John Richardson

[Firefighters, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Canada's firefighters.

This week firefighters from across the country are meeting in Ottawa for the International Association of Firefighters fourth annual legislative conference.

These brave men and women are an integral part of every Canadian community. With little regard for their own personal safety they battle in the most dangerous of conditions, providing Canadians with peace of mind.

Their exposure to infectious diseases is a major reason firefighting is one of the world's most dangerous professions. Firefighters routinely provide emergency medical treatment in unsanitary field conditions on patients they know nothing about. This results in firefighters being occupationally exposed to a variety of dangerous contagious diseases.

Firefighters who have been exposed to infectious diseases need to be further informed of this fact so they can seek medical monitoring and modify their behaviour to avoid further transmission. It is my hope that the federal government will soon provide this information.

I salute Canada's firefighters.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a case of strange bedfellows when we see the hon. member for Lethbridge joining forces with the Bloc: one is trying to separate us, the other trying to balkanize us, a different form of separation.

They propose we give all of this money to the provinces with no strings attached. Code word: break up the national health care program; do not give a standard payment for welfare; shaft those who have no consensus from one side of the country to the other. Those are the code words they use in the House every day. It is not fair to those who can least defend themselves.

On the welfare payments, you go to certain provinces and they ask you to take the next bus to British Columbia. That is the kind of compassion that comes from this kind of proposal.

The federal government has a right and a responsibility to stay in touch with those in need. When they set a national standard they should see that the money they transfer goes to meet that standard. That is the case with every program, and that should be put in.

For those people from Newfoundland to British Columbia and those in between it is important to see that their services are delivered equally. No one group in Canada should get better services than another when it comes to health care.

I am sick and tired of hearing remarks like: "We will give them the chance to do whatever they want". That is a great statement. They can do whatever they want with those who cannot defend themselves.

[Petitions, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition on behalf of my constituents deals with another subject.

The undersigned draw to the attention of the House that the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed extreme intoxication as a defence for sexual assault and that this ruling has also been used recently as a defence for wife assault. This ruling is regressive to women's rights and consequently provides men with additional justification to abuse women and their children.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to allow extreme intoxication as a defence for sexual assault or physical assault.

[Petitions, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I will be presenting petitions under two categories.

First, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House that because of the inclusion of sexual orientation in Bill C-41 it will provide those engaging in homosexual practice with special rights and privileges.

Because these special rights and privileges will be granted solely on the basis of sexual behaviour and because inclusion will infringe on the historic rights of Canadians such as freedom of religion, conscience and expression, therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the federal Criminal Code which would provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[William Shakespeare, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Bard of Avon, William Shakespeare, whose birthday we commemorate on April 23.

A weekend of special events including a silent auction, a cake decorating contest and a gala birthday dinner will take place in my riding to mark this occasion. The Lakeside Seniors, and Hamlet School which is putting on a play, and many hundreds of people are involved in this celebration. I congratulate everyone who is involved in this, particularly Ted Blowes and Debra Huggins.

On the heels of this celebration, the Stratford Festival is opening its 43rd season which will take place on May 29. I encourage all members of the House and all Canadians to attend the productions this summer. I am confident it will be a theatrical experience to cherish.

Members of volunteer organizations are the very heart and support of this Shakespearian festival. This year the festival will be missing one of the western world's leading classical actors with the death of Mr. Nicholas Pennell. He will be missed this summer.

I wish the festival every success in the upcoming season as the Stratford adventure continues. I have put a playbill on each member's desk today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to join in the debate on the budget.

In response to some of the comments about the group of Liberals here today, they are different from some Liberals from the past. It is the nature of the times. They have come with a different perspective and it has shown up directly in the budget.

The overriding goal of the government since it came to power has been jobs and growth. We believe good economics and good social policies are one and the same thing. The most fundamental way good social policy begins is with a job. We must respond to the challenges of our times. We must adapt to the new economy and the new infrastructure based on ideas and innovation. The very nature of government must change. We must develop a new notion of responsibility. The time has long past when governments can or should do everything.

