Ronald J. Duhamel

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last comment. No French papers were published last night or this morning. That is why I did not quote any.

As for French speaking citizens of my province, yes, indeed there have been very positive improvements. I do believe that the constituents in my riding are well served by their federal member and their provincial member, as well as their municipal councillor, since we are all French speaking. We will see. Eventually we will have to go back before the electorate. I was elected in 1988, and again in 1993, and I might get elected again in 1997 or 1998. We shall see. I will let my constituents pass judgment, rather than my friend from the Bloc Quebecois.

I might add, however, that I thought it was a bit mean on his part to argue that I only quoted English newspapers from Manitoba. I repeat that none in French were published this morning.

When I went through the press clippings, I quoted some in French which praised the government for the budget. I took what I could find. I will find some more and I will pass them on to you, so you can read them and perhaps change your opinion.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the budget.

Our position is very clear. International markets have reacted favourably to this budget. Of course, the Reform Party feels that the cuts do not go deep enough. They wanted the government to slash more deeply. We remember the so-called budget they tabled a few days ago-I say so-called budget because it did not generate any positive comments. They tabled this document to convince Canadians that they were competent enough to bring down a budget. All this so-called budget did was to propose deeper cuts across the country.

And then this morning, the Bloc, the official opposition, said that we cut too much or not enough. I listened to their speeches with a great deal of attention and I am not sure that I know what they want. What do they want: more cuts, fewer cuts, different cuts? I do not know.

I have just heard a comment to the effect that the Bloc's suggestion that the size of government should be reduced was held holding to ridicule by the Liberals, and now we are told that we have finally realized that there was some fat to trim after all and made cuts. Is there not a glaring contradiction between these statements?

It seems to me that there is a glaring contradiction. If I am wrong, my hon. colleagues will no doubt ask questions and clarify their position. I would be only too happy. We find ourselves today stuck between the far right and the left-I would even say the far left at times. This is not a bad position at all.

What do the people of Manitoba have to say about this budget? I thought my hon. colleagues from both opposition parties might like to know. One paper ran the headline:"Grits Axe Spending". Another headline reads: "Western Diversification to Get New Look"; this is positive feedback. This one says: "Social Safety Net Rescued", a quote from the Minister of Human Resources Development.

And it goes on. "Tough Plan Boosts Buck, Raises Hopes". These words were not written by Liberals, I assure you. Also, "Federal Budget Turning the Corner". And this one, from Manitoba: "Budget Draws Applause". So, the response is generally positive in Manitoba. I can see my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois are just thrilled by this positive response. I will list more positive responses in a moment.

I know how appreciative my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois are when I mention them in my remarks, pointing out their glaring contradictions, demonstrating that the whole country, except for the official opposition party, can see some good in the budget just tabled. It is not just good, it is beyond being plain good.

As you know, this is a tough but fair budget. Not one region or group of individuals is affected unfairly. Many people are affected, but can you say they are treated unfairly? If so, please let me know.

The Minister of Finance made a special effort to distribute budget cuts equitably amongst the various regions. I must add that this budget takes necessary steps, and I stress the word necessary, to bring the deficit under control. These are the most severe budget measures taken by the federal government in fifty years. This will ensure that the deficit is going to be brought back to 3 per cent of the GDP by 1996-97.

Consequently, the budget exceeded the expectations of international traders. I should add that this is not the budget of a Conservative government. This budget does not make indiscriminate cuts: it redefines the role of the government, so that every department can concentrate on the priorities of Canadians. This is something important. We are going to do what we have to do.

I do hope that Bloc members will be pleased to see that, following the implementation of the measures announced in the budget, overlap and duplication will be reduced. Bloc members will surely be pleased to hear that, since they talk so much about that issue.

Moreover, unlike the previous Conservative budgets, we did not target the poor, absolutely not. The Liberal Party of Canada made a commitment regarding social programs.

Later this year, the Minister of Human Resources Development will table a bill on a significantly revamped UI program designed to better meet the needs of all Canadians.

Our government is also determined to provide fair, financial protection to our seniors, who have made such an important contribution to this country's development.

