CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 7, 1995
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 13364
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13368
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 13368
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13368
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13368
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13369
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13369
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13369
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 13369
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13369
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13370
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13370
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13370
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 13370
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13371
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13371
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13371
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 13371
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 13372
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 13372
Bill C-96. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 13374
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 13374
Bill C-331. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 13374
Bill C-332. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 13374
(Motion agreed to.) 13375
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 13376
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 13417
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 13419
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 137;Nays, 86 13431
(Motion agreed to.) 13433
Motion No. 2 agreed to on division: Yeas, 177;Nays, 47 13433
Motion No. 3 agreed to on division: Yeas, 138;Nays, 86 13435
Motions Nos. 4 to 21, 23 to 29, 31 to 33, 35 to 44,46 to 50, 52 and 53 moved and agreed to 13438
Motions Nos. 22, 30, 34, 45, 51 and 54 to 59 movedand agreed to 13439
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 138; Nays, 87 13439
Bill C-97. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 13440
Motion for second reading 13440
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andthe House went in committee thereon, Mr. Kilgerin
the chair). 13441
Bill C-97. Consideration in Committee of the Whole. 13441
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 13441
(Clause 3 agreed to.) 13441
(Clause 4 agreed to.) 13441
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 13441
(Clause 6 agreed to.) 13441
(Schedule agreed to.) 13441
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 13441
(Preamble agreed to.) 13441
Motion for concurrence 13442
(Motion agreed to.) 13442
Motion for third reading 13442
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 13442
13363
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 7, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow Ontarians will be called on to elect a new
government.
Mike Harris and his crew are catering to the extreme right by
promising unrealistic tax and spending cuts. I call on the
Conservative leader to come clean with Ontarians and tell them
exactly how these cuts are to affect education, health care and
social programs.
I pledge my full support behind Lyn McLeod and her excellent
team of candidates. I am convinced that if Ontarians focus on
provincial issues and see Mike Harris for what he really is, a
Mulroney clone, they will elect a majority Liberal government.
Mike Harris will cut education and create a two tier health
care system. Mike Harris wants to bring us back to the future of
the 1950s old boys network where you take from the poor to give
to the rich.
Let us move forward with the realities of the 21st century and
elect a fiscally responsible-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois awards its prize for the
best bungler to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
After his murky role in the Ginn Publishing affair, his attempt
to influence the CRTC's decision regarding a broadcasting
licence, his decision to slash the CBC's budget and refusal to
admit that he had done it, his embroilment of the CRTC in the
Power DirecTv matter, his less than timely visit to Los Angeles
and its impact on the Seagram matter, the minister just keeps on
going.
Why should we be surprised that the minister accepted to be
the host of a $2,000 a plate dinner organized by a lobbying firm?
Why should we be surprised to see that the minister's office
awarded that very firm three contracts?
In light of these revelations, one question comes to mind:
Why does the Prime Minister protect this minister who is
singlehandedly bringing down the semblance of respectability
and ethical conduct that the government has so painstakingly
built for itself?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the native blockade at the Douglas Lake ranch has
finally come to an end. It was taken down not because the RCMP
enforced the law and removed this illegal blockade but
apparently because charges against the four Nicola band
members that were illegally fishing were dropped. Because the
RCMP refused to enforce the law this whole affair has cost the
Douglas Lake ranch around $200,000. Who pays for that?
Now the chief of the band is warning that if progress is not
made to their satisfaction more blockades will go up. The RCMP
action will undoubtedly result in B.C. being transformed into a
blockade battleground this summer.
This whole Douglas Lake affair is clear evidence that a two
tier justice system is being actively pursued by the government.
So much for equality and so much for equality before the law.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of members of Parliament I extend congratulations to
Superintendent Len Olfert of the RCMP and to other members of
the force for their exemplary performance in fulfilling their
professional duties of enforcing the court order to remove the
blockade erected by the Upper Nicola Indian Band.
The barricade was removed in a peaceful and safe manner.
The RCMP demonstrated a cultural appreciation, recognition
and sensitivity that enabled a communication channel to be
13364
maintained between the members of the force and the First
Nations leaders involved in this serious dispute.
Appreciation must also be extended to the First Nations
peoples involved. Despite their serious historic grievances they
were prepared to co-operate with the RCMP and agreed to
resolve any differences through a process of negotiation.
This action bodes well for a satisfactory resolution of the
issues. It once again reminds us why the RCMP is the most
professional and respected police force in the entire world.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to voice my opposition to the Reform Party like tactics
being used by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party
during the Ontario election campaign.
Mike Harris and his party troops are spreading a gospel of
fiscal fantasy. On the one hand they promise $4 billion worth of
income tax cuts; on the other they pledge to balance the budget
in six years. On the one hand they would promise not to cut
health care and education; on the other they would spend
millions of dollars on end of pipe solutions, punishing youth in
boot camps, a system that has already failed in the United States.
Are they for real? To top it all off, the Harris posse pledges to
take a 25 per cent pay cut if they fail to meet their deficit targets,
targets set for some time after the next provincial election.
The people of Ontario do not need naive politicians who make
lofty promises that do not make any sense. They need the
McLeod team: realistic promises, realistic goals, good
government.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker,
There once was a man from North Bay,
Who dreamed of a win on E-day,
Harris promised a tax cut,
Thinking we'd fall for that smut,
Sounds just like Mulroney, wouldn't ya say!
That is right, Mr. Speaker. We will not be fooled by the fairy
tale provincial Tory election plan. We heard tall tales like these
from Brian for nine years.
Economists are being polite when they express their
scepticism about the Tory plan for balancing the budget.
However, behind closed doors they are rolling on the floor
laughing at Harris' Alice in Wonderland election ploy.
(1405)
Let us get real. The Ontario electorate is not so naive as to
believe that a 30 per cent personal income tax cut will ever come
their way. This comes from the guy who wants Ontario students
to sell chocolate bars in order to subsidize the huge Tory tuition
plan and the increases his party has planned for them.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the eve of
the Ontario election I want to look at the hot buttons the Tories
are pushing.
They are telling the people of Ontario that workfare will
work. I was glad to see in the Globe and Mail today, the number
one Tory supporter, that it has identified that plan as an
unworkable policy clunker.
The Tories say that employment equity is all about quotas and
if we just get rid of the legislation we will find all the jobs that
we need for Ontario. That is simplistic and is a totally
outrageous misrepresentation.
The Tories tell us they will cut our taxes by 30 per cent, they
will balance the budget and they will not touch health care. We
all want that but there is nothing in their plan that will get us
there except perhaps a new Ontario health tax for individuals.
What bothers me the most is that they are speaking to the dark
side of human nature. They are giving licence to us to attack
people who are least able to defend themselves. It is unfair and
unjust. The people of Ontario will not vote for that platform
tomorrow.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the final press release of the G-7 Summit in
Halifax, a summit that has not even taken place yet, was
available to all. The source of this leak, which has embarrassed
the governments of the six other G-7 countries, must be the
Canadian government, the host of the summit. How confident
the other G-7 countries must be of this government's reliability!
This amateurism puts us to shame. Quebecers and Canadians
could be proud of the accomplishments of previous
governments on the international scene. In earlier times, we
were on the cutting edge of peacekeeping missions the world
over. We once were the conscience of the western world
regarding human rights. We once were the bridge between east
and west, north and south, the United States and Europe. Today,
the lack of imagination, of a vision for the future and the failure
to see big have relegated us to a second rate role. The Canada of
which so many people were once proud is no more.
13365
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the
eve of the election in Ontario I rise to outline yet another Liberal
broken promise.
On page 20 of the red book the Liberals promised to reduce
the professional and special services budget of the government
by 15 per cent. What has happened? The professional and
special services budget has increased by $136 million.
The Department of Transport saw an 86 per cent increase in
the need for special assistance over the past year. Even the
governor general needed special help to the tune of $87,000
more than last year.
This is just another example of the lack of Liberal will and
ability to cut spending. Meanwhile the Reform Party has put
forward more than 50 motions to eliminate wasteful spending in
the main estimates which will be debated tonight.
Will the Liberals live up to their red book promises and vote
for spending reductions? We will wait to see.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Reformers, Tories, same old stories in Ontario.
Tomorrow is E-day and in Windsor and Essex county, the
centre of the universe, we are ready. We live on the U.S. border
and we can see the effect of Mike Harris style politics every day.
We do not want Ontario governed by the republicans of the
north.
We want universal access to health care. We want our brand
new casino industry to thrive. We want good, competent,
compassionate government: McNamara, Duncan, Pupattello,
Crozier, Hoy.
Republican, Tory, same old story. That is not what Windsor
wants.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week, a few days before the Ontario provincial election, the
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, ACFO, held its
annual convention in Toronto. This organization has defended
the interests of Ontario's francophone community for decades.
The leaders of the Liberal, New Democrat and Conservative
parties were invited to attend. Mike Harris, the leader of the
Conservative Party decided, however, not to. Would Mr. Harris'
decision not indicate how little interest he has in Ontario
francophones? It would seem so.
(1410)
Ontario's francophones want a government that is sensitive to
their needs, a government that is not afraid to respect their
rights. Clearly, Mr. Harris has little concern for these claims and
for the francophone community of Ontario in general.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Ontario Conservative leader Mike Harris has
promised a referendum on any future tax increases. This reads
like Reform Party policy. Maybe the people of Ontario could
call Mike on a 1-900 user pay service. His motto could be
``when I want your opinion, I want you to pay for it''. Mike
could seek advice on issues that are important only to him, or
Mike could do what Reformers are known for, ignore the people
and vote the way the Reform politicians think best.
The people of Ontario want action and they want jobs. Liberal
promises are real and they will be kept. In 1993 the people of
Ontario elected only one Reformer. They have shown their
common sense. Tomorrow they have a chance to once again
reject doom and gloom and lots of empty promises by putting
the Conservatives where they belong, as they did the Reformers,
in opposition to stay.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
pathetic muddling of the officials of the Department of
Immigration is getting worse at the Canadian embassy in Paris.
As members will recall the immigration department refused
to grant a visa to the Algerian film maker Mrs. Koudil so she
could present her film at the Vues d'Afrique festival. The
department had to reconsider its position.
Then, visas were denied to three Algerian actors, who were to
put on a play at the Theatre Festival of the Americas denouncing
the rise of fundamentalism in Algeria.
Now, two Algerian grandmothers are drawing the officials'
ire. These women are over 65 years old and want to visit their
children and grandchildren living in Canada, as they have done
in the past.
13366
We could talk of bad faith. The question is, does it lie with the
ambassador or with the minister.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, will
history repeat itself? Will the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce be removed from his position as the
chair of the justice standing committee? Will the cowardly and
shameful exercise of power be displayed one more time?
The anticipated removal of the chairman of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be another example
of the broken promises of the government to allow for more free
votes in the House of Commons. It will be a blatant
demonstration of this government's disregard for the principles
of democracy.
I do not share the hon. member's political ideologies.
However he has earned my respect as chairman of the justice
committee as he has displayed an enormous amount of fairness
and skill in his duties, particularly during the proceedings on the
gun control bill.
Such an act will result in the justice committee losing a
skilled and experienced chairman, a loss that will be greatly felt
by members who sit on my side of the table and all members of
the justice committee.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Ontario are getting wise to the reality of Mike Harris'
ultra conservative policy. His pie in the sky promises of a 30 per
cent income tax cut are an insult to the intelligence of the people
of this province. How does he propose to juggle a massive tax
cut and balance the budget without slashing essential services?
He does not.
Mike Harris is deceiving the people of Ontario, shamelessly
exploiting the discontent brought about by five years of NDP
government. He is using it as a pretext to dismantle progressive
and essential programs that the Liberals across this country have
helped establish.
There is only one real choice for the voters in Ontario. Lyn
McLeod has demonstrated her commitment to the people of
Ontario by proposing realistic and workable proposals for
change, realistic tax cuts to stimulate job creation, a balanced
budget in four years, a firm commitment to cut $3.5 billion from
government spending while maintaining funding for education
and health.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow Ontario goes to the polls to elect a new
government.
The Liberals have promised not to increase taxes but to
balance the provincial budget within four years. They have
presented a responsible and prudent plan that recognizes both
the government's fiscal responsibility and its social
responsibility not to place the burden of reducing the deficit on
the backs of the least advantaged in society.
(1415)
It is one thing to hold the line on personal tax increases. It is
irresponsible to substantially cut them when facing a large
deficit. Ronald Reagan showed us in 1981 what happens when
taxes are cut without a sound economic plan. The rich get richer,
the debts get larger, and the middle class becomes poorer.
The people of Ontario know that it will require leadership and
not gimmicks to guide the province. Lyn McLeod and the
Liberals will provide that leadership.
_____________________________________________
13366
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday CRTC chairman Keith Spicer was very
critical of the directives the federal government is about to
approve with respect to direct to home satellite television
services. He referred to these directives as illegal and
condemned their unprecedented retroactive effect as well as
their incredibly detailed content. Mr. Spicer said that
government intervention undermined the independence and
integrity of the CRTC and could lead to political interference
with its operations.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering
that yesterday, Mr. Spicer felt it was necessary to remind us that
the government's authority with respect to communications did
not extend to giving preferential treatment to certain friends,
would the Prime Minister agree that these statements by the
CRTC chairman cast doubts on the government's integrity in the
case of DTH satellite television services?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us be very clear about what has happened here. The
government has pursued a process which is set out very clearly
in the Broadcasting Act. We have tabled a direction in
Parliament.
13367
The job of the government is to make policy. It was for that
reason we were elected. It is the job of the CRTC to implement
policy. It is for that reason it was created.
We have tabled a direction in the House which is part of a
parliamentary process. It sets out a policy which is in favour of
competition and in favour of consumers. Consumers have asked
for leadership. That is what we are providing.
If the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party would like to
suggest either that the direction be withdrawn and that the
monopoly created by the exemption order remain or that the
direction be amended, let us hear their suggestions.
The direction is on the table of the House. It is an open,
transparent and public process. We are looking for good policy.
Let us hear what the opposition has to suggest.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, obviously these excellent arguments failed to
convince the chairman of the CRTC who knows the subject
inside out.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: My question was about the integrity of this
government, and the custodian of the government's integrity,
the person who is ultimately responsible for the government's
integrity is the leader of the government. My question is
directed to the Prime Minister, and I want to ask him to explain
how he can claim that his government followed normal
procedures in this case and acted with integrity, when we know
that the orders were tailor made for Power DirecTv in which his
son-in-law has an interest?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Once
again, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition chooses to
confuse policy with accusations that have nothing to do with
reality.
Let me remind him again that the origin of the issue was the
issuance of an exemption order which effectively created a
monopoly in the direct to home satellite sector.
Let me remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition exactly why
the exemption order was created in the first place in the bill
proposed by the former government.
(1420 )
The explanatory note says that an exemption order exists as
part of the technology neutral approach of the act. An example
of a service which is technically broadcasting but which the
commission would probably want to exempt is real estate radio.
What we have here is the use of the exemption order by the
CRTC to authorize the entry into a very major component of the
broadcasting service in the country of direct to home satellite
broadcasting.
It was never anticipated that an exemption order would be
used for such a purpose. It is entirely appropriate that the
government seek a transparent method of looking at the means
of licensing and recognizing the entry into the market in this
important sector.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I pity the CRTC! Someone is responsible for
defending the government's integrity: it is the Prime Minister,
and he is not saying a word. Someone is responsible for
defending the CRTC in this House; he is not saying a word, and
the Minister of Industry is trying to cover for these people. He is
getting involved in something that is none of his business.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: I will give the Prime Minister another chance
to act responsibly on this issue. I want to ask him how he can
continue to claim he did nothing out of the ordinary and that the
matter is being dealt with, when Expressvu, the competing
consortium which had agreed to comply with the CRTC's
criteria, has already made it clear that it would challenge the
cabinet directives in the courts and that the CRTC will refuse to
implement orders it feels are unlawful and also plans to bring
this matter before the courts.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, throughout this issue the Prime Minister has acted with
the utmost integrity by withdrawing himself from any
discussion concerning it.
The government's objective is to establish a competitive
environment in this important sector. Apparently there are
plenty of legal opinions floating around. The hon. member
knows very well that lawyers can be found to give opinions from
virtually any point of view.
However, in this case we are confident we are acting entirely
within the authority we have within the act. We have created a
process that is open and transparent. We are seeking a policy that
is pro competition and pro consumer.
Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he has a
suggestion to make on how the policy ought to be shaped, if he
wishes us to listen to protect one particular interest, we will hear
him.
The Speaker: I urge hon. members to make the questions
direct and the answers a little shorter.
13368
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister or his messenger boy. I do not
know who will choose to respond. The Minister of Industry may
feign indignation, but he cannot hide his own and the whole
government's discomfort.
The chairman of the CRTC told the parliamentary committee
yesterday that the government's power to issue directives never
meant that it could take over the CRTC's role of setting Canada's
broadcasting policy.
Does the Prime Minister or his messenger boy, his underling,
not think that, by bypassing the usual decision making process
in this matter, putting in place a special committee as proposed,
and drafting a very specific order tailor made for Power
DirecTv, the government usurped the CRTC's powers, as CRTC
chairman Keith Spicer claims?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we not only have the right to issue directives governing
debate here in this House, but we also have the duty to set the
best possible broadcasting policy for Canada.
(1425)
That is what we did. We have not heard a single word from the
official opposition about the broadcasting policies it favours.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
not take long. Given the kind of answer I am getting, I will try to
make my question shorter and clearer. Perhaps then the minister
will understand.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Impossible! It is impossible for him to understand.
Mr. Gauthier: Given the absolutely unprecedented attack by
the CRTC chairman-not just anyone but the person appointed
by the government to head the CRTC-, how can the minister
continue to claim that the government followed normal
procedures in this matter? How can he make such a claim, when
it is quite obvious that all government decisions have directly
benefited Power DirecTv, in which the Prime Minister's
son-in-law has interests?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem with the hon. member's thesis is that it is
wrong. Our order did not favour anyone. We proposed that the
CRTC create a licensing system for everyone. We did not ask the
CRTC to favour a specific group, company or individual.
[English]
The exemption order does that. It is an exemption order which
is not subject to any appeal. It exists for a very limited purpose
within the statute.
We have set in process a means of determining a policy which
we think will be better in the interest of Canadians and the
interest of consumers.
I have yet to hear from the hon. member whether he disagrees
with the expert panel, whether he disagrees with Friends of
Canadian Broadcasting, whether he disagrees with the
Consumers Association of Canada, all of whom say this is what
we should be doing. That is the advice we are taking, not his.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, section 23 of the federal conflict of interest code
includes this guideline:
A public office holder shall take care to avoid-the appearance of being placed
under any obligation to any person-that might profit from special consideration
on the part of the office holder.
In September the heritage minister blatantly broke the
guideline. He did not avoid the appearance of conflict of
interest. He participated in a private dinner at which guests were
invited to pay $2,000 for access to the minister and after which
several received government contracts.
The Prime Minister was therefore clearly wrong when he said
in the House yesterday that ``the minister has contravened none
of our rules or directives''.
Will the Prime Minister, before he digs himself in any deeper,
now demand the resignation of the Canadian heritage minister
for violation of this guideline?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I replied to these questions yesterday. I said that
ministers have been engaged like all members of Parliament of
all parties in fundraising. The names of the people and the
amount of money have been transmitted to the party according
to the laws of Canada. Every minister and every member of
Parliament are doing that. Everybody has to do it according to
rules set out by the elections act. In this case the minister has
followed that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1987 Conservative cabinet minister Roch LaSalle
held a $5,000 a head cocktail party in a private home for a group
of business people with interests in his department.
The Liberal opposition declared this to be a conflict of
interest and demanded the minister's resignation. Prime
Minister Mulroney, that great guardian of public ethics,
eventually asked LaSalle to resign.
In 1994 the Liberal heritage minister held a $2,000 a plate
dinner at a private home for a group of business people with
interests in his department. We demand his resignation and
declare it to be a conflict of interest, but the Prime Minister
denies there is any wrongdoing.
13369
(1430 )
Will the Prime Minister now abandon this double standard
and raise himself to the ethical standards of Brian Mulroney and
demand the resignation of that minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat all that has been done according to the
information I have is the member has contributions, the money
has been paid to the Liberal Party of Canada and we know the
names of the people and the amount, as every party does. Some
of the contributors to that dinner have also given money to the
Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the red book of the Liberals makes reference to ethics
being the discipline of discerning right from wrong. By his
answers yesterday and today the Prime Minister displays a
disappointing ability to tell right from wrong where patronage is
involved and where influence-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Manning: The justice minister and the minister of public
works are wrong over patronage. The Minister of Canadian
Heritage is wrong over conflict of interest and the Prime
Minister is wrong to defend those types of errors.
In the name of red book ethics, will the Prime Minister start
today to do the right thing and demand the resignation of the
minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to these questions and the hon. member
has not put forward any new facts.
We have the names of the people who contributed to the
Liberal Party at this occasion. The names were printed in public
documents. It is part of the political process of contributions to
the party. As I said yesterday, the contributors did not receive a
contract in relation to the government. Most of these
contributions came from corporations which gave to the Reform
Party as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are not fooled by the government order, which
has a double objective: help Power DirecTv and hinder
Expressvu.
Canadians' confidence in the integrity of the process that led
the government to favour Power DirecTv was strongly shaken
by the striking revelations made by the chairman of the CRTC.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime
Minister not feel that, by letting the heritage and industry
ministers undermine the authority and integrity of the CRTC in a
matter that benefits his own son-in-law, he is in fact condoning
an unacceptable situation that was strongly denounced by the
chairman of the CRTC?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, the facts are the following. We introduced a
transparent public process. The directive issued in this House is
open for discussion. It is possible for both the official opposition
and the Reform Party to propose amendments. To date, they
have not proposed any. Neither have they discussed the CRTC
order in terms of the monopoly it set up. Consumers in Quebec
and Canada prefer that there be competition in every sector. In
the emerging satellite broadcasting sector in particular, there is
no reason for not having open competition.
We are on the side of consumers. We are in favour of
competition. What does the opposition have against that?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to leading people down the garden
path. With Expressvu, there was no monopoly; Power DirecTv,
however, did not meet CRTC requirements. That is why he wants
to prevent the start-up of Expressvu.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay: Given that the Prime Minister's senior
adviser was kept abreast of progress on the Power DirecTv issue
and that we now know that the government orders are illegal
because they have a retroactive effect, how can the Prime
Minister continue to maintain that the usual transparent
procedure was followed in the case of Power DirecTv and that
his son-in-law's interests did not carry inordinate weight in the
matter?
(1435 )
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not begin to take my legal opinions from this hon.
member. We have acted entirely in accordance with the law. The
Broadcasting Act is quite clear and we have followed it to the
letter. We have tabled the direction in the House; it is there for
discussion.
I have yet, despite numerous times today, to hear once from
the opposition whether it thinks the directions should simply be
withdrawn in order to create a monopoly for one company or
whether it thinks the directions should be changed in some way.
If so, let it propose it.
We are in favour of competition. We are standing up for the
consumers. What is the opposition standing up for?
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
talk about secrecy, the minister's office will not give us the
entire list of who contributed to the fundraising dinner. Elec-
13370
tions Canada has not yet made the names public, which makes
me wonder why he thinks there were Reform funds.
Will the Prime Minister table the entire list of those who
attended and those who contributed?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our colleague has some good information
because I gave it to her no later than this morning. She is
flaunting around a piece of paper alleging to contain the right
information.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. minister to please not use the
paper as a prop.
Mr. Dupuy: If she wants me to compare what is on her list
with the truth I will be glad to do so either in the House or
personally with her.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
asked for the entire list and I do not want to hear the Minister of
Canadian Heritage question whether I am telling the truth in the
House.
The code of conduct set by the Prime Minister for his cabinet
ministers is so low that even Brian Mulroney could pass the test.
The Prime Minister has insisted he will not investigate this
mess, nor will the ethics counsellor. Even Brian Mulroney had
the RCMP investigate the LaSalle dinner, a dinner not very
different from this one.
Will the Prime Minister direct the RCMP to investigate this
paid access to the Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the facts are known and there is no need for an
investigation. The names and the amounts of money are known.
The money has been paid to the Liberal Party. I discussed this
with the ethics counsellor yesterday morning.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The minister has a responsibility to preserve the CRTC's
independence, as well as that of Canada's regulatory process
regarding broadcasting.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage associate himself
with orders in council deemed illegal by the CRTC, which is
responsible for implementing them, considering that, by virtue
of his ministerial responsibilities, he must protect the CRTC's
independence?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will once again explain to the Bloc Quebecois that we
did nothing to compromise the CRTC's independence, since we
followed a process which is provided for in the broadcasting
legislation.
(1440)
The situation is very clear. There is a parliamentary process.
We could debate the issue in this House. We have no intention of
restricting the CRTC's independence. If Bloc members have a
different view on the directive, they can share it. We are
prepared to listen.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope
that the committee will be as receptive to our amendments as the
minister is in this House. My supplementary is also for the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. How can the minister willingly
ignore the criticisms made by the CRTC chairman, who has to
call on public opinion to preserve the independence of his
organization? Is this not a serious neglect of duty?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important the opposition understand what we
are trying to do.
The complaint would have validity if there was an attempt to
interfere with the CRTC's process, if there was an attempt in
some fashion to determine who would receive a licence or who
would not.
Instead we are dealing with situation in which the government
is endeavouring to establish policy. That policy includes an
obligation on the part of those who wish to provide direct to
home satellite services of applying to the CRTC to obtain a
licence to do so. Nobody would be able to carry on that business
without a licence granted by the independent tribunal, the
CRTC.
That does not in any way limit its independence. It is an
appeal to it to use its independence in a way that is understood
by the process to have a public application heard, debated,
discussed and licences issued free of interference from the
Government of Canada.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
political contributions are not the problem here. Guaranteed
contracts because of those contributions are the problem.
The government's approach to conflicts of interest is no
different form the Mulroney gang. ``If he had any information
other than smear and innuendo let him summon the courage to
make a direct accusation''. Are these the words of the Prime
Minister? No, they came from the lips of Brian Mulroney in
defence of Roch LaSalle of all people.
Why has the Prime Minister adopted the Mulroney approach
to political integrity and why will he not ask the heritage
minister to resign?
13371
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to that question. I have said many times
that every member of the House is raising money.
The minister was involved in raising money for the Liberal
Party of Canada. The money has been paid and receipted
according to the law. We do that. I did it in Calgary, in
Edmonton, in Vancouver; I do it all over Canada. That is the way
political parties function in Canada. That is the way we can
ensure it is fair for all parties. Every member of Parliament has
the right to solicit money from people.
If you can prove a link between a contract and a contribution,
do it. If you cannot, you do not have the right to speak because it
is only-
The Speaker: I ask all hon. members to please address their
remarks to the Chair.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal red book promised to restore integrity to our political
institution. It promised a Liberal government would ensure
codes of conduct were met and that conflict of interest would
become a thing of the past.
Only 20 months later Canadians are wondering whether
anyone in the House other than the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce remembers those promises, which he
campaigned on, in the red book. If the government were serious
about its election commitments the Minister of Canadian
Heritage would be a thing of the past.
Why has the government again broken its red book promises
to restore integrity to our political institutions?
(1445 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they have asked the same question 10 times. I gave the
answer that the money has been paid to the Liberal Party
according to the law and I have nothing else to add.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and deals with another matter.
Yesterday, the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and
Assisted Suicide tabled its report. It contains several
recommendations regarding aggressive therapy, living wills,
assisted suicide, euthanasia and more. The Prime Minister is
already committed to a debate in this House.
Will the Prime Minister undertake to strike a House of
Commons committee to review this matter, as the official
opposition asked him to do last November?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday or the day before, we received the
committee's report, which is being studied by the Minister of
Justice. The member's suggestion to have a House committee
review the matter is an interesting one. I will bring it up with the
Minister of Justice, and if it happens to be in everybody's
interest to have another committee, a committee of the House
this time, study the issue, personally I have no problem with
this.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
regarding the issue of aggressive therapy, I would remind the
Prime Minister of the 1983 Law Reform Commission report
which recommended that the Criminal Code be amended,
especially with regard to aggressive therapy.
Given the importance of the issue, and considering that there
is general agreement to amend the Criminal Code with respect to
aggressive therapy, will the Prime Minister undertake to act
without delay and table a bill to this effect in this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is general agreement, and if the fastest route is
to table a bill, I have no doubt that that is what the Minister of
Justice will want to do.
On the other hand, the member asked whether we would
consider having a parliamentary committee review the matter;
this could be another alternative. We might want to combine
both. The Minister of Justice is going to take this under
advisement and report to the House when he is ready.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Canada a great number of women live in poverty. Quebec
women have recently shown that they want governments to
contribute to their economic equality.
My question is for the secretary of state for the status of
women. Will the federal government take any real measures to
meet the legitimate demands of women?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the member for Saint-Denis for her commitment
and dedication. I must say our government is profoundly
committed to the principle and the development of equality for
women.
We have undertaken many projects in this regard. First of all,
we restored the court challenges program. The Minister of
Human Resources Development tabled a bill on employment
equity. The president of the Treasury Board tabled the
Employment Equity Act. The Minister of Justice has taken many
initiatives in order to improve the Criminal Code.
13372
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, due to
patently obvious Liberal patronage, the justice department in a
case in Nanaimo, B.C. put a reluctant and inexperienced lawyer
handling his first drug conspiracy case up against a seasoned
defence lawyer. Predictably the case was thrown out.
Because this patronage issue has expanded beyond the three
firms identified as being the revenue minister's ardent
supporters, will the justice minister do the right thing to protect
the people of B.C. and review his recent appointments of Liberal
bagmen and hacks?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the case because it is possible
the decision will be appealed.
The lawyer for the crown, the prosecutor, was an experienced
litigator and had been a representative of the attorney general
since 1986.
(1450 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
very interesting. He has been a representative of the justice
department since 1986. This was his first case prosecuting
drugs. Formerly he had prosecuted fishery problems. There is a
difference.
Due to the interference of the revenue minister, a firm of 20
years' experience, MacDonald McNeely, that would have been
handling the case, was let go. In spite of concerns expressed by
myself in the House to the justice minister, concerns expressed
by the RCMP in public and to the justice department and even
the newly appointed prosecutor himself, the justice department
still let him go ahead with the prosecution and he blew it.
I ask again, will the minister do the right thing. Will he get rid
of the revenue minister's appointments and give the people of
B.C. what they deserve, a properly run justice system free from
patronage?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, prosecutions by the federal government take many
forms.
The Criminal Code is a very large book. A lawyer can go a
whole career and never have prosecutions under certain
sections. It is extremely unreasonable not to allow a
representative of the attorney general not to prosecute because
he or she may not have had a previous case under that particular
section.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The national hearings on the tainted blood scandal allow
members of the Krever Commission to hear witnesses in order to
understand the events surrounding this tragedy. It happens that
some decisions were made by federal political figures. Yet,
these same people have not been invited to appear before this
commission.
Can the minister assure us that her department's authorities
have made all the information required to shed light on the
decisions that were made between 1978 and 1985 by the various
actors, including the political figures, available to the Krever
Commission?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want to fully co-operate so that we really know
what happened. I am told that, indeed, all the information has
been made available to Mr. Krever.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I got the minister's answer and would like to ask
her another question.
Considering that at the time of the tainted blood scandal,
Connaught Laboratories were controlled by the Canada
Development Corporation, a federal corporation, how does the
minister explain that no one on the board or in management of
this corporation between 1978 and 1985 has been invited to
testify at the national hearings of the Krever Commission?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Krever inquiry is to look into what happened in the
past.
(1455 )
I personally or as the Minister of Health will not make any
comments concerning any of the witnesses or any of the
evidence that is being brought before Mr. Krever.
We await his final report. Mr. Krever is independent in
deciding how to conduct his inquiry and we will continue to
ensure that independence. We think it is very important.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on seven
previous occasions I have asked for a full public inquiry into the
Perez affair. It has been denied every time.