Several major things have happened. The world economy has become truly integrated. We must think globally. Trade barriers have been brought down. Communications are instant and transportation is swift. Markets never sleep. There are no longer any islands. Like it or not, there is no place to hide.

Since 1984 our debt has risen by three times. Compound interest is gobbling us up and the government now has a two track approach to sustained and sustainable economic growth. Growing economies produce jobs; economies that are not producing do not produce jobs.

The key to growth is productivity, which is how well ideas, workers, resources and investments are brought together in the country's economy. It is about ingenuity, better management and paying attention to the common sense of our workers.

How do we get high productivity growth increases, the only way we can increase real incomes? We must first improve our skills. We must have better innovation. We must provide a welcoming climate for investment, and let no one forget it. We must remove any disincentives we have created for people and business. Those were disincentives created by government. We must get our fiscal house in order.

The budget's plan introduces far reaching action to restore fiscal health which is essential for a strong, growing economy. The budget will fundamentally reform what government does and how it will do it. It will bring permanent change in the way government does business. The object is to get government right so it can fill its social and economic mandates and be more effective and sustainable. This will include deep cuts in the

federal program spending, not simply lower spending growth but substantial reduction in actual dollars.

That is fundamentally the philosophy of the majority of the governing side of the House. In a party of the Liberal Party's size there will be some who want to go further right and some who want to go further left. However, they do realize the government cannot be in every aspect of society.

I will comment on two or three things, overview of budget details and the program review undertaken, the underpinning for all of the cuts and directions of the government.

The budget is about getting government right so it can do a better job of helping to get the economy right by sustaining growth and confidence in creating new jobs while preserving our ability to help those in need. To meet this goal the budget delivers our commitment to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of the economy in two years. Some say that is not enough. Believe me, unless there is a target one can see on a daily basis, one will not hit the target.

Despite the impact of higher than expected interest rates, if economic performance is stronger than our prudent forecast, the deficit could fall at a steeper rate than was forecast. Our fiscal actions will total $29 billion in reductions over the next three years, more than any budget since the post war demobilization. In two years, program spending will be $10.4 billion less than today. It is a cumulative cut and will go on forever.

Just as important, the budget also changes the very nature of how government operates. This will ensure spending will be restrained beyond our two-year target period. The deficit will continue to fall, reflecting our commitment to eliminating it completely.

To achieve these results the budget takes fundamental action across government programs and operations. It implements the results of the program review, which I will speak to in a few moments, a comprehensive examination of departmental spending. We will focus on what is essential and do it better. The budget of some of the departments will be cut by one-half.

The budget also acts on a new vision of the federal government's role in the economy, one that includes substantial reduction in business subsidies. These will drop by $3.8 billion this year to $1.5 billion in the year 1997-98. The budget reforms major transfers to provinces, modernizing the federal-provincial fiscal regime, making it more effective, flexible and affordable.

These wide-ranging reforms mean a smaller public service. Some 45,000 positions will be eliminated, but we will manage this difficult process as fairly as possible, including the use of early departure and early retirement incentives.

This is also fair to the taxpayer. That is why the budget does not increase personal income tax. However, there are measures to improve tax system fairness. We eliminated the deferral taxes on investment income earned by private holding companies and we eliminated the ability of people to earn business or professional income by the ability to pick their own fiscal year end, an option that helps defer taxes, albeit only for the one year.

We are also eliminating all tax advantages of family trusts. We are temporarily reducing our upper limit on the RRSP contributions to $13,500 so benefits do not flow to people who earn more than two and a half times the average wage.

It is clearly a budget that places absolute priority on the expenditure reduction. It delivers nearly $7 in spending cuts to $1 in new tax revenue.

Let me speak of the program review. The budget agenda is not a plan for smaller government; it is a plan for smarter government and for the reform of the very structure of government and how it spends. The budget reflects the results of the program review we launched a year ago, and the actions taken to date secure structural reform irrevocably and deliver significant savings beyond the two fiscal years for which we have set firm deficit targets.

