CONTENTS
Thursday, February 10, 1994
Bill C-11. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 1151
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1151
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1155
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 1156
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1158
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1159
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 1162
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 1166
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1173
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 1176
The House resumed at 2 p.m. 1177
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 1178
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 1178
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1180
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1181
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1181
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1181
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1181
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1181
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1182
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1182
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1182
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1182
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1182
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1183
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 1183
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1183
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1183
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1185
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1185
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 1188
Motion for concurrence in third report 1190
Consideration resumed of motion 1190
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 1191
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1214
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 1215
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1215
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1218
1151
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 10, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I gave Your Honour a notice of question of privilege
with respect to certain statements in the constituency newsletter
of the member for Okanagan Centre.
However I note the hon. member in question is not in the
House at this time, so I will defer raising the question of
privilege on that very serious matter at this point and will pursue
it at three o'clock, at which time hopefully the member will be
present.
The Speaker: The member is totally within his rights. If he
wishes to raise this later this day it will be so taken by the Chair.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, an act to amend the
Excise Act, the Customs Act and the Tobacco Sales to Young
Persons Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is first reading of the bill and I will
defer my comments until later.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
(1005 )
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition here in which these electors are asking that the
government examine the bail provisions currently in existence.
As well they want the government to study the situation of
parolees from serious crimes. Finally, they want an in-depth
examination of youth violence.
They understand that the government has already undertaken
these initiatives. They want it to speed them up because they feel
there are deficiencies in the criminal justice system and there is
insufficient protection for certain groups of people, particularly
women, children and disabled persons.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House today to present a petition on behalf of constituents
in my riding of Fraser Valley West who feel that the Government
of Canada should hold a referendum binding upon Parliament on
the subject of official bilingualism. They ask for a national
referendum involving all electors in the provinces and
territories.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the document has been
certified correct as to form and content. I present this petition to
Parliament for its due consideration.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf
of my constituents, although in some cases it does not reflect the
opinion of this member.
I present this petition to the House dated November 1993 on
behalf of 37 constituents concerning a review of legislation
providing for two official languages in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1152
1152
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup) moved:
That this House urge the Government to strike a Special Committee of the
House, composed of representatives of all the official parties, with a mandate to
examine public expenditures by the federal government, in light of the Report of
the Auditor General of Canada, concerning overlap between federal and
provincial government programs and in accordance with the following
guidelines:
(1) the Committee's deliberations would be an open and transparent process
allowing for the public examination of official matters;
(2) the Committee would have the power to subpoena any witnesses whose
testimony would be considered helpful;
(3) the Committee would be required to report to the House by June 23, 1994;
and that this House urge the government to promise to provide an official reaction to
this Committee's Report by tabling in the House its response to the
recommendations on the first sitting day after September 1, 1994.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie
on a point of order.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing
Order 43(2), I wish to bring to your attention that the Official
Opposition members will share their time and make ten-minute
speeches followed by five-minute periods for comments.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition is using the
first business day of which it is controlling the agenda to deal
with the issue of federal government expenditures. In doing so,
we are responding to an expectation that was repeatedly
expressed by the people during the election campaign. The
urgency of the situation speaks for itself. The deficit is reaching
a record high and is out of control to such an extent that, as a
percentage of the gross national product, it is 63 per cent higher
in Canada than the average in the G-7 countries.
(1010)
Half of this deficit is due to structural problems. Canada's
structural problems are legion and most of them are related to
the very structure of our federalism. For instance, interference
of the federal government in the areas of provincial jurisdiction
as well as a loose definition of the jurisdictions of each of those
levels of government lead to numerous duplications, a waste of
energy and conflicting policies. Other structural problems
simply reflect bad government managemnent or policies.
For instance, Canada invests very little in research and
development which is a major sector if we are going to try and
meet the challenges of foreign competition. Furthermore, at the
international level, Canada has a poor record on public debt
management. In fact, since 1989, government expenditures in
Canada have increased more rapidly than those of all G-7
countries.
According to the review of The Report of the Auditor General
of Canada made by Mr. Yves Séguin, bad public expenditures
management has resulted in a $5 billion loss each year for the
past three years.
Add to that the cost of overlappings. Sixty-seven per cent of
the federal programs overlap provincial programs to a certain
extent. They account for 65 per cent of all government
expenditures, besides payments made for the public debt and
unemployment insurance. For example, if Quebec took over the
present federal programs and offered the same services, the
savings would amount to $233 million for transportation and
communication, $289 million for expenses related to collection
of custom duties, income taxes and other taxes, and $250
million in salaries, all that for one year and for Quebec alone.
It can be reasonably estimated that just by eliminating
duplication of services we would save two to three billion
dollars. These figures are the financial result of duplications in
the services provided by both governments, plus the increased
need for co-ordination created by the claims of each
government. The overlaps reduce the efficiency of government
measures due to the competitive, if not conflicting, nature of
federal-provincial relations. Witness the flag wars that have
been waged by the two sides for the last 20 years.
In June 1988, Quebec and Ottawa signed an agreement on
regional economic development which was to result in an
investment of $820 million over five years, divided as follows:
Ottawa, $440 million, and Quebec, $380 million. Now, believe
it or not, it took a little over two years for Ottawa and Quebec to
agree on the programs and on their respective roles. Five years
after this agreement was signed, the two governments had spent
only $281 million, that is to say a mere 34 per cent of the $820
million agreed to. This is a far cry from what was expected as the
result of this allocation of funds.
The overlapping of services also increases the burden on
individuals and companies seeking access to the programs and
services offered. A lot of energy is wasted just to find one's way
through this regulatory and administrative maze. I think that
since we have been elected, everybody realized that, because it
took us a few months just to learn to know all the existing
programs. As I said, we are wasting a lot of energy just to make
our way through this administrative maze.
When a firm wants to make a plan for the development of its
human resources, for example, it has to convince both the
1153
professional employees from the federal government and the
people from the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre in
order for its employee placement plan or employment
assistance committees to be implemented. Small businesses
often have to pass on to consumers the costs of the redundant
representations they make to both governments. Without
realizing it, consumers end up paying for the cost of federalism
through an intermediary.
(1015)
Keeping up with programs and services is in itself an
important additional cost for individual businesses.
Furthermore, the few sessions held by the industry committee
allowed me to realize that it was a problem felt throughout
Canada.
An ENAP study found that out of a sample of 221 federal
programs and 244 Quebec programs, 197 overlapped to various
degrees and were seriously jeopardizing the efforts to enhance
the management of government policies.
For example, the following sectors, among the most
depressed in the Canadian economy, accounted for more than 75
p. 100 of all the program overlaps between the federal
government and the Quebec government: fisheries, housing,
education, secondary industries, financial markets, territorial
management, labour and employment, and of course regional
development.
These overlappings also reduce the control citizens have on
their government. As a result of this competition between
governments, no government alone has the ability to carry out
projects that have been undertaken, while allowing each
governement to throw the ball back into the other's court.
Citizens do not directly pay for the programs available to
them and cannot avoid paying for a program which they feel is
less satisfactory. What is ultimately questioned is the principle
that a person who pays taxes has the right to be represented.
Under the Canadian system, taxes paid to one government are
often spent by another government, whose criteria do not
necessarily coincide with the other's criteria. This may explain
the lack of confidence voters have shown in the Canadian
electoral system and their elected representatives.
Competition between governments seldom improves the
quality of the services they offer, because governments do not
operate in the same way as the private sector. The constraints are
not the same.
The government's other objective is to deal with the poor
management practices observed and criticized annually by the
Auditor General of Canada. Horror stories aside, we should pay
particular attention to the substantive recommendations made
by the Auditor General. To ensure that the situation is corrected,
we suggest a careful follow-up of these recommendations in
order to return control over the budgetary process to Parliament.
Members can then be heard before decisions are finalized and
can influence those decisions, with the help of adequate
information on the use of public funds by departments and
Crown corporations.
This year again, the Auditor General's report criticized
departments for their lack of emphasis on program evaluation.
In 1991-92, expenditures for 16 programs totalled $124.5
billion, and only two of these programs were given a thorough
evaluation.
We cannot tolerate taxpayers' money being spent without an
evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities
involved. It is necessary to do the right thing and to do it right.
One must be able to evaluate what is being done. On the basis of
the information for 1991-92, the Auditor General observed that
over a seven-year period, only 18 per cent of the programs had
been evaluated.
Considering the urgency and seriousness of the situation, the
Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to strike a multiparty
committee of the House of Commons with a mandate to examine
all the government's operating budgets. The government must
guarantee this review of government spending will be an open
and transparent process.
To ensure that the instruments required to provide for sound
management of public spending are put in place, the government
should undertake to react officially and promptly to the
committee's recommendations.
There are many avenues to explore, but for this exercise to be
successful, parliamentarians must lead the way. Ministers,
members, senior officials and all other players in the
administrative apparatus must realize there is an urgent need for
a change in attitude, from ``it does not matter, the government is
paying'' to ``this is everybody's money and I must ensure it is
used effectively''.
By carefully examining operating budgets, we should be able
to eliminate a number of obsolete programs that have continued
to exist by sheer force of habit.
(1020)
The most striking example is military expenditures. We
approved the cancellation of the helicopter contract, but we
believe the government is engaging in the same kind of
non-productive expenditures by not transferring the
high-technology jobs involved into a really comprehensive
project and by letting them go instead, thereby increasing
unemployment insurance costs.
We think it would be possible to reduce defence expenditures
by 25 per cent, that is an amount of $3 billion.
Another example we should look at is the natural tendency to
self-justification within the bureaucratic machine. The first
thing that comes to mind is the considerable amount of energy
and resources spent for the preparation of perfect forms and
detailed instructions, even before anyone knows who the users
will be. Please let us not put the blame on those who already
1154
have trouble enough surviving the financial crisis; they are only
the victims.
On that point, tax expert Yves Séguin said that the fat in social
programs was much leaner than the fat on the other side; that
there were more savings to be made by curbing waste than by
cutting social programs because, except in cases of gross abuse,
these are not overly generous in the first place.
Why is the Bloc Quebecois putting so much energy in this
fight against waste if it wants Quebec to redefine its relationship
with Canada? Simply because it is the wish of everybody in this
country and particularly of taxpayers who pay their income tax
regularly and keep the system going. But also because Canada
and Quebec cannot look ahead to any kind of future if they do
not succeed in curbing that monster the federal system helped
create.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his topic for today.
However I would like to remind him as well that we all have
great concern and have campaigned on the elimination of waste
to save Canada for us all.
It was this government that campaigned on the elimination of
the helicopter project. I wonder if the member's remarks are
geared to the government of today or the government of
yesterday.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, in reply, I will say that the
elimination of waste was part of our platform too. Where we
differ is in the sources of such waste, as was demonstrated by the
way Quebecers voted. A federalist party is of course bent on
trying to improve the system to make it better.
In Quebec, we have reached the conclusion that the solution
was no longer to improve the system but rather to significantly
alter it. In Quebec, we have lived the overlapping problem in a
very different manner, because of our specific characteristics.
This aspect was never dealt with in a realistic or concrete
manner in this House, leaving the problem unsolved. We believe
that it is because there has never been in this House members
whose sole interests were those of Quebec; often, people were
held back by their federalist vision, and their commitment to
federalist principles.
As far as the helicopters are concerned, as we said all along
during the election campaign, we were ready to cancel the
contract, but, contrary to the Liberals, we wanted to avoid the
loss of research and development funding, and the elimination
of the high tech jobs it was providing. What was needed then was
new projects to utilise this highly skilled labour force. During
the weeks immediately following the election, we suggested a
high speed train project. In my view, to have highly skilled and
well trained people on unemployment insurance is not a sound
investment for the long term. We have to put them back to work
as soon as possible.
I might add that the infrastructure program, for example, will
meet certain needs in that area and create jobs for a certain kind
of workers. But for those to whom that really matters, who make
good wages and who put money back into the economy and into
the area where they live, the vision of members on this side is
more forward looking than that of the government, regarding the
proposed course of action.
(1025)
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, in the hon. member's motion he suggests that the
government strike a special committee of the House to examine
public expenditures in light of the report of the Auditor General.
He goes on to say that the deliberations should be open and
transparent and that the committee should have the power to
subpoena any witness.
Is not the hon. member aware that we already have and have
had for many years the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
which does that very thing? As a matter of fact that committee is
chaired by an opposition member to assure that the
examinations carried out are thorough and far reaching and to do
all the things already in his motion.
If I understand correctly the hon. member is concerned with
overlapping. It seems to me if the government set up this
committee we would have much more overlapping and
duplication than we already have. I do not really understand
what this committee would be doing that the public accounts
committee under an opposition chairman is not already doing or
will do.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
remarks but what I remember from suggestions made by my
constituents during the election campaign is that they would
certainly agree to see the House consider that problem in
particular. As you said, the committee has been there for a long
time but has settled nothing. The present situation is due to that
committee's actions.
I think we have an obligation to take concrete action and that
would be a way to prove our openness to the electorate. I would
be very happy if they could see on television the efforts of
members to control expenditures. We can be assured that that
would seriously change the way people see politicians, at least
in my own riding and I believe that would serve the interests of
the whole country.
1155
As far as overlap is concerned, by the way the committee has
been presented to us, I do not believe its purpose is to duplicate
the other one. We would be ready to give this committee the
main role and we hope that the government would do the same
and recognize the importance of controlling expenditures, in
order to regain room to manoeuvre and revitalize the economy.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, during the last
campaign, the Bloc Quebecois said that, considering the
circumstances and the massive debt, it would make sure that the
new government struck a special committee responsible for the
review of the federal government's public expenditures.
In the motion, we added ``in light of the report of the Auditor
General of Canada''. There is also a mention of the overlap
between federal and provincial government programs.
Definitely, there are a lot of questions to be asked if we are to cut
expenditures equitably and efficiently, in order to come up
eventually with a balanced budget.
We all know that each time the federal government goes into
debt, it is forcing Quebec into debt also. Quebecers are really
concerned about the way the federal government is spending.
We are aware of the fact that we are getting poorer and poorer
since our debt keeps on growing.
If Quebec ever gains sovereignty, which I truly hope will
happen, we will have to take over our share of that debt. That is
why we are anxious to see the federal government lower its
expenditures, so as not to keep on growing poorer every day.
Canada's debt now exceeds $500 billion. If we divide this
amount by the number of Canadian citizens, we come up with a
frightening figure, but when we divide it by the number of
families, the figure is even more alarming.
(1030)
Once again, for these reasons we need to sit down and take a
serious look at the situation and come up with real answers to
this terrible debt problem.
During the 1970s we listened to Mr. Trudeau tell us that we
could afford to borrow. These years were considered to be
somewhat less prosperous ones. We were told that once the
country grew more quickly, once economic growth was stronger,
then we could pay the money back.
Not only did we take out loans, we also incurred long-term
debts which we are still reimbursing. How are we supposed to
reduce an annual deficit when we have 30-year commitments?
The federal government has incurred all sorts of 30-year debts.
Mr. Trudeau and his government made a blatant error at the
time as far as long-term obligations were concerned, one that
has proven extremely difficult to correct today.
Throughout these years, from 1970 to 1992 or 1993, we
always heard that Canada was a wealthy country and that it
ranked first among all industrialized countries in terms of its
standard of living. During the referendum, we also heard that
Canada ranked first among the industrialized nations of the
world. However we would be deluding ourselves if we believed
this.
I will give you an example that I have often used to illustrate
this point. Take a 20-year old who owns his own house free and
clear. The home is valued at $200 billion. He also owns a car free
and clear. Year after year for a period of 20 years, this person has
had to take out a mortgage on his house to survive.
Twenty years later, in 1993, his house is mortgaged at 95 per
cent, because that is the maximum amount he can borrow. He
has a loan for the full value of his automobile because it is
rented, and he has reached the spending limit on his credit cards.
All the while, he has maintained the same standard of living.
That person is inclined to say: My standard of living is very
good and I have maintained it for the past 20 years. However that
person is in debt up to his neck and is on the verge of tumbling
into the dark hole of poverty.
This example describes exactly what is happening in Canada
today. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We say
we are wealthy, but it is only artificial wealth. We have lived on
credit for the past 20 years. That is the legacy left to us by the
Liberals and we are still being taken in today.
In 1984, I was elected along with the Conservative
government and I said exactly the same thing to my constituents
at the time.
(1035)
In 1984, economic growth was good, around three per cent. In
our caucuses we would say: ``We must cut expenses. This is
insane; the public debt is close to $180 billion''. Ministers
agreed that cuts had to be made, as long as their department was
not affected. So, we kept spending more and more.
In 1985, 1986 and 1987, when economic growth was quite
good, we could have cut expenses even at the cost of creating a
little unemployment. When cuts are made, the government
pumps less money into the economy and this results in slower
growth. With a 3 or 4 per cent growth at the time, we could have
sacrificed one per cent by cutting spending. But we did not. Why
not? Because we did not have the kind of all-party independent
committee that we are proposing this morning.
We propose that an independent committee, a committee with
no political ties or partisanship, be set up. It is imperative that
such a committee, made up of representatives of all official
parties, be struck to made recommendations so that the
government can act without fearing blame, since it would
automatical-
1156
ly have the support of the three or four parties. That is the great
advantage of our proposal.
That is why it is so important. If you are the least bit familiar
with how things work in politics, how politicians react, you
know that there comes a time when we must set our political
interests aside and take steps to help the government act without
being criticized.
Basically, what we are proposing today is a way to provide
support to the government so that it can make some headway and
bring the debt down. We must all set partisanship aside and deal
immediately with this monstrous debt that is bankrupting this
country.
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, I find it rather ironic that the hon. member for
Longueuil, who sat for years with the Conservatives who
increased the debt by $340 billion, is now advocating, after all
his years in Parliament, the creation of a special commission or
committee to review spending, when there already is such a
committee.
The party opposite favours eliminating overlap and
repatriating all powers to Quebec, so I find it ironic that they are
advocating the creation of a special committee to review
Canadian government finances and support this government.
Yet, we are giving our support to the governments of Quebec and
of the other provinces.
I find it difficult to understand how the hon. member for
Longueuil can defend the committee he wants to set up to study
government expenditures when these expenditures were not
made by us. We already have a committee. If, in four years, the
hon. member for Longueuil wants to create a special committee
to study government spending because of extra or excessive
expenditures, we will then be able to establish a special
committee. But I do not see how we can set up this committee to
review government spending when our government is not even
responsible for all this spending.
I would ask the hon. member for Longueuil to tell me what
this special committee could do that the existing committee
cannot?
(1040)
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I see, thanks to the
Liberal member, that the government's intent is not to cut
spending. Indeed, we heard the finance minister say earlier this
week that he would probably increase corporate and other taxes
when we know very well that Canadians and Quebecers are
already overtaxed.
I find such statements from the government quite troubling
and I am pessimistic and concerned as it is well known that we
are in debt up to our necks, and I am unhappy to see that my
children will probably have trouble keeping their heads above
water in the coming years. This government is taking things far
too lightly.
We are proposing a common review to give this government
some political freedom of expression and allow it to take
concrete action with the support of the Official Opposition. That
is why we are proposing today the creation of a special
committee. We are not talking about the existing standing
committee but about a special committee with a mandate to turn
around the country's economic situation. I wonder why the party
in office, the government, is against us giving it a hand.
The hon. member was talking about my political experience.
Indeed, I have been sitting in this House for nine years and,
during these nine years, I have learned that government
decisions are often made for electoral reasons, to win or rather
not to lose votes. The government always makes short-term
decisions in order to stay in power; it is a power play. What we
are now proposing is this: We will give you a hand to help you
make an apolitical decision. It is something new.
We in the Bloc Quebecois do not want to come to power here
in Ottawa. So take advantage of this situation! We are not the
usual opposition, like the Liberals were under the Conservative
government I was a member of. So take advantage of the fact
that we are neutral because we do not want to come to power
here in Ottawa, far from it. We want to give you a hand and help
Canada to reduce its debt, because every time Canada increases
its debt it also increases Quebec's and we do not like it.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to address the House on issues arising from the Auditor
General's report and to respond to comments made by hon.
members opposite on Mr. Desautels' report highlighting many
of the significant matters that require our attention. Of course
these are matters that are relevant to the last Parliament and the
last government. They require immediate attention by all of us
to ensure the most efficient and effective use of the taxpayers'
dollar.
I am pleased that we have already acted on a number of the
points raised by the Auditor General. We have opened up the
budget process. We cancelled a flawed airport deal relevant to
Pearson International Airport; we put the airbus up for sale; we
tightened up the regulations on the use of government aircraft;
we have streamlined the decision making process of cabinet;
and we restructured departments to make sure they can work
together more effectively.
The new decision making structure of cabinet consists of full
cabinet and only four cabinet committees: economic
development policy, social development policy, Treasury Board
and a special committee of council. This is in marked contrast to
the very expensive, cumbersome structure that existed
previously with 11 cabinet committees in operation.
1157
Moreover, we have reduced the privileges of members of
Parliament in terms of the costs we can save there. We have cut
the political staff of ministers; we have reduced the budgets for
ministers by some $10 million a year. As will be heard later
today from my colleague the minister responsible for
federal-provincial relations we are moving in the areas of
cutting the waste, the duplication and the overlap between the
federal and provincial governments. This is a strong start but
more has to be done to address the issues raised by the Auditor
General.
(1045)
At this point I would like to acknowledge the contribution Mr.
Desautels and his staff have made to a better understanding of
many of the important and complex issues faced by government.
Many of his concerns parallel our own. When we met to discuss
his report I learned that we shared a belief in the importance of
improving information to Parliament and in reviewing existing
programs and policies to ensure they continue to meet the needs
of Canadians.
The Auditor General has outlined his view that
parliamentarians need to be more involved in the budget
process. That has been raised here this morning. We agree and
my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance has been making
great strides in opening the budget process through various
pre-budget consultations in the cities of Halifax, Montreal,
Toronto and Calgary. He has met hundreds of Canadians and has
heard directly from them what they feel must be done to turn the
economy around, to create jobs and restore the faith of
Canadians in the future. In many of the debates we have had in
this House hon. members have had the opportunity to address
issues relevant to the upcoming budget.
I remind hon. members that we believe the efforts to bring the
federal debt and deficit under control are most important and are
going to be addressed in the budget of the Minister of Finance. It
is important that we bring them under control, but it is also
important that the measures taken are compatible with getting
Canadians back to work.
The federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program is a
key to stimulating economic activity. Bearing in mind what hon.
members opposite have raised this morning, it is a good example
of attempting to cut down on duplication, overlap and
competition among the different levels of government. This
program is unique in bringing three orders of government
together to ensure the most efficient and effective spending of
taxpayers' dollars.
As we have said in ``Creating Opportunity'' and as the Prime
Minister has confirmed, we will allow individual members of
Parliament more involvement in these consultations.
Committees of the House will be given greater influence over
government expenditures than previously. This government has
announced that changes will be proposed to the rules of the
House of Commons to provide members of Parliament with a
greater opportunity to contribute to the development of public
policy and to contribute to the development of legislation.
The Official Opposition motion mentions that a special
committee be struck to examine public expenditures by the
federal government in light of the Auditor General's report.
However there already is such a committee. As was raised this
morning by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce that is
the public accounts committee.
We look forward to working with members of the public
accounts committee as they study the Auditor General's report
in detail. The public accounts committee is chaired by a member
of the Official Opposition. That gives them enormous
opportunity to raise these issues and to have them dealt with by
the public accounts committee. I look forward to those
deliberations.
I do not see the need for creating still another committee. I
said a few moments ago that we have streamlined the process of
cabinet, going from 11 committees down to 4 committees. We
do not see the necessity in adding still further committees.
The committee on public accounts will want to examine how
government departments and agencies are responding to the
need for improved administration and management. It will want
to call senior officials before it and when its work is complete
the government will have the benefit of its findings.
The Auditor General has consistently advocated the need for
better reporting of financial information for Parliament. This
year was no exception in his report. This year Mr. Desautels
devoted an entire chapter of his report to his view that better
information is required on the deficit and the debt. Once again I
am pleased to report the government is acting to address this
need.
(1050)
Recently the finance department issued two publications that
will help increase understanding of the debt and the deficit. A
short booklet entitled ``Basic Facts on Federal Spending'' will
help Canadians better understand the federal government's
budgetary spending. It summarizes spending as it is presented in
the federal budget and in the public accounts. In addition, a
longer background document called ``Federal Spending''
provides even more detail.
Members will be happy to see that the public accounts
recently tabled in the House were accepted without reservation
by the Auditor General. The fundamental purpose of the public
accounts is to provide information to Parliament and through
Parliament to all Canadians. Their purpose is to facilitate
understanding of the full nature and extent of the financial
affairs and resources for which this government is responsible.
1158
Last year the Auditor General said that in his view: ``The
government's financial statements would be more
understandable if they were presented in a comprehensive but
succinct annual financial report''. What Mr. Desautels was
calling for was a financial report similar to the annual reports
published by corporations in the private sector. We have done
just that.
To make the financial statements of the Government of
Canada more understandable to the public we have added a new
section to the 1993 public accounts. For the first time we have
presented a summary of economic developments during the
year, a financial review and a set of condensed financial
statements. New graphs and charts portray complex financial
data in an understandable format for the first time. This clear
and concise overview of the state of the government's financial
affairs was added at the suggestion of the Auditor General.
Another ongoing concern of his has been the need for more
information on the results of government programs. We agree.
To have a country that works we need to measure whether
specific government programs actually deliver results over
time. We recognize the need for strengthened audits,
strengthened internal audits, strengthened evaluation. In fact
that was a cornerstone of the recommendations in the red book.
This year the Auditor General looked at several aspects of
regulations. Regulations can help improve the quality of life of
Canadians by setting standards for things which affect their
daily lives. Canadians should be able to put their children in car
seats knowing they meet certain safety standards. They should
know how much fat the ground beef they buy contains. Yet
regulations can also place an undue cost or administrative
burden on businesses and individuals.
This government is committed to reducing the regulatory
burden on Canada's economy. One example of the innovative
ways we are finding to do this is the new business impact test
which was jointly developed with the Canadian Manufacturers
Association. I had the pleasure of unveiling it with that
association just a week ago.
This new software package is designed to help governments
understand and evaluate the potential impact of proposed
regulations on the private sector. It looks at the direct costs of
proposed regulations as well as the effect the proposals may
have on the way firms operate, organize and innovate. It allows
companies to give their views early in the process, as a
regulation is being developed. It can even help business and
government determine other ways to serve the public interest
that may not involve regulation at all. Therefore we are trying to
streamline regulations to help Canadian businesses compete in
this current economy.
In closing, I would like to stress the importance of the
contribution of the Auditor General's report. The Auditor
General has made an important contribution to the better
understanding of the issues faced by governments. At the same
time there is no doubt the Auditor General's work is an
important stimulus to constructive action.
We look forward to consulting with the Auditor General. We
look forward to hearing the deliberations of the public accounts
committee, chaired by a member of the Official Opposition.
Together we can pursue the goals of restoring the confidence of
Canadians in their government and the efficient and effective
spending of tax dollars.
(1055 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the
committee that is being suggested certainly falls under the terms
of reference of the public accounts committee. I too do not see
the need for an additional committee in the House for that
reason.
The hon. member has suggested some improvements which
have already been made with the Auditor General's report.
However no mention was made under the aboriginal economic
development strategy. I would like his comments on this point.
The throne speech addressed three major programs with the
aboriginal affairs department that would be undertaken. I noted
in chapter 11 of the Auditor General's report there were
significant observations made on previous programs by the
previous government. I would not like the hon. member to
respond by saying it was the previous government's fault. It is
actually the administrative problems within those programs
which are of concern to me.
I want to make one reference. For instance, the administration
and the government could not demonstrate that after spending at
least $900 million from the beginning of its implementation in
1989 to early 1993 the strategy's objectives were being met.
The essence of the Auditor General's report on aboriginal
programs, in particular the aboriginal economic development
strategy, is that a lot of money is put into these programs but we
really do not know what the outcomes of these programs are.
They are poorly co-ordinated. In fact many Canadians think we
are throwing out too much money without outcomes.
What is this government going to do when it introduces these
new programs as announced in the throne speech? How are we
going to have outcomes to these programs unlike the problem
the Auditor General came up with in a previous report?
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question. It does relate to something of considerable importance
to me and the government. That is to understand what the
1159
outcomes are of our programs and what we have gained for the
taxpayers' dollar that has been spent and what the results are.
Internal audit and evaluation processes become a very key
part of trying to determine that. A greater emphasis has to be
placed on that than has been done in the past. That is certainly
the case on the infrastructure program for which I have some
immediate responsibility for implementing. That is one of the
areas where I have made it quite clear we have to be able to get a
handle on it so we will understand what those outcomes are. I
think my colleagues share that.
Whether it is in native affairs, native economic development
strategies or whatever other area, we will attempt to apply that
general principle of getting an understanding of the outcomes
and providing the appropriate internal audit and evaluation
processes to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I am
almost amused by what the previous speaker said. One would
think that he is a Conservative defending the Conservatives'
record. Basically, he is defending the status quo, when it has
been proven that the status quo does not work. They tell us about
the Public Accounts Committee. The proof that it does not work
is the situation we are in.
How can one claim that this committee, which does indeed
exist, will be effective, when it was not effective in the past?
Furthermore, according to the Auditor General of Canada,
only 18 per cent of programs are evaluated, as the hon. member
for Rivière-du-Loup reminded us just now. So how can you
defend the status quo if you do not even take the trouble to
evaluate what is being done?
I have the impression that the Auditor General's report and
role may have more to do with discovering mismanagement and
horrors and not so much to do with the effectiveness of
programs; the proof is that they are not evaluated.
I am very surprised and I would like the previous speaker to
explain to me why, at the very beginning of a new mandate and a
new government, they are defending the previous government's
policies so much.
(1100)
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I am amused by that because it
was exactly the opposite of what my remarks were all about. My
remarks were about the changes that are being made. I am
certainly not going to stand here and defend what the previous
government has done which is now being talked about in the
Auditor General's report.
I find it amazing that they overlook the value of the existing
public accounts committee as a means of dealing with a great
many of these issues. Hon. members opposite get the
opportunity to chair that committee. That gives them a much
greater opportunity than perhaps many other committees. They
talk today about cutting down and overlapping, yet they want to
establish another committee that is clearly going to overlap
what an existing committee is already empowered to do.
Let us stop wasting our time and the taxpayers' money by
setting up alternative overlapping committees when one exists,
one they have an opportunity to chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I do not
understand why the President of the Treasury Board is refusing
to set up a special committee. This would not be the first time we
have special committees. We have had them for finance and in
various other areas.
We know very well that the President of the Treasury Board
does not manage the treasury, because there is no more money in
it; rather, he manages the debt and the deficit. He should be a
little more serious and accept the support we are offering. We
want a neutral position to be taken so that the government can
make the right decision.