The Prime Minister says he wants proof. Here are several
documented instances. A Liberal member of the other place
13373
received $5,000 per month from Perez for several years. The
chairman of Canada Post had his hotel in Spain paid for by Perez
and his son received over $100,000 from Perez.
We have more proof. An associate of Perez considered the
payments to the chairman's son as part of the Canada Post deal.
There is the proof.
Will the Prime Minister prove to Canadians that he has the
high ethical standards that he claims to have by authorizing a
full, independent investigation into the scandal?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
opposite has raised this question on a previous occasion.
It would be inappropriate for the government to do anything
because an RCMP investigation is presently under way.
Proceedings are taking place under the Bankruptcy Act. This
question was put to the president of the Canada Post Corporation
when he appeared before the standing committee.
I understand the hon. member's desire to make further
accusations against the individuals involved but it would be
highly inappropriate for us to take action until those
proceedings come to a full and complete ending. Thereafter
decisions can be made.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the bankruptcy
investigation is one thing. The ongoing business of Mr. Perez
with the government is what the government ought to be
concerned about and that is current.
Mr. Perez is still very much a player here in Ottawa and
seeking government contracts. My question is specifically for
the Prime Minister.
Has he at any time received money from Perez? If so, is this
clouding his decision-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, both the questions and the answers
today have been quite forceful. I suggest with all respect to the
hon. member that the question is impugning great motive. I
would like him to withdraw the question if he would.
I will permit him to rephrase another question but I would like
him to withdraw that question if he would.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, my sincere apologies. I meant no
disrespect. I apologize and I withdraw the phrase.
I would like the Prime Minister to state very clearly to us what
his reason is for not advancing an investigation with respect to
the current operations of Mr. Perez and the dealings of the
government. It is a matter of ethics.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue should be
very clear to the hon. member.
An RCMP investigation is under way. Proceedings before the
bankruptcy court are taking place. For any minister of the
crown, including the Prime Minister, to take any other kind of
action would be inappropriate.
I suggest to the hon. member that he wait for the appropriate
time when all of the proceedings are concluded. Thereafter
decisions will be made.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
During the appearance of Assistant Deputy Minister Comeau
before the agriculture and agri-food committee last week,
extensive reference was made to memos written by officials of
agriculture Canada that left the impression the government
might not be fully supportive of the supply management system.
Could the minister clarify the issue and give his commitment
to the government's support for supply management?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the documents
referred to in the hon. member's question, I am advised that
Madam Comeau was not the author of the documents being
complained about. That material was prepared for the previous
federal government, before October 1993, and not for this
government.
We have defended Canada's supply management system. If
our Canadian supply management system is at some future date
challenged by some legal means, by the United States or any
others, Canadians may rest assured that we will continue our
strong defence of supply management because we believe it is
right as a matter of trade policy and trade law.
The Speaker: This brings to a conclusion the question period
for today.
_____________________________________________
13373
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages,
a
13374
report entitled ``Government Response to the Interim Report of
the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
12 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, April 5,
1995, your committee has considered Bill C-68, an act
respecting firearms and other weapons. Your committee has
agreed to report it with approximately 61 amendments.
I want to mention that in considering this bill the committee
heard 70 witness groups over a two-month period, representing
all points of view. I want to thank all witnesses for their views on
this important matter. I also want to thank the members of the
committee, who co-operated through many long meetings to
improve and to clear this bill.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House the 81st
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, relating to changes to the standing orders as they relate
to private members' business and particularly to Standing Order
98.
The committee recommends that the prohibition against the
second sitting day of the report and third reading stages of a
private member's bill on Mondays and Fridays be deleted.
I urge all hon. members to read this fascinating report from
the committee.
* * *
(1505 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-96, an act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and
repeal certain related acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-331, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (taking a sample of a bodily substance).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity
today to introduce this private member's bill, which deals with
what is considered to be a gaping hole in the criminal justice
system.
The bill I am introducing today would give the police the
authority to require a suspect in a criminal investigation to
provide a DNA sample.
It is unfortunate today in Canada that a person suspected of
drinking and driving could be forced to provide a breath sample,
yet someone who is suspected of committing a murder or a rape
cannot be forced to provide a DNA sample.
The bill will allow the police to obtain a warrant from a justice
of the peace requiring the person to provide a sample. Failure to
provide the sample will result in a criminal prosecution of that
particular individual, and the person's refusal to provide the
sample can be used in court against the accused in the criminal
proceedings.
As I indicated, this bill will fill a gaping hole in the criminal
justice system. DNA evidence is a powerful, reliable form of
evidence, which can be used to solve hundreds of serious crimes
in the country that are unsolved at present. Not only can it
establish guilt, but it can also be used to establish innocence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, given the
gravity and the importance of the bill just introduced by my hon.
colleague opposite, I wonder if hon. members present would
give consideration to unanimous consent to allow the bill to go
to second reading immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-332, an act to provide for improved
information on the cost of proposed government programs.
13375
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, an act to provide for improved
information on the cost of proposed government programs, is
something that is long overdue in this place.
Basically the bill would provide that any new programs
introduced into the House are properly costed beforehand. That
costing and the methodologies used therein would be supported
by the auditor general. In other words, the auditor general would
actually review the costing methods used and certify them as
being appropriate. That legislation, wherever it is advertised
and promoted, would also include certification by the auditor
general and also the actual cost, not only of the total program but
also on a per capita basis for all the taxpayers of Canada.
(1510)
I believe this would give us more control over our financial
picture and would certainly give better information to the public
on how much these programs cost.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find consent for the following motion.
I move:
That pursuant to its order of reference dated February 10, 1994, the date for
the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to
present its report to the House on its review of the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act be extended to June 20, 1995.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion.
I move:
That the Subcommittee on HIV-AIDS be authorized to send a member of its
research staff to the fifth annual conference on HIV-AIDS research, to be held
in Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 8 to 11, 1995.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
motion just made by the parliamentary secretary?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have in
my hand two petitions I would like to table, pursuant to Standing
Order 36.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two more petitions I would like to table.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too
have some petitions I would like to table today, and with your
permission I will read from one of them: ``That because the
inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights
Act will provide certain groups with special status, rights and
privileges; that because these special rights and privileges
would be granted solely on the basis of sexual behaviour; that
because inclusion will infringe on the historic rights of
Canadians, such as the freedom of religion, conscience,
expression and association; therefore your petitioners call on
Parliament to oppose any amendment to the Canadian Human
Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
which provides for the inclusion of the phrase sexual
orientation''.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with your
indulgence I will table petitions from my constituents on gun
control: ``That the proposed amendments to the firearms control
legislation by Justice Minister Rock are unduly harsh and will
waste dwindling financial resources while attacking the rights
of law-abiding citizens; therefore your petitioners request that
Parliament separate these two issues, proceed to strengthen the
borders and strengthen measures to deal with criminal firearms
but not proceed with the proposed enhanced controls on legal
ownership of firearms''.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition in due form under
House regulations which was signed by 83 citizens.
The petition reads as follows: We, the undersigned residents
of Canada, would like to draw to the House's attention the
following: That some hon. members recently made hateful
statements which contribute to the climate of intolerance, fear
and violence in which lesbians, gays and bisexuals live; that
more than 80 per cent of all Canadians feel that gays, lesbians
and bisexuals are the victims of discrimination and that many
gays and lesbians are harassed, beaten and even killed in the
violent expression of that discrimination.
13376
The petitioners also note that the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms guarantees all people the right to protection
against discrimination, including, as recognized by the
Government of Canada, discrimination based on sexual
orientation; that the courts have ordered that we consider that
the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination
founded on sexual orientation; and that this act should be
amended to clearly show all Canadians that Parliament is truly
in favour of equality for one and for all.
(1515)
Consequently, the petitioners would have Parliament amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to protect people from
discrimination based on sexual orientation. I would like to add
that this would bring the rest of Canada up to par with Quebec,
which took that step back in 1978.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present another petition in the course of action that has
been undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the
early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners are from all over Alberta and are concerned
about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed
to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior
to serving the full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murders.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed
by constituents of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
The petitioners call on Parliament to put an end to
discriminatory treatment in Canada by amending the human
rights act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a large number
of my constituents on Bill C-68 respecting firearms.
The petitioners believe that the legislation does not put
enough emphasis on controlling those who illegally use
firearms, whereas it puts too many controls on individuals who
legally use firearms. In particular, the petitioners do not believe
it is appropriate to introduce mandatory and universal
registration.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present some 500 signatures of petitioners who pray
that Parliament will ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide are enforced
vigorously, and that Parliament will make no changes in the law
that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of people
who point out that women and children are becoming
increasingly fearful of walking on our streets and in our
neighbourhoods. The petitioners believe that many violent sex
offenders are being paroled prematurely and are being released
without proper treatment and rehabilitation.
They simply ask the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps
are necessary to amend Canada's Criminal Code and parole
system to ensure that safety and peace are returned to our
neighbourhoods.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition with respect to
Bill C-68 that is signed by many members of my constituency.
The petitioners state that the proposed gun control legislation
by the federal government is not directed at the criminals
causing unrest but rather at innocent sportsmen, hunters and gun
collectors, and that the problem with criminals using illegal
guns for crime is a critical issue that must be addressed,
especially in Canada's large urban centres.
Therefore the petitioners request that the current proposed
federal gun measures be withdrawn and that they be replaced
with measures that deal directly with criminal offenders.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions to the
House today. The first one deals with the Young Offenders Act.
The petitioners recognize the serious flaws within the Young
Offenders Act. They call on the Government of Canada to make
some serious changes to the act, including the lowering of the
age limits which define a young offender to include children
between the ages of 10 and 15.
They also call on the government to amend the act to allow for
the publication of the names of young offenders after a second
indictable offence.
13377
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition deals with section 745 of the
Criminal Code which allows those convicted of first degree
murder to apply to a court to have their parole ineligibility
reduced to 15 years.
My private member's bill that would repeal the section is
presently before committee. Nonetheless I am pleased to present
the petition today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating across Canada. It has been signed by a
number of petitioners from Calgary, Alberta.
(1520)
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families who make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the
aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the government House
leader when I can expect to receive an answer to Question No.
137 which has been on the Order Paper since February 6, 1995.
I requested an answer from the government within 45 days. As
of today, 121 days have passed. I have been more than patient. I
have asked for the number of staff involved and the total cost of
administering the current firearms control legislation.
It is absolutely vital that we have this information before
report stage debate in the House.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the hon. member appreciates the difficulty in
obtaining information such as he has requested when the
information no doubt has to be acquired from sources across the
country.
I know the government officials working on this answer have
been working on it diligently ever since the hon. member put it
on the Order Paper. I have every confidence I will be in a
position to provide an answer to the hon. member soon.
The Deputy Speaker: Are members agreeable to letting the
other questions stand?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): I need the information
by Thursday.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the parliamentary secretary
heard that.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed
to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of
Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
13377
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of motions for
concurrence in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1996.
The Deputy Speaker: Today being the final allotted day for
the supply period ending March 31, 1996, the House will
proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of a supply
bill.
In view of the recent practices, do the hon. members agree
that this bill be now distributed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Vote 10, in the amount of $1,329,481,000 under Human Resources
Development-Employment and Immigration-Employment and Insurance
Program-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, while it is normal practice that I would
remain after my remarks on the matter to hear the initial
13378
presentation of the opposition, another meeting requires that I
leave after I make my presentation and answer questions and
comments.
I will initially speak to the notice of opposition to Motion No.
1 as placed by the hon. member for Mercier and will deal with
the substance of the expenditure recommended in the main
estimates on that item. Also in the course of my remarks I will
get into some general comments about the estimates.
We have 59 opposed motions with respect to the estimates
today that we will have completed by ten o'clock this evening.
(1525)
With respect to Motion No. 1 which deals with vote 10 in the
amount of approximately $1.3 billion for the Department of
Human Resources Development, this specifically being for
employment and insurance program grants and contributions, I
would ask that this allocation be concurred in.
Most members of the House will support the view that the
employment and insurance program is one of the key elements
in the federal government's social and economic development
efforts. The program is comprised of three major activities:
employment, unemployment insurance, and Canada
employment centre management and joint services.
In the fiscal year 1995-96 it will be a transition year for the
program as the department completes the integration of various
components that came together with the creation of the new
department.
The employment and insurance program develops and
supports productive utilization of labour market resources in
Canada while respecting the principles of equity in employment
and ensuring the protection of public funds to promote the
effective and efficient functioning of the Canadian labour
market.
The main goal of the employment activity is to provide
Canada's social security system with the capability to help
people get back to work and the dignity that work brings to
Canadians.
The activities and overall orientation have been redesigned to
accommodate such tasks as increased focus on youth along with
offers of increased planning and management responsibilities
made to provinces and territories.
The objective of the unemployment insurance activity is to
promote economic growth and flexibility by providing
temporary income support to unemployed workers who qualify
for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act without
placing an unnecessary burden on individuals, on groups or on
regions of the country.
The vote affected by the motion before us is in the federal
government's main vehicle for delivery of employment
development services to Canadians who are out of work and not
eligible for the unemployment insurance benefits of
development youth initiatives.
The federal government payments from this vote will be used
to assist Atlantic fishermen. They will be used to assist youth,
aboriginals and other Canadians seeking to improve their job
readiness and to enhance their ability to secure steady and
productive employment.
Specifically the payments in the hands of the recipients are
directed toward self-employment assistance, mobility
assistance, job training and income support while awaiting
training or not.
Funding provided from the vote represents the federal
government's commitment to its belief that it has a role in
manpower training within Canada and its efforts to work closely
with provinces and territories to eliminate overlap and
duplication in the area of manpower training.
I should like at this point to turn to some more general reasons
as to why we should have the support of the House with respect
to the main estimates for the current fiscal year, which I initially
tabled in the House on February 28.
[Translation]
The main point I want to make is that Canadians want an
efficient, responsible, and affordable government.
[English]
The 1995-96 main estimates help deliver just that by
reinforcing the approach taken in the February budget to reduce
spending and to reshape the role of the federal government.
Canadians support the budget in part because it is aimed at
refocusing government on the key priorities and key needs of
Canadians. It is about getting government right.
The estimates lay out planned spending department by
department, program by program. They reflect tough choices on
spending on programs the government has had to make to meet
its fiscal targets, to get its fiscal house in order.
The main estimates detail in 80 separate volumes $164.2
billion in total planned budgetary expenditures for this fiscal
year. This includes $116.2 billion under existing legislation and
$48 billion in expenditures for which we are seeking
parliamentary authority.
(1530 )
Why should we have members' approval for these
expenditures? Because we have acted decisively to reduce the
size of government as a result of the budget review process.
Because we have rationalized the activities and programs we
should deliver
13379
and those that should be delivered by other levels of government
or perhaps by the private sector or through partnerships.
Because we must deliver quality services to Canadians that they
need and quality services that they can afford.
Altogether, the estimates include $2.3 billion of the total $4.1
billion in expenditure reductions announced in the budget. They
could not reflect the impact of legislative proposals to cut
spending. They must indicate the reality of legislation that
exists at that particular point in time. Nor do they include all the
revenues to come from new cost recovery initiatives. As they are
fleshed out and as they are further developed then of course they
will become part of the process.
Nevertheless, they give a very good description of the
government's expenditure plans and priorities. Canadians want
affordable government. Canadians want us to deal with
priorities. Canadians want us to provide efficient and effective
programs.
Program review looked at our program expenditures and our
services. That process has helped us to bring the size of
government down by almost 20 per cent over the next three year
period.
I would like to talk about how we carried out this review
which was innovative and required a change in the approach by
ministers and departments. I believe it has proven to this point to
be very effective. We asked departments to review every one of
their programs and activities and to check them against a series
of tests. Members may have heard of the tests before but I think
they bear repeating.
Some of the questions were what is the department's key role?
What are the services that must be provided to people to here and
abroad? What must be done by the federal government that
cannot be done better by another level of government or perhaps
by the private sector? Of the services that should continue to be
provided by the federal government, which ones are being
carried out efficiently and which ones are affordable?
As a result of program review and these various tests, we were
able to collectively make the difficult decisions that were set out
in the February budget. By 1997-98, in three years,
departmental spending subject to the program review will
decline by some 19 per cent relevant to the 1994-95 fiscal year.
Looking at this from a departmental perspective, each
department has had to pinpoint areas best served by the private
sector or other levels of government. The departments have had
to focus on their key responsibilities to decide what businesses
they are in and what they can no longer afford to provide. They
are examining how technology can make their operations more
efficient. I believe that technology can be an enabler to help our
public service in the provision of more effective services.
We are moving away from direct subsidies to business and
putting more emphasis on repayable contributions. Departments
are moving ahead on ways to recover costs of certain
government services from those who benefit most directly. They
are also merging similar types of programs to create greater
efficiency.
I mentioned earlier that we want to deliver effective and
responsible government that Canadians can afford. The
expenditure management system will help us to do that. The
revamped system which I announced in February of this year
will help departments manage within available resources. It
requires them to review their programs and spending
continuously and to reallocate resources to meet changing
priorities, not further adding to the tax burden.
The system we have put in place will help the government
make responsible spending decisions by delivering the
programs and services that Canadians need and that Canadians
can afford. It also promotes a business planning approach that
allows departments to focus on making changes to programs and
lines of business to meet budget targets. It also provides
flexibility to ministers and departments to help them manage
within approved resources. The system will also help establish a
more effective way of accounting for program results.
(1535)
Performance measurements. It will do so by requiring the
government to deliver better and more timely information on
program performance to Parliament. We are making the system
far more results oriented.
This spring for the first time reports called ``Departmental
Outlooks'' are providing parliamentary committees with
information on the future year expenditure plans and priorities
of departments. Very clearly this is bringing all members of
Parliament into the process far beyond what has been the case up
until this government took office.
[Translation]
This report provides committee members with the context for
consideration of the Main Estimates.
[English]
As this is the first year for the outlooks, I am looking forward
to seeing how the committees put the new information to use.
My understanding is the reports are being well received by
committee members and have been discussed as part of this
year's review of the estimates.
I am aware that at least one hon. member opposite has
questioned why the dollar figures for the main estimates I tabled
on February 28 are not identical to those announced by the hon.
13380
Minister of Finance in the February budget. I will he happy to
explain that for the benefit of hon. members opposite.
As I mentioned earlier, the main estimates cannot incorporate
any budget measures that require the legislative approval of the
House. Likewise, the budget includes planned spending for
which Parliament's authority will be sought later this year in
supplementary estimates, once program details are fully
developed and approved. Also, some budget decisions were
made too late to be reflected in the estimates documents that had
to go to press. Members will know that the estimates were filed
the day after the budget was presented in the House.
These are only three examples of the many technical reasons
that the estimates and the budget figures differ, as they do every
year. This is a normal situation because of the legislative
restrictions.
I want to assure hon. members that we have the internal
controls under the authority of the Financial Administration Act
needed to achieve the full savings announced in the budget. The
information hon. members are seeking will be set out in the
public accounts. This report and not the estimates is where
members can expect to reconcile the planned expenditures laid
out in the budget with actual departmental expenditures.
Reducing the public service was not an objective of program
review. It soon became clear however that changes of this scope
would require reductions in the size of the federal workforce. As
a result, we developed a program of options to help departments
deal with the planned reductions and to help affected employees
make a successful transition from the public sector. We intend to
treat all of our employees fairly and reasonably.
These options include the early retirement incentive and the
early departure incentive programs. Our goal in introducing
these and other transition measures, for example training and
counselling measures, is to be fair to the taxpayer as well as to
the affected federal employees. I believe that the programs we
have put in place to carry out the downsizing have balanced
these objectives.
I am enthusiastic about the prospects of a smaller, more
effective and more affordable government. I believe we can
develop a government and a public service that will have a
greater sense of satisfaction for employees, for the customers
they serve and for the taxpayers that we all serve.
I suggest that members of the House should support our
request for full supply in the 1995-96 estimates because the
estimates reflect strong decisive action that meets our fiscal
targets. They prove our commitment to being fiscally
responsible by providing quality services to Canadians that
Canadians need and that Canadians can afford.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member's speech has given me further incentive to voice
my objections to the vote in the amount of $1,329,481,000 under
Employment Insurance Program, money that is part of the
Human Resources Investment Fund, since the hon. member just
said that these estimates were the result of a program review by
the federal government and concluded that they represented the
most effective use of these moneys for all Canadians.
It would be appropriate to say at this point that, on all these
policies for manpower and employment development, embodied
in the estimates before the House today, in Quebec at least there
is a consensus. The people of Quebec, through its
representatives, wants these policies to be the responsibility of
Quebec.
When we held our hearings on social programs reform, we
heard the Association des manufacturiers du Québec-this was
in December 1994-say the following in its presentation: ``Such
measures mainly involve vocational training programs,
apprenticeship programs, direct job creation programs and work
force adjustment programs''. The Association des
manufacturiers du Québec made it clear that these proactive
measures should be the responsibility of the provincial
government, in their comments on patriating federal budgets for
manpower development to Quebec.
The labour unions were just as emphatic. They said that by
initiating this debate on social programs reform, the government
confirmed their apprehensions about the constitutional aspect,
in other words, the present team in Ottawa was led by a
consuming desire to make Canada a strongly centralized
country. This objective, which was apparent throughout
Minister Axworthy's Green Paper, was diametrically opposed to
the reigning consensus in Quebec and, contrary to the designs of
the federal government, members of the CEQ, the CSN and the
FTQ firmly believed that only full and complete recovery by the
Government of Quebec of control over all economic, social and
cultural instruments would create an environment that was
conducive to developing the full potential of Quebec society.
After these comments by the Association des manufacturiers
du Québec and the labour unions, I need hardly recall that this
abiding desire to control manpower training and, even more so,
job development and job readiness training, has been manifest
throughout Quebec's history. When the minister tells us that
these estimates are the best expression of the effectiveness of
the decisions that Ottawa can make, I would like to say, with
respect, that as far as Quebec is concerned, he is wrong.
The G-7 summit, soon to convene in Halifax, confirms the
apprehensions of Quebec about the central government's desire
for further centralization.
13381
[English]
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it seems to
me that the hon. member is engaging in debate and this is
actually the time for questions and comments. We are not all
going to get a chance to question the President of the Treasury
Board. Therefore, I ask that she limit her remarks to comments
on his speech and a question.
(1545)
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. member was in
the House when I asked if there were any questions or
comments. At that time nobody rose so we went to debate. The
hon. member is now speaking on debate.
Mr. Williams: I apologize if I missed that, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague cannot give me back my momentum.
The G-7 meeting in Halifax confirms our fear that the federal
government intands to centralize further. The G-7, which
includes the word's most industrialized nations, is concerned
about education and job development. We understand this to be
the current trend of centralized countries, and this is why we feel
these votes must be controlled. The reason for our speaking out
against the votes this afternoon is to say, in the only way this
Parliament allows and on the budget, what we could not say
during consideration of Bill C-76, which is that, as far as
Quebec is concerned, at least, others may agree, the votes
available should be transferred to Quebec as tax credits.
Why? For greater efficiency. The Conseil du patronat and the
labour congresses are saying what they are saying, simply
because Quebecers are a distinct people and Quebec is a distinct
society with its own approach to its development. Its labour
market is also distinct. And in the case of this measure, the only
way to ensure efficient use of the rare public funds available for
employment training, skills development and job development,
the various job readiness programs is for them to be integrated.
The key word is ``integration''.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
was concerned about integration for Canada as a whole. I think
integration is what they are after and I can understand why, for
the rest of Canada, it would be considered efficient to run it out
of Ottawa. I respect this decision, because it is historically
based. I submit, however, that differences in labour markets will
mean integration will have to take these differences into
account. In the case of Quebec, however, efficiency dictates the
integration of all programs.
Last week's women's march evocatively known as the ``bread
and roses'' march illustrated the need for integrated
employment training policies. Why? The clientele of job
development or job readiness program training are either
welfare recipients or people who have never had benefits of any
sort-women who have been at home and have to join the labour
force, young people and people receiving UI benefits. The
clientele is varied and, with the unresolved jurisdiction
problem, we feel the only solution is for Quebec to have full
control, even though elsewhere in Canada Ottawa has full
control.
(1550)
The only way to be effective and to ensure this integration, to
provide these people with the services that they need, whether
they are welfare recipients or unemployment insurance
beneficiaries or whether they never received any benefit, is to
have an integrated system. As things now stand, however, that is
impossible. Who is paying for this? The hon. members
opposite? Us? No, ordinary Canadians, the people who have
some needs.
This is why we are saying that there is only one way, in this
sector, to be efficient. As federalist Liberal ministers from
Quebec have said, we must agree that the manpower
development policy must be the responsibility of Quebec and
that the necessary funds and tax points be transferred to Quebec.
We are again faced with the problem of people who are falling
through the cracks in the system, as we saw with the Carrefour
Jeunesse-Emploi program. There were different types of
clients, and the minister claimed that he had to put an end to the
subsidy. This does not make any sense. Nor does it make any
sense that we were not able to put forward an amendment to
correct the situation, to have a debate and a vote on this issue. It
makes no sense whatsoever that we should constantly have to
plead, that we should be unable to control all the government
funds to better serve the public.
I must add that within this budget, money going to job
stimulation and employability has been reduced. We can
question the fact that the money that will help people to get back
to work, if it is used as effectively as is claimed, has been
reduced. We can question that.
Yet, we can question even more that the money once taken
from the consolidated revenue fund is, increasingly, being
replaced by money taken from the unemployment insurance
account. It is unacceptable to use the unemployment insurance
account as a cash cow. It is important to point out that not all
workers pay unemployment insurance premiums, but only those
whose maximum earnings are $40,000. I will check the figure.
Anyone who works extra hours does not pay more that the
maximum contribution limit. Therefore, it is in the employer's
interest to hire people to work long hours.
Therefore, middle income and upper income workers are the
ones who pay unemployment insurance premiums. Companies
13382
with a lot of workers, those that have less equipment and use less
technology than others and give work to more people also pay
unemployment insurance premiums. Those companies that hire
the most people pay the most in unemployment insurance
premiums. So, it is the workers and the companies that pay for
unemployment insurance.
Is it normal, and we mentioned that in the minority report we
issued with the report of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development, that workers and companies, through
the unemployment insurance account, pay more for job
stimulation, for employability? The government is drawing
more and more on this account, and is withdrawing from
contributions to the general fund. It means that workers and
companies paying unemployment insurance premiums are
doubly hit, doubly penalized.
The whole of society is desperately in need of such
jobs-while taxes collected by governments are ever
increasing-since a more healthy economy increases the
general level of wealth. In addition, it is not the government nor
the taxpayers as a whole, but the workers themselves who pay
for that.
(1555)
The minister who, a while ago, made the important point that
appropriations do not provide for everything mentioned in the
budget, should perhaps answer the following question: When
will appropriations and governmental spending reflect the
additional $700 million in cuts to unemployment insurance?
As a matter of fact, the government announced in the throne
speech that an additional $700 million in cuts or 10 per cent of
the total contributions, in cuts would be made to unemployment
insurance as of July 1996, which means that the year after,
additional cuts will amount to $1.5 billion. We fail to see where
the $700 million will come from, in the appropriations. Highly
arbitrary decisions will be made without due consideration. We
are told that this is the way things are done, but this is not really
the right way.
The minister said earlier that the government had to make
tough choices. In the case of employment development, which
should be a key concern for a government that was elected on a
``jobs, jobs, jobs'' platform, we see that, on the contrary, the
amounts from general funding have been reduced.
Yet, the new human resources investment fund, which is
mentioned in the budget speech but does not appear in the
estimates and which includes the appropriations I am referring
to, has applications that come directly under provincial
jurisdiction. According to a discussion paper distributed across
Canada as part of the consultations on social program reform,
the possibility of using the UI fund in a more flexible way in
order to provide Canadians with better employment assistance
will be considered.
In my opinion, the government's intention with respect to this
human resources investment fund is to use UI reform to fulfil
that mandate. What does it say? ``Greater emphasis on
employment development services''. ``Greater emphasis''
requires more money. ``For example, initial needs assessment,
counselling services, literacy and basic skills training,
on-the-job training and experience, child care services and
income supplements''. Most of these functions currently come
under provincial jurisdiction. It goes on to say, ``The Minister of
Human Resources Development will define program parameters
in the coming months''. It is that simple. The minister has full
discretion.
(1600)
The intention reflected in this appropriation, the budget and
government action is that, far from being prepared to give back
to Quebec what belonged to it in the first place, namely control
over job development and manpower as a whole, the central
government has set out to dip into the unemployment insurance
fund to invest more money directly in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
In our view, this is unacceptable because it goes not only
against the very essence of the distinctness, the uniqueness of
Quebec as a people and a nation within Canada, but also against
the most basic rules of efficiency, that the people of Quebec
have been demanding in strong terms.
Let me remind you that those who need this money, these
programs the most include, and there may be more, the 342,000
families on welfare and 320,000 jobless people in Quebec.
The sad truth is that, on the contrary, and I want to emphasize
this as strongly as possible, this appropriation which, according
to the minister, was reviewed on the basis of efficiency reflects a
stubborn and deliberate failure to recognize the basic needs of
ordinary people. Such an attitude tells many Quebecers that
there is no time to lose, the situation has become so urgent that
we can no longer afford to come and plead in this place, year
after year, for those who are in the greatest need.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Mercier referred to the control of manpower training. She
mentioned in her speech that she wants that control to be a
provincial responsibility.
I have a question for the hon. member. Let us assume for a
moment that the responsibility for manpower training is left to
the provinces. Here, in the national capital region, over 30,000
people come from Quebec to work in Ontario, and vice versa.
We often see the need for national standards on training
provided to employees. Would the hon. member agree to the
development of national standards by all the provinces working
together?
Workers in Quebec could decide to work in Alberta, or vice
versa, since they would all have received the same training. This
would promote manpower mobility from province to province.
13383
Would the hon. member agree to the implementation of such
standards?
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is very different
from what I said in my speech. Quebec wants to control its
manpower policy. It will try to harmonize it when it is in the
workers' interests to do so, and not just with the rest of Canada,
but also with the United States. Many people who work in the
U.S. for a while, and then come back home. The same situation
exists in Quebec.
(1605)
We are discussing totally different issues. However, I will say
that we would have a better chance of achieving efficiency
if-and the other provinces will have to make their own decision
in that regard-Quebec controlled manpower and employment
development policies, as advocated by the manufacturers'
association. It is for reasons of efficiency that we have to be in
control. Quebecers cannot agree to any other formula without
relinquishing their own identity. It may be that, in the rest of
Canada, people do not mind letting the federal government
impose standards, but it is just not possible in Quebec.
The sooner Quebec assumes full control of that sector, the
sooner we can have efficient and well-thought-out measures
which will benefit the public.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. Bloc member's comments,
reference was made to Quebec and also Canada.
I remind the hon. member that at this time Quebec still is very
much a part of Canada. Quite frankly, after the referendum I am
quite sure Quebec will be very much a part of Canada. I want
Quebec to stay a part of Canada. They want Quebec to stay a part
of Canada. I am sure she will be surprised by the vote.
I do not agree with a lot of the comments made by the hon.
member for the Bloc. I also do not agree with the way the Liberal
Party proposes to operate the unemployment insurance fund and
program.
One reason why we have the conflict between Quebec and the
federal government is manpower training and funds for job
creation programs. If the unemployment insurance program had
remained as it was intended, a pure insurance program to
provide temporary assistance for workers temporarily between
jobs, we would not have all this bickering over the funding for
job creation programs coming out of the UIC fund. One way we
will solve some of the problems is to return the UIC program to a
pure insurance fund, giving employers and employees the
opportunities to make decisions on how it is administered.
Back when politicians had their fingers on the UIC program
and decided to use it for job creation programs, historically
government job creation programs have never, despite billions
of dollars spent on them over the years, created real, long lasting
jobs.
The government has to get out of the job creation program and
get business back into the job creation program. Real jobs come
from private business, jobs that last and that pay well. They do
not come from government programs that end when the money
has run out.
