CONTENTS
Friday, February 11, 1994
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 1224
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1225
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 1229
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 1233
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 1233
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 1233
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 1234
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1234
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 1234
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1234
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 1234
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1234
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1234
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1234
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1235
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1235
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 1235
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1235
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 1235
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1235
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1235
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1235
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1236
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1236
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 1236
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1237
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1238
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1239
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1239
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1241
Bill C-214. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 1242
Motion for concurrence in fourth report 1242
Consideration resumed of motion 1243
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1265
1221
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 11, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert) moved:
That this House call on the government to demonstrate its commitment to
accountability and to the efficient and effective use of public funds by reporting
to the House, no later than the first week of June each year, what measures have
been taken by the government to address unresolved problems identified by the
Auditor General in his report such as, but not limited to:
(a) that the Minister of National Defence provide Parliament with an accurate
and complete costing of government use of aircraft utilized for Ministerial and
other VIP travel, and conduct a comprehensive review of the cost effectiveness
of the use of government aircraft to transport VIPs;
(b) that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans clarify the legislative authority
for the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program and clarify the criteria
for those eligible under the program's terms and conditions;
(c) that the Minister for CIDA establish a more accountable and results
oriented mode of operation for the bilateral Economic and Social Development
Programs;
(d) that the Minister of Finance clarify the wording of the legislation relating
to resource allowances in the Income Tax Act to ensure that Parliament's intent
is met;
(e) that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs address the problems in
the Canadian Aboriginal Development Strategy by instituting appropriate
performance and evaluation criteria;
(f) that the Minister of the Environment address the duplication of
regulations between the federal government and the provincial governments
regarding pulp and paper industry and that the Minister improve the
department's Regulatory Impact Analysis Statements to provide better
information to Parliament on proposed regulations;
(g) that the Minister of Human Resources Development take measures to
better control the administration of payments and the collection of
overpayments in the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Programs and
that the Minister of Health provide complete information to Parliament
regarding the Senior Strategy Program;
(h) that the Minister of Industry implement the government's established
accounting policy in order to more accurately reflect the Department's liabilities.
(1005 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, today the Reform Party has put its first
supply motion on the books. We are talking this morning about
the Auditor General and the role he plays in the governing of the
country and the watchdog of our finances.
It is only fitting that the Reform Party use this first supply day
to talk about the Auditor General because during the election we
placed such a high importance on the management of the funds
of the government, that the taxpayers' dollars be spent wisely.
The Auditor General is the watchdog on our behalf to oversee
and ensure that these things are followed through.
The office was created in 1878. For about 115 years now we
have had an office of the Auditor General to look over and watch
on behalf of Parliament how the taxpayers' money has been
spent. It has done a tremendous job and has saved the taxpayer
millions of dollars over these years.
Before I was elected to the House I had an accounting
business. I remember I used to tell my clients that as long as we
have money to spend and taxes to pay we will always have
accountants and auditors. We are going to see the Auditors
General around for a long time because we are going to have
taxes to pay and money to count.
If I may change the wording of an old phrase, while old
soldiers may fade away, Auditors General will be here for as
long as we have taxes to pay and money to count.
Back in 1977 the House felt there was a need to widen the role
of the Auditor General. Prior to that time he had only counted
the money and made sure that the taxpayers' money had been
accounted for. We saw at that time there would be a wider role
for the Auditor General and this House expanded his authority,
1222
not just to attest that the money had been spent and had been
spent legitimately, but that we had given him authority to do
compliance auditing.
In the words of the Auditor General, that means whether the
government collected or spent the authorized amount of money
for the purposes attended by Parliament. That has become a very
major part of the Auditor General's report and job, to ensure that
the intent of the House is carried through.
We may authorize money to the government to go ahead and
spend and after we make that authorization what real
supervision do we have to ensure that the money we have
allocated to a particular fund meets the criteria that we have set
down? That is why we have given the authority to the Auditor
General for compliance, to ensure that the money and the civil
service go ahead and the government spends that money as we
had intended.
One of the other areas that we have given to the Auditor
General is called value for money auditing. Again, in the words
of the Auditor General, this is whether the programs were run
economically and efficiently and whether the government has
the means to measure the effectiveness of the programs that
have been authorized.
This is a very real role for the Auditor General because we
spend $165 billion in the country that is authorized by the
House. We would surely want to know that after that money has
been spent we did have value for our money, that the programs
we have authorized are doing their job, that the money is being
spent effectively and usefully and that what we had intended is
being done.
To recap, in 1977 we expanded the role of the Auditor General
to ensure that the money is spent in accordance with the law and
legitimately as any auditor would do. He also has compliance
auditing to ensure that the money is spent in accordance with the
wishes of the House and that the money is spent effectively to
ensure that the programs are managed on our behalf, on behalf of
this House, to provide the benefits that we envisage for
Canadians.
(1010 )
The Auditor General is a servant of Parliament. He is not a
minister; he is not a department. He is our servant. He is our
watchdog. He is our hands, our eyes and our ears out there to
ensure that the money we allocate and appropriate every year is
followed through and he reports back to us. On January 19 this
year his report was tabled in the House.
He works through the public accounts committee and that is
how the House ensures and follows through to examine the areas
he has brought to our attention that perhaps require
investigation by the House. That is how yesterday when we had
our first meeting we elected a chairman who is a member of the
opposition. We have government members on the committee
and we have five members of the opposition as well. That is how
the House monitors the expenditures as approved by the House.
As servants of the House we should always do what we can to
encourage and assist the Auditor General in performing his role.
We have seen in the past that there have been some
recommendations by the public accounts committee to make
changes to the Auditor General Act. There is currently a private
member's bill on the floor introduced by the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier that would allow the Auditor General to report
more than once a year.
We have constrained him to make only one report which is a
huge report. Perhaps the House may want to consider supporting
the legislation that would allow the Auditor General to report to
the House as he feels appropriate.
Therefore I can only recommend at any time and at any
opportunity I have the importance of supporting our servants of
whom the Auditor General is one.
I would be remiss if I did not mention at this time that we
recognize the civil service, the tens of thousands of people
across the country who provide a valuable service to this land by
performing their jobs efficiently, doing the will of the House and
providing the programs that Canadians want and deserve. There
are tens of thousands we do not hear about who go on working
anonymously. I would like to pay tribute this morning to the
contributions they have made to our society.
There are one or two things that the Auditor General would
like to bring to our attention that are included in his report.
When we look at the Auditor General's report we should
remember that our style of government is not only a
representative government but an accountable government.
That is why we call the ministers and the government to question
on matters raised by our servant, the Auditor General, and that is
why we are having this debate this morning.
I understand this is the third time in Canada's history that we
have had a formal and realistic debate in the House regarding the
Auditor General and his report. I can give notice to hon.
members on the other side that they will not have to wait so long
before we have a fourth debate because the Auditor General has
to be given the responsibility and the recognition for what he can
do to resolve the problems that we have in ensuring that our
money and funds are managed properly.
We will be talking throughout the day on various aspects of
the Auditor General's report. I would like to look at one
particular chapter concerning travel by government ministers on
government aircraft. The horrendous cost of one trip in many
cases is more than the annual salary of a taxpayer.
The Auditor General has questioned the costs of such items
and we have been able to have the government take notice of the
costs of these things and change the policy regarding the use of
government aircraft, that they are not just there for jetting off
here and there at any time. The role of the Auditor General has to
be reinforced. That is a perfect example of how Canadian
taxpayers' money has been saved through the highlighting of
the actual costs of these trips. Now that we have brought that to
1223
the attention of the government it has decided that perhaps
commercial travel would be more appropriate in many cases.
(1015)
I mentioned also that the Auditor General has a role regarding
compliance auditing. Does the money spent by the government
fit the authority given by the House? There was $587 million
spent on the northern cod adjustment and recovery program that
the Auditor General said was spent without clear legislative
authority.
I do not dispute that the people in Newfoundland need some
money and that we authorized a program to try to help them, but
the government should remember that it does not have clear
legislative authority to conduct that program, according to the
Auditor General, and it should be coming back to the House to
get that matter clarified before it continues any further. That is
also the role of the Auditor General, to tell us in the House that
we are the supreme body that approves these funds. When $587
million of taxpayers' money has been spent without the
authorization of the House then perhaps the government should
think clearly about coming back here and determining the will of
the House in order that it may continue to provide that program.
What about CIDA, the Canadian International Development
Agency? The Auditor General had some fairly harsh words
about CIDA. That is a program that spends our money in
developing nations where we recognize that we have a role
around the world as one of the developed nations to help our
fellow man. CIDA spends well over a billion dollars in this area
to help those in need but unfortunately in many cases, as the
Auditor General points out, we are turning some developed
nations into another welfare program where we continue to pay
money but we are not helping them to get up and at it. We are not
helping them to improve their situation. We are just paying
money to keep them in the style of destitution that they currently
have.
We have to look at many areas of CIDA and the House has to
ensure that it fulfils the mandate that we have given to CIDA.
I would like to quote one item of the Auditor General's report
in chapter 12.57 which states: ``Until recently CIDA did not
fully acknowledge its accountability to Parliament for
managing''. It did not fully acknowledge its responsibility to
Parliament.
The House has to recognize that we are the supreme body that
approves the money in this country. Every agency, every
department and everyone in government has to recognize that
we in the House authorize the funds and that CIDA is
accountable to the House. That is why the Auditor General
fulfils a tremendous role in ensuring that we are aware of what is
happening in these departments. CIDA may get carried away
with what it feels is the appropriate direction to go. The Auditor
General points that out to us. We should say to these
departments: ``Wait a minute, we call the shots around here. You
listen to what we say and you recognize that the House has the
final and full authority to say what goes on''.
What about the resource allowance income tax provisions?
There was $636 million of unintended tax refunds to the
resource sector and another $538 million was given out as
potential refunds of income tax while the department tried to
prove a particular point. The government could have changed
this tax loophole several years ago but it thought there was a
point that it had to prove. It has cost the Canadian taxpayers
$538 million to prove that particular point. I would hope that the
Minister of Finance can justify to us that there must have been a
very major point that the Department of Finance was trying to
prove to cost the Canadian taxpayer that kind of money.
Canadian aboriginal development program strategy; $900
million spent by three departments over five years. The Auditor
General said that after we had spent $900 million, three
departments could not demonstrate that the program was
meeting its objectives. We spent $900 million, almost $1
billion, and we are not even sure that we have accomplished
what we set out to do.
(1020)
That is the type of thing that the Auditor General should and
does bring to our attention. That is the type of thing that the
public accounts committee would want to know from the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. How on earth can
we spend $1 billion without knowing which road we are even
trying to go down?
I hope in future years that various ministers will be able to
come back to us and point out that corrective measures have
been taken and that from now on Canadian taxpayers will be
getting real value for their money, that programs that are
approved are working before we spend $900 million.
On the Canada pension plan and old age security, $120 million
to $220 million is lost every year through overpayments due to
inadequate control. That is a lot of inadequate control to cost us
$120 million to $220 million. I would suggest the government
take a serious look at that and answer to the Canadian taxpayer
where this money is going. Why are we losing this kind of
money? That $220 million would go a long way to doing
something about the budget deficit.
I know we have a budget deficit of around $45 billion. Harold
Hunt, the Texas billionaire, once said that a billion dollars ain't
what it used to be, but we have to start somewhere. If we can
identify an area where we can save through proper controls on
$220 million, that would be an excellent start.
One of the great chapters in the Auditor General's report is
chapter 5 which deals with the debt and the deficit. I know that
the Auditor General does not have the authority to say exactly
what he feels about the deficit. He feels that he has a role to play
1224
and he has pointed out quite specifically in chapter 5 that the
House has a responsibility to communicate to Canadians how
serious the matter is and how corrective action should be taken
and taken soon. I would encourage everyone in the House to read
chapter 5. He is saying we should communicate simply and
effectively to Canadians how seriously we are in debt and how
difficult it is going to be for us to get out of that debt.
I ask the Minister of Finance to take note of that. There is no
reason, when he brings his budget down in the next couple or
three weeks, why he cannot tell Canadians, as the Auditor
General has so clearly pointed out, that it is time we
communicated simply and clearly to Canadians what the
problem is, how big it is and how seriously it has to be
addressed.
In conclusion, we have put this motion forward, which is a
serious motion, for debate today asking that the government
respond to the Auditor General's report in six months. This is
the type of amendment to legislation I think the House will want
to consider, giving the Auditor General the authority to require
the government to respond to the Auditor General's report. That
is why during the course of this debate I would like to see the
government take a serious approach to what is contained in the
Auditor General's report, that we treat it seriously and look at it
as a mechanism to come back, address and recognize the
importance of handling our money well for the benefit of all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for St.
Albert on this motion, because first of all, it contains some items
that are of particular interest to me, since I chaired the Public
Accounts Committee for three years during the last Parliament.
I would like to start by informing the hon. member that during
the 35th Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee tabled 14
reports in this House, and these reports concerned the same
recommendations the hon. member has included in his motion
today.
(1025)
None of the reports were concurred in by the House. I may add
that the problem is not the Public Accounts Committee or the
government but this House, this particular forum. We will have
to start paying attention to what is being done in committee and
follow up on the recommendations made by members in
committee.
Perhaps I seem a bit frustrated about this lack of action by the
House. I do not blame the government of the time. I simply
blame my colleagues and myself for not finding the time to
examine the recommendations made by the Public Accounts
Committee during this 35th Parliament.
Today, a few weeks after we started our new session, I see this
motion as a very positive initiative to increase transparency in
Parliament. Again, I want to congratulate the hon. member for
moving this motion.
Last year, there was a recommendation for setting aside a
certain number of days in the House every year, to examine the
reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I would like to ask
the hon. member whether he and his party are prepared to set
aside or allot, as is the case today, certain days to examine the
reports of the Public Accounts Committee, so that Canadians
will have a better idea of how we deal with the government's
problems, and also to ensure that the system works effectively. I
think that is the point the hon. member wanted to make. He
mentioned effectiveness and that the Auditor General of Canada
should, in addition to preparing special reports, examine the
ability of departments and the government to be effective in the
way they spend funds. We could pass Bill C-207, which I tabled
in this House, and whose purpose is in fact-and if I understood
the hon. member correctly, he supports this
recommendation-to allow the Auditor General of Canada to
table more than one report annually.
Would the hon. member also agree that when there is a report
from the Public Accounts Committee on a subject as important
as public spending, we should set aside a day for consideration
of the report and decide, as members, on the follow-up to this
serious work done by the Committee?
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has made
tremendous recommendations.
I started my speech by saying that this is only the third time in
the history of the House that we have had a serious debate on the
Auditor General's report. I would certainly encourage and
support any action that can be taken by the government that the
debate of the Auditor General's report be given much more
serious attention and become a standard part of the calendar of
the House.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few things very briefly.
First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for St. Albert on
his excellent presentation. I will be somewhat less warm in my
congratulatory note in a few moments but I certainly welcome
this.
As a member of Parliament, I believe the Canadian public is
quite happy to see this kind of debate go on in the House. I for
one am very interested and enthusiastic to take part in it.
I want to pay respect to my hon. colleague from
Ottawa-Vanier who for a few years did an outstanding job in
chairing the
1225
public accounts committee. I had the fortune to sit in on some of
the meetings that he chaired on issues that were pertinent to my
riding, particularly unemployment insurance and training
programs.
I have to congratulate him for his enthusiasm and
determination in pursuing the kind of issues that we see today. I
think the House should be grateful for the kind of activity that he
and his committee were responsible for.
(1030 )
I want to clarify a point. I note the member for St. Albert
spoke about the necessity to clarify legislation in support of the
northern cod adjustment and recovery program. I do not have
any argument with that. We do need to have the proper
legislation and as a parliamentarian I would not argue with it.
However I want to make it clear that this in no way should
impede the discussions now taking place on a follow on
recovery program for those people in dire need because of the
total extinction of their cod stocks.
There are numerous committees in my riding. These people
are not just sitting back expecting money to be given to them.
There are 40 ``Improving your Odds'' committees in my riding.
Anywhere from 20 to 40 fisherpersons and plant workers are
studying among other things what can be done to improve their
communities. Some will be on NCARP and others will not.
I want to make it clear that apart from the need for legislation
there will be a necessity to accept that the discussion for a follow
on program beyond May 15 should not in any way be impeded by
the need for the House to clarify the legislation.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I confirm to my hon. colleague
again we recognize there is a problem and it has to be dealt with
as far as the dearth or extinction of the fish in the Atlantic and
the Grand Banks and the need for Canadians to help the
fishermen there is concerned.
I just want to point out there has to be clarity in the role. the
House has set forth a specific direction within the legislation
that perhaps was not clear. The Auditor General has picked that
up. As our servant he is telling the House that we should revisit
that and ensure our instructions to the government are crystal
clear and the government can then follow through.
I do not in any way whatsoever dispute the need to help the
fishermen in Newfoundland and other areas which have been
hard hit by the extinction of the fish stocks.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately the time has expired. Is
there unanimous consent to continue with questions and
comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to congratulate my
colleague, the hon. member for St. Albert, for the motion he put
forward to the House. It will certainly generate a good debate. It
is quite appropriate to review government spending as a whole.
Everyone will agree with that. Year after year, the Auditor
General tables reports that raise disturbing matters about public
spending.
This motion is pretty much in line with what we discussed
yesterday during debate on the motion of the Official
Opposition. Several of my colleagues in the Official Opposition
asked for a House committee to be established in order to review
all government spending, item by item. We were told, in
particular by our colleagues on the government side, that such a
committee already existed, the Public Accounts Committee, and
was responsible for such reviews of government spending. I
believe the comment by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier
shows the need for a committee mandated by the House of
Commons. I hope this would make the House more responsive to
its recommendations and more likely to follow up on them.
I will conclude this comment by referring to the speech of the
hon. member for St. Albert-I had to go out for a few seconds
and I may have missed a short part-because I did not hear him
talk about the duplications mentioned in the motion. This
aspect, and I will conclude on that, Mr. Speaker, is a great
concern for Quebec in particular, but also for the whole of
Canada, because the costs are estimated to be in the billions of
dollars. I would like to have the opinion of the hon. member for
St. Albert, as well as other Reform members, on this issue of
duplication of services.
(1035)
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I think we actually talked that
motion to death yesterday. Therefore we should pertain to other
matters contained in the Auditor General's report.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for St.
Albert and go back to a particular point that he raised in his
comments about CIDA.
First of all, I would like to point out that I agree with the
foreign aid policies of the Canadian government. I think that it is
the tradition in Canada to assist those countries which are less
fortunate.
[English]
However I agree with the member for St. Albert that there are
better ways of using foreign aid. We are sending hundreds of
millions of dollars to foreign countries with no accountability
1226
whatsoever. There is no follow up. We do not know where this
money is going. Often I believe it is going to buy a limousine for
some local politician. I have an idea of how we can better use
that money. I would like the advice of the member for St. Albert
on it to see if he agrees with me.
We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars helping
agriculture in Russia and the east bloc countries. Many of
Canada's institutions are not being used. In
Timiskaming-French River there is the New Liskeard College
of Agricultural Technology. The provincial government is
closing it in May. We have state of the art facilities there. We
have the academics and the infrastructure.
Instead of sending millions of dollars to foreign countries
why not use some of that foreign aid money to bring people to
Canada and make use of our facilities by teaching them new
skills. They could then return to their countries with new skills
and technology.
We would accomplish two things. We would pursue the aims
and objectives of helping those nations feed themselves and it
would improve our exports because we could sell new
technologies and skills to those countries.
Mr. Williams: I appreciate the comments made by the hon.
member. These types of things can be brought out in a debate
such as we are having today on the Auditor General's report.
There are many ways to skin a cat and the member has put
forth a positive and sincere suggestion. If the debate continues
this way for the rest of the day we will come away from here with
some serious proposals and suggestions to ensure that our
taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and effectively and that we
get the best bang for our buck. That is what we want to ensure
every time, at all times.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform
Party I would like to advise the House that pursuant to Standing
Order 43(2) from now on our speakers on this motion will be
dividing their time.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
rise for a second day to speak to the report of the Auditor
General and the initiatives the government is taking to deal with
many of the concerns he raises.
I must say there is a lot of community of thought on this, both
in the remarks made yesterday by the hon. members of the Bloc
Quebecois and in the remarks made today by the hon. member
for St. Albert on behalf of the Reform Party. We all want to
address these issues of how the taxpayers' money can be spent
most efficiently and effectively and how we can cut down on the
problems that the Auditor General raises so that in future years
we will have a lot less of what are known as horror stories and a
lot more success stories. There is a lot of common ground on
what we want to try and achieve. There may be some
differences, both yesterday and again today, on just how we go
about achieving it.
Certainly I came to Ottawa with an understanding and
appreciation of the role of an auditor. I spent 22 years in
municipal government and worked with an auditor to ensure the
frugality, efficiency and effectiveness, cutting overlap and
duplication and all of these necessities.
(1040)
One of the first things I wanted to do when I came here was to
meet with the Auditor General. I have done that on a couple of
occasions. I have discussed his report. I intend to meet with him
regularly because his work is important to us. His many
recommendations are ones I very substantially agree with and
the government would like to have them implemented.
The hon. member for St. Albert raises many specific issues
today in his motion and various speakers will follow me
addressing each one of those points. I want to get back to what I
said yesterday for a moment. I suggest the vehicle for dealing
with the concerns raised yesterday and again today is the public
accounts committee.
I understand the public accounts committee is up and
operating. The hon. member for La Prairie who was here a few
moments ago but unfortunately has departed has become the
chairman.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon.
member will take his seat. The hon. member may not realize but
we do not comment on the absence of a member from the House.
That is strictly unparliamentary.
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was attempting to
make a complimentary remark. I will certainly bear that rule in
mind.
The public accounts committee is the committee to deal with
these issues. To suggest a motion such as is put forward which
provides for a very tight timeframe for the committee to be able
to do its work could be unproductive for what the members want
to accomplish.
The public accounts committee can start dealing with each
one of these issues contained in the motion or any other aspect of
the Auditor General's report. I do not know whether it will
accomplish all that by the first week of June. I can say the
government has already dealt with some of these issues and will
continue to deal with them. It is not going to wait until the first
week of June to deal with them or even to report on what it is
doing with respect to many of them.
The public accounts committee has every opportunity to bring
ministers before it and to have a full hearing on each one of those
matters. That is within its control. I hope it will be within the
control of members of Parliament. After all we said we wanted
1227
more involvement by members of Parliament in such processes
as the Auditor General's report.
That is the approach to be taken. That is where the follow up
can take place, in the public accounts committee. The
government is going to follow up. Of course the Auditor General
in his annual report has a section on follow up and deals with
what the government has done in respect of his previous
recommendations.
I am suggesting the hon. member's motion is already covered
by process and procedure that is quite extensive in getting to the
issues and dealing with and rectifying the problems. That is the
appropriate route to go as opposed to this additional suggestion
the member makes today.
It is important to reiterate that the Auditor General in his
report has talked about the need for strengthening internal audit,
program evaluation and strengthening controllership. Those are
very important to the government.
The red book has talked about the need to understand the
consequences or the outcomes of our programs and the need to
understand what value we are getting for the taxpayers' dollar.
That can be achieved better than it has been through
strengthening the internal audit and through strengthening
program evaluation functions.
I reported yesterday in my remarks that we had already moved
in a number of areas to address the issues the Auditor General
has raised. We have streamlined the cabinet making it smaller.
We have cut cabinet expenses. The cutting of some of the
expenses of Parliament has been dealt with. We should open up
the budget process, open up debate on different issues before the
government takes a position. We have stopped the deal of the
previous government with respect to Pearson airport. The
question of selling the airbus was one of the issues raised by the
hon. member for St. Albert today concerning government
aircraft. The rules have been tightened in the use of government
aircraft. It is the last resort. The first resort is to take commercial
aircraft. Where a government aircraft is to be used it must be
fully justified to the satisfaction of the Minister of National
Defence. It must be with complete cost accounting and complete
reporting. These are tightening up of procedures that both the
Minister of National Defence and the President of the Treasury
Board have instituted to respond to the kind of concerns raised.
This matter will be addressed further by another spokesman on
behalf of the government.