Achieving this goal demands wide-ranging bottom line action, and that is what the budget delivers. The size of government will be reduced substantially over the next three years. Departmental spending will be reduced by 19 per cent from the 1994-95 levels. For some departments, spending will be halved.

I mentioned that in my previous statement, but I cannot overestimate the realness of these kinds of cuts. In total, these actions will deliver a three-year saving of almost $17 billion. Let me be clear. These are real cuts in absolute dollars. They are not measures that try to pretend that a drop in the rate of spending growth is somewhat of a spending reduction.

Government programs are being redesigned by this review to make them more efficient and cost effective. Regional development agencies, for example, will play newer roles and will focus on small and medium sized business, and assistance will emphasize repayable loans, not grants.

A basic philosophy of the program review was that the federal government should not be doing what someone else can do better. As a result, we are devolving some programs to other levels of government and we are privatizing other activities. For example, fisheries and oceans will devolve fresh water responsibilities to the provinces. Forest and mineral development agreements with the provinces will be discontinued. Airports and recreational harbours will be transferred to local authorities,

and the Minister of Transport will move this year to privatize CN.

There was a lot of work done on all aspects of government. The government we will see two years from now will be far different from the government we saw at the beginning of our tenure.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have no more to say. I am not going to fill the Chamber with hot air. I did welcome the questions from the hon. member on peacekeeping and I thank the House very much for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a sham if we debated after they were committed. It is then just an information giving session.

I do not think that is the intention of the government. The government is committed to having a debate in the House before committing troops, as the hon. member has suggested.

We are looking very carefully at costs. In some of those situations, for example in the former Yugoslavia at the moment, the UN underwrites a considerable amount of the cost and in others there is hardly any underwriting. It is only fair since it is the public's purse that these things be discussed.

The minister is prepared to do that. It is all part of what has been happening, to get this going so there is more transparency and more input. I cannot fault the minister. He has made the point and he will continue to make the point that he will listen to that. The hon. member's point is well taken.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of whether the glass is half full or half empty. The government made a commitment that before it would commit Canadian forces in a foreign country and under the auspices of the United Nations the House of Commons would be consulted. It was consulted. We had debates and on that. That is a step forward and it could be expanded.

When we commit our soldiers, our sailors and our air men offshore in harms way, that kind of debate should be public and in the House.

I do believe consultation can be improved. I also believe the minister is genuinely concerned about receiving that type of contact. I do not think he has been able to get off his bicycle since the day he sat in the chair and he has been pumping hard ever since.

I cannot remember when such a tumultuous number of serious issues has down in such rapid action as has happened while during his tour. He has handled them well. I am proud of him.

If the hon. member seeks more consultation I am certainly one in favour of seeing more consultation and I am sure he is. The private member's bill which was drawn up before he brought in

his bill is not uncomplementary because of the nature and broadness of this bill.

In my discussions with the House leader he said this bill for a commission inquiry is in the broadest sense the House can give a commission. It can do more. It can call on anyone. It was given the broadest sense of opportunity to interrogate and call witnesses under this broad terms of reference. We can always improve on advice from all sides.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate. The motion of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands contains a lot of credible and worthwhile information.

Two days ago the minister tabled an inquiry on the deployment of Canadian forces in Somalia that had broad terms of reference including many of the valid and strong concerns the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has put forward. The terms of reference will allow the inquiry to go beyond what happened in the Somalia incident and what took place in the armed forces before and after the incident. It will go from the highest to lowest levels in its questioning. I hope the inquiry will exploit to the fullest its commission and will incorporate some of the concerns voiced by the hon. member.

At times when the armed forces go through very wrenching changes in life, changes in direction and changes in purpose, the cement that keeps them focused is no longer present.

At one time the newspapers were full of the cold war. The threat was present. It was real. It was easy to motivate, to stimulate and to activate personnel in the forces. The reality today is that with the disintegration of the Berlin wall, within the partners for peace and throughout the world there is not the tension that bonds, motivates and focuses the armed forces.

