

There are several ways to deal with this. I am confident that in partnership with the directors and managers of crown corporations, the government will continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to managing the corporations effectively and efficiently with due regard for all of the best and most sound principles of accountability to the taxpayer.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his balanced speech that looked at both sides of the issue. I would like to ask him a very important question.

I suspect-if he disagrees with me, I will not be upset in any way-that the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois today was just to score political points, to try to play one part of the country off against another.

They did not sincerely believe that one region had been treated more or less favourably than another, they simply wanted to get one region to play off against another. They have been unable to look at the situation and this issue in a balanced way. As I said earlier, I will not be upset in any way if my colleague disagrees with me. I would like to have his comments, sincerely and honestly.

[Petitions, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, these petitioners are concerned with the amount of violence and abuse in our society. They point out that violence and abuse in the media are of particular concern to them and to the people whom they know, particularly as it affects younger children. They are concerned about all types of abuse and violence.

They ask the government to ensure that the CRTC takes the necessary measures in order to reduce it and if possible to eliminate it. They point out that often what happens counters what it is they try to do in raising their families. They do appreciate some of the recent initiatives undertaken by the CRTC and they want to applaud those.

[Beauce-Franco-Manitoban Meetings, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last week, representatives of the Beauce region in Quebec and the French community in Manitoba met in St. Boniface to discuss the possibility of a pact of friendship between these two regions.

This visit is part of a process that began last year to look at possible exchanges between Beauce and the French community in Manitoba in the economic, cultural, educational and communications fields.

Our friends from Beauce had a busy schedule in Manitoba. They met with the Société franco-manitobaine, the Association of Bilingual Municipalities, the Chamber of Commerce, CKXL community radio, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, the Société historique de Saint-Boniface, and I could go on.

This pact of friendship between the French-speaking citizens of Beauce and Manitoba is a fine example of the manner in which the two communities can work together to create jobs and get to know one another better.

I congratulate the participants in this pact of friendship, who are trying to build a Canada that is stronger and more united within the Canadian federation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this budget was tough, but fair.

Most commentators have indicated that is what the last budget was all about, tough but fair. That is quite a feat when one looks at the country, the extent of the various groups represented. Provinces and the territories believe it has been fair to them overall. The regions are reacting positively in the sense that no region seems to have suffered more than others. Men and women are feeling as if neither one of the two groups has been disadvantaged over the other. There is some sensitivity to those who are both younger and older. There is as well a response in terms of reductions to Canadians at various levels of remuneration.

I am proud that the Liberal Party has never claimed perfection. It wanted a good budget, if possible a very good budget. That is exactly what was accomplished.

To be fair, opposition parties have done what they do best, criticize the budget. That is their role and I respect that role as I believe we all do. However, it would have been quite novel if they had not only criticized but made specific suggestions as to how it could have been improved. There is one exception, which I will speak to in some detail, where the Reform Party put forward a budget. I will share with my colleagues and with Canadians what kind of response it was.

One of the unfortunate realities about budgets and reductions is one cannot reduce or change without affecting people, unfortunately sometimes negatively. We have in the budget attempted to minimize the discomfort, the hurt and the negative impact. I will give a couple of examples with respect to the civil service. There are going to be massive reductions as a result of an analysis of those things the government feels it ought to continue to do to remove the duplication. There will be programs eliminated, some reduced, and some jobs will be lost.

However, if one looks at the early retirement incentive, the early departure incentive, and the other initiatives undertaken by government to attempt to cushion the departures of those particular civil servants, one gets a good sense of how concerned we are to be fair and responsible.

In spite of any number of programs, it is quite clear it does not remove the hurt or the disappointment. That is unfortunate but it is reality. To think one can come forward with a budget that somehow would undertake some significant changes and yet not have any impact whatsoever less than positive would be dreaming in technicolour.

In a recent poll 73 per cent of Reform Party supporters thought the Liberal budget was a move in the right direction. This is really astonishing.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that 73 per cent of supporters of the Reform Party, which had wanted to go much, much farther than the government, nevertheless felt that the budget was a move in the right direction?