(1045)
The government is also strengthening controllership. The
Auditor General expressed a concern that the previous
government had put the office of the Comptroller General under
Treasury Board so that the Secretary of the Treasury Board is
now in effect carrying on those functions previously carried on
by the comptroller. It is a function to which he is deeply
committed, as am I.
We recently sponsored a government conference on the
question of controllership with many participants from the
financial and audit communities, as well as government
employees, to focus on the kind of skills and energies that we
wanted to direct into the area of better controllership, internal
auditing and evaluation programs for the very reasons that he
outlines. There is that firm commitment and will to strengthen
the controllership function of government.
Improvements are being made in the regulatory process of
government. It is something that we have to be most cognizant
of because of the kind of impact that regulations can have on
business and on the economy in general, as well as the quality of
life of all Canadians. Indeed regulatory reform is a very
important part of the government's endeavours.
Yesterday I reported on the business impact test which the
Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Treasury Board
helped to launch as a means of understanding the impact we
have on businesses with the different regulations that we put in
place. In this way we can minimize the detrimental impact,
whenever it is, to their operations which in turn makes it
detrimental to the growth in the economy of the country.
I mentioned the follow up chapter, a key part of the Auditor
General's annual report, and one that I expect will show next
year a substantial amount of progress on many of the issues that
we have talked about today.
In closing, I would like to note that the government is
committed to demonstrating improved management through the
public accounts committee, through the Auditor General follow
up, through our own follow up in Treasury Board and the various
other government departments. We are committed to delivering
quality, efficient and effective services to the people. In that
respect, we have a lot in common with people on both sides of
the House.
The procedures are in place to be able to deal with this. If
further procedures are needed then let the public accounts
committee come forward with suggestions that might be helpful
for the House to deal with the business of the Auditor General's
report.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the comments by my hon. colleague in recognizing that the
Auditor General's report is working and that action has been
taken on these particular reports. He also acknowledged that the
report now in front of us has caused a change in policy in the use
of government aircraft. While he said many things and defended
the current system of government response to the Auditor
General's report one of his colleagues, the member for
Ottawa-Vanier, proposed earlier that perhaps the Auditor
General's
1228
report should be tabled and discussed in the House on an annual
basis, or perhaps certain days should be set aside.
(1050)
Does the President of the Treasury Board agree with his
colleague from Ottawa-Vanier it would be a good idea that
specific days be set aside to debate the Auditor General's report
on an annual basis?
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I very much respect the opinions
presented by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier who, as has
been pointed out, has a long and distinguished career in this
House and also a quite distinguished career in serving as chair of
the public accounts committee.
Certainly I value his counsel and will be seeking it with
respect to this and many other issues that are relevant to the
committee and relevant to dealing with the Auditor General's
report.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the President of the
Treasury Board for the list he just gave us of projects the Liberal
government has launched since last October 26. What he told the
Reform Party member for St. Albert is that the government of
the present Prime Minister is setting the pace, that we will be
doing things the correct and honest way.
The accountability of the Liberal government will soon be
recognized as an example showing that our government knows
how to make fair and reasonable cuts and knows also how to
govern in a honest and proper fashion. The minister set the tone,
gave us examples like the Toronto airport and the helicopter
project which represented considerable waste.
While I am on that subject, let me say that I was a member of
the public accounts committee for five years under the Tory
government and I think our chairman, the member for
Ottawa-Vanier, is perfectly right in asking that the reports and
recommendations of the accounts committee be debated here in
the House. The Auditor General does a fantastic job in
protecting our tax money, expenditures and projects, yes
projects; the Reform Party would like to implement only cuts
and no projects, not even reasonable ones, but the objective is
also to develop projects.
The Canadian government is there to initiate projects
designed to improve the quality of life for everybody. The
government does not exist only to cut, cut, cut; it should cut in
areas where there is waste. The Auditor General presents annual
reports. The member for Ottawa-Vanier is right. When I was on
the public accounts committee, we recommended that the
Auditor General report his findings not every year but maybe
every month. When the report is published annually, it has the
effect of a bombshell; the media jump on it and report on the
main points without digging into it. That is only a show and we
should stop making a show of things and start doing some
management. We should bring the reports of the Auditor
General here to the House, through public accounts committee
recommendations so that we may discuss them and improve
government operations.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my
colleague.
The government is also concerned with debt and deficit and
out of that comes the need for some further cutting. As we have
said time and time again, there must be a balanced approach.
There must be an endeavour to get Canadians back to work.
(1055 )
In the program we put forward during the election campaign
we made it very clear we had to act in a responsible fashion. We
showed where we were going to make additional investments to
get Canadians back to work and where we would have to make
additional cuts. We said were going to cut what we felt were
lower priorities and the kinds of wasteful spending that is
pointed out in the Auditor General's report. Therefore, we are
taking action and have taken action as my hon. colleague and I
have pointed out to implement those measures that are going to
cut down on waste, on overlapping. That will show we are
spending the taxpayers' dollars in an efficient and effective
manner.
I welcome the public accounts committee to be part and parcel
of that process. It should take a greater role in the process of
ensuring that in future Auditor General's reports we will have
far more successes to talk about than failures.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
inform you that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), speeches
from the Official Opposition will be limited to ten minutes.
I have the pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion
presented by my colleague, the hon. member for St-Albert,
which comprises eight different points, and gives us a lot to talk
about. I will limit my comments to the Auditor General's role.
His role is painfully obvious, once a year, when he presents
his annual report. Instead of focusing on one annual report, Bill
C-207, presented by the member for Ottawa-Vanier, offers a
very different approach which could be a good starting point for
discussions on allowing the Auditor General to present, on a
regular basis, periodic reports that would enable the House to
regain control of the budget.
Historically, the role of the House of Commons has been
mainly to control government expenditures. Take for example
the case of the aircraft carrier Bonaventure; a few years ago, it
was one of the first of a long list of white elephants uncovered by
the Auditor General every year. Year after year, we have
watched this horror show presented by the Auditor General of
Canada. From one annual report to the next, time goes by and
1229
very little is done to remedy the deficiencies revealed by the
Auditor General.
I wonder if this famous red book we have heard so much about
for so long suggests specific ideas to improve the image of
parliamentarians, by presenting such reports for example. We
will have the opportunity to see what the government's position
is in this respect. I was rather surprised when the minister did
not squarely state his position regarding Bill C-207.
I wonder whether the government is ready to go as far as
amending the Auditor General Act to allow presentation of
progress reports. This would make less alarming the problems
the Auditor General of Canada could bring to the attention of the
House for review, not once a year, but from time to time. It
seems to me that such an approach would open up the process. In
view of the $28 billion Quebec contributes every year to the
federal purse, the Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois,
would be well advised to take part in this exercise which, far
from being futile, is a fundamental aspect of the parliamentary
system, even more so if we were able to study more in-depth-
(1100)
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt
the hon. member, but he will have to continue his presentation
after Oral Question Period.
[English]
It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members,
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
1229
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on the eve of the Winter Olympics to pay tribute to our
Canadian athletes who will represent us there.
Over the next two weeks these men and women will bring
great pleasure to our citizens who will watch them on television
and experience the thrills and disappointments of the
competition.
I want to praise our athletes for their beauty and grace, their
self-discipline and determination, and wish them a personal
best in their performances.
However, the entire team did not go to Lillehammer. The real
team reaches back in time to the volunteer coaches, referees and
judges who launched these young athletes years ago and taught
them to love sport and to compete fairly. It includes their parents
and those athletes who over the years provided the competition
against which they tested their skills and grew in competence.
On this occasion, on this eve, it is the entire team I wish to
acknowledge and thank.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
government recognizes the important decision-making role that
must be given to regional co-operation and development
councils in order to ensure that Quebec regions have control
over development decisions that directly affect them.
The federal government should undertake to comply with the
priorities established in the strategic planning of each regional
county municipality in Quebec. If the federal government were
to make this kind of commitment, the efforts of regional leaders
in Quebec would be successful. The economic recovery of all
regions in Quebec hangs in the balance.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, it has been argued that the love of hockey is one of the
uniting forces in this country.
As in most areas of Canada, this great sport is a major part of
the history of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. To
commemorate this fact the British Columbia Hockey Hall of
Fame will be built in Penticton. Recently the first inductees into
the hall of fame were announced.
The world champion 1955 Penticton Vees, along with three
other world champion teams, the 1937 Kimberley Dynamiters
and the 1939 and 1961 Trail Smoke Eaters will be the first
occupants of the hall of fame.
I would like to offer my congratulations to these inductees
who are an important part of British Columbia's sports heritage.
I would also like to extend my congratulations to the organizers
of the British Columbia Hockey Hall of Fame. I commend them
for their efforts to ensure that these great heroes are never
forgotten in their future home of Penticton, British Columbia.
1230
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the bodies of Robert Sheldon and Leonce
Verrier were recovered from the Macassa gold mine in Kirkland
Lake, 6,000 feet below ground level. The two miners had been
trapped underground since November 26, 1993 when a rockburst
occurred at the mine.
On behalf of all members of the House I want to extend our
deepest sympathies to the families and friends, as well as to the
communities of Kirkland Lake and Matachewan. To Robert
Sheldon's wife, Susan, and sons Robert Jr. and Cory, and to
Leonce Verrier's wife, Darlene, and daughters Céline, Lise and
Nancy, I offer my prayers in this difficult time.
To all miners across the country I pledge to try to secure
funding to research and study how to prevent these occurrences
in the future. I salute the courage of these men and women who
risk their lives every time they go underground in order to
support their families.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw the House's attention to a project developed by a group
of business people in my riding. The project is important to
farmers, both from a financial and an ecological standpoint.
(1105)
The project calls for the construction in our region of an
ethanol fuel plant with a production capacity of 150 million
litres.
Ethanol is a clean, ecologically safe fuel and a plant with this
capacity would use roughly 385,000 tonnes of corn every year,
or 20 per cent of current production.
The arrival on the scene of this industry in the riding would
create 225 direct and indirect jobs, 325 jobs associated with the
raw material itself and 600 construction-related jobs.
In order for ethanol to become an economical fuel alternative,
the tax on ethanol fuel must be removed. Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister of Finance to look into this matter and to consider this
course of action in order to promote similar projects across
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to pay tribute to Mayor Louise Breau of
Millville, New Brunswick, who passed away on February 3,
1994.
Not only did Mayor Breau serve her community, she also
served on the New Brunswick Villages Association and on the
Provincial Municipal Council for New Brunswick. She was
keenly interested in the well-being of her fellow citizens and
worked tirelessly on their behalf. She will be missed by
Millville and throughout New Brunswick.
On behalf of members of the House of Commons I extend
sincere condolences to her family and friends and to the citizens
of Millville, New Brunswick.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, in the last
few months, the media have been talking about the case of a 21
year-old man, Mr. Patrick Tremblay, who is presently fighting
against a devastating form of cancer in Texas.
A foundation under his name has been set up in order to pay
for the costs of his treatment and to help other people who are in
the same dreadful situation.
The people responsible for the foundation had asked for its
incorporation and later issued in good faith receipts for income
tax purposes, until they learned that the foundation did not have
the necessary accreditation.
Without the financial support of the foundation, Mr. Tremblay
would be forced to give up his treatment, which was having good
results and contributing to his cure.
The accreditation request for income tax purposes of the
Patrick Tremblay Foundation is presently under review by
officials from the Department of Revenue. I appeal to the
compassion of the Minister of Revenue so that he can put an end
to the delay in accrediting this foundation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I thank the government for
dealing with the labour dispute at the west coast ports.
1231
Our constituents, including many farmers who depend on the
operation of west coast ports for their livelihood and who
suffered direct financial loss from demurrage charges during
these tie-ups, were very anxious to see this dispute brought to a
conclusion. I am glad the government was responsive to their
concerns.
This is not the first time that the government has had to
legislate the end to a port workers strike. I hope the government
has learned something from this experience and the experience
of previous governments and will move in the near future to
declare grain handling an essential service.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, I extend greetings to CBQ-CBC Radio of Thunder Bay
on its 20th anniversary of reaching into the homes and hearts of
northwestern Ontario from Manitouwadge to Kenora to Sandy
Lake.
Due to the foresight of the founding forces such as the late
Paul McCrae, Liberal MP for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Doug
Ward, Ken Dawson, the late Gladys Hart and the former mayor,
Dusty Miller, to name a few, CBQ became the unifying link
between eastern and western Canada.
Through creative programming of superior quality such as
``Voyage North'', ``Indian Faces'' and ``The Great Northwest''
we have listened to the heartbeat of the finest nation in the
world, a nation of peoples of diverse values, religions,
languages and customs sharing a common dream.
I say thanks to CBQ for being so distinctly Canadian.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, Nepean
constituents are calling and writing concerning the capital gains
tax exemption of $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for
farmers and small business entrepreneurs. Overwhelmingly
they are saying do not cut the capital gains tax exemption.
Canadians from coast to coast dedicate enormous amounts of
time and effort planning for their retirement years. For many of
them a crucial link in their strategy is their personal $100,000
lifetime capital gains exemption.
(1110 )
While many upper income Canadians may have already
claimed their maximum lifetime exemption, it is the middle and
lower income Canadians who will use the exemption to
supplement their retirement income. The elimination or
reduction of the exemption would penalize middle and lower
income Canadians. The capital gains tax exemption was
introduced to encourage investment in business. It is achieving
this purpose.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to join my colleagues in condemning violence in society.
Members on both sides of the House have indicated their
concerns and those of their constituents over violence in society
and the need for reform of our criminal justice system.
In this year, the year of the family, violence in the home is
particularly intolerable. The Statistics Canada survey released
last fall revealed that one-quarter of all women have
experienced violence by a spouse or former spouse. Urgent steps
must be taken to increase public awareness, to provide refuge
and protection for abused women and children and to ensure
offenders are penalized.
The Minister of Justice stated he will introduce measures to
deal with violence, particularly violence against women and
children. I am pleased the minister has seen the urgent need for
action on this issue. I encourage him to bring forward these
measures as soon as possible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): On behalf of
all Quebecers and Canadians, we wish to congratulate Frédéric
Back whose new film
Le fleuve aux grandes eaux has been
selected for the Oscars in the short animated category.
It is the fourth nomination for this Quebec film-maker who
already won two Oscars for Crack, in 1982, and The Man Who
Planted Trees, in 1988.
This new film by Mr. Back, which has been described as a love
song to the St. Lawrence River, was already awarded the Grand
prix of the Annecy animated film festival in June 1993 and the
prize for the best animated film of 1993 awarded in January by
the movie critics of Los Angeles.
We wish to point out that this film was produced thanks to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which shows once more
the need to maintain the budget of the CBC.
Good luck, Mr. Back.
1232
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the residents of
Kindersley-Lloydminster, I am pleased to rise in the House to
pay tribute to the 1,600 athletes who will take part in the
Saskatchewan Winter Games to be held from February 13 to
February 19 in Kindersley, Saskatchewan. These young athletes
have put in many long hours of training and I congratulate them
for qualifying for the provincial games.
Kindersley is the smallest community in Saskatchewan to
ever host the games. I am sure all members of this House will
join me in wishing the organizing committee and all of the
people of Kindersley and its surrounding communities every
success in hosting such a large event.
I commend all of the volunteers and organizers for putting in
the many hours of planning, preparation and hard work
necessary to hold such an event.
I would encourage all members and all Canadians to take this
opportunity to visit Kindersley and see the best young athletes in
Saskatchewan compete in this year's winter games.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, many farmers in the great constituency of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are concerned about the future of
the capital gains exemption for farmers.
Of particular concern to me and my constituents is that
farmers are jumping the gun and incorporating their farm
operations now before the budget is tabled. This is costing them
between $5,000 and $10,000 for the incorporation plus
additional accounting fees of as high as $2,000 per year. Worse
yet, the decision to incorporate is virtually irreversible. This
certainly cannot go on. Farmers need their capital gains
exemption. It is the equivalent of a pension.
I call on the government to keep this exemption and to state so
at the earliest opportunity.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
four years ago today Nelson Mandela was released from Robben
Island in South Africa after spending more than 27 years in
prison. South Africans, Canadians and people around the world
are celebrating the anniversary of his release and the road to
democracy which has been followed in South Africa.
I would like to pass on greetings to those who gather in
Toronto tonight as part of a fundraising effort for voter
education in South Africa. We wish our friends in South Africa
well as they prepare and educate themselves about their
democratic right to vote, a right which has until now been denied
to 80 per cent of the people of South Africa.
All South Africans will have the opportunity to exercise this
right for the first time on April 27, 1994.
* * *
(1115 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House the Prime Minister cited a three to one
favourable response to the tobacco rollback tax on an Ontario
radio show. The Prime Minister said that this is proof that
Canadians support the government decision.
A radio talk show in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan
reports just the opposite. CHUB radio talk show host Larry
Thomas says callers to his show are nearly unanimous in their
condemnation of the tax break.
In addition, the Prime Minister cited some support for the
plan from radio show callers in our leader's riding when the
Minister of National Revenue appeared as a guest.
I suggest the hon. minister listen to the constituents in his own
riding. Talk show host Terry Spence from CFAX in Victoria
reports a poll taken in his show was 55 to 5 against the tax break.
The callers see the main issue being one of law and order and
suggest the best plan of attack is for the government to show
some intestinal fortitude-
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, the future
of our health care system is as stake. Canadians deserve to have
someone who will stand for our health care system, someone
who will be a real leader. The Minister of Health failed on all
counts.
[English]
The Minister of Health has refused to stand on behalf of
Canadians. When her government reduced taxes on cigarettes,
she refused to commit herself on the issue of reduction of taxes
on alcohol. This minister's actions have not given Canadians a
lot of confidence in her ability to advocate on their behalf in
health care matters.
This minister's actions have become a hazard to our health.
She must resign.
1233
1233
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, in an
interview with
La Presse yesterday, the Prime Minister followed
the lead of his health minister in announcing the end of the plan
to lower cigarette taxes for next year, barely 48 hours after
making his action plan public.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: How can
she explain the Prime Minister's doing such an about-face 48
hours after he announced his plan? Does she not believe that it is
sending the wrong signal to the smuggling rings?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have read the Prime
Minister's interview, and what he said is that within a year, he
expects the lost revenue, which now totals almost $1 billion, to
be recovered because the government will control the cigarette
smuggling problem. That is what he said. It was also reflected in
the health minister's comments. Of course, the Prime Minister's
remarks are part of our strategy to end the revenue loss caused
by cigarette smuggling.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, can the
Deputy Prime Minister say whether the Prime Minister did such
an about-face to appease the anti-smoking lobby or to preserve
the already-damaged credibility of his health minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, he did not do an about-face.
What he said is that with the four-part anti-smoking program
announced by this government, we will solve the revenue loss
problem within a year. We already know that within a few days
the Minister of Finance will be faced with a budget where the
federal government is already losing up to $1 billion because of
smuggling.
What the Prime Minister said here in the House, and it was
reinforced in the interview, was that with our four-part program,
we will solve the smuggling problem and at the same time bring
back revenue to the national treasury to pay for health programs,
which cost Canadians quite a lot.
(1120)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Can the Deputy Prime
Minister explain to us how she believes that the RCMP will be
able to dismantle the smuggling rings, when the Prime Minister
of Canada himself is sending the smugglers a signal that they
will just have a year off and then business will resume next year?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon.
colleague that the smoking problem was not created during this
government's mandate. We have been here for barely 100 days
and it took us barely 100 days to work out a solution. The policy
of the opposition leader should be challenged: for a year and a
half, he was in the former Prime Minister's Cabinet and he did
absolutely nothing.
We must say that when we were the opposition in the House,
we raised the problem of smoking four years ago, but when the
leader of the opposition was in Mr. Mulroney's Cabinet, he did
nothing.
Obviously, a problem which has been dragging on for four
years will take more than a year to solve. Yes, we took 100 days
to launch our four-part program, which we hope will bring a
solution within a year. I hope that is what you want, too.
* * *
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Deputy Prime Minister.
In an interview yesterday before the Commons committee on
the GST, the Minister of Revenue announced that the
government wants to implement a single consumption tax
system in every province, including Quebec.
Does the Vice Prime-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Laurin: Does the Deputy Prime Minister- I apologize,
Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I was about to say ``hear, hear'' instead of
``order!''
Mr. Laurin: Is this her way of asking Quebec to give up its
own sales tax?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must admit
that I have several vices but being Vice Prime Minister is not one
of them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: Having said that, I think that the Prime Minister
of Canada and his counterparts from every province, including
Quebec, are very aware of the problem of overlap in the tax
system. This problem was raised on many occasions by the
Leader of the Opposition and by the finance departments, and
we want to deal with it, mostly with the support of the provinces
who also want a more efficient tax system doing away with
overlap. That is the basis for the new tax system.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy
Prime Minister not agree that, instead of initiating major
1234
projects and implementing a single tax system, she should first
try to simplify the GST and to eliminate the management and
administration problems it creates for all businesses, especially
small and medium-sized businesses?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Of course, Mr. Speaker, we want to do
both. A few weeks ago, the Official Opposition asked the
Auditor General to examine all cases of duplication in fiscal and
other programs. We in the government want to do our job and
eliminate this duplication, and I hope that we will have the
support of the Opposition in creating a more equitable a tax
system for taxpayers who are paying a heavy price at the federal,
provincial and municipal level.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Wednesday in the finance committee the minister indicated
that the deficit for this year may now not go below $40 billion.
This sounds like a return to a familiar pattern.
(1125)
In the upcoming budget is it the government's intention at
least to comply with the spending limits set out in the last budget
and under the current spending control act for the fiscal year
1994-95 and subsequent years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will understand
that with the imminence of the budget it is really not incumbent
upon me to make any comment really on what is going to be
included in it.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I would
hope that we could make comment on the general budgetary
framework and policy of the government without looking at
budgetary specifics.
[Translation]
The minister continues to claim that he will reach his goal of
reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GNP by the 1997 fiscal year.
We remember the actions of the former Progressive
Conservative government, which pushed its deficit targets
further back every year.
Can the minister assure us that he will publish his minimum
deficit reduction targets for each year until 1997 in his next
budget and will he make a commitment to resign if he fails to
reach his minimum targets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I have just started! The
Opposition is certainly entitled to make comments, but you must
understand that the finance minister has to restrict his given the
imminence of the budget. I can assure the hon. member that the 3
per cent objective remains a target of the Liberal government.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I have an
additional supplementary question.
The minister is fond of referring to the 3 per cent GDP deficit
target of the European Community. He will know that the
European Community combines this with a maximum debt
target of 60 per cent of GDP. The federal government is already
at 70 per cent of GDP. What is the minister's target for the
maximum debt GDP ratio in the upcoming period, the period of
this Parliament?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I am really not in a position to respond
on the details of the budget until such time as I have presented
the budget.
You have told us on numerous occasions that we should
answer through you and I am prepared to do that. But my
question to you, Mr. Speaker, is are you passing the answers on
to them?
The Speaker: The hon. minister will know that you cannot
put questions to the Chair. I know that the question and answer
period is going to remain just that, questions and answers and
not questions and questions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Food Retailers Association has
explained to the Minister of Finance that the government's plan
to fully refund retailers with an inventory exceeding 5,000
cartons of cigarettes the amount they have overpaid in taxes was
unfair to small retailers, as they will be the only ones to incur
losses, losses which are estimated at between $5 and $10
million.
In the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, I direct
my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. How can she justify
measures that will penalize only small retailers while large
retailers will be getting a full refund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I met in person with the
president of the Retailers Association when he was here with the
Conseil du patronat. The solution we are proposing is the most
equitable
1235
and practical, given the difficulty and complexity of the
situation. It should be pointed out that the solution for small
retailers may be to negotiate with the wholesalers or
manufacturers.
(1130)
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
Since the Government of Quebec will be reimbursing the full
amount overpaid in taxes on cigarettes, would it not be possible
for the minister to make arrangements with the Quebec
government to harmonize the refund verification procedure,
thus sparing governments and retailers alike unnecessary
administration costs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we understand very well
the problem facing small retailers and sympathize with them.
Certainly, we would be prepared to discuss this matter with them
as well as with the Government of Quebec.
The difference between the two levels of government is that
we imposed a cut in flat-rate taxes and variable-rate taxes,
while Quebec, as you know, had a flat tax, which is causing
problems not only in Quebec but throughout Canada. That is
why our situation is different. But, as I said, we are prepared to
talk about the problem. There is no easy solution.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance. The minister continually indicates
to us that he is unable to answer questions with regard to the
deficit, the debt and deficit reduction. That bit of
procrastination creates not only an uneasiness within this House
but also in the marketplace.
