Ronald J. Duhamel

[Petitions, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, these petitioners want to draw our attention to chronic fatigue syndrome which is not only a chronic but a disabling illness with no particular effective cure or treatment.

They point out that it is a complex illness particularly debilitating and often prevents employment and normal day activities. They request from the government and the health authorities recognition of its severity, extended public health response, more research, a co-operative approach among the

major players to finding appropriate treatments, more education to increase awareness of the seriousness of this illness, and for each province one CFSME assessment diagnostic study and treatment centre so that this particular illness can be dealt with appropriately.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague who is more experienced in the House than I-he has been here at least one term longer-whether he could comment on some of the major points that the official opposition is making. Yesterday I indicated that in spite of the fact that they had condemned the omnibus bill, they had concentrated almost specifically on unemployment insurance.

At the same time, I wonder if he would be kind enough to give some commentary with respect to the major points that have been made by the Reform Party. I said yesterday, and I repeat it again today, that if Canadians believe some of the reductions that have taken place with regard to unemployment are severe, if the Reform Party had been initiating those they would have been Draconian and dramatic and hurt a great deal.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the petition I am tabling this morning requests that either the

government or a government agency control all forms of abuse in the media.

These petitioners request that abuse, be it physical, regarding language or otherwise, be controlled. They believe that it is not necessary to have different forms of abuse of television, radio or written media in order to entertain or to inform.

The abuse depicted is often counteracting their efforts to raise their families as they feel they ought to be raised. Therefore they ask that the government intervene.

[Petitions, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from men and women in my constituency of Islamic faith of several different backgrounds and nationalities who would like to have the concept of guardianship considered as an alternative form of adoption.

These people of the Islamic faith believe that guardianship would have equal legal and moral obligations as does adoption. Therefore I urge the government to consider this particular request of these Canadian citizens.

[Canadian Unity, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we made it once more. Canada is first in the world according to a United Nations report.

This report of the United Nations places Canada in terms of human development in first place out of 173 countries. It considers average income, life expectancy and educational attainment.

Considering this enviable situation-the fact that we live in the best country in the world-why should anyone want to destroy it? Why not work together to improve even more the situation of the men and women of Canada?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to make a few comments regarding this bill.

One of the first things I want to do is pick up on a number of points that have been made in the debates and to show that there is some inconsistency.

For example we talk about an omnibus bill. That is really quite correct. Various members have indicated that they wanted to see it separated. Perhaps people have observed that the only real commentary that has been received, and a lot of it has been received, has been on the unemployment insurance provisions. If it bothered so many people that this is an omnibus bill, surely they would taken each section and would have said this or that is what I oppose, with respect to each particular part.

I find it interesting why it should be so. Clearly people who oppose, if they are sincere, must have some specific recommendations to make on every single part of the bill. I have not heard that.

It is confusing. I mentioned unemployment insurance, and I really have no criticism to make on that. I believe that what the Bloc would like to do is very clear. When dealing with an omnibus bill and claiming that it would have been simpler to consider each element, one at a time, because of the multitude of programs involved, it seems to me that it should have considered them one at a time, and said: "This is what we suggest regarding

A, what we want concerning B, what should be done respecting C". During a debate, differences of opinion are expected.

I see some of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois with a smile on their faces. They must appreciate my remarks. I shall go on then. The Bloc's discourse seems to be blatantly inconsistent. I will give you an example. On many occasions, not only their leader, but several Bloc members mentioned that they would like to see expenses cut, that we spend too much money, that the deficit and the debt are staggering-we do agree-and that we should manage our affairs better; and then, when the government decides to do just that, they claim that it should not cut anything, and that instead it should spend more. There may be some logic in all that, and I am sure that my colleagues from the Bloc will come and explain to me where it is, in a little while. I know how eager they are to help me understand things.

A few days ago, they were blaming the government for its lack of long term vision. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that, after a few months in the House, or even a few sessions or Parliaments, the opposition loves to repeat that the government has no vision, no long term or short term plan, that it does not know where it is going, and so on and so forth. After a while, it gets rather boring. Let us be a little bit more creative. We do have a long term vision called social program reform. I am quite sure that you have heard of it since a few questions were put to the Minister of Human Resources Development on the matter. Our long term vision is to bring about changes that will meet the real needs of all Canadians.