When the Liberal Party adopts this attitude, when the Bloc
members from Quebec, part of Canada, adopt this attitude,
maybe we will get the economy going again and there will be
jobs and we will not have to worry about income supplements
and money for job creation programs.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, dear colleague, first I would like
to say that the Bloc Quebecois has been asking again and again
in this House for a reduction in the rate for unemployment
insurance premiums. I would also like to say that our minority
report suggested that initiatives other than the unemployment
insurance program should not be paid for with the
unemployment insurance funds. We have been asking that
employers and workers be given greater control over these
funds.
(1610)
I must say, however, that we believe a number of measures,
not all of them but some of them, will effectively help men and
women who are temporarily out of work to find a job, by
becoming more efficient or by developing new abilities. But we
know, and have been saying so repeatedly, that job creation is of
the utmost importance.
Having been a history teacher greatly interested in economic
and social history, I would like to remind the hon. member that,
even if at times there were no standards or regulations or
unemployment insurance in the past, it does not mean that there
was no unemployment, quite the contrary.
Also, there were periods when there were regulations and
standards and when unemployment was lower. I will also remind
the House, by the way, and I will conclude with this, that when
the President of the United States tried to rally everybody during
the Great Depression, he proposed standards, regulations, and
salary increases for workers. Thanks to these measures and to
the war, of course, there was an economic recovery.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we
debate the main estimates of the government. Later on we will
vote on the main estimates. I doubt very much we will see any
changes in the main estimates and therefore one has to wonder
13384
what on earth we are trying to accomplish by a debate such as
this when the government stonewalled at every opportunity to
decrease the estimates by even one dollar.
The House will be asked later on today to vote on over $48
billion of spending, which has been reduced by the interim
supply passed in April. This represents the new spending
requested by the government. The $48 billion is in addition to
the $116.2 billion in statutory spending already authorized by
previous acts of Parliament. That brings the total spending to
$164.2 billion. I always thought we were in an era of deficit
reduction, spending reduction, and yet it continues to increase.
In the past the House simply rubber stamped requests for
spending by the government. I think in this day and age when we
should have deficit reduction, we should have spending
reduction, when it is paramount that we insist we get value for
every dollar spent by the government, we should take the
estimate process seriously.
Not since the 1972-1974 Parliament have we seen any cuts in
spending. During the last 21 years governments have
completely and absolutely stonewalled any opportunity by the
opposition to reduce spending. That is why the spending was out
of control over the last number of years.
In 1972 there were two reductions allowed, one for $19,000
from a grant and $1,000 from the president of the CBC's salary
because there was a problem with the president at that point.
One millionth of 1 per cent reduction was allowed.
Today as we debate the spending of $164.2 billion in
expenditures surely in the House and in committees, which have
spent many hours this year debating the estimates, examining
the estimates, we would have found some reasonable reductions.
We feel we have.
(1615 )
These motions have been put on the floor. We will find out
whether this government is prepared to listen to this House and
the Canadians who pay these taxes. We will see if the
government is prepared to make some adjustments. I have my
doubts and I have my reservations. However, we must wait and
see.
I think it is time the government allowed Parliament to do its
job to examine, make recommendations and approve the
spending not rubber stamp, approve. Check it out, call the
witnesses, listen to the justifications, find out if it is reasonable.
That is all we are asking.
We are asked to approve. Therefore we should be entitled to
have that type of insight into the estimates. Once we have that, if
we find out there is room for reduction then surely it would be
the honourable thing for this government to listen to the
recommendations of these committees and approve the
reductions.
The committees are all deemed to have reported to this House.
They have agreed in many instances that the reductions put forth
are reasonable, rational, and quite appropriate. What have they
done? They defeated the motions. This government again is
stonewalling and saying they will not tolerate any reduction in
the estimates. It is a farce that has to change.
It is time the government stopped hiding behind this excuse of
confidence. We look at history and see that it has been
recommended that this confidence be weakened and reduced.
There is the McGrath report of 1985, the public accounts
committee of 1988, and the House management committee of
1993. Take a look at what they have said over the years.
Remember the rules of the House are largely based on the
Parliament in London, England. The McGrath report said that
from 1972 to 1979 there were 65 defeats of government
measures in the British House, and this was not the end of
responsible government. The government did not cease to
govern. It was simply forced to modify or abandon some of its
policies in deference to the House. That is all we are asking here.
Surely that is not too much to ask. The British Parliament has
recognized that. When the House speaks and requests a
reduction in the expenditures, surely this House, which draws
upon the rules and the experience of the House in London,
should defer to the wishes of the people who sit here and
recognize some reductions.
Recent British experience makes it clear that at present,
losing a vote, even on a financial measure, is not automatically a
matter of non-confidence entailing either the resignation of the
government or the dissolution of the Commons. Remember this
is from the contents of the McGrath report that was tabled in this
House in June 1985. I am talking about the Canadian perception
of what is happening in London, England. I am not just drawing
upon their experience specifically.
A minority government of Pierre Trudeau lost 8 of the 81
recorded votes between 1972 and 1974. Setting aside the vote of
May 8, 1974, which brought down the government, four of the
lost votes were on government bills, two were on motions
pertaining to parliamentary committees, and one was on a
supply item, specifically on a supplementary estimate of
$19,000 for Information Canada.
That is exactly what we are debating today, reductions in
supply. In 1974 that reduction in supply was approved and the
government did not fall. Yet today the government argues that
confidence prevents them from reducing the estimates. We have
them speaking out of both sides of their mouths. It was a Liberal
government back then that accepted a reduction in supply.
The Liberal government today has promised open,
transparent, competent leadership and a balanced budget some
time down the road, with a reduction in the deficit to $25 billion
in the first three years. That government sits here today and
refuses to
13385
accept even one dollar's worth of reduction, even though the
Liberal precedent recognizes that it can be done.
(1620)
The minority government of Lester Pearson lost three votes,
again another Liberal government. Two were on appeals on
rulings made by the Speaker. The third came on February 19,
1968, and ended with the defeat at third reading of Bill C-193,
respecting income tax. This vote was regarded sufficiently
serious to require the government to introduce a motion to the
effect that the House did not consider its vote of February 19 as a
vote of non-confidence in the government. This motion was
passed, after debate, on February 28.
When the government loses an important vote, as it did on that
vote in 1968, the government does not fall. It went on to
introduce a motion of non-confidence and the government
survived that vote. That is exactly what the Reform Party
proposes as part of opening up the democratic process so that we
can have freer and more open votes in the House and we can
speak and demonstrate the will of the Canadian people.
If perchance we defeat a motion being proposed by the
government, then we do not suggest that the government fall but
that it be followed by a vote of non-confidence. If the
government survives that vote, then the government shall
remain in power. It is fairly simple, fairly clear and it allows this
House to do its job.
Instead we make a mockery of democracy. We sit here in
committee, we sit here in opposition, and we put forth motions.
We debate them in committee and we hear from the government
side that these are appropriate, they are reasonable, they are
rational, they are legitimate. What happens? The answer is no.
The time has come to change. These are the types of things the
Reform Party, as a matter of principle, speaking for Canadians,
says. We hear what Canadians are saying. The government side
is not prepared to listen. It stays with the old story of
stonewalling all the way and saying that it is a matter of
confidence when they find that its members agree with us that
there are reductions available. Yet nothing is done.
We will see this evening if the government is brave enough to
allow Parliament to do its job or if it will hide behind some
outdated notion of confidence.
Before us at this time we have a motion prompted by the
member for Mercier. It is to eliminate the funding for vote 10 in
the human resources department, which is the grants and
contributions under the employment and insurance program.
The largest single grant in vote 10 is for $1,049,905,000. That
is for payments to facilitate the efficient functioning of the
Canadian labour market. It is kind of fuzzy, but there it is. To be
more specific, over $1 billion is being spent on payments to
provinces, territories, municipalities, and other public bodies,
organizations, groups, communities, employers, and
individuals-nobody is left out-for the provision of training
and/or work experience, the mobilization of community
resources and human resource planning and adjustment
measures necessary for the efficient functioning of the Canadian
labour market.
It is very specific. Nothing was left out. This is a very
ambiguous justification for $1 billion on that: broadly based,
nobody is excluded, let us spend a billion dollars; anybody can
come up with a program; let us approve it. When we talk about
trying to create work, create jobs, get people back to work and
we are going to spend $1 billion in this fuzzy and unclear way,
then surely it is time that we expressed an opinion, that this
government listen to it, that we work together in harmony to
achieve some real reductions in spending and go on to balance
our budget.
(1625 )
In part III of the estimates for Human Resources Development
Canada we find that it says ``support for the program review
exercise by contributing to the deficit reduction and continued
negotiations'', and so on. That statement goes on to say that the
focus is to reduce expenditures. Yet we find out that they are
actually going up. These types of things we have called into
question.
If the government truly wants to contribute to deficit
reduction then it should begin by making some serious
reductions in its spending, cuts in the range of 25 per cent to the
grants and contributions. Overall, the human resources
development that this vote pertains to has spending increases
this year from $32.827 billion to $33.547 billion, and that is on
top of the statutory spending, which we will not even be voting
on today. Vote 10 has increased from $1.281 billion to $1.321
billion.
Also in part III, on page 258, we take a look at the
government's real efforts to manage the department and reduce
expenditures. On the personnel requirements, when we went
through it comparing the actuals from 1993, just before the
government took office, to its estimates today for 1995-96,
personnel requirements have changed by the massive number of
just under 80. The government reduced it from 19,479 to 19,392
people, a reduction of 87 people.
This is where the government is trying to say it will balance
the budget in a very short period of time and it will give value for
money to Canadians.
We take a look at the personnel requirements and we see that it
has taken from the lower salary scales. It has taken 44 people out
of clerical and regulatory, where the average salary is $27,000.
13386
It has taken 45 people out of program administration, where the
average salary is $41,000. Yet when we move up into the area of
economic, sociology, and statistics, where the average salary is
over $57,000, we see an increase in numbers. When we take a
look at the executive category, where the average salary is
$79,000, again we see an increase in numbers.
These are the types of things we questioned in committee. Yet
what did we find? Stonewall. It cannot be changed. Why? I do
not know why. I ask the government why.
When we take a look at page 258, on goods and services, again
we find that comparing the actual 1993-94, where the spending
was $264.097 million, it has gone up to $319.997 million, an
increase of about $55 million. We ask why. We get the answer
from the witnesses and the senior bureaucrats who have come
before our committee. We make recommendations. Is this
justified? Can that be justified? Is there a good reason for these
increases? When we find there is not and we make the
recommendations for the cuts, what do we find? They stonewall.
That is why we feel a mockery is made out of the estimates
process. That is why this Liberal government, with its
commitments to good government, transparency, responsibility,
open government, and a clear way to manage this country, has
fallen far short of its responsibilities. Its broken promises litter
the floor with the way it has taken every promise in the red book,
ignored them, and passed them over in favour of what the
government would consider pragmatic government.
We are looking for responsible government. We are looking
for principled government where the government lives up to
what it promises. That surely is not too much to ask. That is why
we are saying confidence on the estimates must go. If the
government feels threatened by a defeat on any particular
motion then let it be followed by a motion of non-confidence. If
it survives that non-confidence, then there is no threat.
(1630)
If we could introduce that as a matter of policy then the
opposition and the government could work together to ensure
that the Canadian taxpayer gets value for money on the $165
billion that we spend on their behalf. This is what we are asking
for and it is what Canadians expect.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat
surprised to hear the hon. member attacking the public service
of Canada when we know we have one of the finest public
services in the world. I do not think taking a cheap shot at them
was really called for in terms of what they are contributing or
what they earn.
I will quickly move on to make the point that this government
did something that was unprecedented when it opened up the
process. It is the first time in the history of this country that a
government has done a preconsultation on the budget.
I was elected on a set of promises that my party made during
the last election. When I run I run as a member of the Liberal
Party. To that extent, my responsibility is to vote with the party
at least on the issues my party ran on during the election. For me
to do otherwise is unfair.
At the same time, I have mixed feelings about having this
open for every member of Parliament to vote the way he or she
likes. If we are going to do that, then the government no matter
which party it is in the future, will have to spend the vast
majority of its time lobbying individual members of Parliament
so they will vote for it. The reality is that the responsibility of a
government is to carry through on what it promises the people
during an election period.
How many times has the hon. member stood and voted against
his party? During this past one and a half years we have seen the
Reform Party day in and day out voting as a block. I am not
saying that is wrong, but how often has the hon. member voted
independently?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, first, I did not take any cheap
shots at the civil service. I just mentioned the pay scales. I
pointed out that the government seemed to be protecting those at
the top while cutting those at the bottom which I do not think is
fair.
I want to respond to the hon. member's main point where he
said that he felt his job as a member of Parliament was to stand
by the platform on which he was elected. On page 20 of the red
book, the Liberals promised to reduce the professional and
special services budget of the government by 15 per cent. He
may read this on page 20 of the red book if he has not read it
already. I presume he has not since he is standing here today
saying he stands by the policies he ran on at election time.
The professional and special services budget has increased by
$136 million. If the member is going to say that he stands by the
platform on which he was elected, he will vote against the
motion that approves this $136 million because two seconds ago
he said it was the platform by which he sits on that side of the
House.
The whole thing we are trying to point out is that Liberal
broken promises are littered all over the floor. This is another
one which was just repeated by the member over there.
My final point is that on several occasions members of the
Reform Party have voted against the block of the Reform Party
which totally defeats the point he made earlier on.
Mr. Strahl: Without any disciplinary measures.
13387
Mr. Williams: Without any disciplinary action whatsoever.
Today, a longstanding member of the Liberal Party, a former
member of the cabinet, has been turfed out of the chairmanship
of the justice committee because yesterday he voted against the
government. We have seen they will not tolerate it on that side of
the House which is a disgrace.
(1635)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I was interested in what the hon. member for the
Reform Party had to say about a particular issue. Why is it
impossible to change things? I think the human resources
investment fund is a good example.
I think the federal government, probably because of the power
of the bureaucrats and also the impression that Ottawa can solve
all Canada's problems for Canadians across the country and that
it knows all the answers, this attitude, in the case of the human
resources investment fund, means that the federal government
will go on spending vast amounts of money but in addition, as in
this particular case, it will be other people's money, because the
money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is provided by
employers and employees. There is no government money in
that fund. The federal government uses the fund to intervene in
areas under provincial jurisdiction, especially education and
manpower training. So when a member of this House wonders
why change is impossible, one reason is that the federal
government refuses to respect these jurisdictions and thus
control its spending.
Now I realize that the Reform Party says we are separatists
and do not want to go on being part of Canada, but even from a
federalist perspective, would the hon. member not agree that in
the case of the human resources investment fund, the
government is committing fraud? Because if the money paid
into the fund by employers and employees were not used in the
human resources investment fund, do you know what we could
do? We could gradually reduce employee and employer
premiums so that the money, instead of getting lost in
bureaucratic channels would go directly into the economy to
create the jobs this society so badly needs and the present
government has failed to create. What does the member for the
Reform Party think of this approach?
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's
question, of course the federal government can spend money as
it sees fit.
As a member of the opposition side, when I look at my
colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois on my right, yes they are
separatists. As far as I am aware, they always will be as long as
they call themselves the Bloc Quebecois and are committed to
the breakup of the country.
The point Bloc members have been trying to make is that they
want control over the money. It makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever for anybody to think that the panacea of the breakup
of the country is going to create jobs. It will do the exact
opposite.
Separation of the country will cause unemployment to rise. If
Bloc members were interested in helping the people who elected
them to this place, they would be working to create employment,
to reduce uncertainty, to create an economic climate where
people could get work.
When I talk to people in the province of Quebec they seem to
be the same as the people I talk to in the province of Alberta.
They are concerned about mortgages, houses, careers, their kids
and their future. Nobody I talked to was concerned about
separation, other than the detrimental effects it will have on
their futures. There may be a future of high taxation and low
opportunity created through the concept the Bloc is trying to
achieve.
Now we see that Bloc members have become totally
unprincipled in the fact that they have watered down their
separation message by saying: ``Please vote for us. We want to
separate if we can get some kind of economic association with
Canada''. I suggest that they put their shoulders to the wheel and
join with all Canadians in recognizing that we have a
responsibility to all Canadians from coast to coast to provide
them with a future, secure housing, education and to provide
them with the things they want. I can assure the member,
separation is not one of them.
(1640 )
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the matter of full supply of the estimates for
fiscal year 1995-96. This year the main estimates total $164.2
billion of which the government is seeking parliamentary
approval for $48 billion and new spending authority. The
balance of $116.2 billion represents statutory payments which
have already received parliamentary approval.
The main estimates incorporate $2.3 billion worth of the $3.4
billion of 1995-96 expenditure reduction measures achieved
through the government's program review. The comprehensive
review was undertaken last fall to identify the federal
government's core roles and responsibilities and to reallocate
resources to priority areas in order to provide effective
affordable government.
[Translation]
This program review was much more extensive than any
previous across-the-board expenditure reduction initiative;
every department was reviewed. As a result, all sorts of
spending
13388
cuts and resources adjustments were decided, as evidenced by
Mr. Martin's budget for 1995.
It all goes to show that the government is committed to cutting
expenditures, streamlining operations and making drastic
changes in terms of program availability and delivery. In a word,
we are determined to redesign the federal administration.
[English]
Beyond the program review savings, measures already
included in the main estimates are cost recovery measures which
will generate new non-tax revenues, initiatives which require
prior legislative approval, and other changes announced in the
1995 budget which simply were not finalized on time for
inclusion in these estimates. In the latter cases the savings will
be achieved through the lapsing of appropriated funds.
Let me give some examples of the types of changes resulting
from the program review exercise. Government departments
will focus on their core responsibilities. Federal and provincial
overlap will be reduced, which is something a number of people
have been asking for. Technological improvements will create
efficiency gains. Costs of services will be recovered by new or
increased fees charged to those who directly benefit from the
services. Where feasible, similar programs will be merged to
improve efficiency.
[Translation]
By concentrating our efforts in key areas of responsibility and
improving program delivery patterns, we will be able to carry
out the most significant downsizing of the federal public service
since World War II.
If and when all the decisions made following the program
review are implemented, the public service workforce could be
reduced by as many as 45,000 positions over the next three
years.
The President of the Treasury Board has prepared a set of
options to ease the transition for affected employees as part of a
program that is fair both to the people involved and to Canadian
taxpayers.
[English]
The bottom line is that these main estimates are $3.5 billion
higher than those for 1994-95. However, as I just explained,
some of the increase is actually overstated due to the program
review savings not yet incorporated into these figures. Even so,
at first glance any increase seems inconsistent with our major
expenditure reduction efforts.
It must be noted though that the bottom line change is
principally the result of an $8.5 billion increase in public debt
charges, to $49.5 billion. The rising interest and servicing costs
on the debt more than outweigh the significant savings achieved
through the program review and previous expenditure reduction
measures. This underscores our acknowledged need to live
within our means and the need for continuing deficit reduction
aimed at moving us in the direction of declining debt charges.
(1645 )
Program spending excluding public debt charges is $114.4
billion or $7 billion less than the 1994-95 estimates level. This
is an important figure. By 1996-97 the impact of the program
review savings will result in a decrease of 10.8 per cent relative
to the 1994-95 level. By 1997-98 that decrease will amount to
an impressive 19 per cent reduction in program spending.
[Translation]
Public debt charges come under statutory spending, that is to
say expenditures already approved by Parliament. Statutory
spending for fiscal year 1995-96 amounts to $166.2 billion, or
approximately 71 per cent of the main estimates. This is a $4
billion increase over the 1994-95 main estimates. Besides
public debt charges, statutory spending also includes the main
transfer payments to Canadians for old age security, the
guaranteed income supplement, spouse's allowance and
unemployment insurance.
[English]
In addition, statutory spending includes federal transfers to
the provinces under the fiscal equalization program, the Canada
assistance program and established programs financing,
providing assistance to Canadians for health care,
post-secondary education and social assistance.
Established programs financing assistance to the provinces
and territories takes two forms: cash transfers of about $9.1
billion form part of these main estimates. Beyond that amount a
further $12.6 billion worth of tax transfers do not appear in the
main estimates.
The total consolidated budgetary main estimates, both
statutory and voted, of $164.2 billion can be categorized into 11
sectors. Of these, spending in three sectors comprise over 76 per
cent of the total estimates: social programs excluding the
federal contribution to provincial and territorial social spending
account for 30.6 per cent, public debt charges amount to 30.2 per
cent, fiscal arrangements with the provinces and territories
represent a further 16 per cent of the total. The balance or about
24 per cent is spread between defence, general government
services, natural resource based programs, foreign affairs and
international assistance, industrial, regional and scientific
technological support, justice and legal programs, heritage and
culture and the transportation sector.
Social programs comprise the largest area of federal spending
at $50.2 billion in 1995-96. This does not include an additional
13389
$16.4 billion in major cash transfers to the provinces and
territories for social purposes.
The objectives of the social programs are to promote the
health and well-being of Canadians and to foster equality of
access by all Canadians to the benefit of Canadian society.
Benefits and services are directed at those most in need through
a broad range of assistance programs. These encompass
employment, health, housing and other initiatives which benefit
aboriginal peoples, veterans, senior citizens, children,
immigrants and the unemployed.
[Translation]
Generally speaking, the program review helped strengthen
the primary mandate of the departments responsible for social
programs, including Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Health, Human Resources Development, Citizenship and
Immigration, as well as Veterans Affairs.
Reducing spending in priority social programs, a large
number of which are closely related to the population increase,
is a particularly difficult challenge.
These departments will have to pay greater attention to the
streamlining of their operations, in order to function with
reduced resources. This means that, more than ever before,
social benefits and services will have to be provided to those
Canadians who need them the most.
(1650)
A larger proportion of the costs related to these benefits and
services will also be recovered from users who benefit directly
from them.
[English]
Similar approaches are reflected in all program expenditure
sectors within these estimates. For example, natural resource
based programs in the 1995 main estimates are $463 million
lower than in 1994-95. The departments of agriculture,
environment, fisheries and oceans and natural resources have
redefined their core mandates in areas of expertise. More
emphasis will be placed on the strategic use of public funds to
promote sustainable development, enhance Canadian
competitiveness and rationalize and recover costs.
The transportation sector estimates show a $329 million
decrease, as Transport Canada moves from direct involvement
in transportation operations to focus on its core roles of
developing policy and legislation, and setting and enforcing
safety and security standards. Reduced subsidies paid by or to
the transportation crown corporations and agencies also lead to
significant expenditure reduction in this sector.
[Translation]
The streamlining of our operations, combined with the greater
efficiency achieved through technology, has resulted in savings
of $209 million in general government services.
[English]
The main estimates also mark the implementation of a new
expenditure manager system, one which reflects the
government's commitment to funding new requirements by
reallocating existing resources. The system will necessitate an
ongoing evaluation of priorities, both within departments and
government wide, and will lead to more informed spending
decisions. Centrally funded policy reserves to support new
initiatives have been eliminated.
[Translation]
The operating reserve managed by Treasury Board has
significantly diminished, and its role has also changed.
Traditionally, the reserve was used as an emergency fund to
cover additional expenditures related to existing programs.
Under the new expenditure management system, the operating
reserve will, in most cases, fulfill the role of a banking
institution.
Its main responsibility will be to provide additional financing
for projects which have a significant impact in terms of
productivity.
[English]
Departmental business plans will focus on strategic changes
to programs and lines of business while the related outlook
documents, a new initiative, will enhance parliamentary review
of estimates and future year expenditures with emphasis on
performance.
It is recognized that effective management within a fixed
level of resources presents a challenge to ministers and
departments. In that context, treasury board is examining ways
to enhance managerial flexibility and to support reallocation
efforts.
[Translation]
The 1995-96 main estimates, along with the related
initiatives which I described today, clearly show that the
government has taken a new direction as regards expenditure
management.
[English]
Canadians have responded favourably to the changes put
forward in the budget. They recognize that tough choices had to
be made, that real change is necessary in order to implement the
jobs and growth agenda and to get the country back on track.
This year's estimates confirm that those changes have begun.
As I listen to the comments that have been made concerning
the government's budget and the ensuring activity, I hear mostly
favourable comments directed at the government. The Canadian
13390
people recognize it is easy to cut. But at the end of each cut is a
victim, someone who is going to suffer as a result of the
decision.
Surely the government must be doing things right. The
official opposition suggests that we should not cut, we should be
spending more. The third party suggests that we should have cut
even more dramatically, recognizing fully that a lot of people
have suffered as a result of budgetary decisions.
(1655 )
Canadians understand you must go at this kind of exercise
gradually. They want this kind of government. They do not want
their co-citizens to suffer unduly.
If anyone is going to be fair minded about the budget and the
ensuing activity, he or she will need to acknowledge that the
government has taken an important first step at addressing the
question of the deficit and the debt, at creating long term, well
remunerated employment for Canadians and at addressing the
whole issue of social programs that Canadians want for those
who need them.
[Translation]
As I indicated, the government has taken a very important
first step.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we listened to the hon. member articulate in his
presentation numerous statistics, figures, rationale,
justification for the Liberal Party's budget, a budget that fails
miserably in meeting what this country needs.
The average Canadian trying to support a family is interested
in only one thing. When on earth will there be some tax relief?
The Liberals presented a budget that is to add another $100
billion to the debt. It is to add another $10 billion in interest paid
on the debt. At the end of three years, according to their figures
which are not exactly believable they will still end up with a $25
billion deficit.
I would like the hon. member to tell me how he explains to a
pulp mill worker in Prince George, B.C. who is paying in excess
of 60 per cent of his gross income in taxes of all forms, how a
budget like this, a budget that is to increase the debt, that is to
increase the interest on the debt that must be paid out of taxes,
can expect in the near future to have more disposable income in
his pocket so that he can provide for his family.
Also, I would like the hon. member to explain to me and to the
corporations and private business in Canada how the Liberal
government appreciates the role they play when in the budget it
increases corporate taxes. They are the ones who create real,
long lasting, good paying jobs. How is he to explain to them that
the Liberal government is on their side and that their
government wants them to provide more jobs, expand and invest
in the country when there is no certainty whatsoever in the
taxation levels that corporate Canada is to pay?
At the same time that the hon. member is rationalizing all the
plans of the Liberal budget, how will he explain to Canadians the
1.5 cent a litre gasoline tax that affects everyone in the country
whether they are private citizens or corporations that rely on the
transfer of freight or vehicles running, flying in the air, taking
trains? How will he explain that the government had to raise
gasoline and fuel taxes by 1.5 cents a litre?
The average citizen is interested in only one thing. When will
my taxes be brought down? When will overspending in the
annual budget stop? The figures that the member just quoted
might be for our benefit because we have access to all the details
in the budget but the average Canadian citizen is not blessed
with having all the details.
They are asking only the one question. I would like the hon.
member to tell me how he is going to answer the average
Canadian taxpaying citizen.
(1700 )
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions
and I will attempt to answer them all.
It is true taxes are quite high. It is also true that in the
foreseeable future as a result of a debt that was more than
doubled by the previous government, a debt we will have to
continue.
Let us look at figures. When the previous government came
into power the debt was roughly $179 billion. That is the figure
from the auditor general. When this government came into
power it was almost three times as much. Let us put it in
perspective.
That is one of the reasons the Reform Party will never get
anywhere. It does not understand the big picture. It exaggerates.
I am surprised that my colleague did not mention we are now
spending $7 billion less than in the 1994-95 estimates. I am
surprised my colleague did not mention that as a result of the
program review, a rational review to make sure government was
doing what it ought to be doing, we have saved $3.4 billion.
How I wish I had more time. I have a series of quotes, because
I had anticipated the question from one of my Reform
colleagues, applauding the Liberal budget, recognizing nothing
is perfect. I have other quotes and I tried to find one positive one
about the Reform budget in which the figures did not add up.I
could not find one positive quote.
I find it very difficult to have a member of the Reform Party
telling us we do not have it right when the majority of Canadians
13391
think we are doing it right. It does not mean it cannot be
improved but we have started in the right direction.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief
question, one that needs to be answered very honestly.
He said the total budgetary requirement for the government is
some $164 billion this year, an increase of $2 billion over last
year. We need to commend the government for spending less
than it could have, possibly less than governments of previous
years would have spent. However, while we are experiencing all
the cuts in the estimates we are debating today, we are spending
more because of our huge interest payments. Those interest
payments are growing every year because we are still
borrowing.
I ask the member whether he acknowledges at all and if so to
what degree that there is urgency in balancing the budget so
hopefully we do not totally go down the tube. As has already
been mentioned, the three year budgetary plan of the
government adds $100 billion to the present $550 billion debt.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in my enthusiasm in responding
to the previous questioner I made a reference to the debt being
$179 million and it should have been $179 billion. I apologize if
that slipped out the wrong way. I do know the difference. There
are 1,000 millions in a billion. I know my colleague will be
happy to know that.
With regard to his question, it is a very serious problem. That
is why we have reduced as much as we have. We recognize more
could have been done but we also recognize that if we do it too
dramatically we can destabilize society.
What is important is we made a commitment in our red book
before the election and during the election that we would reach a
3 per cent of GDP target and we will do that. Once we have done
that we will start attacking the debt. It is accumulating. We wish
we could wish it away. There are no panaceas here. There are no
magical solutions. There are no simple answers. That is what is
sometimes offensive.
There is a suggestion that we could sort of wish it away. It
cannot be wished away. It will take planning. It will take hard
work. It will take the decisions that have been made, continuing
in that direction.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I fail to see a
quorum in the House. I am wondering whether it is because
Liberal members are not interested in this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I will ask the clerk to count the
members present.
(1705 )
And there being fewer than 20 members present:
The Deputy Speaker: I am told by the Table there is not a
quorum. Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the bells having stopped:
The Deputy Speaker: Since there is now a quorum, we
resume debate. The hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to discuss the motion on
Vote 10, dealing with human resources development, and also
ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to reflect on
a consequence of the current budget, namely the major
restrictions imposed to the Canada employment centres.
Let us do a bit of history. For several years now, there have
been two manpower networks in Quebec: one managed by the
provincial government, and the other by the federal government.
The Quebec government already has jurisdiction over all the
issues related to the labour market, including the Labour Code,
the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Labour Standards
Act and the Collective Agreement Decrees Act.
As well, the federal government developed a network which
was originally designed to maintain UI services and related
programs.
Over the years, we realized that we did not have the means to
afford two networks, and that we had to find a way to integrate
them. In Quebec, a consensus was reached by all the
stakeholders. The consensus was such that even the Quebec
Liberal Party, a federalist party which was in office for several
years, asked for an administrative agreement under which
Quebec would manage the UI program over its territory.
That Liberal government created an organization called the
Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, which had the
necessary structures, powers and programs to provide all the
services related to manpower.
This year, given the budget constraints, the federal
government had the option of saying: Yes, we will let the
Quebec government assume full responsibility for manpower;
this will allow us to make significant savings.
However, this is not the option chosen by the Department of
Human Resources Development. Instead, it chose to reduce the
number of its employees in the Canada employment centres
across the country, so as to spread the cuts and make the process
look like a reform or an administrative reorganization which
will result in the creation of Canadian human resources centres.
Some 20 to 30, if not 35 to 50 such centres would be established
in Quebec. They would be like information booths or banking
machines.
The fact is that, with this reform, this downsizing of every
employment centre, under colour of seemingly commendable
objectives, they will actually create appalling situations. For
13392
years now, we have been saying among other things that
adequate consulting services should be made available to the
unemployed. Psychologists and other manpower counsellors
working with the unemployed should be in a position to do so.
As a result of the federal government's decision, there will not
be one single employee left in smaller urban centres, only
automated tellers. In medium sized centres, much fewer people
will be assigned to and available to provide services to the
unemployed, the service users.
The minister is currently considering suggestions made by
bureaucrats, public servants. It may be useful at this time to
remind him that, before moving to implement this reform, the
main effect of which will be to reduce personal contact between
people on UI and those who can help them, perhaps other
options should be considered.
(1710)
Let me give you concrete examples. At the La Pocatière
employment centre, in my riding, one of the most performing
centres in Canada in terms of service requests processing speed,
it had become the custom to automatically refer anyone filling
an unemployment insurance claim to a counsellor. This
prevented claimants from getting lost in the system or getting
inadequate advice.