Since I am the critic for Foreign Affairs and I am speaking to
the President of the Treasury Board, I would like to know if he
intends to consider cutting the spending of our embassies and
representatives abroad, but especially of our embassies.
Every time I went abroad, with my friend the member for
Beauséjour, who is here, the ambassador always told us: ``You
know, this embassy did not cost very much. We paid very little
for it 20 years ago''. I tell him: ``Twenty years ago, I too bought
a house that is worth $200,000 today, but I paid $20,000 for it''.
They are always trying to justify themselves, because in my
opinion and that of many others, our embassies are probably
more in keeping with the standards of a country like the United
States, France or England, whose population is two, three or ten
times as much as ours.
I think that we should seriously consider having embassies
more in keeping with our standard of living and our spending
power. That is why I ask the President of the Treasury Board the
question. It is up to him to do it and I hope that he will do it
because we just learned again that we spent $75 million to build
the embassy in China. I think that is huge for a country like
Canada. We also spent $95 million to build the embassy in the
United States, in Washington. I think that is huge too.
I do not know if the President of the Treasury Board, who
manages a debt rather than a treasury, will be able to stop and
think, even if he does not have a committee because he does not
1160
want one, and will be prepared to cut the spending of our
embassies which is much too high, without being given a hand.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows
cutting government expenditure is under consideration by the
Minister of Finance and will be addressed in the budget.
As to some of the past expenditures at various embassies
which he is talking about, perhaps that has been referred to in
this and previous reports of the Auditor General. I am sure he
knows that all too well, since he was a member of the House and
a member of the supporting party of the last government when
many of these matters were carried out.
(1105 )
I must come back to the matter of a new committee. I use the
words that hon. members opposite used when they talked about
overlapping, when they talked about waste, and when they
talked about duplication. That is what they are proposing when
speaking of this committee.
It is not required. We have a committee where all these issues
that have been talked about can be raised. It is a committee that
they chair. Perhaps they are indicating they do not have
confidence in one of their members to chair the committee.
Maybe somebody else should chair it. It seems to me they have
every opportunity without overlap, without duplication, without
waste to raise these issues in the public accounts committee.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the whip of the Reform Party I would like to advise the House
that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) our speakers on the
motion will be dividing their time.
First my congratulations to the Bloc for introducing a motion
that deals with trying to come to terms with the problems of
money and lack of money in the country. We are $500 billion in
debt. It is nice to see the opposition and the government taking
these things seriously.
It reminds me a bit of the parable of the prodigal son who left
home and wanted to take a share of his wealth with him. Here we
have the Bloc wanting to ensure that the fiscal House of Canada
is in order so there is sufficient wealth for them to take with
them. I would remind the Bloc that the end of the parable was
that he did have to come home, unfortunately without his
wealth.
I do not think anybody has spoken louder on managing the
government's money than the Reform Party. During the last
election we produced a four-page flyer that showed how we
were going to reduce the deficit to zero. If anybody was
eliminating waste it was the Reform Party because, as I say, it
was a four-page flyer. My hon. friends across the aisle with a
120-page red book could only get the deficit down to about 3 per
cent of gross domestic product or $25 billion. When it comes to
the elimination of waste, duplication and extra effort the
Reform Party is the party to which one should be looking.
The problem does not lie in the elimination of duplication of
government expenditures. The President of the Treasury Board
has already said, and other speakers have said so this morning,
that we have a public accounts committee that is chaired by a
member of the opposition. They have every opportunity to look
at the expenditures examined by the Auditor General. He has
pointed out that we are losing money here, that we are wasting
money there: $10 billion is being thrown down the drain by this
department; $100 million is not being collected by the
Department of National Revenue through loss of taxation on the
GST as half a million people have not been filing their returns.
These things have been pointed out to us.
The thing to remember is that the deficit is $43 billion or $45
billion according to the Minister of Finance. The total spending
by the federal government on its administration, on its salaries,
on its rent, on its desks, telephones, computers and whatever
else it needs to manage the country is only $17 billion. If we
eliminated the entire civil service and everything that goes with
it our deficit would still be around $25 billion.
Therefore if the members of the Bloc Quebecois think they
can resolve the waste and deficit problems of the government by
narrowly defining the idea they can find enough money in waste
and duplication, they only have to look at the numbers and that
will tell them that unfortunately they will not find the answer in
another committee that looks at the same problem again.
(1110 )
In chapter 5 of his report the Auditor General talks about the
debt and the deficit and concern about where this country is
going. If we want to find out where we are going, it is always
best to look at where we have been. He produced some
interesting graphs and charts in chapter 5 showing it was in 1975
that our deficit really started to balloon. It was our colleagues on
the other side of the House who decided it was time to start
spending money on social programs by the billions. It was then
they introduced what they called the just society.
I talked about this earlier in the pre-budget debate. At that
time I said that if taxpayers had been given the bill to pay for the
just society rather than borrowing the money to pay for it, we
would have told them we could not afford it and we would not
have the problems we have today.
Between 1974 and 1976 spending on programs mushroomed
to about 130 per cent of the money collected in tax revenues. By
the time we added the interest on the debt being created our
spending exceeded 155 per cent of government revenues. That is
where the problems started and why we have these problems
today. Unfortunately we have to squeeze the social spending we
have created in order to be able to afford government in the
country. Not only do we have to eliminate the fat from the waste
and duplication in services but we have to take a look at how we
1161
spend our money on social programs in order that we can afford
to balance our budget.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has decided
to strike a committee to look at how we are going to revamp
social programs and unemployment insurance. Last year we
spent $19 billion on unemployment insurance. That is almost 50
per cent of the current deficit.
I do not suggest for a moment that we should get rid of
unemployment insurance but we have systemic unemployment
in this country of around 7 per cent. That is now to be considered
full employment; 7 per cent of workers do not have jobs because
of the problems with the social programs that say we do not have
enough incentives built into them for people to go to work.
Our neighbours to the south have a systemic unemployment
rate of about 3 per cent lower than ours. Their cost of
unemployment insurance as a percentage of their gross domestic
product is significantly lower than ours. That is the way we are
going to balance the budget. It is not going to be through trying
to save a nickel here or find a dime there by creating another
committee to find out how on earth we are going to balance the
budget. The answer is not there; the answer lies in social
programs.
When we produced our zero in three flyer last fall we said that
about $3 billion to $4 billion could be saved by providing
incentives for people to get back to work. By reducing the
unemployment rate, we reduce the cost of unemployment
insurance and create additional tax revenues from people who
are now working. That is where we are going to find the answers
to our problems.
We said last fall that we should talk about eliminating old age
security to families that earn more than $54,000 a year. It would
save another $3 billion. We could save between $4 billion in UI
and $3 billion on old age security, which comes to $7 billion.
That is 40 per cent of total government expenditures we can save
by looking at these two programs without having to go through
every nickel and dime and line by line of the entire government
expenditures. We identified $7 billion with these two programs
alone.
Last fall when I was knocking on doors and talking to senior
citizens in my riding they were concerned about our policy on
old age security. For those families which make more than
$54,000 a year, we are going to cut it off. Why should young
families which are trying to get ahead have to pay taxes so that
the rich can use their old age security to go to places in the sun in
the winter? Many of the seniors I talked to said: ``I wish we had
seen $54,000 in our lives. My goodness, cut that off. By all
means cut that off. We support you 100 per cent if we are going
to balance the budget''. Those are the types of things that my
colleagues from the Bloc should be proposing in the motion.
(1115)
The motion they have proposed today is far too narrow. The
budget cannot be balanced if we focus on one thing. I know they
have their own political agenda that says: ``Put the blame on the
federal government and that way we do not have to worry about
what happens in the province of Quebec''.
I am concerned about all of Canada not just the province of
Alberta. I am concerned about Canadians who live in the
province of Quebec. Everybody who lives in the province of
Quebec as far as I am concerned is a Canadian and participates
fully in this great nation of ours.
As I mentioned we laid out a full program on how to balance a
budget last fall. We did it as volunteers. We did it as Canadians
who wanted to make a contribution to the country. That is where
we should be looking to resolve our problems rather than this
narrowly defined motion as proposed.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested at the beginning of the member's presentation to learn
that the Reform Party has a whip. It seems to me that it is
something they would not have in their type of organization.
Looking at the attendance it seems to me that he or she needs
some practice.
The motion before us today actually deals with confederation
and we have heard a good deal of criticism-
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe it is inappropriate to make any comment about
attendance in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member makes a
very valid point. Hon. members should not take issue with the
absence of any member of any party from the House.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I make my apologies to you and to
members present.
The motion today deals with confederation and we have heard
a good deal of criticism about that form of government.
Confederation it seems to me is a form of government which has
developed particularly in North America, here and in the United
States, as a very effective and powerful way of dealing with
large and diverse countries. Overall, and I think members
opposite will agree with this point, the method has been very
effective in North America. We have produced two nations that
have been among the most productive, however you define
1162
productive, economically or in some other terms, socially for
example, that have ever existed on the face of the earth.
In a debate like this, one could tend to forget the strengths of
confederation. If I could give one example, one strength of the
confederate approach to government is the fact that a process of
trial and error can go on in different parts of the confederation
and that process is a very creative and, I would suggest in the
light of the comments this morning, also a very economical way
of testing new ideas. Sometimes those ideas will work and they
can be taken on by the confederation or sometimes they will not
work and we will have saved the expense of a trial which would
have failed across the nation as a whole.
A famous example is medicare being developed in
Saskatchewan. Their system of medical health support was
developed, it was tried, a substantial trial and error process, and
then we were able to spread it to the rest of the country.
Another example is the work that is going on in New
Brunswick in the area of our social support systems which were
discussed this morning. In New Brunswick as we speak
experiments are going on which look as though they will show
that there are better ways to deliver the social services which are
so important to our nation. In a debate like this the strengths of
Confederation must be stressed as well as some of the
weaknesses.
(1120)
It seems to me that in a form of government like this there are
inevitably overlaps. Some of them for a while are necessary and
many of them are unnecessary. To that extent I agree with
members opposite.
Wherever there is unnecessary duplication we must eliminate
it and, as the President of the Treasury Board said, I hope the
government is doing so.
Simply to recite things like fisheries, agriculture or
environment and then point to the fact that those things are dealt
with by two jurisdictions is not to show unnecessary
duplication. It seems to me fisheries would be a good example.
The fishery in Quebec would be very different from the fishery
in British Columbia. It therefore seems appropriate that people
who understand those fisheries deal with them in those regions.
But it is equally appropriate that national and international
aspects of the fishery be dealt with economically and without
unnecessary duplication by a central government.
What has been lacking has been national leadership, proper
leadership from this Chamber. The duplication which has arisen
has been a result of that, not the result of a weakness in
confederation but a weakness of previous governments to
address the truly national issues.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I think I missed the question in
that little discourse but I do agree with the hon. member that
there is more than one way to solve a problem.
The way that Confederation has been designed has worked
great for Canada for the last 125 years. There is absolutely no
reason whatsoever that it cannot continue to make sure that
problems, programs, assistance and government overlap from
one jurisdiction to another shall remain in the federal
jurisdiction.
We see that in fisheries, for example, the flow-over from one
province to another. We see it in other areas. The hon. member
mentioned agriculture.
We also see other opportunities where governments of
different provinces might address the problems of budget
deficits and management of their own tax revenues. I believe
New Brunswick was mentioned. In my home province of
Alberta we have seen the government take a real hard firm
stance to address these problems to ensure that it can live within
its means. This is an example for us here in the capital to follow
and perhaps other provinces that have the same problem.
I think the hon. member has a good point and it should be
noted today.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to speak against the first part of the Bloc's motion
and in support of the second part.
Surely the Bloc must see the obvious contradiction in its
motion. It is calling for a formation of a special committee of
Parliament and proposes to examine the public expenses of the
federal government. The second part of the motion focuses on
the elimination of duplication between federal and provincial
programs.
Does it not see the special committee of Parliament as a
duplication of administration? Is this not why we already have a
House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts?
If the Bloc is sincere about eliminating duplication and wants
the review of the public accounts to be open and transparent to
the public then I would suggest that it amend its motion and that
the House direct the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to
undertake the review of the Auditor General's report and the
elimination of duplication between federal and provincial
programs. As it stands I cannot support the motion.
My constituents in Yorkton-Melville voted for me because I
promised to oppose the waste of taxpayers' money. The way I
see it, the special committee proposed by the Bloc and the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts would be doing the
same job.
When a farmer wants to spray his crop in order to kill weeds
he does not first of all buy a spray that will kill thistles, spray his
crop for thistles and then buy another spray to kill the wild oats
and then buy a spray to kill the mustard, and another spray to kill
the chickweed and go over his crop half a dozen times. That
1163
would be foolish. That would be inefficient; it would not work.
A farmer who would do that would not be in farming very long.
It is no different when it comes to government. We cannot have
the same thing being done over and over again. It will not work.
(1125)
I would like to comment on the three themes that are proposed
by the Bloc in its motion: first, the need for a review of the
Auditor General's report; second, the need for a review of
federal-provincial programs with a view to eliminating
duplication of effort and saving the taxpayers' money; and,
third, the need for an open and transparent process permitting
public input and scrutiny of our public accounts.
There is a need to review the Auditor General's report while it
is in progress, not to wait until his report is released. When the
Auditor General encounters waste, mismanagement or
corruption, these matters should be brought before the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts immediately. If this were done,
we might be able to stop the bleeding before the patient becomes
terminally ill.
The Auditor General should have access to any and all public
accounts, including cabinet ministers' travel expenses.
The Auditor General should have the authority to make public
the decisions and waste that he uncovers in the Board of Internal
Economy if he feels it is necessary and in the public's best
interest.
I agree with the Bloc Quebecois that there is too much
duplication of administration between the federal and provincial
governments. For example, there is the duplication between
unemployment insurance and social assistance. Both programs
provide protection for the unemployed. Many people who
exhaust their UI benefits go to welfare. In Saskatchewan almost
half of the people on social assistance are considered fully
employable. Here we have two programs serving much the same
purpose and many of the same clients.
There are two sets of bureaucracies, one in the federal
government and one at the provincial level. The duplication
continues.
Unemployment insurance collects its own special payroll tax
from both workers and employers in the form of the so-called
insurance premiums. When the UI account goes into the hole,
like it has for the past three years, the taxpayers, mainly workers
and employers, are asked to pay again, only this time through
income tax and corporate tax.
Social assistance is paid for on a 50:50 basis by the federal
and provincial governments. Again there is only one taxpayer
footing the bill.
I do not want to belabour the point. I think anybody with any
common sense can see that there is duplication and where there
is duplication there is waste of taxpayers' hard earned income.
In my former life I was a school teacher. This reminds me of a
time when the school board was trying to provide the same level
of service but on a fixed budget. It was running buses along the
same road, twice in the morning and twice at night; once to pick
up the elementary school children and the second time to pick up
the high school students. When that fixed budget could be
stretched no more, when the crunch came, it had to come up with
new ideas. It found a way to make the run once and to pick up
both groups of students.
If there has ever been a budget crisis it is now, and we have to
come up with a better and cheaper way of doing things. The
programs should be delivered by the level of government which
can best provide the service for the best and the lowest possible
cost. It has been my experience that the closer the government is
to the people, the better the program that can be delivered and
the lower the costs.
I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development. I will make sure that the issue
of duplication between federal programs administered by the
department of human resources and provincial governments are
addressed in our review of the social programs. I believe it is the
duty of each member on each standing committee to ensure that
they do the same. I would, therefore, not recommend the need
for a special committee to look into duplication.
I strongly support the Bloc's recommendation for a more open
and transparent process permitting public scrutiny.
The more I work in Ottawa the more I realize that the process
is a big part of the problem. We found during the referendum on
the Charlottetown accord that people want to get directly
involved in the decision making process.
(1130 )
We also found that Canadians could understand complex
issues such as the Constitution. There was a desire among the
vast majority to know more and more about issues that affect the
future of our children. They correctly analysed the situation,
ignored the cries of the so-called elites and made the right
decision.
We need to put more trust into the common sense of the
common people. Nowhere is this common sense needed more
than in the review of public accounts.
While the Minister of Finance is proud of the four conferences
he organized as a part of his pre-budget process, I do not know
1164
of one person from my constituency who was invited to attend
or make a submission. So much for an open process.
Any consultative process should be open to all Canadians.
Using today's technologies, it is possible for all Canadians to
register their votes on issues of public spending and public
borrowing.
Annual tax returns could be used by taxpayers to register
where and on what programs they want their money spent. We
need to put Canadians back in control of government. Once
every four or five years we have democracy but in between we
are run by decree of the governing party. Ask the people in
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville if they feel they live in a
true democracy.
When families are in a financial crisis and can no longer
borrow money to support their standard of living, they sit around
the kitchen table and talk about how everyone is going to pull
together to make ends meet.
Canada is just like a family. Our government meetings should
be held at kitchen tables instead of conference tables. We need to
sit around and discuss these things. All three levels of
government have their hands in the same taxpayers' pockets and
there is less and less room for the taxpayer to get his own money
out of his own pocket. There are three levels of government but
only one taxpayer. We all have to work together to get out of this
financial mess.
In closing, I commend the Bloc for bringing forward this
motion and drawing attention to the need for reform. I would
like to again register my objection to duplicating the efforts of
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by forming another
special committee as proposed in the Bloc's motion.
While I cannot support the first part of its motion, I would be
able to support the second part of the motion calling for a review
of the Auditor General's report, the elimination of duplication
between federal and provincial programs and a call for more
public scrutiny of our budgeting and spending processes.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to comment on the speech just delivered by the Reform member,
who objects to the striking of a special committee to examine
federal government expenditures. During the last election
campaign, his party strongly advocated that the government
clean up its act as far as spending is concerned. That is why, I
think, they were elected in western Canada with such a majority.
When you go hunting, you arm yourself appropriately, just as
when you go fishing, you use the right gear. You cannot change
equipment, even if you decide to do something else.
The Reform Party campaigned to defend the interest of its
electorate, as we did during the campaign, as we always do in the
House, and as the Bloc Quebecois will continue to do throughout
its mandate. Hence the importance of striking such a
committee. The Bloc Quebecois said during the last election
campaign, and I am very proud of it, that it would defend the
interests of Quebecers and, in its capacity as the Official
Opposition, the interests of all Canadians, of course, as far as
government expenditures are concerned. Today, in Quebec as
well as in Canada, there is a feeling of social insecurity, because
Canada's debt level is very high, as is the interest on this debt
which is in the order of $110 million per day.
I think there must be, here in Parliament, a committee to study
government expenditures, item by item, and also to verify all
departmental expenditures, item by item. An hon. member said
earlier that such a committee has always existed in Parliament,
which brings me to the following question: Did such a
committee exist in 1980? Did that committee exist from 1980 to
1993? If it did, either it was ineffective, did not do its job
properly, or else did a very good job but was not listened to. The
previous governments did not listen to suggestions made by that
committee because, from 1980 to 1984, the Liberals were in
office and the debt stood at $30 billion in 1980, whereas by the
time the Conservatives took over, it had already climbed to $187
billion.
(1135)
Similarly, if the committee was in place after 1984 and until
1993, what did the government do with the recommendations of
that committee? The $187 billion debt inherited from the
Liberals kept increasing under the Conservatives. What
prevented the government from taking appropriate action? Did
it follow the recommendations of that committee? Is there any
point in having a committee if the government does not follow
its recommendations?
I suppose that the committee does a very good job and makes
some useful recommendations to reduce expenditures, or at
least to flash a yellow light warning ministers and some
departments of imminent danger, by telling them that they are
about to go over their budget, or to flash a red light telling them
that they have indeed used up their budget and must be careful
with their spending.
I also want to say that there would be no overlapping in this
case because, within the government finance sector there is a
Department of Finance as well another department called
Revenue Canada. I guess you could call that overlapping.
Likewise there is a finance committee, of which I am a member,
and there is also a public accounts committee.
The Bloc Quebecois motion is to ensure that government
expenditures are thoroughly reviewed and that a report is then
tabled in the House.
1165
Earlier we referred briefly to infrastructures. I think that the
$2 billion infrastructure program of the Liberal government is
insufficient, since the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
suggested a $15 billion investment.
My question is: Is it the politicians who spend too much, not
knowing where they are headed, or is it the civil servants who
mismanage programs?
I will conclude by saying to the Reform Party that the
situation is much worse than that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I apologize for
interrupting the hon. member for Charlevoix, but I have to
remind all members that, as their representative, I must ensure
that they comply with the Standing Orders of this House.
I am aware that five minutes for questions and comments is a
very short period. However, comments must be brief in order to
allow the member who makes a speech to provide a reply or an
answer to a question.
[English]
In that spirit I would ask the member for Yorkton-Melville if
he would like to make a concluding remark or comment.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I have
taken to heart what has been said. I will try to be brief.
I feel it is very important that we sit down together and
discuss these things, as my colleague from the Bloc has said. We
need to do this in an atmosphere that our standing committees
are conducive toward. We have these committees in place. They
have a mandate to review the programs. I am on the Standing
Committee for Human Resources Development and we are
looking at a budget of $68 billion. Right there, if we are going to
restructure that, there is a tremendous opportunity to do the
things suggested here and those are to review social programs
and look at ways in which spending can be reduced.
We have all these standing committees in place already. I do
not think we are going to solve our problems in government by
bringing in more government. That contributes to the problem
we already have. We need to reward people for finding ways to
do with less, to downsize government and consequently spend
less. That is the aim that we must have. We must never lose sight
of that as we work on our individual standing committees.
(1140)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate today. I hope that our
arguments will help enlighten hon. members about the merits of
our motion. What we are proposing is a simple and realistic
process that no member in this House can off-handedly reject
simply because it was not put forward by his or her party.
Our constituents expect such action from us. I do not see how I
could go back to my riding this weekend and try to explain why
we refused to examine public finances. Such a refusal would
show a lack of respect for our voters and an attempt to shirk our
responsibilities. We as members of the Bloc Quebecois have
received an additional mandate, and a significant one at that.
Quebecers have especially asked us to protect their interests
and to focus our energy and efforts to help Quebec attain its
sovereignty. Soon Quebecers will democratically determine
their own future.
For more than three months now, each and everyone of us has
noticed, day in and day out, that our federal system has some
major flaws on several levels, especially from an administrative
and a political point of view. On the one hand, the Auditor
General has always loudly complained about the
mismanagement of government funds.
On the other hand, provinces claim that they have been treated
unfairly, because of unjust decisions based on so-called
national standards, which obviously are not making provincial
authorities very happy. Add to this the willingness of hon.
members to play a bigger part in the decision and legislative
system, and you can say without a doubt that our system is not
efficient and needs some major changes.
Take, for instance, the Auditor General of Canada who
publishes every year horror stories like some of Stephen King
bestsellers on the way our government manages this country.
The Auditor General cannot all by himself go through
everything. He focuses on some very well defined areas. He
examines only some of the elements of public administration.
He is asked to perform a monumental task requiring detailed
knowledge of the situation. Recently we heard some horror
stories about senators, but let us not dwell on that.
The evaluation process used by the Auditor clearly shows the
scope and the complexity of the federal administration. It is
becoming more and more difficult, if not utterly impossible, to
control this monster and the vast number of programs involving
extraordinary public spending.
Our approach or proposal is a symbolical and responsible
attempt to democratize and open the whole issue of public
finances. The people will better understand public expenditures
and will be in a better position to evaluate the government's
decisions.
Year after year, successive ministers of Finance pledge to
apply stricter controls, to eliminate waste and to reduce
spending. Alas, results are always disappointing. Governments
are
1166
much more apt to raise revenues through taxes than to reduce
their extravagant expenditures and waste.
We, the Bloc, will allow, with this motion, every member to
keep this promise. It is up to you to decide.
The Minister of Finance prefers to travel throughout the
country at the taxpayer's expense to hold other consultations. I
do not think these little trips will solve anything.
The minister should sit down with us and all the other parties
in this House and look carefully at the true financial mess our
great country is now in. I am sure that everybody here would
agree to such a serious and open process. Nobody in this House
can support ridiculous or useless spending.
(1145)
Nobody can condone waste and deadwood. In the end, this
process aims at ensuring that every tax dollar is spent
efficiently.
As social housing critic, I have to look at the activities and
programs of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Note that Quebec also has its own housing corporation, that is,
the Société d'habitation du Québec. The work of these two
similar corporations is similar and sometimes complementary.
Both organizations deal with housing.
There is certainly some duplication of services that is very
costly in terms of the number of employees doing similar tasks
at both levels of government. These sums are possibly included
in the operating budgets of the various programs under their
authority. And let us not forget the incredible number of
interdepartmental meetings required in order to harmonize the
programs and all the co-ordination meetings between officials
working on various projects.
Since there are federal-provincial agreements in each of the
provinces, we can multiply by ten, plus two for the territories,
this type of duplication of services that is very costly for the
taxpayers and very confusing for the general public. Each level
of government has its standards, its inspectors, its codes and its
regulations. There is a cost attached to all that. We must
simplify the system and concentrate all these activities at the
same administrative level in order to meet needs more
efficiently and to maximize the use of the money allocated for
these programs.
Obviously, in Quebec, the Société d'habitation du Québec
must be the only administrative authority in this area. The other
provinces should do the same. That is up to them.
Right now, in Canada, in this rich and developed country, 1.2
million people are in desperate need of housing. The total
withdrawal of the federal government as of January 1, 1994 is
indecent and unacceptable. Moreover, the general agreements
with the provinces are melting away like the snow because of
deep cuts in federal funding. So, all of a sudden, the provinces/
find themselves without funding and it is the poorest in our
society who suffer the terrible consequences.
Liberals do not seem to be doing anything to rectify the
situation. They say that there is not enough money. Here is a
golden opportunity for the government opposite to find
considerable amounts of money in order to meet the housing
needs of disadvantaged Canadians. But, a word of caution, the
money taken from the various departments will have to be
redistributed under new criteria. Federal standards must meet
the particular needs of individual provinces and reflect their
reality.
Quebec wants its fair share of funding for social housing,
which has not been the case in the past few years.
Finally, let us administer our country intelligently and openly
so that we have the means to meet the needs of the people, some
of which are urgent.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, it is a
bit hard to believe some of the things we are hearing in the
House today in this debate. We heard the member for
Yorkton-Melville earlier complain that his constituents were
not invited to comment on the budgetary process, the most open
one ever held in the country.
I would remind all members of the House that we are members
of Parliament and we have an opportunity and a responsibility to
consult with our constituents. We did that in my riding of
London-Middlesex in collaboration with my other two
colleagues in London. We held a pre-budget meeting and heard
the concerns of our constituents. I would remind members of
Parliament that as talented as he is the finance minister cannot
be all places at the same time.
The member for Laurentides castigated the past government
for its financial excesses and I would certainly agree with her. I
would note that the leader of her party was a cabinet minister in
that past government. Perhaps he could rationalize that past
performance for her.
I quite frankly doubt very much that I could support the Bloc
motion. Where specifically do the terms of reference for the
public accounts committee, of which I am a member and which
meets for the first time today, fall short in what the Bloc seeks to
achieve by its motion?
(1150 )
If I can have explained some of the shortcoming in these terms
of reference then perhaps I might be persuaded to support the
motion.
As has already been noted, it will be interesting whether the
Bloc takes up its opportunity today to have the chair of that
committee be one of its own members. I am unconvinced at this
moment. I am flabbergasted by some of the remarks I have heard
1167
by members of Parliament in the House. It is an abdication of
their responsibility.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question asked by the
hon. member, I would like to say that we will all work in
committees, but it is federal expenditures as a whole that need to
be examined. At the moment, I think this task is divided among
various committees, but our motion goes way beyond the study
of a particular area of expenditure by a committee.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments
and I agree with her that overlap and duplication are two
different concepts. We talk about overlap as if it was the same
thing as duplication. The latter can imply waste of money, but
the former is not unusual in a federation like Canada.
According to our Constitution, there are only two areas that I
can think of where there is no duplication and they are postal
services and defence. In all other areas, duplication is a fact of
life in a federation. We will try to eliminate waste as much as
possible, waste being the unjustifiable spending of public
money. I agree with the hon. member that we should try to
eliminate duplication.
However, I would remind her that it is not easy to get rid of
overlaps. As chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for
three years, I had tried to convince the previous government,
and maybe members of this House, that it was worth letting the
Auditor General table reports on specific issues as he saw fit to
draw the attention of members of Parliament to administrative
problems.
Maybe the hon. member did not know it, but I submitted a bill
to this House, Bill C-207, I think, which would have allowed the
Auditor General to table reports on selected issues whenever he
wanted. Right now, he can only table one annual report. The hon.
member is right when she says that it is quite thick and
sometimes difficult to read, and that even the committee finds it
difficult to act on its recommendations. Would the hon. member
and her party support a measure like the one I advocated to
authorize the Auditor General to table reports on selected issues
whenever he wants?
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, we are not against the principle but
we must study the question further. As for duplication, the hon.
member is right, some duplication is unavoidable. We try to
eliminate duplication in order to reduce costs, to save money, to
become more efficient.
This is not the case now in several areas and I think that you
are well aware that that situation has been with us for many
years. It is high time to empower a special committee to study
all those questions, all forms of waste. Such a committee could,
for the first time, I think, be very effective and it could produce
fresh new solutions and maybe an alternative to the system we
use presently to manage public funds.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, on the
occasion of the first substantial speech I have the opportunity to
make in this House, I would like first of all to greet all the
constituents of the riding of Châteauguay. Nestled by the
borders of Quebec, Ontario and the United States, this part of the
area called Montérégie is located southwest of Montreal.
Previously made up of rural towns and villages, this riding has
become over the years one of the suburbs of the largest French
metropolis in North America.
In the west of the riding lies the city of Châteauguay with a
population of about 40,000 people who for the most part work on
the island of Montreal.
(1155)
In the east, there is a group of towns that have become
industrial centres. In the south, some other towns were able to
save farmlands from urban development. The northern part of
the riding is taken up by the Mohawk reserve.
In the riding of Châteauguay, we know what federal presence
means. It means the St. Lawrence Seaway and, through it, the
demise of the port of Montreal; it means the development of
Sarnia, in Ontario, through the transfer of the petrochemical
industry from the east end of Montreal; it means the Kahnawake
reserve and the closing of the Mercier bridge during the Indian
crisis in the summer of 1990. It also meant war measures in 1970
and conscription for the two world wars, and I could go on.
For many years, the federal presence has meant only trouble,
worry, indecisiveness, lack of determination and, most of all,
poor management of public funds. That is why so many
Quebecers are increasingly looking at sovereignty for Quebec.
At a time when the deficit is reaching proportions beyond the
comprehension of most people, all of us here in this House are
challenged to resolve this monstrous problem. Citizens have
lost confidence in the capacity of governments to control
expenditures. We do not have any grace period to regain that
confidence. We must act now and act effectively. From now on
we will have to live within our means and our capacity to pay.