When will the budget come down so that we can debate that
issue with all the details and facts and get on with the job we
have to do in this assembly?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member
opposite stings me to the quick with the allusion that I would not
be prepared to answer a question directly.
I must congratulate him on the timeliness of his question. I am
pleased to inform the House that the budget will be tabled at five
o'clock on Tuesday, February 22.
[Translation]
I wish to thank the hon. member for his question and I am
pleased to announce that the budget will be tabled in this House
at 5 p.m., on Tuesday, February 22.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
appreciate the frankness and directness of the minister.
I do not want to have the minister disclose anything that will
come up in the budget. However, could he indicate and confirm
the commitment of the government that there will be no increase
in taxes in that budget and that average Canadians will not be
adversely affected in any major way?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I did a very good job in answering the
hon. member's first question.
Budget measures will be tabled in the budget and the debate
will ensue thereafter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, on
November 24,
La Presse published an article in which Mr.
Justice Krever, chairman of the public inquiry on tainted blood,
stated that the financial assistance provided to the commission
and the Canadian Hemophilia Society was far from adequate.
Now that the Minister of Health had time to think about it,
will she reconsider her decision and give the Canadian
Hemophilia Society all the money it needs?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
had already answered this question many times. I want to say
again that the decision is up to the Office of the Treasury Board,
which is in charge of considering the request.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, will
the minister agree with Mr. Justice Krever that the commission
of inquiry also lacks the necessary funds to get to the bottom of
this issue of tainted blood?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this
is a judicial inquiry which was approved and started by the
previous government. The budgets were set at that time. We
must maintain, as I must as Minister of Health, a hands off
approach to this commission because it is a judicial inquiry into
what happened.
(1135)
A request has come forward for additional funds and it is
being studied by Treasury Board.
1236
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development and is inspired by Ms. Ellen Reid of London,
Ontario.
This government has promised to reduce both the deficit and
the unemployment rate. The Minister of Finance has stated his
deficit goal for the next year and has committed to a three year
goal equal to 3 per cent of the GDP.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to
establish similar goals for the reduction in the rate of
unemployment?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon.
member is able to get such inspired questions from Canadians. It
certainly has elevated the level of questions we have been
receiving.
I want to say to the hon. member and through him and you, Mr.
Speaker, to the questioner that the Minister of Finance and I
share the goals to bring down the deficit and to bring down
unemployment. We all know that one is related to the other. We
need to have fiscal stability to have good economic growth.
However, we also must have good investment in people in order
to have fiscal stability.
The government has embarked on a major effort to find ways
in which it can reorganize programs like unemployment
insurance, the Canada assistance plan and student aid so it can
really invest in people. The best way of bringing down our
deficit and the unemployment rate is to put more Canadians to
work.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona): Mr.
Speaker, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was
when this government was elected last October.
Will the minister commit to a goal of reducing unemployment
by at least 1.5 per cent annually during the mandate of this
government?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to make
commitments to bring down the unemployment rate if members
opposite from the Reform Party will also make the commitment
to help us in creating a useful social program and a useful
unemployment insurance program that will invest in people.
I suggest that rather than always talking about the deficit on
the economic side, they might start talking about the human
deficit which is just as important.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, and I must say that we
thought of it ourselves. We learned this morning that the
ceasefire that was negotiated in Bosnia is not being honoured
since fighting has apparently resumed in Sarajevo between
Serbs and Bosnian Muslims.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister apprise us of the situation that
prevails today? Can she confirm that the Serbs are rejecting the
ultimatum issued by NATO and can she tell us how Canada
intends to react to this situation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the countdown for the
ceasefire started at midnight last night. We are told that things
are going very well up until now. We are waiting for a chance to
get both Bosnian Serbs and Muslims to give up their weapons.
Everybody hopes that, with the support of NATO, the ceasefire
will be observed within the ten-day ultimatum period.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): As a follow-up, Mr.
Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister indicate to us whether it
is true that the Serbs are not agreeing to the gradual withdrawal
of peacekeepers, negotiated by the Commander-in-Chief of the
UN forces, General Michael Rose, and does she recognize that
this situation calls into question the ceasefire conditions
negotiated between Serbs and Muslims?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent
information we have, the ceasefire negotiations are proceeding
very smoothly.
[English]
Evidently we have 10 days counting down from midnight last
night. Our information is that the negotiations are going quite
well. We are very optimistic that the ceasefire will be respected.
Obviously we will not know for sure until the deadline, which is
10 days from midnight last night.
* * *
(1140 )
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last Tuesday the Prime Minister announced a comprehensive
four point plan to deal with the illegal smuggling of tobacco into
Canada. To date most of the attention around the issue has
focused on the tax reduction part of the plan, particularly in New
1237
Brunswick where I come from because that province has joined
with the Government of Canada to use that particular measure.
In the face of that attention it is important for Canadians to be
reminded of this government's determination to discourage
smoking particularly among young Canadians. I ask the
Minister of Health to elaborate on what those plans are.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
message has been straight and honest. Smuggling is a severe
problem that is undermining health policy in this country. Part
of the package announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday
contains some of the toughest anti-smoking measures ever
introduced in this country.
I fought hard for this package and I believe in it. The package
includes things like the banning of kiddie packs. It includes the
$185 million we are going to receive by taxing the excess profits
of tobacco manufacturers. It includes an export tax. It includes
bringing forward embossed cigarettes. It includes looking at
plain packaging. It includes looking at how to control-
The Speaker: That is a very inclusive list.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In January 1992 Wayne Sullivan of Prince George, British
Columbia, shot and killed his wife. In December 1993 Mr.
Sullivan was acquitted on all charges because he was drunk and
did not know what he was doing.
Is the government prepared to comment on this occasion
about its willingness to change the law so that substance abuse
does not constitute an excuse for murder?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
Minister of Justice I would certainly like to take the question
under consideration. It is a very serious one. Obviously
substance abuse is a very serious problem. We will report back
to the member as soon as possible.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her
assurance that something will be done to address this. If she
needs help in coming up with some way to resolve this we would
be pleased to offer our help.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address that question by saying this is a
very serious situation which needs a great deal of study.
As the hon. member can appreciate, it is not the role of
government to interfere in decisions of the court but we learn
from the decisions of the courts. That gives us the information
needed to formulate the policy we want to bring forward to
Canadians to honour the commitments made in the red book.
I assure the hon. member that this subject is being studied
very carefully. Hopefully it will be reflected in policy by the
government in the not too distant future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, we learned yesterday that the member for St. John's
West will have to pay back $78,000 to the state following
accusations to the effect that public money was used for
purposes other than those initially intended.
When pressed to comment on this issue, the Minister of
Human Resources Development said:
[English]
``I do not think it is a matter of irregularity''.
[Translation]
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the
intention of the Prime Minister to implement a new code of
ethics to ensure integrity within his government, does the
Deputy Prime Minister agree that this is an unacceptable
occurrence which tarnishes the government's image?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the case in point was a
commercial transaction between two companies that had
contracted for training programs from the Department of Human
Resources Development. Because of changes in the nature of the
operation of the companies, the department felt there was an
overpayment of some of the funds.
(1145 )
There were no irregularities. The hon. member is misusing the
word. He should be careful with the language he uses. The fact is
the repayment schedule has been arranged under the normal
procedures of the department. It is a routine procedure that
happens all the time.
Many companies throughout Canada are faced with that. As
far as the government is concerned the matter has been handled
in an honourable way.
1238
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, how then can the Minister of Human Resources
Development explain his sudden about-face since, in less than
24 hours, he first said that this was a routine procedure and then
proceeded to demand the money back from the member for St.
John's West?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as I already said, the money will
be paid back. An acceptable arrangement will be made by the
department and the companies concerned. There is no problem.
[English]
We have said clearly that an arrangement has been made for
the moneys to be repaid on a regular basis according to the
procedures that have been set out and which apply to hundreds
of companies every year. There is nothing different or unusual in
this case than what happens across the board throughout this
country day after day.
The Speaker: The Chair is having a little difficulty. I know
hon. members will not want to impute motives. I hope in the
formulation of questions that the questions would be of a more
general nature in future.
I would hope my hon. colleagues would consider that.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Canadian heritage minister or whoever would
like to answer in his absence. Possibly the Minister of Human
Resources Development would be interested in this because it
deals with jobs.
Since 1978, Sunshine Village Corporation, a world class ski
facility in Banff had continuous environmental assessment for
Goat's Eye Ski Run and other developments, and final approval
in 1992. This development means hundreds of long term
construction jobs and meets the red book objectives.
Why did the minister order a FEARO panel review costing at
least a million dollars to do again what has been done for the last
15 years?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the FEARO panel review
will not cost a million dollars. It will cost substantially less than
that, hundreds of thousands of dollars less.
The government believes that projects of the nature of
Sunshine, which will substantially alter the geographic face of
the mountain, deserve and should have an environmental
assessment review panel visit the decisions.
We think the cost of not doing an environmental assessment is
far greater than the cost of doing an environmental assessment
for our children and for their children.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, this has
been going on for 15 years. It costs nearly a million dollars when
one counts the amount of money the entrepreneur and other
business people will have to put toward this panel.
In the Globe and Mail it was noticed that the minister was too
busy planning Olympic travel arrangements and posh hotel
accommodations to discuss issues at a scheduled meeting with
amateur athletic representatives.
My question for the minister is: How can unemployed
Albertans depending on this environmentally approved
development not believe this issue was treated carelessly by the
minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the decision to strike a panel
was not taken carelessly believe me. It was taken after much
consideration, in particular because of the nature of the
mountain.
We have cultural heritage and we also have natural heritage.
We want to approve development that is in the best interest of
the business people, yes, but what about our children, our
grandchildren and their grandchildren?
We have a responsibility to respect the environment. The
striking of an environmental assessment review panel meets the
objectives of government to ensure that any development,
particularly in an area as sensitive as our national mountains
should be done in an environmentally sensitive way. That only
makes good sense for our kids' future.
(1150)
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment and Deputy
Prime Minister. It has to do with the presence of chlorine and
chlorine related substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
River.
Does the government intend to regulate chlorine discharges
into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River and, if so, will the
government urge the United States government to do the same?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member because of
his vast environmental background will know that when you are
talking about chlorine you are talking about a number of
chlorinated compounds. We are looking at the sunsetting of
various chlorinated compounds and in that context we would
certainly be happy to have his input as the chair of the standing
committee on the environment.
1239
We consider it a very serious question. We also recognize that
chlorine comes in many forms and that in the past the substance
has been used to avoid cholera outbreaks and other very
contagious diseases.
We would like to have a balanced approach that can sunset
chlorinated compounds when they are toxic and we would
certainly love to have his input on this issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, I received
copy of a letter addressed by the minister on February 10 to the
Official Opposition critic for transport. This document concerns
the relocation of the air control unit at the Quebec City airport.
Is the minister aware that the new radar facility of Bernières,
which is the link between the Quebec City airport and the
regional control centre, does not work between the 241st and the
247th degree, although all of the air traffic between Quebec City
and Montreal uses that corridor?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows that the decision made a while ago to
change the air control system, not only in Quebec City, but also
in Halifax and in several other cities across Canada, is aimed at
ensuring the safety of those who rely on theses navigation
systems.
There is no doubt in my mind that the transfer of the air
control unit from Quebec City to Montreal will not jeopardize
safety.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary, even though the minister's answer is absolutely
unsatisfactory. How can the minister claim that his civil
servants' decision is based on a recommendation of the U.S.
federal air administration, when in fact the Sypher-Mueller
report prepared by American experts for his department
recommends not only that the Quebec City and North Bay
facilities remain open, but that they be expanded?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I have indicated to my colleague on a number of occasions when
this question has been raised that it is the intention of the
department to ensure that the same criteria applies based on the
same levels of aircraft movement and all the security aspects
that are essential to safe air navigation in this country.
The situation in Quebec City with respect to the control
terminal is being assessed in exactly the same light as what took
place at Halifax when air control was moved to Moncton, the
closing of North Bay, and the reassessment of all of those units
across the country.
The one thing I want to emphasize to my colleague is that we
will deal with all of these decisions in a fair, equitable way and
everyone will be treated in exactly the same way which is I am
sure what my colleague would expect.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
The accounting firm of Ernst & Young has been hired by the
finance department to study the department's longer term deficit
forecasts. They are to examine why the department's forecasts
over the years have been so inaccurate and what can be done
about this. Could the Minister of Finance tell the House why he
has chosen an outside accounting firm as opposed to having the
office of the Auditor General study the problems of the
Department of Finance, and could he tell the House how much
the study will cost?
(1155)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, together with the officials of the
Department of Finance we commissioned this study which was
awarded in open competition by a steering committee that
included the Auditor General as a member. We recognized that
the effects of disinflation, the disconnection between growth
and job creation and therefore government revenues, had
created a new situation, a new set of parameters, which
economists across the country were having a great deal of
difficulty dealing with.
As a result we commissioned the study. We think it is really
going to be a landmark in economic forecasting within this
country. The details of the costs of that will be made available in
due course.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, in order to
save taxpayers' money, would the minister be willing to support
an amendment to the Auditor General Act that would empower
his office to conduct the review of the revenue estimates?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, at the time it was done there were
extensive discussions held with the Auditor General's
department. I participated in those discussions myself. It was
decided by all parties that given the person power available, the
expertise required, the absolute necessity of getting at this task,
and prior experience, that this would be by far the best course of
action to take and that is why we took it.
1240
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, like every Friday morning, I am pleased to put a
question to the Minister of Industry.
Research and development support programs are in a real
mess. In its February 4 edition, the Financial Post reported that,
according to some people, it is impossible for businesses, and
especially small and medium-sized businesses, to make sense
of these programs without the help of experts in that field. The
fact that we have lapsed votes every year just goes to prove my
point.
Will the minister undertake to act immediately and to make
considerable efforts in order to improve the accessibility and
efficiency of these research support programs and to help small
businesses to make full use of them?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member for his Friday question.
Encouraging small and medium-sized businesses to be more
active in the research and development area is one very
important element of our Canadian economy strategy.
As the hon. member knows, only 0.4 per cent of all Canadian
businesses are involved in research and development, and very
few of those are small and medium-sized businesses. The key
element of our strategy is to find ways to help small businesses
in that area.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible
for women's issues.
It has come to my attention that taxpayers are spending
$25,000 on a management training course for the president of
the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women just 11
months before her term expires and just two months after the
council laid off other staff.
Does the minister feel that the expenditure is appropriate and
have provisions been made for repayment to the taxpayers for
this free education program?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, it is a
normal practice in the world of business, whether it is the
business of the House, or the business of the country, or business
in the private sector, to invest in the growth and development of
our human resources.
That is exactly what was undertaken. Miss Simms is a very
fine example of good leadership and potential for the growth and
development of women's interests as well as business interests
around this country. She has served well and will continue to
contribute to the growth and development of our country.
* * *
(1200 )
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence,
the deputy minister. The recent settlement of the GATT
agreement may necessitate some changes in the supply
management system for the Canadian dairy, egg and poultry
sectors.
Could the minister tell the House what is being done to ensure
the future and continued success of these important Canadian
industries?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for his continued commitment and interest in the future of the
agri-food industry in Canada. I would remind the House of the
continued commitment of this government to orderly marketing
in the supply management sectors in Canadian agriculture, the
dairy, egg and poultry sectors.
In order to ensure this the minister has put in place a task force
to meet with and to talk to all sectors of the industry, producers
and primary producers, processors, hotel and restaurant
wholesalers, retailers and right to the consumer to ask them
about issues they feel need to be addressed in order to take the
supply management industries into the next trading regime.
That task force is well on its way. It is ongoing. I can assure
the House that we will not be repeating any of the good work that
has been done. However we are working hard to make sure we
are ready in the industry and in the country for July 1, 1995 when
the new GATT rules come into effect.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, my question is
inspired by tens of thousands of small business operators who as
a result of the previous government's-
An hon. member: He is going Reform.
Some hon. members: Name them.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot name all of them. Because of
the previous government's fiscal and monetary policy they were
actually forced into the underground economy as a way to
survive in business.
1241
My question to the Minister of Finance or the Deputy Prime
Minister is considering that this is a new government promising
a whole set of new initiatives, is the government considering
specific steps that would reach out to those small business
operators particularly and independents that have been forced to
operate in the underground economy and who now wish to come
above ground and participate on the level playing field with
their competitors across the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would tell the hon. member
and through him the hundreds of thousands of small businesses
who have written to him that we certainly do agree with his
characterization of the activities of the previous government
and the effect its policies had on the growth of the underground
economy.
I can assure him that as was set out in the red book and was a
major part of our campaign, the growth of small and medium
sized business in this country and its ability to create jobs
remains at the forefront of our activities. I will say that will be
reflected obviously in the fiscal and monetary and budgetary
considerations of this government.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order.
Canadians and other freedom loving countries are about to
celebrate the end or the beginning of the end of a horrible
nightmare of six years of world war in Europe when in June the
50th anniversary of D-Day is going to be celebrated and we will
recall the loss of Canadian lives. More particularly when I think
of Adolf Hitler's ideology, his obsession that brought chaos to
Europe, death to millions of my people, death to millions of
other people, I find it absolutely reprehensible to think that his
name would come into question in this House.
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the minister would
consider making her statement at the time of statements as
opposed to a point of order. The Chair is hard pressed to find a
point of order there.
I would encourage the minister to consider that as another
avenue.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, during
Question Period, my colleague for
Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies put a question to the Minister of
Human Resources Development. After the question had been
answered, Mr. Speaker, you rose to say that the opposition
should choose the wording of its questions carefully. I will tell
you very frankly that I do not understand the meaning of this
statement for the following reasons: First, the official
opposition is very aware of its responsibilities, we know that
questions should use the right words and be respectful of the
persons involved.
(1205)
The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies had
chosen his words particularly well to avoid implicating a person
who, from what we know, is not, at this stage, accused of any
criminal act or other wrongdoing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to you that my colleague
only talked of using public funds for purposes other that the ones
originally stated. My colleague never used words like fraud,
theft, embezzlement or anything like that. He simply asked what
was happening to publics funds used in a way not originally
intended. If it had not been so, clearly the hon. member would
not have to repay. So we must conclude that the wording of the
question was quite proper.
I would not want, Mr. Speaker, translation problems or things
like that to lead you to believe that the opposition is using
unparliamentary language or improper terms. I believe our rules
protect the questions as well as the answers. The choice of words
or expressions is ours. We are used to abide by that and we are
very responsible in our choice of words. This is what I wanted to
point out to you, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Roberval for his
comments. Mine were merely intended as a gentle warning,
because I do not want and I know the House does not want us to
cross this line.
I will read over what was said, and if, in the final instance, I
should not have interrupted at that point, I will get back to the
hon. member. My point is simply that we must choose our words
carefully. If there was a misunderstanding on my part, I will get
back to the hon. member and let him know. Thank you for your
comments.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you
for taking the trouble to consider this matter. I am sure that we
will reach an understanding and that we agree on the principles
involved.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask another question,
on another matter, this time speaking as the House Leader for the
Official Opposition. I would like to ask what happened in the
process of selecting questions for Question Period? What is the
Chair's procedure? I noticed that contrary to custom, the
Official Opposition was deprived of a number of questions and
that this week, a number of independent members linked to one
political group in particular were entitled to more questions than
would normally be the case.
1242
I want to ask the Chair whether this was dictated by the
circumstances this week or did the Chair decide to change the
rules of the game, or will we get back to normal next week?
The Speaker: The Chair never decides unilaterally to change
the rules of the game. As you know, we do our utmost to
recognize all members who wish to ask questions.
If there seemed to be an imbalance during the last few weeks,
that is because sometimes we have days that are a bit longer and
I can recognize members who wish to ask questions.
I will review what happened this week and during the past
month, and we will discuss the matter with the House Leaders.
[English]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. The hon. member for Wild Rose, in his effort to malign
the Minister of Canadian Heritage, referred to a
Globe and Mail
article which is acknowledged by all parties involved to have
been ill researched and largely inaccurate. I would hope the hon.
member would certainly retract his comments.
(1210 )
The Speaker: I am confident that the hon. member would not
impute a motive to any other member to malign anyone on any
question. I hope that when we choose our words to put a question
that we will always keep in mind that what we are trying to do is
to get the truth of whatever the matter is, to have questions
properly presented and indeed where possible to have their
questions aired.
I know that in the spirit of what has transpired in the last
month or so that terms such as those that try to malign might be
taken out of our vocabulary if it is at all possible. I take note of
what the member has said. I do not know if it is a point of order,
but I do take note.
Ms. Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could replace the
words in question with misleading and inflammatory and ill
conceived words on the part of the hon. member for Wild Rose.
The Speaker: I am sure that we do not want to get into that or
get into that as little as we can. The point is taken and I thank the
hon. member.
Mr. Riis: I had a point of order, but it has been answered.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Did I answer it?
1242
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
changes in the membership of the standing committees,
pursuant to Standing Order 114 of the House.
I would ask that the House dispense with the reading of the
report. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move
concurrence in this report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (hate propaganda-age group).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment that I am
offering today to the Criminal Code would amend the hate
propaganda provisions whereby someone who advocates or
promotes the physical destruction of a person of an identifiable
group would be prevented from doing so.
At the present time the Criminal Code says that an identifiable
group is differentiated or distinguished by race, colour, religion
or ethnic origin. I would like to add the word age to that, thereby
preventing the promotion of violence or destruction against
children.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1215 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
1243
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition on behalf of 1,000 citizens who are asking the
government not to proceed with potential rent increases in
low-income housing and in the OSBL. I support this petition
and hope that the government will respond to it favourably.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to table a petition on behalf of citizens of my riding,
mainly from the Saint-Grégoire area of the city of Bécancourt,
as well as from the parish of Grand-Saint-Esprit, who avail
themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a
grievance common to your petitioners.
Through this petition, they urge the government to stop
closing post offices and unreasonably reducing the working
hours of people who work in these offices. They do not accept
the fact that the quality of postal service is penalizing the small
parishes.
[English]
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once
again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 and
present a petition of over 1,000 names on behalf of citizens
concerned about the Young Offenders Act.
This petition is not only from my own riding of Kent but from
Essex-Kent, Windsor West and Windsor-St. Clair, Lambton
and Sarnia. It states that crimes committed on society by young
offenders are on a serious uprise and the young offenders go
virtually unpunished due to protection under the Young
Offenders Act, whereas they lack respect for the law and fellow
citizens, whereas there is no remorse or shame on the part of the
young offender.
Wherefore, the undersigned, the petitioners, humbly pray and
call upon Parliament to review and revise its laws concerning
young offenders by empowering the courts to prosecute and
punish the young law breakers who are terrorizing our society by
releasing their names and lowering the age limit to allow
prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(1), I would like to
present this petition on behalf of citizens of the province of
Saskatchewan.
The undersigned, the residents of the province of
Saskatchewan, draw to the attention of the House the following:
Whereas under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada
convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without
chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for review after
only 15 years, and whereas the murder of police officers and
prison guards in the execution of their duties is a most
reprehensible crime, the petitioners request that Parliament
repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition, duly certified as to form and content, from citizens
across my riding asking the federal government to seek approval
from the Canadian people for Canada's policy with reference to
official languages.
(1220 )
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker, I
have had a petition forwarded to me which has been duly
certified indicating that in the opinion of the petitioners the
Canadian National Anthem makes reference to the male sex and
is therefore sexist. The petitioners request that the anthem be
amended to avoid such terms.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1243
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bellechasse had
five minutes remaining for his speech.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I thank
you, and I wish to remind you that, pursuant to Standing Order
43(2), the Official Opposition will be splitting its time into
ten-minute periods.
As the time for statements by members and oral question
period was beginning, I was about to bring up the provisions of
Bill C-207 introduced by one of my hon. colleagues as a private
1244
member's bill. The purpose of the bill is to allow the Auditor
General to present interim reports throughout the year, a move
which would give parliamentarians a greater role to play in the
affairs of government.
I think that the government should take Bill C-207 introduced
by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and reintroduce it,
either as is or in some other form, as a government bill to which
improvements could be made in committee.