There is more. As I mentioned earlier, this is a tough budget but, according to most observers, it is also fair. To reach our

objective of deficit reduction, the following measures take effect immediately. That is very important.

First, the tax rate for large corporations goes up from 0.2 per cent to 0.225 per cent. As well, the surtax rate for companies increases from 3 to 4 per cent. Together, these two measures will generate additional revenues of $260 million annually. All large companies with capital assets exceeding $10 million will be affected by this tax rate increase.

The budget also provides for a temporary increase of the capital tax for banks and other large deposit institutions mentioned in Part VI of the Income Tax Act. That additional tax will bring in $100 million over a period of 20 months.

Another issue often discussed here in this House was that of family trusts. They were decried, but we are dealing with this problem. Family trusts will be eliminated as of January 1, 1999. The choice allowing one to postpone capital gains taxes according to the 21-year rule will be abolished.

The cancellation of that choice given the preferred beneficiaries will prevent people from using the trusts as an income splitting tool, a most profitable procedure.

My friends from the other side will no doubt be happy with these very progressive and, above all, fair measures. I can see it in their smiles. This is a measure they will applaud and praise.

There is no provision for income tax increases in this budget. I am surprised my colleagues have not commended on that. I am surprised they only pick out items that, according to them, will embarrass government.

I am also surprised that my colleagues from the other side have not mentioned that for each tax dollar, government programs will be reduced by $7. I am enormously surprised they have not mentioned one outstanding and very important point, which is fundamental to the process launched by the government, the fact that we ensure a simple and reasonable financing which will allow us to meet the needs of Canadians while cutting programs that are not absolutely essential.

I am also surprised they did not talk about RRSPs, an issue where we certainly found a reasonable solution. As you know, there were people on both sides: those who did not want any cuts and those who wanted RRSPs to be practically eliminated. What did the government do? It cut a little; they will be frozen and increased by 1,000 $ every year. Well-off people will be those mostly affected. I would have thought that my friends of the Bloc would have at least indicated that this was a step forward. Perhaps they will do so later on.

No taxation of dental and medical health programs. As you know, we all received letters from citizens throughout the country who did not want these programs to be taxed, and they were not. I would have thought that my colleagues across the way would have had something nice to say about that. Perhaps they forgot. It is quite likely that they will mention that very soon.

This morning I read various press clippings from everywhere in the country. I would like to quote some of them so that Canadians know about the feelings of people who are not in politics, who do not belong to any political party in the opposition, who are looking at it in a rational way in order to give Canadians some advice.

Here is from The Gazette : Belt-tightening Impresses Markets''. How interesting. AndOttawa aims to shrink deficit. Big spending cuts, modest tax hikes will be used to save $13.6 billion''.

There are others, and I know that my colleagues really appreciate the fact that I am sharing with them a rational point of view. The Globe and Mail says: Family Trust to Lose Deferment''. And it goes on, Mr. Speaker.Department Spending Reduced by 19 Per Cent'', Le Devoir , February 28. How interesting.

Then, a headline in The Globe and Mail says: ``Ottawa Axes Business Handouts. Subsidies Being Cut by Nearly $2.3 Billion over Three Years''.

Here, on the same page: "Women's Programs Dodge cuts". Surely, my colleagues are going to rise in favour of that measure. Let me go on. In today's edition of the Ottawa Citizen , one can read: ``Environment Groups Offer Rare Praise to Government''. How interesting.

Let me continue: "Average Consumer Escapes Brunt of Budget". That can be found in today's Gazette . The Toronto Star says: ``Liberals Cut Where Tories Didn't Dare''. How interesting, Mr. Speaker.

Let me continue further. Jeffrey Simpson writes, in The Globe and Mail : ``A Fine Start in Attempting to Escape the Deficit/Debt Trap''.

And on the other side of the page, still in the Gazette : Historic Budget Slays the Herd of Sacred Cows''. Then in today's edition of <em>La Presse</em> , one can read:L'économie peut de nouveau respirer''. That means that the economy can breathe again. ``Martin Budget Good First Step, but Canadians Still Face Tough Decisions''. It is true, indeed. But it is a step in the right direction.

Finally, and this is quite interesting, in a press release, chartered accountants say that they give 4 out of 5 to the federal budget. Four out of five!

