Ronald J. Duhamel

[Petitions, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the House will know that violence in our society is a great concern among Canadians. Violence in the media is of particular concern perhaps principally to parents who are raising children.

The petitioners ask government to ensure that the CRTC monitor very closely violence in the media. They feel there is a relationship between that which they see and hear and that which happens in society. They believe that violence is not necessary in order to entertain. They also underline that violence and violent acts are counterproductive to that which they try to do in raising their families.

They point out, however, that there have been some changes and that they are appreciative of the initiatives the CRTC has taken.

[Remembrance Day Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-251, this piece of legislation.

I want to commend my colleague for having brought it forth. I want to correct a couple of things. First of all, this is now a recognized holiday in the collective agreement. It can float. That is the issue. The point about an extra $50 million to $70 million is totally erroneous. One could counteract by pointing out that if it is worth that much in a collective agreement it could be traded off.

What my colleague is seeking to do is make absolutely certain that it is a holiday on that day. Why is that? It is because of the sacrifice of the soldiers and their families and their supporters. Because of their sacrifice, we want to set this day aside to make absolutely certain that we remember what they contributed to this nation, the freedom that we have today, the greatest gift apart from health that anyone could possibly have. Because of their sacrifice we have one of the finest, if not the finest, nations in the world. We started with a real head start because this is a wonderful country, but when we think of what they have contributed to the very fabric of the nation surely we can set a day aside throughout the nation to remember what they have contributed.

Unfortunately we take what we have for granted. I remember going to church services where the pastor indicated that we take our good health for granted until we start losing it. Then we suddenly we start to remember how important it is.

We take our freedoms for granted. We take the greatness of the country for granted. We take this wonderful, magnificent country of ours too much for granted. We have to stop and reflect, to think, and to say thank you. That is what we want to say. We want to say thank you to our soldiers. We want to say thank you to their families. We want to say thank you to those who supported them. That is what this is all about.

We want to set a day aside to remember the wars, remember the destructiveness of wars, and remember that war should be passé. We want to remember those who died. We want to remember those who were wounded. We want to remember those who came back but who have passed on. We want to make sure that we do not forget their sacrifice, their tremendous contribution to the country, this free country.

My hon. colleague wishes to have this day set aside in memory of the sacrifices made by our soldiers, their families and those who supported them. We want to remember the wars. We want to remember those who died on the battlefields. We want to remember those who were wounded and those who came back, but have since passed on. We want to remember their contribution to our country, to what is probably the most beautiful and perhaps the best country in the world. We want to remember that they gave us a country where we can live in freedom.

That is really all I really wanted to say. This is an important initiative. This is an initiative that we should all be supporting. This is not an initiative that should be somehow shunted aside because of supposed costs. There are no costs. We simply ask that we set a day aside that is consistent throughout Canada so that we can remember those who served.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the bill describes the central role that the Department of Canadian Heritage will be called to play in the life of Canada and Canadians.

The legislation creates a department which will have responsibilities in the areas of national parks, historic sites, cultural development, amateur sports, multiculturalism and official languages. All those areas have clear links to our identity as Canadians.

I will speak today specifically about the official languages responsibilities of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the English and French languages and the people who speak them that have shaped Canada and helped define its identity. Surely Canada's linguistic duality has its origins in the very nature of the country.

The official languages policies put forward by the Government of Canada since the 1970s are the reflection of a generous and creative vision of Canada. It is a Canada where English and French speaking citizens can feel at home wherever they choose to live. It is a vision of Canada where vital English speaking and French speaking minority language communities can contribute to the economic, social, cultural and scientific life of the country.

In order to translate this vision into reality, federal institutions have become bilingual. It is the institutions that have become bilingual. The government co-operates with the provinces to ensure that our linguistic duality is reflected in the education system and other services in the areas of justice and health.