As I noted earlier, the Reform Party motion tabled in this
House by the hon. member for St. Albert contains eight separate
items. It is difficult to examine even one item thoroughly, much
less the entire motion.
For example, item (e) calls upon the Minister of Indian and
Northern Affairs to address problems relating to the rights of
aboriginal peoples. This is one area on which the Auditor
General has focussed.
I think that this is a very interesting proposal. The federal
Indian Act made native peoples second-class citizens by
confining them to reserves and treating them as wards of the
state, without giving any thought to the fact that they had the
legitimate right to govern themselves as they saw fit, under the
broad terms of the Canadian Constitution.
In the early 1980s, Quebec worked hard to prove to the other
Canadian provinces and to the federal government that it was
possible, working within the framework of the current
Constitution and with the openings afforded by section 35 of the
1982 Constitution, to give native peoples a greater opportunity
to find their own way, one which would be defined as openly as
possible, and, after so many years of federal trusteeship, to
recognize their right to native self-government.
This was just wishful thinking, of course. We have long been
advocating an end to overlap and duplication of services
between the federal and provincial governments. We are pleased
to a certain degree to hear the hon. member for St. Albert and his
party call for this kind of action, since we have studied this issue
at considerable length. The Bélanger-Campeau Commission in
Quebec very aptly recommended an end to overlap.
The Bloc Quebecois' mission is to bring an end to overlap
once and for all. This will come about when sections 91 and 92
of the British North America Act of 1867 are repealed. In the
meantime, we will do everything we can to limit the damage
inflicted on us by the Constitution Act of 1867.
(1225)
But, as long as we are Canadian taxpayers, we in Quebec will
continue to keep a close watch on things to ensure that the
situation we inherit-and we will inherit our share of both assets
and liabilities-is the best it can be. It is with this objective in
mind that we will continue to work in the House to improve or
stabilize the situation.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, first, I
would like to congratulate my colleague on his well-prepared
speech. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member of the
Reform party who put forward this motion which calls for many
things. It is an appeal to the government to act in the interests of
taxpayers.
There is a certain resemblance-and I am certain that my hon.
colleague will agree with me on this-between the motion
before us today and the one presented yesterday by the Official
Opposition as part of the two allotted opposition days this week.
Both motions reflect a will to cut government expenditures.
Yesterday, we proposed the striking of a special committee
which would review departmental spending item by item.
Savings would be realized simply because expenses would be
disclosed. The motion put forward today is similar, but refers
specifically to certain sectors.
The government's pat answer is that we have the public
accounts committee to look into spending matters.
This morning, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who
used to chair the public accounts committee, told us that the
latter had passed resolutions similar to the motion put forward
by the Reform party. The committee wanted to do exactly what
the Official Opposition is advocating now, but the government
was never willing to go along.
All day yesterday, and again today, the government
stubbornly maintains that the public accounts committee can do
its job. Of course it can, but then the government must take its
recommendations into account.
If a special committee representing all parties in this House,
including independent members, could review, item by item, all
departmental spending, it seems to me that its influence would
be greater, more far-reaching. It would exert even greater moral
pressure on the government and would have the support of all
parties to carry out these spending cuts.
This is why I would like my hon. colleague to tell me whether
or not my remarks tie in with what he was saying shortly before
oral question period.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Richelieu for his comments and question.
I believe the hon. member was referring to the first part of my
speech to which he listened closely, since after an interruption
of more than one and a half hours, he was able to focus in on the
point I was making. Before statements from members, I was
saying how odd it was that Bill C-207 dated February was
sponsored by the former chairman of the public accounts
committee under the late lamented Conservative government.
The bill calls for interim, sequential reports to be issued
throughout the year so that reviewing public finances becomes a
routine matter and members are finally able to fulfil their real
mandates as parliamentarians.
1245
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier also mentioned that a
period of time should be allotted to consider reports from the
public accounts committee and I think that is what the hon.
member for Richelieu was alluding to. It is not enough simply to
table a report. I agree with what others before me have said,
namely that time should be allotted for the serious consideration
of reports of this nature.
(1230)
As for the last question raised by the hon. member for
Richelieu, namely whether a committee should be struck to
review spending item by item, of course I think this would be the
best approach, certainly preferable to a motion such as the one
put forward today by the hon. member for St. Albert which
touches on certain aspects, but overlooks others. I think the
motion we presented yesterday was much broader and, as the
hon. member for Richelieu said, it would provide a much better
overview of Canada's public finances.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for
St. Albert as well as the Reform Party for having tabled this
motion in the House today because, on the whole, this motion
goes along the line of what the Bloc Quebecois is requesting.
We agree in principle with the motion of course, as it
recommends a complete follow-up on this famous Report of the
Auditor General of Canada, a report that every one should have
read and that I recommend to the public. People can get a copy
for free.
However, we believe that this motion does not go far enough.
Only a tiny part of government expenditures are audited by the
Auditor General and appear in this book, a book which
unfortunately more often than not gathers dust on a shelf.
The Auditor General of Canada himself says, and I quote:
``Most of the time, Parliament does not get adequate
information on what government departments and agencies have
accomplished with the billions of dollars from taxpayers''.
We are all aware of the terrible state of government finances.
We are aware of the burden of the debt on Canadians and
Quebecers, a burden that sadly our children may inherit. We are
aware of the unemployment rate, which is not coming down, of
the bankruptcies and of the hardship they bring about.
I must remind you by the way that the suicide rate among
young people is higher in Quebec today than in any other
industrialized country in the world. Such an incidence is a clear
indication of how much young Canadians have lost hope in the
future.
Through all this, Quebec is a little poorer than other provinces
and ends up receiving, through federal tax transfers, quite a bit
of assistance. But I think it would be a good idea to look at why
Quebec finds itself in that situation.
We must understand that Quebec gives $28 billion to Canada.
That is nearly 25 per cent of federal revenue and if we check the
federal government expenditure items, we will see that in most
cases we lose out.
Let me give you a few short examples, as this is not the main
thrust of my speech. In research and development, between 1979
and 1989, federal departments invested about 18.5 per cent of
their R and D funds in Quebec, while we provided 25 per cent of
Canada's revenue. There definitely is a shortfall, not only in the
money not being reinvested in Quebec but also in terms of the
beneficial effect of such investments on job creation because it
is well known that research and development is one of the
factors stimulating job creation.
With respect to federal investments in Quebec, while we have
provided approximately 25 per cent of federal revenue in
Canada from 1973 to 1993, we have been getting back 18 per
cent on average. There is a 6 or 7 per cent shortfall there. And I
will remind you that these investments amount to billions of
dollars. This means that billions of dollars are not being pumped
back into Quebec's economy to create jobs, but are being
provided in a different way, through tax transfers for social
benefits.
(1235)
I am pointing out these two items but, if we look at the whole
picture, we can see that, in the last 20 to 25 years, Quebec's
economy is, for lack of a better word, gradually transferring to
Ontario precisely because of federal investments causing our
economy to disintegrate. The Auto Pact, for example,
encouraged all car manufacturers to locate in Ontario. None of
them came to Quebec. The digging of the St. Lawrence Seaway,
which was, of course, a very beneficial project in general for
Canada, had long-term negative effects for the port of Montreal
because, with shipping going through to the Great Lakes, there
were successive lay-offs over the years at the port of Montreal.
The Borden line, which we will be discussing at length, I am
sure, in the coming months, encouraged petrochemical plants to
move from Montreal's east end where my constituency is to
central Ontario, to Sarnia.
That move resulted in thousands and thousands of jobs lost in
Quebec, in a sector I know well as I worked for oil companies
putting floating covers on oil tanks across Canada, in the United
States, in Texas; it is a sector I know well. As a result, people
who were making very good salaries lost their jobs; today these
people are on unemployment or on welfare. We lost thousands of
jobs because of a federal policy and now these people are
collecting welfare benefits.
We can also look at airports. As you may recall, a few years
ago, Mr. Trudeau decided to build another airport because of
congestion at the Dorval airport. So Mirabel was built at a cost
1246
of millions of dollars and thousands of people were moved to
make way for the airport. As soon as that was done, international
flights, which did not have that right back then, were allowed to
land directly in Toronto.
So what happened? Well, airport activity was merely
transferred from Montreal to Toronto, as it is obviously not in
carriers' interest to make two stops. They land directly in
Toronto. As a result, Mirabel is now a big white elephant that has
cost hundreds of millions of dollars. At the same time, Toronto
airport is being expanded because there are too many flights
landing there.
We can see in these examples a rational explanation for what
is happening in Quebec, whose economic infrastructure is
disappearing along with thousands of jobs. It is a debate in
which we will be taking an active part in the coming weeks and
months, I am sure, when we start speaking seriously in this
House about the advantages and disadvantages of Quebec's
sovereignty.
What we also learned is not only that the economy is going
very badly but in recent years, especially in the election
campaign which just ended, but how much people have really
lost confidence in politicians now. I think that the results of the
October 25 election are eloquent testimony of this. Here we are,
then, at the point where the government-at least we think so
and we will see in the budget to be tabled very soon-we think
that the government will really attack social benefits or fiscal
transfers to the provinces in the coming weeks.
Mr. Speaker, that is my point: I think that the people are aware
of the very difficult situation we are in now and are also aware
that they do not like the way politicians do business. If we want
to clean a staircase, we should start at the top. That is how you
clean a staircase, from the top down. That is why we not only
agree with the motion presented here but we ask for much more.
In conclusion, we want a parliamentary committee to examine
all government spending item by item, right here in this House,
in front of everyone. We want the books to be opened to the
public for all tax expenditures.
(1240)
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
He explained the problem very well and provided concrete
examples of jobs which were eliminated in Quebec and
transferred to other regions, following administrative decisions
made without consultation.
As for the motion tabled by the Reform Party, I am pleased
that my colleague agrees with it, although he would like to give
it greater scope regarding government spending in general.
I wonder-and maybe my colleague could comment on
that-if we should not only look at government spending but
also at some institutions or programs which have always been in
place and are very costly. As an example, I can mention the other
place.
We are told that the Upper House costs $43 million. An article
was recently published in either La Presse or Le Devoir, I forget,
which referred to some incredible costs. For example, there are
11 cabinet makers, as well as a gymnasium which only one
member of the other place has been using regularly in the last
four years.
Consequently, we have to take a look at this patronage haven,
which is somewhat of a remnant of colonialism. Would it not be
possible to make a cut, along with others, and thereby save a
minimum of $43 million?
As you know, in the minds of the Fathers of Confederation,
the Upper House was meant to be a watchdog controlling the
zeal of elected members, often to protect the interests of the rich
but also of the general public. However, the situation changed
progressively in the sense that interest groups have now come
into existence all over the country and have direct access to the
government.Consequently, the other place is no longer the
repository of the public's claims.
Unfortunately, the Upper House has now become the place
where an outgoing Prime Minister rewards political friends.
I am not saying that all the members of the other place got
there like that, and I do not want to take anything away from
their personal and professional qualifications. However, the fact
is that the perception is, at least in Quebec, that the Upper House
is useless and can even, on occasion, prevent the democratically
elected members of Parliament from quickly implementing
their decisions. The other place can sometime delay bills. This,
added to the fact that it sat for only 43 days last year, makes it a
very expensive proposition.
So, when we talk about spending cuts, should we not consider
what the Official Opposition was suggesting yesterday, during
another allotted day, and widen the terms of reference, as the
Reform Party is suggesting today in its motion? Should we not
widen the terms of reference to include not only government
spending, but also to examine the raison d'être of some
institutions, including the other place.
In a sense, I am a bit surprised that the Reform Party, which is
advocating spending cuts, would rise in this House and wish that
the members of the other place be elected. That would only
further increase the expenditures and slow down the
decision-making process. We do not need the other place
anymore, because the regions are now very well represented,
first in the House of Commons and also by special interest
groups which
1247
have expanded throughout Canada. The regions can speak for
themselves and do not need the protection the other place
traditionally provided them.
Given the fact that my colleague has had time to consider the
proposal put forward by the Reform Party and has requested a
widening of the terms of reference, just like the Official
Opposition yesterday, is he also ready to add to these terms of
reference to include consideration of our institutions and of
some of our traditions?
(1245)
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the hon.
member for his question. It is something we occasionally
discussed together outside the House.
Indeed, the mandate could be widened to include the other
place, an institution of a more traditional type which may not
have all the required effectiveness in the legislative process.
It is clear that in Quebec we have been talking for a long time
about abolishing the other place in order to reduce spending and
to send the population a clear message saying that those who
work here do so with full public knowledge and in an effective
manner, and that the same cannot be said for the other place.
This does not reflect in any way I am sure-and my colleague
was right to make that very clear-on the quality of the people
who sit in that chamber. I know, I spoke to a few of them on
occasions.
I also talked occasionally with members of the Reform party,
during conventions, and I was surprised to find out how much,
on the whole, they believe in the need for cuts-deep cuts-in
public spending. I believe that the way they speak in the House,
even if it is a bit unusual at the present time, shows that have a
deep desire to be real representatives of their constituents.
I am sure that Westerners, like other people, would be in
favour of seriously studying the possibility of doing away with
an institution which, at the present time, has only traditional
duties.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
could say to my colleague that we agree on several points. We
agree in particular when you say that we should try to save
taxpayers money.
[English]
I would like to continue the debate on the motion on the
Auditor General's report by reading two sentences to give it a bit
of continuity.
On page 597 of the Auditor General's report it states:
We recommend that the department provide complete and accurate
information to Parliament on the full cost of using government aircraft to
transport users such as the Prime Minister, ministers, and other VIPs.
It goes on to say further:
-the Department, in co-operation with other appropriate departments, should
conduct a review of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of providing
government aircraft to transport such users.
I would like to continue the discussion of this proposal on the
part of the Auditor General in a pragmatic vein. This is brought
forward not just because of the news media talking about the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs spending $173,000 to
make two speaking tours. I would like to go further into the
background and say that this situation has been going on for
years and years. The press always picks it up. It is as if it is a
scandal to be flying around in jet aircraft.
Let us go back even further to my own experience in the city
of Ottawa in another department, specifically national defence,
some 15 or more years ago. I recall at the time feeling very upset
when the government of the day offloaded part of its problems
on to the Department of National Defence and said: ``You
fellows take over the running of these jet aircraft. You can take it
out of your budget and you can run it and take the flack''. I
thought at the time it was dirty pool and I still think so today.
(1250)
What this underlines is that far too often its own politics
override common sense. Politics seems to have the effect of
saying: ``We don't care how much it costs or who carries the
load; it will go on''.
The whole issue of the use of government jet aircraft, whether
it is housed in the Department of National Defence or wherever,
illustrates what is bad about government and politics. It also
illustrates precisely why the people in our ridings are angry, why
they have displayed their anger over the last couple of years and
why they say this has to stop.
DND now runs 16 Challenger jets. Why were they purchased
in the first place? It is not because 16 jets are needed to run
ministers and the Prime Minister around the country and to
foreign lands. It is done as a political gesture, let us say, to
Canadair, to Quebec, saying it is just money so let us give them a
contract and buy these nice Canadian products. We cannot
afford to do that given the state of our deficit spending and the
state of the total debt.
I am really talking about the attitude of government, not the
current government, but all governments one after the other. The
attitude seems to be, why not buy a few more jet aircraft, it just
costs a few more millions of dollars. That is not good enough.
The Department of National Defence today is absorbing more
cuts. It is being cut to the extent that it no longer has the
resources required to continue the peacekeeping operations that
Canadians and this government continue to expect of it around
the world.
1248
I am going to do a bit of very simple arithmetic. If three
soldiers for one year cost, let us say $100,000, how many
soldiers could we get to reinforce the Department of National
Defence where it needs reinforcing, in the front lines with
private soldiers and not with general officers, by making a few
cuts here or there? The Auditor General's report states that the
maintenance of the 16 Challenger aircraft cost the government
$54 million a year. I am willing to concede and I think most
members are that the government needs several jet aircraft to
carry around the Prime Minister, a few VIPs and royalty. Let us
accept that.
But let us cut down on the number of these jets. If we could
bring down the maintenance costs of this jet fleet to around $14
million we would save $40 million a year. That $40 million a
year could be used for hiring soldiers at three per $100,000, to
give us 1,200 extra soldiers. Let that sink in a bit. We could have
1,200 extra soldiers for the cost of eliminating the maintenance
and overhead of some of this fleet of jet aircraft.
(1255 )
I take another view of this and say: ``If I were in business, how
would I look at it?'' My answer would be: ``I need several
aircraft to do the things we have just discussed, such as squiring
the Prime Minister around. That is legitimate''. What are my
resources for doing this? I would say: ``As a businessman my
resources are 16 aircraft, plus in an associated company, the
Department of Transport, 101 aircraft''.
That triggers me to say that if we have 16 aircraft, all of which
we do not need, and 101 others of what sort I do not know in
another department, there are probably all sorts of them to
spread around. As a businessman I would rationalize all this,
look at the inventory and cut down the numbers. We should keep
in service only those that are absolutely needed.
The other factor I would consider, if I were a businessman or
even if I were the government running this operation, would be
the bad press. Every time a flight is taken-some are quite
legitimate-one gets bad press. There is no sense in keeping up
this nonsense. Get rid of them. Get rid of the bad press and get
the people off our backs. The media caters to the people and tells
all the nonsense. If I were a businessman or if I were the
government of the day, I would look very seriously at this
matter.
In conclusion, I recommend that the government look at this
seriously, not just the Auditor General's report but the whole
situation. It should pragmatically rationalize all of the aircraft
being used by the government, sell some to get the cash the
government needs for necessary programs, reduce the overhead
of government and finally-and this is most important-change
the attitude of the government, the members and the
bureaucracy toward the use of public funds.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
reference has been made by the hon. member to the saving of
money and the efficiencies that are required. I do not believe
that anyone in government disagrees with the hon. member.
If the Minister of Finance finds places where money can be
saved, finds inefficiency, fills loopholes that are in our taxation
system and thus accumulates more moneys into the treasury,
would the hon. member consider that an efficient measure on the
part of government or would he consider it a tax grab?
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty clever question. If
the hon. member is expecting me to fully endorse the red book at
this point, I am afraid I cannot. I do have some reservations.
To the extent the government of the day is moving to fill tax
loopholes and bringing more revenue from sources now
untapped, I totally agree. Let us have more of it.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the
member's representation. He will acknowledge that many
excellent measures have been taken by the government on issues
that relate to government efficiencies and operations. I am
surprised that in his comments he did not acknowledge the good
things this government has done.
(1300 )
I want to ask the member a question. Would he be willing, at
the next Reform caucus meeting, to stand and encourage his
colleagues to vote, as they have said in the past, according to
what their constituents have to say? Would the hon. member tell
me how many times so far the members on the Reform side have
voted against the will of their leader?
What I am trying to say here is that charity always begins at
home. I want to ask the hon. member to list for me the number of
times that people on the Reform side have voted individually.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Ottawa Centre asks a very large question. I want to remind
members that five-minute questions and comments can be
rather brief. Keeping that in mind, the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the relevance
of the question to my presentation on the saving of funds
specifically related to the Auditor General's report. However, to
try and answer the member's question in a general vein, he
would almost ask me to raise the curtain on the Reform caucus
and tell him what is going on there.
Let me assure the hon. member that our leader has just as
much say, no more and no less, than the rest of us. When he
speaking to us it is with a totally equal voice.
1249
As to representing our constituents, that is precisely what we
are all about. We do not have any more than any other political
party the specific means of doing that yet. That is something we
must work toward and I will personally work toward
representing the people directly. We have to keep working on it.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to discuss the Auditor General's report,
specifically chapter 11 of the report because of my
responsibilities within my caucus and within the House of
Commons. I will be speaking on chapter 11 which deals with the
Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy, but more
generally with the Auditor General's report dealing with the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development its and
programs.
If one is to examine past reports of the Auditor General
dealing with northern affairs and aboriginal affairs, going back
some 20 years beyond the last government to include the Liberal
government before that, the same criticisms come up repeatedly.
These criticisms are that the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development cannot assure the people of Canada that
the examined program have a clear implementation strategy that
is followed in the disbursement of funds or that funds dispersed
actually go to the programs intended, that desired results of the
programs are achieved and that Canadian tax dollars are spent
with due regard for economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
Many of these criticisms are to arise from a confusion in the
mandate of the department, it would appear. The dilemma
appears to be one of reconciling accountability to Parliament
with the transfer of responsibilities of managing funding to
aboriginal programs to aboriginal bands through a number of
funding arrangements.
As far back as 1986 the Auditor General expressed concern
whether the department was accountable for ensuring social and
economic gains to aboriginal people or was simply responsible
for ensuring the equitable distribution of financial support as
native groups pursued their own objectives.
This confusion is still evident today in the implementation of
the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy. This
one program was initiated by the Government of Canada in 1989
to address the economic disparities between aboriginal peoples
and other Canadians. The overall objective of the strategy is to
help the aboriginal peoples to attain economic self-reliance.
The strategy from 1989 to 1993 spent at least $900 million of
an appropriated budget of $1 billion. According to the Auditor
General the three departments responsible for implementing the
program are unable to demonstrate that they are meeting the
strategy's objectives.
(1305)
The auditors were unable to find any co-ordinated
implementation strategy and instances were observed in which
funds were disbursed for projects before the required business
plan documentation was received. There was consistently no
evaluation of the projects to see if objectives were being met.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
disbursed funding on a per capita basis regardless of the level of
economic development within the bands, again demonstrating
the conflict between the department's accountability and the
devolution of responsibility to Indian bands.
The department could also not demonstrate any follow up
assessment of the success of the projects funded with taxpayers'
dollars. Upon examination of the projects by the Auditor
General the projects examined had a success rate of 50 per cent
or less in meeting their objectives and one has to ask if this is
good value for the dollars invested.
With this particular program as with many other programs
administered by the Department of Indian Affairs, if the
Canadian taxpayers are to continue to fund it a number of very
important questions need to be clearly answered.
These questions could regard the actual benefit that has
resulted from these policy initiatives and whether these
activities achieved value for money. Did these policy initiatives
take into account aboriginal priorities or could these funds have
been used differently to generate greater benefit per dollar
spent? Is there a more cost effective way to achieve the same
results? What is the definition or criteria to judge when a
program is a success or failure?
It is clear we need a thorough review of the mandate and the
responsibilities of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development. This is particularly pertinent in view of
the commitment by the Liberal government in its red book to
implement native self-government beginning within six months
despite the fact that Canadians and most aboriginal people do
not agree specifically with what that term means.
I support, as does my party, the move toward aboriginal
control of aboriginal affairs and the eventual dismantling of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
However, I will not accept that Canadian taxpayers, through a
misappropriate sense of guilt, continue to throw huge amounts
of money into aboriginal programs without accountability or
assessment of the success of these programs.
While aboriginal leaders need only be responsible to
aboriginal people for moneys and programs received through
economic development established within the bands, these
aboriginal leaders or the department or both must be totally
accountable for
1250
every taxpayer dollar spent, particularly in this time of scarce
resources and enormous deficits and debt.
Neither my grandfather nor my father nor I am responsible for
the atrocities endured by the aboriginal peoples perpetrated by
the governments and churches of England or the governments of
Sir John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie King. I believe that
present day Canadians and their governments are demonstrating
a real willingness to address the problems within the aboriginal
community and will continue to do so.
However, at a time when working Canadians are giving well
over half their income earnings to governments in taxes while at
the same time the very fabric of our social safety net programs
are being threatened by high cost and enormous debt, we have
every right to demand full accountability and value for every
dollar governments spend.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the hon. member from the other side on his
observation on what was in the Auditor General's report.
As part of what has transpired over the years, around 1970 if
one were to find out how many students of native ancestry
completed a university degree, the number was somewhere in
the neighbourhood of 12. We now have over 6,000 people of
native ancestry who are proud to have completed university
degrees.
The reason they did that was they wanted to move forward in
this opportunity for self-government.
(1310 )
I had an opportunity to meet with some of the bands recently
and I can assure the House that the bands in my riding do know
what aboriginal self-government means. They are headed in the
right direction.
I have some concerns, as the hon. member has mentioned,
about the Auditor General's report. It is one thing to write out in
a report what the concerns are and another thing to see what is
actually happening and then put those into practice.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, with Mr. Ron Irwin
as our new minister in charge of Indian Affairs we are going to
see the direction change very drastically.