Yesterday the Bloc Quebecois caucus had the opportunity to
meet the Conseil du patronat du Québec. Established in 1969,
this group of employers has 547 members, 430 of which are
corporations or associations actively involved in developing
Quebec economy. That most influential organization told us
about its concerns with regard to public spending, among other
things.
1168
Where does the Bloc Quebecois stand? Despite the heavier tax
burden we experienced in the last few years, it seems that
federal expenditures always exceed revenues by over $35 billion
each year. It does not seem possible to increase the tax burden
any further.
We should therefore have a look at expenditures and tax
loopholes. In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois will support every
proposal to better manage our public expenditures and lower the
annual deficit. The Bloc Quebecois appeals once more to this
government to scrutinize all budgetary items.
First of all, we should eliminate duplication, consolidate
administrative units and bring about the decentralization of
powers. Second, we should implement the corrective measures
recommended each year by the Auditor General, whose reports
always point out situations where billions of dollars of public
money are wasted both in program spending and tax
expenditures. Take for example foreign investments by
corporations which are always mentioned since 1986.
We should then reexamine and eventually abolish special
privileges granted to the wealthy through family trusts, on
which the Department of Finance will not give any information
whatsoever. Fourth, we should hand over to Quebec jurisdiction
over manpower and training. We should also cut 25 per cent of
the defence budget. That could save nearly $3 billion without
putting the security of Canada or Quebec in jeopardy.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec supports the Bloc
Quebecois position that duplication should be eliminated. The
Conseil also agrees with the Bloc Quebecois that the whole field
of manpower training should be transferred to Quebec.
In my capacity as the official opposition critic for the
Department of Veterans Affairs, I will endorse the Bloc
Quebecois position concerning that department and its mandate.
The total estimated budget of that department for the fiscal year
1993-94 alone stands at $2.1 billion. Of this amount, close to
$700 million is earmarked for health care, a third of all
spending.
(1200)
According to the 1993-94 estimates for Veterans Affairs
Canada, health care claims have been on an unprecedented rise
in the last few years. The reason for this is that veterans are
getting much older, triggering higher administrative and
financial costs.
These trends confirm that this department is taking more and
more hospital space. In the last four years, health care costs went
up in excess of 59 per cent. A third of the budget is spent on
services already provided by Health and Welfare Canada and the
Quebec department of health and social services. Hospital care
is one of the areas where overlapping of government services is
most frequent. We must ask ourselves if this duplication is
really necessary or if the provinces could not simply take over
hospitals which are now managed by the federal government.
What makes these services so different from those provided
by provincial hospitals? What sets veterans apart from the rest
of the population? We are proposing a solution to reduce public
spending without diminishing the quality and the amount of
services. It is the kind of solution that must be looked at, and that
the Bloc strongly advocates because the situation calls for it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the government cannot increase
taxes, directly or indirectly. It must, however, do everything it
can to reduce the annual deficit. Consequently, there is no other
choice. It must cut public spending, but in an intelligent way so
as to not hit the needy, the poor, and even all those in the middle
class who work so hard to earn a living in this country.
I repeat that the government has to eliminate duplication of
services and waste public funds. This is why so many Quebecers
see in Quebec's sovereignty the only solution which will help
save Canada from bankruptcy.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have just heard some the remarks of the opposite
member. He was talking about the veterans and the few
institutions established to help them. Do I understand that he
advocates the closing of the institution in
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue? Did I hear him right?
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments. No, it is certainly not our intention to close the
institution in Saint-Anne-de-Bellevue. In fact, we simply want
to thoroughly review the whole system for the veterans at
federal level and see if it would be possible to put an end to
duplication of services in order to provide the same services to
the veterans or to the general population in the provinces.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I still did not quite
understand the member's comments. Earlier, he was calling
these kinds of things a duplication. If I understood him
correctly, and I will check Hansard tomorrow, he said that there
was no reason why veterans deserved to have a different service
than others. Does he not believe that veterans deserve at least
some special consideration? If this is not his position, I would
ask him to take this opportunity to correct what he said a little
earlier today.
(1205)
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but that is not what I
said. Indeed, I said-and you can verify that when you read the
Hansard-we should maintain the same services and the same
volumes. What I am simply saying is that we have identical
organizations and systems, both on the federal and the
provincial side, that are providing the same services. The same
goes
1169
for hospitals. We could give the same services to veterans
without requiring two organizations to head the hospitals.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Châteauguay for his first speech in
the House. When he was first describing his riding, I thought he
was talking about mine.
We do have many standing committees in the House. Maybe
the standing committees did not work like they should have in
the past. My lesson in life is not to look too far back but try to go
forward. There are over 200 new members in the House.
Coincidentally it is almost half and half on either side of the
House. Although some members might have been affiliated with
the previous government they are not here in great numbers any
more.
I think the hon. member used the words ``if we act
intelligently''. I would ask the member if we all act intelligently
on all our standing committees and are very cognizant of the fact
that we have a mandate and a budget in each of the committees,
would that not enable us to take a better look at how we are
spending our moneys?
Also, with respect to the public accounts committee the
chairman is a member of the opposition as has been mentioned
over and over again. The committee's effectiveness and whether
or not things are done properly over the next 12 months will be
recorded in the next Auditor General's report. Is that not the
challenge we have now with the public accounts committee as
chaired by the opposition, to perform better than in the past
especially since we have 200 new members in the House?
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague, it is
often said that the past guarantees the future. But if I look back
in the past, I see that we are now facing a $500 billion deficit.
And the existing system does not correct the present situation.
What we want, what we are proposing is not another standing
committee, but the striking of a special committee that could
perhaps allow the existing committee to straighten up, so that
we could really take the corrective measures that the Auditor
General has been recommending for several years and that have
still not been taken.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak on this motion today.
As members in the House have heard, the President of the
Treasury Board has already commented on the benefit we are
already taking of the advice and analysis of the Auditor General
to improve the way we do things as a government. At the same
time we welcome the scrutiny that the public accounts
committee will bring to the report of the Auditor General and to
other operations of government. We look forward to its advice
on how we can make even further progress.
To this point in the debate we have talked about money. There
is no doubt that the preoccupation of many of us in the House
and of many Canadians is how we can move toward a balanced
budget and how we can better control our spending and ensure
value for those dollars that we do spend in terms of service to
Canadians and the programs our country counts on.
I want to depart on a somewhat different track to simply say
that while we deliver programs and services with money
mandated by this Parliament, they are delivered by the people
who work for the Government of Canada.
(1210 )
I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out today plans of
the government to renew the Government of Canada. My
colleague, the President of the Queen's Privy Council and
minister responsible for federal-provincial relations, has set out
a plan which he aptly calls ``Getting Government Right''.
Unlike the previous government which felt it could use the
public service as the brunt of all its problems, without affecting
the services Canadians have come to depend on, we are working
closely with our employees to develop new and innovative ways
of cutting costs. I intend to talk particularly about our plans to
give them the tools to do their jobs in a more efficient and
effective way.
Unlike the previous government we believe government can
be a force for good in society. By working together with federal
public servants and by establishing a harmonious working
relationship with our employees we can produce the solid results
the previous government found so elusive. We can reduce waste.
We can eliminate obsolete functions. We can improve services
to taxpayers and create a more productive government.
We have one of the most respected public services in the
world. Federal public service employees are ready to rise to the
challenge of the coming years.
Under the previous government, Canadians became
increasingly alienated from their government. The sense of
cynicism and distrust was reaching crisis proportions that were
beginning to threaten the health of our democracy and our future
prosperity. How can we manage our country's affairs or bring
people together to face tough issues when Canadians have so
little confidence in the country's decision makers and the
decision making process?
The problems we face today, the heavy debt load left behind
by the previous government, the dropout rate in our schools, the
need to get Canadians back to work, the need to improve our
competitiveness in the global economy, all are crying for
1170
innovative approaches and fresh solutions. We have to change
the way we have done business in the past.
Let me set out some of the recent innovations the federal
public service has developed to provide affordable, accessible
and responsive services and programs to Canadian citizens. It
truly is an impressive list and members will be as impressed as I
am with the quality of the public service we have working for us.
First we are harnessing the computing and networking power
of new technologies to improve services to Canadians. There are
enormous opportunities for the government to improve its
services and program delivery through innovative use of
information technologies and we are tapping them.
[Translation]
By its very nature, the government is focused on services and
uses large quantities of data whether for the payment of family
allowances, pensions and UI benefits or for the delivery of
health and safety services. Income tax, scientific research and
statistic programs, for example, need very complex information
systems. At the same time, substantial improvements in
government efficiency, in the quality of services and in the
reduction of related administration cost can be achieved by
using the new technologies to manage information and design
systems.
Recent technological developments in information
management systems have considerably reduced the cost of
applications while increasing their effectiveness and efficiency.
With the new technologies it is now possible to collect, store,
manage and distribute data with a high degree of efficiency. The
ability to obtain accurate data in a very short period of time
provides us with tools to improve service and decision-making.
(1215)
[English]
We are managing this unprecedented rate of change in a way
that taps the creative and organizational skills of federal public
service employees. They play a vital role in shaping the human
face of government and in making government a force for good
in the economy of the country. Public service employees are
rising to the challenge.
To give an example of the kinds of changes taking place in the
public service, one just has to look at the typical work station of
a government employee. Today microcomputers are used by one
out of every three government employees and networks linking
them are expanding rapidly. Program operations and service
delivery are becoming increasingly dependent on information
technology.
The challenge now is to bring our present systems up to date
and adapt them to the new applications which are emerging. We
have developed a plan for doing so. It is a comprehensive,
integrated approach to modernizing government services and
program delivery mechanisms through the use of enabling
technology.
In the next few weeks the Treasury Board secretariat will be
sending out for consultation a draft blueprint for government
service renewal. We are asking government employees and
private sector suppliers to government to comment on the plan.
That is a very important step in our transition from paper driven
bureaucratic processes to modern, efficient, electronically
linked business transactions. It is people who can turn ambitious
plans into reality.
We are building partnerships with our employees. We are
building partnerships between government departments,
between the federal government and its clients and between the
federal government and the Canadian public.
Employees want to know how they can fit into a new and more
efficient way of delivering services. They want to know how
they can contribute to this important goal. The plan sets out a
vision for a new way of doing business and lets employees
contribute where their skills are most needed.
A key principle in the plan is the recognition that the role of
government must be dramatically reassessed to live within
shrinking budgets.
Another is that we can improve the way services are
delivered. To do this we are creating a learning culture in the
public service that supports employees in their transition to new
ways of doing business. We are committed to enhancing the
knowledge, skills and active participation of employees. We
believe in partnerships. The advent of computer based
networking means that we are becoming increasingly
interdependent and so it is only logical that partnerships
between the various players must be the starting point of any
initiative. The blueprint for government service renewal reflects
this.
Program renewal projects are already under way in agencies
such as Revenue Canada, Health Canada, and Human Resources
Development Canada. These will serve as models. Revenue
Canada , for instance, is introducing a single business
registration number for corporations paying taxes, duties and
GST. This number will make it possible to have a single window
access to Revenue Canada and to file and submit a consolidated
net payment. In a number of areas in a number of departments
single window access has the potential to be a major
improvement for people dealing with the federal government.
A government-wide telecommunications network
infrastructure will mean that federal public service employees
will be able
1171
to contact colleagues anywhere in Canada by electronic mail.
The infrastructure will set the stage for delivering public
services electronically and it will trigger significant efficiency
gains and reduce duplication of networking facilities.
The real payoff from these innovations comes through the
synthesis of organizational innovation with technological
innovation. Viewing information as a strategic resource that
infuses every dimension of government operations and
employing information technology in government to achieve the
public sector equivalent of competitive advantage provides a
framework for this synthesis.
(1220 )
Everyone in the House today will agree when I say that the
remaining years of this century will be a period of significant
challenge for Canada. A growing and increasingly diverse
population, continuing global economic transition and rapidly
changing public priorities will require that the government
adapt existing programs and create new ones that are more
productive, require fewer public resources and increase the
timeliness and convenience of public services. Thoughtful
strategic uses of information technology will mean the
difference between well managed effective programs and
programs that are a public encumbrance.
Let me give the House a look at what it will be like to do
business with the government in a few years. What will work be
like from the perspective of a federal government employee?
First, the information people need to do their jobs will be
available at their fingertips. The public will have direct access
to government information from its homes. Electronic libraries
will be available from libraries and stores. The government will
publish a catalogue of software that will be available free or for
licensing to the private sector and the public. Service providers
will be able to make rapid, on the spot decisions supported by
information systems which provide immediate access to all
required information and expertise.
Far fetched? Not at all.
[Translation]
Canadians will be able to access personalized services, 7 days
a week and 24 hours a day, through terminals-similar to
automatic teller machines-installed in convenient locations or
through personal computers. Regular communication between
government and the private sector as well as within government
itself will soon be electronic. This will be reality very shortly.
Consider, for example, how quickly Canadians got used to
automatic tellers once they realized how convenient they were.
[English]
The computer will become just another household appliance,
as commonplace as a refrigerator or a stove. It will be able to
recognize voice messages, handwriting, be able to communicate
with pictures. We will take it for granted. Employees will use
computers even more widely in their work. They will routinely
create spread sheets, retrieve information from data bases and
produce charts and diagrams. Computer assisted translation will
support and enhance employees' language abilities, thus
improving service to the Canadian public. This is not science
fiction.
The government's strategy for moving forward aims to take
advantage of five key trends. Employee's attitudes to
technology are rapidly changing. Their knowledge, proficiency
and confidence are improving at a rapid rate. Employees no
longer resist technology. They want more of it and want to be
better trained to apply it. The public is getting used to electronic
service and is asking to be served in this way. New entrants to
the workforce who have grown up with technology expect to use
it in their jobs.
It will be much easier to obtain information. Knowledge will
be available via expert systems to answer queries as a specialist
might. New applications will be less costly and more timely due
to the use of packaged systems or modern system development
products and it is getting easier all the time. The ability to
manage text, graphics, data, sound, video and pictures in the
same data base will change the way information is used. The
ability to access multiple data bases easily will contribute to this
change as well.
Why is it so important to move in this direction? It means
improved delivery of service to the public, significantly
improved productivity in the public service and increased
international competitiveness in a global economy. Partnership
with other levels of government, with business, with labour is
how it will be achieved. The government's vision for
information management is the orderly transition to a seamless
technological environment in the home or in the workplace at
the service of Canadians.
(1225 )
I add as well that the Auditor General in his report placed
great emphasis on the importance of information for
parliamentarians. In our decision making we rely increasingly
on rapidly available and accurate, well analysed information.
The technological revolution that we see in the way government
services will be delivered will also be a technological revolution
in the kind of information that will be available to us as
parliamentarians to make decisions as we move into a new
world.
In closing I would like to quote Peter Drucker: ``Every few
hundred years throughout western history a sharp
transformation has occurred. In a matter of decades society
altogether rearranges itself: its world view, its basic values, its
social and political structures, its arts, its key institutions. Fifty
years later a new world exists. And the people born into that
world cannot
1172
even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and
into which their own parents were born''.
We are going to be ready for that new world because in the
words of all my colleagues in our cabinet, we are getting
government right.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I listened to the hon. member's comments and to other
comments in the House this morning on the motion by the Bloc
Quebecois to appoint a special committee that would carry out
an exhaustive and expeditious review of all public spending by
the federal government.
I do not think hon. members opposite understood the Bloc's
motion. I think they are acting irresponsibly by rejecting out of
hand a very responsible request, a request made repeatedly by
the Bloc Quebecois since the morning of October 26, and I think
the people who elected the members opposite are starting to
regret their decision.
We do not want the special committee to look at everything
through the magnifying glass of the Public Accounts
Committee, consider every spending item and make a summary
analysis. The Auditor General pointed out in his second report
that year after year, the Public Accounts Committee's report was
limited and fragmented in scope, because Parliament did not
receive all the information it needed from the departments. That
is what the Auditor General said in his report.
In fact there has never been a special committee to conduct an
exhaustive study of the overlap between federal and provincial
activities.
What we want is for a special committee to take an in-depth
and responsible look at the very structure of public spending. If
the Public Accounts Committee had been so good at
streamlining and restructuring public spending, we would not be
where we are today, with a cumulative debt of $507 billion and a
deficit that may reach $46 billion this year.
Yesterday, I put the same request to the Minister of Finance in
the finance committee, when I asked for an exhaustive review of
the Canadian tax system. Incidentally, the minister answered
that their priority was to examine the problems connected with
the GST and the alternatives to the GST. The committee was
looking at a specific and current problem-whether or not to
replace the GST-instead of conducting an exhaustive review of
the Canadian tax system, something we want the committee to
do in addition to having a special committee on public spending.
We must realize that the public accounts committee is not able
to carry out this kind of exhaustive review, especially with
respect to program overlap, as the Auditor General pointed out.
Take our request seriously and stop dismissing it as if this were a
very prosperous and efficiently run country that did not need
thorough structural change. If it was a private company, it would
have gone broke long ago.
(1230)
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if members on this side of the
House do not understand the motion, perhaps members on the
other side of the House failed to explain it properly, but it is
quite clear when you read it.
The mandate the motion wants to give this new committee
happens to be the mandate of the public accounts committee. In
fact, the committee can do exactly what the motion requests. If
the committee needs more resources, that is an issue the new
chairperson, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, will be able to
discuss with committee members.
And I am sure that committee members are listening carefully
to the proceedings in the House today. I understand perfectly
what the hon. member means. There is a need for a thorough
review of our present systems for providing information to
members and for evaluating our programs. In fact, in line with
the mandate of the President of the Treasury Board, new efforts
are being made in this respect, and the same minister is
responsible for the Privy Council Office.
I am sure the public accounts committee will be delighted
with this opportunity to consider its agenda for the coming
months. I may add that the committee is the master of its own
affairs, decides what it wants to consider and reports to
Parliament when it wishes to do so.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the member's speech. She gave us a impressive
image of the training within public service, she listed all the
services, and let me use her own word, the affordable services
she can offer to the population with this new technology.
But the hon. member never said a word about the Bloc's
motion proposing the review of an existing committee or the
creation of a new one to examine public expenditures. In answer
to my colleague's question, the hon. member finally addressed
the motion for the first time a while ago but she spoke about
everything else but that.
This morning, I took part in a preliminary meeting, the first
meeting of the transport committee. Let us look at the
committees' expenditures. There are 20 House committees and
out of total expenditures of approximately $2 million, about
$592,000 are spent on public consultations of experts, friends of
the government, et cetera. The committee we want to create
would prevent such useless spending.
1173
Are we not, as members of this House, the most suitable and
accessible group if committees want to consult anyone? That
makes all the difference. As for the public accounts committee,
its actual mandate is simply to check on certain elements. It does
not analyze thoroughly the Auditor General's report or
recommendations. We would only have to determine the exact
difference between that committee and the new one which would
look especially at expenditures. I would like to know the
member's opinion on the motion of the Bloc Quebecois.
(1235)
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to make a
comment.
I hope the member opposite recognizes that the motion deals
directly with the importance of information, efficiency and
effectiveness. The information I provided this House today in
my speech deals exactly with those issues. The government is
already implementing measures to improve information,
efficiency and effectiveness so that the very point of the motion
is taken care of and so that we may improve the ability of this
House, its members and committees to make better decisions in
the best interests of the public, the financial situation and the
future of this country.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, as
you know, as a political Party, the Bloc Quebecois, has
committed itself to defend the interests of Quebec and, as the
Official Opposition, it has committed itself to responsibly and
effectively assume this role.
In this context, I want you to be assured, Mr. Speaker, that we
are going to make constant, accurate and regular efforts to see
that this government abides by the commitments made in its
famous red book.
With regard to this debate on the creation of a special
committee with a mandate to evaluate the various programs, I
would like to highlight some deficiencies of the Canadian
federal system which are at the root of the poor management of
this country and of its financial crisis. I refer in particular to the
shortcomings of the evaluation process as applied to
government programs.
Given the weakness of this mecanism which allows to
systematically verify in each department the efficiency and the
viability of government programs-the legacy of the Trudeau
and the Mulroney eras-the Bloc Quebecois wants to proceed to
a detailed evaluation of the government spending programs.
In our view, program evaluation must meet three basic needs
of any administration which has self-respect and knows how to
efficiently defend itself. First, the information collected
through such evaluation measures is used for clarifying the
decision making process regarding the allocation of ressources,
making it more efficient. Second, these measures help
Quebecers and Canadians to decide on the return from tax
revenues. Finally, such measures make civil servants
responsible not only for the implementation of the procedures,
but also for the results achieved.
At present, the Treasury Board policy on evaluation consists
of two elements. A self-evaluation made by the departments and
a process directed by a central authority which has the mandate
to establish priorities, provide technical assistance and monitor
the evaluations made by departments. Therefore, evaluations
are already being made by some departments but the monitoring
part is far from brilliant.
There are two main problems related to program evaluation in
Canada. First, the resources allotted to a department to make
such evaluations and thus increase the return on public
investments are clearly insufficient.
Let me give some examples which speak for themselves.
Between 1989-90 and 1991-92, the expenditures related to
program evaluations went down 28 per cent which, as a result,
has led to a reduction in the number of program evaluations
since 1987-88. Indeed, 99 program evaluation reports were
produced in 1987-88 compared to only 80 in 1991-92. Most
importantly, during the latter period, government expenditures
for 16 programs totalled $124.5 billion. Only two of those
programs were examined thoroughly. By the way, the Trudeau
and Mulroney administrations never gave any special attention
to major programs. Evaluations do not focus on programs with
the greatest expenditures. It is estimated that programs with
expenditures of less than $250 million were evaluated twice as
much compared to those spending more than that amount.
(1240)
I must underline that according to 1991-92 figures,
evaluations done on a seven-year period focused on 24 per cent
of program spending. If we take into account the cost of debt
service, evaluations were on only 18 per cent of expenditures
over a seven-year period. Also, starting with 1991-92 figures,
evaluations done over that period focused on only 24 per cent of
program spending.
A second problem with governmental program evaluation has
to do with the quality of controls regarding the evolution of
those programs. By placing evaluation services within
departments, we have given the immediate needs of managers
precedence over those of the government and the public. How?
They neglect the basic role of program evaluation which is to
ascertain program effectiveness and question them if necessary,
for the sole purpose of allowing for optimal allocation of
resources.
In fact, the evaluations cover operational aspects only and in
no way determine the programs' relevance or
cost-effectiveness. The Canadian public service, as well as any
Western bureaucracy, is rather self-sufficient and very resistant
political interference in its methods of operation. There is no
systematic evaluation of programs involving more than one
department. The House of Commons could establish a system to
that effect as a symbol of the involvement of the population in
the political
1174
life of the state of Quebec and of Canada, at least if one believes
in democratic representation.
With such a huge deficit and a rather anemic economic
recovery, it is essential that the existing resources be allocated
and used as efficiently as possible. I am sure you will agree, Mr.
Speaker, that in such a context, program evaluation becomes
essential. Without effective program evaluation, the
government is just not able to best allocate its resources. In fact,
parliamentarians are asked to work in the dark, and to allocate
resources without knowing what the situation really is.
The Auditor General said in his report that ``In the 1990s,
program evaluation should be seen as crucial to the management
of government expenditures, because it can help to arrive at
informed decisions aimed at controlling growth of the public
debt''. Therein lies our problem.
By comparison, the United Kingdom, Australia and the
United States have adopted an external evaluation system for
government programs. For example, in the United States all
evaluation reports are made public and they are often presented
directly to Congress. In addition, Congress can request
evaluation reports on programs that it wishes to review. Which
means that the legislature has control over the evaluation
process.
(1245)
Again in the United States the general accounting office
handles requests for and submits evaluation reports to Congress.
In the United Kingdom managers are responsible for meeting
performance objectives, while in Australia, evaluations are used
in the budget-making process.
In 1978 the public accounts committee recommended that
evaluation results be tabled in the House within 60 days after the
evaluations were completed. In 1983-listen to this, Mr.
Speaker-only one single study was tabled.
Is this the mark of a conscientious, efficient government
administration? Is it not, rather, the trademark of the Liberal
Party of Canada? Will the newly announced national
infrastructure program, which is being touted as the saviour of
the Canadian economy, be subject to an evaluation? Will it be
based on effective management criteria? I doubt it. The Auditor
General's report has already been forgotten and evaluation
criteria will be defined later, or so we are told.
To stop this waste of public funds, the Bloc Quebecois is
calling for strong action. It wants the House to press the
government to strike a special parliamentary committee made
up of all official parties. The committee would have a mandate
to review federal government expenditures in light of the report
of the Auditor General of Canada, as well as overlap between
provincial and federal programs.
The opposition is making this proposal in a spirit of
transparency and openness, as it would provide for the public
scrutiny of official matters. The committee would have the
power to call witnesses if it felt their testimony would be useful.
We are proposing that this committee, which could be called
the standing committee on program evaluation, report before
June 23, 1994, and that the government undertake to give a
formal response to this report by tabling its response to the
committee's recommendations on the first sitting day of the
1994 fall session of this House.
The Official Opposition is presenting a constructive proposal
aimed at achieving the objectives put forward by the Liberal
government in its red book, namely ensuring transparency,
restoring the image of politicians and allowing for greater
involvement of members of Parliament in the affairs of
government and of the House.
This proposal constitutes a formal invitation from the Bloc
Quebecois, the Official Opposition, to the Liberal government.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would have a question for the hon. member. I greatly
appreciated his remarks and his idea of setting up another House
committee.
Mr. Boudria: Another one.
Mr. Milliken: I think we have all the committees we need. We
have the public accounts committee, the chairperson of which
will be appointed by the Official Opposition. It could examine
all these matters the hon. member raised, matters which are
really important to all Canadians. This committee is responsible
for dealing with the Report of the Auditor General. I wonder
why the hon. member could not start examining that report as
well as the programs he mentioned in his speech when this
committee is convened.
(1250)
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, in response
to this question, considering the long experience of the hon.
member, I will say this: we must improve transparency. The
Auditor General himself indicated in his report that he had been
unable to obtain some information. So, what we are proposing is
not ``committeeitis'' so to speak, but one committee with the
power to obtain all the information. That is what our proposal is
about. If you want transparency, set up a committee that will
have access to all the information.
1175
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I acknowledge the member's passion with which he
speaks in this debate this morning. He refers to the
infrastructure program and is highly critical of the fact that we
will not be monitoring and watching it as carefully as we might.
Does the hon. member not have confidence that the
municipalities in the province of Quebec can administer these
programs and deliver what is best for the citizens of Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for her comment and question. We have every
confidence that the municipalities in the province of Quebec
will administer their share of the third of this program.
If, as the hon. member pointed out, there is so much passion in
my speech, it is because we are dealing with initiatives that eat
up billions of dollars and must be examined against the
background of an enormous deficit and the absence of any real
audit and evaluation programs. A mere 25 per cent of
expenditures have been submitted to program evaluation in
seven years. This is an indication that we must act and set up a
special committee which will be able to examine all
expenditures.
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House sit until 1:05
p.m. so that hon. members can ask me questions after my
speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
request of the hon. member for Jonquière. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, the motion put
forward by the Official Opposition calls for the creation of a
special parliamentary committee with a mandate to examine
public expenditures by the federal government. These are the
expenditures related to the various programs implemented by
departments and Crown corporations with billions of taxpayers'
dollars.
It is the responsibility of Parliament to determine whether
taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. During the last election
campaign, the Bloc Quebecois argued that a review of public
spending was urgently needed. The idea of a special
parliamentary committee responsible for this task was
extremely well received in my constituency. People want to
know. They see around them examples of misspent public funds.
They read in the newspapers horror stories on public spending.
Like other Canadians and Quebecers, the people in my
constituency are aware that the government does not have much
leeway in financial matters and they know that we must
contemplate drastic cuts in spending.
While taxpayers want the federal government to cut spending,
they are opposed to hasty, systematic, arbitrary cuts that may
have disastrous consequences, especially for the poorest in our
society.
Parliament, being responsible for the public purse, must
screen public expenditures. Some are essential, others
necessary, many undoubtedly useful, but some are unnecessary
in today's context and must be eliminated.
The proposed committee could be responsible for this
analysis of expenditures and report to Parliament, who would
then be able to set objectives to reduce spending and justify
these objectives to the people affected by the cuts.
(1255)
This is an emergency measure because the situation requires
it. The present procedures and control methods have been shown
to be ineffective. Those who claim that this duplicates the Public
Accounts Committee are mistaken. The mandate of the
proposed committee is broader and, given the situation, it is
almost a public salvation committee which could force
managers to open their books and even go so far as to suggest a
restructuring of public spending in Canada.
The mandate of the committee which we propose would be to
review all spending related to government programs. The
Auditor General's latest report gives us many examples of
programs that could be examined.
As an illustration, see what the auditor concluded after
examining the Canadian aboriginal economic development
strategy program, for which the government has spent not less
than $900 million since 1989. I am interested in this program
because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
This program was run by three departments: Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, Employment and Immigration, and
Industry, Science and Technology. The overall purpose of the
program was to reduce economic disparities between native
people and other Canadians and Quebecers, a laudable goal
which no one can criticize. The aim was to help native
communities become economically self-sufficient. If you know
the social and economic situation of native people, you will
agree that it is urgent. We must act so that there are no more
Davis Inlets in Canada.
Was this highly laudable goal reached? No one can say,
according to the Auditor General. The three departments could
not show that the funding methods used and the amounts
allocated were appropriate. The departments concerned could
not prove that they met the goals of the strategy.
In short, after spending $900 million, Parliament does not
know if the employment rate and income have increased among
native people, if a reasonable number of new businesses were
started, if the native people are less dependent on welfare. Nor
does Parliament know if native communities are better able to
1176
manage their affairs. In other words, we spent $900 million and
we have to say, ``Let us hope that it was effective''. But in
practice we cannot say that it was.
Let us be clear on this. The program may have been a great
success, but Parliament, Canadians and Quebecers have no idea
that it was. Should we eliminate programs of this kind in the
native community? We do not know; we are not in a position to
make a decision. Or, on the contrary, should we increase the
amounts allocated to reach the goal of economic equality among
native people, Canadians and Quebecers? No one knows.
Much more important, were the native people sufficiently
involved in the process? No one knows because in the days when
Parliament could be satisfied just to send money to the reserves
and say that we did what we had to do are long gone. The
government announced that native self-government would take
effect in the coming months. Thus, we must ensure that the
people who will have self-government can look after
themselves, by giving them training, experience and programs
to help them prepare for it.
A special committee like the one we propose could help
Parliament answer all the questions for which I just said we had
no answer.
(1300)
Parliament must be informed, it is only just. Just for the
taxpayers whom we represent, and just for the program
recipients whom we also represent.
The people for whom these programs were designed do not
have to suffer the shame of being accused of illegally receiving
the taxpayers' money. We often blame the recipient, the welfare
recipient, the unemployed, the health care consumer for abusing
the system.