The government has recognized that it has a role in enhancing the vitality and development of official language communities from coast to coast to coast, both by supporting the development of their institutions and by supporting their efforts to have their rights respected. It has also worked to promote the recognition and the use of two official languages with a wide range of organizations within Canadian society.

The official languages programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage are designed to provide opportunities for Canadians to appreciate and profit from our rich linguistic heritage and to communicate with and participate in federal institutions.

The Government of Canada believes that the great majority of Canadians share these goals. We all know that the Canada of tomorrow is being built in the classrooms of today. Few would doubt the importance of education to any community and of support for minority language education. The federal government works toward the full participation of both language groups in all aspects of Canadian society.

These programs do much more than support the vital contribution of official language minority communities. They allow them to contribute to our country's economic growth. For example, recent progress in education for francophone minorities has been a big help in reducing the illiteracy and school drop-out rates, thus raising the post-secondary attendance rate.

The 1991 census revealed that the number of francophones outside Quebec went up slightly in absolute numbers. Nearly 1 million French speaking Canadians, or about 14 per cent of Canadian francophones, live outside Quebec. They are found in all regions of the country and account for about a third of the population of New Brunswick. The largest community in terms of numbers is in Ontario, where almost 1 million francophones live.

Even in my own province of Manitoba, there is a significant number of francophones and a vibrant community. Minority language education is a good indicator of these communities' viability. There are some 660 French language primary and secondary public schools outside Quebec. By ratifying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the federal and provincial governments made commitments to official language communities.

Section 23 of the Charter gives minorities the right to be educated in their own language and to manage their own schools, as just happened in Manitoba. In the Mahé decision, the Supreme Court said that this section is "the cornerstone of Canada's commitment to bilingualism and biculturalism be-

cause of the essential role of education in maintaining and developing linguistic and cultural vitality".

By allowing parents to fully participate in the operations of their school boards and ensuring that together they can turn their schools into truly francophone living environments, we also discourage dropping out and give a head start to several generations of our very young children. That is why the federal government must continue to help the provinces and territories fulfil their constitutional obligations to their official language minorities.

As with any government policy, this policy, its objectives and its implementation may be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Even here in the House of Commons, we hear comments that reflect a misunderstanding of the objectives of the federal policy on official languages. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify certain facts about supposedly imposed bilingualism.

The 1969 Official Languages Act stated that French and English had equal status in all Canadian parliamentary and government institutions. It was revised later to take into account the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As a result of this policy everyone has the right to use English and French in Parliament and Parliament must enact its laws in English and in French. Everyone has the right to appear and proceed in the official language of choice before any federal court and any criminal court. The public has the right to communicate with and receive services from the institutions of Parliament and the federal government in either of the two official languages.

English speaking and French speaking Canadians have equal opportunities for employment and advancement in federal institutions. The composition of federal institutions must reflect the presence of the two official languages communities in Canada.

The federal government is bilingual so that the citizens do not have to be. Every Canadian has the right to remain unilingual. Universal bilingualism has never ever been the goal of the policy. The B and B commission stated:

A bilingual country is a country where the principal public institutions must provide services in two languages to citizens, the vast majority of whom may very well be unilingual.

The key concept in all of this is that it is the choice of individual Canadians. So much for the supposed enforced bilingualism.

This policy is one that not only reflects what Canada was, what Canada is and what Canada can be. It is an open policy, a policy that reaches out and encourages people to participate in the official language of their choice. In doing so it does not exclude other groups from participating fully in Canadian life. That is what sets it apart.

I could speak for a long time but I understand that I am coming to the end of my speech. It is unfortunate because I had so much to say. However, I would like to close simply by asking all members of the House of Commons to look with their eyes, their minds and their hearts open at this policy encouraging all Canadians to get involved.

[Petitions, October 17th, 1994]

This petition is about young people. My constituents see our young Canadians as our greatest asset. They point out that youth today has many challenges, for example the breakdown of the traditional family which has caused certain problems. They see increasing violence in our society. These petitioners want the government to continue to ensure that training, retraining and jobs are a priority for all Canadians and certainly our young men and women.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition concerning seniors.