As a result of this measure, the staff will be cut by 17,6. I am
not crazy about referring to people in terms of decimals;
therefore, let us say about 18 people. After all the cuts are
implemented, only 13 people will be left.
It is impossible to both reduce the number of employees and
maintain or improve service at the same time. Therefore, the
pilot project under way will probably have to be scrapped.
Let me give you another example. The employment centre in
Rivière-du-Loup, which serves a vast area, was putting in place
practices that would have made it easier to reach unemployed
workers in the various communities scattered throughout the
territory. Since staff will be cut from 48 to 38, the unemployed
will go back to the old practice of merely sending a card to the
employment centre. The impact of these cuts will also be
difficult to assess, since people will turn to the employment
centre more to collect unemployment insurance than to job
search. This would run counter to the objectives of the
government's planned contract with the people.
I would like to come back to what I was saying about
information booth or banking machines. Imagine people who
are not used to computers. The clients, who are often the long
term or chronically unemployed, are people who freeze before
the huge bureaucratic machinery. They have a hard time finding
solutions. By making them use a computer and denying them the
possibility of receiving individual service, we will put them in
an intolerable situation.
What could have been done other than making cuts? In our
opinion, the first, the real solution would have been to recognize
Quebec's jurisdiction over manpower training and to transfer
the employees affected, thus allowing us to correct some rather
absurd situations.
For example, the federal network now manages 27 manpower
programs, while the Quebec network handles 25. There are some
100 Canada Employment Centres in Quebec, whose services are
duplicated by the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre. This
requires stakeholders in each region to spend a lot of energy
working in concert with others to reach a consensus and develop
manpower strategies adapted to local needs. People do so in
good faith and make the system work because, if the Canada
Employment Centres and the Société québécoise de la
main-d'oeuvre followed national criteria and established
procedures to the letter, the system would not work. There
would be no way for the system to work properly.
As I was saying, we think that the first solution is for the
federal government to give jurisdiction to Quebec so that
Quebec can streamline operations to make the system work.
(1715)
Here is another example of measures which seem rather
mind-boggling and which are the result of a bad decision. The
department informed job search clubs, which are organizations
co-operating with the employment centres and which are
claimed to be among the priorities of the Department of Human
Resources Development, that they will only serve UI
beneficiaries.
The documents on the reform refer to more partnership
agreements and more co-operation with all sorts of
organizations capable of doing the job at a lesser cost. At the
same time, job search clubs are informed that they will no longer
be allowed to provide services to those who are not UI
beneficiairies.
Just imagine knocking at the door of one such club, whose
role is to help people looking for work, and being asked first
whether you are a UI beneficiary. If this is not the case, you are
out of luck, otherwise you may be referred to a Quebec labour
department office.
The case of a person who does not get any UI benefits is truly
mind-boggling. For example, a student graduating this year,
who is not eligible to UI benefits, who is still a dependent, and
therefore not eligible to welfare assistance, will not be able to
get any help. I do not think this is the right way to treat people.
Before making a decision and following up on the proposals
made by his officials, the minister should conduct a vast
consultation exercise among MPs regarding the proposed
administrative reorganization.
Such a consultation is important, both for the government and
the opposition parties. It could be done regionally. For example,
the members from Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces and
the Maritimes could be invited and informed of the impact of
13393
that reorganization on the employment centres in their ridings. I
think this approach would shed a different light on the subject
and be a useful adjunct to the studies prepared by bureaucrats.
Another concern linked to the estimates is the number of
national advisory groups at the Department of Human Resources
Development. Before cutting back on the number of employees
in customer services, the people who provide services to the
unemployed in all municipalities, in every single part of Canada
and Quebec, it might be advisable to see if cuts could be made in
these advisory groups which would be in line with the
government's current budget requirements.
We are not saying that nothing should be cut. Obviously,
considering the size of the debt and the deficit, we must all do
our share. We all have to contribute. When we say all, we do not
mean only the people assigned to customer services.
In the private sector, I think customer services would be the
last place where they would cut staff. We have to consider what
can be done, and I hope the minister will ask all members for
their views on the reform proposals, to ensure that the final
decision will take into consideration what the situation is in each
region.
I was looking at a list of criteria for a Canada human resources
centre, a local human resources centre and a kiosk. Some criteria
work very well for urban areas and some for rural areas, but
there are other criteria that are not considered at all. It is like
looking through the wrong end of a telescope.
(1720)
It says that a Canada centre should have between 75 and 150
employees, but not a word about the customers. I think that the
criteria for a Canada centre should include the customers these
people will have to serve and then, and only then do we decide
on the administrative structure that is adapted to customer
needs. In this case, the structure comes first and then they adjust
the needs to this particular reality. It sounds rather farfetched,
and I think we have a responsibility to represent these customers
and take their needs into consideration.
A good example is an employment centre that deals with large
numbers of seasonal workers, people who are spread over a vast
territory. In that kind of situation, we must realize that when
there are a lot more transactions, when there are very busy
periods, when programs have to be put in place to give these
seasonal workers a chance to find jobs or develop jobs that will
give them some additional income, because they are the first in
line to apply for these jobs, we need adequate services to do this.
I think it is important for the minister to include in his reform
what he said in the documents, in other words, the new
structures will be customer oriented and will be based on
partnership. And to achieve this, the first thing to be done is to
determine who the clients will be and with whom public servants
will be dealing, and whether certain segments of the population
or certain areas are more affected by the system and whether the
reforms should take that into consideration.
Therefore, overall, while we are waiting for the government
to eventually merge the two systems, and we will have to wait
until the federal government decides to take the first step and
admit that it has no place in the area of training the labour force,
in the interim, these reflections aim to ensure that Canadians
and Quebecers using employment centres will not be penalized
by the decision, and that we will not be faced with absurd
situations in which people are forced to travel great distances to
obtain a service. The system should run smoothly.
Another element must be taken into consideration. I would
say that about 90 per cent of the salaries of people working at
employment centres come out of the unemployment insurance
fund. That means that the employees who are paying
unemployment insurance premiums and the employers who are
making their corresponding unemployment insurance
contributions are supporting this system. It is they who
ultimately pay the salaries of the staff at employment centres.
They should therefore have a say regarding the kind of services
they will receive.
The way things are going, the government wants to create a
sizeable human resources investment fund so that it can
intervene in sectors like daycare and services for handicapped
people, which both fall under provincial jurisdiction. This will
artificially inflate the financial needs of the unemployment
insurance commission when the government could easily have
decided to take another approach altogether.
Now that there is a surplus in the Unemployment Insurance
fund, could we not decide to continue to give people proper
counselling services? Could we not decide as well to find a
compromise solution which would maintain proper services
and, at the same time, permit a reduction in UI premiums? This
is one way to create jobs. If employers and employees pay lower
premiums, a significant amount of money is then injected
directly into the economy. This is a much more active approach
to job creation than putting money in funds like the human
resources investment fund, which will be bureaucratic and will
not quickly find its way back into the economy.
(1725)
Therefore, in looking for job creation solutions to make better
use of all our human potential, the minister should consider the
situation and the creation of the human resources investment
fund or at least take a look at the scope he intends to give it, so
that money may be made available quickly and show up in the
paycheques of individual Canadians and Quebecers who earn
their living with it and of employers too, who will then be able to
13394
put more money into research or technological development,
which will mean better service to the public.
Therefore, I am happy to have this time in the House to
encourage the minister to analyze the recommendations made to
him in detail and to invite him to submit them to the House
before any decision is made.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I noted
that the member was back on the old rhetoric of the Bloc
Quebecois that it is so concerned about provincial rights and
responsibilities that it wants total control over manpower and
training.
Surely the argument is the creation of jobs, the creation of a
well trained and productive workforce. The whole argument
among different levels of government which may create
bureaucratic jobs as the provinces and the federal government
fight each other over who shall and shall not accomplish and
spend money in what area is totally and absolutely
non-productive. The issue should be that we want Canadians to
be productive. We want them to be well skilled. We want them to
be efficient in order that we can compete in today's international
marketplace.
How does the member think that by having the money spent
by the provincial government instead of the federal government
it is going to achieve any of these particular aims and
objectives?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I find this question a bit surprising
coming from a member of the Reform Party, because it seems to
me that part of the answer can be found in an argument they have
frequently advanced, which is that, if decision making were
truly decentralized in our system, significant savings could be
realized.
One of the sad facts of the terrible debt we are now facing is
that, in our federal system, it is very difficult for individual
citizens to identify who is responsible for what, and as a result
they are forever turning to both the provincial and the federal
governments for money, hoping that one of the two levels will
come through with what their organization needs to function.
There is therefore a rather unhealthy competition between the
two levels of government, because their fields of action often
overlap. Another aspect is that it is not true that the manpower
profile is the same throughout Canada. Quebec has its own
characteristics because of the French language and culture of the
majority of its citizens, and therefore the mobility of Quebecers
is not the same as what may be the case in the rest of Canada.
There are also different choices that must be made in terms of
occupation of regions. For example, when the human resources
development committee conducted its cross country tour,
Maritimers were in dread of a reform that would suddenly bring
about an exodus to the west, when what they wanted was to be
able to stay in their part of the country, exploring and developing
the resources there.
(1730)
That would lead to very different choices regarding
manpower training. A truly pan-Canadian policy really
encouraging full-scale mobility to the max would mean that we
would train people in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia for jobs in
Ontario, Alberta or Vancouver. On the other hand, if were to
keep our manpower training policy to a local scale, if our
objectives encourage people to find employment in their own
areas, to lead their lives in their current environments, we would
make different choices regarding training. We would go size up
what resources are available in their areas and what kind of
training needs the people already living in an area have. That
would make a huge difference.
Take fishermen for example. Given the very inaccurate
forecasts made, they became the victims of the overlap in the
fisheries jurisdiction. If these people are put in a position in
which they have to go back to school to train for jobs in an
entirely different region, they will be cut off from the only
reality they know and we will be faced with the same problems
many southern countries are currently facing.
So, to get back to the hon. member's question, I think that the
main solution is decentralization which, in itself, will be much
less costly. If provincial governments do make mistakes, if they
spend money irresponsibly, it will not take long for the
electorate to turf them out. The way things are now, the people
cannot actually determine whether the federal government, the
provincial government or the municipal government is
responsible for such and such a thing. In Quebec, there is
overwhelming support in all regions for a massive
decentralization of power. This would make it possible to
quickly determine who created a situation in particular, who is
responsible for ensuring it is a success, and who to praise if it is,
or who to blame if it is not. That is one way of getting Canada out
of debt.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
very interested in what my colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who is from one of the
regions, had to say and I have a question for him, not about
decentralization, because he would like to see a move to
decentralize towards the regions, but as the Canada human
resources centres are formed, we realize there will be some
centralization. Because of staff reductions, they are going to
centralize staff, which is supposed to enhance efficiency, and
they will set up service outlets. Since we are from these regions
and, in my opinion and that of my colleague,
13395
these service outlets will not have any decision making
authority, people in the riding of Abitibi will have to travel more
than 250 kilometres to talk to someone who has that authority.
Does he think it is efficient for the federal government to
establish Canada human resources centres without consulting
the regions and to develop a strategy that may be effective in
Toronto and Montreal but not necessarily in our regions?
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague raised an
important point in the current debate. It seems that when there is
a trend towards restructuring, and this also happens in the
regions, people always recentralize when cutbacks have to be
made. Amazingly, in a decision making pyramid, it is always the
job at the bottom, never the job at the top that becomes
expendable. The job at the bottom may provide direct services to
customers but does not have as much clout at the decision
making level.
My recommendation was to ensure that members could be
consulted before this reform was implemented and it is right in
line with my colleague's philosophy. I want members to be able
to say: The suggestion that we should have only one Canada
human resources centre in Rimouski is entirely unsatisfactory,
considering the situation in the region. In the Gaspé, we would
need a major centre, under whatever name, and another centre
for the region around Rivière-du-Loup, and staff should be
appointed accordingly, because Canada centres are going to see
their consultant resources, who are not in direct contact with the
public, regrouped in these so-called regional capitals. This will
not have the desired effect, which was to provide direct services
to customers. Imagine if McDonald's decided that instead of
setting up branches where there are a lot of people, it would have
only one restaurant and ask people to come and eat hamburgers
15, 20 or 50 kilometres from their residence. The company
would go out of business.
(1735)
If we do not make the right decisions, we will end up with the
same results in terms of the satisfaction of Canadians and
Quebecers with services offered by employment centres and
with everything connected with unemployment insurance.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time
with the member for Brandon-Souris.
I have the honour today to talk about the government's cost
recovery and user fee policy. It is important that all Canadians
have a better understanding of this policy. The 1995 budget
announced that as a result of the program review, departments
would introduce new or expanded initiatives to recover a greater
portion of the cost of certain programs.
This government is committed to changing its approach to
managing its activities and operations in total. In the context of
program review, the government has been rethinking what its
core functions are, how these core functions should be carried
out and how best to finance the activities.
Cost recovery is one of many management initiatives that
reflect this government's commitment to greater reliance on
market forces, to improving the efficiency of its operations and
effectiveness of its programs. Cost recovery and user fees
involve having those who benefit the most or most directly from
a government service or program pay a fair share of the cost of
providing that service. It makes use of the user pay principle in
which the user specific beneficiary rather than all taxpayers
bears all or a portion of the financial responsibility for an
activity.
On the face of it, this is viewed as reasonable, justifiable and
fair to most people. However, cost recovery and user fees are
often perceived as another form of taxation. It is important to
recognize that cost recovery and user fees differ from taxes in
their nature and function. Let us look at the way they operate.
Taxes are mandatory levies of which there is no quid pro quo
for goods or services. Taxes bear no direct relationship to the use
or benefits from public services or resources. Taxes are used to
finance public goods such as national defence and security.
Cost recovery and user fees on the other hand are payments
made by individuals and firms in exchange for some direct
benefit. Generally they are levied when the people enjoying the
benefits are a specialized or select group. For example, campers
pay for entrance fees for camping in our national parks and
Canadian travellers pay for obtaining a passport for travelling
abroad.
The government recognizes that cost recovery is not
appropriate for all of its activities. The government provides
many programs for the benefit of all citizens, and others that for
other policy reasons are intended to assist the recipient. These
programs will continue to be financed from general tax
revenues. Our view is that the introduction of cost recovery or
similar charges for many programs or parts of programs could
improve government administration and reduce costs to the
general public without harming the public good.
The concept of cost recovery is not new. The principle is being
applied increasingly by all levels of government both in Canada
and internationally. Some federal departments and agencies
have been charging fees since Confederation. Think of the fee
for a new passport. That has been around since the early 1800s.
Since only a limited number of Canadian citizens require a
passport, it is appropriate to request a small fee for the service
from a recipient of that privilege rather than have the general
taxpayer pick up the entire bill.
13396
(1740 )
The bottom line is that there are no free services. All
government services come with a price tag, a price tag that
either the recipient of the services or the general taxpayer must
bear. The issue is getting the right balance. Let me provide some
examples of existing cost recovery initiatives in this federal
government.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada charges fees for the use of
pastures and breeding facilities; inspection of seed, feed and
food; and quality of inspection of livestock and grain. Industry
Canada charges fees for issuing licences for non-broadcasting
radio communication equipment; fees and charges for a broad
range of activities such as inspecting equipment used for
weighing and measuring consumer products; patents and
trademarks; and metre inspections. Immigration and
Citizenship Canada charges for immigration visas and
citizenship certificates.
National Defence charges for the sale of goods and services to
NATO, the United Nations and foreign governments. The Royal
Canadian Mounted Police recovers most of its costs from
provincial and municipal policing services. The superintendent
of financial institutions recovers the costs of most of his
regulatory activities from the banks and other financial
institutions. Transport Canada charges for airport facilities and
services provided to airlines, such as concessions, leases,
landing and terminal fees.
It is important to emphasize to hon. members that the primary
objective of the government's policy is not cost recovery. May I
point to three objectives.
One objective is to ensure fairness by having direct users or
beneficiaries pay a fair share of the cost of programs and thereby
relieve some of the financial burden on the general taxpayer.
The second objective is to establish a market type mechanism
to help assess which government activities should continue to be
pursued and which should be scaled back, if not eliminated. In
other words, can we still afford to provide a particular service
and is there a market for it? If Canadians are not willing to pay a
modest fee or charge perhaps it is no longer worth doing.
The third objective is to create a new relationship between
users and departments. By this I mean that paying for an activity
gives the user a more direct interest in how the activity is run,
the quality of service provided and its cost. In turn, departments
will become more attentive and responsive to the users' needs
and expectations.
For example, the Atomic Energy Control Board collects fees
for licensing nuclear facilities such as power reactors, uranium
mines and mills. As a result of the fees, licensees are reviewing
their licence requirements very closely and are cancelling
unnecessary licences. Licensing costs have led some companies
to review their use of nuclear processes and materials and to
consider alternative and less costly processes. Atomic Energy
Control Board licensing managers have become more aware of
the total costs of doing their job which is contributing to an
increase in the efficiency of their organization.
Canadians should also be assured that due process is used by
departments and agencies when they introduce a cost recovery
initiative or introduce user fees. Cost recovery initiatives are not
simply imposed by departments. The government has
established guiding principles for departments and agencies to
follow when considering the introduction of cost recovery and
user fees.
Here is a brief description of the process. The basic premise is
the activities provided primarily to an independent and
identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the general
public should be paid for in whole or in part by those recipients.
Implementing cost recovery or introducing user fees must be
done in a transparent way that is open to public and
parliamentary scrutiny.
Where fees are appropriate, they are to be implemented in
consultation with users and under appropriate authorities and
accounting mechanisms. Before implementing any fee,
departments must assess the impact of charges on users and
others affected to ensure there are no unintended effects. The
decision will depend on factors such as the effects the charging
will have on the clients' satisfaction with and their utilization of
the activity and the impact on the program's objectives and
effectiveness.
Interestingly enough simply studying the possibility of cost
recovery can have some positive effects. For example,
considering a new fee for a particular activity may lead to other
important decisions because a good analysis may point to other
management changes that should and could be made. It may be
decided that people will not pay for a service if we cannot speed
up delivery or reduce errors in providing the service.
(1745)
Cost recovery can also improve the management of
government resources by complimenting related management
initiatives such as restructuring service delivery; for example,
special operating agencies.
In today's tight fiscal environment there are not enough tax
dollars to meet all the financial demands of government
programs. Cost recovery and user fee revenues permit the
government to provide and improve activities that it might not
otherwise be able to afford, or to redirect the tax dollars
currently being used to finance these activities or even to reduce
the deficit.
The government is committed to providing Canadians with
the best service possible within the resources available.
13397
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleague opposite. He had a lot to say about
cost recovery, transparency and money the government has to
spend. I have a simple question for him about unemployment
insurance.
When there is a $2 billion surplus, and regions such as ours
will be penalized significantly because of distances, how does
he explain the transparency of the Department of Human
Resources Development, which does not use the extra $2 billion
to provide more services for its clientele? It is not transparent as
regards other budget items because we cannot find out why it
does not use this extra money to keep the people needed in the
regions to give training courses or simply provide services.
[English]
Mr. Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
With respect to human resource development program, the
minister looks at the program from a broad sense. He is
obviously looking to fine tune the system so it can provide a
much more efficient and effective program.
In my experience in my riding and questions I have asked
beyond my riding, the training programs are continually being
enhanced. The minister is trying to do his utmost in the training
program to provide training for specific areas.
Given the information we have received from the department,
it is trying to establish a program whereby an individual living
in Quebec will have access to opportunities in Ontario or British
Columbia. When we look at moneys saved, we have to look at
the overall picture of our financial situation and direct moneys
wherever they are needed and improve the system as best we
can.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when it comes to directing money where it can best be used, I
would like to get the member's opinion on one expenditure.
This year 45,000 civil servants can expect to be laid off, not
rehired or what have you. Within the government there is the
special measures initiative program through which the
government will spend about $45 million specifically to target
equity groups, aboriginals, visible minorities, women and
people with disabilities, for hiring programs in the civil service.
It seems odd when we are laying off 45,00 civil servants and
spending $45 million to initiate programs to hire more people. Is
that money well spent?
Mr. Cannis: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Let me
set the record straight.
The member said we are laying off 45,000 people this year.
That is not true. We all know that. There are 45,000 people.
Some will be laid off and some will retire over three years. We
are being intellectually dishonest when we harp on that and say
45,000 are people being laid off this year. I have spoken to many
people who are very pleased this program is unfolding the way it
is. They are glad to receive their early retirement, the payouts as
well. The government is approaching downsizing in a very
humane and compassionate way.
(1750)
Last week I spoke to a constituent who would like to accept a
package. Unfortunately because circumstances call he is not
part of the group that will be laid off or asked to take early
retirement. Nevertheless we have to be honest with our viewers
that 45,000 is spread over three years.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a lot was said here about cost recovery. We are all
sympathetic to this. I refer to two services being provided, the
business development centres across Canada and the case
counselling services with the Federal Business Development
Bank.
Is the hon. member suggesting that with the parliamentary
appropriation given to the Federal Business Development Bank
to finance that aspect of its operation, which is not under the cost
recovery of the mandate of that bank, the case counselling
services will go on a cost recovery basis to the people who use
that counselling.
Will the people who benefit from or use the business
development centres be charged for the computer time or the
information available?
Mr. Cannis: I have had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on
several occasions to meet with representatives of the Federal
Business Development Bank. They are providing a service in
conjunction and co-operation with major financial institutions.
It is a needed service. When they provide auxiliary support, yes
that service will be paid by the user so it is not a burden on the
FBDB.
The FBDB provides a service that is a higher risk for various
users. Its record speaks for itself as far as recovery and not being
a burden on taxpayers.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to Bill C-76.
The government has done its very best in the last two budgets
to avoid any increase in personal taxes. Every $1 we raised in
additional taxes was matched by $7 in spending cuts in the 1995
budget and $5 in cuts in the 1994 budget. Taxes on corporations
were increased and the highly profitable Canadian banks will
13398
pay a temporary surtax on their capital. All together, new taxes
on corporations will raise an additional $974 million this year.
These measures are in addition to the improvements we have
made to the tax system in the 1994 budget in which where we
reduced the amount businesses could claim for meals and
entertainment from 80 per cent to 50 per cent and we eliminated
the $100,000 capital gains tax exemption which primarily
benefited higher income Canadians.
During the prebudget period hundreds of Brandon-Souris
constituents contacted my office and also made indirect contacts
with the ministry. They sent all of us on this side of the House a
message that the Liberal government must take strong action to
break the back of the deficit. Great improvements and great
strides have happened in this regard.
The preference for deep cuts in government spending versus
any increase in personal taxation was stressed and our
government responded accordingly.
I believe Bill C-76 is tough but fair. The finance minister
worked hard to ensure balanced spending reductions and that the
burden of deficit reduction is shared as evenly as possible in all
regions.
The Brandon-Souris area is no exception. We did experience
some reductions in personnel. Our weather station was closed.
Those who work in Shilo will experience some job losses.
However, this is being eased to some extent by the program put
in place by various departments.
(1755)
The elimination of the Crow rate is probably one of the most
difficult for many farmers in our area to handle but many regard
the transition as necessary.
Our government has cut spending dramatically but in a way
consistent with the value of Canadians, promoting jobs and
growth, protecting the most vulnerable members in our society
and cutting at the government level first. Bill C-76 reflects the
government's commitment to reducing government spending
now while the economy is still in a growing cycle.
Decisive action today will ensure continued strength of the
Canadian economy, protecting future jobs and prosperity. The
decisions made with respect to agriculture will ensure Canadian
farmers can take the best possible advantage of new global trade
opportunities. Farming is best done by producers, not
governments. That is why Bill C-76 is putting decision making
back into the hands of the farmers.
We are expanding export markets and helping to create new
domestic markets for commodities farmers across the prairies
produce. How are we giving producers more control over their
environment? Bill C-76 ushers in great improvements for
Canadian farmers. The prairie grain cash advances would
increase by $34 million. Cash flow enhancement programs
would increase by $27.5 million. The NISA program would
increase by $102 million. Transition programs to whole farm
support for beef, lamb and hogs would increase by
approximately $6 million. A matching investment initiative
will increase by $12.7 million. Expanding export markets would
increase by approximately $900 million. Further efforts are
being made to expand the ethanol programs, and food safety
would increase by about $5.8 million.
One of the most symbolical changes in the budget is the Crow
rate. It has been recognized the Crow has caused some
distortions and some inefficiencies both for the producers and
for the transport companies. That will soon change. The Prime
Minister was correct when he said that given half a chance
farmers do not want subsidies, they want access to markets and
they need and want fair prices.
It is the intention of the government to help farmers across the
prairies do what they do best, feed the world, to diversify and to
make a decent, honest living while doing it.
I believe the removal of the Crow rate will lead to increased
value added production in the prairies over time. The circulation
of billions of dollars and now the incentive to add value to
agriproducts will provide opportunities and financing for the
food processing industry in pasta plants, ethanol plants and
many more we have not as yet conceived.
People learn to adjust to new opportunities and Manitobans
have traditionally been trend setters in new markets. Clearly
details need to be worked out, especially on pooling issues.
There is some concern regarding compensation for land
values and how land owner payouts will be reflected in new
lease arrangements on the approximately seven million rented
acres in Manitoba. The reform of the WGTA will not be easy.
The issues are complex but I am confident the minister will
continue open discussions and that the $300 million transition
adjustment fund will be used as effectively and efficiently as
possible. The western economy will be stronger and more
diversified with the removal of the WGTA.
It gives me great pleasure to bring forward two endorsements
to the WGTA program, endorsements which are rather difficult
to pry out of some with different political views from those of us
on this side. It is sometimes very difficult to endorse or change
an idea one does not have the courage to do oneself. I am pleased
to indicate to the House that the first endorsement came from the
Manitoba agriculture minister. He said that changes to the
WGTA would rejuvenate the rural economy of Manitoba and
would lead to an added value approach to farming and the
development of job intensive processing industries.
13399
(1800)
The second endorsement came from one of my opponents in
the 1993 election. He was in Ottawa this week. He said that the
payment to landowners represents a reasonable compromise. It
is not often that the three of us agree on anything, but miracles
do happen in Manitoba and a miracle did happen in this instance.
Let me reiterate that although the government has cut
spending dramatically, it has been done the cutting in a way
which is consistent with the values of Canadians, promoting
jobs and growth, protecting the west, protecting the most
vulnerable in society and cutting the government purse.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about agriculture. It
warrants a lot of attention, because relations between farmers
and markets in Quebec and Canada will be changed significantly
by some of the measures presented.
I have a question for him on one type of production that is
growing considerably in Canada: lamb production. Alberta,
Quebec and Ontario are the three largest producing provinces.
The government has decided to close the experimental farm at
La Pocatière, which is in my riding. It is the only experimental
farm with a national mandate to do research on everything that
concerns sheep. Sheep production is growing, and production
should increase, because there is a demand for sheep and lamb in
Canada production as a whole.
Are there other solutions in the member's opinion? Shutting
down the farm and putting an end to research into this sort of
production does not seem acceptable to me. In one way it is very
dangerous. I would like to know if he sees any alternatives. In
fact, both his region and mine are affected by this decision,
which has a significant negative impact on production of this
type.
[English]
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question. Its thrust is similar to other segments of agricultural
industry. I look at it in a similar fashion to hog production in
Manitoba.
It is my understanding in terms of research that the thrust of
the department is to attempt to put together partnerships
involving the federal government, as well as specific provincial
jurisdictions where there is great interest. More important, it is
producers who are probably the most concerned about the
genetic development of hogs, sheep or cattle and who may be
addressing the markets on a global basis.
The best way to answer the question would be to indicate that
the producers should be looking at bringing together their
resources. Perhaps a check off system at the marketing end
would help to address those concerns.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the comments made by the hon. member opposite dealt mostly
with Bill C-76, the Budget Implementation Act, and not so
much with the estimates.
Since he is talking about budget implementation, I wonder if
he would detail for me, because I am not as familiar with the red
book as he would be, exactly how close was the red book
promise on the WGTA with what the Budget Implementation
Act actually did? That was to remove the WGTA. Was that the
red book promise? Was there a different promise on the WGTA?
(1805)
Mr. McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, references were made to
transportation and the WGTA in the red book.
I have to be honest. When I started into the campaign in 1993,
a debate was going on about how transportation should be
handled in various regions of the country, remembering that
there is always a moving target. Conditions did change. We were
facing as a government, possibly, circumstances that were not
envisioned during the campaign. I will be succinct. In 1993 I
was not of the view of the route on which the government has
proceeded. We have had to rethink that whole circumstance.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for those watching this debate. We are now debating a Bloc
motion on grants and contributions from the human resources
department's main estimates. The Bloc motion calls for $1.3
billion in cuts. Those cuts would cover programs, everything
from youth initiative programs to employment assistance
programs.
We are all making do with less in these times and government
should be no exception. Even though this message is coming
from Canadians, the government is not listening. Instead it has
actually increased its spending in its first two budgets. This
includes substantial increases in its interest spending. The
government keeps borrowing money and having to increase
spending on interest but it decreases spending on some other
things for which we would rather pay.
The Reform approach in dealing with the main estimates for
the human resources department was to propose modest 5 per
cent reduction in the operating expenses of the various programs
under this department. Instead the human resources estimates
propose significant increases in spending. This is interesting
because it is at a time when the services being delivered by these
programs are being significantly cut back to Canadians.
For example, we know that pensions are going to be cut back
sometime. That has been announced. We are not sure when or
what. We know that unemployment benefits are being cut back.
The budget said a minimum of 10 per cent but it could be more
than that. We know that health care is being cut back under the
Liberal budget. We know that tuition fees are rising because
13400
there is less money available for post-secondary education. The
list goes on.
During the time when these benefits and services to
Canadians are being cut back significantly, the department that
delivers them, instead of getting leaner and more efficient, is
increasing its spending significantly.
Reform felt that in fairness to Canadians who were having to
take less from this department that the least the department
could do would be to operate on at least 5 per cent less money
than it asked for from Parliament.
Unfortunately the modest decrease in operating funds of 5 per
cent which we proposed was voted down by the Liberal majority
on the committee and interestingly by the Bloc members on the
committee. In committee the Bloc members did not support
even a 5 per cent decrease in spending but in the House they
want a $1.3 billion decrease. We find that quite interesting.
(1810 )
Reform proposed a very realistic 5 per cent cut to operating
expenditures. This would have been an important first step and
one which the government could have and should have been able
to live with.
Instead the government is pushing through the votes in the
main estimates without even the kind of public scrutiny that we
should be able to expect as Canadians from a massive spending
program by government. These estimates are being put through
without the members of Parliament who hold a majority being
able to decrease that spending by even $1.
Whatever government departments ask for, whatever the
bureaucrats propose, is what they are being given. Is that any
way to show accountability to Canadians? We were elected to
oversee the spending of their money as carefully and prudently
as possible. No. Whatever is put forward, we just put it through.
We will see this later on today. There will be not one vote that
will diminish the spending estimates put forward by government
departments by even $1. That is not accountability. It certainly
does not hold the civil service accountable for the kind of
spending they are supposed to be doing of Canadians' money.
This spending affects every Canadian from St. John's to
Victoria. We should be looking very carefully at how that goes
forward.
Even the Bloc motion on vote 10 that we are debating right
now is being countered with a government motion to boost the
spending in the area of grants and contributions right back up to
where it started. This is in spite of all attempts to give the matter
serious consideration.
The Reform Party in February released a budget which we
believe the country should operate by. It was called the
taxpayers budget. This budget was a direct result of input from
our party members at the grassroots level right across the
country. What ordinary Canadians were calling for and what was
reflected in our budget were reductions to the bloated and
inefficient programs, especially funding for special interest
groups such as the ones that are funded under the motion we are
debating at the moment.
Reformers spoke out loud and clear in this area of government
money for special interest groups. We supported cuts in these
particular areas and our support is solid.