It seems to me that we should be working together on such a project with a view to finding creative solutions and go on from there. This past weekend, it was announced that we lived in the best country in the world. This was fantastic news. I have a feeling that after hearing this announcement from the United Nations, my colleagues from the Bloc will work hard to help us not only to appreciate what we have, but to build on our achievements in order that we may maintain our top ranking and remain number one, together!

In another speech, mention was also made of duplication. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, and I believe my colleagues know it too, that duplication exists everywhere, be it at the provincial, municipal or federal level. Regardless of the level of government, members have a responsibility to endeavour to eliminate costly duplication. This is a positive, much appreciated way to cut government spending. Of course, the discussion focused primarily on duplication between the provinces and the federal government. No admission was made of duplication at the provincial government level. No admission was made of duplication at the municipal government level either.

My friends from the Bloc admitted that duplication existed, but were not prepared to say how it should be eliminated.

However, they do propose one solution to the problem, and that is to break the country apart. They claim that this would spell the end of duplication. Let me assure you that this would not be the case. In my opinion, this solution is rather hard to defend, Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Bloc to defend it as well. As I see it, we are gradually eliminating instances of duplication. We are making progress and my colleagues are aware of this fact.

My colleagues in the Bloc also talked about a centralizing government and they know-they are well informed, but I feel that some members sometimes choose what they prefer-Canada is the least centralized country in the world. Yes, in the world.

They know that. They do not like to hear that; they are starting to blush a little. But who knows, one fine day they may rise in the House and say: "Yes, you are quite right, but we wanted to say that because we believed that it would advance our cause".

I think that people are starting to understand that some things are exaggerated and people do not like exaggerations. Listen, we should bring together all kinds of reforms going on in Canada now; because we live in the best country in the world, we ask you to help us find creative solutions.

Yes, there is duplication. We are negotiating to remove duplication and we are refining the machinery of government. Listen, if we centralize too much, I think that we are ready to look honestly, openly and co-operatively at how we could make the machinery of government more flexible.

I would feel that I had not done my duty if I did not address a few comments about some of the statements made by the Reform Party. Reform Party members feel that this particular omnibus bill is une aberration de quelque sorte. They are open to the observation and accusation I made that if they were so concerned about this particular bill why did they not take it one piece at a time and tell us precisely what they would have done to change it? They did not do that. No, of course not. Why? Perhaps there were some politics being played. I guess politics are played in this House on occasion, even I play on occasion.

Anyway, I was rather surprised that the Reform Party would do something like that, condemn this omnibus bill and not bring forward certain specific recommendations to every single part of the bill. Perhaps that is still coming. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Who knows? I hope so because if not it would be a flagrant contradiction.

As I indicated, a lot of things have been said about unemployment insurance par mes amis du Bloc. Of course Canadians will realize if they believe that these cuts have been undertaken, these changes are really rather severe. If the Reform Party had undertaken these cuts they would have been draconian and dramatic and they would have hurt a whole lot more. We have heard all kinds of comments as to what they would like to do and it is not a gradual cut; it is an amputation.

I have addressed most of the concerns my colleagues have raised both from l'opposition officielle, le bloc Quebecois, including the other opposition party, the Reform Party.

As I indicated today there are a number of flagrant contradictions. Politics are being played and I think they rather enjoy it. They are becoming rather good at it. I must commend them. Most of them are quite good at it, but at the same time they are not fooling too many Canadians.

Canadians are listening and they are asking if the solutions were as simple as the Reform Party proposes, why were they not resolved a long time ago? Of course they condemn the solution of the Bloc. All of the ills of the world will be corrected supposedly by the separation of Quebec from Canada. Nobody believes that, not even my friends from the Bloc believe that.

Today, if my colleagues from the opposition parties will do it, in view of the United Nations report which shows us as the best country in the world, I hope we will start working together not only to maintain that position but to improve it in the spirit of co-operative federalism.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on this particular proposal.