As usual, someone is being made the scapegoat. We see the
horrifying practice whereby victims even start feeling guilty.
Blaming recipients for spending public funds is easy, whereas
the onus is in fact on Parliament and managers to act so that the
taxpayers' money is spent wisely.
Those who were in charge of ensuring that public funds were
well spent in Canada did not do their job. The result of their
carelessness is a catastrophic public debt and stronger biases
against government program recipients, for example, health
care consumers and welfare recipients and unemployed
Canadians.
In closing, I would like to say that, to continue performing
their duty, taxpayers must be sure that their money is well spent.
They must be convinced that public funds are not being wasted,
that cuts will be made where they should be. A committee such
as the one proposed must be able to do the proper analysis,
thereby allowing Parliament to implement the necessary budget
measures, to put the public finances in order and to restore the
confidence of Canadians in their representatives.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening
for several hours to the members of the Official Opposition, and
I do not understand what is going on. I will explain what I mean
and then I would like to get some answers from the hon. member
for Jonquière.
The Bloc Quebecois proposes the setting up of a new special
committee to address issues which are already being looked at
by standing committees of the House. Is this an indication that,
even though the existing standing committees of the House have
not yet started their work, the members of the Official
Opposition do not trust them?
I also want to refer to a motion tabled in the House earlier this
week by the Minister of Human Resources Development, which
said: ``That the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development be directed to consult broadly, to analyse, and to
make recommendations regarding the modernization and
restructuring of Canada's social security system-''
This motion to modernize programs was approved by 216
members, while 52 were against it. Who objected to a
comprehensive review of social programs which are just as
necessary to Quebecers as they are to the rest of Canada? I look
forward to the answers of the hon. member for Jonquière.
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I will provide two examples of
issues which this committee could examine and which are not
currently being looked at. There is the matter of overlapping, for
instance. As someone involved in the movement for Quebec's
sovereignty for more than 20 years, I have seen every day
examples of overlapping of federal and provincial services. I
have yet to see a comprehensive study, whether by the public
accounts committee or another committee of the federal
government, on this issue. I have never seen any such study.
(1305)
There is also another type of issue which this special
committee could look at. As you know, Quebec and Ontario have
their own police force, while the other provinces rely on the
RCMP. To what extent do Ontario and Quebec taxpayers
subsidize the police force elsewhere in the country? We would
like an answer to that question and to the fact that some
expenditures paid by certain segments of the population do not
directly benefit them.
Essentially, what we want is not a technical or technocratic
committee but, rather, a political committee which, on behalf of
the public, would examine government spending and say to a
minister that his department spent so many dollars on such and
such a program, then ask him to justify that spending. And if the
spending is justified we, politicians, will tell the public that it
was indeed justified. However, if managers cannot justify some
expenditures, we will say, on behalf of the public that this
1177
spending is unjustified and ask that appropriate action be taken
so that it is not incurred again by the federal government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1.05 p.m., I do
now leave the chair until 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(2).
(The House recessed at 1.05 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
1177
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, today
we celebrate Chinese New Year, a time to ensure good fortune
for the future.
The year of the dog corresponds to year 4692 of the ancient
Chinese lunar calendar which counts back to the first Emperor
Huang. The year of the dog will be a prosperous year, provided
harmony is maintained and conflict is avoided.
On his deathbed Buddha summoned all animals to visit him.
Only 12 animals answered his plea. The dog was the 11th animal
to visit, thus becoming one of the 12 animals to which Buddha
assigned a year in which to rule as a reward.
My constituency of Vancouver East has a high percentage of
people of Chinese origin. These people came as immigrants and
have contributed significantly to the growth of this country.
Through multiculturalism they have been able to retain their
traditions and culture and to share them with all of us.
These days in Vancouver the Chinese community is
celebrating in style. I would like to wish all of the Canadians of
Chinese origin and all Chinese people a very happy New Year.
I am sure my colleagues want to join me in wishing all of them
gung hey fat choy or sen nin fye lock.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a community organization
in my constituency, known as the Pavillon d'éducation
communautaire.
The PEC, whose members and users are now present in the
gallery, has been in existence for 20 years.
From the very beginning, this organization has focused its
action on public education.
Public education is that great instrument by which we teach
people that they themselves can bring the changes needed to
create a more equitable and compassionate society.
The PEC is the place where several hundreds of my fellow
citizens learned about commitment and fulfilment.
I want all volunteers, the board of directors and the
management of the PEC to know that their daily efforts and
sustained commitment to Hochelaga-Maisonneuve have
helped to make their community a dynamic place to live. On
behalf of my fellow citizens, I want to tell them today how very
grateful we are for their excellent work.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House to inform hon. members my constituents are
furious that the Prime Minister would ignore the pleadings of
eight provincial premiers not to reduce taxes on cigarettes and
would allow Canadian taxpayers to be held hostage.
The one-half billion dollars lost by this tax reduction could be
better spent on health care, education and retraining for the
unemployed.
Furthermore, Manitoba residents are totally outraged that the
border crossings where smuggling is a problem will now be lit
up 24 hours a day. This is sending a clear message to smugglers
to avoid those border crossings.
I challenge the 12 Liberal MPs from Manitoba to publicly
acknowledge in the House of Commons that they have offered
no resistance to this government initiative that puts the health of
Manitobans at risk.
Manitobans have made it abundantly clear to me they are
prepared to take action to prevent this country from going up in
smoke.
1178
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to inform the House of the
launching of a nation-wide osteoporosis menopause education
project by the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. The project is
organized through a partnership with the private and voluntary
sectors and is directed primarily at Canadian women 35 to 55
years of age.
Census data for 1991 show that nearly seven million Canadian
women are over 50 years of age. It is estimated that about 25 per
cent of post-menopausal women are at risk for osteoporosis
fractures. Costs to the health care system in treating these
injuries are considerable.
(1405)
The objective of this initiative is to promote prevention and
treatment strategies which will result in a better quality of life
for women. It has been designed so as to encourage local
grassroots activities. Planned activities will include forums
throughout the country on menopause and osteoporosis.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, I have received
letters from many of my constituents who work in the real estate
and residential construction industry. These constituents have
impressed upon me the need for government to extend the home
buyers plan which is to expire at the end of this month.
The home buyers plan is a federal program which allows
individuals to withdraw funds interest free from their RRSPs to
purchase a home. Today over 148,000 Canadians have invested
$1.4 billion of their RRSP funds to purchase homes. This
program has provided a much needed boost to several industries
important to our national economic growth.
While the home buyers plan improves access to home
ownership and creates jobs, the best thing of all is that the
program does not place a burden on Canadian taxpayers.
The idea of creating this home buyers plan originated in the
Liberal caucus over two years ago. It was then adopted by our
predecessor-
The Speaker: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
welcome Ann Milne and the Summerside 94-The World Unites
dance troupe, Fay Ramsay and Summerside's town cryer, Gary
Nelson, to Ottawa.
Ann, a world champion Scottish dancer, and her troupe are
performing at Winterlude, Canada's largest winter festival.
They are acting as promoters and ambassadors for the 1994
World Senior Fastball Championships to be held in Summerside
August 12 to August 21.
Summerside has successfully hosted many world and national
championships in baseball, hockey and softball. I join with the
promotional group in encouraging the rest of Canada to visit
Prince Edward Island in 1994 and take in the world class
championship fastball games.
In the meantime, I encourage members to go out and see the
Summerside 94-The World Unites dance troupe at Cartier Park
and also view the Summerside snow sculpture depicting the
1994 fastball championship.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, on Saturday, the 17th Winter Olympic Games will open
in Lillehammer. For two weeks Canadians and Quebecers will
be glued to their television set to watch our athletes perform.
Everybody will live on Olympic time and many of us will
become night owls to see our athletes compete. Right now, we
wish to tell them this: ``Every one of you has already won''.
Your courage, your determination and your talent command our
respect and our admiration.
I hope that each and every one of you will be lucky enough to
step onto the podium. I say ``lucky'' because that is what it takes
to win gold, silver or bronze given the high level reached by
athletes in the world today.
To all Quebec athletes, I wish victory and a Lys d'or, which
symbolizes a job well done and an objective met.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
across the land are outraged that their hard earned tax dollars are
being used to pay restitution to a convicted criminal who fell
while playing a racquet sport in prison.
1179
As reported in yesterday's Globe and Mail, one Allan Roe
Coulter is serving a nine-year sentence at Matsqui prison in
British Columbia after being convicted of armed robbery.
Recently a judge awarded the convict $18,750 of taxpayers'
money for slipping on the floor while playing racquetball in
1988.
This is just another sample of the sorry state of our criminal
justice system. Canada's overburdened taxpayers already pay
well over $50,000 a year to keep a prisoner in jail for 12 months.
On behalf of concerned Canadians everywhere, I ask the
government to begin the great task of fixing the system.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to state my concerns and those of my constituents over the
importation and sale of serial killer cards in Canada.
(1410 )
For many years trading cards have been a fun and entertaining
pastime for our children. However, the introduction of serial
killer cards has turned a children's hobby into the glorification
of violent criminals.
Serial killer cards are offensive and harmful and to many
parents a great source of concern. We have a right to protect
ourselves and our children from this obscene material. The
rights of law abiding Canadian citizens must come before the
rights of those who bring this material into our neighbourhoods.
In his address in reply to the speech from the throne the
Minister of Justice indicated he would take steps to modernize
our laws to reflect current values.
The constituents in my riding of St. Catharines feel these
cards are obscene. I ask the minister to review the current
definition of obscenity and make appropriate amendments to
ensure that the definition reflects our society's values.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
pay tribute to a man who has devoted 30 years of his life to his
country, to his constituents and to French Canadians throughout
Canada. Senator Marcel Prud'homme was elected for the first
time in 1964 in the riding of Saint-Denis, where his family has
lived for many generations. He has won the friendship, respect
and devotion of every man and woman in my riding. He has
fought for the rights and freedoms of the most disadvantaged
people in the world.
He has helped bring together the French Canadian majority
and the various cultural communities and new Canadians. If the
people of Saint-Denis live in peace and harmony today, it is
thanks to him. Needless to say, I am honoured to follow in the
footsteps of such a distinguished man, especially since he was
the first person to encourage me to pursue a career in politics.
I invite all my colleagues to join me in congratulating the hon.
senator Marcel Prud'homme on his thirtieth year in Parliament.
[English]
I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Senator Marcel
Prud'homme many more years of service to the Quebec and
Canadian people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, for 19 years I
worked with the FTQ, where I was privileged to work with two
great Quebecers who dedicated their lives to defending the
cause of the workers. They will shortly be leaving their
respective posts.
This House must give special tribute to Louis Laberge who
has been the president of the FTQ for 25 years and who was the
founding president of an institution unique in Canada, the Fonds
de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec. The House must also
give tribute to Fernand Daoust who has been secretary-general
of the largest Quebec labour confederation for more than 20
years, and its president for the last three years. Saturday, he will
become president of the Fonds de solidarité.
These two great advocates of social justice and champions of
Quebec's cause have had a great impact on the evolution of
Quebec through their constant dedication and involvement, and
deserve our admiration and gratitude.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, a
great deal of attention is being given to a quotation by Adolf
Hitler that was included in a newsletter produced by the Reform
Party Okanagan Centre Constituency Association.
I was not aware of, nor do I condone the inclusion of the
quotation in the newsletter. The president of the constituency
association has already publicly apologized.
Insofar as I am able, this will not happen again.
1180
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to speak about regional economic
development.
In Parry Sound-Muskoka I am committed to ensuring the
federal government actively help stimulate growth in the 43
local communities in my riding. I believe if we work together
with small business owners, community leaders, elected
officials, tourism operators and our industrial contacts we can
set objectives and establish goals to begin the process of
expanding the local economy.
In this respect I am planning two economic development
forums in my riding. On Wednesday, March 2 from 9.30 a.m. to
4 p.m. the business community in Muskoka will come together
at the Bracebridge Centennial Centre. The second forum will be
held for east Parry Sound region on Saturday, March 5 from 9.30
a.m. to 3.30 p.m. at the Almaguin Highlands Secondary School
gymnasium.
(1415)
These forums will be a catalyst for economic development in
Parry Sound-Muskoka. They represent our government's
commitment to the growth of the small business sector and they
represent our commitment to new job creation in my riding.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the United States extended formal recognition to the
former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and declared its intent
to establish full diplomatic relations.
[Translation]
On behalf of the Greek community, particularly in my riding
of Pierrefonds-Dollard, I urge our Minister of Foreign Affairs
to uphold, unlike the Americans, all United Nations resolutions,
including those on borders.
I am convinced such a policy would be conducive to greater
stability in an area where it is badly needed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North): Mr. Speaker,
Saturday marks the beginning of 16 days of exciting Olympic
competition in Lillehammer, Norway. All Canadians will be
watching with pride as our athletes compete for gold.
The residents of York North are especially proud of Elvis
Stojko, the Canadian men's figure skating champion who lives
in Richmond Hill, Ontario. The accomplishments of this young
athlete are impressive and include a silver medal from the 1993
world championships and four silver medals from national
championships.
I offer my congratulations and best wishes to Elvis Stojko and
the entire Canadian Olympic team. I know these young
Canadians will compete in the true spirit of the Olympics as we
support them in their pursuit of excellence.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, this
year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of D-Day. Last month
many Canadians watched the new film about the Dieppe raid.
Next year we will celebrate 50 years since the end of the
Second World War and the defeat of Adolf Hitler at the hands of
whose armies tens of thousands of Canadians died in a
successful effort to rid the planet of this anti-Semitic madman.
Why then do some who work for the Reform Party of Canada
stay up nights pouring over the collected works of Adolf Hitler
looking for quotable-
The Speaker: Earlier in the statement period we had a
statement by a member repudiating anything like that. I would
prefer to let the situation stand.
_____________________________________________
1180
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, according to the daily newspaper
La Presse, the
Minister of Finance told the Conseil du patronat du Québec
about the government's budgetary about-face in favour of a tax
increase. This means the minister has given up on the need to
reduce government spending.
Are we to understand that, instead of showing it had the guts
to reduce government spending and plug tax loopholes for the
wealthy, the government has decided to reduce the deficit at the
expense of the middle class already infuriated by successive tax
increases in recent years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I told the Conseil du patronat yesterday
that we intended to review and abolish a number of tax loop-
1181
holes. That was our position yesterday, that is our position
today, and it will be our position in the upcoming budget.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the minister and the Prime Minister have made it clear
that this year they will not make the spending cuts required to
broaden the tax base, which means a net tax increase for
everyone.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether, considering
the anemic state of our economic recovery, he can still claim his
government is acting responsibly by increasing the tax burden
on consumers and reducing their purchasing power?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there are some very obvious
inconsistencies in the position taken by the Leader of the
Opposition. Does he or does he not support abolishing some of
these tax loopholes, as his finance critic has said repeatedly?
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it is too bad a normally serious man like the Minister of
Finance should want to confuse the issue. There is a basic
difference between eliminating unfair and inappropriate tax
shelters and broadening the tax base to hit the middle-class. He
of all people should know that!
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: Does the Prime Minister realize that getting
government spending under control would increase the
confidence of consumers, investors and the financial
community? Why is he postponing public spending cuts for
another year, in other words, putting off indefinitely a measure
that is badly needed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is to be
commended because after three months, he has finally
understood our position.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
There are increasingly clear signs that the government will
increase the tax burden of the middle class in its forthcoming
budget. Experts already set the value of the underground
economy at about 15 per cent of gross domestic product.
Does the Minister of Finance not agree that any further
increase in the tax burden of the middle class will only lead more
people to the underground economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): I repeat, Mr. Speaker, our position is
very clear. First, we know full well that at one point we will have
to lower taxes, especially for the middle class.
Second, we do not intend to really increase the tax burden
that, unfortunately, Canadians already carry, but we will be
widening the tax base. Right now, I do not understand the
position of the Bloc Quebecois: Should we close the loopholes?
Yes or no?
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Finance not believe that the middle class deserves a
break and that he should prove to our citizens that high income
earners will be paying their fair share, by eliminating tax
shelters like family trusts?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, since this is I think the fifth time in a
row this afternoon that I have had the question I will answer in
English.
Let me be very clear. There are built into the Income Tax Act a
number of inequities. It is our clear intention in order to confirm
the support of the Canadian people for the system of taxation
that we have in this country to eliminate those inequities. We
intend to do that and we intend to do that in this budget.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my questions are for the Prime Minister concerning the
problems that threaten the success of the government's action
plan on smuggling.
First, how does the federal government propose to get the
co-operation of the eight provincial governments which
currently oppose the tax reduction aspects of the program?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have a national program to make sure that the smuggling of
cigarettes no longer exists in Canada.
Under this program we have made exactly the same offer to all
provincial governments. They will decide if they want to
participate, yes or no.
I said in the House that we have to proceed with a reduction in
taxation at the request of the head of the RCMP. I took that
advice very seriously and I hope that the premiers will look at it
very seriously as well.
As everybody knows, cigarettes are smuggled everywhere
into Canada, mainly in Quebec and Ontario, certainly more than
in the west. There were, for example, some arrests this week in
Edmonton and in B.C. and they are spreading. We want to kill
the disease. We want the law to be respected by everybody in the
land. I hope that the provincial governments will realize that the
1182
goal of the government is to have the law respected and to ensure
that all citizens are treated equally.
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Did the federal government secure, perhaps through the
meetings yesterday, the active support of the leaders and people
of the Mohawk communities of Akwesasne, Kanesatake and
Kahnawake for its action plan on smuggling?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
they met yesterday with the Solicitor General and they had a
very good meeting. They are preoccupied, like everyone in the
House, with making sure that the law is respected. They want us
to work with them in order to make sure that the law will be
respected by everyone without causing too much of a problem
on the reserves. It is complicated for them because they are there
and it is happening in front of their eyes. They just want to make
sure that the results are good for us and for them.
I think that the meeting they had yesterday with the minister
was very good. This afternoon the minister will meet with Ovide
Mercredi. I know that many leaders have been in touch with the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We are
consulting with them. We have to make sure that smuggling is
eliminated in every part of Canada. They know and understand
that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a further supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I
thank him for the straightforward answers.
The third question is on the health dimension. Does the
government acknowledge that the credibility of the minister and
the ministry of health has been damaged by the acquiescence to
the reduction of taxes on cigarettes and how does the
government propose to restore the credibility of that
department, particularly with the provincial governments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there is no need to restore the credibility of a minister who is not
afraid to tell the truth to other ministers and to the people of
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government is presently contemplating, as the
previous government did, no longer allowing as a federal tax
deduction taxes paid on total payroll. The Conseil du patronat du
Québec says that this would unduly penalize small and
medium-sized businesses, especially in Quebec where they are
more labour intensive than their Canadian counterparts.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister
prepared to remove this threat that has been hanging over
businesses, especially the Quebec small business sector, for
over two years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, when I was opposition
critic-I think I had the seat over there, as Mr. Tremblay
recalls-I made exactly the same speech, except a little better
perhaps!
As you know, we are a full year away from January 1995 and
already, we are consulting with the Government of Quebec and
other provincial governments. Our discussions will certainly
yield results before long.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I can also remember Mr. Wilson speaking just like the hon.
minister.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): He sat over there.
Mr. Bouchard: He sat over there.
Mr. Loubier: Exactly. Mr. Speaker, if the minister and all the
members of his government are serious about job creation and
economic growth, if the members opposite are serious about the
red book they keep brandishing, in other words if they are not
putting on an act, can the minister assure all small and
medium-sized businesses once and for all, especially the
Quebec small business sector, that he will allow them to claim
the payroll tax when calculating their income tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is not the
problem. The problem facing small business is really linked to
the taxes levied by governments, be they federal or provincial,
on total payroll because this kills jobs. That is why we are so
intent on having discussions with the Government of Quebec as
well as other provincial governments to reduce, if not eliminate,
these taxes which are real job killers. That is our answer and I
must say that I think it is far better than the one Mr. Wilson gave
back then.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has suggested that one-third of cigarettes
in Ontario are contraband. The decision to cut tobacco taxes has
only moved cigarette smuggling from the St. Lawrence River to
the Ottawa River. Now that the Prime Minister has a plan to stop
1183
the north-south flow, what plan does he have to stop the
east-west flow?
(1430)
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that Quebec is still part of Canada.
[English]
I know they will remain in Canada for a long time.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have reduced the level of
taxation according to a plan that is available to all governments
in Canada. The plan is a national one to cure a national problem.
I did not go into hiding. I said that it was not an easy decision.
But smuggling will stop in Canada. If the provinces feel that
they do not have a problem, they will have to live with the
consequences of their actions. Every government was aware of
what we wanted to do. We were all losing billions of dollars as a
result of that. Therefore this government decided to act.
If other governments want to avoid the problem, fine, they
will have to accept the consequences. They were elected and
they have to do their job. It will be up to the people of Ontario to
ask the question of the Ontario government, not me.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
My constituency office in Barrie has received many calls, all
in opposition to the plan, not one in support. Surely every
member in Ontario has received similar calls. Will the Prime
Minister allow the 97 government members from Ontario to
publicly express the feelings of their constituents?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am very surprised because in Hamilton, which includes the
riding of the Deputy Prime Minister, a poll was taken yesterday
by a radio station and it was three to one in favour of this plan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): The Minister of National
Revenue was on a radio show yesterday talking with citizens in
the riding of the leader of the Reform Party and there were many
in favour of the federal plan.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, at its
meeting yesterday, the NATO Council followed the United
States' initiative and issued an ultimatum giving Serbian forces
ten days to withdraw their weapons from around Sarajevo.
The Prime Minister told us yesterday that this ultimatum had
spurred the belligerents to negotiate a ceasefire with UN
military authorities in Sarajevo.
Could the Prime Minister give us an update on the situation in
Sarajevo today and tell us if the ceasefire is being observed and
if the Serbs have in fact started to withdraw their artillery from
around Sarajevo?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that, according to
the latest information we have, the plan put forward and
approved at yesterday's NATO meeting is being honoured by all
parties. We have every reason to believe that this initiative will
lead to a lasting peace, as everyone hopes.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, could
the Prime Minister tell us whether he has received concrete
guarantees of the safety of peacekeepers before supporting the
proposal that the Americans made at the NATO council for air
strikes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is obvious that troops involved in such a situation are always
exposed to danger. No one can promise you absolute safety for
everyone in Bosnia at the moment.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs was saying, our decision
had immediate results, in that the plan for a demilitarized zone
around Sarajevo appears to be succeeding.
As far as Canadian troops are concerned, the withdrawal
process has already started in Srebrenica. A number of Dutch
soldiers have already arrived to relieve Canadian soldiers who
are scheduled to leave this Bosnian hot spot by the end of the
month.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Yesterday I learned that many customs ports with limited
hours of operation will now be open 24 hours a day as part of the
government's action plan on smuggling. An hour later I learned
that this decision was largely reversed.
Could the minister explain to the House why such a massive
program was instituted without first informing all MPs and why
these ill-conceived plans were just as abruptly cancelled?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I am somewhat troubled by the question because there
was no cancellation of any great plan. In fact all information has
been provided to members of Parliament and through a press
1184
conference attended by myself, the Solicitor General and the
Minister of Health.
We have I think been very open in questions in the House as
the leader of the Reform Party, given the information on
finances for example, will agree with.
As far as the particulars of these 24-hour openings at border
points, we have a system in Canada, which I will have to explain
to the member, whereby some border crossing points are kept
open for 8 hours, some for 16 hours and some are kept open
around the clock, 24 hours. We are doubling the numbers in
certain areas of the country. We are increasing the hours of
certain border crossing points from 16 hours to 24 hours and
some from 8 hours to 24 hours. There is no question of this plan
having been put in place and then suddenly reversed or
interrupted.
Naturally we are targeting certain areas on the basis of
intelligence we received from the RCMP, the Quebec provincial
police, the Ontario provincial police and municipal police
forces. We are also using the American police forces
information nets. There will be times when we will divert
resources from one particular area to the other.
If the hon. member thinks I am going to broadcast in advance
to assist the smuggling groups, he is wrong.
The Speaker: The Chair is well aware that certain questions
demand a little more time to answer, but I would ask, if at all
possible, that the answer be as brief as the question.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
it seems that some customs houses are also not aware of the
plans of the revenue minister. As I understand it, the American
customs are not co-operating in this action plan and are closing
at their regular hours.
Could the minister explain the rationale of how opening up
the Canadian side of customs was supposed to end smuggling in
the first place?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, we have very close, friendly and useful relations with
the American customs service and the other forces in the United
States, as I have indicated. Certainly it is true that they are not
following the considerable increase in personnel and hours of
service that we are instituting on the Canadian side.
We know full well that there will be some border crossing
points where the American post is closed and ours remains open.
We know full well that in certain of these border crossing places
normally they are left completely without any personnel at all in
the off hours, the hours when the posts are not open.
We expect there will be occasions where there will be a
Canadian post staffed and there will be an American post which
is not staffed. It is nothing surprising to myself or to the customs
officers. They are disciplined uniformed people who do an
excellent job. I am surprised the hon. member suggests they are
wasting their time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister of Canada. In
1982, when he was a senior minister in the Trudeau cabinet, the
present Prime Minister authorized payment of a $4.5 million
grant from the Laprade fund, which he managed, to his friend
the former Liberal member for my riding, Mr. Antonio Yanakis,
to build a sports centre which would have been used by
taxpayers in the Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon area.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether, before granting this
money, he secured sufficient guarantees to ensure that public
funds-
The Speaker: Order, please. I apologize to the member for
interrupting him, but his question is inappropriate since it
pertains to things which happened in a previous Parliament. I
would ask the member to restrict his questions to events
connected with the present Parliament.
(1440)
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted the Prime
Minister to say is whether, in those days, a $4.5 million grant-
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): My question is for the
Minister of the Environment. Members of this House and many
Canadians are now aware that ethanol is increasingly being
used, across North America, as a gasoline additive for
automobiles.
[English]
Would the minister explain to the House what measures are
being taken to advance the use of ethanol across Canada and
consequently enhance the quality of our environment as well as
the bank accounts of our farmers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in light of the status report
on global warming the Canadian government, and in particular
the Ministry of the Environment, is going to accelerate its action
in getting rid of sulphur dioxide emissions. It is very clear there
may be a role for ethanol to play in that area.
I am very pleased that through the initiative of members of the
House, in particular the new member for Lambton-Middlesex
and the member for Halton-Peel and other members, it will be
the first order of business of the committee on the environment
1185
to look at how we can make ethanol work for Canadians in an
environmentally friendly way.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
As the world watches, the tension in Bosnia increases and the
senseless horrors continue unabated. Now the threat of air
strikes poses a very real danger to our troops. In light of this new
threat, Canada has been seeking guarantees from NATO that will
safeguard Canadian troops currently deployed in the former
Yugoslavia. I would ask what are those guarantees?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do
not want to be impolite to the hon. member, but I think that
question was answered very fully by the Prime Minister a few
minutes ago.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence.
This past week we read yet again of our troops being humiliated
and threatened with violence and forced to surrender their
weapons.
Given what we have just heard today of Canadian soldiers
being disarmed by the belligerents, how can the minister now
guarantee their safety?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this
question is part of the far-reaching question of whether we
renew our commitment in the former Yugoslavian republics.
That decision will be taken by cabinet in due course before the
April deadline.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
On January 28, the current government informed the
Canadian Hemophilia Society that it would pay for only 75
hours of advice by legal counsel before the beginning of the
hearings on the issue of tainted blood. On February 3, the
minister stated: ``As you know, we are very concerned by this
issue, but the system which was set up, namely the appointment
of a judge and the allocation of funds, had been decided by the
previous government''.
How can the minister explain the answer she gave last week,
knowing full well that she herself had authorized, on January 28,
the subsidy about which the Canadian Hemophilia Society is
complaining?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
will have to check, but the requests for additional funds are
under consideration by the appropriate officials. I am not the
one who will make the decision and I am not the one who
appointed Judge Krever or who initiated the process. I am sorry
if the member has been told otherwise, but the decision was not
mine.
(1445)
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. Now that the minister knows that she is
responsible for that issue, can she undertake to give the
Canadian Hemophilia Society the necessary financial support so
that it can fully participate in the inquiry on the issue of tainted
blood? Otherwise we will have to conclude that the government
does not want to get to the bottom of this.
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me explain again. This is a judicial inquiry. It is an arm's length
inquiry.
Now that it has all been set, they have made a request for
additional funds. It is not up to this minister to make a decision
about additional funds for this judicial inquiry.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the
Kemano completion project.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has told the House that
the government was not going to prejudge the outcome of the
current B.C. Utilities Commission hearings. He has also said in
the press that the project cannot be stopped. Yesterday the
Minister of National Revenue told the press that cancelling the
Kemano completion project is within the realm of possibility.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House who speaks officially
for the government on the Kemano completion project?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada could not be
more clear.
We have been consistent with the commitment given by the
Prime Minister during the last election campaign which was to
participate fully in the B.C. Utilities Commission review which
is now under way.
We will make available literally tens of thousands of pages of
evidence, make available scientists and officials to appear and
1186
give testimony. That is the position of the government. We will
not prejudge the outcome of that testimony.
What I have said, what the government acknowledges and
what has been acknowledged by the Government of British
Columbia is that under the terms of the 1987 settlement
agreement, terms with which the member opposite is very
familiar, all parties are bound to this project.
That is what I have said. That is the policy of the Government
of Canada and that remains the policy of the Government of
Canada.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has acknowledged that
the Alcan deal was put together behind closed doors. Will the
Prime Minister begin to listen to the very people who will be
impacted by this project and commit to the House that a full
judicial and environmental review of this project will be taken
by his government?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I have just been given a copy of correspondence written
to the editor of the Prince George Citizen by my colleague, the
minister of revenue, in which he says:
Let me repeat that I thought I had made clear to the reporter that the federal
government is not considering cancellation of the Kemano completion project.
(b) The federal government will co-operate fully with them and make all of
its information and technical personnel available to the British Columbia
Utilities Commission currently looking into this issue.
I am surprised that the member, in advance of hearing a single
bit of evidence or testimony, of examining tens of thousands of
pages of testimony and of allowing a free, open and transparent
process to take place, wants to prejudge the whole exercise and
call for a royal commission. I wish the member would be
consistent in his questioning.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, in the 1994 groundfish management plan the
government placed a ban on fishing southern Grand Banks 3NO
cod.
In addition to other closures this means a moratorium on
almost every cod stock in Canadian waters. The effects on
Atlantic communities have been devastating.
Meanwhile, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
has allotted a total allowance catch of 6,000 tonnes of 3NO cod
for 1994. This means that vessels from other countries will be
catching this straddling stock outside Canada's 200-mile limit
while Canadian-
(1450 )
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member is coming to her
question.