I would ask the member on behalf of the constituents I
represent if he feels that the budgetary process that we have
needs to be overhauled? What recommendations is he prepared
to make that he would see put in place through his members on
the standing committee that is going to be reviewing those
budgets?
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions
within the hon. member's response and I will try to remember
them and answer them as I go.
Certainly there has been great progress made within
aboriginal communities in the directions he points out. I applaud
those gains that we have made. The point I was trying to make in
my presentation was that with each and every one of these
programs we have to be able to assure Canadians that the best
value was gained for the dollar spent. Certainly while each
program makes some progress toward its goal, was enough
progress made to make the dollar spent worth while?
Some suggestions we might make to improve the
accountability of those dollars are very much the same as what
was pointed out in this particular chapter of the Auditor
General's report, that the evaluation procedures the Auditor
General spoke of be put in place to evaluate the success of the
programs that have been implemented. In this way the minister,
or the department through the minister, might come back and be
able to assure this Parliament and all Canadians that they are
getting value for the dollars spent and that we are achieving the
results we are trying to achieve.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I find the member's statement somewhat interesting about
aboriginal affairs and self-government. I wanted to ask him if he
could clarify two details for me.
The first issue is the one in our red book that deals with the
inherent right to self-government, which means we recognize as
non-natives that there were treaties signed and those treaties
suggested that these were self-governing people before
Europeans came. I would like to know whether the Reform Party
agreed with that.
My second point is if it agrees or disagrees, that not really
being the issue, would he also be prepared to tell me, given a
system that at present does not work for aboriginal people and
for non-natives, and it has been agreed by both sides that that is
the case, why he would not want to see a concept of
self-government put in place? This is not easily defined because
in each community and each region it represents different things
to different people.
Would he also not agree that aboriginal people are not
homogeneous people, that they are of different cultures and they
have different traditions and because of that self-government
cannot be that little catch phrase that he seems to be looking for?
I would be interested if he could give me his opinion on those
particular issues because my sense of it is he is suggesting that
because he does not have a definition of self-government across
Canada, we should do nothing.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, certainly the member might have
interpreted my presentation that because we cannot get one little
definition of self-government we should do nothing. Our party
and I have asked the minister and his government to define for us
what in their opinion inherent right means. To this point at least
we have not received an answer to that question. If we did then
1251
we could make a better judgment on whether we support the
concept of aboriginal inherent right to self-government.
(1315)
I personally support and I think my party supports the
devolution of responsibility for aboriginal affairs to the
aboriginal people themselves. I am saying that we should not
throw huge sums of money at the problem and have no
accountability for those dollars and then say we are solving the
problem and devolving that responsibility. When we spend
taxpayers' dollars we have to account to the taxpayer for those
dollars, whether it be the government or the aboriginals who are
administering that program. That is what we and all Canadians
are demanding, not that the devolution of power and
responsibility does not take place.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the
debate today in particular because the motion put by the member
for St. Albert does deal with specific initiatives of the Ministry
of the Environment. Also, what we are seeing as a result of the
analysis of this motion is that the Reform Party members are
starting to understand after the first 100 days in Parliament that
governing a country as diverse and as multilayered as Canada is
not as easy as it looks from the outside.
I refer in particular to the motion which of course calls upon
all ministries to justify the issue of overexpenditures and
duplication. Indeed, with regard to the Auditor General's report
to the Ministry of the Environment on pulp and paper
regulations, we were not only cognizant of his criticism but we
had already responded very specifically by working on
harmonization agreements with various provinces.
One thing I learned very quickly. I spent a lot of years in
opposition and not too many days in government, but I think the
Canadian public wants to know that politicians are doing their
level best keep costs down and to deliver a service that is going
to make sense to all Canadians.
If we look at environment, there was no such thing as
environment when the original Constitution was written back in
1867. We took it for granted. In fact public attention and
carriage of and concern for the environment has really been a
phenomenon of the last two decades.
Ironically, later on today I am going to be meeting with a
person from this particular Chamber who was at the forefront of
environmental concerns. He is now the Canadian ambassador on
sustainable development. As the Speaker of this place he
introduced a list of measures for the House of Commons which
made the House of Commons assess and analyse our
environmental behaviour.
Mr. Fraser, the former member for Vancouver South, started
before it was particularly fashionable to analyse how it is that
our own behaviour is affecting our environment. He took
styrofoam cups out of the House of Commons and replaced
them with recyclable china. He made us look at how we were
separating waste in this place. It is the wish of the Ministry of
the Environment to take the signal that was put out by Mr. Fraser
in this place, the House of Commons, and make it serve as a
model for government.
The House of Commons is a very complex labyrinth which not
only includes services to members but employs about 4,000
people. In the overall work of the government it is one small
player. In fact, from my department I know that there are people
across the country who are driving vehicles that are not
environmentally friendly. If we are saying to the private sector
``We want you to go green'', then clearly the impetus and the
direction for that has to start from within.
A legitimate question can be asked. Why is it that on the issue
of pulp and paper we have more than one government dealing
with regulations? In the evolution of business, federal and
provincial governments have each taken responsibility in a
number of areas. Water quality is not just a federal issue. In fact
I think the member would be raising objections, one could say
raising Cain, if we as a national government decided that there
was no more role for provincial governments to play in terms of
the purity of our waters.
(1320)
Not only do we have a provincial role to play but we have an
international role. Only two days ago I was speaking with the
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency of the
United States on exactly what we were going to do in terms of
bilateral decisions to clean up areas like the Great Lakes, to look
at the whole question of what is dumped into the St. Lawrence
River, and to examine the question of transborder movement of
waste.
We have local initiatives, provincial initiatives, national
initiatives and international initiatives. That is why to the
taxpayer it may look like we are sometimes running around
doing each other's jobs but I think everyone would recognize
that no one government can bear the total responsibility for the
environment.
Look at the question of air. Probably one of the most poignant
moments that I have experienced as a member of Parliament was
a trip I took several years ago to Broughton Island which is part
of the vast Arctic. On that trip I had an opportunity to meet with
aboriginal women who had been advised at that time by the
federal department of health that tests had shown that their
breast milk was tainted with PCBs. Members cannot imagine,
flying into a more pristine virgin untouched area of the world
and on arriving there have a meeting with town council to deal
with the issue that the mothers' milk in that part of the country
1252
was tainted with PCBs. You had to ask yourself the question:
Was that a local issue?
Obviously it was not a local issue. The PCBs were being
carried by air currents, not only from Canada but from parts of
industrialized North America and because of wind vortexes with
which I am not familiar they found themselves in a particular
concentration in the Arctic. There were situations where in some
cases these women were actually feeding their children
Coffee-mate because the cost of milk at that time was $8 a litre.
They did not have the money to buy a litre of milk and they were
afraid to feed their babies with their own breast milk. That is
why when one talks about environment issues it is not so easy to
compartmentalize them as maybe one would like to think.
The world is a very complex place today. I think we have a
responsibility as a national government to work internationally,
provincially and locally to try to develop the cleanest
environment possible.
A member of the Reform Party asked a question earlier today
on the issue of the environmental assessment of a particular
project on a ski hill. He asked about the business interests. That
is a legitimate question. Obviously when we are talking about a
virgin part of the country for which there is going to be
significant development we have the interests of the business
people who have invested in the project as well as the interests
of the local residents who obviously have to balance the land use
questions with larger questions of the whole question of
biodiversity.
We have the provincial questions about how a province can
maintain the integrity of the environment, deal with the issue of
endangered species and provide significant terrain for wildlife.
We also have the national and international issues.
If from time to time we trip over each other, as we will do, I
think the message of the Auditor General has to be that it is not
with malice or forethought and that we should be working as
hard as we can to streamline the process to make it work for the
taxpayer and also to underline our role as the guardian of the
land, the sea and the air for future generations.
[Translation]
We are working very hard on this aspect, and based on
negotiations that are taking place with my Quebec counterpart,
Mr. Paradis, I expect we will soon be able to sign a one-stop
agreement which could apply to pulp and paper regulations.
This is very important, because I realize companies do not want
two inspection teams on the same river at the same time.
However, I think we should also realize that with our overriding
responsibility to keep this earth for future generations, there
will be differences of opinion from time to time.
(1325)
Are megawatts better than negawatts? Are international
issues involved?
[English]
Only a few days ago the premier of British Columbia was in
Europe looking at our environmental record from the
perspective of the European Community. There are international
market forces which want to analyse whether we are doing our
job in land use management. Do we have proper mechanisms for
clear cutting? Are we in fact respecting the question of effluent
discharge in pulp and paper mills? Do we have laws that are
stringent enough and are we respecting those laws?
That is what politics are all about. It is the coming together of
divergent views and the balance between the immediate needs of
economic gain with the long-term needs of sustainable
development. One of the great initiatives of the 1990s is going to
be a recognition that environment and economy are not
opposites, they are not enemies. In fact, they are inextricably
linked.
Premier Harcourt is in Europe now, not because he is
necessarily a great defender of the environment but because
world forces are coming together to analyse the green record of
every country. Premier Harcourt wants to make sure that the
Europeans are apprised of all the facts before they make
decisions which could have significant repercussions for the
Canadian economy.
[Translation]
I think the same thing is happening in the case of the Quebec
government's involvement in the Hydro-Québec contract with
New York. It is not enough to work hard to have a clean
environment. The international issues are there as well. Are we
prepared to meet the immense challenges of the twenty-first
century with sound and sustainable environmental
technologies?
[English]
There is an economic consideration. In fact, as we speak we
are following the advice of the Auditor General to meet, to
consult, to get our act together and to ensure that business is not
overburdened with overregulation but at the same time we meet
our bottom line of being the stewards of the environment for
future generations.
When I got into this job in my department I had no idea how
on any given project, on any given decision, there is not only the
question of seeking interdepartmental information but also the
responsibility to ensure that you are not treading on somebody
else's constitutional toes.
I think the members of the Reform Party and I know, having
had the opportunity to meet and to dialogue with some of them
in terms of our shared environmental objectives and hopefully
being exposed to reality, that governing a country as vast as
1253
Canada is not as simple as one would like to pretend. There are
no hard and fast solutions. We will make mistakes. That is why
we ask the Auditor General every year to review our record and
to make recommendations.
The opposition motion by the member for St. Albert which
calls upon the government to demonstrate its commitment to
accountability is a process that is built into what we call the
estimates. Every year in this Parliament every member of
Parliament has the right to call the ministers of this government
before their committees to call them into account on
expenditures.
That is the function of the committee on estimates and that has
to be done before June. That is part of the law of the land. Sure
we screw up. Sure we make mistakes. I dare say I have made a
few of them in my time and I will probably make a few more
from time to time.
Some hon. members: Oh, no.
Ms. Copps: I think Canadians want to know that we are doing
our level best to acquit ourselves of our responsibilities and at
the same time meet the test the taxpayer is putting us through.
An awful lot is said about public servants, that public servants
waste money and do this and do that.
(1330 )
In my department I have had nothing but absolute
co-operation from the people who are there to discharge the
government's mandate. Public servants are not the people who
create the policy. They are there to implement it. They work
nights and weekends. They do not close the door at 4.30 p.m.
because the public phone lines are not open. They are there
working on everyone's behalf to try and move the process
forward.
I spent a couple of days in Saskatoon at my very first meeting
of Canadian ministers of the environment in November. I spent
about an hour on the phone yesterday with the chairman of the
CCME, Jane Barry, the new Minister of the Environment from
New Brunswick, who is getting ready for the next meeting. I
expect I will be meeting with my provincial counterparts in
March to pave the way for further harmonization and further
consultation on the process of making our regulatory system
work.
While we are in this House there are bureaucrats who are
dealing with air issues. There are public servants who are
dealing with the very complicated issues of who controls the
waterways. It seems very simple. One goes to Saguenay.
[Translation]
Look at the Saguenay, which is definitely part of the province
of Quebec. I would like to digress at this stage and say I would
have liked to see the environment critic here, because yesterday,
Mr. Chrétien referred to the Irving Oil case, and said that if that
had happened in Hamilton, the matter would have been settled. I
can tell him it will be settled, and just because it was not settled
before does not mean they were right.
If I throw something into the Bay in Hamilton, it goes through
Lake Ontario and into the St. Lawrence, and then into the
Atlantic and international waters. If we look at the cod shortage,
we may have a good conservation program. We even went so far
as to prohibit all cod fishing in Canada. But if the French, the
Spanish and the Portuguese catch our cod, what is the use? So,
although it would be very easy to say that the Saguenay is in
Quebec and that is final, if we do not harmonize regulations at
the federal, provincial and international levels, part of the river
may be clean as a whistle, but toxic waste can still get in from
other areas.
That is one of the reasons why I believe the environment
unites us as a people.
[English]
Whatever language we speak, when it comes to the
environment we are inextricably linked. What I throw into the
water of Hamilton harbour ends up in the drinking water of the
lower St. Lawrence. What happens to the belugas? It is not just a
function of how they are dealt with at that particular point of the
river, but it is a function of the cumulative effect of toxins which
could start all the way up in Lake Superior and find their way
through the system.
On the one hand it is very simple to say: ``Get out of my
jurisdiction. It is my ball of wax. You should not be in there''.
On the other hand when it comes to the environment, when it
comes to the air we breathe, when it comes to the water we swim
in and when it comes to the land we live on, we are our
neighbour's keeper. As much as we try, we will continue to have
irritants and areas of discussion and disagreement.
To follow the advice of the Auditor General, our objective
must be to be as efficient and effective as possible, bearing in
mind that in a world as complex as the one in which we live there
really are no easy solutions. For every point there is a
counterpoint.
[Translation]
Every position has its opposite, and it is up to the government
to try to find a reasonable solution that is fair to everyone. I
think that so far, even if there have been problems, we have done
a pretty good job. We want to go on doing that, but I think all
members of this House must realize that living in a country like
Canada is not always easy.
(1335 )
[English]
We live in a country that is very large and diffuse.
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1254
Ms. Copps: It is not easy, but it is worth it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: It is not easy, but it is worth it, and do you know
why it is worth it? Because when I see my brother living in
French, in Montreal, with his wife and their daughter, who
speaks French, the daughter of a man born in Hamilton, I think
to myself our country works.
It is worth it because for someone like myself, who never
heard a word of French before the age of 13, to be able to come
here and voice the wishes of the Saguenay people, is fantastic.
Likewise for my colleague opposite, the leader of the New
Democratic Party. When we get to know each other, as we are in
this House, then we realize how great this country is. It is really
worth it.
We do have a problem though, and that is that our country is so
big that people do not know each other. But should you come to
Hamilton, I can guarantee that you will be greeted by friendly
and welcoming people.
[English]
It is the same thing for people from the west. One of the
biggest problems in understanding government and in
understanding Canada is that we do not know each other. Maybe
one of the benefits of this rather unusual configuration in the
House of Commons is going to be that as Canadians we will start
to understand the things that bring us together.
I can say that the people who work in the steel mill in
Hamilton who are concerned about their jobs, who are
concerned about their children's future share the same hopes and
dreams and the same concerns about a balanced economic and
environmental approach as the people in the riding of the
Minister of Finance or those in the riding of Lévis.
[Translation]
They are waiting for jobs at MIL Davie.
We share the same wishes, the same hopes, but at the same
time we recognize that governing a country is not an easy job. I
think that all we can do is our very best to try and harmonize our
efforts, when we can, and when we cannot, to try to be honest
with each other. That is all people are expecting of us. I think
that the Auditor General's report leads us in the right direction.
It is good that you are here to keep us on the right track.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
congratulations to the minister for some fine words. It is very
obvious her heart is with Canada. I would like the minister to
know that is where my heart is also. I am sure we could agree all
day on that.
I heard her mention something about the economic factors and
the environmental factors, how they tie together and how they
are so important. I could not agree more.
Having lived in the Rocky Mountains all my life I love the
Rocky Mountains probably more than most. Looking at a
development such as was talked about earlier today in question
period and thinking about the financial difficulties the country is
in, I realize the Liberal government of the 1970s and early 1980s
struck a FEARO panel and arrived at a decision. The
Conservative Party came along and struck another FEARO
panel. It did a very thorough study and came to the same
agreement that the project was good. The provincial government
intervened and did its thing. The municipal government
intervened and did its thing. All this went on for a very long
period of time. I see the importance of working together for this
kind of project and really appreciate it.
Having been a member for only 100 days and getting word
that there is going to be another FEARO panel struck, my
immediate reaction is that we are wasting dollars on something
which has already been accomplished. I have heard over and
over again how it is so necessary to work together to arrive at
these decisions.
(1340 )
For the last two weeks I have sought meetings with the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to no avail. I have sought
meetings with the Minister of the Environment in her office to
no avail. I am wondering how we are going to be able to work
together if as a member representing my riding of Wild Rose I
cannot get a hearing with the ministers responsible for these
things.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, maybe I was not at the same
meeting but I did have a meeting with the member in the
anteroom which is as good a meeting room as any. In that
particular room I said the panel was struck.
The fact is that if the EARP guidelines had been met in the
past there is no forum to strike a second panel. A proper panel
was not struck in the past and it has not been subject to
environmental review. The review panel has now been struck. In
very short order the membership will be published and the
hearings will begin.
I think the member for Wild Rose will also admit that in
talking about the issue in question which is a major ski
development, the developer not being able to receive proper
environmental approvals for the whole project, basically cut the
project in half and tried to get approval for the parking lot
separate from the lifts. We think it has to be looked upon as an
integrated package.
We have called for a panel to be struck and the panel will have
to do its job. Obviously it has to be done in the context of the
environmental implications. We would be remiss if we basically
said that this particular person has invested a significant amount
1255
of money and therefore it has to go ahead without any
consideration of the environmental implications.
The hon. member will recognize that if the environmental
concerns had been met obviously we would have no authority to
strike an EARP panel. The fact one is being struck is because
there has not been a proper environmental assessment.
We are doing what we have done in the past. We did it most
recently with the federal-Saskatchewan panel on uranium
mining. We are doing it with BAPE wherever possible. We are
trying to facilitate the process where federal and provincial
interests intersect. We are trying to run joint panels to make sure
we do not put the developer and interested parties through the
same process twice.
That has certainly been the practice I have established and
want to continue. From that perspective we only want one stop
shopping for environmental hearings. We do not want to put a
project through a provincial hearing and then a federal hearing
and have a number of hearings.
That being said we certainly are not about to give up our right
to require an environmental assessment on an issue as
significant as a major ski development in our national Rockies.
The member points out that this is on the parking lot but the
parking lot is going to be there for something. If the parking lot
is being built to park cars, obviously there has to be a ski hill to
go along with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
Madam Minister, let me congratulate you on the lovely clothes
you are wearing today. We were used to seeing you always in
scarlet red and today you are wearing blue, which suits you very
well. For the members around you, we hope that next week you
will not change your red book for a blue book.
Outside of the debate on the resolution related to your
observations, you said that it was difficult to live in this country.
We applauded and you added, ``It is worth it''. We in the Bloc
have rather concluded that there were two countries in this
country and that it was worth building the one which does not yet
exist as a separate country.
The fact remains that these are two points of view which we
do not share, but they are basically honestly held on either side
of the House.
You said that it was not easy and you also referred to
consultations, but with reference to the resolution, you even
spoke of possible agreements to reduce overlap, and I
congratulate you if such agreements can come about-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! I would simply
remind the hon. member for Richelieu and the House to address
your remarks to the Chair and not directly to the person to whom
a question is put.
Mr. Plamondon: For a young Acting Speaker like you to
warn an old member like me, Mr. Speaker, I see that you have
already learned your job well and I will make a point of
complying with your directives.
Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke about a possible agreement
with the pulp and paper industry and I commend her for that,
because we denounce this continual duplication and overlap, we
denounced it during the election campaign and we still denounce
it continually here in the House. Our resolution for the
opposition day yesterday talked about precisely that. Today, I
think the Reform Party's resolution may be more specific and
less broad but it also talks about eliminating this wasteful
spending due to overlap.
(1345)
In my riding, I saw overlap during the big debate about the
closure of Dioxide Canada. The provincial government had
environmental standards, the federal government had
environmental standards, one said something was white, the
other that it was black, so much so that the company did not
know just what to do. Furthermore, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada also came on the scene, with the result that the company
that had planned to close in Tracy and open in Bécancour
decided to suspend the work in Bécancour, temporarily, I hope.
This is a fine example of wasted energy, time and money, to the
detriment of the 400 Dioxide workers.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not
mention it in her speech this morning and we were surprised by a
statement from the member for Ottawa-Vanier, former
chairman of the public accounts committee. All day yesterday,
the Liberal members said, ``Why do you call for a special
committee of all members of the House to study the spending of
every department item by item?'' They told us, ``No, the public
accounts committee will look after that. That is its role''. This
morning, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, a former opposition
member who chaired the public accounts committee for three
years, as my colleague reminds me, and I conclude with that,
Mr. Speaker, told us, ``We made a report, but the House never
acted on it in three years''. So the public accounts committee has
become something of a habit-it tables a report and no one acts
on it. That is why we are demanding-and I think it is along the
lines of the Reformers' resolution-a special committee of
members from the government and all parties, including
independents, to carry out an exhaustive item-by-item study of
all spending by the departments. I think that the government's
commitment would be greater, out of respect for the conclusions
this committee would have reached. It would elicit a greater
commitment than the usual annual report of the public accounts
committee, which was denounced this morning by the man who
chaired it for three years, the member for Ottawa-Vanier.
I would like to have the minister's comments.
1256
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on what the
gentlemen opposite are wearing, I would like to point out that
the hon. member was himself a Tory and that, since Tory blue
has gone out of style in this House, I now feel more comfortable
wearing blue.
That being said, if the government he was a member of did not
take good care of public accounts, why did he not do something
about it when he was a government member? When we are
preparing estimates-not just public accounts, because there is
a process that includes public accounts-of course, the
opposition can chair the Public Accounts Committee, but there
is also the budgetary process where you can call any minister on
any expenditure on any committee. I for one have just signed our
estimates for the year to come and we must be held publicly
accountable for these expenditures. So, there are not only public
accounts but also estimates and I am sure that in this new era of
liberalism in government much closer attention will be paid to
constructive criticism from the opposition regarding
government spending.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to repeat the supply motion of the Reform Party:
That this House call on the government to demonstrate its commitment to
accountability and to the efficient and effective use of public funds by reporting
to the House, no later than the first week of June each year, what measures have
been taken by the government to address unresolved problems identified by the
Auditor General in his report such as-
I go to our subclause (f):
that the Minister of the Environment address the duplication of regulations between
the federal government and the provincial governments regarding the pulp and
paper industry-
I believe many observers of the House of Commons agree that
Reform Party members have brought a constructive approach to
all matters before the House. We have led the way in the
establishment of a very direct formula. We look at the good and
compliment; we review areas of concern and define them; and
finally we work to create a positive response with an attitude to
making the process work.
(1350)
First let me commend the Minister of the Environment for her
exhibition of an attitude of co-operation and her expression of a
desire that all members of the House of Commons have access to
relevant information and the ability to dialogue with officials in
her department.
I also wish to compliment the deputy minister and the
assistant deputy minister on their recent interview with the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development. As one of the two Reform MPs on the standing
committee I was very impressed with their very forthright and
business-like attitude and look forward to working with both the
minister and her officials.
As the member for Kootenay East I am acutely aware of the
environment. I have in my constituency Glacier National Park,
Yoho National Park and Kootenay National Park. My home on
Wasa Lake is only five miles from Crestbrook Forest Industries
pulp mill at Skookumchuk and as a consequence I have a great
sensitivity to sharing a pristine wilderness with a large
industrial production facility.
I am pleased to report that in total Crestbrook Forest
Industries has exhibited a very responsible attitude toward its
potential liability to the environment. In fact it has just
completed a $200 million project which responds directly to
concerns about pollution.
Crestbrook, along with other members of the pulp and paper
industry, come under regulations put forward by both the federal
and provincial governments. I know from casual conversations
with various people in the industry that the duplication of
regulations between the two levels of government regarding the
pulp and paper industry has been frustrating at times. I refer
specifically to the Auditor General's report on the duplication of
regulations.
We are concerned about attracting international investment
and creating a climate of confidence for the domestic investor.
There is nothing that scares capital more than the unknown.