Also in the taxpayers' budget Reformers were clear that areas
of provincial jurisdiction, such as training programs, should not
be intruded upon by the federal government. In that one area we
agree with our friends from the Bloc and their opposition to
some of these requisitions for money that really should not be
allocated by the federal government but should be left to the
provinces as the Constitution provides.
Many of the grants and contributions in this motion are
dealing with services which are the responsibility of provinces.
That should be acknowledged and respected.
The Reform plan consisted of a formula for dealing with
grants and contributions depending on whether they were
provided for businesses or special interest groups. We believe
contributions to businesses should be cut on a formula of 100 per
cent cuts and that the funding for special interest groups should
also be cut 100 per cent. That is our formula.
Let us now look at some of the specific expenditures that are
covered under this motion. Part III of the human resources main
estimates breaks funding down with vague descriptions only,
such as ``grants to improve employability and to promote
employment opportunities''. These are broken down further into
what the department calls partnerships. It calls for labour
market adjustments-it is scary for the labour market to think
that good old government is making adjustments on its
behalf-and what the department calls community development
projects.
Money from this area is supposedly to be used at the local
level to create jobs. The problem is that the expenditure of this
money often creates no real long term sustainable jobs at all.
They create only artificial jobs or jobs that last only long enough
to give an individual enough weeks of work to qualify for
unemployment insurance, of course calling for more funding
and more money from the government department that started
them on this nice cycle in the first place.
(1815 )
These are the sorts of make work projects the government
prides itself on, instead of allowing the private sector to
energize our economy. This government acknowledges openly
13401
that long term sustainable jobs are created by business,
particularly small and medium sized businesses. Instead of
allowing these people to keep the money they generate and get
on with the job, government spends lavishly and in order to fund
that it has to take money out of the pockets of these businesses,
which therefore drives us further into debt and stifles the kind of
private enterprise that would provide jobs in this country.
The taxes that support the kind of spending we are talking
about today are job killers. That is what is happening in our
economy. Governments are scooping so much out of it, draining
so much out, taking so much out of the pockets of people who are
trying to keep the economy going that the economy is suffering
and reeling from the shock of this kind of government spending.
The future in getting Canadians back to work is to have a
country where companies can hire with minimum amounts of
red tape, pay lower taxes than they currently do, have less
government tinkering in their affairs, and also have businesses
that are able to utilize a workforce that is not dependent on
government make work projects.
The economics of the situation is simple. The money the
government spends for projects to supposedly increase jobs
could be much better spent. It has to come from somewhere. In
this case the somewhere is from investors, Canada savings
bonds, treasury bills and Government of Canada bonds. When
Canadians and foreigners buy those instruments they are really
loaning our government money. In order for the government to
pay them back for these instruments and pay interest as well it
has to tax individuals and companies.
Now the cycle has gone so far that the government is actually
borrowing money to pay interest on money it previously
borrowed. That is why we are in such trouble. The end result is
these so-called make work projects are actually paid for with
borrowed money. This is not a healthy situation. It creates a
shaky economy and we are seeing signs of that today.
The recovery everybody talked about last year is showing
signs of slipping. The robust profit growth of Canadian
corporations, private companies that create jobs in this country,
slowed in the first quarter of 1995. Operating profits grew by a
mere 1.9 per cent in the first quarter, compared with over 10 per
cent in the first quarter of 1994. That is a significant, incredible
change and downturn. Economic activity also slowed in the first
quarter, as the gross domestic product dropped 0.7 per cent in
March after a 0.2 per cent drop in February.
There are some real signs the government tinkering in the
economy, taking money out of the hands of business people,
entrepreneurs and investors, is simply destabilizing the
situation, not helping it. Governments cannot run an economy
but can only help make it possible for an economy to operate in a
healthy way.
Also covered under this motion are grants paid out under the
Atlantic groundfish strategy, or TAGS. Over $164 million was
allocated to the TAGS program, to be spent over five years. The
Minister of Human Resources Development touted this program
as being the new face of social programs in Canada.
We have heard many examples of how TAGS has failed in its
quest to be a training program and a program to move people
from failing industries into healthy ones. This has evolved into
simply another income support program. Not only is it creating
additional dependency in an area that certainly does not need
that and where there is already a lack of hope for viability in the
economic sector, but the training part of those funds, the funds
that were supposed to be given to people to train them for jobs in
healthy labour industries, is now simply being diverted into
more income support.
(1820)
In fact, 80 per cent of the funds for this five-year program
have already been spent in the first year. For the remaining four
years we have only 20 per cent of those funds left. We also know
that a great amount of these funds, we do not know how much, is
going to people who are already earning more than a good living
in other fisheries activities, such as snow crab fishing.
This is an area that needs to be re-examined. This is a
spending area that is not working. There is room for reductions
that would be not only not a hardship for people but would
actually benefit the economy, because this kind of tinkering
simply hurts it instead of helps it.
Also under this motion is about $1 billion of spending on
payments to facilitate the efficient functioning of the Canadian
labour market. Who better to tell the Canadian labour market
how to be efficient than a very efficient government?
It seems to me that if we would leave that $1 billion in the
hands of entrepreneurs, business people and investors, that
would do more to help the Canadian labour market operate
efficiently than anything the government could ever do to teach
it to operate better. That would be the best investment we could
make: simply let the people who know how to be efficient get on
with the job, rather than taking their money and having it
inefficiently allocated by bureaucrats, politicians, and grant
recipients.
This brings us to another component of the Reform Party's
principles that we have been urging the government to follow
when it talks about ways to spend better on the social side and
stimulate the economy. This is the whole idea of effectiveness in
government. It is not too much for Canadians to ask that their
government provide them with this fundamental right, the right
to have an efficient, effective government. Careless spending by
this government and others before it has not been helpful, to say
the least. It has put our country in over $500 billion worth of
debt and it has left us with a country with a spending problem.
13402
That is why so much funding being provided in all these areas
we are talking about has had very dubious results.
We believe that Canadians simply are not getting value for
their money. Canadians themselves believe that. In a recent poll
published at the end of last week in the Financial Post, a large
majority of Canadians really felt they were paying too much in
taxes and they were even willing to take illegal measures to
avoid paying tax because they felt that governments were
wasteful, corrupt, inefficient, that programs were not giving
value, and that the money they were giving to government was
not giving them bang for the buck. It was not worth the money
they were giving up in taxes for what they were getting back.
They did not believe the management of it was prudent.
When a large proportion of Canadians say openly to pollsters
that their tax dollars are being squandered in a way they do not
approve of and are not prepared to support and when their tax
dollars produce very little positive result and only lead to
unnecessary dependency on the part of many Canadians, then it
is time for governments to sit up and take notice, to stop
spending that money, stop wasting that money, and to demand
less of the taxpayer and more efficiency from government
departments.
What we have in this whole business of the estimates is
government simply saying to departments: ``Spend whatever
you want. Spend more on your operations, because we do not
expect you to do more with less, like other Canadians''. This is
why we cannot support the government motion on grants and
contributions being put forward today.
(1825 )
Bringing spending under control by cuts in grants and
contributions is one way to return the country to a healthy,
competitive identity that will let us stand proudly on the
threshold of the next millennium.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested in the hon. member's comments in relation to the
TAGS program in Atlantic Canada.
I understand her concerns, but it is important that she realize
that the process of retraining people who have been working in
the fishing industry, which has been so devastated in the last few
years by the failure of the cod, for example, and other aspects of
the fishery, and trying to institute a program whereby you help
people retrain and build them toward the possibility of working
in other areas is not an overnight process.
I am not at all surprised that there have been problems and that
the training programs have not succeeded greatly in getting
people into other industries. If there is someone who has perhaps
worked always on fishing boats or in a fish plant and has maybe
grade five or grade ten education, they cannot be turned
overnight into someone who will to be prospering in the
information age. It is a long process and it takes a lot of effort
and a lot of investment. It cannot be done overnight.
There seems to be a theory in the Reform Party that says let us
cut them off and they will find something else. That is an
interesting theory. It may work if they are in British Columbia.
There is enough happening in some parts of the country, to some
degree at least, so that there are other opportunities. In Atlantic
Canada there are some opportunities, but there are not the kinds
of opportunities that are going to deal with that kind of situation.
If people who have been fishing all their lives or working in
fish plants cutting fish are cut off instantly from all kinds of
government support, from the TAGS program for example, then
they will not instantly get into a situation where they are to be
out there if they have no support. They do not have the money to
go west to find a job. If they get out there, what job are they
going to take? What would you retrain them for? How long
would it take to train a person in that situation to get a
prosperous, successful job in a modern economy?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question, but I am not sure why anyone who suggests prudent
spending on these programs can be accused of wanting to cut
people off. That is a rather extreme interpretation of what I said
about spending the money in ways that really benefit people, in a
prudent manner, in a defensible manner, in a way that is
accountable to the people who should be able to count on these
moneys to do some good.
What do we have under this TAGS program? We have snow
crab fishermen who make over $200,000 a year being given
extra money from a program that should be benefiting the
people who are trying to get out of devastated industries. We
have people who have perfectly good jobs in fish processing
plants saying: ``This is an easier program. This is easy money.
Why do we not just quit working and go on this program? We are
able to do it''.
Will that be helping people? No, it is not helping the people in
need. It is wasting money that should be helping people in need.
It is the waste and the inefficiency and the ineffectiveness we are
talking about, and we are trying to get the government to correct
this.
This money was supposed to train people to get out of
devastated industries and find jobs somewhere else. As this
member rightly says, we should try to help them. What is
happening? The money that was supposed to go to training
people is now going into income support for people, many of
whom do not even need that money and should not be entitled to
the money.
13403
Yes, we should be trying to help people if we can. When we
have a program that is clearly being mismanaged and
ineffectively administered, is helping people who do not need
help and not helping people who do, and which has not yet
created one long term job for anybody on the program, it should
be criticized not just by members in the opposition but by the
hon. member who comes from that part of the country where
people are outraged. The government is taking money that could
and should be helping and it is instead being totally wasted.
(1830 )
That kind of help cannot take effect over night. Any sensible
person realizes that. When there is instance after instance where
the program is being mismanaged and wasted and not helping
people, then we should all be on our feet demanding to know
why, demanding accountability of the department and saying on
behalf of the people get it right, get it right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a comment on what my colleague from Calgary
North said regarding our public responsibilities, including the
fact that programs would no longer be efficient if they came
directly under provincial jurisdiction.
There is some discrepancy in what she said. She just stated
how important it was to fund training. She also mentioned that
with its motion, the Bloc Quebecois was refusing, so to speak,
any cuts, especially to the Department of Human Resources
Development for the unemployment insurance program.
Since the unemployment insurance fund is showing a surplus,
why not allocate this money, which belongs to the workers and
the employers, the very same employers who are clamouring for
top notch skilled workers-which is what the Bloc's amendment
is all about-to training and programs specially aimed at
employees and employers, or even give it to the provinces,
which are in the best position to use it efficiently? How can she
draw a parallel between the Bloc Quebecois not wanting to cut
and its wish to train employees and employers?
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
bringing up that subject. I know it is near and dear to the movers
of the motion and the Bloc.
Just because money is being managed by the provinces does
not mean it is being managed more effectively. A number of
provinces have a very dismal fiscal record of management. That
should be honestly addressed.
It is sometimes hypocritical for representations to be made
that somehow provinces which are deeply in debt and have some
fiscal problems criticize other levels of government.
What I did acknowledge is some of the services and activities
were constitutionally put within provincial jurisdiction. They
are with in the purview of the provinces and that should be
respected. We do have a Constitution. We did have an agreement
on these services and it should be respected.
I agree with my hon. colleague when he suggests UI
contribution funds should be managed by the workers and
employers. He is on the right track. These people are paying the
shot and they should be calling the tune. It makes sense and it is
perfectly logical.
He is correct when he says services should be delivered on a
level closer to the worker. It is more accountable to workers,
more responsive to workers, more sensitive to the needs on the
local level, and we get away from these one size fits all, mother
government knows everything programs. I certainly support his
proposal that expenditure of funds for job training and education
of workers would be better managed on that level than it is being
managed today.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.
Opportunities, growth, jobs, balance, honesty, fairness,
vision, responsibility, consultation and compassion; we ran on
those words in the last federal election campaign and the
government has delivered on those words during the last two
years. The Minister of Finance has delivered on those words in
the budget. We made commitments to Canadians in the red book.
We are keeping those commitments in these estimates.
Canadians told us they wanted deficit reduction with no
increase in personal income taxes. The deficit is going down and
for the second year in a row there has been no increase in
personal income taxes.
(1835)
Canadians have told us to cut spending. For every dollar
raised in new revenues the government has cut $7 in spending.
The government is launching the largest restructuring of
government spending since the end of the second world war.
In contrast to the recommendations of the Reform Party the
government is not simply slashing spending across the board.
The government will not choke off growth. It will not throw the
country back into a recession.
The government has carefully rethought the role and structure
of the federal government. The redesign of the federal
government launched by the program review is reflected in the
esti-
13404
mates and will result in a smaller and smarter government.
Government can no longer be all things to all people.
The program review looked at all areas of government
spending with the exception of major transfers to persons and
major transfers to provinces. All the programs were reviewed
under the following criteria: did the program serve the public
interest? Did it involve a necessary role for government? Was it
affordable and could the private sector or the provinces do it
better?
As a result of the review the government is reducing subsidies
to businesses and agriculture. Many government services will
be commercialised where practical. The government can no
longer afford to intervene directly in the economy. The
government from now on must concentrate on creating the best
possible economic framework in which the private sector can
create jobs.
Canadians told us to revamp our social programs to meet
today's needs but to make sure that we respected our heritage of
social justice. The government has embarked on a program
which will do just that.
The Canada social transfer is not an abandonment of national
standards, as some have argued. This transfer will provide more
flexibility to the provinces. It will allow them to experiment and
find the best way to deliver social programs and reduce
administrative costs.
The conditions of the Canada Health Act, universality,
comprehensiveness, accessibility, portability and public
administration, will be maintained. The government will be
working with the provinces to develop a set of shared principles
that will underline the Canada social transfer.
The Ontario New Democratic Party has suggested the federal
government has abandoned the promises it made in the red book.
This is not true. In the 1994 estimates every key commitment in
the red book was funded. This year's estimates have maintained
the government's commitments. The government will maintain
the health of our social programs while getting the deficit under
control.
As promised in the red book, the government has begun to
bring the deficit under control while at the same time funding
the national infrastructure program, cutting unnecessary
defence spending, introducing gun control legislation,
reforming the Young Offenders Act, establishing a national
crime prevention council, taking action to address foreign
overfishing, promoting trade with Latin America and Asia.
It is establishing a youth service corps, restoring literacy
funding, establishing a national form on health, introducing
parliamentary reform to give MPs more influence, introducing
legislation to make lobbying more fair and open, reinstating the
residential rehabilitation assistance program, establishing a
prenatal nutrition program, beginning an aboriginal head start
program, establishing a centre of excellence for women's
health, restoring the court challenges program, restoring the law
reform commission, eliminating, downsizing and privatizing
government agencies, boards and commissions.
The government delivered a tough but fair budget. It has
spread the cost of deficit reduction evenly across the country.
Despite the claims of some Ontario provincial politicians,
Ontario did not receive more than its share of cuts.
The government has started Canada on the path to economic
renewal, social reform and fiscal responsibility. The
government has not solved every problem but it has started in
the right direction.
The Prime Minister remarked repeatedly during the last
election that a Liberal government would offer Canadians
realistic hope. That is the hallmark of the Prime Minister's
approach to government and that is the hallmark of the budget.
(1840 )
If we are to offer hope we must introduce programs which will
encourage job creation in the short term, in the medium term and
in the long term. If we are to be realistic we have to make
choices.
I know some people were not happy with the choices made by
the government. However, after extensive consultations the
government made the tough choices that best reflect the priority
of Canadians. For example, if we are to find money to fund
research on diseases affecting women or spend money on badly
needed infrastructure then tough choices have to be made.
The government is taking steps to ensure our social programs
are maintained. Many seniors in my riding of Hamilton
Mountain are concerned about the future of their pensions. The
government will be releasing a discussion paper on the future of
the pension system later this year. The government intends to
make the pension system fairer and more sustainable in the long
term.
I have spoken to many students in my riding who are
concerned about their future prospects. The government is
taking steps to improve the employment prospects of today's
students. The best means of improving employment
opportunities of young people is to provide them with practical
experience and job skills. The new youth services corps and
internship programs sponsored by the federal government will
provide students with the experience and skills they need to
succeed in today's job market.
Many people have expressed concern about the changes to the
unemployment insurance program. I assure Canadians the
Liberal government recognizes the importance of the
unemployment insurance program. The government's aim is to
allow people to become independent, to increase help for those
in
13405
really desperate circumstances. The government's goal is to find
the maximum dollars to put people back to work.
Many of my constituents have expressed their concerns over
Canada's crime rate. In recognition of Canadians' concern about
public safety, the smallest reductions in spending were made in
departments dedicated to justice and corrections. The
government is willing to spend the money necessary to ensure
the safety of all Canadians.
Our goal is to create opportunities for all Canadians from all
regions, from all backgrounds and from all walks of life to make
the most of their own lives and to help our country seize the
future.
In the budget and in other initiatives the government has
created the opportunity for us all to seize the future together
through growth, jobs, balance, honesty, fairness, vision,
responsibility and compassion.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I note the
member's commitment to the red book and to deficit reduction
is in accordance with what is perceived to be the policy of the
government.
Page 20 of the red book, which the member was so willing to
put her emphasis on, states there will be a 15 per cent decrease in
spending on special services by the government should the
Liberals win the election, and they did. However, there has been
a $300 million increase in the estimates as proposed.
How does the member reconcile the red book commitment to
a 15 per cent reduction compared with a $300 million increase?
Is she prepared to vote against these increases when they come
up for a vote later today?
Ms. Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the cost of everything has gone up
but I still think the cuts we have made so far in the budget and in
the government's spending over the last two years are the
toughest since the second world war. We have reached the goals
we promised Canadians through our red book.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened intently to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain
concerning the estimates. She detailed everything from students
to seniors and talked about specific programs.
I have been asking many questions since coming to the House
concerning small business and what assistance it is receiving in
order to create jobs and get people off unemployment and into
jobs. Maybe the member for Hamilton Mountain could expand
on that and on how we are going to help small business to get
people back to work, where they really want to be.
(1845)
Ms. Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member
for St. Catharines gives me the opportunity to discuss another
important government initiative, the proposed changes to the
Federal Business Development Bank.
The changes in that bank are an example of the government's
commitment to promote small business growth, innovation and
job creation. Many people in small business have told us over
the last two years that they have a lot of problems with the banks
in negotiating, refinancing and getting new money for their
small businesses.
The minister responsible has decided he needs to make some
changes directly to the Federal Business Development Bank.
These changes have been made as the result of a comprehensive
small business policy that was developed in 1994. This
institution will expand its operations thereby ensuring its
programs and services meet the changing needs of small
business today. This institution will be given a revised mandate
to develop and deliver innovative responses to small business
financing and managerial needs. Small businesses in all the
ridings across Canada have expressed the need for this.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for this member as I do for all of the members on the
government side. With all of this talk about cuts, cuts, cuts, why
is the total government expenditure up by $2 billion this year
over last year? There is an inconsistency here.
Ms. Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member knows
that the interest costs have gone up considerably. We have been
consulting with Canadians and we are spending in the areas
where they feel spending is necessary in the next few years.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
For my colleagues who do not understand Inuktitut, I will
elaborate.
I am pleased to rise today to speak on the government's
1995-96 main estimates. When the government was elected one
and one-half years ago, we said we would do things differently
and we are doing things differently.
The government's main estimates for this fiscal year reflect a
tough budget but a necessary budget. They also reflect the
results of the program review announced in the 1994 budget.
The purpose of the program review was to ensure the
government's diminished resources are directed to the highest
priority requirements and to those areas where the federal
government is best placed to deliver services.
The government is clarifying its responsibilities. We are also
reshaping federal government programs so we spend less but
provide the best possible service to Canadians within the limits
of need and affordability.
13406
We are restraining spending, streamlining operations and
changing what government does and how its programs are
delivered. We are committed to reducing the deficit and meeting
our fiscal targets. We are committed to improving the economic
climate so more jobs can be created.
We are focusing on the essential responsibilities: reducing
federal and provincial overlap; using technology to become
more efficient; promoting self-reliance; recovering more of our
costs; and merging programs which are similar in nature for
more efficiency. Tough decisions have been made and more
tough decisions will be made.
Public sector jobs have been cut. Some programs are being
amalgamated; some programs have been cut and some have been
eliminated. For the remaining programs and services, the
government is seeking new and cost effective ways to deliver
them. Because we have to live within our means, we must get rid
of inefficient or ineffective programs so we can focus our
energies where they are most needed.
(1850)
I want to stress that the government is committed to ensuring
that Canada's most needy do not bear the brunt of deficit
reduction measures.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Among the most needy Canadians are the aboriginal people. It
is a fact that the socioeconomic conditions in most Indian and
Inuit communities are the poorest in the country. The
government is committed to assisting aboriginal peoples to
overcome the disparities in living conditions with other
Canadians.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
has been impacted by the budget and program review but not as
much as other departments. DIAND positions will be reduced
from 300 from the 1995-96 base of 3,237. The reductions will
occur at all levels of the department. This is in addition to 442
positions eliminated in 1994-95.
The northern affairs program will be reduced by $15 million
over the next three years. Regional economic development
programming will be reduced in 1995 one year ahead of its
original sunset date. I have to say that the cut to regional
economic development programming is a painful one for the
north. To create the jobs and opportunities the north needs,
economic development is crucial. We have to keep working in
this area to further northern development.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Social housing is another area of great need in the north. The
last Conservative budget eliminated funding for new social
housing construction. So far financial reality has prevented a
major reversal of that budget's impact on social housing.
I continue to be deeply concerned about the poor housing
conditions in the Nunatsiaq riding and throughout the north. I
know that the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services is also concerned as is the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development. I will continue to encourage the
government to do what it can to help resolve the north's housing
problems.
The budget and main estimates for the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development confirm that DIAND will
maintain its core roles and responsibilities to Indian and Inuit
people, such as education and social assistance. Increases to the
Indian and Inuit programs will provide funding for basic
services such as elementary and secondary education, social
services, construction and maintenance of schools and
infrastructure such as water and sewage improvement.
Overall however in light of the government's serious fiscal
situation, DIAND's funding will be moderated. It will increase,
but not as much as in previous years. Funding for Indian and
Inuit programming will increase 6 per cent in 1995-96 and 3 per
cent in 1996-97 and 1997-98. The moderated growth is a
balance between the need to make changes to reduce the deficit
and the need to protect those who need assistance most.
There should be no misunderstanding on this point. The
aboriginal people of Canada are the poorest people of Canada.
The aboriginal population is also Canada's fastest growing
population. The aboriginal population is growing at more than
twice the rate of the Canadian population.
The aboriginal population is also a very young population.
Over 40 per cent are under the age of 25 and the need for
housing, education, and social services are great. While
improvements have been made over the years in community
conditions and individual circumstances, the fact remains as I
said earlier that aboriginal social and economic conditions still
remain significantly below those of other Canadians.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
There is still much work to be done. This government will not
abandon aboriginal people. We are continuing to work on the
fair and expeditious settlement of land claims. We are investing
additional funds in post-secondary education. Education and
economic wherewithal through a secure land and resources base
are necessary tools for jobs and development and for building
healthier and stronger communities.
13407
(1855)
The government will work with aboriginal people and all
Canadians to improve our financial situation, to create
opportunities and jobs and build a stronger country.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleague, the member for Nunatsiaq.
Interestingly enough, there are Crees and Inuit in my riding also
and I represent them.
His speech made me wonder about something and, since he is
part of the government, maybe he can give me an answer.
Transportation subsidies for food and goods destined for the
Crees and Inuit, and, in his case, the Inuit in the Northwest
Territories, will not increase; some cuts are even planned. There
is a high birth rate in those communities; how can these people
feed their children adequately?
Transportation subsidies are frozen and since food is often
brought in by plane, families go without fresh produce, children
do not get the fruits and vegetables necessary to their
development. As a member of Parliament, can he explain how
his people will find the money necessary for their own
development?
[English]
Mr. Anawak:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
I thank the member for the question. Because of the riding he
represents, the hon. member is as aware as I am of the high cost
of food in the north.
I have been assigned the task of looking at the food mail
program. I am to report back to the minister of Indian and
northern affairs and the Minister of Health by the fall. I will be
assisted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health who probably knows more about the nutritional values of
fruits and vegetables, et cetera, than I do. I know the nutritional
values of meat. If anyone wants to know about the nutritional
values of meat, I can expound on that.
When I was sitting on the other side of the House the
government of the day decided to slash that program, to
eliminate it over a period of years. There was a cut in the last
year but I think it is being sustained until the review is finished.
I assure the member that during the review we want to see how
we can improve it. I will be seeking the member's comments on
this. We know that money is very hard to come by today, but we
want to see how we can improve the program so that we can
stretch it out further to the people who have the highest cost of
living anywhere in Canada and perhaps anywhere in the world.
I am sure members have heard me expound on the high cost of
food in the north. A litre of milk costs $5 and a loaf of bread
costs $3.95. There has to be a way to reflect the needs of the
people in the north on how best to ensure that they get nutritional
food.
(1900 )
As the hon. member is well aware, and we have been
expounding on it, the north has to be considered at the same
level as the west, the east or central Canada. Therefore the
services the people in the west and the east are used to should be
available in the north, whether food or other services such as
those of doctors, nurses, teachers and so on.
I thank the hon. member. I will be seeking his comments as
well, because of the area he represents, on how to improve the
particular problem.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, is the hon.
member aware that over the last 20 years spending through the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
increased by some 750 per cent, yet conditions in the
communities that native people live in have essentially
remained the same?
Is the hon. member aware that within the last four years
DIAND has committed $1 billion toward native economic
development? The auditor general's report last year clearly
shows that the effect of that spending has been absolutely
negligible in terms of its desired goals. In other words, the
demand for social services continues to rise on a steady trend,
the unemployment levels continue to rise on a steady trend, and
the demand for social assistance increases in real dollar terms.
This massive spending by the federal government has been an
abject failure.
Would the hon. member agree that maybe it is time to review
what the goals of the spending programs of DIAND were
designed to do, whether or not they are actually achieving the
goals, and whether the whole initiative the federal government
has been engaged in for the last 25 years has been completely
wrongheaded?
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly agree the
situation is any worse since we have come to power. I should
know. I go to my riding as much as I can and I go to other
13408
aboriginal areas in Canada. There is still a lot of work to be done
but conditions have been improving on reserves.
I refer to the comments we got from Chief Ralph Caribou of
Pukatawagan, Manitoba:
I am very happy to report that the skin problems amongst our people have
decreased considerably this spring.
That is because of the water and sewage program introduced
in Pukatawagan. Conditions are improving. There is a lot of
work to be done and we are doing it.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, as
official opposition critic for youth and training, to talk about the
motion introduced by my colleague for Mercier and dealing with
the Department of Human Resources Development estimates,
more particularly with employment services.
The first thing I would like to say is that grants and
contributions under the employment and insurance program are
presented in a misleading manner. Looking at pages 12.6 and
12.7 of the main estimates, you might think that grants and
contributions to the program have increased from
$1,281,552,000 in 1994-1995 to $1,354,381,000 in 1995-1996.
(1905)
However, the total of grants and contributions for 1995-1996
includes grants to individuals under the Atlantic groundfish
strategy, as well as contributions to provincial governments for
the older worker adjustment program which were not there
previously. The same amount for 1994-1995 does not include
these grants and contributions and that explains the increase
from one year to the next.
If you take these two items in consideration for both years, the
total of grants and contributions decreases from $1,614,444,000
in 1994-1995 to $1,354,381,000 in 1995-1996. It is therefore a
decrease of $260 million or about 16 per cent. The most
important cuts are in the employment programs and in the
Atlantic groundfish strategy.
We are particularly interested in the cuts in the employment
programs. As the auditor general has often said, the
departmental expenditure plans are more a way of hiding things
than of informing people. The Department of Human Resources
Development is more guilty than others in that regard, since it is
presenting the information in a confusing and incomplete way.
When the time comes to collect taxes, the federal government
is very clear. But when it has to explain what it does with the
money, all of a sudden, everything is obscure.
Table 6, on page 2-24, shows that Quebec is not receiving
enough of the employment programs' funds. According to these
statistics, Quebec gets, in fact, 21 per cent of the federal funds in
that field, when it accounts for 24 per cent of the Canadian
population.
The Department's estimated manpower training spending,
funded by the unemployment insurance fund, should reach
about $1.9 billion in 1995, $521 million of which is for Quebec,
which represents, in this case, a little more than its share of the
Canadian population, that is 27.4 per cent of the total spending.
Since, in 1995, the regular benefits in Quebec cost $3.4
billion out of a total for Canada of $10.3 billion, which amounts
to 33 per cent of the total, Quebec stands to lose $113 million.
Moreover, the federal government perpetuates duplication
and overlap by putting in place new programs, such as the youth
service corps and the young trainee program. It shows clearly
that Ottawa does not want to get out of that area of provincial
jurisdiction. As well, the federal government tried to interfere in
the area of education last fall by creating the fund for initiatives
in the acquisition of knowledge and the office of learning
technologies.
Even if the federal government is hiding its intervention by
avoiding the word ``education'', it is precisely in that field of
provincial jurisdiction that it wants to intervene more and more
actively, as we can see from the new initiatives.
Speaking of figures, I would have liked to dwell more on the
resources given to young Canadians, but I must say that getting
those numbers is not easy. I am not talking about what was
announced in a press release, for example, when the minister
made public a certain number of initiatives last year. They were
implemented later on, but we could not get the figures and
details on where these services are offered and how much money
was spent.
We were unable to get the figures for this year and last,
although we asked for them on several occasions; we even asked
the minister when he appeared before the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development. We can wonder why budget
estimates concerning programs related to youth initiatives are
not included in the government's estimates. Yet, they involve
expenditures of several millions. This is also true in other areas
of the department.
(1910)
Thus last year we had to call each and every manpower centre
in Quebec to ask for the amounts of money available for
manpower development programs in the whole of Quebec
because there was no breakdown of this information by
province.
A few weeks ago, at the Human Resources Development
Committee, I also asked senior officials about cuts in the
amounts allocated to education support. There is a $262 million
reduction from 1994-95 to 1995-96. Again last week we were
13409
told that we would get the answer a little later because all the
information had not been compiled.
Is the answer so complicated that the minister, his staff and
his high officials are not able to give us an answer? Or is it
because they have something to hide? If public servants cannot
cope, why cut 5,000 jobs at Human Resources Development, a
department which is precisely committed to finding jobs for
those who are out of work, the unemployed and welfare
recipients? We could also ask why new structures like the Youth
Service Corps are created if we are about to close manpower
centres?
In Quebec the minister says that the decision has not been
taken. Yet, all employees presently working in Labour Canada
centres already know that there will be a reduction in the number
of manpower centres in Quebec. The number of regional centres
is expected to drop from 100 to 30. This is not very encouraging
for people who would like to receive employment services from
the Department of Human Resources Development.
The department is cutting its spending, but is also cutting
grants to organizations dedicated to employment development,
particularly among young people. In the last two years, a 15 per
cent cut has been announced. Yet, these organizations had a
placement rate of 75 per cent, which is significantly higher than
many government services. What happened?
Contracts are for one year only, and we saw recently, at the
end of the fiscal year, that the minister delayed giving an answer
for the current year, with the result that, in some cases, it took
two weeks to get an answer for the current year, with a warning
that, this time, the contract would end on March 31. So, this
suggested that further cuts might be made in the next budget. Of
course, such cuts were announced in the budget. This suggests
that further cuts will be made, beyond this 15 per cent.
Meanwhile, as the government wants to make cuts to
manpower centres in Canada and has already announced some
cuts in the positions of counsellors, the very people who are
there to help the unemployed find jobs, as it is cutting grants to
organizations dedicated to employment development,
particularly among young people, by 15 per cent, last year, it set
up a new program called the youth service corps. I want to
remind people that this is a new name given to a previous
program, killed by the Conservatives when they took office,
which was called Katimavik. This program seemed to be very
dear to Senator Jacques Hébert, whose hunger strike conducted
on that issue was extensively commented on by the media.