Mrs. Brushett: My question is: What is the government
going to do about this blatant injustice?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Cumberland-Colchester for
her excellent question. I assure her the government shares the
emotions she feels with respect to the importance of putting an
end to foreign overfishing of endangered cod stocks. I am sure
all members of the House share the member's concern about this
important issue.
I tell the member that on Tuesday and Wednesday of next
week representatives of all the Atlantic provincial governments,
all the fishermen's organizations, associations and unions, and
all the sectoral industry groups under the leadership of the
national government will be in Brussels to make the case before
a special committee of the NAFO scientific council, asking for a
review of NAFO's decision to fish endangered 3NO cod.
We are going to point out that we have stopped fishing here.
We have stopped even the food fishery here. Canada can do no
more for conservation and the EC can do no less than to stop the
fishery of 3NO cod.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, for nearly
three weeks now, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General
have been telling us every chance they get that the law in Canada
applies everywhere, and equally to everyone.
Moreover, in his action plan, the Prime Minister states that
there will be no ``no go'' zones and that the law will be enforced
everywhere in Canada.
My question for the Solicitor General is the following: Can he
tell us, yes or no, whether he gave assurances to Mohawk leaders
during their meeting yesterday that the RCMP would intervene
on native reserves?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
my answer is very clear. Yes, I did.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Solicitor General say that he gave his assurances to Mohawk
leaders that the RCMP would not intervene?
Mr. Bouchard: He said the opposite.
1187
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Could the Solicitor General
explain why each time a meeting is held with Mohawk leaders,
his version, the government's version, of what transpired
always differs from that of the Mohawk leaders? Why is this?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot speak for the Mohawk leaders, but I can speak for myself
and for the government. I stated clearly to the Mohawk leaders
and to the media that the RCMP was not planning to carry out
any massive, military style raids. I did, however, say very
clearly that if the RCMP felt such action was necessary, it would
step in and investigate to ensure that the law is obeyed
everywhere in this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
Convicted killer and murderer Colin Joseph Wood, a
non-citizen, recently escaped from a minimum security prison.
Mr. Wood has a long history of various crimes such as drug
trafficking, arson, fraud, break-ins, weapons charges as well as
the brutal murder of Karen Ann Thomson.
Could the Solicitor General explain to Canadians why such a
serious offender was in a minimum security prison in the first
place?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have asked Correctional Service Canada to give me a full report
on this matter. It is one I am concerned about, as is the hon.
member. The police are continuing to investigate the escape. I
will be happy to provide the hon. member with further
information in due course.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that answer.
As well, could the minister explain to Canadian officials and
as a matter of fact to all Canadians why were we not able to kick
Mr. Wood, a non-resident, out of Canada after he committed his
first serious offence?
(1455 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
it is the policy that somebody convicted of an offence should
serve the sentence imposed by law.
If my hon. friend's proposal was followed we would be doing
the convicted foreigner a favour by getting him out of the
country before he paid the penalty required by Canadian law. I
do not know why the Reform Party would want that to happen if
its members are interested in law and order.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of International Trade.
Once more, the federal government is under great pressure
from the United States to force the opening of our markets to
American products. In the case of beer, the United States
demand the reopening of the agreement reached last August.
They want new concessions from Canada, especially the
removal of a minimum price on the beer sold in Quebec.
Is it the position of the federal government to ask provinces to
make new concessions in order to meet the demands of the
United States, even though the practices of the provinces have
been found to be in agreement with the GATT rules?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, I stated the other day in response to a similar
question that it is the federal government's policy to support the
provincial governments in their GATT consistent beer practices.
We shall continue to do so.
We have worked with the Government of Quebec both in
Washington and in Canada to ensure that its policy of a minimal
price for beer in Quebec is recognized as GATT consistent and
therefore compatible with the NAFTA.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): On a supplementary,
Mr, Speaker. Could the minister tell us what he is waiting for to
demand that the United States also open their markets to
Canadian beer, something they stubbornly refuse to do?
[English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade):
Mr. Speaker, in the jargon of the trade world, the member
opposite has raised ``beer one'' and now he raises ``beer two''.
Beer two is a problem with the United States. The GATT has
ruled in Canada's favour in that instance. The United States has
responded by saying this is largely a matter for states to
implement. However the states have been tardy in so doing. In
fact only one of a total of 39 has so far taken any action.
There are also, however, some actions that the U.S. federal
government itself should be taking. We have been pressing the
United States hard and consistently to implement the GATT
panel ruling.
1188
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
As a physician I am appalled at the reduction of taxes on
tobacco. It is going to create a quarter of a million new smokers
among children. One-half of those children are going to die of
smoking related illnesses and each of those children is going to
have up to 20 years knocked off his or her lifespan.
Given the cost of the number one deterrent to young would be
smokers, does she support her government's decision to reduce
tobacco taxes?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
support my government's decision 100 per cent. It is a balanced
and comprehensive plan. It is the toughest anti-smoking
package anywhere in the world.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Given the sustained failure of United Nations and western
European diplomatic efforts to end the armed conflict in
Bosnia-Hercegovina, will the minister consider utilizing the
provisions of the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye, which created
Yugoslavia in 1919 and of which Canada is a full legal party, to
ensure a peaceful solution to state secession problems in
Yugoslavia, including in addition to Bosnia-Hercegovina, the
Skopje region?
(1500 )
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I think he
based his question on the premise that the efforts of the UN and
NATO will not be successful.
Obviously we are hoping the decision taken yesterday will
lead to a peaceful solution, but if it fails I certainly will consider
very carefully the element of le traité de
Saint-Germain-en-Laye.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The Minister of Health has refused to stand up for the health
of Canadians by supporting the lowering of taxes on cigarettes.
Today in newspapers across the country we see ads by the
Distillers Association of Canada to lower the taxes on alcohol.
The minister is aware of the costs and health care risks of
alcoholism in our society.
Will the minister stand up today in this House and say that she
is against the lowering of taxes on alcohol, as she did not do on
cigarettes, clearly another health care risk?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
some very tough actions had to be taken. We are pleased at
having been tough enough in showing the kind of leadership
Canadians wanted on the matter of contraband. We are
convinced the networks will be destroyed as a result of the
measures and the decisions we have taken.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
The Canadian government has decided to pull up railroad
tracks without knowing what the impact of such a measure
would be and has penalized eastern Canada more than the other
regions by allowing branch lines to be abandoned. Half of the
railway network in eastern Canada will be either closed or sold
off by 1995.
Would the minister tell us if he will support the merger of
Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways in eastern
Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my colleague for his question.
This week, I had the opportunity to meet the executive
officers of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways
and, as my hon. friend surely knows, they have already indicated
that they plan to propose a merger project to the Canadian
government. We have received no proposal yet. We are still
waiting for such a proposal and when it comes, in due time, we
will make a decision.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I gave notice of a question of privilege this morning to
Your Honour with respect to certain statements involving the
hon. member for Okanagan Centre and a quotation from Adolf
Hitler.
However I did hear the statement that was made during the
period for statements under Standing Order 31. If I might just
seek clarification, if the hon. member was indeed extending an
apology for these deeply offensive comments certainly I do not
intend to pursue the question of privilege, but I would seek
clarification from the hon. member.
The Speaker: In the view of the Chair the hon. member did
make a statement dissociating himself from this type of
statement. I think it is quite clear, subject perhaps to my
reviewing
1189
Hansard, but from my perspective here I did hear a definite
dissociation and therefore I would conclude an apology of sorts.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, with respect, an apology of sorts
is not good enough. An apology to all those who were offended
by this is what is necessary and I ask the member for that
apology.
The Speaker: In my view it was an apology and I accept it as
such on behalf of the House.
(1505 )
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, the tradition of
the House dating back to before Confederation is that each day
opens with a prayer. I am deeply disturbed and appalled that the
House committee on procedure has begun to reconsider the
reciting of the prayer at the opening of the daily sitting and the
removal of the word God from the prayer.
The Speaker: Order. I would take this perhaps as a point of
debate. As I understand it the committee is still seized with this
matter, but nothing has come to me at this point and I would be
willing to wait for a report from the committee that is studying
the matter.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to raise a procedural point with respect to my
statement.
As far as I am concerned the matter regarding the member for
Okanagan Centre is settled. I took particular care in my
statement- and I know members of the Reform Party did not
like it-to refer to the Reform Party of Canada and not to the
individual member.
I have been in the House for many years and the NDP has been
attacked repeatedly. It has always been in order to criticize
political parties. In my opinion I should not have been ruled out
of order.
The Speaker: I will take the words of my learned colleague
under advisement, and if I find in my decision on it I have been
perhaps a little quick off the mark I will come back and so state
in the House. I will have a look at Hansard myself.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, in keeping
with tradition, I would like to ask the government House leader
to tell us what is planned for the balance of the week and the
beginning of next week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
today, as we know, is an opposition day with a motion proposed
by the Bloc Quebecois. Tomorrow there will be an opposition
day with a motion proposed by the Reform Party.
On Monday we will deal with Bill C-9 and the amendments to
the Income Tax Act. If second reading of that bill is completed
we will begin second reading of Bill C-8, dealing with the right
of peace officers to use a deadly force.
On Tuesday we will call the resolution regarding the
Northumberland Strait Crossing. Wednesday will be another
opposition day.
With respect to Thursday, I understand that if the Minister of
National Defence proposes a motion to refer a review of defence
policy to a special joint committee of the House and the other
place, there would be a disposition in the House that the motion
would pass after one day of debate. If that is the case I will be
happy to have the debate take place Thursday of next week.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion
respecting the Excise Tax Act, and I ask that an order of the day
be designated to debate the motion.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent
of the House to revert to presenting reports by standing and
special committees.
The Speaker: Is the House agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1189
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1510)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present to the House the third report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The
report provides the list of associate members of standing
committees.
1190
If the House gives its consent, I propose to move concurrence
in the report immediately. In view of the length of the report, I
would ask that we dispense with the reading of the report.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented
to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
1190
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, last year, this government campaigned in favour of
greater control of public expenditures. That is to say that we
deeply share the concerns before the House today. Too many
people, across the country, believe that our present fiscal woes
are caused only by indiscriminate spending on the part of too
many civil servants who have nothing better to do than to waste
taxpayers' money.
It is indeed the underlying feeling which prompted the present
debate. This debate is aimed at striking a special committee of
the House with a mandate to examine public expenditures, in
light of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, and overlap
between federal and provincial government programs. Such a
committee is already in existence. It is called the House
Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Moreover, I will remind the members that each standing
committee of the House has the right to examine the
expenditures of the department it reviews. To establish a new
committee to assess this government's management would
duplicate the work already done through other mechanisms at
our disposal for our job as public fund watchdogs.
On this side of the House, we think that what Canadians need
instead is fundamental reforms that would go much further. This
government promised it would keep its promises. If, today, we
were to eliminate all the civil service positions across the
country, and at the same time their operating budgets and all of
their benefits, the government would only save $19 billion this
year. The deficit for this year would still be around $25 billion.
Therefore, those who tell people that this is the way to get rid
of the deficit are not telling the whole truth. The only way to
solve this problem is to conduct an in-depth review of the roles
and responsibilities of the federal machinery with a view to
giving this country a government able to meet the challenges of
the next century. That is what we committed ourselves to doing
during the election campaign and in the red book, and that is I
took the jump into politics.
[English]
Canadians have high expectations of the House. They are
demanding that all their levels of government work together to
better serve the interests of citizens and taxpayers.
Over the years governments in Canada have lost this client
centred focus. Collectively they have promised more than they
could deliver and delivered more than they could afford.
Programs and services have often been poorly co-ordinated and
public services have been used inefficiently. Inefficiency is a
luxury that no government can afford any more.
(1515 )
Too often in the past intergovernmental debate has been
characterized by acrimony, entrenched positions and
grandstanding. Relations between Canadians and their
governments have become cumbersome and confusing.
We were elected to effect change. We will respond to the
demands of Canadians for client centred government.
[Translation]
In future, reforms will mean that a person coming to a federal
civil servant will be evaluated, and served according to his or
her needs.
[English]
In the speech from the throne we committed ourselves to work
vigorously to ensure that federalism meets the needs of
Canadians by clarifying the federal government's
responsibilities in relation to other orders of government. This
is the way to eliminate overlap and duplication and to find better
ways of providing services that represent the best value for
taxpayers' dollars and respond to the real needs of Canadians.
We intend to work in partnership with the provinces to refocus
government programs and services. We want to provide public
services that do not work at cross purposes. We want to get
beyond the kind of relationship that is built on obstinacy and
narrow mindedness. We want to find a new equilibrium in which
the roles and responsibilities of each level of government are
more sensibly and reasonably aligned with their competence and
financial and human resources.
Our first ministers at their December 21 meeting made a
commitment to co-operatively eliminate overlap and
duplication. The Prime Minister has given me the responsibility
of working with other orders of government to help improve the
climate of federal-provincial relations. Our goal is to build a
1191
strong, united country. I have had exchanges with premiers and
territorial leaders to start that process.
To move ahead we will develop a framework within which the
process of discussions and negotiations with the provinces can
take place. We will identify the essential functions of the federal
government of the future, taking into account changing
circumstances and priorities.
We want to identify those responsibilities which need to be
maintained at the federal level in order to protect the overall
national interest and the integrity of the state, as well as those
which can best be performed by other levels of government.
We will look for a process to move federal-provincial
discussions away from the recrimination and bickering which
has too often been seen in the past. Our goal is to reinvent the
process of negotiation with the provinces so that it is more
productive, so that there is less arguing over turf and more
emphasis on solving problems in the interests of citizens.
We want to develop a citizen centred approach to
federal-provincial relations. We also want government that is
accessible and responsive to citizens' interests and needs. This
government recognizes that debt passed from one level of
government to another simply winds up on the same shoulders,
those of the taxpayers.
In the past there has been a tendency to lose sight of the
interests of the public which both governments are elected to
serve. Our guiding objective will not be simply disentanglement
which suggests the reordering and sorting out of what exists
now, but service enhancement which suggests collaborative
citizen focused initiatives in which the interests of taxpayers
and service recipients are the priority.
In so doing, the federal government is prepared to be flexible,
to accommodate different priorities and circumstances, to
experiment and innovate and to build on best practices which
have been used in different provinces.
Our process will be transparent and open and we welcome
ideas and suggestions.
[Translation]
The members of this House have the heavy responsibility,
during this last decade of the 20th century, to ensure that the
bold wager taken up by the Fathers of Confederation is not lost.
This responsibility is ours not only with respect to future
generations in our own country but also, and probably even more
importantly, toward the have nots of the planet who envy our
political and social stability, as well as our prosperity, in spite of
our present economic and budget difficulties.
(1520 )
[English]
Although serious, these difficulties are not insurmountable. If
we in this blessed land cannot resolve our differences and
overcome problems which to the majority of the world's people
seem at worst manageable then there is not much hope for
humanity.
We have been elected by the people of Canada to address our
common problems and, above all, to make the very best of our
tremendous economic and human resources. We will not shrink
from that challenge. We will keep our commitment.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening to the President of the Treasury Board and I am filled
with dismay. This is the President of the Treasury Board
speaking, the man in charge of preparing the government's
expenditure budget. That is incredible. I can see that a minister
would consider that $200,000 or so is not too much to pay to go
and deliver a speech, that there is no fat to cut in the federal
administration, that nobody here is spending too much.
While you are at it, why produce government brochures in
only fourteen colours? That is not enough. Why not
twenty-two? That is incredible. I suppose that the President of
the Treasury Board also considers that there is nothing wrong
with building an embassy in Japan on a lot worth over $1 billion.
That is normal I suppose. To have three embassies in Brussels,
one for NATO, one for Belgium and one for the European
Economic Community, with three ambassador's residences and
three reception halls, one each, that is normal too, I suppose.
Now, he is telling us that, to solve the problem, we will
refocus the activity of the federal and provincial governments.
What has the government done in that area these past few years?
Quite simply, the federal government has been pulling out. In
that area as in health and post-secondary education, it is pulling
out but keeping the tax money. That is incredible. Now the buzz
word is refocussing, before that it was harmonizing.
Apparently the federal government will pull out from a
number of areas, but it will continue to raise taxes, of course.
That is how the federal deficit first got enormous. Then we saw
the public finance crisis gradually spread to all the provinces. It
is obvious that the federal government has been passing the buck
to the provinces for years. As the minister just announced,
instead of dealing with the problem from this end, by
streamlining and restructuring the federal administration, he
will keep passing the buck without making tax transfers. Is that
what we are to understand?
1192
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of humility
that I accept the representations made by the opposition
member, especially since he referred to me as the President of
the Treasury Board when I am in fact the President of the Privy
Council. But then again, such mistakes are to be expected from
a new member of the House.
I would like to say that a member of the opposition should
certainly be a lot more responsible. It is possible for some,
including the media, to quote exaggerated figures, but when the
Auditor General himself indicates in a press release that the
figures used are erroneous and exaggerated, I would hope that
opposition members would themselves be responsible enough to
use the data correctly.
Also, if the member feels that giving a presentation to more
than 400 Canadian studies professors from American
universities is not making good use of public money, that I
suggest that he take a look at what has been going on in recent
years. He will realize that, in fact, this is a very useful initiative
for the Canadian government. I also want to point out that a
number of staunch separatists were at that conference and tried
to influence the audience.
(1525)
Such personal remarks should not be part of the debate. The
important thing is to look at the evolution of governments'
roles. The reality is that the federal and provincial governments
have less money available to them. It must also be noted that, in
recent years, management and information technologies have
evolved sufficiently to warrant a readjustment of governments'
roles.
In order to solve our current budget and tax problems we will
have to redefine federal and provincial responsibilities.
Similarly, our economic problems will persist unless the federal
government makes the effort of redefining the roles and
responsibilities which are incumbent upon it and which it can
assume. And we will not succeed either if the provinces do not
undertake the same exercise.
The problem is no longer one of jurisdiction. It is more a
matter of redefining the responsibilities of the state. By this I
mean not only the things which the state can do better than the
private sector, but also the fiscal responsibilities which it can
delegate.
Consequently, the important thing is not to see if jurisdictions
can be improved but to fundamentally review the roles which
governments must fulfil with the money they have.
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for
mistaking the President of the Privy Council for the President of
the Treasury Board. I can understand why the Prime Minister did
not give the responsibility of Treasury Board to the hon.
member.
Mr. Duhamel: You should apologize for making those
remarks-
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, as this is my first
opportunity to speak in the House I would like to begin by
congratulating you on your election to the Chair. I would also
like to thank my constituents for giving me the opportunity to
represent them. I pledge to them I will do the best I can to take
that responsibility seriously for the next term.
The motion the Bloc Quebecois has placed on the Order Paper
is an issue which the Reform Party has been talking about for
many years. We are very much aware of the heavy cost to
Canadian taxpayers caused by duplication and overlap among
various federal departments as well as between Ottawa and the
provinces. We do however have some concerns with the Bloc's
proposed solutions.
The Reform Party's deficit elimination strategy, known as the
zero in three plan, outlines a saving of approximately $500
million to the federal government by eliminating these
redundancies, particularly in natural resource sectors such as
agriculture, forestry, mining and energy. We have calculated
these savings by examining government accounts available to
the public. We therefore question what is the intent of the Bloc
in proposing this special committee to do the same thing.
Is this motion designed to revisit the constitutional
relationship between the federal government and the provinces?
We are somewhat confused as to where the Bloc is headed with
this motion and are concerned that it is heading toward a new
round of federal-provincial power bargaining.
I would like to speak for a few moments on this subject. The
Reform Party has been on record for many years supporting a
clearer division of powers between the federal government and
the provinces.
Indeed our blue sheet, which outlines the complete platform
we campaigned on last fall, expressly calls for the elimination,
duplication and overlap between the two levels of government.
Specifically our blue sheet states:
The Reform Party supports a re-examination and re-establishment of a clear
division of powers between the constitutional levels of government. Legislative
authority should rest with the level most able to effectively govern in each area,
with a bias to decentralization in cases of uncertainty.
(1530 )
Furthermore we are convinced that for future constitutional
negotiations to be successful we must move away from first
ministers' constitutional conferences of the type that produced
Meech Lake and Charlottetown and endorse a bottom up process
of public consensus building.
1193
We must seek to develop democratic, populist based
mechanisms which would allow rank and file Canadians to
participate in the process. In light of the fact that any
fundamental change in federal-provincial relationships would
by definition require constitutional amendments, and
recognizing that a vast majority of Canadians have no desire for
this at this time, I question why our friends in the Bloc are
raising the issue. Canadians are in no mood for another round of
constitutional deal making, particularly when government
deficits and debt are seriously undermining the ability of our
economy to perform.
While we agree with the general thrust of the motion before
us, we do not see how the issue of federal-provincial
jurisdictions can be effectively dealt with without revisiting the
Constitution for which there is currently little or no consensus.
I would like to remind members of the Bloc that we have a
very constructive set of specific proposals for constitutional
reform which incorporate proposals to restructure
federal-provincial jurisdictions in a manner we think will be
attractive to all provinces, including Quebec.
I extend a sincere invitation to members of the Bloc and all
members of the House to carefully examine Reform's written
policy position on constitutional reform. The concerns which
have led to the introduction of this motion before us today are
specifically addressed in that position paper.
We believe that the entrenchment of private property rights
and reform of the Senate are also very important to Canadians,
as important as redefining federal-provincial relationships.
This is because these elements define basic relationships
between individuals and governments and underline regional
fairness within Confederation.
The right to own private property without fear of being
deprived thereof is a fundamental cornerstone of a free market
economy and is ultimately the true test of a real democracy. Yet
we have not embraced this principle to date.
An effective Senate, democratically elected on the basis of
representation by region rather than population, would ensure
the interests of all Canadians were protected from the tyranny of
the majority, a way to ensure that Canadians would not have to
endure another national energy program.
These issues are very important to many Canadians, and we
think they deserve equal standing in future constitutional
negotiations. However, Canadians have little desire to revisit
the Constitution at this time. Until there is a clear consensus to
proceed with constitutional renewal, Reformers are committed
to advocate and support constructive change outside
constitutional discussions. That is what Canadians want and
need and that is what they have told us to do.
I understand the frustration of the Bloc Quebecois at the waste
of taxpayers' money due to duplication and overlap of
government services. I further believe that the turf wars fought
by competing bureaucracies are in large part responsible for
much of the tension between Quebec and the federal
government. I can assure the House that Quebec is not alone in
its resentment. The solution in the long run is a decentralization
of powers.
Meanwhile we should all be aware of the cost of duplication
and overlap. We urge the government to move to eliminate it in a
manner consistent with my earlier statement within the
framework of an existing Constitution. It is my understanding
that the public accounts committee has the ability to scrutinize
all spending programs.
Once again I say that although I generally agree with the Bloc
Quebecois' intent with this motion I question why we need to
create a special committee to cover ground which an existing
committee has the ability to cover.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to say that I agree
with the Bloc Quebecois' concern over the waste of taxpayers'
money, but I believe that this motion comes close to striking at
the heart of our Constitution. The Reform Party supports the
position that our Constitution should be reformed and that
Confederation should be maintained. It can only be maintained
by a clear commitment to Canada as one nation in which the
demands and aspirations of all the regions are entitled to equal
status in constitutional negotiations and political debate.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on his initial
address in the House. I have just a few brief questions. They are
very serious ones on which I would like his reaction.
(1535)
The suggestion was made that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to
further its own personal agenda which is in a sense the
separation, not in the real sense of separation, of Quebec from
Canada through constitutional wrangling and that may be one
option it is pursuing. One never knows. Obviously the kind of
dedication Bloc members show toward that objective is
sometimes rather obsessive.
Is there not another possibility that it was their intent to
attempt to embarrass the government by suggesting it is not
being done and there is no mechanism for doing it? I would like
my hon. colleague to consider that possibility and give me his
reaction to it.
1194
Does my colleague and his party make a distinction between
the concepts of overlap and duplication? I do. To me overlap is
simply some overlapping of something similar, but duplication
is completely the same.
Finally, I have not heard anyone talk about the possible
overlap and duplication among the different levels of
governments, federal, provincial and municipal. In Manitoba
we have a real problem in the social assistance field within the
levels of government. Within the federal government I am told
there may be as many as a dozen or more departments involved
in education and related things.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
opposite for his question. First of all I cannot comment on the
motivations for the Bloc Quebecois to bring this motion
forward. I really do not know what the intent was. All I can say is
that was my reaction in reviewing it and that is what prompted
my engagement in the debate today.
As far as the difference between duplication and overlap, they
both cost taxpayers money. We are concerned about getting at
the issue of the economics of it as opposed to defining what the
difference is between duplication and overlap. They both are
inefficient and they both cost taxpayers money. That is the angle
we want to attack it from. There does need to be discussions
among various levels of government concerning duplication and
overlap and there clearly is a good case for that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
explain something to the hon. member from the Reform Party.
Our party is asking for a special committee to examine public
expenditures while the minister is worried about duplication
since there already is a public accounts committee. I understand
his question, but the committee on public accounts is
responsible for assessing the legality of public expenditures.
Did the government respect this or that enabling act in incurring
expenditures? A committee or commission, whatever we want
to call it, as proposed by my party, would look at the morality of
certain public expenditures.
Some embassies have paid $490 for waste containers; it is
certainly not illegal to buy waste containers but the $490 price
tag is questionable. That is why we want to strike this
committee, to get the Canadian budget in better shape.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
statement and his question.
Certainly the issue of government spending in total is very
important to the Reform Party and we intend to examine all
government spending. We have been doing that and we advocate
that in the future to see how we can reduce spending and create
efficiency.
When the member talks about an embassy buying a trash can
for $490 he is right on the mark. However, I do not see what that
has to do with duplication and overlap of government services.
Quite honestly that is a separate issue. It is one that is very
important to us as well and we intend to pursue it.
(1540)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the motion brought forward by the Bloc
Quebecois dealing with the same subject the Reform Party of
Canada has been talking about for some time now.
I am happy to see that the Bloc is in accord with us in
suggesting we take a closer look at government expenditures. I
think we laud their motive, if not their specifics in proposing
this all-party special committee to examine government
finances.
The nation knows how concerned the Reform Party is about
government spending in general. In saying a few words to the
House today I want to touch upon one of the most important
aspects of the control of government spending. I am sure most of
the members here today are frugal people who want to save all
they can for the taxpayer and would gladly make sacrifices to
make sure that it is done.
There is a story told that President Lyndon Johnson used to
walk around the White House turning off the lights at night in an
effort to save a few dollars for the treasury. It is almost comical
when we think of the size of the U.S. government and such a
small measure he was taking. The President experienced
frustration because he had little direct control over government
expenditures.
In exactly the same way the expenditures which are directly
controlled by any individual member here in the House are very
small indeed in comparison with the vast amount of money
expended daily by the federal government.
Who then actually spends this money? I want to speak today
about the role of the civil service in government spending. The
civil servant is the gatekeeper of the federal treasury. The money
government spends is disbursed by civil servants who make
hundreds of thousands of decisions every day about the smallest
details of government spending. Whether it is a public servant
deciding upon a loan to the private business sector or a UI agent
deciding a question of entitlement, the billions that pour forth
from our taxpayers must all pour through this plethora of civil
servants.
Although a great percentage of government payments are
statutory obligations, even these obligatory payments involve
an element of discretion over which the public service exercises
a large amount of control. I just cited the example of the UI
1195
agent who must pay what the client is entitled to, yet that agent
also has some latitude to decide exactly what amount of
entitlement will be offered.
I want to make a very important statement. If the public
service does not change its discretionary behaviour members of
Parliament will be almost powerless to effect real substantial
change in government spending. It will be as frustrating as
trying to trim our budget by walking around the House of
Commons turning out the lights.
How can the House of Commons affect this discretionary
behaviour of the civil servant? There is a way. The Auditor
General did touch on it in his report and I want to expand on it
for a moment today.
Public Service 2000 was an initiative begun by the former
government in 1989. Its goals were noble: to streamline the
public service; to make it more service oriented and responsive
to the needs of the public; to combine certain functions of
departments to improve efficiency; and to foster a better attitude
among civil servants.
Five years later what do we find? We do not really know for
sure. Annual progress reports were supposed to be submitted to
the Prime Minister, but that has just not happened. In fact there
has been only one report submitted since 1989 and this shows
two really big problems. One is a lack of political will to force
these reports and a lack of motivation on the part of the civil
service to submit them. Perhaps we are not surprised at the lack
of political will, especially in times past, but it is unfortunate
that we cannot expect the civil servants to submit these reports
as the government initially required.
When I look at the origins of the PS 2000 initiative I am not at
all surprised to see reform proceeding at a snail's pace. Ten task
forces made up of high ranking civil servants together plotted
the major objectives of the PS 2000 program and presented the
plan to the politicians of the day.
I am not in any way attempting to cast any kind of bad light
upon our good civil servants. They are dedicated, well qualified
and well intentioned. However one can hardly expect those who
have spent their entire careers in the service to effect serious
change that would cause real disruptions to that service. Each
civil servant on those committees had an unconscious vested
interest in maintaining the status quo even though everyone
agreed we urgently needed change. What is missing from the
Public Service 2000 is a check and balance mechanism that
would guarantee results.
What concrete results have we achieved to date? Not having
many of the required reports in place we are not really sure but
the Auditor General does give us some ideas. Mostly the Auditor
General talks about an improved attitude in the public service.
Good feelings are all very nice but when we look at the cruel
hard numbers what do we see?
(1545)
According to Statistics Canada we see that we still employ a
total of 413,000 civil servants. We paid $19 billion last year in
wages and salaries, up from $17 billion in 1992. When we come
to the line that affects every taxpayer in the country daily, the
bottom line is that PS 2000 has had virtually no effect on the
civil service.
According to the Auditor General, many top level bureaucrats
are disillusioned with PS 2000. I will quote a few excerpts from
his report:
Some of the executives we met wonder whether PS 2000 was dead, and we
detected an atmosphere of scepticism and cynicism surrounding the renewal
initiative-Several witnesses emphasized that the changes-would be difficult
and time-consuming to implement-Inconsistency is perceived between some
of the principles of PS 2000 and other initiatives, including downsizing and
operating budget cuts.
This is exactly what the system needs. Why then has PS 2000
been ineffective? It is because the organizational structure in
charge of it, the civil service, automatically protects its own
position. It is called the survival instinct. I guess we are all
guilty of it. There is nothing wrong with it, but in this case the
instinct does not serve the public interest.
As leaders in the House of Commons we are charged with the
responsibility of leading the civil service, not the other way
around. The civil service is not a democratic institution. It is a
group of people hired by us to do the work we have mandated it
to do. The civil service has no implicit desire to change itself.
That mandate for change is the awesome responsibility of every
member of Parliament today. Members in past Houses have
abdicated that responsibility for over a decade now. That is why
we are suffering some of these problems today.