One thing that causes that is the professionalism of senior leaders, officers and non-commissioned officers who serve their country through the armed forces of Canada. In my opinion there tend to be weaknesses when there is no stress to hold it together. The weaknesses become magnified because the press has time to focus on incidents. As a consequence they are sometimes overmagnified.

We have the responsibility to execute and examine errors when they occur or flaws when they are found. The commission has the right, the full support of Parliament and the ability under the Inquiries Act to go beyond the defence act. It has the right to bring in witnesses from outside government and outside the Department of National Defence. It has the right to bring in civilian witnesses as well. That is what we have within the commission tabled by the minister in the House two days ago.

The constant moving of families and postings that come about with a small army, navy and air force put pressure on families that we do not see in civilian life, except maybe at one time when the banks had frequent postings. They have been reduced considerably for a number of reasons, mainly costs. It puts pressure on families. It puts pressure on children when they move from school to school. It puts pressure on wives when they are at home a long time and their husbands are away on peacekeeping missions or at sea on manoeuvres. It is one stress that is not found in a civilian occupation.

The stress was focused when the threat was meaningful and ever present. People will often question why something is being done and the stress is put on the family. As a consequence it is difficult to maintain morale under those conditions.

The lack of threat sometimes makes it difficult for governments to maintain levels of spending. Therefore governments turn to the armed forces and begin to cut, reasonably so because the hackneyed phrase, the peace dividend, is there. Past and present governments have been pushing back funds for defence, again putting stress on the forces in terms of concerns about job security, their future progress in the forces, et cetera.

Under stressful situations people begin to look at the weaknesses in the system and speak out about them. The flaws become magnified. The press picks up on it because it is the only news in town. Then it becomes overmagnified. Those who are disenchanted and slipping information out in brown envelopes are those who are under stress or disenchanted. This is how the leaks take place.

We have in this minister a minister who has exercised executive quickness and has reacted with a great sense of urgency and fairness. He has looked for and sought advice. When he received the information and made his assessment he made quick decisions in the best interest of the government and the people of Canada. I cannot think of a minister in the last 25 years who has had more things tumble down on his portfolio than this minister has had over the last 15 months. He has continued to show fair-mindedness and good sense in his judgments on behalf of the Canadian people and in his decisions on behalf of the Department of National Defence.

The minister saw that it was necessary to come clean and have a full and thorough investigation through the commission he established, based originally on the selection of the airborne regiment to go to Somalia, its actions in Somalia, and the actions thereafter. He is now free to let the commission loose with a broad ranging mandate to seek answers to those and other questions incorporated in the motion of the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

A broad ranging mandate has been given to the commission to investigate the matter although its real purpose is to investigate the airborne regiment in its preparedness, its selection and its actions in Somalia, the actions thereafter, the actions at National Defence Headquarters, the actions of politicians and all things that go into training, morale building and genuine good leadership within the forces.

The government tabled a report on defence in the House entitled "Security in the Changing World" which called for a number of things. We would like to see one of them, an annual debate in Parliament in both the Senate and the House of Commons on defence. It would provide an opportunity to put forward thoughts on defence. It would be important for it to be held as quickly as possible after the defence estimates were tabled so that it would be relevant, current and not at arm's length or distanced from the realities of the budget at hand.

The report also requested that there be an ongoing standing committee to review matters directly involving national defence issues and that the committee report back to the House. As I have said, the recommendations were clear. The annual defence review and assessment would be one mandate that could be given to the standing committee on defence, making it meaningful and giving it purpose.

The report indicated that there was a role for the standing committee to investigate and oversee the defence budget and major procurement by the government dealing with defence capital expenditures. The committee would be able to bring forward expert witnesses. It could call upon the Auditor General. It could call upon other learned persons within government ranks for their expertise. Then the committee could report to Parliament in a meaningful and forceful manner about its findings.

I am very pleased to have joined in the debate today. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands made some very valid points.

Many of the points he wishes to see covered could be tumbled into the commission that has been established by the Minister of National Defence and picked up and reviewed as part of that mandate.

The minister has been most energetic, forthright and insightful in terms of the judgment he brings to the House. On behalf of all Canadians he has worked on behalf of the armed forces.