Katimavik was re-established under the new name of youth
service corps, but for what purposes? Occupational activities for
youngsters like cleaning river banks, community projects, some
travelling. In the meantime, very productive organisations
providing help to people looking for a job had their budget cut.
(1915)
Some are very clever when playing with numbers. For
example, the minister told us not long ago that larger amounts of
money were invested in the creation of summer jobs for
students. It is always the same thing. He gets this result by
adding data from the summer component of the young Canada
works program and from the challenge program, which now has
a new name. By compiling these data, he is able to claim that we
spend as much and maybe more than last year on summer jobs
for young people, although Young Canada Works is intended for
much younger people and is offering activities which have
nothing to do with any future occupation.
As I just demonstrated, in the area of social programs, the
government tried to give less money, provide fewer services,
and allocate fewer resources to help people find jobs. What is
even more serious, however, is that the government-despite
trying to blame the situation on its efforts to reduce the deficit
and repay the debt, which will soon reach $548 billion-is
pursuing another strategy that is totally inconsistent with this. It
is trying to interfere to a greater extent in areas of provincial
jurisdiction, as it did yesterday by passing Bill C-76.
In addition to implementing some budget provisions, Bill
C-76 allows the government not only to maintain health care
standards but also to set new national standards in education and
job training.
I am talking about the bill that was passed yesterday, but we
saw it coming as early as last year, when the government clearly
stated in its first budget its intention of moving in this direction.
Besides the government, there are the advisory committees such
as the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology,
which, in its report submitted to the Prime Minister in May
1994, states that it is imperative that national standards of
excellence be set with regard to the acquisition of skills and
knowledge essential to good economic performance. After
recently reading this little known report and checking with this
advisory board, we realized that this study was done at the
request of the Prime Minister's office.
Since federal funding for education comes mainly from the
Human Resources Development Department, one would have
expected this issue to be referred to the committee responsible
for this department, on which I sit, or another related committee.
Instead, it falls to an advisory committee on science and
technology to examine the issue, at the Prime Minister's
specific request.
If this report was completed in May 1994, this means that it
was in preparation for a number of weeks or months before that.
It is obvious that, almost as soon as it came to power, the new
13410
government had the clear intention of interfering further in the
area of education.
I recognize two government members who were on the team
assigned to travel across Canada. They noticed, as I did, and this
is a fact, that as far as national standards on education and other
matters are concerned, throughout Canada except Quebec, and
more in Alberta than anywhere else, people expected the federal
government to step in because they were getting the feeling that
their provincial government was going to the dogs and starting
to cut social programs. I realized that, in the rest of Canada,
Canadians did not care as much as we do about the fact that the
provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas, such as
education, health and social assistance.
(1920)
However, in Quebec, the committee was able to see that it was
just the opposite. Because of our distinctiveness, culture and
history, because we are a nation, we want education to remain
under provincial jurisdiction in Quebec.
The rest of Canada may change its views on social programs
or education if it pleases, but we want to manage all of that
ourselves. Since World War II, the federal government has been
using its spending power, its power to collect taxes and
redistribute funds in the areas I just mentioned: health and
education in particular. It dips in the pockets of every taxpayer
in Canada, including Quebec, to pay for that.
We demand our share, there is nothing wrong with that.
Ideally, you know, tax points should be transferred to us. This is
what we want. Quebec's National Assembly is unanimous in
requesting this. Our claims began not even under the PQ
government, but under the previous Liberal government. On
many occasions, we asked for all our tax points for education
and for job training.
I spoke about youth unemployment. We must not forget that
more than 400,000 Canadians under 24 are presently
unemployed. In Quebec, where 18 per cent of young people in
this age group are unemployed, the situation is particularly
worrisome. Add to that people on welfare. After last year's
budget, unemployment rates have gone down, but because of
cuts in the UI program, there are few additional jobs available.
That is why the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
voted yesterday against his own government, claiming that
social programs are being destroyed. Referring to his long
experience in the House, he said that the proposals were
completely contrary to what was done under Trudeau and
Pearson. Everything they did was destroyed in two years. He
opposed the measures with good reason.
I am not of those who encourage parliamentary dissent, but in
view of the reasons given by the hon. member, I think that it is
worth mentioning.
Unemployment insurance cuts are being made in three ways:
by extending the eligibility period, by shortening the benefit
period, and by reducing the benefit rate. More and more
unemployed can no longer claim UI benefits and are forced on to
the welfare rolls.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to mention a particular case in my
riding, which reflects the unemployment situation and which we
have not heard from in quite a while. I am referring to the MIL
Davie shipyard. Two years ago, 3,000 people were working at
that shipyard which, like Saint John Shipbuilding, used to build
frigates, military vessels. However, the number of orders has
dropped since the end of the cold war.
As you know, during the election campaign, the government
now in office promised ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. Yet, the figures show
that there are no more jobs now than before. Moreover, a large
number of existing jobs are not secure. Young people and
women seeking to rejoin the labour force are the two groups
most affected by this situation.
(1925)
What happened to the shipyard? Nothing. The federal
government indirectly gave $30 million to the Magdalen Islands
shipping company for a used vessel. The Quebec government
decided to do something and have a new vessel built, so as to
create a number of jobs.
However, it is terrible to see 3,000 people in a riding like mine
suddenly lose their jobs. Yet, since the local Canada manpower
centre, along with Quebec, set up a reclassification committee,
the unemployment data for the Quebec City region were not
overly affected. There was a 0.4 per cent increase over a one
year period. So the unemployment rate went from 12.4 per cent,
in 1994, to 12.8 per cent this year.
MIL Davie workers were affected by the UI cuts. In Quebec,
and that includes the Quebec City region, an additional 31,000
people are on the welfare rolls because of the cuts to the UI
program.
I know that some questions will follow. This will give me an
opportunity to conclude.
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite
mentioned that two fellow members of the human resources
development standing committee are in the House. This reminds
me of last November or December when our committee held
hearings in 27 cities. I mention 27 cities to my hon. friend
because some of us visited different cities. We held hearings in
27 cities in 35 days in 10 provinces and 2 territories, including
13411
the eastern Arctic. If anyone thought that was a complete
holiday I would ask them to try to do the same thing.
My hon. colleague reminded me of the evenings. I especially
remember one evening that involved a 45-minute trip from the
airport in Sudbury to the hotel. It was cold and snowing but we
had the most beautiful Christmas carols with a bilingual
rendition supplied by the hon. member and the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister who is here now beside me. This
bilingual rendition of ``Silent Night'' should have been cut on a
CD. I am sure our sales would have been very high.
We got along very well most of the time. The hon. member
tells us that HRD is closing down employment centres across the
country and there will be less points from which people can get
services. I wonder if the hon. member has been listening to the
minister who is always so prompt and efficient in telling about
the future.
There will be more centres for information, more access
points in Canada than ever before. Kiosks will be set up.
Canadians will get better service than they have ever had before.
The hon. member mentioned the government is cutting back
on bureaucrats and on civil servants. Does the hon. member not
have confidence in the dedicated civil servants who will do a
great job to take up the challenge to provide the best services
possible to all Canadians?
The hon. member might realize that during those hearings in
Quebec, as in all parts of Canada, there was one thing the people
asked of us. They wanted hope and to see a light for the future.
They wanted jobs and a chance to get back into mainstream
Canada. They wanted their self-esteem to be improved. They
wanted opportunities.
I recognize my colleague as having a lot of talent, but would
the hon. gentleman focus on getting our fellow Canadians back
to work rather than trying to tear the country apart?
(1930 )
With the talents that are sitting here opposite us, what a
difference we could make if we did not spend hours and days and
months trying to destroy what our forefathers have put together.
I dare say that if you go out on the streets of your home town
or I do in my home town, our citizens have nothing against each
other. They would like to live in peace and harmony and be able
to feel that we are part of this one great country.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who is a fellow
member of the Committee on human resources development, is
right to recall something that happened at Christmas time.
Members of different parties sang together. This shows, on our
part at any rate, that our intention is not to fight against
individuals, against other Canadians, because we do not dislike
them, we do like them, even though some are even more likable
than others. We like them a lot and we feel that some of them do
like us too.
That is not the problem. The problem is with the system, a two
tier system, a federal system that might be suitable for the rest of
Canada, but not for Quebecers. Even though you do like us, even
though we keep repeating the same things to you, you do not
understand how important it is for us to manage the areas of
provincial jurisdiction mentioned in the constitution, like
education. Yet everything was spelled out in this contract
concluded in 1867 between the two founding peoples which had
agreed upon that.
You know very well that since World War II, the federal
government, through its spending power, has been interfering in
areas of provincial jurisdiction, and Quebec resents that. Yes,
we are a different people, even though we do like you. This is not
about fighting each other. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has
stressed the need to maintain an economic union with the rest of
Canada, and to propose such a union.
As for the management of public finances, and our taxes, as
for what we feel is important to us like education and job
training, we would like to manage that by ourselves. We are
telling you again. You do like us, but you do not understand. If
the minister or his predecessors understood or cared to give the
impression they understand, the problem would easily be
solved. The government could take the funds earmarked for
occupational training, give tax points to Quebec, and set
national standards for the rest of Canada.
We are not trying to paralyse the rest of Canada. We simply
want to use the powers that were granted to us in 1867. Those are
Quebec's historical demands.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is well aware of
that, since he is from Quebec. All Quebec governments,
including the Liberal government of which his brother was a
member, demanded that tax points for occupational training be
handed over. He should understand. He knows what this is all
about. But there is the party line. The party line held fast despite
all the demonstrations witnessed by my two honourable
colleagues who sat on the human resources development
committee. Yesterday, they voted with the government on Bill
C-76 implementing the budget, despite all they had seen and
heard, like tables being overturned in Montreal, and
demonstrations in Vancouver.
I went to 23 of the 27 cities you mentioned, and you know
perfectly well that there were demonstrations in all of them.
People do not want cuts in social programs. They say our deficit
and our debt are not due to social programs, and that the roots of
the problem are to be found elsewhere, particularly in our tax
system.
13412
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate, I
remind the hon. members that they should always address the
Chair.
[English]
I remind colleagues on both sides of the House to make all
your interventions through the Chair and not directly to one
another. Maybe not today, but in another debate on another day it
could be very useful that we follow the best parliamentary
traditions of this House.
(1935 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to speak in support of full supply for the 1995-96
main estimates.
In the preparation of these main estimates, the government
made not only the tough spending and program choices
necessary to meet its fiscal targets; equally important, it has
taken steps to ensure that control over spending becomes a
permanent feature in the management of the government's
programs.
As announced by the President of the Treasury Board on
February 15, 1995, a new expenditure management system,
EMS, is being implemented. This represents the most
significant overhaul of the government's expenditure system
since the early 1980s.
EMS is a system designed to ensure that we keep spending
under control and provide the best programs and services
possible within the resources available. Among its key features,
EMS emphasizes the ongoing review of programs and managing
through reallocations. This is significant because new
initiatives as well as most cost increases in existing programs
will be financed through reallocation from lower priority
programs.
The central policy reserves, which were traditionally a source
of funds for new initiatives and did not encourage the ongoing
review of existing programs, are being eliminated. A
contingency reserve will continue to cover the risk of statutory
expenditures exceeding their projections. It would be used, for
example, to respond to changing economic conditions. In
addition, the Treasury Board will continue to manage a small
operating reserve. However, the role of the reserve will be
altered from funder to banker. Departments borrowing from the
operating reserve will have to repay advances with interest in
future years.
In addition, in cases where reallocation is not feasible
priorities for access to the operating reserve have been
established. In considering requests priority will be given to
funding bridge financing projects that offer significant
productivity payback, meeting urgent health and safety
requirements and protecting the essential integrity of critical
programs and the capital asset base.
To ensure that we stay on track and reduce the deficit and meet
our fiscal targets program planning will become more closely
integrated with the budget planning process. Decisions on new
initiatives and major spending reallocations required to finance
these new initiatives will generally occur during the annual
preparation of the budget.
The establishment of program review and resource allocation
as an integral part of the budget process means that the
opportunities to propose new spending will be reduced.
Ministers are called upon to manage within the resource limits
of their respective portfolios.
The government recognizes that funding through reallocation
of resources calls for a more strategic approach to resource
management at all levels. For this reason, the EMS requires the
preparation of departmental business plans. In these business
plans, departments are responsible for determining how existing
programs must be changed to meet expenditure targets and new
government priorities.
The multi-year time frame of business plans will encourage
departments to look ahead and examine the major directions and
objectives that should be pursued for the planning period, which
is the estimates year plus two future years at a minimum.
A major focus of the business plan is the identification of
strategies to bring about the major changes and adjustments that
are needed. Other elements include the goals, targets, and
performance measures that will be used to assess program
results and performance information concerning areas affected
by the significant changes.
In addition, it is important to note that the business plans take
an integrated approach to the management of change by
examining all functions that are central to the department in
making business adjustments, whether they be financial,
human, technological, or capital. Business plans will help
departments and central agencies plan in an organized and
methodical way to make the adjustments required to get
government right during a time of rapid reductions in resources.
Furthermore, these plans will enhance the information available
to Treasury Board ministers. Decisions on Treasury Board
submissions will be made in the context of strategic perspective
and clear business direction for each department and agency.
Members of the House of Commons will also be able to
review the overall thrust of departmental programs over a
multi-year period. In February 1994 the government introduced
changes to our Standing Orders of the House of Commons,
including Standing Order 81(7), which states:
When main estimates are referred to a standing committee, the committee
shall also be empowered to consider and report upon the expenditure plans and
priorities in future fiscal years of the departments and agencies whose main
estimates are before it.
13413
(1940)
To assist members of the standing committees in carrying out
their responsibility to consider and report on departmental
expenditure trends and priorities for future fiscal years,
ministers will provide the departmental outlook document
directly to the chairpersons of the respective standing
committees.
The departmental outlooks are based on the results of the
business planning process. They will describe management and
operational strategies departments intend to pursue over a
multi-year time frame in order to make whatever fiscal and
policy adjustments are necessary to deliver government
services.
I am confident that parliamentarians will have a better
perspective on the issues facing the government and the
downstream implications of government spending as a result of
the introduction of departmental outlook documents.
Departmental outlooks are one example of the government's
efforts to improve information available to all parliamentarians
on government programs.
The government is also striving to enhance the performance
information that is provided to Parliament. In recent years
departments and agencies have been developing service
standards in order to advise the clients of government programs
what level of service they can expect in terms of timeliness,
accessibility, reliability and responsiveness, and what action to
take if service does not meet these standards. All departments
and agencies will have developed standards for their primary
services by the end of 1995. The publication of departmental
performance in relation to these standards has already begun.
With the expenditure management system parliamentarians
have an opportunity to become fully engaged in expenditure
planning. Consultation with Parliament is in fact one of the
guiding principles of this approach. Parliamentarians will be
able to support ministers and their departmental officials in their
efforts to reallocate resources and meet our target of reducing
the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by 1996-97.
The government will be consulting us on important initiatives
designed to provide better information to Parliament while
enhancing the accountability and flexibility of departments in
managing their resources. In particular, I would draw your
attention to the reform of the estimates currently under
consideration. The introduction of departmental outlook
documents emphasizes the need to rationalize reporting to
Parliament. The current form and context of part III of the
estimates and the departmental expenditure plans were derived
from information needs defined by parliamentarians over a
decade ago. Parliamentarians should now take the time to
comment fully on how reporting to Parliament could be
improved. The question to consider is how does the government
ensure that the part IIIs meet the information requirement of
parliamentarians today without placing an undue reporting
burden on departments or agencies.
In addition to part IIIs, the reform of the estimates will focus
on a number of related issues where changes may be introduced
to create flexibilities and incentives for departments to manage
their resource requirements through reallocation. The option of
increasing the vote threshold for separate capital expenditures,
grants, and contribution votes is a good example of the changes
being considered in the context of the reform of the estimates.
The current threshold of $5 million was established in
consultation with the standing committee on public accounts
during the 1970 reform of the estimates. Over the past 25 years
the number of separate votes has increased, in part simply as a
result of inflation. To expand managers' flexibility to reallocate
resources we should consider increasing the threshold at least to
a level that would take into account the impact of inflation on
capital expenditures, grants, and contributions.
A related option being examined is the possibility of
establishing an operating budget vote. Minor capital
expenditures are considered to be part of the operating budget.
However, for departments and agencies with separate operating
and capital votes minor capital expenditures are included in the
capital votes. An operating budget vote would allow managers
to use the full flexibility of the operating budget to transfer
funds between minor capital, operating, and personnel
expenditures.
In summary, the new expenditure management system will
provide for ongoing review of programs and spending to reduce
expenditures and identify opportunities for reallocation to
higher priority programs. It includes parliamentary and public
input into the budgetary process. It introduces better strategic
planning and a process for adjustment programs and services
through the implementation of departmental business plans. It
also improves accountability through a focus on making better
performance information available to Parliament and the public.
(1945)
I remind members the overhaul of the expenditure
management system formalizes the approach the government
has taken to decision making on spending, namely financing,
through reallocation. It is a major step forward in fostering
greater fiscal responsibility and making the best use of
taxpayers' money in delivering high quality service to all
Canadians.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I enjoyed the talk from the hon. member about the new
expenditure management system. I think there are, at least
potentially, some innovative and good ideas from the
government. It remains to be seen how that will be played out in
the actual budgetary process. At least on paper there seems to be
13414
some hope and optimism for improvement of the budgetary
management system. For that we should all be grateful.
I am wondering if the member would comment on what we are
doing tonight, working late on the estimates. It seems to me one
other improvement to the system could be that instead of voting
on the whole sum of the estimates, to vote on a reduction in the
estimates. In other words, if we wanted to reduce the estimate by
a million dollars, we vote on the reduction rather than voting on
the whole block sum, which means we either have zero
expenditures or the entire sum the minister would like.
I wonder if he thinks the estimates procedure would have
more validity with the Canadian public by allowing some input
at the end of the process instead of only at the beginning of the
budgetary expenditure process he talked about. Does he think
that is a good idea?
Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for noting
that a number of ideas and proposals have been tabled by the
government with regard to the expenditure management system,
many of which I outlined in my comments.
We are working late. We expect the debate will carry on until
10 p.m. We have votes following that. I understand there are
some 63 votes.
The House through its co-operative approach to House
business has adopted a new approach to deal with the votes
members take here. The other evening we did manage to get
through some 19 votes in a very short time. That is the kind of
example that bodes well for the suggestion the member has
made that possibly the entire process of the estimates tabled by
the President of the Treasury Board could be streamlined so that
we could put some focus on those areas, particularly where
changes, adjustment or reductions are being proposed by hon.
members, and that the debate be focused on those items.
That is a productive approach and I encourage all members to
make that input in the House and directly to the President of the
Treasury Board. I am sure productive suggestions such as that
will get very careful consideration.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by the
hon. member who described briefly the management control
system the government is trying to set up.
Indeed, this is an issue that concerns all hon. members. As
elected representatives, we wonder how to regain control over
the bureaucracy, to get more leeway in our dealings with the
public servants and, especially, to be advised in a more timely
manner of the decisions that need to be made. How are we to
explain the difference between the commitments made by the
current government when it took office and the very few
achievements it has made since then and the results it got,
especially in terms of job creation, if not by pointing out the
influence of the federal bureaucrats?
(1950)
I would like to know if the hon. member would, in order to
show that the government is acting in good faith, be in favour of
implementing the new management system right away in two
specific instances, the first being the following. Some decisions
found in this year's budget will only come into effect in
1997-1998. For example, the experimental farm in La Pocatière
will be closed on or before March 31, 1997. Under these
circumstances, could it be possible to review this decision
during the new prebudget consultation process, so that if we
were to realize that the decision is wrong, we could try to
convince the government to reconsider?
To conclude, I would like to give you another example which
deals with the reorganization of the employment centres. As a
sign of good faith, could the government refer the reform
proposal prepared by its bureaucrats to the hon. members, so
that they could express their views on it before the decision
comes into effect?
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
comment. I think the important principle here is that when the
government considers changes to the way it operates, its
procedure and expenditure management system and many of the
decisions referred to by the member, it consults. It has consulted
extensively right across the country. The important phrase is to
get government right. It has to be done properly.
The direction of the government and the proposals it has put
forward will more fully implement the will of the House to get
government right.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to enter this debate on supply. The
theme of my dissertation will be how to improve the
accountability of government programs and make the systems
more efficient.
I have often wondered coming to the House how it was
possible that Canada created the debt it has today. I think it is
$550 billion and rising. I have often wondered who was
controlling the cheque books and why it was so easy for the debt
to accumulate, seemingly without the knowledge of a lot of the
people in control.
Did people actually ask for all the services they received, or
for some reason did the system actually give them services they
did not request?
No one seems to have taken responsibility for our spending
behaviour in the past. The government is now doing that, taking
13415
control of expenditures and trying to find ways to effectively
reduce them.
Has the Treasury Board in the past acted as a comptroller?
Time and again in investigating the role of the Treasury Board I
have discovered it often delegates authority to individual
departments. Invariably departments seem to control their own
expenditures. Individual departments historically have
overspent. In the private sector if that were the case we would
expect job losses and all kinds of negative connotations.
Overspending in the past seems to have been a merit system. As
the department spent more money it became larger and larger.
Studying the estimates is very difficult. I know members have
a great deal of difficulty going through individual estimates to
get a handle on how government spends. I am looking at the
estimates and I see three lines. One is the 1995-96 estimates,
one comparison column is the 1994-95 forecast, one is a
1993-94 actual. None of these three columns is a place in time.
None compares estimated to actual expenditures. It must be very
difficult for members of Parliament and others reading these
documents to make any sense of where expenditures are
occurring and where we have overshot our original estimates.
(1955)
How can we make government accounting more
understandable? I know we are moving slowly to set up an
accrual system within government and to record assets. What do
I mean by that? Currently the accounts of Canada are kept on a
cash basis. We only record things when we actually pay for them
and we only record revenue when we actually receive it.
I am not trying to demean farmers but they have been keeping
their records on this matter for the last 100 years. It seems the
business of government is big business and we need a better
methodology of capturing what governments are doing. A more
understandable methodology would be instead of focusing on
the expenditure system we now have, we possibly think about
revising it. What do I mean by that?
We should look at two aspects of expenditures, investments
and consumption; in other words, governments spend and what
do they spend on. They spend in forms of investment, which is
education, training, anything that upgrades the skills of the
country.
The other expenditure is finance consumption. We look at
programs like the Canada pension plan, unemployment
insurance, transfer payments in support of social services.
These are all programs in essence that finance consumption.
If we could look at government accounts from a more focused
point of view and ask ourselves whether it an expenditure for
investment or an expenditure for consumption, we would have a
better concept of how governments spend and more effectively
how governments can spend so they are actually putting some
good back into the economy. For instance, do we want to spend
money on training or do we want to spend money on
unemployment insurance? Clearly our focus should be to
upgrade skills, possibly focusing on high school students who
have dropped out of the educational system and upgrading their
skills so they can get back in the workforce.
If we undertook an accounting system a little more focused it
would give us a better idea of how governments spend and why.
Clearly we have to reduce total expenditure but while we are
reducing total expenditure we should also consider a shift from
the consumption side of government to the investment side.
Today I was pleased to introduce a private members' bill.
Since it deals almost exclusively with this very area, certainly a
coincidence, I cannot help but resist in speaking a little about
what that private members' bill would do to increase the
accountability of government programs.
The bill basically requires all new programs entered into by
the government, individual departments presenting programs to
the House, prior to their being presented, be properly costed.
Properly costed means they also have a certification by the
auditor general that the methods of projecting costs were
appropriate. This goes back to some of my original comments.
How did we get into the problem of overspending in the first
place? It seems we have fallen into a lull where we bring in
programs that sound good, somebody says they cost a certain
amount but nobody really knows because they have not taken the
time to do that properly, and two or three years later when the
bills start coming in we discover the thing is way out of hand.
(2000 )
The bill would also take these programs and cost them on a per
capita basis. In other words, each individual in the country
would know that he or she is paying x number of dollars as a
share of this program. That may give individuals in the public
domain a better perspective of what they are paying for these
programs.
People feel very removed from the estimates and other
aspects of government financing. They feel it is not their money.
Many people believe in magic, that somehow things happen
magically either in Ottawa or the provincial capitals, that
somehow the money coming back to them is not really theirs but
the next door neighbour's or someone else's. If there was a
proper accounting system that costed programs on a per capita
basis, people would take more of an interest in the kinds of
programs governments are announcing.
13416
Other aspects of government must be encouraged to create
competition. Competition can be created within government,
within departments and also between governments and the
private sector. Competition will also breed efficiency.
In addition, a very important aspect of spending in the federal
domain will be to affix responsibility. In other words, line
managers should be responsible for their expenditures. We
should also consider remuneration partially based on successful
management of programs.
I had a very interesting tour of a Darlington nuclear reactor
which is in my riding. I was very surprised at what Ontario
Hydro of all places has done. It has actually made individual
managers responsible for the number of kilowatt hours produced
in that plant. If the managers are under they lose part of their
bonus. This marks the way we should be dealing with our
expenditure programs as well.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the hon.
member started his intervention he said he was reflecting on
how Canada got to be in the debt situation it finds itself in today.
He was somewhat perplexed. He was wondering who had
control of the cheque book.
I am a little amazed this member would think the Reform
Party would be so naive that we did not know who had control of
the cheque book. Does the hon. member recognize the names of
MacEachen, Turner and Chrétien who all had control of the
cheque book in the seventies and the eighties while this debt was
being racked up?
I find it amazing that Liberal members in the House will ask
how did Canada get into the situation that it is in today and will
start pointing fingers at the Tories and others and not be willing
to shoulder the blame themselves, because the blame falls
squarely on their shoulders.
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments. It is unfortunate we have to take a serious matter
such as government financing where we are all trying to find
solutions to Canada's debt problems and turn it into a political
charade.
The reality is all western countries: the United States, the
United Kingdom, all OECD countries, during this same period
of time ran significant deficits. It is not a unique Canadian
problem. It is not related particularly to the Liberal Party, the
Tories or anybody else. It was a symptom that occurred in North
America and Europe, in fact, in most western countries.
I am trying to find out why it happened so it is not repeated.
That is enough of an acknowledgement. The reality is we cannot
talk about the past forever. We have to get on with the future,
which is what the government is trying to do. It has a very good
plan and it should be supported.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question. It is
absolutely amazing that the hon. member does not understand
how it happened. It is really very simple how it happened. If the
government spends more than it takes in it will end up in a
deficit situation. If the government keeps doing that every year,
time and time again, the answer is that the debt gets larger and
larger.
(2005)
The member then makes the comment that perhaps since all
the other nations are in that situation Canada would be in that
situation too. This reminds me a little bit of a farmer who says:
``Just because my neighbour drove his tractor into the ditch I
should too''. That does not make any kind of sense at all.
I suggest to the hon. member that the way this happened was
that governments spent more than they took in. When are we
going to be independent and responsible to the taxpayers?
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. I do not think he can give me any lessons in
mathematics on things I already know and that is obviously that
deficits occur by the very fact that more money is spent than is
brought in.
The essence of the member's question is that he does not seem
to have been sitting in this place for too long or maybe he has
been away. The reality is that there are significant reductions in
government expenditures. The Western Grain Transportation
Act will affect his constituents. The Atlantic freight subsidies
have been eliminated. There have been substantial changes in
attitude toward privatization. Canadian National railway is
being privatized. Numbers in the civil service are being reduced.
Therefore, the reality is that expenditure reductions are
occurring.
The government is taking a balanced approach to this. I do not
think it can cut to the point where it would actually push the
country back into a recession. The growth rate in the economy
right now is somewhere between 3 per cent and 4 per cent which
increases government revenues. Therefore, it is a balanced
approach between expenditure reductions and, at the same time,
attempting to get the economy to grow.
The Reform Party would take a slash and burn approach so
that the 3 per cent figure would turn into a recession and
everybody in the country would be back on the unemployment
lines.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
make a couple of points.
First, I would like to try to distance his comments from the
Prime Minister who was finance minister as these deficits
started increasing dramatically. If the member would at least
acknowledge that an error was made at the time and that the
13417
government was going to try to correct the error, he would be
moving in the right direction.
The second point is that to make a statement that the
government has lowered its spending is totally out of line.
Spending in this budget, by the government's own figures, has
increased by about $1.5 billion. Therefore, let him be accurate
about the budget. I would think this member would know this.
Mr. Shepherd: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party
has a lot of difficulty with mathematics.
Essentially the expenditure increases are increasing at a
decreasing rate. This is the first time that has happened. The last
two budgets that the government has been involved in it has
actually met its targets. It is the first time that I can remember in
my lifetime when not only did it meet its budget targets but
actually exceeded them by $4 billion. This is a success story, not
a failure.
Reform members want to go back and study history. I think
this is what is wrong with them, they are not forward looking.
They do not understand how we are to solve these problems
because they keep looking back in the past.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with
my colleague from Skeena.
It is clear to everyone but the Liberal government that its 30
years of social engineering experiments have failed and failed
miserably. The main reason why social programs have become
unaffordable and unsustainable is because they create greater
and greater dependency on social programs. No matter how
these programs are designed, the end result would always be the
same. More and more people would use the system and
eventually it becomes unsustainable. The government can no
longer afford to pay the huge sums of money needed to satisfy
everyone's so-called needs. This is why half of the people on
welfare today are described as employable. That is why the
unemployment insurance program actually creates
unemployment.
(2010)
I will give an example of some of the things that the auditor
general has said in his 1994 report. He said: ``Rising social
program use and high repeated use suggests that social programs
may be creating long term dependency among some users''.
Here is something else the auditor general said: ``Disincentives
to work are created when benefits from social programs
compare favourably to earnings from jobs''. He also said:
``Employers and employees may be using unemployment
insurance to support short term layoff strategies''. ``Interactions
among social programs may result in programs working at cross
purposes to each other''. Finally, the auditor general said:
``Unemployment insurance may be a factor in Canada's rising
level of unemployment and in the lower level of outputs that
result''.
Today we are debating a motion which will authorize the
government through the Department of Human Resources
Development to spend over $1.3 billion. The same lack of
thinking that the auditor general reported last year is evident
today.
The government is proposing to spend $55.3 million on grants
to improve employability and promote employment
opportunities. It can provide no proof that the money it has spent
on such grants in the past has improved employability and yet it
continues with this program. It can provide no proof that the
millions and millions of dollars have actually resulted in
promoting employment opportunities and actually have resulted
in real jobs.
If this motion passes, the government will spend over $1
billion on grants to the sectoral training fund and on payments to
facilitate the efficient functioning of the labour market,
whatever that is. Study after study shows that make work
projects do not create jobs. Study after study shows the
government's training programs fail to train people for real jobs
that are needed by the private sector.
The government cannot predict where the job vacancies will
be next year, let alone five or ten years from now. When will it
realize it should leave the hard earned tax dollars in the
taxpayers' pockets and let individuals pay for the training they
think they need? When will it realize it should leave the hard
earned tax dollars in the hands of employers so they can run their
own on the job training programs which are far more effective
than any other type of training?
The government wants to force people into institutions to take
training for jobs that are downright scarce or non-existent. It
pays for training and employment programs because it supports
the status quo. These programs actually support a huge
bureaucracy that could not survive if it were judged on
effectiveness and results. These programs support government
handouts to special interest groups that are also more interested
in the survival of their own organizations than they are about the
workers they purport to represent.
The vote on this $1.3 billion of taxpayers' hard earned money
is an admission of failure by the government. It is an admission
that it is committed to repeating the failed policies of the past 30
years. It is an admission that it has no new ideas about how to get
people back to work.
The government knows the only way to create real jobs is to
reduce spending, balance the budget, reduce taxes. Reducing
taxes creates real jobs. Government programs like these create
more government spending, which creates more debt, which
13418
creates higher interest payments, which creates higher taxes
which kills jobs.