The Thibaudeau case has occurred, the appeal has been undertaken, there will be hearings, but what is important at the end of all of this is to remember the following. Most people, and most often women, do not get child support payments. Many of those who do-and I am told it is a majority-do not get them paid and many who do get them paid do not get them paid on time. It would seem to me that unless these particular problems are corrected at the end of the process we have done a great deal for very little.

Let us remember there is a great deal of inconsistency throughout the country with respect to child support payments. Let us remember that one can be given a particular award in a particular province in a particular situation. Yet there can be a like situation and the award can be entirely different. That is within the one province, let alone comparing provinces and territories.

Let us also remember that most people rearing families after broken marriages are women. Let us remember that women's earnings, their ability to earn and to spend on themselves and their families, are reduced significantly as a result of marriage breakdown. Let us remember that whenever they attempt to get justice, either to have an appropriate amount paid or to have whatever was decided paid on time, it often costs them a great deal of money; most often resources they do not have.

Therefore, in my view, it is a matter of fundamental justice. A number of things have occurred. A ruling was handed down, an appeal will be launched and public hearings will be held across Canada. That is all well and good, but, as I mentioned earlier, if the problems I have identified-and I identified only a handful-are not resolved, it will be most unfortunate, because one thousand women, hundreds of men and thousands of children are adversely affected. There are no specific provisions in place to ensure that children do not fall into the poverty trap, that they receive what is rightfully theirs and that they enjoy the same opportunities as children who do not come from broken homes.

Those are the few comments I wanted to make. I reiterate that if at the end of the process the problems I have identified are not corrected it will be for naught. In most cases women and children suffer. We must correct that for their sake.

[Postal Services Review Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-203 was introduced to address the concerns of the Canadian public over postal service in Canada. It is a commendable effort on the part of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

As we have heard, this bill is substantially the same as Bill C-207 which was introduced during the previous Parliament. Since that time and since the introduction of Bill C-203, considerable progress has been made following the implementation of government policies designed to meet the needs of Canadians while enabling the Canada Post Corporation to carry out its mandate.

In 1981 Canada Post Corporation was given a broad mandate that included achieving self-sufficiency while acting as a commercial arm's length crown corporation, becoming part of the business marketplace, and providing a federal presence in communities across Canada. Since then Canada Post has been taking measures to reach these objectives and has made considerable progress. It is imperative that Canada Post maintain its ability to fulfil its mandate.

Much progress has been made since Canada Post Corporation was created in 1981. At that time Canada Post faced economic uncertainty and was losing $600 million yearly. Twelve years later Canada Post Corporation declared profits in the last four of the five fiscal years and has paid dividends to its shareholder, the Government of Canada.

By improving its efficiency, updating technology and improving labour relations Canada Post has managed a remarkable turnaround. Furthermore, its on time delivery of mail to Canadians has been under regular and open scrutiny through an independent consulting firm.

Canada Post has moved forward and will continue to do so as a competitive, lean corporation that not only delivers mail on time 98 per cent of the time but delivers an important service to all Canadians.

The government supports the positive changes made by the Canada Post Corporation with a view to meeting the postal service needs of Canadian consumers and businesses. The moratorium on post office closures announced at the beginning of the year by the hon. minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation is one of the best examples of positive change.

If you have ever visited or lived in a small town or rural community in Canada, you will understand the devastating impact of the closing of the post office on the community. The post office is the nerve centre of small communities in Canada and guarantees a federal presence and an important communication link with the rest of the country and with the world.

Since 1987 close to 1,500 federally operated post offices, almost one-third of all federal post offices in Canada, have enclosed or converted. The minister's announcement earlier this year put an end to the closures of post offices in rural areas and small towns across the country, an initiative introduced by the former government which turned a deaf ear to the loud and emotional outcry of Canadians who risked losing an important link to the rest of the nation.

The moratorium protects the majority of post offices across this country. As long as this government remains in power, 4,000 communities across the country are guaranteed the benefits of a Canada Post operated post office. Further, post offices located in large urban centres will not be closed without a public

consultation process conducted through the postal service customer councils.