This morning, opposition party members were giving us perhaps 1 or 2 out of 5. I am surprised that they did not find anything good about the budget. It is beyond me. I know that some people would like to find us to identify issues close to their hearts and would like to make recommendations to improve the situation with regard to those issues. I understand that and I respect that. That is the role of the opposition. However, I do not understand why they cannot find anything positive in the whole budget. It is beyond me.

One thing that also surprises me about the Bloc is that they think that there is a federalist hiding behind each reduction and each operation. They say that it must be a prereferendum strategy, that, yes, there is something there, that there has to be something there. They think that even if there seems to be nothing, there is surely something. They imagine that there is a federalist lurking behing each comma, each period, each word, each sentence.

The budget is reasonable, fair and tough and it is also sensitive to regions. When you take the position of the far right-

That is the Reform Party. I talk about the extreme right, the Reform Party. The Reform Party came forward with "a budget". Of course I did not see one positive comment from any responsible journalist across the country on it. The fact that it is going to sit here and criticize this budget perhaps lacks some substance in credibility.

Again I would invite its members if I am wrong to correct me. I would invite them as well to suggest how this document can be improved. That is the challenge I offer my colleagues from both opposition parties, the official opposition as well as the third party.

Do not just stand there and shoot at this budget. Stand up and make sound recommendations so that it can be improved for the benefit of this nation and for the benefit of all Canadians. That is the challenge.

I spent some time in opposition. I rather enjoyed it I must confess because one has a responsibility obviously to critique that which comes forward. That is fair. Surely the responsibility goes beyond simply taking particular issues where one feels that the government might be vulnerable or where one feels one might have a political advantage. I accept that. However, it goes beyond that and one has a responsibility to make concrete suggestions.

To my friends from both parties on the other side of this House, I would like to offer this challenge. We have a number of days to debate this budget and make progress. Criticize all you want in a constructive manner but please, make suggestions that will improve what has been proposed. Make suggestions which will meet the needs of Canadians everywhere and allow us to be much more sensitive than we might have been if we had not had a chance to share your ideas and your political wisdom had you chosen to use those qualities for something else than attacking this budget. I underline that it has been well accepted up until now throughout the country, but even more important, on international markets.

[Young Offenders Act, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the question and I shall attempt to answer it in a responsible way.

Initially there was a comment from the member's party indicating that my party was prone to attempting all kinds of programs without appropriate evaluations. Then this hon. member puts forth the suggestion of a boot camp in his question, a particular boot camp where supposedly there has been some success.

I would caution in taking one example only and extrapolating it to the whole of youth crime or the whole of Canada. Whether one calls it boot camp or an alternative way of serving a sentence or being socialized differently, certainly we can look at it and we should. I know this is happening in certain parts of Canada.

I deplore, and my colleague did not suggest it, when some members indicate that boot camps sound tough. It sounds as if we are doing something when we are not doing anything except for symbolic reasons. I think that is hypocritical. I stress again that my colleague did not suggest that was the reason, but in some cases it is hypocritical, political and has no intent but trying to respond to a group of people out there that believes it is the answer to all youth crime.

Another point I want to make is a very important one. I take issue with my colleague in this regard, at least slightly. I did not say that incarceration was not the answer. I say that incarceration needed to be the answer in certain cases to protect society. He can check the blues. I did say that.

I hope my colleagues will listen very carefully but I wanted to make a point-and I am delighted to be able to make it again because it is an important one-for those who suggest that we should simply put people into an institution and throw away the key. There are some people who suggest that because they do not know any better. They do not understand the situation. They keep hoping for simplistic solutions. I simply suggest to them that approach to incarceration, with that kind of motivation, is not the answer.

We have a greater responsibility toward our fellow human beings, whether or not we like them, whether or not they are offenders, and that is to try to find out what we can do in a responsible way to ensure that they are contributing members of Canadian society.

[Young Offenders Act, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill, this afternoon.

We are attempting to reconcile two views; one which looks at what one would refer to as tough treatment, incarceration, dealing with young people who create situations that are unacceptable to society in a very direct and sometimes I would suggest almost brutal kind of way.