While we were having this last exchange a few minutes ago
one of my colleagues went out to get a book to actually show the
members opposite what the budget is all about. They do not
believe that when the government says it is making all these
difficult cuts it is actually increasing spending. They do not
understand by their own numbers that they are not doing what
they claim they are doing.
(2015)
Higher taxes kill jobs. George Orwell's doublespeak is alive
and well in the Liberal government. They tax the people and
employers, which kills jobs, and then spend the money on
programs that they say will create jobs. More jobs could actually
have been created by simply not taxing the workers and the
employers in the first place.
When will the government learn? How many more billions
will we have to waste? How long will it take for the Canadian
people to realize the Liberals and Conservatives are the same?
Those who came before them and those who are here presently
have been running a shell game, which benefits mainly the
bureaucrats and the politicians.
Even if these programs did work, and they do not, training and
employment programs are areas of provincial jurisdiction under
the Canadian Constitution. It is not the job of the federal
government to even be involved in that.
The federal government is proposing to spend $1,329,481,000
in an area that is the sole jurisdiction of the provincial
government. If I were the premier of a province I would be
demanding that the government quit taxing my people by the
amount they are spending in my province and get off my turf.
If government members wanted to understand how to prepare
a budget they should look at the Reform's taxpayers budget. It
started with basic principles. The first principle is that we will
get the federal government out of areas where they are intruding
into provincial jurisdictions.
Mr. McCormick: How come you spent all the infrastructure
money?
Some hon. members: What would you do?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Members opposite are
shouting all kinds of comments, asking ``What would you do?''
We have clearly demonstrated that. We have laid down
principles. When there are principles then you build the budget
on that.
We said we would eliminate 100 per cent of the grants to
business. The taxpayers' budget said we would eliminate 100
per cent of grants to special interest groups. We made that
absolutely clear. Is the government listening? No. It caters to all
these special interest groups and it keeps funding them.
We do not have enough information in the estimates to know
how many of the grants and handouts are going to businesses and
special interest groups. If we did I think we could cut millions
from this motion alone if they would only come clean and give
us that information.
Reform also said that for all the training programs and
make-work projects where the federal government is intruding
into areas of provincial jurisdiction Reform would gradually
return the responsibility to the provinces. Under a Reform
government this process would be completed over five years to
allow for a smooth transition. We proposed an immediate 24 per
cent cut in this fiscal year.
Now the government will claim that Reform's principled
approach is somehow hard hearted. I maintain it is both hard
hearted and soft headed to keep spending money on programs
that do not work. It is both hard hearted and soft headed to spend
tax dollars that would produce a worse job creation record than
if they had just lowered taxes.
The government will cry that thousands of people helped by
the Atlantic groundfish strategy will have no alternative but to
go on welfare. I have two things to say to that in response to
these soft headed views. First, what is so bad about welfare in a
crisis? The federal government already pays 50 per cent of the
cost of the program, and if the provincial governments want to
direct their welfare money into workfare and training programs,
as the federal government has done, that should be their choice.
It should not be decided by a bunch of bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Second, the federal government created the fisheries crisis by
mismanaging the fishery. Then the federal government
responded by creating a $164 million make work program for
the federal bureaucrats. A better federal response to the crisis in
the fishery would be to provide emergency funding to the
provinces to top up what they get through the Canada assistance
plan or equalization payments. Then the provinces could spend
the money in accordance with the wishes of the communities
and the people hardest hit by the crisis. That money should be
distributed and should be used by those who understand the
situation best, not by a bunch of bureaucrats back in Ottawa.
(2020)
Is this too simple a solution? This government likes to play
politics and create these grand programs that make it appear like
it is doing something, but the simple solutions it seems to avoid.
I am sure it will be a long time before any common sense
13419
approach like this is ever advanced by the Liberal government,
its power hungry politicians and money hungry bureaucrats.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the
remarks made by the hon. member.
I remind the member we have members of Parliament from
every region of the country. I believe our members of
Parliament, especially the minister responsible for fisheries and
oceans, who also comes from Atlantic Canada, are well
equipped to give advice to the House on the types of programs
that would assist their constituents when they are going through
this very difficult period.
One of the things the Reform Party has to face is that it does
not have any members in Atlantic Canada. Because the Reform
Party does not have any members in Atlantic Canada it would
like to let the local and provincial authorities do it. However, as
the national party, the Liberal Party has members who are
sensitive to every region of this country.
The point that caused me to rise this evening had to do with
the whole issue of tax reform. I came to Parliament full of hope
that the Reform Party would have a very tight focus on the whole
issue of comprehensive tax reform. What do we hear day in and
day out in question period? During the last couple of weeks I
have had the opportunity to look at question period, and I notice
that the Reform Party has not focused on the issue of tax reform.
I think maybe once the member from Calgary gave a pretty good
speech on it. Here is an issue that could affect the lives of every
Canadian. It was the Reform Party's issue during the last
election, but its members came to this House and deserted it.
The hon. member said we should cancel grants to business.
The biggest grants to business in this country are the billions of
dollars that are buried in the tax act, many of which go to foreign
multinational oil companies in the form of tax credits. Will he
stand up in the House and say that all of those tax credits, tax
grants, and tax preferences should be cancelled?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I will
make comments on the various areas the hon. member
mentioned.
If the principle I was espousing, that the people in the local
areas best understand the situation and can best manage the
funds and the fishery, were instituted we probably would not be
in this mess today. I still maintain that one of the biggest
problems with all the programs the government runs is that the
bureaucracy in Ottawa is out of touch with the people in the local
areas and cannot administer these programs properly.
Then the hon. member went on to blame Reform for the
inaction of the government because we have not touched on this
area or on that area. I find it inexcusable that the government
would use that excuse to explain why it is not acting on tax
reform.
We have clearly said that we need to balance the budget and
we need to do it as soon as possible. If we were to balance that
budget within the next three years we could begin to see the light
at the end of the tunnel. We seem to think we have to provide
these incentives for businesses to come from other countries and
invest in Canada. Why? Because we overtax in the first place.
(2025)
If we would get our act in order and begin to reduce
government spending to the point where we could reduce taxes,
this question that he has posed would be redundant. We would
not even have to consider it. That is the problem.
We have been overtaxed to the point where we are driving
businesses out of Canada. Now we try to compensate by giving
them grants and tax concessions.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to
the estimates this evening I use the example of the Department
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in my remarks.
As I said in my earlier intervention, federal spending in this
department has increased 750 per cent over the last 20 years. In
the past year alone, spending in this department has increased
8.5 per cent, which is faster than the rate of increase in
population and the rate of inflation combined.
What are we getting for all this spending? What are the
results? The auditor general expressed serious concerns about
spending in this area. He pointed out that the results are not
there. He pointed out that when $1 billion was appropriated and
earmarked for CAEDS, which is a native economic development
program, over the period of time that money was expended the
demand for social services and the rate of unemployment on
native reserves continued to rise at a steady rate. This massive
spending on economic development had absolutely no impact on
the problems that existed on the reserves.
What does the government do? It pays absolutely no attention
to what the auditor general says. It pays absolutely no attention
to the hard and tough questions we ask of why we are spending
this money, what are the results this expenditure is supposed to
achieve, and what it is achieving. The government continues
blissfully on expending the money because it feels it has to. It is
motherhood to them. Them cannot possibly see any other way
than to continue, because this is the way things have been done
in the past.
The other major problem the auditor general pointed out was
accountability. I have had occasion over the last 18 months to
travel to a number of native Indian reserves in Canada. I have
had occasion to hear from a large number of ordinary grassroots
13420
Indian people who are very concerned about the accountability
on their reserves, who are very concerned about the fact there is
a small elite group of people in their communities who are
receiving a tremendous amount of largesse from the federal
government and most of the people are ignored. Most of the
people are not receiving any benefits to speak of. Most of the
people are living in destitute conditions.
Obviously there is a very serious problem with accountability.
I personally as a member of Parliament keep bringing this up
and asking the minister to investigate claims, to go to these
communities and find out what is actually happening. The
response I get is this is an internal matter for the band to deal
with and we will not get involved.
Massive amounts of Canadian taxpayers' money are being
sent to reserves, to the control of an elite group of Indian leaders
with no accountability to their people and no accountability in
effect back to the federal government. Is that the way we want to
see our tax dollars spent in this country? Is that the way we want
to see our society in Canada in 1995? I submit that this
constitutes a massive fraud on the Canadian people and a
massive fraud particularly on the poor people in these reserve
communities, who actually believe that they are supposed to
benefit from this expenditure and they actually do not.
We have built a welfare state in this country. I think everyone
or most thinking people have come to realize that. Over the last
30 years we have constructed a massive welfare state and we
have all the resulting problems that go along with that.
(2030)
There are the increased crime stats. There is the increase in
poverty and the increased lack of individual initiative. The more
dependency on government, the more people are willing to look
at government instead of looking at themselves as the ones who
are responsible for themselves.
Nowhere is this more true than in the native communities in
Canada. If we think we have a welfare state in Canada, take a
look at Canada's Indian reserves and see the welfare state that
has been created there. It is many times worse than what we have
in the rest of Canada.
I submit that what the government is doing with these
expenditures is perpetrating that. It is perpetrating a fraud on the
Canadian taxpayers. It is perpetrating great and serious harm to
the people the Canadian taxpayers feel they are actually helping.
The net result is that we are going to end up with a greater debt.
At some point we are going to become insolvent. At the same
time we have created a tremendous amount of harm in these
communities.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this debate on full supply
of the estimates is an appropriate time to examine how well this
government is increasing the cost effectiveness of its spending. I
take this opportunity to explain some of the initiatives we are
taking to make government services more affordable while at
the same time maintaining or improving the quality of those
services.
The government undertook the program review to identify
those programs and services which in this environment of fiscal
restraint are no longer needed or that the federal government no
longer needs to deliver directly. The results of this review were
outlined in the budget. The government has indicated the areas
in which it is reducing its role or where other levels of
government, the private sector or partnership arrangements can
provide services more efficiently.
With respect to the programs that are truly needed and which
the federal government will continue to provide, Canadians
want this government to maintain the quality of its services and
to deliver them in the most cost effective and responsive way
possible. Affordable and quality service delivery will be
watchwords of this government. For programs and services that
remain its responsibility, the federal government is committed
to ensuring that its clients receive quality affordable services
that are accessible, responsive and balance the interests of
taxpayers and those receiving the service.
With ongoing expenditure restraint, a key challenge will be to
find new cost effective ways to design and deliver quality
programs and services and wherever possible, to continue to
make significant service and efficiency improvements in the
delivery systems.
Across the government, departments and agencies are
responding to this priority with innovative approaches to
delivering programs such as the use of information technology,
partnering with clients and other organizations and streamlining
their operations. I describe for the House a number of initiatives
that are now under way and which aim to achieve a public
service that consistently provides affordable and quality
services.
The government has developed a number of general strategies
for achieving this goal: adopting more efficient ways to deliver
programs; focusing on service standards and quality; providing
client oriented delivery; cutting regulatory red tape; promoting
fairness through cost recovery; enhancing efficient resource
management; and using technology.
Following a commitment in the 1994 budget, the President of
the Treasury Board released a draft declaration of quality
services to federal employees in December 1994. This document
identifies the following principles that all federal employees are
expected to adopt in delivering quality services.
13421
Services are to be accessible, dependable and timely. Timely
access to the right service can be improved for example by
making services increasingly available at times and in ways that
are more convenient to the public. Services are to be delivered
clearly and in an open manner. Communicate in plain language
with clients about how services are managed and delivered. As
regulations and decisions become more complex, make them
more easily understood.
(2035 )
Services are to be delivered fairly and respectfully. Canadians
expect to be treated in a fair and courteous manner when they
use our government services. Services are to be good value for
tax dollars, basing decisions on affordability, sound principles
and good judgment to demonstrate the value of service to the
Canadian public. Services are to be responsive and those
delivering them committed to an improvement.
Ongoing consultation, asking clients what they think about
the programs and services and how they can be improved is the
cornerstone of quality service. After consulting employees and
the public, the government will release the declaration to
Canadians later this year.
Canada business service centres, CBSCs, provide one access
point for information, assistance and referrals on all
government programs and services to business. With the recent
opening of a CBSC in Toronto there is now a network of 10
centres, one in a major urban centre of every province. In most
cases these are funded jointly and operated with a province, or a
province and the private sector. Clients have access to services
by telephone, fax and in person.
As part of its action plan ``Agenda: Jobs and Growth:
Building a More Innovative Economy'', the federal government
has increased its support for this initiative to $15 million
annually for four years. It is expanding services to meet the
information needs of business clients by improving access
through co-operative arrangements with community based
organizations such as the economic development commissions
and chambers of commerce, increasing the availability of direct
computer access to the information from home or office, and
continuing to improve information particularly on regulatory
matters of interest to business.
Several departments continue to make services available to
the public through common government access points at over
300 infocentres across Canada.
Businesses will be able to use a single business registration
number which is being phased in during 1995 to gain access to
several Revenue Canada business programs including those
relating to payroll deductions, corporate income tax, the GST,
customs duties and excise taxes. This single business
registration number which will allow the department and
businesses to have access to a variety of programs and services
replaces at least six separate identifiers currently in use.
As indicated in ``Building a More Innovative Economy'' the
government will have reduced significantly within three years
the amount of time that small and medium size enterprises spend
on federal government operations and federal government
information requests in order to help stimulate job creation and
a healthy, vigorous economic climate for small business.
A joint public-private sector forum of major information
collecting departments and representatives from small and
medium size businesses and business associations will be the
focal point for ongoing consultations on government initiatives
to challenge the need for the information the government
currently requires from small and medium size businesses,
develop means to eliminate duplication between departments
and governments in data collection, and to find ways to collect
the remaining information electronically to the fullest extent
possible.
It should be clear to all Canadians that the program review has
resulted in significant decisions on a broad range of federal
government programs and services. These decisions will enable
the government to serve Canadians better with renewed purpose.
The initiatives and successes I have outlined today show that
the government and public service employees are dedicated to
achieving affordable quality services using the most efficient
means available.
The people in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington have endorsed the 1995 federal budget. Major
Canadian and international corporations have expressed their
confidence in our government, our country and in the greatest
asset in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, the confidence in our people. The workforce in my
riding deserves the recognition it has received. I wish to take a
moment to describe the confidence placed in my constituents.
Celanese Canada has won a $191 million expansion to its
polymers facility in Ernestown township. This happened in the
last three weeks. Competition for this contract came from the
Carolinas and from Mexico. The manager announced that this
international company was very impressed with the talents and
dedication of our workforce. Three hundred or four hundred
construction jobs will be created.
(2040)
DESTEC Energy has started construction on its new 100
megawatt co-generation plant. This $180 million project will
employ 150 to 200 people during construction.
13422
Across the road from those two projects, Bombardier,
formerly UTDC, has received a $595 million order for a light
transit system for Malaysia. Our Prime Minister gave us his
assistance in bringing home this contract from his Asian tour.
Four hundred people will be employed from now until 1998 with
this single order alone.
Nearby in my hometown of Napanee, Goodyear Canada is
undergoing an expansion in the world's most modern tire
manufacturing plant. Twenty-seven to thirty million dollars of
Goodyear's money is being invested in our community.
These large projects will result in hundreds of direct and
spinoff jobs in our communities. Between the companies
involved, almost $1 billion has been committed to
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington recently.
Confidence is the word to remember for
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington and for all of
Canada.
Allow me one more expression of confidence. One-third of
all the people in North America live within 550 miles of my
riding. It is a great place to make and serve your product. All
inquiries are welcome.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the
presentation by the member opposite.
I would like to know whether there is any long term goal on
the part of this federal government. We have been hearing from
this budgetary process that the goal is to reduce the deficit to 3
per cent of GDP. However, we have tried and have not been able
to elicit a response from the minister or the Prime Minister on
the question of where do we go past that.
In doing the mathematics, I think I used 3 per cent in my
projections of increase in productivity in the country. Hence
there is a 3 per cent annual increase in GDP, hence an increase of
3 per cent per year in the amount of the deficit which means that
perpetually we add to and increase the debt. We are adding up
the interest and as the interest adds to it, the principal value of
the debt increases. As a result, the interest payment in absolute
dollars is higher and higher every year. Using that model, by the
year 2011 our debt will have reached $1 trillion.
Does the member know or has heard any of his colleagues on
that side of the House indicate anything more concrete in terms
of a long term goal than this very fuzzy 3 per cent, for the time
being let us slow down how fast we go into debt, but after that let
it increase again?
Mr. McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly heard many
people voice their concerns. It is a real challenge to reduce our
deficit and our debt. As our finance minister has said, we are
doing it on short term targets.
Canadians are being able to live through this period of time. If
we were to follow the Reform Party budget, we certainly would
have blood in the streets. People will not stand there and see
their necks cut.
This week a newspaper editorial in a major Canadian daily
warned the voters in Ontario that if they buy Mike Harris they
will get the whole package. When our human resources
development standing committee was touring the western
Canada provinces, which I love so greatly, in November and
December, we had witnesses coming before us with tears in their
eyes, especially in Alberta, telling how the Reform type
government was making cuts on the backs of the working and
the poor people. I am proud to be a Liberal and be part of a
government that will cut the deficit and the debt and will do it
while allowing people to live.
(2045)
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for a very good speech,
one that relates to the Canadian public the difference between
the Liberal Party and the parties opposite.
Many of us on this side believe governments have a role to
play and that governments can have a positive impact on the
lives of individuals. We do not have to pull back to the point at
which everyone is left to their own devices to get back to the
lifestyles we had a number of years ago.
Can my colleague explain to us some of the positive aspects of
the Asian tour he mentioned relating to what the federal
government has done in relation to jobs in his riding? What did
the Asian tour do for the job creation initiative he talked about?
How much federal money is involved in the process of the Prime
Minister and the ministers of the provinces when they went as
Team Canada to sell our products to the rest of the world?
Mr. McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for
the question.
I will answer more than the question about the Asian tour. The
Asian tour was a great help for all of Canada. We have a foot in
the door and Canadians are working. I mentioned the $595
million order that Bombardier shared in our area.
The full order totalled $950 million. Bombardier is making
money around the world today and is willing to invest in
Canada. It is making rapid transit vehicles in Germany and I
believe on four continents today. For this very valuable contract
it has confidence in the people in our country.
Regarding the DESTEC Energy project I mentioned of $180
million, the money is coming from Texas and is being invested
in our country. Celanese is investing $191 million of its money
here because of its confidence in Canadians.
13423
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak about the government's main estimates for the
1995-96 budget year.
The main estimates are a reflection of the government's
spending priorities for its departments and programs as set out
in the budget. This year's estimates lay the details for the
government's planned budgetary expenditures totalling $164.2
billion.
The basic figures contained in these documents show overall
program spending has declined by 10.8 per cent, from $120.9
billion 1994-95 to $107.9 billion in 1996-97.
[Translation]
The positive side of these dramatic spending cuts is that the
government has managed for the first time in more than 20 years
not only to reach its deficit reduction objective but to exceed it
by $4.4 billion, without raising personal income taxes.
With its second budget, the government will be able to meet
the red book objective of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of
GDP by the end of 1996-97.
[English]
I will mention some of the concerns communicated to me by
my constituents prior to this year's budget and how the
government addressed these concerns.
The build up to this year's federal budget saw a variety of
letter writing campaigns opposing any new tax measures. I
recall a few campaigns opposing any increases in personal
income tax, any taxation of employer contributions to group
health plans and registered retirement savings plans.
(2050 )
As part of the government's prebudget consultation process I
wrote to the Minister of Finance requesting that group health
benefits and RRSPs not be taxed. I was very pleased the budget
contained no increase in personal income taxes and that no taxes
were levied on the programs I mentioned.
It is important to understand that a whole new approach to
governing was adopted in order to achieve the budgetary goals I
referred to earlier. The program review contained in the budget
redefines what government does and how its programs are
delivered.
[Translation]
We are in fact witnessing a redefinition of liberalism. This,
however, could make us forget important liberal principles such
as giving everyone equal opportunities. Many Canadians feel,
like me, that our social programs helped create a more just
society.
After what the previous government did to social security, it is
no wonder that many Canadians are concerned by any talk of
reviewing social policy and public pension plans.
I am nonetheless convinced that our government can and will
modernize the social safety net in order to make programs more
efficient and less costly and, more importantly, to preserve
access for all Canadians, whether rich or poor.
An important item in the estimates will guarantee the future
viability of our social programs. The Canada social transfer will
replace the current transfer payments to the provinces and
territories under the Canada assistance plan and the established
programs financing. Combined with the equalization payments
that will continue to increase, the Canada social transfer will
provide the provinces with more than $35 billion in 1996.
[English]
During the 1993 election campaign I repeatedly said what we
need are more people paying taxes, not people paying more
taxes. It has always been evident to me that the best way to
preserve our social programs and at the same time reduce our
fiscal deficit is by creating jobs. More people working means
more people paying taxes and less people drawing costly
benefits such as unemployment insurance. In other words, we
must continue with our job and growth agenda. We need a
balanced approach between spending cuts and job creation.
Fiscal restraint must not be an end in and of itself but a
facilitator in achieving the overriding goal of job creation.
The government did in many ways adopt this approach.
Consider that 433,000 new jobs were created in 1994, many as a
result of the national infrastructure program. The
unemployment rate is now at 9.4 per cent, the lowest in nearly
five years, productivity has surged and our trade surplus is at its
highest level ever.
[Translation]
It is important to increase the fairness of the tax system.
Again, I must congratulate the government on the progress made
in that regard through measures such as these: a 12.5 per cent
increase in the corporate tax rate; a 1 per cent increase in the
corporate surtax; a temporary tax on the capital of
deposit-taking institutions, including major chartered banks;
the elimination of tax advantages resulting from the rules
governing family trusts for the rich; and finally, the limitation
on the scientific research and experimental development tax
credit for large corporations.
These are major achievements, but much remains to be done.
There is still a lot to do to help the unemployed find work and we
must take a closer look at tax advantages that benefit a
privileged few.
[English]
Some would attack the less privileged in our society and
blame them for all our economic woes. This certainly seems to
be the case in the provincial election in Ontario. However,
politicians who take advantage of people's fears and anger over
the future viability of our economy are doing a great disservice
13424
to both the social and economic well-being of our country. This
approach is fundamentally dishonest and very destructive.
(2055)
Now that this year's budgetary process is coming to a close I
offer my suggestions for the upcoming 1996 prebudget
consultation.
There is much speculation in the media about the viability of
our public pension plan and the necessity to review this
program. I believe any review of the public pension scheme
should also include a review of RRSPs. A considerable amount
of money is invested in RRSPs. They have without a doubt
contributed to better retirement security for thousands of
Canadians.
However, the question of fairness has arisen with respect to
advantages wealthy Canadians receive from current
contribution limits. The last budget set limits of $13,500 for
1996-97. The limit will be increased by $1,000 a year to reach
$15,500 in 1999.
Revenue Canada statistics also inform us only 6 per cent of
individuals with income of less than $20,000 a year currently
take advantage of RRSPs. On the other hand, individuals making
$100,000 or more a year, who account for only 2 per cent of the
population, account for 20 per cent of the total RRSP
contributions.
In my opinion our current system of RRSPs acts as a
considerable tax shelter for the wealthy because of its high
contribution levels. For this reason I would not oppose a
reduction in the RRSP contribution limit. This would only affect
higher income Canadians because these limits are income
contingent. Taxing lottery winnings is also another revenue
generating avenue available to the government.
I urge the government to continuing applying fairness and
compassion in budgetary policies. We must continue to give
unemployed Canadians hope and encouragement, not blame
them or punish them for their lot.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member pointed out total spending by the government has gone
up and yet program spending has gone down, which means
Canadians are squeezed. We are delivering less program money
to Canadians while we are transferring more and more money to
the lenders. Transfer to lenders has become the biggest transfer
program the government has.
The member talked about maintaining the viability of our
social programs. I am concerned about the conundrum there. As
the government spends less and less money on social programs
surely that would destroy the viability of social programs. He
seems to be taking some credit in maintaining the viability of
social programs.
While the deficit continues and while we are continuing to
add to the debt, which means interest costs are continuing to go
up andtherefore program spending will continue to go down,
how does the member intend to maintain the viability of social
programs?
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. The question of maintaining social programs is very
crucial and of much concern to the government. That is what the
social program review initiated by the Minister of Human
Resources Development was designed to address.
The deficit is being addressed by reducing it to 3 per cent of
GDP. That is a minimum interim target. The finance minister
stated many times in the House and outside the House that it is
just that, a minimum interim target. The ultimate goal is to
eliminate the deficit and repay the debt, leaving more money
available to put into social programs.
Social programs are in need of review. They were designed
several decades ago and have not been brought up to date. There
is wide consensus among Canadians that they are in need of a
review and an update and it is a question of which approach we
will take.
Hon. members across have difficulty 20 months after the 1993
election still accepting that the Liberal platform clearly set out
the deficit reduction goal was 3 per cent GDP in three years.
That is one of the main reasons we were successful in the
election. It is a concept they have difficulty accepting.
(2100 )
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why would he think, as the Reformers would think, that
Canadians would believe it when the Reform Party says it could
reduce the debt and the deficit all in one fell swoop in a
three-year program and at the same time maintain jobs and
growth? This is what it is saying to us, that the 400,000 jobs that
were created this last year would continue to be in effect at the
same time as we would take some $40 billion from the economy.
I would like the hon. member to explain to us the Reform's
rationale if he could and why the Liberal Party does not seem to
accept that. Not even 10 per cent of Canadians accept that, as we
could tell in the last election campaign.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question.
The simple answer is I cannot explain it. I certainly do not
agree with it. Obviously the electorate in the last election did not
agree with it. As I previously pointed out, they rejected that
Reform plan of eliminating the deficit within three years.
Anyone could understand that could not be done without
creating tremendous hardship. As has been stated previously in
the House this evening, there would be blood in the streets if any
government attempted to put those kinds of cuts onto the
population. That is clearly why that plan was rejected by the
electorate in 1993.
13425
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the
Canada social transfer, he said they are transferring $35 billion
to the provinces. He forgot to mention that is a reduction of
about $7 billion, if I have my figures right. That is downloading
on the provinces.
Maybe that is the reason the Liberals in Ontario's provincial
election are into a skid. Maybe it is that and Bills C-68 and
C-41. Maybe that is why this Liberal Party got so desperate as to
campaign for its provincial brothers and sisters during
members' statements before question period, and it does not
even claim them as an election expense.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am amazed at the
interest our hon. colleagues from the Reform Party have taken in
the provincial election in Ontario. They do not seem to miss any
opportunity to discuss it. I have the impression that there is
perhaps, as we have heard in the media, some possibility of a
merger with the Tory government. They seem to be very
concerned with the fortunes of the Tories in Ontario.
To answer his downloading question, the information I have is
that in fact there is the same amount of money, if not more, being
transferred to the provinces today as there was prior to this
government's taking office.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in this debate which goes to the very
heart of the Canadian policy issue.
There is a proposal to reform the human resources system in
Canada. As you know, this is the largest department and the most
essential to any political system, for it is or is supposed to be in
charge of job creation and training. Social and other programs
also come under this department.
This is an extremely important department and talking about
reforming such a department is like trying to change the entire
Canadian federal system as we know it.
(2105)
[English]
If only the peanut gallery in the Reform Party could listen-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am trying to imagine
what it must have been like when this wonderful Chamber sat
every evening.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Quebec Est.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making in such a
colourful way is that basically attempting to change the
Department of Human Resources Development is tantamount to
attempting to change the entire Canadian federal system
because this department is at the heart of every federal program,
anything that deals with employment, training, social programs.
We also know that HRD may well have one of the largest
budgets, if not the largest, of any federal department.
That is what prompts me to say that this debate tonight goes to
the very heart of the Canadian policy issue. Looking at this
reform proposal concerning the Department of Human
Resources Development, we can see that the impact of this
reform is quite disastrous in every respect. Even from the point
of view of political philosophy, this reform makes no sense.
There is an ongoing debate in Canada about the value of
decentralizing political powers. I think that this policy or idea is
widely held across Canada. At least in Quebec and in parts of
English Canada it is regarded as good policy. The Liberal
government however would rather adopt a centralizing policy,
which is obvious in several bills, including bills from the
Department of Human Resources Development. This is a
disastrous policy thrust, as we know. I even think that a majority
of Liberal members, and you might be one of them, care and will
recognize that decentralizing is the key to the future of Canada's
political development.
However, this Liberal government and its Prime Minister
seem more bent on centralizing, which is disastrous as we can
see, particularly when we come from Quebec. This human
resources reform is disastrous, both from a political and
economical point of view.
Although the government is trying to cut several billion
dollars in social programs, a measure which will hurt the poor
and the most vulnerable people in our society, it will not really
save anything. These cuts are not well thought out; they are not
planned; they are not part of a global vision for development. In
fact, if this government really cared, if it really had a vision for
rebuilding the country, it would have reduced overlapping and
duplication. It would have opted for decentralization, instead of
centralization.
Once again, the reforms proposed by the Department of
Human Resources Development show that, in the future, there
will undoubtedly be even more duplication than before. This
will not result in savings. Duplication means not only that
money is wasted, to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of
millions of dollars, but also time, energy and even human lives.
13426
(2110)
When we really get down to talking about client services and
the efficiency of programs managed by the Department of
Human Resources Development, we have to conclude more and
more that they are not efficient. The department tries to put job
creation or training programs in place to enable people to hold
jobs. The department, the federal government itself,
acknowledges that these training programs are inefficient.
One has to actually be there, hit the streets, the towns and the
countryside to really take stock of the current disaster, the
mounting frustration people are venting; people are becoming
more and more concerned about what is going on because they
are under the impression that politicians are not doing their jobs.
And how right they are that this government is not doing its job.
And the reforms they are proposing for the Department of
Human Resources Development are nothing more than
expensive deviations from which no good will come. Who will
ultimately pay? Now that the Liberal Party is no longer a Liberal
Party in the traditional sense, but much more like a Conservative
Party, there is no difference between the current Liberal Party
and the Conservative Party that preceded it: their policies are
identical. Inertia rules. But who actually pays for this lack of
leadership, concern and good policies? The poor, the sick,
seniors, students, the unemployed, welfare recipients, all of the
classes in society which have no voice. They will be the ones
who will have to pay. In fact, they are always the ones who pay
for a government's slip-shod work.
But these people will not always be ignored. We can say this
because they are a majority. A storm is brewing in the country, it
is brewing because there are no jobs and no training is available.
Therefore, if the patronage and the scandals like Power DirecTv
or other shady issues clouding this government do not bring it
down, its inertia, lack of vision and the public's dissatisfaction
will. Their system is doomed to failure.
The current federal government in Ottawa has no vision. It is
doomed to failure. One thing is sure, it is going to crumble under
the weight of its own debt and of its shortsightedness. In fact, in
Quebec we want to get out of this system because we can do a
better job. One does not have to be a genius to realize we can do
better than the federal system we have now.
The Department of Human Resources Development, as I said
before, illustrates what is wrong with the whole federal system.
This department has made presentations and introduced
cutbacks, but is misleading in the way it presents its budget. It is
hard to pinpoint what they are trying to do. We know the
minister is confusing the issue. He would have people believe he
is improving the system, but that is not the case. They talk about
increasing the number of programs and the amount of money
available for training or job creation, although we know there
have been drastic cuts in the amounts available.
(2115)
Confusion reigns in this department. As I said before, all you
have to do is go down the street, go to the cities and towns and
employment centres and you will see what is happening. The
department's employees no longer know which side they are on,
whether their job is going to disappear, how much money they
have for which programs and which programs will be abolished.
This is not a department with a clear vision, a sense of purpose.
Confusion is spreading because people do not know where they
are going.
There is some kind of trickery afoot, but I am afraid they
underestimate the public's intelligence. The auditor general has
often said that budgets are mainly an exercise in camouflage. It
is an attempt to prevent people from finding out exactly how the
money is spent. You practically have to be an expert, and even
the experts cannot agree.