The budget is a result in large part of an analysis of the programs government was involved in and decisions made to either remove those programs or reduce them substantially because we recognize there was significant duplication.

My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois make frequent reference to overlap and duplication. This budget represents an extraordinary effort to eliminate much of it.

Hundreds of appointments have been reduced as a result of this. We have talked about the reduction to the civil service which is important and extremely difficult. There have been many other reductions and cuts.

Rather than applaud the budget-as a member of the government I would be expected to be supportive-I want to share some of the things said by third parties, people who are not part of the government.

Jayson Myers of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said he was impressed and applauds the minister for what he has done. Ghislain Dufour, Conseil du patronat, said it is a good budget. Peter Wolford, Retail Council of Canada, said it is a good budget on several fronts. Sherry Cooper, economist with Burns Fry, said it is a terrific budget, there is no smoke and mirrors.

Stephen Von Houten, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, said it is really the first serious attempt at deficit reduction we have seen in this country in a long time. "He has more than met, if not exceeded, the market's expectations", said another observer, a person not part of the government.

I could go on quoting. I will, however, add only two or three more so that the people listening will get an idea of the breadth of the budget's acceptance.

For example, "Serious action was necessary and, remarkably, the government took it. After years of tinkering, making minor adjustments, and across-the-board cuts, the federal government finally had the political courage to tackle the problem in a direct way", Peter Boswell, columnist and political science professor at Memorial University.

"In attacking the deficit by reducing spending, one must take care to take aim only at waste and not at productive government expenditures. Well-targeted cuts, like those in the budget, will not put a brake on growth", editorial comment, La Presse .

I conclude with this quote: "While the opposition parties twist and turn in the wind, Mr. Chrétien quietly and effectively stays the course-the most popular prime minister in many a year, at a time when public mistrust of politicians is epidemic".

So many people have expressed their support for the budget. So many people have said that, for the first time, the budget was heading in the right direction. As I said earlier, this is not a perfect budget. There is no perfection in this world. This is, however, a budget that is moving in the right direction and one that has been accepted by the vast majority of Canadians in the provinces, the territories and the regions.

This is the first time since there have been these kinds of statistics that there are more people in favour of the budget, who see it as a positive measure, than there are against. That is quite an accomplishment.

Subsequent to the budget the Liberals increased their popularity with Canadians to 60 per cent from 55 per cent, while all other political parties decreased in popularity, with the exception of one which increased by 1 per cent.

The Reform Party put out a budget. If one looks at media quotations on that budget, they show quite a contrast. I will not have time to read them all, which disappoints me because some of them are very good.

Shane McCune of the Vancouver Province wrote on February 22, 1995: A 57-page document from the Grumpy and Dopey school of finance-comic in its stupidity and tragic in its meanness''.The proposals are very simplistic and little more than playing with arithmetic,'' said John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He criticized Reform's detailed plans, particularly its proposal to cut $3.4 billion from UI.

Professor John Loxley said: "The Reform Party's economic analysis is horrendous and completely ignores basic principles of budgeting". An editorial in the Vancouver Province reads: ``It's also vague on details and big on assumptions where it suits Reform. Unfortunately that's the whole problem with the document. It suits Reform, but how about Canada?''

"It would be nice if we could cite just one way in which Reform is helping the country or itself by producing such an incomplete and controversial alternate budget at this time. Alas, we draw blanks", wrote Stewart MacLeod of the Guardian . An editorial in the Vancouver Sun reads: ``Reform's vision represents return to the law of the jungle where it's everyone for himself or herself and the devil take the hindmost''.

The Montreal Gazette : In his zeal to drive a stake through the deficit's heart, leader Preston Manning just may take the country with it. He's taking the easy way out, the lion's share of the cuts as aimed at those who can't fight back''. A further quote reads:Empowerment seems to be a word for whatever a Reform government wants to impose on a group of citizens. Seniors, for example, are to be empowered by reducing pensions''.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by further stressing that, while the budget is clearly not perfect, it is moving in the right direction.

We are already starting to build next year's budget and I invite all of my colleagues to pitch in and make it an even better budget.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 31st, 1995]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.