It is time for the House of Commons to take charge of
spending in this country. It is time for elected members to begin
to control the public service. Let me list a few broad general
principles that will guide this. I take my lead from the positive
changes which have been made in other Commonwealth
countries, especially in New Zealand.
First, the mandate for change in the service must emanate
from this House of Commons. The idea of the civil service
reforming itself will never work and I do not think we should be
under any illusion that it will.
Second, civil servants must have incentives to make the
necessary changes. Put deputy ministers and other senior
executives on contract like they did in New Zealand. Give them
authority to make changes and things will happen because the
incentive will be there.
Third, we need to require concrete results. If departments do
not achieve measurable performance objectives laid out by the
House of Commons, contracts should not be renewed. If incen-
1196
tives do not hasten change then something even tougher may
have to be required.
Something needs to be done. We appreciate the general
direction of the Bloc Quebecois, but that direction needs to
become even more specific. If we give the direction to the public
accounts committee as was mentioned earlier, it is within its
means to check on this and to make sure it comes to fruition. I
honestly believe that civil servants acting frugally can effect
many of the changes all of us in this House are looking forward
to.
I urge all members of the House to set aside their party
politics when it comes to this sort of thing and ensure that
changes to the civil service come mandated from the House and
not the other way around.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I agree
with some of what the hon. member for Fraser Valley East said.
I think he is quite right that we in this country and this
Parliament lack political will. I also think that he is right when
he says that public servants may not be sensitive enough to the
need for a new attitude to public spending.
I will give an example to illustrate what I am saying.
Recently, in answer to a question raised in this House, the
Minister of Transport said that his department was
re-evaluating air traffic control. In my riding, they are
preparing to close a radar control room that employs some
fifteen people. When these employees are moved to the regional
centre, they will each be entitled to a $10,000 increase simply
because their employment classification changes.
(1550)
Second, the department recognizes that this move will cost
between $4 and $5 million. This is all being done in a time of
extreme economic hardship. We make speeches, but when the
time comes to act, it is as if we could not apply the brakes. If the
existing mechanisms like the Public Accounts Committee were
considered to be effective, the Bloc would be satisfied. But be
assured that the Bloc does not want to get into constitutional
discussions; that is not its purpose at all, but rather to try to find
a new way, because all the others have proven to be ineffective.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is good we have a few points we
agree on. I appreciate that.
Since the public accounts committee is generally chaired by a
member of the opposition party and especially since it holds that
chair it can set the direction and the tone of the public accounts
committee. The direction and the agenda given to that
committee could well effect the changes I was looking for,
changes that have measurable results that are reportable to the
House. I believe that is the way to do it.
Since the Bloc Quebecois holds that chair it has a perfect
opportunity to make sure that is made as public as possible.
Changes could be initiated if it takes that and demands results,
demands accountability and demands measurable performance.
I think it could be done through the public accounts committee.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, to the member for Fraser Valley East I say I do not
disagree with a lot of things that were said. However I do have
some areas I would like clarified. The member talked about
improved attitude and changes of direction.
When we investigate why the attitudes are not good, if we take
that premise, it is fair enough to say that sometimes our public
servants have portrayed that attitude. There has been a past
history from the House that has really fostered that and I get
fairly concerned when the member talks about contracts not
being renewed. I would hope that would not be the sledge
hammer he would be attempting to use in this new government.
That is really a wrong direction. It goes back to when the
Conservatives talked about issuing all of our public servants
running shoes if they did not like the way things were done. That
is really wrong.
It is very important that we in some way start to change
direction, change attitudes, talk about a monitoring program.
That would be a good thing; also putting a strong strategic plan
in place. I believe that we are part of that process.
I wonder if I could have a bit of clarification on the contract
renewal.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I was fairly specific. I am talking
now about the deputy minister level. By and large our civil
servants are good, dedicated people even at the deputy minister
level.
The problem is that the people at the low end of the scale who
deliver the services are generally the whipping boys for lack of
action at the top, and I include the House of Commons in that.
Where I would like to see this contract idea is at the deputy
minister level at which it is said: ``You in essence are the CEO of
this department and we need to see some measurable results and
if you cannot deliver them to us then you are part of the problem,
not part of the solution''.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Kitchener.
I rise to speak on the motion put before the House today by the
hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, a motion that
seeks to create a special committee of the House to examine the
expenditures of the government, to consult extensively and
openly with the people of Canada and to recommend decisive
1197
action to reduce the cost of overlap between federal and
provincial programs.
Through this motion the hon. member has touched upon
issues which this government supports.
(1555 )
They are: first, ensuring that this House has the means and
opportunity to examine and debate those matters that are a
priority to all Canadians; second, that government be open and
accessible to everyone; third, that government spend as
efficiently and effectively as possible in the service of the
nation's interests.
These issues are not in contention. However, the
disagreement and contention with this motion lies with the
creation of a new committee of the House to duplicate the role of
the public accounts committee at an added cost to taxpayers.
To support my opposition to this motion my remarks today
will focus on the nature of the government's expenditures, what
we spend now and the vital importance of spending this money
more effectively to ensure a more stable and brighter economic
future.
The government stated in the speech from the throne that it
will pursue the fiscal discipline necessary for sustained
economic growth. As well, the government attaches the highest
priority on job creation and economic growth in the short term
and the long term. These two objectives work hand in hand.
Growth and jobs will enhance government revenues and reduce
spending on unemployment insurance and welfare. Fiscal
discipline to contain the deficit will create confidence and
growth.
At the same time, it is known that a number of government
programs and tax expenditures, some of which have been
identified by the Auditor General, are inefficient, poorly
managed or driven for purely political reasons.
Just as we as a government are proposing new measures to
grow the economy, programs will be examined extensively with
the objective of reducing waste and inefficiency and promoting
economic growth.
So far the government has acted decisively on both fronts. The
$5.8 billion helicopter program was an initiative that was too
expensive given the government's fiscal situation and was
cancelled.
To stimulate the economic activity and create jobs, an
agreement has been reached with provincial and territorial
governments for a $6 billion joint federal-provincial-municipal
infrastructure program. These are important steps that send a
real message to members of this House that this government
means to keep its commitments to Canadians.
Most of us have wondered from time to time where all the
money goes that government spends. It should be known that the
Government of Canada's budgetary expenditures from April 1,
1992 to March 31, 1993 were $161.9 billion. Of this, $41.9
billion, 26 per cent, was spent on direct income support
payments for individual Canadians. Almost half, $19.1 billion,
went to supporting our elderly, and $19 billion of the remainder
went to support the unemployed through the unemployment
insurance program.
Public debt charges totalled $39.4 billion. Transfers to other
levels of government through such programs as equalization,
the Canada Assistance Plan and established programs financing
amounted to $28.8 billion.
Defence spending was $11 billion. The operations of
government providing services such as law enforcement, air
traffic control, weather forecasting and health services to Indian
and Inuit peoples cost $19.8 billion.
Crown corporations required expenditures of $6.2 billion.
Direct federal government support for international aid was $2.8
billion.
For those members not keeping track of these numbers on
their pocket calculators, it should be noted that the total of all
these expenditures subtracted from the total budget leaves a
remainder of $12 billion. This spending supports programs for
industrial and regional development, job creation and training,
support for our farmers and fishermen, science and technology
and assistance to our students.
This 7 per cent of federal government spending should be
viewed as Canada's investment fund. Used wisely it can
stimulate growth, create jobs, develop knowledge and new
technologies, and invest in the enterprising potential of our
country and its people.
(1600 )
Most important, effective and efficient programs can help
prepare Canadians for the economic environment of the future.
During this time of economic globalization, the days when
Canada's wealth was measured only by its natural resources,
capital and a protected domestic market are now gone.
Globalization is the growing trend in the international
economy. It is a reality. Globalization refers to the ability to
make the components of products wherever in the world their
production is cheapest and transport them efficiently.
It means that with cheaper transportation and computer based
information and communications, the world is becoming
smaller and competition is fiercer than ever before.
High productivity will be the only route to high incomes in
such an economy. Canadians must prepare to be successful in
the modern economy in which success will be determined by the
knowledge, education and skills of our Canadian people.
1198
Governments have a responsibility to help in the transition to
the new economy or to be left to cope with intractable
unemployment and the needs of citizens with declining
incomes.
As outlined in the speech from the throne, this government
intends to pursue an active program for the growing economy,
focusing on small and medium sized businesses as the engine for
longer term job creation.
The government will work with financial institutions to
improve access to capital for small business. A Canada
investment fund will be created to help innovative leading edge
technology firms to obtain the long term capital they need. A
Canadian technology network will be created to improve the
diffusion of technology and innovation.
The government will encourage technology partnerships
between Canadian universities, research institutions and the
private sector. The government will also implement a Canadian
strategy for an information highway. The government will
promote better training for the managers of small businesses and
greater access to strategic information on new marketing
opportunities. The government will work with the provinces to
reduce the regulatory and paper burden on small businesses and
to streamline the delivery of these programs.
Competing successfully in the emerging global economy will
also require an investment in our own people. The government
will work in partnership with the provinces and the private
sector to help young people better prepare for the transition
from school to the work place.
It will propose measures to improve job training as well as the
literacy skills of Canadians with funding for the national
literacy program restored to its original level.
I acknowledge that many of the initiatives aforementioned
will require the government to act in partnership with provinces
to be fully successful. This can be an advantage for these
initiatives rather than a hindrance.
The government has shown through the infrastructure
program that governments acting together can make advances
that would be beyond the capacity of any one level of
government working alone.
The challenges facing us as we adapt to economic
globalization will require co-operation among governments in
designing and delivering programs. Our task is to ensure that
they are the right programs, effective and efficient, and that the
government's spending is effective and efficient. Anything less
jeopardizes our future as Canadians and our future as a country.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the motion we are
discussing today reflects the fact that many Canadians are
concerned that governments are inefficient, unresponsive and
too costly.
It is not simply Canadians who are concerned. Australians,
Britons, Americans and Germans are now looking at
government and those same kinds of complaints.
This government has decided in light of these concerns that
the time has come for decisive action. In the speech from the
throne it was said it will be the policy of the government to seek
to clarify the federal government's responsibilities in relation to
other orders of government, to eliminate overlap and
duplication and to find better ways to provide services so that
they represent the best value for taxpayers' dollars and respond
to the real needs of people.
At the first minister's meeting on December 21, 1993 the first
ministers agreed to give priority to efforts to improve the
efficiency of the federation. In this regard, in responding to
comments made earlier by the member for Fraser Valley East,
PS 2000 to which he referred has in fact one progress report and
another progress report is being prepared. The responsibility for
renewal of the public service, as he indicated, is the
responsibility of the government and of course the members of
the House. I welcome his remark that he does believe that civil
servants acting effectively can carry out the mandate under PS
2000 with the direction of course being given by the
government.
(1605)
The shared commitment to change which emerged from the
first ministers meeting is evidence of a flexible adaptable
federal system, one that is based on sound principles and offers
both long-term stability and the capacity to evolve. That
evolution can come through reasoned discussion as needs and
priorities change.
To meet these ends the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
has written to the premiers and to territorial government leaders
to launch the process of eliminating overlap and duplication as
is suggested in the motion today. The overlap, duplication and
delivery of federal and provincial government programs and
services is of major importance to this government.
The process being undertaken aims to, first, clarify
federal-provincial roles and responsibilities to ensure that
limited public resources are used to provide necessary services
in an efficient way; second, to ensure public service activities
facilitate economic investment and growth; and, third, to
redesign programs and services to achieve more efficient
delivery and greater client orientation. This morning the
member for Ottawa West talked in a very fascinating way about
changes that are coming in the area of telecommunications that
offers such prospects as 24-hour service.
1199
In implementing this process the government will, one,
establish constructive partnerships with provincial
governments; two, use federal-provincial administrative
agreements to provide Canadians with efficient responsive
programs and services; and, three, utilize both bilateral and
multilateral negotiations to obtain timely results and ensure
maximum flexibility. Those negotiations are going on
constantly. Finally, we work to ensure that the negotiation
process is transparent to all participants; that is, based on
equality of treatment and sound public policy objectives.
The government then is entering this process with an open
mind and is prepared to be flexible in accommodating provincial
needs and priorities.
We recognize that in many areas provinces have developed
the best practices and that the federal government has much to
learn from them and we are following in our negotiations with
the provinces a path where we are looking at their programs to
consider which are most effective in that regard.
Therefore we are prepared to consider, one, what level of
government is best suited to delivering a certain service or
program. As I said before, we are open-minded in this regard.
We are furthermore considering how to make policies and
programs more effective and affordable and more accessible to
clients. As the minister said earlier today, the goal is service
enhancement above all else.
In terms of the flexibility about which I spoke earlier we want
to be flexible in developing common objectives and in choosing
issues for negotiations. These will be done item by item,
province by province, department by department. We will
conduct negotiations bilaterally if necessary and multilaterally
if it is possible, again depending upon particular needs.
We will where possible use pilot projects such as the New
Brunswick works project which was referred to earlier by the
member for Peterborough. That project offers real hope we
believe in the area of employment training and social services
reform.
All of these initiatives we believe demonstrate important
features of our federation, ones that are the envy of many other
nations. It is especially gratifying in an age where disputes
between governments are an every day occurrence that our
leaders, provincial and federal, have agreed to set aside
differences and search together for solutions that are in the best
interest of the public.
In that regard, Mr. Bruce Doern, a student of governmental
reform in England, Australia, New Zealand and most recently
Canada, has written about the experience over the last two
decades and I would like to bring attention to his comments:
What the full experience of the last two decades perhaps shows most of all is the
need to reduce ideological blinkers and be much more selective about which
functional and organizational aspects of government are efficiency and
democracy enhancing-and which are reducing.
A thinking view of the State is far more important to Canadians than an
ideological one that simply bashes bureaucracy and government or attacks
market-based approaches as a form of ritual sport.
(1610)
It is not a time for ritual sports of that type, it is a time to work
together in service enhancement and making government work.
In terms of the PS 2000 report, a progress report as I have said
is being produced. We are comparing what is being done here as
the Auditor General did in his report. We find that in many ways
we have not kept up. It is true the previous government did not.
However in comparing our progress with that of the United
States, in fact in the terms of the re-invent government agenda
of Vice President Gore, one finds in that agenda that we have
done many of the things he is calling for in the United States.
The federal government views the reduction of overlap and
duplication as called for in this motion as a win-win situation
for governments and for taxpayers. It will render programs more
affordable and thus sustainable over time while providing
Canadians with the best service possible within the limits of
available resources.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciated the comments, especially when the member was
specific about relating some of the things I was concerned about
in my presentation.
I wonder if the member has any more details as to when the PS
2000 report will be tabled in the House.
Mr. English: Mr. Speaker, there is one progress report
already which the member has probably seen. It was given to
some members of your party a couple of days ago. Two members
of your party asked for that report.
The second report is being prepared now. It has been slowed
down by the election and the events in between. It is in almost
final draft form, but I can check that. It is one that compares
what we are doing with what is being done in other countries. I
refer the member of course to the Auditor General's comments
which make those comparisons as well.
In terms of the whole business of renewing the public service
and looking at these questions, it is being given active
consideration.
The Deputy Speaker: I might make the point here that we all
make this mistake, and I do too, of not addressing remarks
through the Chair. I think the parliamentary secretary used the
expression your or you twice in two sentences. Once per
paragraph at least, please.
1200
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, every year, the report of the Auditor General of Canada
is tabled in the House of Commons. The report is in the news for
the first few weeks, but then interest wanes, so that for all
practical purposes, the Auditor General's report sits gathering
dust on the shelves in government departments.
However, I see many items in this report that could be
followed up and would help the government improve its policies
in a number of areas.
Instead of engaging in pre-budgetary window dressing, the
Liberal government would do well to examine and memorize the
annual horror stories in the Auditor General's reports and rectify
these situations immediately.
As you know, in Quebec and Canada, whether the Liberals or
the Conservatives are in power, we are facing a financial
situation that is very bleak. I think we should realize this when
we look at Canada's finances.
Especially in a federation or a confederation, and I think some
time my hon. friends opposite, my Canadian friends, will have
to explain the difference between these two terms, because some
Liberals have been asking Bloc members about the difference
between separation and sovereignty for Quebec. I think they
ought to realize that what Quebec wants is sovereignty and
decide what the terms federation and Confederation mean,
because it is rather confusing. Canadians, and especially
Quebecers, tend to confuse these terms.
(1615)
In any case, I was saying that the government should act on
the recommendations of the Auditor General if it really wants to
put its financial house in order. However, that may be wishful
thinking. There are aspects to this nice, shiny, federal system on
the verge of bankruptcy which are faintly ridiculous, and I mean
ridiculous, and I will explain why.
Goodies have to be handed out to support our precious and
costly Canadian unity. I found one of these ridiculous aspects
when I looked at the Auditor General's reports for the past few
years. My example only concerns the portfolio for which I was
appointed official critic, the Department of the Solicitor
General of Canada.
In Canada, national generosity as an approach to RCMP
expenditures is costing the federal Treasury millions of dollars.
First of all, the hon. member should realize that through
contractual arrangements, the RCMP provides police services in
eight provinces, the two territories and 191 municipalities,
except for Quebec and Ontario which do not benefit directly
from all this largesse.
This means that in addition to its federal police function, the
RCMP provides provincial policing for about 40 per cent of the
Canadian population and municipal policing for about 20 per
cent of the same population. For some Canadians, the RCMP is
the only police they know. Theoretically there is nothing wrong
with this, but it costs millions, and if this generous system,
introduced by the Liberals and the Conservatives, contributes to
the deficit, there is a problem.
Upon reading the Auditor General's report for 1992, we soon
realize there is a problem with this system. The RCMP provides
provincial and municipal policing at below cost as calculated by
the Auditor General in his 1992 report.
Ever since the government entered into contract policing, it
has been charging provinces and municipalities for RCMP
services. However, as the Auditor General pointed out in his
report: ``The federal government has never attempted to recover
the full cost of providing these services''. We read this on page
532.
The federal government does not compute the real cost of
these services but negotiates a cost base with the provinces.
Actually, the provinces and municipalities pay only a
percentage of the negotiated cost base. Usually, it is between 70
and 90 per cent of the real cost. The government uses the
theoretical cost base negotiated by the parties to charge the
provinces and the municipalities that benefit under the system.
The federal government is losing a lot of money with this
approach. The contract signed in April 1992 is a 20-year
agreement, and there is a faintly ridiculous aspect to this
contract as well, because it can only be reviewed every five
years and the adjustments require unanimous agreement by the
parties.
The new cost base works out to about $800 million annually,
while the real cost, according to the Auditor General, is between
$900 million and $950 million. The real cost, which represents a
difference of $100 million to $150 million was calculated by the
Auditor General according to the guidelines outlined in the
Treasury Board's guide to the costing of outputs.
Still according to the Auditor General, it appears that the
federal government, in this case the Department of the Solicitor
General, does not include some major cost items such as
departmental administration at headquarters, EDP services,
office rental and certain employee benefits paid by the federal
government. The list is much longer on page 533 of the Auditor
General's report, which I think the government would do well to
read in preparation for its upcoming budget.
As I said before, for the duration of the 20 year contract, the
agreement, which is reviewed every five years, cannot be
adjusted without the mutual consent of the federal government
and the provinces. Generally speaking, the provinces agree to
pay only those new expenses they believe are appropriate.
1201
(1620)
The federal government receives only $600 million or so
annually for the provision by the RCMP of provincial and
municipal polices services which cost between $900 and $950
million per year. So, the balance sheet looks like this: real cost
of services: $900 to $950 million; revenues: $600 million; the
federal government's share: between $300 and $350 million.
Quebec' share-and I think it is important for my hon. friends
opposite to hear it-is 24 per cent of the total, or between $70
and $90 million. That is what Quebec pays for services which it
does not get, or worse still, for a service that it already pays the
provincial government and the municipalities to provide. This is
one blatant example of how federalism is costly to Quebec.
The federal shortfall, as I mentioned earlier, totals $300
million annually. If we calculate on a twenty-year basis,
because the agreement covers a span of twenty years, the
shortfall amounts to roughly $6 billion. In other words, Quebec
taxpayers subsidize provincial and municipal police services in
the other provinces, excluding Ontario of course, as I said
earlier, to the tune of between $70 and $90 million per year, or
between $1.4 and $1.8 billion over the term of the agreement.
More than 40 per cent of Canadians receive police services that
are subsidized by Quebec and Ontario residents. Some
provinces benefit more than others. For instance, a large portion
of British Columbia has no police force other than the national
force which provides service at both the municipal and
provincial levels.
In conclusion, what the Official Opposition is calling for is a
committee which would examine this area and determine if
overlap exists and whether a province is paying for a service it is
not receiving. I think the government, if it is truly realistic and
honest about what it wants to do, should go along with the
Official Opposition's proposal to review, item by item, the cost
of national police services. And this is only one area, one under
the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada. If we were
to look at all departments, we would see how much money the
provinces, and Quebec in particular, pay out for services they do
not receive.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the opposition for addressing the matter of whether
or not we should set up a separate committee for finances.
I remind the hon. member that he said he was trying to
eliminate duplication. The very nature of what he is proposing
actually is duplication.
There is no question that the Auditor General's report is a
significant document. I hope every department will use it as a
tool to try to get rid of those deficiencies as alluded to by the
hon. member.
Canada is a Confederation, not a unitary state. As the member
put it Canada is not a country of states that do not care for one
another. Those provinces that are doing quite well assist the
other provinces through equalization payments and so on. This
is unique. We enjoy a good status in the world. We are respected.
We enjoy a high standard of living. Our kind of democracy and
our kind of government are examples for many countries.
To separate or to tear the country apart is the subliminal
message coming from the members of the opposition. It is
probably not a very good way. I can say that quite firmly coming
from a country where independence was achieved. After
independence our standard of living went down and was not as
good as we thought it would be. We ended up with a great deal of
enemies. We thought they were not our enemies but
economically they were bigger and forced more kinds of
restraints on us.
To get back to the question we are debating today, we do need
to look very seriously at government records and the way it
spends its money, but the mechanism is already there. We have
government and opposition members to do this. That is the
mechanism we should be using in order to achieve those goals.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his four questions or observations. I will start with the first one.
(1625)
What the Official Opposition is asking for is a committee
which would look at where taxpayers' money goes. Quebec pays
billions of dollars every year, the pretext being that it is truly
getting value for its money. We have heard that tune many times
from the members opposite.
I gave one very specific example of an area where Quebec
pays without getting value for its money. We could look at other
cases as well. If the hon. member is truly sincere about what he
wants to do, he should agree to our proposal and we will get the
final word. We want to know who pays and how much, where the
money goes and why.
Second, the ideal thing would be for each department to
examine the Auditor General's report and make it bedtime
reading. Then, every night, the horror stories uncovered by the
Auditor General would be recalled and efforts would be made to
correct them. Of course, this is just wishful thinking. Every
year, the same thing happens. If we did not talk about the
Auditor General's report, no one would. The government wants
it to be swept under the rug.
Third, I do not think that Canada should be held up as an
example for other countries to follow, considering that in just
the one small area that I mentioned, namely the national police
1202
force, the annual deficit is between $300 and $350 million.
There is not a manager in the world who would be around long if
he ran his business or his country in this manner.
Fourth, I do not think we should compare Canada to some of
the other countries that we do. We have a clearly established
democracy and clearly established social values, in Quebec as
well as in Canada. We are a people, at least in so far as Quebec is
concerned, who are looking not just for our fair share, but
looking to become masters in our own home. Quebec has been
repeating the same thing for years. Eventually, English Canada
will get the message and the comparisons which you were
making earlier will stop.
The Deputy Speaker: The question and comment period is
over.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe-National Defence; the hon. member for
Laval-Est-Human Rights; the hon. member for
Waterloo-Privatization; the hon. member for
Frontenac-Environment; the hon. member for
Roberval-Cigarette smuggling.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Here we are just days
before the new Liberal government produces its first budget.
Nothing further having come out of the proposed review of
federal government expenditure, the Official Opposition has
decided to make it the subject of this allotted day.
The Liberal Party said in the red book, and let me quote from
their dear book: ``. . .cynicism about public institutions,
governments, politicians, and the political process is at an
all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society,
as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions
must be restored''. I hope they remember what is written in the
red book.
Did the Liberal Party think that the people would not demand
transparency in government expenditure in order to regain
confidence? Apparently not. The same red book states: ``. . .give
MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of
Commons committees'' and if I read correctly ``these
committees will also be given greater influence over
government expenditures''. That is what we are debating today.
Once in office, how can the Liberal Party honour this promise
made in the red book other than by supporting the motion put
forward by the Official Opposition? This is the first action the
Liberal government could take to regain the confidence of the
people.
Parliamentarians are accountable to the people, not obscure
bureaucrats who develop behind closed doors measures that will
apply to everybody.
We ask that the Liberal Party grasp the tools to honour their
own promises, not ours but their own, and that parliamentarians
devote themselves again to their primary function, which is to
represent the interests of their constituents.
(1630)
In tabling his report, the Auditor General tells us implicitly
that parliamentary action is needed to solve the federal
government's problems. In making an annual list of horrors in
the federal government, the Auditor General is telling
Canadians that the federal government cannot manage its affairs
responsibly as long as parliamentarians do not throw open the
doors of departments and turn on the lights in the offices where
decision-makers meet. The hope for budget discipline is pretty
slim.
In his 1990 report, the Auditor General points out the
complexity of federal-provincial relations in environmental
matters. The constitution acts of 1867 and 1982 are inoperative.
This is one of the most difficult sectors for dividing
responsibilities among the various stakeholders.
This constitutional confusion encourages duplication such as
parallel assessments, similar inspections by each level of
government, and endless disputes on issues vital to our
societies' development. We must accept the fact that Canadian
federalism is unable to meet tomorrow's challenges.
We now know that this federalism is impossible to reform, as
we tried to do with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
These accords showed Quebecers that they could not, within this
framework, hope to participate in building a society meeting
their expectations. The environment is a perfect example of a
major problem caught in jurisdictional battles that can only be
resolved by a sweeping reform of our institutions, namely
Quebec's sovereignty.
If environmental mismanagement was only a problem at the
federal-provincial relations level, we could expect Quebec's
sovereignty to be a done deal, so let us gather up our belongings
and head back home to get organized.
But the federal government's involvement is so confusing that
it is hard to find the department accountable to the public. This
confusion is in no one's interest and the Official Opposition
must act to eliminate it.
The Auditor General said that these ``divisions in
responsibility for environmental matters is a patchwork that
makes it almost impossible to assign public accountability for
safeguarding Canada's environment''. In 1990, 24 federal
departments had responsibilities under over 50 pieces of
legislation impacting on the environment. The environment
department alone had responsibilities under 36 pieces of
legislation.
1203
The St. Lawrence action plan is one example of the
interdepartmental co-ordination problem at the federal level
alone and not at the federal-provincial level. While Quebec and
the federal government agreed on the St. Lawrence action plan,
some federal departments got all tangled up in their respective
areas of jurisdiction. Responsibility for financing and
implementation was shared by three federal departments,
namely Environment Canada, Industry, Science and
Technology, and Fisheries and Oceans, with total contributions
of $84 million, $20 million and $6 million respectively.
The St. Lawrence action plan called for these departments to
co-ordinate their activities to meet common objectives, a
difficult undertaking in the federal government. The problem
was that the first two departments had different objectives.
The environment department focussed on the demonstration
and application of technologies meeting the immediate needs of
the 50 industries involved in the action plan, while the industry
department focussed on the development and application of new
and improved technologies that can be marketed nationally and
internationally and be eventually applicable to industries along
the St. Lawrence.
The Auditor General explained that ``this difference in
departmental objectives and program funding mechanisms led
to co-ordination problems. Although an agreement was
concluded between the two departments to provide for a
management structure to co-ordinate their respective programs,
it proved to be ineffective''. I am talking about two federal
departments and not about federal-provincial agreements.
(1635)
We know that it is difficult to combine the objectives of the
governments of Quebec and of Canada, we live with that, but
when the confusion is within the federal government itself, the
situation is downright unacceptable.
If only the federal government were satisfied to solve
problems just on its turf, among its departments. But no, it feels
the need to intervene and create problems on all sorts of issues
with as much right as Quebec.
Environment Canada acts in almost all the 18 fields in which
the Quebec Department of the Environment operates. Thus, two
levels of government are acting towards the same goal of
limiting industrial pollution. Because of this duplication,
Quebec and Ottawa each have regulations on industrial waste
from pulp and paper mills.
Pulp and paper mills are thus subject to two sets of
regulations. For each company, the expenses incurred to apply
these regulations are about $100,000 a year.
I conclude by telling you that the Official Opposition has
given its word to Quebecers that it would defend their interests
in Ottawa until they decide on the question of sovereignty for
Quebec.
Our proposal is meant to get the federal government to clean
up its finances and its programs, if necessary. I repeat: its
finances and its programs.
The interests of Quebecers, as well as those of Canadians, are
badly served by the way the apparatus of government now
operates, and a thorough study is therefore necessary.
The federal government should respect its commitments to
the people as written in its famous red book, it should seize the
opportunity which we in the Official Opposition are giving them
and it should let parliamentarians study government operations
thoroughly, and in that way we can perhaps act in the best
interest of the people of Quebec and Canada and get our
respective societies back on a less chaotic road.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I cannot say I disagree with the thrust of the opposition motion
or with much of the member's intervention.
I cannot help but note that the substance of the motion refers
to a desire for a process that would review the public accounts
with reference to overlap and duplication between federal and
provincial governments.
I wonder if the member could advise the House whether he or
his colleagues intend to propose such a motion as this to the
public accounts committee which will be chaired, as I
understand it, by a member of the Official Opposition. This
committee, which is charged with the very subject matter that is
the substance of this motion, is free to deliberate in an open and
transparent process, as all of the committees of the House do.
They have the power to subpoena, if not subpoena to call for
attendance and production of papers and persons and they can
report to the House whenever they wish.
The entire ambit of the motion can be put to and pursued by
the public accounts committee if the members of that committee
so wish and I wonder if the hon. member's party is prepared to
proceed in that direction.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to thank the
member, who does not disapprove of our motion, if I understood
the interpreters correctly. If he does not disapprove, then I think
he approves. I thank him.
I also think that he must make a distinction between the public
accounts committee and a special committee studying all
federal spending and overlap.
1204
In talking about the public accounts committee, we must look
at what it is and what it does. The committee's mandate is not to
study all the spending of all departments, nor all programs or the
overlap between federal and provincial programs. We want to
keep the role of the public accounts committee as it is. Since this
morning, we have heard that answer or that statement from the
other side of the House. Before thinking of broadening the
public accounts committee, they should have looked at what it is
and what it does. They would have clearly seen that it is not on
the public accounts committee that we have to examine federal
government spending item by item or to consider overlapping
programs. Let us keep the public accounts committee as it is and
set up a special committee.