On the other hand, another group of people somehow believe that if you do not look at youth crime, and if you are patient and understanding and soft, that it will go away. Surely the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Surely there is a balance to be struck.

This is what the bill is all about. It attempts to reconcile two views. It attempts to establish a correct balance, and that correct balance would obviously vary according to the values that an individual holds.

We are asked to define what is a fair response. What is a just response? What is a correct response to a crime situation when it is undertaken by a young man or woman? That is extremely difficult. I do not pretend to have all of the answers and it would be presumptuous of me to suggest that I do.

I want to share some ideas in the spirit of debate to try to address a very serious situation. I do not believe that you can wish it away and it is simply going to disappear. I do not believe that incarceration and rough treatment is the answer either.

The government has to manage. It has to protect society. At the same time, simply putting people away does not solve the problem. It does not even come close to solving the problem.

One can look at rough treatment or direct treatment or incarceration. A lot of people would say, "not pandering to those criminals". Do they look at the success rate of reacting that way? What happens when we put people away? What are the costs when people are put away? We do not talk about that. There are costs. It costs a lot of money to detain people today. Obviously it has to be done because society has to be protected in certain circumstances. As a solution it is not only costly but I think it is extremely dysfunctional.

Look at the people who are put away. Since they are young people many of them are eventually released. Once they are released how many go on to integrate into society and lead productive lives? What is the success rate of that kind of approach?

Pretending that no problems exist will not resolve anything. We have to acknowledge that there are difficulties in society that are caused by real reasons. The real challenge to us as parliamentarians, as members of Canadian society, is to find out why it is that people commit crimes.

Some people suggest there are good and bad people. That is too simplistic. There are people who along the way, for a variety of reasons that we do not always understand nearly as well as we should, commit criminal behaviour that is totally unacceptable to society. That is where the challenge lies. If we could understand that, we could respond. In responding to that we could cut down the amount of crime in society. It would be much less costly, much less dysfunctional and a much more humane and satisfying kind of way of dealing with our fellow human being whether he or she is or is not a criminal.

We are trying to strike a balance between those who feel that imprisonment is the solution and those who feel that patience and education will eventually bring an end to this type of violence, abuse and criminal behaviour.

The bill includes a number of serious measures. I am not disappointed when I hear people suggest other or additional measures. That does not bother me. What does bother me is when the efforts of a very prominent Canadian are belittled, a justice minister who knows a lot about the law and criminal behaviour and who has taken the time to consult widely. Then we pose as supposed experts and simply belittle that which he has produced. That is arrogance.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would agree with me that when members on the opposite side suggest that members of our party are arrogant, there is no greater arrogance than pretending that one is an expert, that one has all of the solutions to all of the complex problems of society when one in fact does not. They come forward with simple, glib, catchy little solutions that pretend to resolve, so they can go away and suggest they are really listening to people and applying those solutions, and they

are going to correct the ills of society, that is arrogance. That is the most profound arrogance that one can find.

Unfortunately we find it a great deal in some members of the House. Some of them are raising their hands. I wish the camera could catch them right now so their electors could see firsthand who they are. Unfortunately that is not possible. Perhaps they will have the courage to get up and ask question, so we can have a bit of a debate. I can say a few more things to them then.

The bill includes increased sentences. Has anyone talked about that? It includes going to adult court in certain circumstances, when the crime is sufficiently serious to warrant that kind of situation. It includes extending the time served before being considered for parole. Has anyone from the opposite side mentioned that? It includes a better sharing of information among those people who deal with youth and criminal behaviour by young people.

It also includes rehabilitation and treatment. That underlies the whole notion here. We want to rehabilitate. We want to be able to treat. We want to keep young people out of penal institutions. It is costly. It is dysfunctional. It does not do them any good as human beings. It protects society and, as I mentioned before, when protection is needed that is clearly what we would do.

The legislation includes the possibility of victim impact statements when sentencing, something that is now used in adult situations only. It talks about conditional supervision which is rare in a number of circumstances today but which is extended.

It talks about medical and psychological assessments. We no longer need to get consent. We can ask for those assessments to assist us in making better, more sensitive judgments that will be practical and address the real problems. A very important point is the possibility of restitution to the victims of crime. It has many components the opposite side has not addressed.