Investors must have the security of knowing what the rules of
the game are going to be.
Learning from history I note in paragraph 26.37 of the Auditor
General's report that:
The January 1993 report of the Sub-committee on Regulations and
Competitiveness of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance
criticized the Department for not assessing the benefits of regulations.
It continues:
-a commitment of $4.1 billion in resources, with no apparent sense of the
magnitude of the benefits, was not reasonable.
That is a commitment of $4.1 billion in resources being
thrown into the unknown.
The Auditor General continues:
The data to assess the effectiveness of the regulations, including long-term
impacts, are expected to come eventually from the Environmental Effects
Monitoring Program.
I ask that members to note the words: ``are expected to come
eventually''. In the next paragraph the Auditor General states:
The Environmental Effects Monitoring guidelines and program continued to be
developed after the regulations were passed.
I draw to the attention of members the words: ``continued to
be developed''. He continues:
1257
In early 1993, the industry expressed concern that the program was still evolving
and that its final scope and costs to all were not yet fully defined.
I note there again the word evolving. From this instructive
lesson we can see why the investor in Canadian business has
some serious concerns about the application and impact our
laws and regulations bring to our desired direction.
The Reform Party believes there must be a balance in which
environmental considerations carry equal weight, that they do
not overpower economic, social and technical considerations in
the development of any project. We believe that without any
economic development and the income generated therefrom the
environment will not be protected nor enjoyed.
Overlap of enforcement is an additional problem. For
example, I am aware of two recent cases in British Columbia,
one involving Weyerhaeuser's Pulp Mill at Kamloops and the
other at Howe Sound Pulp and Paper on the coast. As a result of
effluent spills, both federal and provincial agencies felt obliged
to take legal samples. A couple of days after the provincial
government regulators turned up, the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans felt obliged to use a search warrant to obtain
information and repeated the process already completed by the
provincial government.
(1355)
There are also redundant regulations. As an example, at the
federal level there are two regulations under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act affecting the pulp industry which
deal with the use of defoaming agents and pentachlorophenol
contaminated wood chips. Both these regulations were
introduced to control potential sources of dioxins and furans in
the pulping process. Pentachlorophenol is no longer used by the
sawmilling industry and therefore this regulation is redundant.
The petrochemical agency has cleaned up the oil based
defoaming agents, making the second regulation also redundant.
New initiatives under federal fishery regulations require pulp
mills to do environmental effects monitoring at a cost of
$150,000 to $200,000 a year per mill and there is little or no
confidence that the results will be scientifically meaningful. It
is a case of collecting information for the sake of having the
information, with no apparent value but at very high cost to the
industry.
In the spirit of co-operation, I know the environment minister
is aware there are federal-provincial environmental agreements
that have been drafted and reviewed by senior level bureaucrats
at the federal level in co-operation with the provincial
ministries of environment in B.C. and Quebec. I understand
early drafts have also been developed for Ontario and Nova
Scotia. They are very close to conclusion.
In light of the government's much quoted red book position on
the elimination of duplication and overlap of federal-provincial
services, I ask the minister to push the various buttons required
to get the agreements completed. The minister today
acknowledged these agreements are pending. I am asking for
priority to expedite completion.
I will be sending a copy of this speech to the chairman of the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development to indicate that I will be raising this issue with a
view to having the committee encourage the early completion of
these agreements. This is a no cost way of enhancing
efficiencies in the application and enforcement of regulations,
thereby reducing the cost to industry.
In addition, I will be circulating copies of my speech to all
interested parties in a spirit of co-operation to assist in the
creation of a positive working relationship with an attitude of
making the process work. I invite constructive criticism and
input, especially from industry, to the suggestions I have made
today.
As stated, Reform Party members are striving to bring a
constructive approach to all matters before the House. However,
as indicated in our supply motion, it is imperative that the
Minister of the Environment, not later than the first week of
June each year, deliver to the House a report outlining what
measures have been taken to address the unresolved problems
identified by the Auditor General. As he chose to focus on the
issue of pulp and paper regulations, identifying specific
deficiencies, we anticipate that the minister will respond
positively to this most reasonable position put forward by the
Reform Party.
That kind of response will clearly demonstrate the
government's commitment to accountability to the House and,
through it, to the people of Canada.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member's presentation.
Just a very quick question. I wonder if the hon. member
considers his party and himself the only members in the House
interested in the well-being of people, both financially and
otherwise, right across this country. I am sure that was not his
intention but that was certainly the impression he gave.
I have had conversations with members from all regions of
this great nation of ours, as well as from all political parties
represented here. First and foremost their interest is in their
ridings, their constituents and certainly in the welfare of this
great nation of ours.
(1400)
I want to point out to the hon. member that we on the
government side will be asking those very same questions of our
ministers and will continue to. We want to assure members of
1258
the Reform Party and the citizens of this great nation that
government members are responsible and interested in every
government department and will continue to be.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my
colleague on the other side of the House. I in no way intended to
imply there was anything less just because they unfortunately
happen to be Liberals as opposed to Reformers.
What I am really trying to say is there is a creeping agenda,
not necessarily within the Liberal Party or the Bloc Quebecois or
any other party, but there seems to be a creeping agenda in
Canada. I cite as an example the one my colleague from Wild
Rose has raised where an ongoing process keeps on being
stymied by environmental concerns. It is as though a group of
people simply will not take yes for an answer.
The difficulty I am having in understanding this is that we can
keep on using environmental considerations as a road block
rather than an effective way to control all of the areas of concern
that we have. Environmental considerations are frequently put
up as road blocks to be able to proceed with responsible and
reasonable industrial objectives.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I am quite intrigued by the flow of the Reform Party so far in this
particular issue. I would like to follow this up with the member.
The hon. member can correct me if I am wrong because I am
trying to read into what he has said so far. He is suggesting the
regulations we have in place are not working. He also has the
interesting suggestion that all the regulations we have in place
are there for some motive not considered acceptable to the
Reform Party and that is to do nothing but delay and stop
economic development or business.
Even though there are times when he personally disagrees
with the decision made on behalf of the environment, would the
hon. member overlook his own particular interests? In the case
of his colleague from Wild Rose for example, would he agree
there are times and situations where the overall good of the
environment takes precedence over his own individual interests
as a politician and maybe those of his constituents?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, again in no way did I intend to
imply that all regulations are bad. Of course there have to be
regulations. What I was suggesting in my response a minute ago
is the fact that very frequently people who are opposed to an
approved project will find some other way of thwarting it by
using regulations.
With respect I ask members of the House is it responsible, is it
rational, is it reasonable? I quote the Auditor General when he
says there were $4.1 billion invested by industry in regulations
that were duplications, in regulations that were changing and
regulations that were suspect.
I cite as an example, not necessarily federal regulations
although they relate to provincial regulations, in the province of
British Columbia some bright light decided we were going to be
having zero as the level we had to achieve on a particular
contaminant that was coming out of the pulping process. This
figure was arrived at from the blue sky as it were.
Industry has invested countless hundreds of millions of
dollars trying to achieve this and we now discover it is not
necessary to achieve it. Should we now be paying back the
industry? We do not have the resources to do that.
(1405 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
the Auditor General noted last year that CIDA, the Canadian
International Development Agency, spent about $3 billion. It
has spent similar amounts during the last 25 years of its
mandate. Bangladesh alone has received over $2 billion over the
last 25 years. The Auditor General notes that the people of
Canada are asking whether this money has been spent wisely and
whether they are getting a good return on their taxes.
I have a weak spot in my heart for CIDA. In 1978 I lectured
and did research at the University of Nairobi in Kenya. My
salary and my family's moving expenses were paid by CIDA
through the University of Alberta which administered the
program of technical assistance under a contract from CIDA.
My housing expenses in Nairobi were met by the Government of
Kenya.
My personal experience illustrates some of the difficulties
which the Auditor General found to exist with CIDA programs
more generally.
CIDA had a very tight control over the design and delivery of
the technical aid program or what might be called the input. The
University of Alberta had worked closely with the University of
Nairobi and the Government of Kenya in the determination of
the role which Canadian professors would play in the teaching
program and development of an effective business curriculum.
There was also much care taken in establishing my suitability
for the task in preparing me for the problems I was likely to
encounter.
As many critics, in particular the Nielsen task force report of
government spending programs, have noted, input control and
accountability are the easy parts. The difficult part is showing
that spending has achieved specified goals and that the
investment has yielded the expected rate of return. Let me
illustrate the problem, again by reference to my own experience.
I look proudly back on the services I delivered in Nairobi.
There were the large courses I taught, the research papers I
wrote and published, the students and faculty I induced to go on
1259
to graduate work at my university and the influence I have had
on the public discussion of the government's economic policies,
including an invited lecture at the School for Kenyan Civil
Servants.
What I do not know and what has plagued me ever since my
experience is whether the positive things I accomplished were
worth the money Canadian taxpayers invested in the project. I
do not know that I or anyone else could make such a calculation,
even with large resources and the best of will. Nielsen noted that
the inability to do so is exactly at the heart of the problems
which many Canadians have with their government.
However, as Nielsen and the Auditor General noted, not all
government programs have non-measurable outputs. Roads,
water works, factories and other tangible projects fall into this
category. It is with these that the Auditor General has found
particular problems. The most important of these, repeated a
number of times in the chapter, is that some have been
undertaken at great cost and have failed to deliver the expected
benefits because the host government did not have the resources
to continue its operation or even maintain the physical structure.
I personally have seen roads built with foreign aid deteriorating
at alarming rates and some ending in the middle of a desert.
Reform supports the Auditor General's request that CIDA
engage in a systematic assessment of the availability of local
support funds before it commits Canadian resources to any
project. In addition CIDA should be required to report to
Parliament the results of its efforts in this direction and in
following up the use to which the projects have been put.
Reform also hopes that the government will follow up on the
Auditor General's most basic recommendation: that the minister
in question is accountable for measuring and reporting on the
results of CIDA's programs. Reform would push for this
recommendation further and urge that Parliament have greater
involvement through consultation and debate over CIDA's
budget.
(1410 )
The Auditor General's report identifies a large number of
issues which are of a fundamental nature and that lend
themselves to such a debate without interfering with the
agency's efficiency in its day to day operations.
I recommend to hon. members a reading of this chapter. One
of the issues raised by the Auditor General concerns the fact that
historically CIDA has given aid to many countries. He and his
consultants have agreed that this approach should be changed
and that spending should concentrate instead on a limited
number of specific countries. Parliament can make valuable
contributions to the solution of these matters.
Another important issue identified by the Auditor General is
the conflicting nature of some of the most important mandates
of the agency. Thus it is required to help the poor directly but
also increase the productive capacity of the poor. These two
objectives involve an irreconcilable conflict. Food aid keeps
down the prices of agricultural products and discourages local
production. It creates dependence.
It is ironic that the exact same problems face domestic
Canadian spending on social programs and the interprovincial
equalization program extended through Bill C-3. I discussed
these problems and offered possible solutions the first two times
I spoke in this House.
The proposals of the Minister of Human Resources
Development for the redesign of domestic social programs will
be discussed by Parliament. So should the CIDA programs and
mandates. In this context there would undoubtedly be an
evaluation of the Auditor General's view that programs in some
countries lack coherence, that they use an inadequate knowledge
base and may have failed to review development effort in the
light of recent changes in the understanding of the nature of the
basic development process.
In the evaluation of the CIDA spending in Bangladesh the
Auditor General noted that the country's structural weaknesses
make self-reliant development very difficult. I wonder whether
this assessment is a code for one of the ideas advanced by some
students of development aid, namely, that aid should be made
conditional upon the receiving country making structural
changes that support the development process such as freeing of
markets and prices, the protection of property rights and the
introduction of democracy. Certainly this topic would be one on
which many members of Parliament would want to have an
input.
One of the criticisms of the Auditor General is that CIDA is
overregulated and suffers from the widespread bureaucratic
disease which makes staff more concerned about following a
risk minimizing process for spending money than in getting
good results. These are almost the verbatim words of the
Auditor General. He believes this state of affairs should be
changed by making the management staff and process simpler
and more transparent and focused on goals identified in
co-operation with recipient countries.
In addition, CIDA should adopt a learning culture and devote
more effort to the identification of problems that develop while
projects are under way. The Auditor General believes that such a
change will be forced on CIDA by making its staff, management
and ministers explicitly and directly accountable to Parliament
and through it to the general public whose taxes finance its
operation.
Reform agrees with this assessment made by the Auditor
General. It urges the government to force CIDA into becoming
more responsive to Parliament, not only in its day to day
operations but in setting goals and processes for the selection
1260
and evaluation of its programs. The people of Canada deserve no
less.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon.
member opposite. I want to congratulate him on his speech.
Nevertheless, we should not, either inadvertently or
intentionally, tarnish all CIDA projects.
I am one of those who had the privilege, during my many
years as a member of Parliament, to visit a number of projects in
developing countries.
(1415)
I remember a project in Niger, Africa, where I went to see that
a $1,500 grant from the Canadian government made it possible
to lay a pipe bringing water to a vegetable garden tended
exclusively by village women.
Some 75 families were using that garden and, given Niger's
climate, they could have fresh vegetables almost year round
thanks to a small investment by this country.
It is all right to talk about all the audits needed to meet
requirements, but it would not make much sense to spend $3,000
on audits to review something that cost $1,500.
[English]
I remember visiting a well in Niger. This well had cost $5,000
and was providing water for a complete village. This was made
by Canadian contributions exclusively. When our delegation
entered that village everyone was waving little Canadian flags
to greet us.
It made me proud to be a Canadian because of what we were
doing for those people. Let us not lose sight of that.
It is easy for all of us to think of a CIDA grant, as what I once
heard on television, as buying ham slicers for Muslims. There is
no such thing as a ham slicer, it is a meat slicer. There is nothing
that says on it that you can only slice one kind of product. In any
case, it had been put that way because it was the sexy way, I
guess, of appealing to the constituency you wanted to appeal to.
I say to our colleagues across the way and to everyone who
cares to listen that it is important for us to keep all of these
things in perspective.
[Translation]
All those of us who have worked in the area of international
development know that the theories explained by some hon.
members-theoretical audits, bills and so on-do not always
work like they are supposed to in the field, across the globe,
where there is no electricity, no computers, etc., and where
someone can be hired off the street to dig a hole. Let us keep that
in mind.
[English]
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I would never say
that all of the programs of CIDA are failures, having been
involved as deeply as I was in the CIDA project. It would be
condemning what I have done. I may be foolish, but not that
foolish.
I am also glad to hear that the hon. member had such a great
feeling of being a proud Canadian when he walked by a project
financed by us. The question that is being raised by my
constituents, by people around the country and that the
Auditor's report reflects is in this period of financial difficulty
can we afford to pay money so that this gentleman can feel good
about walking past a garden that was financed by our money?
That is the question.
I also would like the hon. member to notice that I was very
statesman-like in this report of mine. I did not do what the
media loves to do and pick on individual bad projects. That is
cheap. I did not do that. We ought to approach this in an
objective way. It was approached by the Auditor General in an
objective way. He did a tremendous amount of research to
evaluate these projects.
The fact is that we spent $3 billion and he is getting again and
again from those people who ask objective questions that they
do not believe they are getting their money's worth, that there is
too much bureaucracy and making sure that bureaucrats do not
get caught doing anything wrong rather than looking to see if
they are achieving the right thing.
(1420 )
I did not say all are doing it. The auditor said that this is
characteristic of the program. I believe and go along with the
auditor, as the Reform Party does, that one way to improve the
quality of what CIDA does, one way to raise the quality, which is
undoubtedly quite high, is for the people running CIDA from the
minister downward to be more responsive to this House.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I would like to say I welcome this opportunity to
respond to several of the concerns that have been raised in
today's opposition day motion, particularly with respect to the
aboriginal economic development program.
Although the motion refers this question to the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development the aboriginal
economic development program is administered by Industry
Canada, formerly Industry, Science and Technology Canada.
In his report to the House of Commons, the Auditor General's
comments on the aboriginal economic development strategy
served to focus attention on this issue at a time when there is
renewed interest by aboriginal Canadians in their tradition of
1261
commerce and there is increasing recognition by the
non-aboriginal private sector in doing business with First
Nations.
[Translation]
As Minister of Industry, I am responsible for a large number
of programs and services designed to increase Canadian
businesses' competitiveness. And the businesses managed by
aboriginal people play a strategic role in this effort. In fact,
these businesses will have an increasingly more important role
in our economy, which is about to enter a new millennium.
[English]
The government's aboriginal business programs are quite
deliberately located in the industry department which is able to
offer programs to all aboriginal Canadians, including status and
non-status Indians, Métis and Inuit peoples.
This role continues a tradition going back over 20 years as the
department and its predecessors help to build a critical mass of
aboriginal business owners and managers.
Moreover, with its specialists in business issues and
intelligence, Industry Canada is best positioned to serve the
business needs of aboriginal clients, the role it plays in the
Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy.
[Translation]
In carrying out my duties, I can count on the precious advice
and dedication of the native economic development boards in
the private sectors, which have played a major role in the
evolution of the government's business development programs
over the years. The boards, which are mainly made up of
aboriginal businesses and chiefs of communities from all over
the country, develop policies and make recommendations to
Industry Canada on initiatives which deserve support.
[English]
We are partnered in the Canadian aboriginal economic
development strategy with the Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs, which focuses on community economic
development, and with the Department of Human Resources
Development which promotes training and workforce
participation.
Our other partners are the aboriginal women and men who
have worked with the program over the last four and a half years
to realize their business dreams.
[Translation]
The Auditor General took a look at a number of businesses
and he made recommendations on monitoring the progress of
our clients. He wants us to follow up and obtain information
allowing us to see if public funds are invested shrewdly.
[English]
I have to say that I agree with the Auditor General on this
point and while procedures were not fully developed at the time
last year when he conducted the review, I am assured that our
department is currently making improvements in our tracking
systems and will be much better able to monitor the performance
of our client companies in the future.
I will continue to watch this program and all programs for
which I am responsible to make sure that the money being spent,
every dime of it, is being used effectively and carefully. We are
and want to be accountable to all of the taxpayers of Canada.
(1425)
I am sure members would be interested to know, however, that
there are many successes being achieved by aboriginal
businesses in Canada. Most Canadians do not know that there is
high tech equipment manufactured by a Canadian aboriginal
firm, ACR Systems Inc. of Surrey, British Columbia, which has
its products on the Canadarm in outer space and on formula one
race cars very much on the ground.
ACR's temperature data loggers meet the highest quality
standards and serve a variety of uses, including measuring
building environments for energy savings and maintaining the
careful temperature controls of blood products while in transit.
We all take pride in the achievements of Canadian aboriginal
entrepreneurs and film producers as well as entertainers who are
increasingly making their mark on national and international
stages.
Canadian aboriginal tourism products and destinations are
now being sought by visitors to Canada, particularly from
Europe, for the unique experiences created and the genuine
hospitality offered by aboriginal hosts. The aboriginal tourism
sector is already an important contributor to the country's
performance in this important area of our economy.
There are many examples of success from the small
community based grocery store to the investment bankers on
Bay Street. Winnie Giesbrecht has created a thriving business
operation in downtown Winnipeg so that she could fill a need for
a care home and employ aboriginal women.
D'Arcy Moses and Dorothy Grant have unveiled Canadian
aboriginal high fashion to the world at the Canadian Embassy in
Paris.
[Translation]
So, even if we learn some tough lessons from previous
initiatives, the things which we do well must be pointed out.
1262
[English]
Under our current aboriginal economic programs, we have
supported some 3,000 client firms. The $230 million that went
toward these business ventures of every size levered other
investments and an injection of half a billion dollars in total
resulted for the aboriginal private sector.
From a study commissioned last year looking at firms the
program supported over their first two years we learned the
following facts: 90 per cent of all businesses the department
capitalized were still operating after two years; 60 per cent of
these firms were operating with a profit or a small loss. These
results compared favourably with the Canadian average for
small business performance.
[Translation]
Important jobs are created by aboriginal businesses. The
study encompassed some 300 companies which either created or
preserved more than 2,000 jobs.
[English]
The cost to the government in helping to create these jobs
turned out to be much lower when compared with past efforts.
These firms proved to be effective providers of jobs for
non-aboriginal Canadians as well, especially in some of the
more remote areas of the country.
I am committed to building on the momentum that I have
described. There is a critical mass of entrepreneurship, of
skilled and talented aboriginal people who are working very
hard right now to turn things around for themselves and for their
communities.
As a government we will continue to do what we can to
improve the climate for this business growth and support the
leadership and the initiative and the desire for self-reliance
being shown by aboriginal Canadians in all parts of the country.
As Minister of Industry I would like to respond to some of the
issues raised by the Auditor General in his report on the failure
of the former Department of Industry, Science and Technology
to follow the government's accounting policies. I am sure, Mr.
Speaker, you will find this especially fascinating and I hope that
you can contain your excitement as I talk about accounting
policies.
The policy, entitled ``Payables At Year End'', requires
departments to charge expenditures to the period in which they
were incurred rather than that in which they were paid. The net
result was that in the Auditor General's opinion the department
under-recorded its liabilities at year end by some $42 million.
(1430)
I am told the discussion between the office of the Auditor
General, my department and the Treasury Board Secretariat,
formerly the Office of the Comptroller General, has revolved
around the difficulty of managing multi-year contribution
agreements. This is complex and the rules for accounting are
based on long standing and generally accepted principles of
recognizing liabilities when they occur.
However, in the case under discussion, there has been a
legitimate difference of opinion as to which accounting policy
should apply and which fiscal year the liabilities should appear
in the public accounts. The office of the Auditor General is not
disputing the legality of the payments, only the accounting
treatment.
[Translation]
The department's interpretation of the accounting policy has
always been approved by the former Office of the Comptroller
General, which is now part of the Treasury Board Secretariat. In
fact, according to this office, the department maintains a high
degree of control.
[English]
Also, it is generally agreed that departments do not always
have control over the timing of costs incurred in multi-year
contractual arrangements. This can result in variances from
planned spending levels on a year to year basis even though
parliamentary authorities are adhered to on a multi-year
timeframe.
The department has had extensive discussions with the
Treasury Board Secretariat which drafted the policy and that the
Auditor General, in his report with respect to this item, is
interpreting. This resulted in the deputy comptroller general
agreeing with the department's accounting treatment of all
items under discussion with the office of the Auditor General
save for one item for $7.3 million.
This item was recorded in the 1992-93 fiscal year by the
department and we accept the Treasury Board Secretariat as the
final arbitrator in all accounting matters. The Auditor General's
figure of $42 million was not adjusted to reflect the
department's action in recording the $7.3 million item due to
printing deadlines for the annual report. The amount actually
under discussion is therefore roughly $35 million. This is
comprised of one amount of $31 million which the Auditor
General felt should have been recorded in fiscal year 1992-93.
The disagreement, especially in the case of this amount, rose to
the extremely complex nature of the contribution agreement in
question. In situations of such complexity, often professional
accountants will arrive at different conclusions based on their
interpretations of the same set of facts.
[Translation]
Moreover, there are two adjusting entries representing a total
of $4.5 million. However, as was already mentioned, the
Treasury Board Secretariat supports our accounting procedure
regarding those items.
1263
[English]
In summary, the issue of unrecorded liabilities is part of a
fairly long standing dialogue between the Department of
Industry Canada and its predecessor, the Department of
Industry, Science and Technology, and the office of the Auditor
General due to the complex technical accounting issues
surrounding the management of multi-year contribution
agreements within the current accounting framework.
The Treasury Board Secretariat, author of the government's
accounting policy, fully supports the manner in which the
department has treated its liabilities and reported them in its
annual report. The department has, for its part, been in full
compliance with the accounting policies of Treasury Board.
We do, however, undertake to continue to work closely with
the Auditor General in endeavouring to ensure that in future,
agreement is reached between the department, the Treasury
Board Secretariat and the Auditor General prior to publication
of the Auditor General's report.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to preface my question with a broad statement so that we can set
the agenda.
It seems that whenever a Reform Party member asks a
question about aboriginal issues that Reform Party member
must be racist according to certain people within this House.
That is exceptionally unfortunate. This is not question period
and not widely shown on television but I would like to enter into
a very honest, candid and searching dialogue with the minister. I
thank him for being in the House.