Seniors want us to remember as parliamentarians that they have contributed and continue to contribute significantly to the quality of life that we enjoy in this country. They point out that they are growing in numbers and I guess all of us will eventually, perhaps too quickly sometimes, get there. They point out that programs such as pensions and health will experience additional growing demand. These seniors need comfortable housing, social and community involvement, and they want to make sure that they have the medical care that they require.

They simply ask government that whenever it undertakes either budgetary or legislative or program changes, we remember the contributions they have made and the contributions they continue to make. I support them totally.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here whereby the men and women who have signed it point out that violence and abuse in radio and on television have become real concerns in Canadian society.

These petitioners want the CRTC to regulate and if possible control all forms of abuse in radio and on television. Obviously, they would like it to cease if at all possible.

They request the government ensure that the CRTC does this. Parents point out that very often abuse in radio and on television counteracts the efforts that they are undertaking to raise their families in safe, healthy environments.

[International Trade, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada will soon undertake an important trade mission to Asia with his provincial counterparts to try to find new markets for Canadian services and products.

The objective is to find new markets. In line with the decision taken last December, the Prime Minister was to go to Asia with his provincial and territorial counterparts. Until recently, all the premiers were to accompany him with one exception: the premier of Quebec is still refusing to be a part of Team Canada.

Contrary to the explanations of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois that Mr. Parizeau has more pressing obligations, we have just learned that the Quebec premier will in fact be taking a holiday at that time. Instead of representing Quebec on Team Canada, he will apparently be on vacation. Imagine! This is shameful!

[English]

[Financial Administration Act, October 6th, 1994]

The member will get a chance to speak if he likes later. I would appreciate it if he would be polite. When I heckle, at least I do it quickly.

As I was indicating, I am absolutely convinced my colleague really wants to try to use another institution so that he can try to discredit the government. He has no intention of working with government since he has come here. Why should he start now?

My colleague may be interested in the following:

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants insists on being very cautious when making comments on revenue and expenditures forecasts. The institute even recommends that the auditors add a cautionary note to indicate that forecasts could be totally erroneous if the basic assumptions and projections were to change. The fact is that budget-related information is based on a wide range of economic projections.

We know that to be true. One of the questions that I would like to ask is this. Did my colleague ask the Auditor General whether or not he would accept this, whether or not this was a good idea. My colleague says that he did. Could my colleague please share with us in this House whatever communications he has received from the Auditor General indicating that this would be a good idea?

My colleague will recognize, and he may read and recall, when I say that we have a colleague who proposed change to the Auditor General's responsibilities. Those were passed by this Parliament. In fact in the debate a letter was brought forward by the Auditor General saying that it was a good idea.

Where is the letter? Where is the document? Has it been tabled in the House, the letter saying that it would be a good idea? If it has, I would like to see it.

Hon. members are so excited by my speech that they cannot sit still. This is extraordinary. It is the first time I get this kind of attention and it makes me very proud.

My colleague may know that they have attempted a similar experience in Nova Scotia. They reported in April. I wonder if my colleague took the time to call Nova Scotia to find out what kinds of difficulties they had.

Was it all positive? Were there negatives? What were the positives? What were the negatives? Perhaps he would like to write me a note to tell me with whom he spoke and what points were made.

There is another really quite interesting point, as I understand it. I stand to be corrected; I love to be corrected by Reformers. They never make any mistakes so they will correct me in this instance, I am sure, if I stray from the truth. I am told it would take three months before the Auditor General would probably bring forth his report. A lot of things change in three months. Perhaps the Reform Party does not change in three months, but Canada's economic situation and the world's economic situation change in three months and what is done today may not be as precise three months from now.