The major challenge to us today is twofold. It is to look at the legislation not in a partisan way but in the spirit of openness to see what merits support and what can be improved. Surely members on the opposite side see some positive features in the legislation. They can bring about suggestions that may lead to improvements. That is one of the challenges.

Another challenge before us today is to try to understand better than we do why it is these young people turn to criminal behaviour. If we could understand that we could prevent crime. Preventing crime would ensure that there is less incarceration, less cost to society and more productive lives being lived by young people.

I believe I am reaching the end of my speech. I will stop here, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues across the floor.

[Petitions, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would have a second petition to table. It concerns violence and abuse in our society.

The petitioners point out that violence in our society is a concern throughout the land. They want violence in the media, whether it be on radio or television, looked at very carefully. The petitioners ask specifically that government ensure that the

CRTC do whatever it can in this matter. They acknowledge there have been some initiatives undertaken and some successes. They point out that violence is not necessary to inform or entertain. They point out that they feel it goes counter to their efforts to raise their families.

[Petitions, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from an organization in my riding. The petitioners pray that Parliament reject euthanasia, physician assisted suicide in Canada, and consider expanding palliative care centres to ensure that they are accessible to all Canadians who are passing through the last days of their lives.

[Petitions, February 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, this petition is about abuse and violence in society.

The petitioners believe that unnecessary violence and abuse in society in all of its forms, on radio and television, have become a major concern of the Canadian population.

They want the government to ensure that the CRTC is able to regulate it and reduce it and if possible remove it, I suspect. They point out that it is not necessary to educate and it goes counter to families trying to raise their children.

[Petitions, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, this petition concerns excessive violence in our society, on the radio and on television.

Violence in our society is a concern of these petitioners: violence in general, violence on radio and television or wherever one finds it.

The petitioners ask the government and the CRTC to ensure that to the extent possible we diminish and remove violence. They point out that violence is not necessary to entertain or to inform, that it is counter to what many families are trying to do in their homes as they raise their children.

They point out however that there has been some progress made in this area and they applaud the government and the CRTC for their efforts.

[Anniversary Of The Canadian Flag, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag, a flag which commands respect around the world for what it represents: a wealthy and tolerant country that is open to others.

By celebrating the 30th anniversary we acknowledge the richness of our country and of its people. We recognize what we have been as a country, what we are today as a nation and what we can become by working together to improve the quality of life of all citizens, particularly those who have less.

Tomorrow Canadians everywhere from coast to coast to coast will raise their flag with immense pride.

[Fresh Water, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is but one part of the government's overall approach to regulatory reform.

Over the past year we have been actively reviewing some 40,000 pages of regulations and moving to change hundreds of the most obsolete and problematic regulations in the next year. No longer will trains have to have spittoons, for example.

As well, we will be bringing in changes shortly to the Statutory Instruments Act that will create a more efficient and less time consuming way of developing and changing regulations. That is the second part of our plan for regulatory reform.

Bill C-62 is a third part of our program. What we are trying to do here is to create a tool for use in special circumstances only, where an individual or a company feels it can achieve the goals of regulation but wants to do so in a manner that is not exactly as laid out in a particular set of technical regulations.

We have carefully and painstakingly crafted these tools to make sure they do their job without reducing the protection that environmental or other regulations give the Canadian public. I would like to point out that the bill is one of the first pieces of process legislation ever tabled in the House of Commons that enshrines as an inviolate and absolute principle the goal of sustainable development.

It is the environmental movement, I point out, that has been at the forefront in recent years in urging governments to include sustainable development as a legislative principle. The act we are talking about explicitly does this. It says that no agreements can be approved under the act in any area whatsoever, unless it is considered with the goals of sustainable development, period.

The measures proposed in this bill are optional.

If the Minister of the Environment does not want to use them with respect to any set of regulations, she does not have to do anything, thereby effectively exempting those regulations from the application of the bill.

The bill is truly a democratic innovation. It will allow individuals, whether farmers, union members, taxpayers or even politicians, to force the government to examine its own regulations. From a common sense point of view it will force departments to look closely at possibly rigid, inflexible and often outdated rules to see if there is a better, cheaper and more sensible way to do things.