(1435 )
One of the concerns expressed about the aboriginal economic
program, and I suggest not just in ridings that have members
from the Reform Party but perhaps in some of the other ridings
as well, is the issue of competitiveness.
This is a very sincere question. It is not a trick question. I
would like the minister to assure the people in my constituency
and perhaps many other Canadians. We are attempting to correct
what has gone on previously, particularly with the aboriginal
community, by investing $230 million, to use the minister's
figures, into a business program. That program has the potential
of pitting those businesses against non-aboriginal businesses.
The non-aboriginal businesses are under very severe taxation.
Some are actually at the point of failure because of severe
taxation. There seems to be some hostility and some concern
that $230 million of these businessmen's tax money is being put
into something which is based on a situation because of race,
and that those people then have a $230 million advantage.
I wonder if the minister could help me and perhaps help
Canadians get around the feeling that this is not setting the
non-aboriginal community at a disadvantage.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The best
way to explain my view of this is to say that I do not see the
contribution to aboriginal businesses under this program as
putting the non-aboriginal community at a $230 million
disadvantage. I would suggest to the hon. member that the
amount we are able to invest in aboriginal businesses falls far
short of enabling the aboriginal community to reach an
equilibrium with the non-aboriginal community.
Let me explain a little more what I mean. First, as we know,
throughout Canada access to capital for small and medium sized
business is difficult. It is doubly difficult for members of the
aboriginal community, particularly those living in parts of the
country where the existing economic infrastructure is not well
developed.
Second, with respect to this program, we are endeavouring not
to right the wrongs of past generations, but to assist a group of
people to build on a base of self-reliance.
If we are going to do that, we have to not only provide capital,
we must have programs that assist in helping the members of the
aboriginal business community expand their businesses in a
meaningful way, to have the kind of interest shown
post-advancement of capital, as the business grows and
develops, that ensures its success.
We are dealing with financial assistance which is rather small
when compared to assistance given to other segments of
government, some federal, some provincial, to many
non-aboriginal businesses. We are endeavouring, with some
success, as I think statistics will show, to create within the
aboriginal community a successful spirit of entrepreneurship,
culture of entrepreneurship if you like, leading to self-reliance
and offering people the opportunity not just to get handouts and
not even to get jobs of their own but to create jobs for themselves
and for others in their community.
This is a very important contribution, which is why I agreed
with the Auditor General, provided the strategy is clear and
developed, and that is what we are endeavouring to do, and also
providing that this ability to work with the entrepreneurs is
there. This is why the program is set up with a very thorough
review process largely directed by experienced members of the
aboriginal community who provide their input as to what
businesses should receive financial assistance. It is a
multi-faceted approach.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Reform Party for giving us this opportunity
today
1264
and I notice, as the debate wears on, that there is a basic
distinction between what the Reform Party is suggesting and the
proposal put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. I would like to
emphasize this difference based on the minister's speech.
Every time we have brought up the subject of government
finance, we have said that it was imperative, capital that a
committee composed of representatives of all the official parties
in this House be set up to review all expenditure items that make
up the government's financial commitments. While the motion
that the Reform Party has put before us is interesting, I think that
it would not give us a broad enough view, a comprehensive view
of where cutbacks should be made.
I wanted to draw a parallel with the department that the
Minister of Industry runs, as his committee met for the second
time this week. I attended the meeting because I take a keen
interest in the issue. I was surprised to learn for one thing that
the total budget for his department was nine times smaller than
that of National Defence, in spite of the fact that the
manufacturing sector is known to create jobs and that
commitments need to be made in that area. I would like to
submit to you that with respect to cuts, the problem with what
the Reform Party is saying is that we get the impression that
there should be cuts everywhere, across the board. On the other
hand, a parliamentary committee like the one we are suggesting
could give us a much more balanced picture. There are indeed
areas where cuts can be made, but there are others where
additional resources are required.
At that committee meeting where all the deputy ministers had
come to tell us about their financing activities, every one was
amazed to hear for instance that as little as $15 million was
earmarked in the department's budget for the very important
sector of tourism, a sector that is expected to gain more and
more importance toward the year 2000. So, both the government
members and the opposition members present were surprised at
how meagre their resources were, considering how much needs
to be done in Canada in that area.
Just think that the Quebec Ministry of Tourism alone has
about the same budget. I picked that particular example because
it is in the magnificent riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
-where the hon. minister is always welcome- that you find the
Olympic Stadium, the Botanical Garden and the Biodome.
This is a case where, if a parliamentary committee carried out
a qualitative study of each budget item related to governmental
activity, as the Bloc Quebecois is proposing, we could make a
quantitative determination and realize, for one thing, that there
should be more resources allocated to the Department of
Industry, particularly for tourism, and we would be able to make
nuances. I do not know whether the hon. minister agrees with me
on this, but I think that this is a basic distinction between what
the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebec are proposing.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would love to visit the riding of
the Bloc Quebecois member. Perhaps shortly.
As to his proposal, I agree that we cannot cut
indiscriminately. We need to have a strategy, and I believe
strongly in a real strategy of economic development. After all,
this is going to cost a bit of money.
I agree with a system whereby members would have more say
in budget affairs, even those of government departments.
Historically speaking that is the real reason for the existence of
Parliament. The legislative process is only secondary to it. The
first thing is to provide the government with money, and that is
what Parliament was created for.
(1445)
I would welcome the opinions of members on the expenditure
of public funds. Whether we need a committee like the one
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, I am not so sure, because
government spending is extremely complex. Let us take the
example of my department. A member of the committee-not
my committee, but the committee of the House- would have to
look not only at the expenditures under my authority, not only at
all the programs of Industry Canada which total about $6 billion,
but also at the spending of the National Research Council, the
Canadian Space Agency, Statistics Canada and others. There is a
lot to cover, and I was just talking about the Committee on
Industry.
I believe that any given committee has a lot of work if it wants
to review the expenditures of all departments. If one committee
should review all government expenditures, it is really the
Public Accounts Committee which answers reports like the one
presented by the Auditor General.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Industry for
his presentation on the development of aboriginal businesses. I
think he explained well enough that the program is worthwhile
and that we should maintain and even expand it.
I would like to comment on the motion of the Reform Party. I
will read the French version if the members of that party will
allow me. It says that the government should study the report of
the Auditor General, make recommendations and report, I
quote:
-no later than the first week of June each year, what measures have been
taken by the government to address unresolved problems identified by the
Auditor General in his report-
I have been a member of the committee for the last five years
and I can say it is totally impossible to implement the proposal
of the Reform Party. The report was just presented in January
and I know the members of the steering committee of the Public
1265
Accounts Committee must meet in order to determine the
agenda for the study sessions they will hold. The report of the
Auditor General is not final; the committee must do its work and
make recommendations.
Many recommendations have been made during the last five
years. The Reform Party and the rest of Parliament should focus
on the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee,
they should make representations and have debates here in the
House.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Just a short
question, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday I touched on this whole issue of program
management and I would like to ask the industry minister for his
opinion on program management and strategy. The Auditor
General's report-and his colleague, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who was a senior official himself,
will probably agree on what was suggested-seems to point to a
28 per cent reduction in funds earmarked for program evaluation
over two fiscal years. I think this is fundamental in the whole
question of programs when in 1991-1992, for example, $124.5
billion was invested in 16 programs, only two of which were
thoroughly evaluated.
So I am asking you this: What do you think of the lack of an
assessment mechanism allowing us to see if the money injected
has achieved the goals that were set, if program management
and processes on which so much money is spent have had some
success.
(1450)
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary, after all, to
have review systems. It is not necessarily required to review
every program under a formal system every year because it
would be too difficult, but each program should be effective. My
department must have a system of accountability to the minister.
After all, it is the minister who bears the burden of
accountability to Parliament.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity today to remind the House of
some of the factors that contribute to the problems of Canada's
public administration.
My comments are largely based on the positions taken by the
Bloc Quebecois in this House during the pre-budget debate. We
think it is important to repeat these discussions on public
administration and the wasting of public funds, because we see
the latter as one of the causes of the failure of Canadian
federalism.
The rising federal deficit has increased our foreign debt and,
as you know, this trend towards relying on foreign loans to
finance the deficit has mortgaged the future of generations of
Quebecers and Canadians.
Our children will pay for the debt, for what I would call the
Trudeaumania of the 1970s, when credit cards became the
Canadian government's main economic instrument.
From 1960 to 1994, the debt as a percentage of GDP rose from
34.6 per cent to 71.8 per cent-a typical example of public
finances out of control. This means that since 1960, the debt has
increased faster than the revenue that would be used to pay it off.
If the debt/GDP ratio indicates the extent of the problem
inherited from the past, it is easy to see, if we look at how the
deficit evolved as a percentage of GDP, where this explosion of
the federal debt started. It started when the Liberal Party of
Canada was in power.
The Liberals are responsible for this public debt explosion.
Today, during this sluggish economic recovery, taxpayers
have the impression that the federal government is not doing its
share to improve its management methods and eliminate waste.
In the Auditor General's last report we read, and I quote:
``Today, it is clearer than ever, to both public servants and
parliamentarians, that Canadians expect them to demonstrate
sound and prudent management rather than finding new ways to
spend borrowed money''.
In order to eliminate waste, unnecessary spending and poor
management in our public administration, I reiterate the request
by the Bloc Quebecois for a parliamentary committee that would
analyse and review public expenditures, item by item.
Mr. Plamondon: Hear, hear.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, it would be
appropriate to create such a committee, because the Auditor
General's report, as I said before, shows that Quebecers and
Canadians are right when they believe that the government is
wasting part of public funds. I suggest we look at a few examples
of waste, unnecessary spending and poor management to
support this view.
For instance, at National Revenue, because of a loophole in
the resource deduction, the government lost $1.2 billion in
revenue.
Mr. Plamondon: That is unacceptable.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): If the government had a
mechanism for quickly adjusting tax credit programs where
there was a problem, as recommended by the Public Accounts
Committee, it could have avoided much of this loss.
Investment Canada spent $132,000 on a new office, kitchen
and bathroom for its new president, although her predecessor's
office was located in the same building and had the same
amenities.
Mr. Plamondon: That's a big waste.
1266
(1455)
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Another example of waste
is the $54 million cost related to the use of the Challenger
aircraft. Travelling done by ministers accounted for more than
half of this amount, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
is well aware. According to the Auditor General, this figure
translates into an hourly cost of $19,650. Is this the best way to
finance the travelling of ministers and other officials? This is
the question asked by the Auditor General, who does not have
access to the information which would reveal whether or not this
travelling was justified.
Another example of mismanagement is the Northern Cod
Adjustment and Recovery Program, through which the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans spent $587 million. The
Auditor General estimates that, of that amount, close to $15
million were wasted because the program was poorly managed.
Another example is the Canadian Aboriginal Economic
Development Strategy which we just mentioned. The strategy
provided for an investment of one billion dollars over a
five-year period. Three departments were directly involved:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Industry, as well as
Employment and Immigration. The stated goal was to reduce the
gap between aboriginal people and other Canadians.
We do not question the objectives of those programs. As the
hon. member said earlier, we are not asking for cuts to those
programs, but we want some tools to be able to evaluate their
implementation. In 1993, $900 million were spent to reduce that
gap. The Auditor General deplored the lack of co-ordination
between the three departments. It is not clear who must assume
leadership for the implementation of the strategy. The
departments concerned should have a co-ordination plan as well
as a system to evaluate that strategy.
In short, we do not know what concrete benefits resulted from
this strategy. We do not know if the funds were spent according
to aboriginal people's priorities. We do not know if there is a
more profitable way of attaining the same results. As I said
earlier, between 1989 and 1992, the budget to conduct
evaluations was reduced by 28 per cent, and out of 16 programs
representing a total of close to $125 billion, only two were
evaluated.
I want to draw your attention on the duplication of programs
and the overlapping of jurisdiction, which are also responsible
for the waste of public funds. In a 1991 study done by the
Treasury Board of Canada, not the Bloc Quebecois or any other
group, the Treasury Board concluded that, for at least half of the
provinces, there is apparent duplication between provincial and
federal programs, this in 60 per cent of cases. The vague
division of responsibilities, the incursion of the federal
government in provincial fields of jurisdiction, as well as the
federal spending power are the main causes of this duplication
and overlapping.
According to the Bélanger-Campeau Commission on the
Constitutional Future of Quebec, set up by the Quebec Liberal
government, the best way to put public finances in order is for
Quebec to become sovereign. Indeed, the Secretariat of the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission reached a basic conclusion:
since Quebec is not recording any significant net gain under the
current system, we will soon have a negative balance. It now has
been established that federal transfers to Quebec will continue
to decrease, relatively speaking, as shown by the announcement
made by the federal government concerning established
programs financing.
As for the equalization program, its very foundation is
eroding. The role of the government as the main provider can
only decrease. The consensus reached by the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission is also the opinion of all
Quebec decision makers, including the unions, the professional
associations as well as the business and financial communities.
They all agree on one thing: to eliminate the federal
government's debt, the current political system needs to
undergo major changes. The Canadian federal system has failed
us and cannot be reformed, as all Quebecers have proved with
Charlottetown. And that political situation is at the root of our
public finance crisis.
The dynamics and the gigantic proportions of the Canadian
civil service are further examples of significant waste and loss
of energy. In management training, we learn that civil servants
and other managers often look forward to increase their
influence by hiring too many people or requesting a bigger
operating budget than they need. In so doing, they cannot
properly streamline expenditures. Employees do not always
have reasons or the desire to confront government machinery.
(1500)
The Bloc Quebecois, with the best interests of Quebecers in
mind, asks that a standing committee on government spending
be struck right now with members accountable to the people.
We believe that the people's representatives should make sure
that the objectives of the various programs are met and that the
government is managing the public purse with equity, efficiency
and care. Besides, the Auditor General brought that up when he
wrote, and I quote: ``Most of the time Parliament is not provided
with adequate information on the results that departments and
Crown corporations have achieved with billions of dollars of
taxpayers' money''.
A parliamentary committee on government spending could
ensure that Parliament and thus the Canadian people are better
informed on the government financial situation.
That is why we support the Auditor General's proposal to
require departments, and I quote: ``to submit, through the
committee on government spending, clear and comprehensive
reports to Parliament on the exact state of their stewardshipand to provide, when significant expenditures are incurred,
information based on results''. The point here is for the
1267
government to achieve political justification rather than trying
desperately to stay in power thanks to unjustified grants.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, with all
kindness intended before I ask a question I must express to the
House the tremendous amount of difficulty I have sitting here
day after day listening to the reference to Quebecers and
Canadians. Until such time as that situation should change, I
suggest it might be helpful certainly for me, but I say that I am a
Canadian from British Columbia, and probably the majority of
members in this House would refer to themselves in a like
manner. The exception seems to be with some of my friends to
my right and I am having some difficulty with that.
That having been said I am interested in the position of
members of the Bloc Quebecois. On one side of the coin they,
like ourselves, would not support tax increases. On the other
side of the coin when we talk about targeting there seems to be
some misunderstanding by Bloc members where they believe
that the Reform Party is calling for cuts evenly distributed
across the board.
We talk about targeting to make sure that people who require
the support of social programs will be protected and that the
funding for those social programs for those who are in the most
need will be there. That is why we are talking about targeting the
support of social programs thereby creating decreases in the
amount going out.
I wonder if the member could help us understand. I believe the
member is talking about eliminating waste in government
programs. We could shut down all of the federal apparatus, fire
every single solitary person in the federal civil service, close
down this institution and indeed stop paying rent on all of the
buildings. Does the hon. member realize that even in doing that
we would still have a deficit and still be adding to the problem of
an increasing amount of debt?
If over 50 per cent of the current expenditures by the federal
government are in the form of transfers to individuals either
through the provinces or in direct payments in social assistance
and his party is unwilling to touch that, but cannot possibly
balance the budget without touching it, how would his party
propose to balance the budget? I do not understand that kind of
thinking.
(1505 )
Yes there is waste and yes waste must be eliminated. I agree
with the comments of some of the Liberal Party members who
have said that they too want to cut down on that waste. However,
that is not where it is going to come from.
If the member cannot possibly balance the budget without
cutting into or directing the payments to individuals under
social programs, how would he propose we balance the budget?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the hon. member for his comment and questions. First of
all, the hon. member must understand that all members of the
Bloc Quebecois were elected in a democratic fashion by the
people of Quebec. It is with a great deal of pride that all my
colleagues from Quebec come to sit in Ottawa with a culture
recognized in Quebec through the French language, with
English-speaking friends who are true Quebecers, and all across
Canada with people we want as our friends, with their great
English Canadian culture.
So it is with pride that we often refer to Quebec and to the
mandate we have been given to defend the interests of
Quebecers because of the $28 billion we contribute to the
federal coffers.
Having said that, I think it is-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I must remind the hon.
member that the five-minute question and comment period is
not very long. Could he please keep his comments short so that
debate can resume with his colleague from Verchères. The hon.
member for Richmond-Wolfe has the floor.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, in short, our
goal-and I think, judging from their speeches, that it is a goal
shared by members from all parties-is to start by looking at
every expenditure item in every department. It is a very simple
exercise before starting from scratch to set targets and deciding
which programs should be maintained. You have recognized that
there is a lot of waste and the Auditor General recognizes it also.
Second, we must look at ways to revive the economy and go
from budget cuts to investments in order to create jobs and
kick-start the economy. We are quite willing to take such
actions as soon as possible after all public accounts have been
audited.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, I believe
I will have an opportunity during my speech to answer some of
the questions asked by my colleague from Kootenay East. I have
the feeling that he does not understand very well the point we
have been trying to make in this House for the past few days. I
will try to answer his comments and questions.
First, I would like to thank my colleague from St. Albert, who
sits behind me, for putting this motion to the House. I would say
at the outset that the motion he presented today pursues a very
laudable objective that we wholly support, and that is putting
public finances on a sound footing.
1268
However, I believe the motion is too specific and therefore too
restrictive. What I mean by that is that the motion presented by
my colleague from St. Albert focuses on a few
recommendations, a few items in the last report of the Auditor
General. But, as we know, the Auditor General does not have the
resources or the mandate to review all aspects of federal
government activities.
Consequently, the Auditor General selects for review, every
year, a limited number of government activities. The motion of
the hon. member for St. Albert does not refer to the previous
report of the Auditor General, and I will come back to that later,
even though its recommendations might still not have been
implemented.
The motion of the hon. member for St. Albert does not
mention either any area of government activity not yet reviewed
in detail by the Auditor General. What I am trying to say is that
the points raised by my colleague are rather restrictive, and this
is why the Bloc Quebecois has some reservations.
(1510)
In our opinion, there are three main categories of causes
which account for the present financial problems of the federal
government. First, there are extraneous causes, by that I mean
the difficult situation we are in, everywhere. That difficult
situation results in a lowering of tax revenues and an increase in
social spending for the government. What can we do on that
front? I believe that we should promote job creation in order to
revitalize the economy.
The second category of causes for the financial problems of
the federal government are of a more structural nature. We
mentioned several times in our speeches the very nature of the
Canadian federal system. The sprinkling of federal money from
coast to coast in order not to offend sensitivities in the various
regions is very inefficient and very costly for the federal
government.
There is also the costly and paralysing duplication-in terms
of money and economic development-we have mentioned
frequently in this House. It is inherent to the present federal
system. There is very little we can do in that area until the
constitutional make-up of the country is amended.
There is a third category of causes that I would call functional,
and they involve the waste and mismanagement of public funds.
This is what we are talking about at the present time. Now we
have to clean up the government's finances, and that is what has
been holding the parliamentarians' attention since the beginning
of this session.
We know there are not many recipes for cleaning up
government finances. There are basically two recipes, one of
which is to increase government revenues. But we know that the
middle class, which is already carrying a very heavy tax burden,
cannot carry more. So, what we are proposing on this side is to
target the tax loopholes that allow our more fortunate fellow
citizens to avoid making the contribution that they should to
give their fair share.
The other major recipe is to reduce spending. It is that point, I
think, that our friends from the Reform Party have trouble with
and are getting bogged down because when we talk about
reducing spending, we cannot cut everywhere in an anarchic,
disorganized way. We must be able to target. Target what? The
waste of money, the expensive duplications, the extravagant and
superfluous spending. That is where we should be targeting.
I now refer to the comments that were made earlier by my
colleague from Kootenay-East. He was saying: Indeed, that is
what we are suggesting we cut. But the proposal is to target
specific areas, and that is what I was saying earlier. What we are
proposing, as my colleague from Kootenay East was saying, is
to identify first the tax and budgetary expenditures that should
perhaps be cut. We have to identify them first. As a means of
doing that, we propose that a special committee of the House be
struck, with a mandate to examine all the tax and budgetary
expenditures of the federal government, item by item.
This proposal should not surprise the hon. member for
Kootenay East since two of his colleagues from the Reform
Party, namely the hon. member for Calgary North in response to
a question I put to him on January 21 and the hon. member for
Lethbridge in response to a question put to him by my colleague
from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot on February 1, made it known
that they would totally agree with the creation of such a
committee. I think that we have to go ahead with this proposal
and strike a committee that would examine all the tax and
budgetary expenditures of the federal government, otherwise we
may see, in the next budget and in subsequent budgets, the same
mistakes that caused the problems that Canada is facing right
now. We must not make the same mistakes. We must target and
root out all lavish and excessive public spending as well as
costly duplication and waste.
(1515)
At the beginning of my presentation, I referred to previous
reports from the Auditor General which raised interesting
points, although no follow-up action has yet been taken. I note
the presence in this House of the Secretary of State responsible
for International Financial Institutions, which brings me to the
1992 report of the Auditor General. Chapter 12 dealt with
Canada's participation in the Bretton Woods Institutions and in
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Of all countries, Canada has one of the highest per capita
contribution levels when it comes to funding projects of
institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Canada's
subscription or quota at the IMF is $4.6 billion, while financial
commitments in the World Bank Group and the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development are $5.6 billion. One
troubling fact, as the Auditor General recalled in last year's
report, is that these sums of money are not subject to any
1269
controls or cost-effectiveness or impact studies by the House of
Commons.
Lamenting this sad state of affairs, the Auditor General
recommends that the government undertake a periodic review
and assessment of the objectives, extent, costs and results of
Canada's participation in these institutions. To date, no
follow-up action to speak of has been taken as far as this
recommendation is concerned. And this is what we are talking
about.
The Bloc Quebecois is determined to see to it that the
relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of all federal
government spending is evaluated. It is imperative that such an
evaluation be conducted in all areas identified by the Auditor
General and for all government spending items.
Of course, Canada must continue to make substantial
contributions to international financial institutions. The Bloc
Quebecois has no quarrel with this. However, Canada's
international development assistance objectives need to be
clearly stated.
The sizeable amounts of money that Canada contributes to
international development assistance should also be closely
evaluated to ensure that the contribution process is as
cost-effective as possible. This is the thrust of the
recommendation that we have been making for several weeks
and months now, namely that a committee be struck. A response
on the part of the government is urgently needed.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the member for his speech.
One thing that I was rather puzzled about was when he started
off by saying in his speech that the way in which we had written
the motion was far too restrictive and then he finished up his
speech by saying that we should focus on one particular area. It
seems rather a conundrum to me.
In the last few weeks we have been listening to what is
becoming a bit of a broken record. The Bloc Quebecois seems to
say that there is a panacea in the duplication of federal and
provincial spending. I heard one member talking about Gaspé
where he thought if we eliminated federal and provincial
duplication there would be more fish in the Gulf of the St.
Lawrence.
I heard another member suggest that if we eliminated the
duplication there would be sufficient money available for the
job creation program. Another member said that if we
eliminated the duplication there would be sufficient money to
create all kinds of positions for day care.
They are now still on about the same situation they talked
about yesterday that if we happen to create another committee
this will be the panacea that will solve all of the problems that
we have and things will go on from here and everything will be
bright and beautiful.
My question to the member, which is basically a repeat of the
question by the member from Kootenay, is how does the Bloc
Quebecois believe that the answer lies in duplication of
federal-provincial spending? Spending by the federal
government happens in the province of Quebec, British
Columbia and in my home province of Alberta.
(1520 )
How does it think that this panacea of elimination of
duplication is going to provide all kinds of money to solve all
the problems when it is just using that as an agenda to try and
build some kind of defence or justification for its own political
platform which has no basis whatsoever?
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will give me time
to answer this long question.