I suggest we should talk to Nova Scotia. We should look at that experience. Subsequent to analysing what benefits it might bring, perhaps we should look at this matter again.

I am about to conclude. I would like to ask a few questions and I will be very open-minded. Indeed, if the hon. member can provide answers to all my questions, I will reconsider my point of view. I love to ask questions.

Can the hon. member, who is a member of the Reform Party, a party that loves to brag about savings, tell us what resources would be required for the Auditor General to implement such a measure? Did he give us a figure? Did he talk to the Auditor General? Did he ask the Auditor General to give him a report stating whether or not he agreed with the proposal?

The hon. member knows full well that the Auditor General has a great deal of independence. He also has a lot of credibility, precisely because he is dealing at arm's length with the government. And he can make additional reports because Parliament recently amended the law. What I am saying is that there are certain risks involved although the premise is sound. It is not a bad question. It is even a very good question, I admit, but there are still certain risks involved. He did not do all the research he should have done. I would recommend to him that he do more research.

For example, what would it cost? Can we wait to see the results of the Nova Scotia experiment? After he has answered all my questions, I will review my position but, until he does so, I say no to this bill.

[Financial Administration Act, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-245.

First, I want to congratulate the Bloc member. It is the first time this week-and I am not trying to be nasty-that a Bloc member raises an issue in an honest, fair and concise manner. I really appreciate that.

I also thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley West for his initiative. However, I would have liked to hear him discuss the bill itself. He might have been able to convince me that it has many positive aspects but, instead, he chose to make all kinds of political comments. Unfortunately, the hon. member failed to convince me. He could have done better, because I do think that the bill has some good points.

The hon. member knows that the whole issue of budget preparation, including the consultation process, is a permanent process because the budget is an extremely important exercise. Who prepares the budget? How is this exercise conducted? How extensive is the consultation process? Who is consulted? When? What do we do with the information gathered? All these are very important issues.

As I understand it, this bill includes two major points. The first one is the date the budget is tabled. In this case, there is no clear indication that what the hon. member proposes is better than the existing procedure. However, I want to discuss the second point more in detail.

The Auditor General report on the reasonableness of the estimated revenues in the preparation of the budget speech.

The Auditor General would be required to report his findings to the Speaker of the House on or before May 31 in the year to which the report relates.

The Auditor General as we all know has a particularly important job, one that must be above and beyond and not at all associated with politics. The Auditor General has probably as much credibility as some of the institutions that have most in our society today. We must as Canadians, as a society, as a Parliament be absolutely certain of the independence and the credibility of the Auditor General in this institution.

It seems to me that any action whatsoever that might be undertaken by Parliament that might draw the Auditor General into the political fray would destroy that credibility and would damage the independence of the institution, one that I have indicated and I think all colleagues would agree is of great, great importance.

Let us look closely at this provision of the bill. The bill says: "to comment on the reasonableness of the estimated revenues". It seems to me that this could bring the Auditor General perilously close to getting into policy matters, hence into political matters. I worry about that.

Perhaps my colleague does not worry about it. He seems to be smiling but I think that most Canadians would agree with my perspective. That is that the Auditor General must not be put into a position where the credibility and the independence of that institution are questioned. That is the issue here.

My colleague will know, he was indicating that he had had some experience in this field, that normally accountants or people related to that profession will make commentary and historical transactions, financial statements where there are facts to be dealt with. That is their primary focus.

When it comes to projected revenues, yes, they have been involved but they are always extremely cautious. Why is that? It is because they are made based on a number of assumptions. They are based on a number of understandings that people have of the relationships that exist.

It is not unusual for someone to use different assumptions or to do a different analysis based on certain assumptions. My colleague knows that fully. In fact, I am starting to suspect-I did not suspect that before I started-that what my colleague really wants to do here is stir the pot to get a little bit of political hay.

We could be setting up the Auditor General. We could be setting up that institution. We could be setting him up in order for him to try to use-

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

I want to ask a question.