(1640)
I will again quote the red book or remind hon. members
opposite that they promised it in their red book and we are
giving them a chance to keep their promise. Instead of being
recalcitrant to our requests, they should thank us. That is what I
wanted to say.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, I
will be very brief.
First of all I appreciate the fact that the hon. member read the
red book. I do not know why he says that he is giving us the
opportunity to defend the book. He needs the opportunity to
defend his presence in this room.
I am puzzled and hurt when the issue is addressed and they say
Quebec and Canada. One has to be straightforward as a
Canadian. Either one is for Quebec or one is for Canada. One is
most welcome to be in Canada and we want you to be in
Canada-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt. Please put your
remarks through the Chair. That diffuses things a little bit.
Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, the member has to be fair and
tell us whether he is for the separation of Quebec. Is he for
sovereignty? Or is he for independence?
I have been here for the last three months. I am confused
where the opposition stands on this issue. Those members keep
mentioning the same issue over and over again.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have only two
minutes left. I could meet with the member to explain the
position of Quebec sovereigntists to him; unfortunately, unless
and until Quebec is a sovereign country, we are part of Canada.
Again, unfortunately, I am disappointed to see a Canadian
sitting in Parliament who does not know Quebec's position.
Personally I am very disappointed and sorry too about the
position of my colleague on the other side of the House.
I would also have liked him to speak on the subject of today's
debate, namely an item-by-item committee. We are also
showing our good will, in that as long as we are in this House, we
would like it to work as well as possible. I invite him to discuss it
with me after, because in two minutes, I cannot explain
Quebec's position to him, but I will be pleased to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of the Environment will speak for 20 minutes.
Am I right?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Environment and Deputy Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I will be speaking 20 minutes and so will each of the
members from this side who will speak after me.
I would like to start with a brief comment on the remarks
made by the hon. member for Terrebonne who wanted to explain
to my colleague, if he had more time, what the position of
Quebec is. How arrogant of him to think that he owns Quebec's
position, that the Bloc Quebecois owns Quebec's position. As
far as I know-
Mr. Sauvageau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about
the speech of the hon. member opposite. The question and
comment period is over. He should be making his own speech
instead of commenting mine. Is that not so?
The Deputy Speaker: Members are allowed to refer to a
speech that was just made. He can make a comment, and you can
ask questions after his speech.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had not been
sitting in this place for such a short time, he would know that I
am allowed to say whatever I want in my speech. I am sorry if
that bothers him, but I will say it anyway.
What I wanted to tell the hon. member is that neither he nor
his party represent the position of Quebec. As far as I know, they
are not the Government of Quebec. Quebec has, as far as I know,
a government which still has the right, a right that it exercises
very freely, to remain in Canada.
(1645)
As far as I know, Quebecers will have to make a choice, but
there are some, including myself and my colleague here, who
hold views on Canadian federalism which are necessarily those
of the member opposite. For example, it is certainly not right to
assume that everyone in Quebec is an indépendantiste. That is
defeinitely not what the outcome of the referendum held in 1980
leads us to conclude, and it is certainly not what Quebec will say
if there is another referendum.
1205
To take for granted that all Quebecers want to leave the
Canadian federation is to fool oneself, as some did in 1980.
Those of us on this side of the House also like to think that we
represent Quebec. I spent nine years as a member of Quebec's
national assembly and I have always worked hard to help my
fellow citizens from Quebec, regardless of where they live, of
their religion, or of their language, and I refuse to accept this
notion that Bloc Quebecois members are the only ones who
speak for Quebecers.
I am aware that federalism, and especially the Canadian
federal system, is responsible for everything that is wrong in
this world, at least according to the Bloc Quebecois members. It
is always the federal government's fault. I have heard this old
tune time and again. Of course we can look at the Auditor
General's reports and find things which we would all like to see
changed.
I remember those Auditor General's reports when I was a
member of the opposition in Quebec. I remember the investment
of several hundred millions in asbestos mines. Asbestos was a
mineral which nobody in the world wanted and the United States
were going to ban its use. I remember that. I also remember that
millions of dollars were invested in Quebecair. I remember as
well the investments made in that sugar refinery on the south
shore. I could give you all kinds of examples where the Auditor
General said to the government: ``Look, a lot of bad decisions
were made''. This happened under Conservative and Liberal
governments in Ottawa, as well as under the Parti Québécois and
the Liberal governments in Quebec.
It is unfortunate that such things happen. However, we want to
look forward and try to correct these mistakes. We accept
criticisms, and in fact the ministers who answered questions the
other day said to the Auditor General: ``We accept those
criticisms. We know that these things happened but we are not
going to blame our government because another government
was in office then. However, we recognize that things must
change''.
In our red book, we undertook to change things and to ensure
that government administration would be a tighter and more
efficient management exercise. I know that the federal system is
complex. In fact, any government structure is complex. We
recognize that but, at the same time, it is a system whose value
has been proven. After all, our country has so far enjoyed 126
years of peace, freedom and kinship, this because French and
English speaking Canadians understand each other. The
problem is a political one. It is a problem which we created
ourselves.
The Canadian federation is, in many ways, a model. I know
that we are going through a recession. I also know that a lot of
stupid decisions were made over the years, both at the federal
and provincial levels. Today, all the provinces, including
Ontario, which was formerly the engine of our economy,
Alberta, Quebec, and all the others, are experiencing very
serious economic difficulties.
We want to try to make things more practical. In fact, we want
to use this recession as an opportunity to think about what we are
and what we have to do to be more effective.
(1650)
[English]
That is what we want to do. We do not want to look back and
say it is the fault of the federal government, it is the fault of the
Alberta government, or the Quebec government, or the
Newfoundland government. We want to say: Is there a way of
making this federation work better?
The whole principle and thrust of the red book is: Let us put
the parochial quarrels of the past aside and behind. Let us look
above and beyond. Let us find a way to work together to solve
these problems rather than fighting these silly quarrels.
This hon. gentleman cites the mounted police as an example
of Quebec paying more than it receives. In turn we could say in
the milk industry Quebec has 48 per cent of the share of all milk
distribution in Canada, much more than the share of its
population. We could say in unemployment insurance Quebec
receives $1.5 billion more than its proportional share because of
course its unemployment rate is proportionately higher than that
of comparable provinces. We could say Quebec receives three
times more from the federal treasury through the manpower
training program than it invests itself: $900 million versus $300
million.
We can quote these figures to prove our points one way or the
other. What does it prove in the end? That in a federation there
has to be a system of checks and balances. Sometimes a province
pays a little more here, sometimes it gains a little more there.
What would Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario say, the
provinces which contribute the total share of the transfer of
moneys to provinces that are in a less favourable state? What
should they say?
What Canadians in general say, and in Canadians I include
Quebecers because they are also Canadians and would prove
that they want to be. I know they will stay in Canada. However,
all Canadians say that the system is not perfect. It was not
invented to be perfect. Surely we can make it more responsible,
make it fairer, make it work better.
For nine years I served at the provincial level. For nine years I
know there were a lot of frustrations among us because of
overlap, because of duplication, because of federal legislation
or rules that impeded our work. I concede this. One can say:
``Fine, there is duplication, there is overlap. I am going to turn
my back on it. I am going to make sure the federation works
1206
worse. I am going to walk out and destroy what we have created
together''. But there is another solution. Address it.
I was environment minister for three years. I had all kinds of
discussions and debates with my federal counterpart and other
provincial counterparts. Within the council of environment
ministers of Canada we tried to look for solutions to delete the
overlaps, to address the duplications. Duplications are still
there, but it is possible to find examples in Canada where we can
work together.
Recently we created an infrastructure program. Somehow all
provinces without exception have joined in voluntarily.
Agreements have been signed. It is an example of the three
levels of government working not only efficiently but in
harmony to create a system that works.
Recently the Minister of Finance met with Quebec and the
other provinces regarding transfers from the federal government
to the provinces. Again they worked in harmony to arrive at a
common solution.
It is not always going to be harmonious. The other day the
ministers of health met and certain of them had objections
regarding the latest move on tobacco taxes.
(1655 )
At the same time we have to look into the overall pattern and
make sure that within our system we meet, we talk and we
dialogue.
The minister for whom I work is sitting next to me. In May she
is going to meet for the second time with other environment
ministers. I know my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois was
citing the environment ministry and the 18 problems. Sure, there
might be 18 problems. There might be 28. But the idea is that
when we sit together we can harmonize our laws, our regulations
and our objectives. Today we are in a recession together and we
either sink or swim together. That realization is coming to pass
more and more.
[Translation]
We have all come to the realization-be it the Government of
Quebec, of Alberta, of British Columbia or the Liberal federal
government-that unless we work together to reduce
duplication and overlap, unless we get together and act like
people who have a common goal of resolving problems, we will
never get anywhere. This realization seems to have sunk in
today.
Let me give at little example to my friends from the Bloc
Quebecois who think that nothing is working in Canada. In my
region, back in the days when I was sitting at the National
Assembly-14 years ago already-we had instituted quarterly
meetings where all the provincial and federal members of
Parliament and all the mayors of the region regularly got
together to address the common problem of duplication and
overlap. There were no distinctions based on political
affiliation. Well, these people have been sitting together for 14
years. We have looked into public transportation, public health
and environmental problems. We look for solutions together.
Today, in that region and Sault-au-Saint-Louis, the
neighbouring region, instead of waiting for a quick fix
concerning manpower training programs, they have decided to
work together: the federal government, the provincial
government, the municipalities and the target communities.
In fact, by assuming responsibility for ourselves and coming
up with practical solutions that work in the real world, we will
demonstrate to our fellow citizens, wherever they live, that the
federal system can work. But if anyone creates difficulties along
the way or tries to throw a monkey wrench into the works, as you
are trying to do, it will not work.
You are saying that the public accounts committee's mandate
is not broad enough to examine all that you want to examine.
The public accounts committee is under your control. The
chairmanship will be yours. Just the other day, the Solicitor
General stated in this House that the autonomy of House
committees will be significantly enhanced. You have here a
committee that you will chair, where you can examine all the
public accounts of the federal government and you are arguing
that it will not deal with separate departmental accounts. Look,
the standard practice is that all departments are represented to
defend their account statements.
I was in the opposition for four years, so I know what I am
talking about. I have examined the accounts of the ministries of
International Affairs, the Environment and many others in
Quebec. You have full latitude to ask questions. In fact, by
making all the figures available to you, the Auditor General is
helping you. And your work will be transparent because we all
want to be transparent. You have control over this committee.
You will be quite free to examine all cases of overlap. You say
that we must cut spending but you now want to create a kind of
ceremonial committee in addition to the one that already exists.
Use the committee you already have. Make it work. Find
constructive solutions to its problems. Do not use it to make
your little speeches on Canadian federalism that never lies, but
rather to help make it more effective, more real, more equitable
if you think it is not equitable enough.
(1700)
Our respective positions do meet in the end. What we are all
pursuing is a better quality of life for ourselves and for our
children. We want to become full-time citizens who can enjoy
their complete freedom. My philosophy is different from yours
because I think I can attain these objectives within the Canadian
federation, while you think that it must be destroyed so that
something new can be built. All the tools are in your hands. You
have all the House committees. You have the public accounts
1207
committee to prove, while waiting for tomorrow's dream, that
your ideas count.
In conclusion, as I was saying the other day during the throne
speech debate, I know that we are talking about expenditures,
about public efficiency. The government I am a member of today
is committed to changing things for the better. And if it does not
do so, it is your job to show us the right way. At the same time, I
think there is a fundamental issue underlying all this. What you
are trying to do is emphasize what my colleague from Ontario
pointed out earlier; you are trying to prove that Quebecers and
Canadians are completely different, and never the twain shall
meet.
On this side of the House, we will work honestly and most
vigorously but without enmity. We may be opponents but we
will never be unfriendly. The greatest tribute that you can pay to
Canada is, as I stated the other day, your mere presence in this
House, which all parties have graciously accepted, including the
representatives of British Columbia and Alberta. However, if
the situation were reversed, I wonder whether you would have
been as obliging. In my view, your presence here is the best
possible proof we could have of the fundamental freedoms we
enjoy in Canada, of the spirit of warmth and generosity
embodied in the Canadian federation.
I hope that as you go about your work, scrutinize the public
accounts, examine the work of the Auditor General and take a
close look at everything that does not work in the federation, you
will be able to work with us to improve things, not merely for the
sake of some ideology, but for the welfare of citizens who, far
from worrying about ideology, want a better standard of living, a
job, opportunities for young people who today are looking for
work. That is the message I am getting, in both francophone and
anglophone areas of my riding. Constituents are not concerned
about Quebec's independence. They are worried more by the
fact that if Quebec independence soon becomes the focus of
discussions in a referendum, the issue will divide us, just as it
divided us in 1980. It will divide families and create economic
instability, something that you yourselves wanted to avoid. It
will create instability-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member's time
is up. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has the
floor.
(1705)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I will be brief. In any case, I have often heard the hon. member
for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis make this kind of speech before,
in the distant and not so distant past. All I can say that the Bloc
Quebecois is here in force with 54 members, not because people
were doing us a favour but thanks to our democratic system. If
the hon. member has no respect for democracy or for the choice
of Quebecers, then he is the problem. We feel quite comfortable.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. As far as I know, there
were no interruptions during the speech by the parliamentary
secretary. On behalf of all members, I would ask that the same
courtesy be extended to other speakers.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I said there is not a single member
of the Bloc Quebecois who feels uncomfortable in this House,
and I will tell you why: because Quebecers gave us a very clear
mandate. And if you ask your constituents, you will find that
Canadians are satisfied with our role as the Official Opposition.
It is just as well we are there to monitor this government, not
only on behalf of the Quebecers who elected us but also on
behalf of Canadians, because otherwise you would do what you
felt like doing and cause as much harm, socially and
economically, as the Conservatives did before.
That being said, we may not get it right all the time, but I think
that since 1980, the federalists have got it all wrong. In 1980
during the election campaign, they told Quebecers: ``Vote no for
renewed federalism''. In 1981 we had the night of the long
knives. In 1982, unilateral patriation of the Constitution. At the
time, the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis was a
member of the Quebec National Assembly, and he voted against
patriation of the Canadian Constitution, against the majority in
the National Assembly. He was there, or rather his government,
the government to which he belonged.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the
hon. member said is entirely incorrect. I voted for patriation of
the Constitution.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis may respond in a few minutes.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I made a minor historical mistake.
Not many members voted in favour, did they?
An hon. member: Five.
Mr. Loubier: The National Assembly voted almost
unanimously against unilateral patriation of the Constitution.
In 1984, the sovereigntists decided to take the ``beau risque''
and give the federalists another chance, like the hon. member
opposite. Meech failed. Bélanger-Campeau resulted in a
consensus unheard of in Quebec. The federalists responded with
two years of nonsense which led us to the moment of truth. I will
explain
In 1992, Quebecers voted massively against the
Charlottetown nonsense. That was the moment of truth for
Quebec and Quebecers. And again on October 25 last year, they
gave us a clear mandate. Why did they not vote for you? Why did
they not vote massively for the Liberals? Quebecers who vote
want to
1208
choose their option for the future, and I am sure they will chose
the option of sovereignty.
I have one more important item. The Leader of the Official
Opposition extended his hand in friendship when he arrived
here. We intend to work very hard to improve public finances
and the state of the economy in Quebec and Canada. Do you
know why? Because when Quebecers choose the sovereignty
option, we do not want to be stuck with an even bigger share of
Canada's debt than would be the case today, and second, we
certainly don't want Canadians, our friends and trading
partners, to suffer as the consequences of an economic situation
created by this government and its poor economic decisions.
The Deputy Speaker: I would invite the hon. members, and
especially very senior members, to direct their remarks to the
Chair.
Does the parliamentary secretary wish to respond?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I said what I had to say. I think we
should let the people be the judge.
(1710)
I do want to repeat that I think it is very sad to hear this
distinction made between Canadians and Quebecers, as though
we were two separate nations, two foreign nations that do not
talk to each other.
As far as I know, Quebecers are Canadians. If they decide
otherwise, then we will see, but so far they have decided to be
Canadians. Again, I think making these distinctions between
Canadians and Quebecers is a sad reflection on the current
situation, where people are trying to divide a country which
should be united in hard times, when we all have to work
together to solve our problems. Solving problems is a joint
endeavour. We must be united and work together, and I don't
think the kind of distinction they are purposely making is
conducive to Canadian unity.
I intend to work very hard, and I hope to be able to convince
the Bloc Quebecois that working together is better than working
divided.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, I feel a bit
concerned and sad when I listen to the comments of the hon.
member who just spoke. Unfortunately I forget which riding he
is from because I met him here and there, in Chambly during the
byelection of 1991, and I do not know which riding he belongs to
now.
I want to ask the hon. member in what way he represents
Quebecers in a more legitimate manner with 16 members from
Québec sitting on the other side of the House when we are 54 on
our side but we are not allowed to get our point of view across in
this House.
In the 1991 byelection, he got about 7 per cent of the vote in
the Chambly county. Who wins elections, the minorities or the
majority? We are 54 elected members in this House to defend
our point of view. Do we still have to get on our knees before the
hon. member from God knows where to ask permission to stand?
We made a proposal and submitted it to the House. If he wants
to rise against it, I do not have a problem with that, but,
nevertheless, he has to respect the democratic dimension of
Quebecers's vote on October 25.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I will not respond directly to what
the member said. I think he is showing a lack of class and
courtesy. I am not the member from God knows where, I am the
member representing a Quebec riding of 73,000 constituents. I
was elected in the same capacity as he was. I was sometimes
defeated in my lifetime, these things happen, but I have accepted
defeat with great magnanimity. I did not say that I always win,
but I work according to my beliefs.
I would say to the member that I never said that he does not
represent the majority of Quebec electors in the Canadian
federation. That is obvious, his party has got 54 seats. I had said
that very clearly to the member for Terrebonne, who was saying
that we were talking about Quebec's position. I said the same
thing as the minister of Foreign Affairs did the other day, that is
that the Bloc members do not have a monopoly on talking for
Quebec, that we too, even if we did not get as many votes, are
also Quebecers and have a say in the matter. The present Quebec
government represents a position which is not separatist and it
too was elected with a majority.
That majority and minority issue saddens me. I am above all a
Canadian. I do not have this problem with majority and
minority, French speaking and English speaking, division and
narrow-mindedness. I want to work for all my fellow citizens. I
do not accept to be called a member from God knows where. I
am a member representing a riding where almost 45 per cent of
the people are French speaking, and they too matter in Quebec.
(1715)
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, in any country, when the tax rate reaches excessive
levels, as is the case in Canada now, the ordinary, even
traditional discontent of taxpayers towards taxation turns into
resentment. And when the people learn that their hard earned
money is mismanaged and wasted, such a mess transforms their
resentment into frustration.
When taxpayers witness financial mismanagement in a
country, there is always a threshold, a limit it would be
dangerous for any government to cross.
When, in this country, people see part of the population break
the law with complete impunity, they see it is necessary to act
illegally to have an unreasonable tax reduced, they see that very
rich people are legally exempt of income taxes while others are
crushed under the tax burden, social uprising is not far. I am not
saying we are there already, but I think, in spite of the infinite
1209
patience of Quebecers and Canadians, it could very well happen.
History is full of such cases.
Without going back to the beginning of times, let me remind
you of an event we all know about very well. The French
Revolution was triggered by nothing else but excessive taxes
and the squandering of the royal court. Remember that the main
point in the list of demands drawn up by the Estates-General
was the existence of a privileged class which paid no taxes.
In Canada and Quebec we have our own kind of aristocracy, a
class of people who pay almost no income tax. The marquesses
of today are the family trusts. I do not want to get too sordid, but
I suggest there is in our country, as there was in France in those
days, a toiling and struggling population which is shocked by
such injustice and incompetence.
Please do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. Once again, I
am not saying the two factors of frustration I mentioned,
mismanagement and an unfair taxation system, will lead us
directly to a revolution. We are two very patient nations, too
wise to let the situation reach that point. In our country the
individual is far from ready to attack the state, but to escape
taxes, he is quite ready to hide from the system and hide his
activities.
That kind of behaviour is spreading and, because of that, our
government is losing control over, even knowledge of, a
complete section of the economy. Civil disobedience is no
longer reproved by public opinion. What a failure, Mr. Speaker,
what a decline!
Year after year, the Auditor General, without succeeding in
shaking the government out of its lethargy, displays for the
public, who eventually becomes blasé, damning examples of
carelessness, shortsightedness and waste on the part of previous
federal governments. This year takes the cake. And, to my
knowledge, the Auditor General, when reviewing our finances,
stays strictly within the federal jurisdiction and consequently,
does not look into this generous source of administrative
abberation and squandering of public funds which is the
overlapping of jurisdictions.
Here is a particularly painful example of this mess, in view of
its victims, old age pensioners. Let us see what the Auditor
General has to say about that. This meagre pension which is, as
you know, the only source of revenue for a lot of people, could
be increased, without dipping into the public purse, if the $200
million or so in overpayments were clawed back or, better yet, if
they were never paid out, thanks to a better managed fund.
If, at least, old age pensioners could be heard by the
government when they have a problem! But the Auditor General
tells us that there are 17,000 inquiries on a waiting list and
sometimes, it takes more than a year before they are answered.
And that is not all. Service centres and regional offices receive 4
million telephone inquiries a year, but 7 million calls are either
cut off or dropped by the caller, out of despair, I guess.
Overlapping and duplication of services are another source of
waste and paralysis, exposed time and time again but always in
vain.
(1720)
A study done by the Treasury Board of Canada in 1991
indicates that in five provinces at least there was duplication in
60 per cent of federal and provincial programs. That situation
being obviously profitable to some officials, it is doubtful they
would readily propose to eliminate those duplications.
As for those elected, they have ignored to date a situation
which they find politically beneficial since it enhances their
visibility.
I would now like to talk about duplication, particularly in
Quebec. The hon. member for Joliette recently made a
declaration in this place and I find it useful to repeat it. ``The
Bélanger-Campeau Commission has estimated that the
elimination of duplication resulting from the sovereignty of
Quebec would allow a saving of $233 million in transport and
communication costs. This is therefore a potentially important
issue, although there is no recent study evaluating the cost of
present duplications in provincial and federal programs''. The
hon. member went on to say that some sources estimate the total
cost at close to $3 billion. Those figures come from the
Bélanger-Campeau commission whose recommendations were
accepted, namely by the provincial Liberals. It was five billion
according to them. This is why we ask this House to give the
Auditor General, without any political partisanship, the
mandate to conduct a serious and comprehensive study on
duplication and overlapping in all those spending programs.
In conclusion, it is imperative that we regain the confidence
of Canadians in the government's expertise and sense of justice.
If not there will be no revolution but we will see the rise of an
underground economy in Quebec and Canada. Tax dodging
would become socially acceptable, still illegal perhaps but
legitimate. Elected officials would be despised. In a word, our
model democracy we pride ourselves on, and rightly so, would
slowly deteriorate.
To win back the trust of Canadians, we must first have a
parliamentary committee review mercilessly all public
expenditures, particularly areas of unnecessary overlap between
federal and provincial jurisdictions.
Second, the government must put an end to undue tax
privileges for the Canadian tax aristocracy. Like the aristocracy
which once caused the fall of monarchy in France, these lucky
few are not only undermining our finances but are also
threatening our institutions, since the public feel treated
unfairly in the face of these privileges.
1210
Such is the double price we will have to pay, that is review of
expenditures and suspension of privileges, in order to restore in
the population the minimum of respect that institutions and
governments should command. Without such respect,
institutions are in danger.
A last word, inspired by this morning's newspapers. Put in
headlines over four columns, La Presse states ``Martin's first
budget will hurt''. We knew that. A lot of people are afraid the
budget will hurt the have-nots, sparing the rich once again. If
the awaited elimination of abuse-ridden tax shelters turns out to
be nothing but a snow job, while social program cuts turn out to
be too real, the resentment of taxpayers could lead to social
behaviour that would make us all sorry.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the member for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes.
He obviously is not aware that a member of his own party, the
member for La Prairie, was appointed chair of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts this afternoon.
Is he, then, leading us to believe that a member of his own
party is not capable of doing this job? If so, then he should ask
for his immediate removal. As his own party now chairs the
committee on public accounts, elected this afternoon, perhaps
he should consult with his member for La Prairie.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, this is at least the sixth time today
that we have been told that the committee we are asking for
would duplicate the work of the public accounts committee.
The committee we are calling for is an ad hoc committee with
a specific time limited mandate and more power than the public
accounts committee; in particular, it could look at some aspects
of provincial accounting to gauge the overlap between federal
and provincial authority. These two committees do not duplicate
each other. One is permanent with a specific but relatively
limited mission; ours has a precise mission and we want
increased power for it.
(1725)
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the hon. member for bringing forward those points and I want to
thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forward this motion. It
points to a very serious problem, the fiscal and monetary
situation that Canada is in.
We have seen successive governments plunge this country
into debt to the point where the members who speak on behalf of
the Fraser Institute of Canada, which held a seminar here that
many of our members attended, are suggesting we may be
beyond the point of return in getting our fiscal and monetary
house in order.
I want to thank the member for bringing a debate to this House
that focuses to a certain degree on that issue. It is the greatest
and most serious issue facing Canada today. The powers of the
federal government, the provincial governments and the
municipal governments to tax wealth away from the people is
the greatest threat to the economic well-being of our families
and individual businesses and so on that we have in this country
today.
The unbridled power and the irresponsible exercise of that
power as reflected in the governments of the 1970s and the
1980s and up until this time poses a very serious threat to the
economic well-being of our future.
If those experts from the Fraser Institute know what they are
talking about, and I believe they have put forward a very logical
case, then the government should be focusing on this aspect of
the crisis, and that is the economic, fiscal and monetary aspect.
We are looking at the signs of a tax revolt. We see the
underground economy, cross-border shopping, and we ask
ourselves why thousands of normally law-abiding citizens will
buy bootleg cigarettes. These are all signs that people are simply
giving up on a tax system that has burdened them to the point
where they can no longer make ends meet and they are seeking
illegal ways to get around it.
I would like to compliment the hon. member and ask him a
specific question. He has answered my question partly but could
he highlight the differences between the committee he is
recommending and the existing public accounts committee.
Would he respond to that please?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who just
spoke for his approval, basically, of the motion we tabled.
Before answering him, I would like to point out that, as one of
my fellow Bloc members said just now, the committee that we
are calling for would meet one of the promises made by the
Liberals in their red book to examine spending thoroughly. If the
Reform Party agrees with our proposal, why are we arguing with
each other? We all agree.
Now, to answer the question about the difference between the
public accounts committee and the one that we are calling for, as
I just said, this is to be a committee with a specific time-limited
mandate and increased powers which would go beyond the
annual auditing routine done by the public accounts committee
and which would tackle a specific current situation that the hon.
member said was urgent and current.
1211
(1730)
It would be an ad hoc committee for the present situation, with
increased powers to meet their objective, which, like ours and
the Liberals' objective, is to track down unnecessary spending.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I want to
explain why a special committee of the House should be set up to
examine public expenditures, especially in the context of
employment. The first and most obvious reason is the absolutely
disastrous situation of government finances in Canada.
The second reason is the fact that the public has lost
confidence in its parliamentary institutions, which is something
very dangerous for democracy. Indeed, the general public, as
well as the Bloc Quebecois, feel that there is still some fat in the
government administration.
Moreover, because more and more people live in poverty, and
because the middle-class is getting poorer and poorer, the
government has a moral responsibility to the public. It must
have a transparent style of management, and it must also
demonstrate the efficiency of its structure. In other words, the
government must prove its integrity to all Canadians, regardless
of their economic situation and class.
Economic growth must be accelerated and unemployment
must be reduced to lighten the deficit and the national debt on a
long-term basis.
I come from a working family in Chili, where unemployment
and underemployment are extremely high. As a lawyer in my
country, I worked for unions and for the government, mostly in
labour relations.
Here, I was a servicing representative for 19 years in
Quebec's labour movement. I was very active in the FTQ and the
Conseil des travailleurs et travailleuses du Montréal
métropolitain.
My first concern has always been employment as well as the
well-being of laid off workers. I sincerely believe that every
person has the right to a job which is well-paying, satisfying and
compatible with his or her skills.
Through my involvement in the union movement, I often
witnessed tragic events, for individuals and families, when
workers would lose their job, particularly when a company
would close down for good. This is even more tragic when the
people affected are workers over 45 years of age who have spent
their entire working life with the company. Unfortunately, the
legislation, both federal and provincial, does not adequately
protect the workers who are affected by mass lay-offs.
Statistics Canada said that the recession was over. However,
the current economic recovery is very different from the one
which followed the last recession in 1981-82, in the sense that it
has taken a long time to come and it is still slow. This is mainly
due to the refusal or the inability of federal and provincial
governments to stimulate the economy and create jobs. The
current financial problems of governments have more to do
with increasingly insufficient revenues than with expenditures.
This insufficiency is due to the large number of unemployed
people who, of course, cannot contribute and must instead get
help from the state. The fact that the last recession eliminated
more permanent jobs than the previous one in the eighties says
something about the magnitude of the present economic
dislocation.
The deterioration of the job situation has adversely affected
every sector and region, as well as every category of workers.
(1735)
However, it is the manufacturing sector that was hardest hit,
and very early on, by the recession. A total of 248,000 jobs in
this sector have been lost across Canada. What a disaster! In the
space of four years, one in every six jobs disappeared.
The recession has affected full-time jobs the most. The only
net gains in this sector have been in the part-time field. Job
losses have been concentrated in Canada's two main industrial
provinces, namely Quebec and Ontario.
Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson has just wrapped up a trip to
Europe. During his trip, he announced investments in the order
of $180 million which he claimed would create some 350 jobs.
However, since he was sworn in as premier last January 11,
roughly 1,800 jobs have either been lost in Quebec or have been
targeted for elimination.
Virtually every region has been affected, either by a plant
closure, by staff cutbacks or by relocations. Plant closures have
been the heaviest in the Eastern Townships. The closure of the
Asea Brown Boveri kettle plant was just announced. A total of
340 workers will lose their jobs.
I personally came to the aid of ABB, Asea Brown Boveri,
employees in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu when another plant
shut down two years ago. I also helped the workers at the Philips
plant in Saint-Laurent when a decision to close the facility put
more than 1,000 people out of work.
The Montreal region has also been hard hit. Proctor and
Gamble is closing and laying off 100 employees in
Pointe-Claire. Dominion Textile is shutting down its dyeing
plant and as a result, 105 jobs will disappear.
On the cultural scene, the Musée pour rire is closing its doors
after receiving several million dollars in public funds. As a
result, 40 people have been laid off.
In my own riding of Bourassa which includes the municipality
of Montréal-Nord, the unemployment rate is hovering around
the 30 per cent mark, if we include social assistance recipients
who are able to work. And yet, Northern Telecom has just shut
1212
down its facility, throwing another hundred or more people out
of work.