First, I think that, like his colleague from Kootenay East, the
hon. member for St. Albert did not catch the drift of what I said.
I focused on international financial institutions just to show how
pointless it was to make the motion as specific, as restrictive as
they did, because the Auditor General included in his report last
year measures relating to international financial institutions that
have had practically no effect thus far. This is to say that
focusing on certain areas of the very partial report of the Auditor
General is not conducive to a global solution.
The other point my hon. colleague made was: how do we, of
the Bloc, think that our marvellous committee is going to solve
all the problems of this country? It is no panacea. In itself,
creating a committee does not solve the problems, but this
committee would identify the areas were costly duplication
exists, not only costly duplication but also squandering and
extravagant expenditures. After having identified all this, we
would be able to take action on the various unnecessary,
superfluous expenditures.
The last question my colleague asked me was: why insist so
much on eliminating duplication? Are there reasons to believe
that everything will work out for the best in our beautiful
Canada just because duplication will have been eliminated? Of
course not, but the fact remains that-based on figures from
serious sources, not the Bloc Quebecois but a serious economist
1270
like Mr. Fortin, as well as the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission-duplication between Quebec and Canada alone
costs from $2 to $3 billion a year. Perhaps savings could be
made in that area by cutting unnecessary government
expenditures, would you not say?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to participate in this debate. Today I will be
addressing a technical issue relating to the income tax law which
was mentioned by one of the earlier speakers.
This government is committed to the efficient and effective
use of public funds. Our commitment extends to the timely
clarification of the income tax law in situations in which the
wording of a provision may not have given effect to the
government's intent, thereby resulting in some revenue
exposure.
Such a situation was recently described by the Auditor
General with respect to tax allowances provided to resource
companies. In order to appreciate the concerns expressed by the
Auditor General's report it is important to understand a certain
amount of background information. I would commend you, Mr.
Speaker, on your ability to hold your joyous response to the
Minister of Industry's speech. This one will require even more
indulgence on your part.
For this reason I would like to take a moment to set out a few
of the relevant facts. In 1974 the government of the day stopped
resource companies from deducting provincial crown royalties.
Instead, alternative tax relief was provided for such companies
depending on the amount of their resource profits.
Since 1976 this alternative tax relief has been in the form of a
resource allowance. Resource allowances are not a tax
preference. They were introduced in order to compensate
companies for the non-deductibility of provincial resource
royalties. The resource allowance provision permits a deduction
equal to 25 per cent of resource profits.
In 1979-80 Revenue Canada reassessed a resource
corporation after it took the position that it was not required to
deduct certain scientific research expenditures and capital cost
allowances in computing its resource profits. The company's
approach increased the amount of profits eligible for tax relief.
The resource corporation challenged the reassessment in the
courts. Litigation proceeded and finally culminated in July 1992
when the Supreme Court of Canada denied the government leave
to appeal a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal which had
ruled in favour of the corporation.
(1525 )
That is the background of the Auditor General's comments
regarding resource allowances.
In his report, the Auditor General expressed the view that the
Department of Finance should have acted more quickly to
clarify the policy intent of the resource allowance provisions.
The government did not act while the issue was before the courts
because it was advised that doing so would have prejudiced the
ongoing litigation.
Moreover, until the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal on
this matter in January, 1992, most of the resource industry had
been filing its income tax returns in a manner consistent with the
government's view of the law's intent.
In the same month of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, the
previous government issued a press release clarifying the policy
intent of the resource allowance provisions. This press release
included draft regulations which were effective immediately.
The draft regulations of July, 1992 are currently being reviewed
and finalized as expeditiously as possible. They will be included
with regulations under Bill C-92 dealing with the abuse of the
resource allowance through the use of partnerships. Bill C-92
was passed in June, 1993.
The period for reviewing, finalizing and processing these
draft regulations is not excessive. It permits concerns regarding
the text of the draft regulations to be fully considered before
their enactment.
The amendments in question deal with a complex area of tax
law. The law is complex because it deals with corporations
which carry on many different types of business activities in the
resource sector. Over the years it has been subject to many
changes which addressed court decisions and closed various
loopholes.
Following a review by the Department of Finance, the
Department of Justice and Revenue Canada, the draft
regulations will be sent to the appropriate cabinet committee for
approval as quickly as possible.
Regardless of the time of their enactment, the amendments in
the draft regulations relating to the calculation of resource
profits will be effective from July, 1992.
With that very long preamble, I would also like to note that the
revenue exposure estimates contained in the Auditor General's
report require some clarification. The report estimates the
amount of revenue lost, and the hon. member before mentioned
it as well, at about $1.2 billion. However, nearly one-half of that
amount relates to issues that were not covered in the court case.
Of the remainder at least 50 per cent represents interest on
funds, and the government had use of those funds.
In conclusion, I would like to stress once again this
government's commitment to timely introduction of income tax
1271
legislation and regulations. At the same time, it is vital that the
quality, effectiveness and fairness of such legislation or
regulations not be compromised.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would seek to
indicate to the Chair that it was our intention that the time of the
hon. minister who has just spoken be shared with the member for
Scarborough West.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West): Mr. Speaker, poverty
alleviation, protecting human rights, building democracy and
ensuring environmental stability are the challenges facing the
Canadian International Development Agency.
The Auditor General states that few Canadian organizations,
private or public, attempt the complex and high risk taking tasks
that CIDA undertakes. Our aid effort ensures that Canadian
values help to shape the world of the 21st century, a world we
hope will be peaceful and prosperous, fair and free.
Canada's aid program helps define Canada's place in the
world. It is beneficial in a number of ways. For example, a good
part of the aid budget is directed to fulfilling basic human needs.
It supports the humanitarian concerns of Canadians. It supports
the respect of human rights, gender equality and popular
participation, all values important to Canadians. It helps
developing countries achieve environmental sustainability.
What kind of work does our aid budget actually support?
(1530)
In West Africa CIDA has been helping the people of Senegal
fight against the spreading desert by planting trees. The Panaftel
project, one of Canada's major initiatives in Africa, gives
several countries a good basic communication link.
In Zimbabwe the University of Ottawa's human rights centre
and Zimbabwe's legal resources foundation, a
non-governmental organization, are bringing legal services and
rights to the rural poor.
Part of the program has involved the training of paralegal
workers who operate in different parts of the country, educating
people about their legal rights and helping them deal with
problems that range from finding missing relatives to damage
claims after bus accidents, a big concern in Zimbabwe.
In Honduras there is a problem of rapid destruction of the
hardwood forests which stretch along the Caribbean coast. Each
year over 2 per cent is cut and burned for shifting agriculture.
CIDA's hardwood forest project is addressing the problem on
two fronts, improving forest management and sustainable land
use in buffer zones next to the forest. The project is expected to
reduce deforestation and reduce the pressure to convert forests
to farms.
A rural development project in northern Pakistan supported
by the Aga Khan Foundation and CIDA is widely regarded as
one of the world's best.
[Translation]
The Auditor General recognizes in his chapter on CIDA that
most Canadians support international aid efforts, but they want
assurance that their taxes are really being used to develop the
potential of the poor and of the developing world in general.
[English]
The Auditor General and CIDA have agreed to a follow-up on
the action taken by CIDA to implement the recommendations of
the 1993 chapter. The Auditor General will be reporting on
CIDA's progress in implementing changes at all levels of
management in his 1995 report to Parliament.
[Translation]
We believe that a sustained partnership with
non-governmental organizations and business people doing
outstanding work abroad can strengthen this support from
taxpayers for the Canadian aid program.
International development is very important, considering the
present world situation. It promotes global security, respect for
human rights and democracy.
[English]
We need to work together to deal with the problems of our
planet and the aid budget is a contribution Canada makes as a
good citizen of the world community.
The aid program brings significant benefits to Canada. The
aid program sustains over 40,000 jobs in this country with 2,000
businesses, 45 universities, 80 colleges and dozens of provincial
departments and agencies benefiting from aid-related contracts.
Canada's food aid represents the output of some 3,000
Canadian farms.
Canada's aid program alone cannot change the world. It has
made a difference. CIDA has a reputation in the field for
integrity and co-operation.
The Auditor General said many things about CIDA but he did
not say that aid is a poor investment for Canada. He did not say
that aid is wasted.
[Translation]
As the Auditor General mentioned in his report, CIDA is
recognized throughout the world for its integrity and
co-operation. Nevertheless, we are aware that improvements
must be made and CIDA is committed to renewing its
management.
[English]
CIDA has committed itself to management renewal and to
demonstrating results for investments. CIDA has launched a
1272
process to streamline and modernize its management practices.
Some early steps such as simplifying its organizational structure
and improving management systems are already completed.
Others are under way.
We have a lot of resources, technical expertise, and
experience gained in our own development. Our role in
development has won Canada a lot of good will and credibility
virtually everywhere in the developing world.
[Translation]
Sometimes, the images the media give us lead us to believe
that the history of developing countries is just one of failure and
despair. The figures tell another story. Despite the problems, we
must admit that international aid has helped improve the
situation in developing countries.
(1535 )
[English]
My government is proud of the success achieved in
international development.
[Translation]
Within a generation, the average real income in developing
countries has more than doubled. Infant mortality rates have
been halved since 1960.
The adult literacy rate has risen 20 per cent in recent years.
Over 70 per cent of the people in developing countries have
access to health services.
Smallpox has been eliminated, at a cost of $250 million. This
involves a saving of $1 billion a year on vaccine and treatment,
in addition to the relief of the suffering formerly associated with
the disease.
[English]
CIDA's program in South Africa continues to play a
constructive role in the transition toward political pluralism.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that just this week there was a letter
published in the Globe and Mail that discusses the positive side
to CIDA which press reports often do not cover. The letter
states: ``On a visit to El Salvador I witnessed some absolutely
incredible success stories such as an industrial co-operation
made possible through CIDA. I was never so proud to be a
Canadian''.
With respect to more business-like and accountable modes of
operation CIDA like other government departments is
responding to public demands to demonstrate better
accountability. Clearly this will require the support of our
government and the support of development partners in Canada
and overseas.
However, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that CIDA through
its annual report to Parliament and its appearance before the
public accounts committee in the House of Commons makes
every effort to ensure that parliamentarians are properly
informed. There is already an evaluation and audit process in
place at CIDA as well as a comprehensive consultation process
between CIDA and its partners.
The Auditor General did say that CIDA, like all other
organizations, must adapt to new conditions. It needs to do
better with less. CIDA must be more systematic in measuring
the impact of development programs. CIDA's partners including
multilateral organizations, other governments, Canadian
companies and non-governmental organizations must
participate in this change. CIDA needs to be more transparent to
Parliament and the public. CIDA agrees with the thrust of the
recommendations aimed at improving the agency's
accountability and strengthening its management effectiveness.
By addressing issues at the level of program management
CIDA will achieve a more results oriented and business-like
style of management and will also address project management
concerns.
Clearly there can be no question of the importance of the aid
programs to the developing world and to Canadians. The
government is committed to renewal in the public service,
improved effectiveness, openness and transparency. This
applies to CIDA as well as other departments. There is no doubt
that CIDA will meet this challenge.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that the foreign policy
review will answer some of the questions raised in the Auditor
General's report.
[English]
This foreign policy review involving a broad consultation
with Canadians and partners is the process the government has
chosen to help us define our priorities in foreign policy. Once
the review has been completed the government will establish its
new priorities, thus tackling what the Auditor General describes
as making CIDA's task so difficult, that of trying to meet so
many contradictory priorities.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I was
happy to hear the previous speaker defend CIDA programs. I
think that, despite what Canada is already doing, we should not
make cuts in that sector. There may be a need for reorganization,
but Canada is not one of the most generous countries. I simply
want to remind the House that Canada only spends four tenths of
1 per cent of GDP on aid, compared with 1.10 or 1.16 per cent in
Sweden. There may be a need for reorganization, but we should
be extremely careful on this issue.
1273
I think that when we address this issue, we should also look at
our options regarding CIDA. I sometimes feel that we may be
investing too much in international trade and not enough in
people's development.
(1540)
I think that the main objective of CIDA development
assistance should always be to help developing countries and
populations take hold of their own chart destiny and put out their
own development. So much the better if Canada can benefit in a
number of ways. I often think that we insist too much on linking
development projects to the requirement for assisted countries
to trade with Canada. I think that, in doing this, we may be a
little greedy.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his comments. I fully
agree that, at the present time, Canada's objective is 0.7 per
cent, but it is very difficult with the upcoming budget later this
month.
As regards government priorities, indeed we have to make
choices. I think that when we review our foreign policy we will
have to ask ourselves: What worked in the past? Where were we
successful and where did we fail?
We must also acknowledge the fact that we are part of an
international setting. In my opinion, we will always have two
objectives: the centrality of the individual's development, as
well as the basic needs which underlie any development.
However, we must remember that developing countries need
high technology just like us.
I think we can do two things at the same time: Improve the
plight of the poorest in the world and try to make them benefit
from our technological advances.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, we have the perspective of the comment made by my
colleague from Louis-Hébert and that of my colleague from
Don Valley West.
I speak from a national defence perspective. We have to
recognize more clearly today that national security means more
than the traditional sense of defence of a physical perimeter. It
means a lot of things. Among those things it means
co-operation. The concept of security today, particularly in the
post cold war period, goes far beyond the question of what was
traditionally known as the military balance.
It is about politics, it is about economics and it is about human
rights and the environment. Those thoughts are sometimes slow
to be inflicted on the thoughts of National Defence. I am no
avant-garde but I think it is important that we think of CIDA in
that perspective.
It is clear that the individual welfare of ordinary Canadians is
now affected by global factors, particularly since we are very
much a trading nation made up of multinational facets from
other countries and that the individual Canadian is affected by
global factors that are far beyond any single nation.
Our contribution to CIDA, while it may not look particularly
helpful to any individual in an election, in the overall
perspective of national security and the well-being of Canada
could be a very significant and effective tool. Could the member
comment on that?
Mr. Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, the point is well made that
security is being redefined as we speak after the cold war. It is
also being redefined in the countries we are trying to help. I
remember in my own time during the Ethiopian famine when the
geopolitical concerns of Somalia versus Ethiopia and their
protectors, the superpowers, was of overriding consideration.
Now we face a world in which we potentially have a peace
dividend in this country, but there is also potentially a peace
dividend in the developing countries. We are in a position where
we can force a greater degree of conditionality by saying that if
the priorities in such and such a country are to rearm rather than
to help the poorest of the poor we may share those priorities with
them and not give them a hand.
Therefore we have the foreign policy debate, the security
debate and the environmental debate. All these debates come
together in a most complex pattern and it is an ideal time to be
reviewing our foreign and development policies.
(1545 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate on the motion
put forward by my party. Hopefully it will bring the unresolved
issues of the Auditor General's report to light.
I would like to start by quoting from the report: ``Today it is
clear to both public servants and parliamentarians that
Canadians expect them to demonstrate sound and prudent
management rather than finding new ways to spend borrowed
money''. I believe the Auditor General is saying that Canadian
taxpayers are demanding greater accountability.
It seems odd that eight corporations are exempt from the
Auditor General's scrutiny. Under section 85(1) of the Financial
Administration Act, the Bank of Canada, the Canada Council,
the Canadian Film Development Corporation, the Canadian
Institute for International Peace and Security, the Canadian
Wheat Board, the International Development Research Centre
and the National Arts Centre have been exempted from the
sections of the Financial Administration Act that provide for
good management and accountability. The CBC is also exempt
although it has since incorporated provisions of the Financial
Administration Act in its own legislation.
1274
The Auditor General has raised this issue several times over
the past five years and it still remains unresolved.
Let us examine why these corporations are exempt from the
Financial Administration Act. Apparently they need to be at
arm's length from government. Then we must pose the question,
who is the government? The easy answer is, they are the
members opposite in the House. If you go deeper than that, the
answer is the people of this country. It is saying these eight
crown corporations have to be an arm's length from the people
of Canada, the people who pay the bills for these corporations.
What does it all mean? According to the Auditor General their
exempt status means there are not explicit requirements for
these corporations to table corporate plan summaries in
Parliament to inform Parliament of their objectives. They are
not required to fulfill certain management responsibilities. They
are not required to give assurances that the assets of these crown
corporations are safeguarded. They are not required to
undertake an internal audit or even establish audit committees
on their own board of directors. There are no explicit
requirements for them to be subject to an explicit legislative
requirement to undergo special examinations of value for money
audits by the Auditor General, which are an important part of the
annual audit and accountability provisions of the Financial
Administration Act.
This is not to say these crown corporations are not fulfilling
these requirements. Rather the problem is they are not required
to submit to this process of accountability as all other crown
corporations are required.
I commend some of these crown corporations which have
undergone value for money audits. Even if they do undergo these
audits they do not have to make them public. They are at arm's
length. They do not have to be accountable to the people of
Canada. The Auditor General, millions of Canadians and I are
concerned that this lack of mandatory accountability leads to
three specific problems.
First, Parliament may not not have sufficient information to
fill its role in scrutinizing and authorizing the use of public
funds.
Second, the crown corporation's management has the
responsibility for economic, effective and efficient use of
resources but this is not clearly defined.
Third, these corporations are not subject to an audit regime
that is sufficiently broad to address all issues of concern to the
members of the House.
What is most important about the Auditor General's
comments is that we as parliamentarians are not able to gain
enough information about how the taxpayers' money is being
used by these exempt corporations. It affects our abilities to
make good and responsible decisions. This is especially
important since Parliament appropriates hundreds of millions of
dollars each year for these corporations.
(1550 )
I would like to give this House one specific example that I
think captures the need for these crown corporations to be more
accountable.
Late last month the Auditor General undertook a special
examination of the National Arts Centre Corporation and found
that serious deficiencies exist in the way the National Arts
Centre Corporation handles its finances. The NAC operates on a
budget of $40 million a year and has a staff of about 300. Since
the NAC is exempt from special examination by the Auditor
General it was a very tedious and long process for Canadian
taxpayers to discover how their money was being spent.
Let us look at the process. It dates back to 1990 when the
standing committee of this House on communications and
culture recommended that the Auditor General do an
examination of the NAC. Its board members had to approve that
request and they did. The Auditor General then started his
investigation which covered the period between September
1991 and March 1992.
The report was not presented to the NAC board until May of
1993 partly because of a dispute between the Auditor General
and the NAC over the public release of this information. Finally
in January 1994, almost four years after the initial
recommendation was made, the report was made public.
In its response to the Auditor General's report the NAC board
recognized that improvements were needed in its financial
management. Quoted in the Ottawa Citizen, the National Arts
Centre Corporation also made what I consider to be a very
revealing comment: ``Given the limited resources which the
centre's management had at its disposal, tackling the
institutional mentality rooted in two decades of lack of
accountability has been a monumental task''.
This raises two questions. For how long have Canadian
taxpayers' dollars been spent inefficiently while the National
Arts Centre Corporation developed an institutional mentality
rooted in the lack of accountability? Why did it take almost four
years for the Auditor General's report to reveal this situation to
the Canadian public?
As the Auditor General has stated and as the House committee
on communications and culture stated in 1991, these exempt
crown corporations must be moved into part X of the Financial
Administration Act so that the Auditor General can undertake
special investigations of these corporations. The Minister of
Finance said this week that he does not agree with these
recommendations. However, I think the NAC example shows
the necessity for these changes.
1275
Canadian taxpayers are now demanding that governments
spend their tax dollars efficiently and effectively. I do not
believe that we or the Canadian taxpayers have the luxury of
exempting crown corporations from these special examinations.
Everyone must be held to a standard of financial accountability.
The cynicism people have about government can be partly
attributed to the waste and mismanagement that can be found in
government. We should take every step possible to address this
issue and promote the effective use of tax dollars.
I urge all members of this House to support this motion. I urge
the government to introduce legislation to act upon these
recommendations of the Auditor General and to make these
crown corporations more accountable for their financial
practices by moving them into part X of the Financial
Administration Act.
Members of this House not only campaigned on
accountability, but each and every day we all use those words.
We must be accountable. If we are going to talk the talk, we must
walk the walk. This is an opportunity to show the Canadian
public that this government will be truly different from previous
governments.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I compliment
the member from Okanagan on his speech. My ears picked up
when I heard him talk about the National Arts Centre. I am not
going to disagree with what the member had to say. In fact, I
agree there has been a siege mentality at the National Arts
Centre that must be overcome.
(1555)
However, I think that one of the main stumbling blocks is
gone. The director general of the National Arts Centre was
released from his position just a few weeks ago by the board of
the National Arts Centre. I think the number one siege mentality
was there.
I think we have to go one step further. I believe that the
National Arts Centre must be responsible to this Parliament.
Presently it is responsible to Treasury Board. The chairman of
the board was appointed by an Order in Council and he was
reappointed for another five-year term just prior to the previous
government leaving office. I think that has to be corrected
before we can get an active input into how the National Arts
Centre is maintained.
The National Arts Centre is a Canadian institution. It is the
arts centre of all Canadians and it is something that we should all
be proud of. I cannot remember the dollar figure but a few
dollars from every Canadian went to build that project and it is
something that we should all be proud of. It is not Ottawa's. It is
not ours just because we live in the nation's capital.
We have to move beyond what has been happening there and
look forward to the future and develop our arts and develop our
orchestra so that we can all be proud of it right across this
country.
I am agreeing with the member. I am not disagreeing. I want
us to move forward and make the centre responsible to this
Parliament so that he and I as parliamentarians can have some
input and some say into how it is being operated.
I do not have a question. I am just agreeing with the hon.
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Well it is Friday and in
that spirit of agreement, would the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt wish to comment?
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member
for her comments. Each and every day that I sit in this
Parliament as something new in my career, I find it very
enjoyable that we can find common ground among many of the
players in this House. I would like to thank the member for her
comment. The Canadian people do require accountability and I
think it is incumbent upon us to supply it for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly did not want us to run out of speakers
towards at the end, and since I saw no one else who wished to
speak, I thought I would take this opportunity to put to my
colleague some questions about the motion before us today.
We talked about a lot of things, I mean all kinds of things, but
it doest not change the fact that we have before us a motion of
about 1,000 words that just calls on the government, and I quote:
- to demonstrate its commitment to accountability and to the efficient and
effective use of public funds by reporting to the House, no later than the first
week of June each year, what measures have been taken-
to review the deficiencies in various departments.
Does our colleague know that, according to current
parliamentary procedure, we do have a framework within which
we are able to undertake every year a complete review of the
budget estimates of every department, particularly as, pursuant
to Standing Order 108(2), any parliamentary committee can
undertake a detailed study on any matter, without asking
anyone's permission, as long as the committee does not travel
outside the national capital region?
Third, if expenditures are incurred, the public accounts
committee is enpowered to examine all previous expenditures,
including the report of the Auditor General.
I did not want to miss this opportunity to raise the following
question: Are the members opposite trying to do what the
members from the Bloc did yesterday, that is, create even more
duplication and overlap, contrary to what they are supposedly
advocating?
1276
[English]
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I do not
believe we are trying to mirror the image of the Bloc
whatsoever. We are suggesting that there has to be more
accountability, more improving upon the system that we already
have in place, making it better.
I am not suggesting at all and I do not think any members of
the Reform Party are at all suggesting that we should create
another department. As a matter of fact, we would be totally
opposed to such an argument. I do feel that the illustration that I
presented in this House this afternoon is an example that, yes,
while our committees can suggest special investigations and
special audits and do this, the length of time is totally
unsatisfactory to me, many other members of this House, and to
the Canadian people.
If their money is being spent and if there is an indication that
there could be something wrong, the Canadian taxpayer has the
right to know, as does this House, as soon as possible. Four years
is unacceptable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In the final 60 seconds
remaining before we adjourn I will recognize the member for St.
Albert, being the mover of this motion on behalf of his party, if
he would like to make one final comment in this last minute
before we adjourn.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, you caught me
unaware but certainly I have enjoyed the tone of this House
today. We have been constructive in our debates. We have
recognized that the Auditor General has a real role to play as our
servant to ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely and
well.
As I mentioned earlier this morning, this is only the third time
since the position of Auditor General was created in 1878, I
think it was, that we have debated his report in this House. I gave
notice that we will be back debating this again and I would hope
that we can enter into some kind of arrangement with the
government to ensure that this becomes an annual debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 4 p.m. it is my
duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17)
proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 4 p.m.)