This demonstrates the ongoing commitment by the Liberal Party in saying no to the policy of post office closures, a policy that seriously hindered Canada Post in carrying out its mandate to provide a federal presence in communities across Canada.

This brings me to the subject of exclusive privilege that has been granted to Canada Post. Some would argue that Canada Post's exclusive privilege for the delivery of letter mail gives it an unfair advantage and justifies the creation of a monitoring agency.

However, in today's environment the exclusive privilege is perhaps more accurately described as an exclusive responsibility. Only Canada Post has the responsibility to provide all Canadians throughout the country with postal services. Its competitors can pick and choose where they can operate profitably, ignoring Canadians in those regions of the country where small populations and great distances between communities would limit the return on investment or result in a loss.

The Liberal government believes that for all Canadians, postal service is a right, not merely a privilege. All Canadians must have access to affordable, reasonable postal service, regardless of where they live. This essential service is protected by exclusive privilege which ensures that small communities and rural regions, the backbone of our vast country, enjoy postal service at a reasonable cost.

The challenge of providing service to such a vast country is formidable indeed, Mr. Speaker. I support the principle of exclusive privilege because it allows for the continued existence of the necessary infrastructure to provide fair postal service to all people, regardless of where they live.

Since exclusive privilege affords the Canada Post Corporation a foreseeable income, the corporation can ensure universal access to postal service while maintaining its financial self-sufficiency. This policy is consistent with that followed by countless postal services around the world.

Furthermore, it should be taken into consideration that Canada Post does face increasing competition from the world of technology such as the electronic transfer of information. One-third of its business is in competition with couriers, bus companies, trucking companies, airlines and other such industries.

In this rapidly evolving environment, competition provides ample incentive for Canada Post to meet its customers' needs at an affordable cost.

Other actions that continue to bring Canada Post closer to fulfilling its mandate include the establishment of a national control centre and the corporation's new in business to serve program. The national control centre is located in Ottawa and is linked to all individual centres across the country as well as to the dispatching system of airlines and the weather forecasting network. It constantly monitors mail movement 24 hours a day, seven days a week in a drive toward even more efficient mail delivery. It is the most sophisticated mail monitoring system in the world and has become a model for other postal administrations.

The national control centre is a great innovation that helps ensure Canadians receive a high level of postage service.

The future of the Canada Post Corporation looks brighter with a new approach to client services. The new watchword is "In Business to Serve." It is also the name of a new program. As I said earlier, Canada Post has to compete against a growing number of companies. While some technological improvements, like the National Control Centre, are helping Canada Post to keep its place on the market, a new marketing approach is also needed. With this new "In Business to Serve" Program, Canada Post will be able to meet the challenge by focusing on improved client services and recognizing the contribution of its employees and partners to this goal.

In conclusion, I would like to stress the real progress made by the Canada Post Corporation in order to meet the expectations of all Canadians.

By announcing a moratorium on the closure and conversion of post offices, the minister has already done a lot to address the issues raised by this bill. I am sure that the Canada Post Corporation will find the tools to provide Canadians with the postal services they need while remaining self-sufficient.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners in my riding are no doubt joined by thousands of Canadians throughout the land who want the CRTC to regulate excessive abuse on radio, television and other media. They believe the use of foul language, significant violence or explicit sex is not necessary in order to entertain or to inform.

[Translation]

Abuse in the media often goes against parents' values, and that is why they are asking that it be controlled.

[Canadian Parents For French, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute and congratulate an organization known as Canadian Parents for French, which is holding its eighth annual festival national de l'art oratoire in Ottawa this weekend.

Over the past few months over 55,000 students from all across Canada have been taking part in French language public speaking competitions across the country. The festival is the culmination of these events.

This weekend we will see representatives from all 10 provinces, including the territories, showcase their winning speeches, speeches delivered in a language other than their first language, that is, in French.

It is a great pleasure for me to salute this organization and the young people who have been involved in these competitions from the very beginning and will come here from all our provinces and territories.

This is an important event. I am delighted to see that so many young people in Canada want to learn French, and I challenge hon. members to do likewise.