I should also point out that the fishing industry which
provides work for the vast majority of the 6,000 Quebecers from
the lower North Shore, is in dire straights.
Unitel has announced it was cutting 150 positions in Quebec
and the Discus record chain that it was closing down 13 stores
and laying off 200 employees. And the list of closures and
layoffs in Quebec and Canada goes on and on.
Yet the federal government ran and won the last election on a
platform of job creation. Their slogan was ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
The opposite is happening, with more and more massive layoffs.
On Saturday, February 12, 1994, the FTQ will be holding its
annual meeting on the solidarity fund, the primary purpose of
which is to create jobs. I take this opportunity to pay a special
tribute to its founding president, my friend and colleague Louis
Laberge.
He will soon be replaced by Mr. Fernand Daoust as chairman
of the board of the solidarity fund. Known mainly for his three
years as president of the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec
and 22 years as secretary general of the same central labour
body, my very dear friend Fernand Daoust is also a man totally
devoted to the cause of the workers.
Fernand Daoust is a man of great stature. The Fonds de
solidarité des travailleurs du Québec is gaining in him a
president who will no doubt apply all the talent we is famous for
to help achieve its goals. On that subject, I would like to tell you
more about this FTQ solidarity fund which is a positive labour
initiative to save and create jobs.
I am not done, Mr. Speaker, but I will close on this. True
economic recovery will result in less unemployment and more
tax revenues.
(1740)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Opposition motion that
says essentially this: to examine federal expenditures by
focusing on overlap between federal and provincial government
programs.
This is a noble and essential objective. But why is the Bloc
asking for such a committee? It is something we should look at.
Of course, like us and like members of other parties, they want
to know if it is possible to spend better or less. It is a very good
thing and I share this feeling. I want to do it and I think we all
agree that it must be done.
We heard today an interesting comment from a member of the
Reform Party. There are still a few differences between the Bloc
and Reform. It is sometimes difficult to see these differences but
I think there is at least one. This member from the Reform Party
indicated that, in his opinion, the Bloc was trying to open a
constitutional debate.
Why would the Bloc want to open a constitutional debate? If
we analyze this comment carefully, could it be to promote their
goal, namely separation from Canada? I hope I am mistaken. I
do not want to accuse them, but I should remind Bloc members
that this comment was made today by a Reform member. If there
are any doubts as to the validity of my interpretation, one only
has to check Hansard.
It is one possibility, but I think that the Bloc may want to
move in a different direction. Every now and then, they
remember that they are the Official Opposition so it is only
natural that they want to embarrass the government. It is only
natural that they try to create a situation suggesting that the
current system of government, namely federalism, is not
working.
[English]
Why is it that I make those particular points?
[Translation]
The Bloc knows very well that there is a committee which
exists right now.
[English]
There is a committee which exists right now that can attain all
of the objectives that are in the opposition motion. The Bloc
chairs that committee. It has the key position on the committee.
If there is a mechanism that exists to achieve the objectives that
have been enunciated here on paper then are there other
objectives that it is trying to pursue? Why is it asking to create
something that already exists essentially to do those things it
says it wants to do and that we all want to do, and that is to see
whether we can spend better and more wisely fewer public
funds?
As we examine this question I would hope that we would ask
ourselves some very serious questions. We talk about concepts
such as overlap and duplication as if they were the same thing.
When I raised a question today of a member of the Reform Party,
whether the member made a distinction, the member sloughed it
off, I cannot say the party did, as simply being interested in
saving money. Let me assure the members that we are interested
in saving money as well.
It seems to me that before we go forward we have to have a
clear sense of what it is we are trying to accomplish. Do we want
to attack duplication only which to my way of thinking is
another program that is essentially the same? Do we want to
simply look at overlap? Do we know the difference between
overlap and duplication? Overlap is where there are similarities
but not necessarily a total similarity and a total duplication. We
are just sloughing that off.
1213
(1745 )
There may be a necessity for overlap in some situations. It is
my view that the more we can eliminate overlap and duplication
the better off we are.
Let me give an example. In the whole question of environment
there are certain provinces that abut territories. There are
questions of environment that flow from the federal government
to the territory as well as to the province. There may even be a
need for duplication.
Let me give but one example. We have schools, generally
speaking that are administered by school boards. In certain
instances we need schools that are administered by the federal
government for our aboriginal people. That is changing and it is
going in the right direction.
To simply say we want to get rid of all overlap, all duplication
without knowing the distinctions between overlap and
duplication, without considering whether there are some needs
for overlap and duplication, is not doing this particular activity
justice.
Everybody would agree that there is overlap and duplication
between the federal and provincial governments that needs to be
looked at in a very serious way. What I am surprised at as well is
that we have not talked about another level of government. Is
there a need to examine whether there is too much overlap and
duplication among the various levels of government, federal,
provincial and municipal? There is in many instances.
Let us remember that if we are allowing ourselves to look at
overlap and duplication between federal and provincial levels
we ought to be able to extend that to municipal levels because
municipal structures, governmental structures, are created by
provincial governments.
What about overlap itself within certain levels of
government, within, for example, the federal government,
within provincial governments, within municipal governments?
Let me give a good example of overlap within federal
governments. I am told that during the last government there
were programs related to education, training, retraining;
education broadly defined, if you wish, to be found in over a
dozen federal departments.
Is that necessary? Is that good for the nation? Can we have a
focus with that kind of spread, that kind of non-co-ordination. I
think not.
In my own province of Manitoba a very serious duplication
exists between the provincial and municipal authorities. It is
social assistance. In some cases people receive social assistance
from the provincial authorities. In other cases it is from the
municipal authorities.
Sometimes it is very difficult to follow why one gets it from
one level of government or the other level of government.
There are differences in programs. There are administrators in
both and one could logically ask whether that should continue to
exist.
Let me broach another topic. I do not think we have looked at
the public accounts committee in a serious way. It can review
spending. If it can review spending, clearly it can ask questions
about overlap and duplication. Why would we not use this
committee?
In a sense there is a contradiction there.
[Translation]
Since we already have a committee, why should we set up
another one? The existing committee can reach the same
objectives as those mentioned in Official Opposition's motion
before us today.
[English]
It seems to me there is a glaring contradiction. We want to
attack overlap and duplication and yet we are prepared to
undertake an act that will cause overlap and duplication.
[Translation]
It doest not make any sense at all.
[English]
There are many studies that point out that there is a problem in
this area. The House has heard reference to the 1937
Rowell-Sirois commission, the 1978 study of the École
nationale d'administration publique, of the 1978-79 federal
provincial duplication of services review, of the 1984-85 task
force on program review, of the regulatory reform initiative, of
the 1991 Treasury Board secretariat study on federal-provincial
overlap and duplication.
The House will perhaps be happy to note something that falls
in line with the debate today. In this most recent study, in all
studies, there were activities of overlap in many areas and
duplication in a number of areas. Overlap in federal and
provincial programs took several forms. In general,
governments were managing some of these overlaps and
duplications in an effective way. However, they all admitted that
there is considerable scope for improving program delivery
through better co-ordination or harmonization.
(1750)
Let me review the motion to make sure that we are talking
about the same thing.
[Translation]
The motion before us today reads as follows:
That this House urge the Government to strike a Special Committee of the
House, composed of representatives of all the official parties, with a mandate to
examine public expenditures by the federal government, in light of the Report
of the Auditor General of Canada, concerning overlap between federal and
provincial government programs and in accordance with the following
guidelines:
1214
[English]
(1) the Committee's deliberations would be an open and transparent process
allowing for the public examination of official matters;
This is not possible.
(2) the Committee would have the power to subpoena any witnesses whose
testimony would be considered helpful;
This is possible.
(3) the Committee would be required to report to the House by June 23, 1994;
I believe that the date is different but surely accommodations
could be made if this is important.
I see no reason to create an additional committee but I see
reason to pursue the objective of examining where we could
spend less and yet serve all citizens in a meaningful way. There
is a committee to do it and I would urge that it be done.
[Translation]
Let us do it. I think we should all work together to cut
government expenditures at all levels and to create jobs for all
Canadians.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
attentively to my hon. colleague from St. Boniface, Manitoba.
I note his statement to the effect that in Manitoba, everything
is for the best in the best of all worlds. Unfortunately, I must also
note that in Manitoba, not as many people speak French as in the
last century. I would not want the same thing to happen in
Quebec.
As for his question concerning the public accounts
committee, may I ask if most of the members on that committee
are from the party in power? If so, could the party in power
assure us that the proceedings of the public accounts committee
will be non-partisan? I would really like to hear the member on
that.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question. I
want to emphasize that my riding is indeed St. Boniface. I quite
agree that many more people spoke French in Manitoba a
century ago. Unfortunately, there has been a large drop. People
still speak French in Manitoba, even though only a small number
really care about the language and culture and have deep
feelings towards this language and culture.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duhamel: I would like to add that where I come from,
and I do not say it in an unkind way because I am not a nasty
person, we are trying not only to keep what we have and to
improve it but we also want to try to understand others and to
develop ways of working and living together to make everyone's
life better. For us, that is very important.
I drew attention in the House this week to a big Voyageur
Festival we were having and I invited all my colleagues to come
and see how things were in our part of the country. I would be
really glad to see you because we hear people speaking French,
we have native people, we even have people from all over the
world. Frankly, it is wonderful. Tomorrow night, I will be with
francophones from France and francophones from Manitoba,
because we still have people who speak French.
(1755)
I want to go back to the comment regarding what is going very
well in Manitoba. I think the hon. member was listening, but he
was not paying attention as closely as he should have because I
gave an example of something which was not going well. I said
that there are problems. If the hon. member thinks there are no
problems, whether we refer to Quebec, Manitoba or another
province, then I honestly think that his vision must be blurred.
There are problems everywhere. And we are here to solve
those problems. I recognize that what we are doing here is very
important. I recognize that everybody wants to reduce spending.
If this is what you want to do, and I believe it is, fine. But we also
want to do it, and the Reform Party wants to do it as well.
However, what I said was that there is already a committee
where this can be done.
The chairperson of that committee will be a Bloc Quebecois
member. Do we have a majority? I think we do, but you are not
going to tell me that because we have a majority we are not
going to listen to common sense, even if it comes from a
member of another party. If that was the case, it would not work
at all.
The hon. member might want to reconsider what he said,
because he is suggesting that we, Liberals, do not have people
who can sit on this committee, listen to a proposal which makes
sense, and say ``yes, this is a good idea''. I want to assure the
hon. member that we do have such people. In fact, we have a lot
of talented men and women who are willing to work for you.
They want to create jobs and cut non-essential government
spending, and they also want to make our country better for
everyone.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I
think that my colleagues did mention several times during this
debate that the special committee would be a committee with
accrued powers.
As the Auditor General himself keeps telling the government
year after year: ``I do not have access to all the information''.
This is something the government has to understand. This is
something the Auditor General himself is saying. In his report,
1215
he did say that the use of government aircraft cost us $50
million, including $25 million to transport ministers, but he also
said that he did not have the tools to examine these expenditures.
He had the same problems with the information about the
expenditures of the Royal Canadian Mountain Police versus
transfers to the provinces.
So, more information, that is what we want the committee to
have in order to consider the expenditures item by item. Give
your committee all the information available about the
expenditures.
Mr. Duhamel: I am glad to be so popular with my colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois. I understand what my colleague is
saying, I am not the government, but I do understand what he is
saying, and I can assure him that the government understands it
as well. You are telling us that the Auditor General needs more
information.
You want me and everyone listening tonight to believe that the
existing committee does not have the authority to give to the
Auditor General all the information he needs. Well, I want my
colleague to know that it is possible, the existing committee can
do just about anything it wants. The question is will the Bloc
allow the committee to do it? I do not have the answer to that.
We can give the Auditor General exactly what he wants. We
can give him all the information he needs, whenever we want to.
There is nothing magic to it; it is possible, now-
The previous government did not want to do it, but we have a
new government that wants to help.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I think this
is a slight exaggeration. We had an experienced and highly
respected person, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, chair
the public accounts committee for years. He worked tirelessly,
given the powers he had. The same powers that the committee
now has. And what results did we see?
(1800)
For years, Liberals on the public accounts committee wanted
to know everything and to have the same powers as others. And
what did they do with the powers they had? They were unable to
get the information they wanted or to force ministers or senior
officials to testify. Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee
has a great deal less power than the Auditor General and you
misled the public by saying otherwise-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the hon. member kindly
address his remarks to the Chair. The parliamentary secretary
has 45 seconds remaining to respond.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have never misled anyone. Sir,
you have some nerve making this kind of comment! It was the
previous government that did not want to satisfy the needs of
members of this committee. I have clearly stated that this
government is open-minded. We are prepared to co-operate
with you if you are willing to work with us, for all Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: As there are 20 seconds remaining, I
recognize the hon. member for Terrebonne.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to quote two sentences from the red book and then you can
fulfil your duties. ``Cynicism about public institutions,
governments, politicians and the political process is at an
all-time high''. There are 15 seconds remianing. ``Therefore,
the government is proposing to-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is
my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.
_____________________________________________
1215
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, the
other side is obviously anxious and interested to hear what we
have to say; that speeds things up.
It is important to wonder about the basic role of the Canadian
parliamentary system. In the House, various procedures allow
the Opposition members to enquire about government activities.
Among these, the Question Period remains a first-rate mean to
discover and recognize the true position of the government on
current issues.
Therefore, when the government apparently does not wish to
answer, we can eventually resort to what is commonly known as
the ``late show'', as you said it yourself, Mr. Speaker, to force
the government to act more responsibly and to answer our
questions in the best interest of Canadians. That is where we are
at now, and I urge the government to give clear answers to the
questions of the opposition.
I asked the Minister of National Defence about an incident
involving an helicopter of the Canadian Armed Forces and
Mohawks in Kanesatake and I got more comments and questions
than answers. Opposition members are entitled to ask about the
origin of the distress signal detected by Canadian Armed Forces.
That signal caused the incident on January 21 and as long as the
public does not know where that signal came from, doubts will
continue to linger in the mind of all Canadians and Quebecers.
The matter is not closed simply because this government tried
to cover it up through a joint statement of National Defence and
the Mohawks. On the contrary, one can speculate about the true
reasons why the government tries to downplay and ignore the
1216
incident. Maybe this government needs to be reminded that
something did happen on January 21.
Why was a distress signal detected in the Kanesatake reserve?
If that signal was not used in a real distress situation, why was it
sent? Who sent it and why? What kind of device can send this
distress signal? Exactly where dit it come from? Was it an act of
provocation, or rather a mistake made by the owner of a
state-of-art device who accidently sent such a signal? Why
Kanesatake?
(1805)
Those are the kind of questions for which the government
refused to give us the information we are entitled to. This
incident sets a precedent that can have serious consequences for
the population in general.
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Order, please. The hon.
member's time has expired. I recognize the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and Minister of
Veterans Affairs.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has discussed this
issue at length in the House. We have been open and
forthcoming about the incident. There is no mystery and there is
no doubt.
As the minister stated, a signal from an emergency locator
transmitter, ELT, was detected on January 21 by a Hercules
aircraft during a routine flight. Canadian forces policy dictates
that search and rescue, SAR activity, be initiated whenever an
ELT transmitter emission is detected because such emissions
can indicate the possibility of danger to human life or property.
A Labrador helicopter was dispatched to assist the Hercules in
searching for a possible distress situation. From the air members
of the SAR team were able to identify the general area. The
helicopter then set down in the area and crew members set out to
further localize the source with hand held equipment.
Before the source of the signal could be identified, crew
members were approached by an individual. He stated that shots
had been fired at the aircraft and that they should leave the area.
Comments were advisory and did not convey any threat. The air
crew did not hear any shots being fired nor did they detect the
presence of weapons. Let me reiterate that there is no physical
evidence that shots were fired at the SAR helicopter and reports
that bullet holes were found in the helicopter are absolutely
false.
There were never any reports of an aircraft going down in the
area, nor was there any visible evidence of a possible distress
situation. With this in mind the air crew was correct in its
decision to avoid the unnecessary endangerment of personnel by
leaving the area. The ELT stopped transmitting the following
day.
Chief Peltier and the Minister of National Defence have
discussed this issue to their mutual satisfaction. There is no
dispute over what is Canadian airspace and there is no dispute
that the Canadian forces will continue to use airspace in the
conduct of legitimate defence and search and rescue activities.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval-Est): Mr. Speaker, on January 21
I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs several questions
regarding his government's position on the violation of human
rights in Mexico.
At the time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered that his
government would listen to suggestions and discuss the matter
with the Mexican authorities.
We were surprised at the minister's comments. When one
realizes that Canada has a long tradition of defending
democracy and human rights, the government's silence was
cause for concern. Considering also that the Prime Minister and
the Minister for International Trade publicly announced there
was no connection between our trade agreements with Mexico
and respect for human rights in that country, we started asking
some serious questions. On the other hand, the Secretary of
State responsible for Africa and Latin America made it clear that
Canada was always concerned about human rights issues among
its trading partners.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
intervened on January 24 to establish clearly a link between our
trade agreements and environmental protection. Are we to
understand that the government sees human rights as being less
important than the environment?
Quebecers and Canadians want to know once and for all
whether Canada sees a link between respect for human rights
and the signing of trade agreements and establishing close
trading relationships.
If the answer is yes, why was the government not more
energetic in its representations to the Mexican government
following the brutal repression of the people of Chiapas, shortly
after NAFTA was signed? And how do we justify the privileged
business relationship Canada has with China, although human
rights are still being violated in that country?
(1810)
If, on the other hand, the new government does not see a direct
link between respect for human rights and its trading
relationships, how does it justify Canada's retaliatory measures
against Haiti, for instance? Quebecers and Canadians want to
know what the present government's position is and they want
that
1217
position to be consistent. How can we explain the fact that the
government has a double standard?
Canada and Quebec enjoy an excellent reputation for
development assistance and respect for democracy and human
rights. The Bloc Quebecois also feels that the resulting
economic space and reciprocal trade are very important for our
economy. Finally, we ask the government to clearly establish
consistent criteria for all these countries tp be applied
consistently to problems concerning human rights and
democracy.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the hon.
member for Laval-Est that the Government of Canada remains
concerned about the conflict in Chiapas State of Mexico in early
January, particularly the loss of life and allegations of human
rights abuses.
We have conveyed these concerns to the Mexican
government, both through our ambassador, David Winfield, in
Mexico and through the Mexican ambassador here in Ottawa,
Sandra Fuentes-Berain.
The Government of Canada is encouraging the Mexican
government to continue the open and conciliatory approach it
has taken since the second week of the crisis to address the
situation in Chiapas, including the following important steps:
the appointment of Manuel Camacho, the former foreign
minister and former mayor of Mexico City as the chief
conciliator for Chiapas; the appointment of Dr. Jorge Carpizo,
the former President of Mexico's human rights commission as
the new interior minister; the involvement of Bishop Samuel
Ruiz in negotiations to resolve the situation in Chiapas; the
ceasefire; the meetings of President Salinas with indigenous
groups in Chiapas; the amnesty offered to the Zapatistas by
President Salinas, which was ratified by the Mexican Congress;
and the appointment of an ombudsman responsible for human
rights in Mexico.
The Government of Canada trusts that the Government of
Mexico will address and resolve the fundamental underlying
causes of the conflict in Chiapas, including social, economic
and human rights issues.
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me but the time has expired.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I am
following up on a question I asked the Minister of National
Defence on January 21.
The question I asked related to the excessive cost of
government moves. The cost of these moves is in excess of $100
million. Government moves are handled through four van lines,
three of which are 100 per cent American owned and one that is
30 per cent American owned.
Ten years ago these four van lines were fined a total of
$250,000 after pleading guilty to conspiring to lessen
competition. A court order prohibited the companies from
exchanging information or becoming involved in any sort of
price and service agreements.
These four van lines are still handling government moves and
are in collusion to stop competition in government moves
outside of the four van lines. Paul Leader, the senior
vice-president of operations and director of government liaison,
of Atlas Van Lines wrote to me and my colleague in Kitchener on
December 15, 1993. Part of the letter states: ``I am writing to
you on behalf of the four van lines in Canada, Allied, Atlas,
North American and United. For the past 25 years this group has
been working with the federal government handling all the
moving requirements for its employees.''
The government is the biggest client of the moving business
in Canada accounting for 35 per cent of Canada's moving
business, yet pays 10 to 23 per cent more than CBC, Canadian
National Railways, Northern Telecom and Canada Post.
A 1992 study by Consulting and Audit Canada conservatively
identified $10 million in possible savings, which could be as
high as $26 million.
(1815 )
In 1983 the Department of National Defence, as the country's
biggest mover, received the lowest price on an average move
when compared to five other major corporations. In 1993 the
federal government paid the highest price on an average move.
When I started asking questions related to government moves
I have been continually frustrated by government bureaucracy. I
have experienced a classic example of ``Yes, Minister'', a
British sitcom television program.
The interdepartmental committee, chaired by national
defence, contracts with the van lines to carry out government
moves. I have had people tell me that weights of goods moved on
behalf of the government have been inflated, which if correct
constitutes fraud, and that gifts have been given to employees of
the interdepartmental committee responsible for contracting
moves with the van lines.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the issue at hand involves the way the government
purchases removal services for removal and related services for
government employees. We are debating it because a claim has
been made by the hon. member for Waterloo that the
government thwarted a competitive plan to save taxpayers'
money.
Let us review some of the background. As the Minister of
National Defence stated in the House on January 21, the former
government received six bids to take over the management of
1218
government moves. Of the six, only one was compliant and cost
several million dollars more than the government option. The
remaining five bids were non-compliant.
Only 10 days before the election, former ministers in the
Conservative government directed two pilot projects without
authorization, one with a firm whose costs were millions more
than the governments and the other with a company whose bid
was found to be non-compliant. In other words, this
non-compliant company went through normal government
procedures to get this business but was unsuccessful.
Nevertheless just over one week before the election,
Conservative ministers awarded this unsuccessful bidder a pilot
project. This government immediately cancelled the authority
to conduct the pilot project.
The government is committed to ensuring that the taxpayers
of Canada get the greatest value for their dollar and we are
continuing to examine all options that are available to save
money.
One question that comes up is: Are carriers blocked from
bidding? No, they are not. Potential bidders must meet certain
criteria in order to qualify. The requirement for the fiscal year
1994-95 will call for local representation in at least seven
provinces covering 55 per cent of the interdepartmental
committee business to meet departmental location
requirements. That is an improvement over the current
requirement of 85 per cent in all provinces. This reduction in
representation was done to further encourage competition.
The government is committed to seeking ways to save
taxpayers' money. The minister understands the hon. member's
concern and is devoting every attention to ensuring the best use
of limited resources.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to come back to the subject of the
Irving Whale, as the
information provided by the Minister of Environment puzzles
me.
Allow me to take you back 23 years, to make sure we are all
fully aware of the threat it poses. I will do my best to report the
facts as accurately as possible.
On September 7, 1970, the Irving Whale, a tanker with a cargo
of 3,200 tons of oil, sank off the Magdalen Islands.
A certain number of leaks were stopped, but several common
murres covered in oil have recently been found on the shore.
Based on these discoveries, an environmental specialist
speculated that having reached its stress limit, it is only a matter
of time before the tanker bursts open.
What bothers me is not having the faintest idea what actions
have been taken. Let me explain. To a very specific question on
her intentions concerning the release of the Marek report on the
condition of the wreck, the minister answered that she would
make it available as soon as possible. However, discussions with
Coast Guard officials seem to indicate that there would actually
be two separate reports instead of just the one, as I thought
initially.
(1820)
On top of the Marek report, there would be one from the CEF
consulting firm on environmental hazards. Both reports, by the
way, are still secret.
Is there not cause for concern when you ask the Minister of
Environment if her department has a specific plan to avert a
potential environmental disaster and she answers that she is
looking for a financial solution?
If the financial aspect carries so much weight, perhaps the
financial cost of some 3,000 tons of oil spilling on the shores of
the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island should be
evaluated.
If only out of respect for the citizens who are living under the
constant threat of a spill, the time has come to show
transparency and tell the truth about this disaster waiting to
happen.
You will agree with me that, had this wreck been in Halifax
harbour, we would not have had to wait 23 years for action.
Things would have moved much faster.
Last Thursday, the Minister of Environment said she opted for
refloating the tanker.
If this issue has been moving like never before during the past
few weeks, as she reported, can the Minister of Environment tell
us why it is that the people who are living with this time bomb
will have to wait until the summer of 1995 for refloating to be
undertaken?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as an evidence of openness,
it is I, first of all, who informed the member for Frontenac about
the Irving Whale problem.
The first thing I did as a minister was to tell all the critics from
all the political parties what my priorities were. It is I who
informed the member opposite that, 20 years ago, the Irving
Whale cracked and that I was trying to make it a priority of
refloating the boat.
We must compare this action with the one that was taken by
the leader of the opposition, who was himself the minister of
Environment for almost two years. I come here and after only
100 days, I have the plan ready to start, not because we had
movements from the Opposition, but because the member for
Îles-de-la-Madeleine, directly, and the member of Prince
Edward Island worked in consultation and in conjunction with
myself, the minister.
1219
I take my responsibilities seriously.
[English]
The hon. member talks about transparency and openness. His
own leader was Minister of the Environment for almost two
years and did not even answer the letters of the fishermen who
wrote to him from Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
[Translation]
The fishermen, seeing a time bomb, wrote to him. He did not
care to reply to their letter.
I think that we have a plan. We are working very hard and
there were even meetings last Monday. Meetings are planned in
the riding. The member of Parliament in the riding is the one
who has the real power. He already had access to the meetings
that will take place on March 2 and 3, both in Prince Edward
Island and Îles-de-la-Madeleine and, after that, you will see
that we will get results. In 100 days, the Liberal government can
solve a problem that has been dragging on for 20 years. That is
real power.
(1825)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, on January
21, I repeated the question on cigarette smuggling I had already
asked I do not know how many times. I never found the answer
satisfactory, but we finally have an explanation in the admission
made by the leader of the government this week.
The important thing about this cigarette smuggling affair
must not escape us-and I was the first to ask the Prime Minister
questions about the possibility of reducing taxes to help Quebec
solve its cigarette smuggling problem.
First, the Minister of Finance answered for the Prime Minister
and said: ``There is no way we are going to lower taxes''. Then,
the Prime Minister told me: ``Maybe we will lower taxes. We are
discussing it with the provinces''. Later on, I was told: ``We
probably will lower taxes''. Finally, the government did lower
taxes as requested by the Premier of Quebec.
On the same issue, when I explained to the Prime Minister
how serious the cigarette smuggling problem was in Quebec, he
first told me: ``Oh! cigarette smuggling is not such a serious
problem in Quebec. The RCMP is taking care of it''. Then, I was
told: ``Yes, there is smuggling, but everything is under control.
Shipments are being intercepted by the RCMP and maybe the
problem will eventually disappear''. Later on, I was told: ``Yes,
there is smuggling, but the hon. member will not convince us
that it is the native people who are engaged in this kind of
activity. There is smuggling, the RCMP are doing their job, but
it is not necessarily the Indians that are doing the smuggling, as
the hon. member for Roberval says''. And finally, they came to
recognize that ``yes, there is smuggling. Yes, it is being done
mostly through the Akwesasne reserve''.
They also finally admitted, when the Solicitor General
answered a question I asked, that the RCMP were recovering
80,000 boxes of cigarettes. Just imagine what that represents. A
quick tally showed that this amounted to a tiny percentage of the
cigarettes smuggled into Canada.
This week, when the Prime minister announced the plan, the
RCMP finally recognized that it was able to control barely 1 per
cent of all cigarette smuggling throughout Canada.
The Minister of Environment was talking earlier to my
colleague about transparency. The cigarette smuggling issue is a
fine example of smoke screens. This is an example of an issue on
which we, the opposition, with our little means, have had to try
and get information every day, every minute, every moment this
House has given us to finally uncover the truth, to shed some
light on a serious problem which was really disturbing
Quebecers.
In conclusion, I simply want to say that there are two other
problems concerning the smuggling of cigarettes which have not
been solved by the Prime minister. He has not done all his
homework yet. He has not succeeded in convincing premiers of
other provinces to join in the plan, which would have been
essential. Now that he is only halfway there, Ontario will
become the linchpin of smuggling activities in Canada.
And then he has not succeeded in meeting with the Indian
reserve leaders to prevent any sad incidents which could take
place. We are now being told that the Solicitor General has done
his job.
It is disturbing to see such openness. It is disturbing to see that
one has to wring scarce information out of this Parliament.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, on January 21 the opposition House
leader stood in this House during question period and accused
the Prime Minister of vacillation on the subject of fighting the
contraband cigarette trade. In fact the member for Roberval said
and I quote: ``His hesitation is the main reason for the growing
revolt among Quebec convenience stores''.
In response to this unfounded accusation I would like to share
with the House what the Leader of the Opposition, the member's
boss as it were, said about the Prime Minister's leadership on
this issue: ``I think that Jean Chrétien behaved like a Prime
Minister-and as such guardian of the integrity of the law''.
This was quoted in the Toronto Star.
1220
The opposition House leader and his party are trying to take
the credit for the Prime Minister's decisiveness and his national
action plan.
Canadians know the truth. Canadians understand the
complexity of this issue and that the plan including enforcement
crackdown, a reduction of consumer taxes, special action on
tobacco manufacturers and the largest anti-smoking campaign
in Canadian history is not thrown together in a couple of weeks.
Months before members of his party were on national TV
breaking the law openly, this government was working
diligently to put together balanced public policy.
As the Prime Minister said in his statement on February 8,
there is no perfect solution but we have come up with a fair,
workable and decisive action plan. We must put an end to the
terrorizing of entire communities. Canadians are counting on all
members from all sides of this House to accomplish this very
important task.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask for the indulgence of
members. A stopwatch is clearly needed here in the chair. I think
I have been cutting members off who have not gone to the
maximum. The member for Waterloo has asked that he be given
another minute since I cut him off and the Clerk agrees that I cut
him off a minute too soon.
With the indulgence of all present I would ask that the
member for Waterloo be allowed to finish his remarks. He has
another minute. Is that agreeable?
Hearing no dissent, thank you. The hon. member for
Waterloo.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, we will have
to cut and paste
Hansard, but thank you.
There are further examples of employees working for the
government retiring on pensions and then going to work for one
of the moving companies.
Further information sent to the government in an attempt to
win a share of the business by an excluded move management
company and answers from the government ended up in the
hands of the van lines.
This is not right. As the biggest mover in the country we
should be receiving the best price on behalf of the taxpayers of
Canada. At a time when we are looking at major cutbacks to
military expenditures, we need to be as cost effective as
possible. We must fight waste and inefficiency.
The Ottawa Citizen did a series of articles on this issue. In an
editorial on January 28, 1994 the Citizen called for a Commons
committee inquiry. I join that call for an inquiry. We cannot as a
government afford to waste $25 million or more in these times
of fiscal restraint.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)