Cover up and concealment seem to be the order of the day. The
Auditor General of Canada singled out the Department of
Human Resources Development as a case in point. Confusion is
rife, especially in this department. As I said before, the
department is at the heart of the federal system that is collapsing
under its own weight, through its own inertia and lack of vision.
How the money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is used
is another example of this now you see it, now you don't,
attitude. Everyone in Canada or at least a large percentage of
Canadians has the impression that the federal government is
putting money, their tax money, into the unemployment
insurance program to subsidize training programs and other
programs provided by employment centres.
However, the federal government, as I said before, is
withdrawing from unemployment insurance. The money in the
Unemployment Insurance Fund comes out of the wages earned
by workers. We all contribute to this fund, but the federal
government is contributing less and less. However, the
government still gives the impression it contributes, and it uses
the money to set up training programs and job creation programs
for young people. This is a very economical way to give the
impression you are doing something.
Obviously, this is one way to give the impression of doing
something, but not necessarily a successful one. The greatest
confusion is to be found in the new programs set up in the past 12
months, particularly those announced with the greatest
noise-programs for youth, young trainees or the youth service
corps.
In my riding, just by talking to people in the street, who have
anything to do with these programs at all, you realize that they
do not know where to turn anymore. For example, in
Québec-Est, 38 projects were submitted in response to the youth
service corps program, because people had heard there was lots
of
13427
money in it. The youth service corps proposed 36 projects, good
projects, and only two were approved.
(2120)
These two projects will go through a whole slew of checks,
not only locally, but at the Montreal office and, eventually, at the
Ottawa office. It seems they even had to be approved by the
minister himself. This is a first. Even the officials are wondering
why. This is a sort of politicization. I do not think it is economic,
particularly. It is a reflection of the government's desire to
centralize, once again, at the very heart of the Department of
Human Resources Development. Why this attempt to
centralize? It is not economic. It does not even make any sense.
This streamlining the Minister of Human Resources
Development is talking about is, obviously, not streamlining.
Anyone taking the slightest look at the thing will realize that
there is no streamlining; it is confusion.
You just have to talk to the head of the employment centre in
your region; he will tell you. He does not know if he will keep
his job; he does not know whether the programs he currently
administers will be extended. Furthermore, he will admit to you
that the existing programs funded by the federal government
from the unemployment insurance fund are not working out.
There is no guarantee that someone taking training at an
employment centre will find work. Oftentimes, even, people
taking training at employment centres have less chance of
finding a job.
This all makes sense, I suppose, in the mind of certain
federalists, but, in my mind, it does not. There is no
streamlining, only confusion and waste.
In Quebec we are concerned because we want to create jobs
and put people to work. We want to improve our society. We are
not asleep. We are not sitting on our power on little green chairs
thinking that everything is fine. We know there are more and
more poor people, unemployed and people on welfare. There are
808,000 in Quebec, alone. It is a catastrophe. This is a lot of
human misery.
It is important, for example, for Quebec to have power in the
area of manpower training. The struggle has been going on for a
long time, and we consider it very important. The former
Quebec minister and current federal Minister of Labour sitting
across from me is aware that the Quebec government has fought
for full control over manpower training for a long time, even
when the Liberals were in power.
Manpower training is central because it lies at the heart of this
whole game being played by the Department of Human
Resources Development. It is at the heart of all societal
problems. The issues are job creation and training. And
education is at the heart of any society. That is why Quebec is
right to stick to its guns. Not only because it is important but
because it is under provincial jurisdiction. Education has always
been under provincial jurisdiction. The federalists in Ottawa do
not understand this. They have never respected provincial
jurisdiction. Furthermore, the government has never respected
its own constitution. Both training and education have always
been under provincial jurisdiction.
(2125)
The federal government is once again using this
centralization policy. The fact that the Department of Human
Resources Development is increasingly trying to exert control
over manpower training provides further concrete evidence of
the federal government's intention to centralize powers.
Quebec-not only the Parti Quebecois but also the Liberal
Party-has always unanimously expressed the need to repatriate
all manpower training powers. All manpower training
stakeholders, union members, even the employers' council and
the president of the Business Council on National Issues,
Thomas d'Aquino, a man of some renown, have argued very
strongly in favour of decentralizing manpower training powers
throughout the country.
Unfortunately, we still do not have that power, which clearly
shows once again the impossibility of reforming the current
system because of increased centralization by the federal
government. The impossibility of reforming the system is one of
the reasons, if not the main reason, why Quebec must achieve
sovereignty so that it can take control of its own destiny as soon
as possible.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the
hon. member's statement that the federal government is trying
to centralize powers in Ottawa even more than past
governments, that statement is absolutely correct.
He went on to say that federal governments over past decades
have taken over powers which are rightfully provincial powers.
The hon. member is 100 per cent correct.
Reform's vision of a new Canada includes a much smaller
federal government, with much less power centralized in its
hands, and with provincial powers returned to the provinces as
they were laid out in the original Constitution. I can understand
the hon. member's frustration, which we feel in Alberta, to the
continual movement on the part of the federal government,
particularly over the last 30 years, to take over powers which are
rightfully those of the provinces.
I want to make those comments to the hon. member and to the
people of Quebec, acknowledging this is a problem which must
be reversed. If that happens, as the Reform Party has laid out in
its vision of a new Canada, Quebecers will be happy to be a part
of the country. If that does not happen, as it certainly will not
13428
under this government, Quebecers will want to leave. I can
understand that.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if it were possible to
decentralize Canada it would be very interesting. I do not
believe it is possible to decentralize the federal government
because it is part of the federal history to centralize power. That
has been the case ever since the second world war. The federal
government has taken more and more power. It has assumed
more and more of the provincial jurisdiction.
Today the situation is catastrophic in the sense that the federal
government has no place being there any more. It is a useless
political institution in the broadest terms. It is a wasteful
institution.
(2130 )
Now its role is basically to maintain itself, to keep itself alive.
It is like this absurd institution that suddenly finds itself alive
and now will do everything to maintain its life in spite of the fact
it is taxing provinces and creating problems all over the country.
We can criticize this system inside and out completely. It is
wasteful, it is not economical, it gives no guidance to the
country. Its primary goal right today is to do everything to
maintain its life. This is what the government is doing. It is
trying to maintain the operation of this federal institution in
Ottawa in spite of the fact it is a totally useless institution.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after the
last couple of months here, after seeing the corruption across the
floor with regard to the patronage we have been talking about in
question period over the last few months, and after seeing a lot
of really bad legislation like the budget, Bill C-68, Bill C-41,
the MP pension reform which really does very little to reform, I
understand the member's frustration.
I have to admit the federal government is not working
properly but it can be changed. If it could be changed, if the
proper powers were returned to the provinces, that would be
interesting.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, let us say that we gained
experience in trying to change the present system on several
occasions: in 1990, 1992 and even before that. Numerous
attempts were made to reform the system, but it is just not
reformable, especially as viewed by Quebec.
For example, Western Canada, and Alberta in particular, was
cheated of billions of dollars under the Trudeau regime. In fact,
it is estimated that the government collected in excess of $100
billion from Alberta with Trudeau's energy tax. I have seen
estimates ranging anywhere from $60 billion to more than $100
billion in oil taxes collected from Alberta alone. All that to
maintain the federal system based here in Ottawa.
Other provinces had different problems, but in Quebec the
main problem comes from way back. For one thing, it comes
from the fact that we are French-speaking and have never been
recognized in Canada as a different, distinct people, unique in
North America. Everyone agrees that it is quite obvious though,
but the fact remains that recognition has not been forthcoming in
this system. Really, that is crucial for Quebec and the future of
its society, because as long as we do not have the powers to
develop as a French-speaking nation, as unique among North
American nations, we will do all we can to try to gain these
powers.
We will never have the necessary political and administrative
reforms carried out within Canada. We will certainly not
succeed in getting Quebec recognized as a people. We tried on
several occasions but learned that it is just plain impossible.
(2135)
The only difference perhaps between the Reform Party and
the Bloc Quebecois is that we, in the Bloc, have realized that the
federal system is not reformable, while our Reform colleagues
believe it is still possible to reform this federal system.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the last 30 minutes, I listened with great interest to the
hon. member from the official opposition. It is rather strange to
see how a parliamentarian protected by the privilege of
Parliament can distort the facts in what I would call an almost
shameful manner.
The member made several allusions to Houdini in his speech.
Let me tell you that Houdini must be spinning in his grave right
now.
In any case, I am pleased to address this House on the issue of
the government's main estimates. Since taking office, the
Liberal Party has met several major challenges. I am proud to
point that out because, if you look at the history of our country,
you see that each time a major change of direction occurred, it
was invariably with the Liberal Party at the helm. We have
always been the ones with a vision, the ones paving the way for
future generations of Canadians. Indeed, I am proud to stress
that fact this evening.
We were elected at an important time in the development of
our society. Canadians then put their trust in another Liberal
government because they knew that we would rise to the
challenge.
Mr. Marchand: They were wrong.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Look at Ontario.
13429
Mr. Cauchon: We have risen to the challenge so well that you
can hear the other side howl and scream, precisely because we
are doing such a good job that it hurts them.
It hurts them because Canadians are starting to see the
positive results of our policies. It hurts them because the federal
government is implementing a true decentralization which the
public understands and accepts.
It hurts them because, when they see the government
administration make these adjustments, they realize that it is the
end of their dream. Once again, we are showing that federalism
is not static: it has always been in constant evolution and it will
continue to change.
I want to take this opportunity to discuss regional
development. Canada is a very large country and we often see
disparities within a given region. A responsible federal
government must keep control over regional development.
However, the whole regional development policy must also be
reviewed, just as we have already reviewed the government
machine. Some members opposite say: ``Use the simple
approach. We have problems with the debt and the deficit, so
just make cuts in regional development''.
(2140)
Their policy is irresponsible. I have heard members opposite
say: Withdraw from the area of regional development. This is
yet another policy that, in addition to being unrealistic,
fundamentally goes against the opinion and the will of the
people.
An hon. member: They are out of touch.
Mr. Cauchon: Ever since this government was formed, we
have been repeating that we want to get the government machine
back on track in order to lead Canada to economic prosperity, an
economic prosperity which will allow us to create jobs and make
us competitive, not only on the Canadian scene but also
internationally.
Two principles underlie this vision of prosperity and govern
all of the changes to regional development policies. The first
thing that the government wanted to do, and did in fact do-I
again stress for the benefit of the House that the people across
the way keep on hollering because hearing the truth hurts, but
Mr. Speaker, thank God for the House of Commons, a wonderful
democratic forum in which we can express ourselves freely
without fear and tell the public the truth-now back to the two
principles underlying the reform of the government machine
and the reform of regional development policies.
There is the issue of the rationalization of public spending. I
think that the Minister of Finance's budget eloquently makes the
point that the first steps towards rationalizing spending have
already been taken. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
conducted a major program review which will eventually lead
to program cuts, programs which will more effectively target the
public, programs which will meet their real needs. This
rationalization of spending shows that this government is
responsible and can manage the debt and the deficit.
The second underlying principle is the rethinking of the
state's role. When they say they are rethinking the state's role,
that means that they are going to take a sharp turn. In the past,
not only in Canada but throughout the world, we have had
governments that were very interventionist. Today, with all the
problems with public finances, government has to play a
different role, a role business people have asked us to play. The
government has to fine tune its decision making to reflect the
needs of various sectors, and it must also consider partnerships.
While we are on the subject of regional development policies,
perhaps we should mention a splendid tool for regional
development that is part of the federal apparatus, and I am
referring to the Federal Office of Regional Development for
Quebec. If we consider the two principles I just mentioned, the
issue of scaling down spending, well I must say the FORDQ has
done its share. For instance, its budget will be cut by 70 per cent
over three years, which means from $487.5 million to $142.9
million in 1997-98. This is a significant reduction, and I think
we can say that the FORDQ is doing its share.
(2145)
Well, I think the changes announced quite recently by the
Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development (Quebec) are a clear indication
of this desire to make some real changes and rethink the role of
government so that we can fine tune our response to the needs of
Canadians. In this respect, our first conclusion must be that from
now on, regional development will be the job of small business.
Small businesses in Canada create 85 per cent of the jobs.
They are a very dynamic tool that should be encouraged in every
respect. And the government should be there to act as a partner.
Before going ahead with the restructuring of FORDQ, the
minister consulted the business community.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): At $2,000 per plate.
Mr. Cauchon: If I may, I will try to convey, over the shouts of
the official opposition, the messages sent to the minister by
members of the business community.
The message from small businesses regarding regional
development is clear. They told us: ``First, cut government
spending; second, stop subsidizing businesses; and third,
eliminate overlap; reduce the paper burden and the red tape; and
give us the
13430
strategic information we need to meet the challenges of
technological change and globalization of our markets''.
Now that is progressive. That is the new approach to regional
development. This is what the Federal Office of Regional
Development intends to do. It will work in partnership in order
to target promising development sectors. I must point out that
the office has already taken action on a number of occasions in
Quebec and throughout Canada. We target small and medium
high tech business and, when we target high tech in partnership,
we are targeting an area of the future. We are targeting an area
that will mean the creation of quality, worthwhile and long
lasting jobs, which will improve Canada's economy and make us
a strong competitor both nationally and internationally. This is
basic for small and medium size business.
I was listening to my colleague earlier talking about training.
I find it hard to believe today that people can talk about isolating
themselves as regards manpower training. In an era of free trade
when there is talk of a World Trade Organization, we should be
looking to band together to better train our labour force, make it
a quality one. This is what Quebecers want. A quality labour
force is a dynamic one that puts Canadian business at the peak of
competition. As a dynamic labour force, it also attracts
investments. This is the plan of the present government and this
is what we will continue to do.
We are talking about a dynamic approach attuned to what
people want. I was listening to my colleague earlier attacking
reforms to social programs by the Department of Human
Resources Development. You will permit me to say that I find
such comments disgraceful, given that the new direction the
Minister of Human Resources Development is taking is
fundamental not only for workers, but for Canadian society.
Let us take the example of the human resources investment
fund, which will come into effect in April 1996.
(2150)
This fund, which in my opinion is quite a marvel, meets the
very needs of the public. During several months, Canadians told
us: ``We want training programs that are firmly grounded in
reality. We want training programs which are much more
flexible''. Again, I would point out to the Chair that I am trying
to be heard over all the hollering of the Bloc Quebecois
members.
Canadians want training programs which are much more
flexible and truly in tune with their needs. The Human
Resources Investment Fund meets all of their expectations. It
really reflects the real situation out there. When I hear the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois telling Quebecers that these
parties should have control over manpower training so that they
can hide what they are doing, I cannot help but think that they
are not realistic and are ignoring what is going on at the
international level.
We must train our workers in order to become extremely
competent. This requires partnerships, team work and
co-operation with the private sector, which is exactly what the
Human Resources Investment Fund is all about. Earlier, some
members said that the Canada social transfer would lead to
decentralization. I do not know which way to turn anymore.
When we were considering social reform, the members of the
Bloc Quebecois hailed the Canada social transfer as a miracle.
They wanted us to decentralize and transfer everything to the
provinces. That is what we did in the finance minister's budget.
Through the Canada social transfer, we handed a number of
programs over to them. Now that this has come to pass, they are
trying to distort the truth by saying that the Canada social
transfer is tied to the unilateral setting of national standards by
the federal government.
I think that we did not read the same document. We live in a
country, and I think it is normal to have national standards
across the country. During the consultations on social program
reform, people in Quebec and throughout Canada also told us
that we should indeed have national standards. The people also
told us-in Quebec, too-that they did not want these standards
to be set unilaterally by the federal government.
The Canada social transfer is a classic example of progressive
federalism, of co-operative federalism, of a federalism that
does not represent in any way the status quo advocated by
members of the official opposition, members of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cauchon: In conclusion, what is unfortunate about the
official opposition-I am trying once again to be heard above
the ruckus raised by Bloc members-is that, instead of allowing
us to work hand in hand to develop a federation that will reflect
the vitality of people in Quebec and throughout Canada, they are
trying to ensure that the system will not work. All this,
incredibly, just to protect their separatist philosophy instead of
serving the public interest.
Our government's goal is to help the people and look after
their interests, and we will continue to do so. That is why I am
especially proud to support the main estimates.
(2155)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont is wrong; I did not
utter a word during his presentation, but I will speak now. I
wonder on what planet the hon. member lives.
We have 800,000 people on welfare in Quebec today, and
there are 1.2 million in Ontario. Quebec sovereignists are
certainly not responsible for that; the federal system is. One of
the main reasons for this state of affairs is the manpower issue.
The very brother of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, a
minister in the Johnson government and now the member for
13431
Westmount-Saint-Henri, was among the government members
who asked that the issue of manpower be returned to Quebec.
These are not sovereignists, but federalists, people who have
realized that, if we want our manpower to be trained adequately,
training has to be provided in an acceptable regime. The facts
contradict what the hon. member for Outremont said. At
present, the public cannot find its way around the 27 federal and
25 provincial programs available.
As for concrete measures, the federal government recently
announced that only UI recipients will have access to job search
clubs from now on. A fine move to create a single window no
doubt. And so logical.
I would like to tell the hon. member for Outremont a thing or
two about the real world, through you of course, Mr. Speaker. In
our regions, many workers are unskilled and need adequate
training. We are talking about regional development. Well, I
come from Quebec's eastern region, which could be called the
stumbling block of federalism.
The federal government tried all kinds of things in our region,
this in addition to Quebec's initiatives. Today, our region has the
strongest migration movement. That trend, which started 30
years ago, is the result of your actions.
I want to say a word about the FORDQ. I agree with the
member for Outremont: you did turn that office into an empty
structure. This is obvious. All the investment budgets targeted
for small businesses were cut. Businesses employing only a few
people do not need to have access to the international markets.
Quite often, they simply need a little help to build a warehouse,
etc., but you let them down. One of the reasons is that federal
Liberals from Quebec did not speak up. They let the Minister of
Industry do his dirty deed, so that Ontario would regain control.
I will conclude with a question on the Human Resources
Investment Fund. Instead of creating an artificial fund and using
the money contributed by employers and employees to interfere
in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction, why did you not reduce the
contributions of employers and employees? That way, you
would have put the money directly in the industry, in the
workplace, instead of spending it on the bureaucracy, and you
would have achieved true job creation, instead of making
systematic cuts.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would remind the House
that debate is to end at 10.00 p.m.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is confused
at this point. He should call the PQ's 1-800 number so he can
understand. The member opposite spoke of a very important and
very serious matter-that of the unemployed in Quebec, and not
only in Quebec, but in Canada as a whole.
Last year, we created 430,000 new jobs. The Minister of
Human Resources Development is changing course in response
to the wishes of people-be they welfare recipients or receiving
some other form of public support-who want access to training
without running head on into inflexible programs. This is what
we are trying to do with the human resources investment fund.
It is unfortunate, but the truth is that we are working alone at
the moment. The federal government is working alone, because
the Government of Quebec, instead of working in partnership
with the federal government to serve the public interest and
develop a labour force in a rapidly changing economy, is talking
about separating. It is a shame, and the cost, in the end, will be
borne by the people of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 10 p.m. it is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81, to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
business of supply.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 244)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
13432
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Zed-137
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Benoit
Bergeron
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-86
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bélisle
Collenette
Dhaliwal
Gaffney
Godin
Grose
Guay
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
McGuire
Ménard
Payne
Richardson
Verran
Wells
Young
de Savoye
(2225 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
13432
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern about the estimates process
and the willingness of all parties recognized in the House to
improve the process, I would now seek unanimous consent to
move the following motion, in the spirit of co-operation we
have been getting and are anticipating later tonight.
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to
undertake a comprehensive review of the business of supply, with particular
13433
attention to the reform of the estimates, the processes and mechanisms by which the
House and its committees may consider and dispose of them; and
That the committee make a report thereon no later than December 1, 1995.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the motion the government has brought
forward. There has been consultation with all parties in the
House. Recognition that we may have been sitting here all night
without even being able to vote to reduce the estimates brought
to the attention of all of us the need to review the standing orders
with a view to finding reforms to make this process meaningful
so that we can adequately represent Canadians in the whole
process of reviewing the expenditures of the government.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the New Democrats have
expressed concern in the past about the way in which supply is
dealt with here, we certainly concur with the motion put forward
by the government whip.
In light of the fact that the government whip indicated there
was agreement from all recognized parties in the House, we are
happy to participate in the process.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
13433
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the business of supply.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Vote 5, in the amount of $155,817,000 under Parliament-House of
Commons-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
[
Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask, I think you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed
to the motion now before the House in the following way:
Liberal Party members will vote yea.
Mr. Duceppe: On vote 5, Bloc Quebecois members will also
vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members vote no,
but we really think the government should reduce this billion
dollars by $9 million.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party present in the House today vote nay.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like my vote to count with the government henceforth this
evening.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 245)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
13434
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Zed-177
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-47
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bélisle
Collenette
Dhaliwal
Gaffney
Godin
Grose
Guay
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
McGuire
Ménard
Payne
Richardson
Verran
Wells
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(2235 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that the
vote taken on vote 10 of the President of the Treasury Board
under Human Resources Development, the first vote we took
this evening, be also applied to the following:
Vote 1 of the President of the Treasury Board under
Parliament and the Senate;
Vote 1 under the Privy Council, the department;
Vote 1 under National Revenue, the department;
Vote 1 under Human Resources Development, employment
and immigration;
Vote 5 under Human Resources Development, employment
insurance program;
Vote 25 under Human Resources Development, income
security program;
Vote 30 under Human Resources Development, social
development and education program;
Vote 1 under Western Economic Diversification;
Vote 1 under Health, the health program;
Vote 5, the President of the Treasury Board under the health
program;
Vote 10 under Health, health program;
Vote 20 under Health, Medical Research Council;
Vote 25 under Health, Medical Research Council;
Vote 40 under Canadian Heritage, the Canada Council;
Vote 140 under Canadian Heritage, the Public Service
Commission;
Vote 10 under Public Works, real property program;
Vote 35 under Public Works, the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation;
Vote 40 under Public Works, the Canada Post Corporation;
Vote 10 under Transport, the department;
Vote 1 under Agriculture, the department;
Vote 5 under Agriculture, the Canadian Grain Commission;
Vote 10 under Agriculture, the department;
Vote 15 under Agriculture, grants and contributions;
Vote 15 under Human Resources Development, labour
program;
Vote 20 under Human Resources Development, labour
program;
Vote 40 under Human Resources Development, the Canada
Labour Relations Board;
13435
Vote 50 under Human Resources Development, the Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health;
Vote 1 under Citizenship and Immigration, the department;
Vote 5 under Citizenship and Immigration, the department;
Vote 1 under Foreign Affairs and International Trade, external
affairs;
Vote 5 under Foreign Affairs and International Trade, external
affairs;
Vote 10 under Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
external affairs, grants and contributions;
Vote 1 under Natural Resources, energy, mines and resources
program;
Vote 5 under Natural Resources, energy, mines and resources
program;
Vote 10 under Natural Resources, energy, mines and resources
program;
Vote 25 under the Privy Council, official languages;
Vote 5 under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency;
Vote 1 under the Treasury Board;
Vote 5 under the Treasury Board;
Vote 45 under Finance, FORD-Q;
Vote 50 under Finance;
Vote 5 under Western Economic Diversification, program;
Vote 10 under Environment;
Vote 5 under the Privy Council;
Vote 35 under the Privy Council;
Vote 5 under Finance.
(2240 )
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Vote 1, in the amount of $26,492,000 under
Parliament-Senate-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 246)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Zed-138
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Benoit
Bergeron
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
13436
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-86
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bélisle
Collenette
Dhaliwal
Gaffney
Godin
Grose
Guay
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
McGuire
Ménard
Payne
Richardson
Verran
Wells
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Vote 1, in the amount of $70,748,000 under Privy
Council-Department-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Motion No. 5
That Vote 1, in the amount of $1,779,862,000 under National
Revenue-Department-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Motion No. 6
That Vote 1, in the amount of $62,763,000 under Human Resources
Development-Employment and Immigration-Corporate Services
Program-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 7
That Vote 5, in the amount of $194,947,000 under Human Resources
Development-Employment and Immigration-Employment and Insurance
Program-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 8
That Vote 25, in the amount of $110,710,000 under Human Resources
Development-Employment and Immigration-Income Security
Program-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 9
That Vote 30, in the amount of $38,976,000 under Human Resources
Development-Employment and Immigration-Social Development and
Education Program-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Motion No. 10
That Vote 1, in the amount of $30,058,000 under Western Economic
Diversification-Department-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 11
That Vote 1, in the amount of $986,179,000 under Health-National Health
and Welfare-Health Program-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 12
That Vote 5, in the amount of $59,279,000 under Health-National Health
and Welfare-Health Program-Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 13
That Vote 10, in the amount of $523,327,000 under Health-National Health
and Welfare-Health Program-Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 14
That Vote 20, in the amount of $7,367,000 under Health-Medical Research
Council-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 15
That Vote 25, in the amount of $242,182,000 under Health-Medical Research
Council-Grants, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1996 (less the amount voted In Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 16
That Vote 40, in the amount of $95,882,000 under Canadian
Heritage-Canada Council-Payments to the Canada Council, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 17
That Vote 140, in the amount of $110,961,000 under Canadian
Heritage-Public Service Commission-Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
13437
Motion No. 18
That Vote 10, in the amount of $966,853,000 under Public Works and
Government Services-Public Works and Supply and Services-Real Property
Program-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 19
That Vote 35, in the amount of $2,025,649,000 under Public Works and
Government Services-Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 20
That Vote 40, in the amount of $14,000,000 under Public Works and
Government Services-Canada Post Corporation-Payments to the Canada
Post Corporation for special purposes, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 21
That Vote 10, in the amount of $329,139,000 under
Transport-Department-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 23
NONP21
That Vote 1, in the amount of $569,216,000 under Agriculture and
Agri-Food-Department-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply),
be concurred in.
Motion No. 24
That Vote 5, in the amount of $41,694,000 under Agriculture and
Agri-Food-Department-Canadian Grain Commission-Operating
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 25
That Vote 10, in the amount of $103,731,000 under Agriculture and
Agri-Food-Department-Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Motion No. 26
That Vote 15, in the amount of $364,714,000 under Agriculture and
Agri-Food-Department-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 27
That Vote 15, in the amount of $44,135,000 under Human Resources
Development-Employment and Immigration-Labour Program-Operating
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 28
That Vote 20, in the amount of $7,429,000 under Human Resources
Development-Employment and Immigration-Labour Program-Grants and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 29
That Vote 40, in the amount of $8,287,000 under Human Resources
Development-Canada Labour Relations Board-Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 31
That Vote 50, in the amount of $2,026,000 under Human Resources
Development-Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety-Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 32
That Vote 1, in the amount of $286,173,000 under Citizenship and
Immigration-Department-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 33
That Vote 5, in the amount of $24,834,000 under Citizenship and
Immigration-Department-Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 35
That Vote 1, in the amount of $799,047,000 under Foreign Affairs and
International Trade-External Affairs-Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 36
That Vote 5, in the amount of $90,725,000 under FOREIGN Affairs and
International Trade-External Affairs-Capital expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 37
That Vote 10, in the amount of $354,594,600 under Foreign Affairs and
International Trade-External Affairs-Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 38
That Vote 1, in the amount of $340,973,000 under Natural
Resources-Energy, Mines and Resources and Forestry-Energy, Mines and
Resources Program-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Motion No. 39
That Vote 5, in the amount of $48,835,000 under Natural
Resources-Energy, Mines and Resources and Forestry-Energy, Mines and
Resources Program-Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Motion No. 40
That Vote 10, in the amount of $200,332,100 under Natural
Resources-Energy, Mines and Resources and Forestry-Energy, Mines and
Resources Program-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
Motion No. 41
That Vote 25, in the amount of $10,143,000 under Privy
Council-Commissioner of Official Languages-Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 42
That Vote 5, in the amount of $313,261,000 under Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency-Department-Grants and contributions, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
13438
Motion No. 43
That Vote 1, in the amount of $75,190,000 under Treasury
Board-Secretariat-Central Administration of the Public Service
Program-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 44
That Vote 5, in the amount of $450,000,000 under Treasury
Board-Secretariat-Government Contingencies and Centrally Financed
Programs-Government Contingencies, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 46
That Vote 45, in the amount of $23,419,000 under FINANCE-Federal Office
of Regional Development-Quebec-Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 47
That Vote 50, in the amount of $397,987,435 under FINANCE-Federal
Office of Regional Development-Quebec-Grants and contributions, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 48
That Vote 5, in the amount of $435,876,000 under Western Economic
Diversification-Department-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 49
That Vote 10, in the amount of $46,508,100 under
Environment-Department-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 50
That Vote 5, in the amount of $9,049,000 under Privy Council-Canadian
Centre for Management Development-Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 52
That Vote 35, in the amount of $5,473,000 under Privy Council-Public
Service Staff Relations Board-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply),
be concurred in.
Motion No. 53
That Vote 5, in the amount of $820,000,000 under
Finance-Department-Financial and Economic Policies Program-Grants and
contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
[
Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 246.]
The Speaker: I declare the motions carried.
(Motions Nos. 4 to 21, 23 to 29, 31 to 33, 35 to 44, 46 to 50, 52
and 53 agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that
the vote taken on vote 5 under Parliament-House of Commons,
in other words the second vote we took this evening, be applied
to the following:
Vote 35 under Transport-Department-Payments to the
Laurentian Pilotage Authority;
Vote 45 under Human Resources Development-Canadian
Artists;
Vote 10 under Citizenship and Immigration-Department;
Vote 10 under the President of the Treasury Board-Treasury
Board;
Vote 10 under Privy Council;
Vote 1 under Indian Affairs and Northern Development;
Vote 5 under Indian Affairs and Northern
Development-Inuit Affairs Program;
Vote 10 under Indian Affairs and Northern Development;
Vote 15 under Indian Affairs and Northern Development;
Vote 20 under Indian Affairs and Northern Development;
Vote 30 under Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party agrees with
everything the government whip has said to date. However, I
further ask if he would not want to apply the same vote to L30.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 22
That Vote 35, in the amount of $4,340,000 under
Transport-Department-Payments to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 30
That Vote 45, in the amount of $1,580,000 under Human Resources
Development-Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations
Tribunal-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 34
That Vote 10, in the amount of $256,335,000 under Citizenship and
Immigration-Department-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
13439
Motion No. 45
That Vote 10, in the amount of $1,369,000 under Treasury
Board-Secretariat-Government Contingencies and Centrally Financed
Programs-Reprography, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 51
That Vote 10, in the amount of $2,939,000 under Privy Council-Canadian
Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat-Program expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 54
That Vote 1, in the amount of $39,128,000 under Indian Affairs and Northern
Development-Department-Administration Program-Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 55
That Vote 5, in the amount of $197,331,000 under Indian Affairs and Northern
Development-Department-Indian and Inuit Affairs Program-Operating
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 56
That Vote 10, in the amount of $5,343,000 under Indian Affairs and Northern
Development-Department-Indian and Inuit Affairs Program-Capital
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
Motion No. 57
That Vote 15, in the amount of $3,528,728,000 under Indian Affairs and
Northern Development-Department-Indian and Inuit Affairs
Program-Grants and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 58
That Vote L20, in the amount of $25,226,000 under Indian Affairs and
Northern Development-Department-Indian and Inuit Affairs
Program-Loans to native claimants, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred
in.
Motion No. 59
That Vote L30, in the amount of $19,300,000 under Indian Affairs and
Northern Development-Department-Indian and Inuit Affairs
Program-Loans to First Nations in British Columbia for the purpose of
supporting their participation in the British Columbia Treaty Commission
process, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
[
Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 245.]
The Speaker: I declare the motions carried.
(Motions Nos. 22, 30, 34, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59
agreed to)
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996, except any
vote disposed of earlier today and less the amounts voted in interim supply, be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask, I think you
would find unanimous consent to apply the vote on vote 10,
under Department of Human Resources Development, in other
words, the first vote taken earlier tonight, to the motion now
before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I also give my
consent, provided my name is added to the list of those in
opposition to the motion.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 247)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
13440
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Zed-138
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Benoit
Bergeron
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-87
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bélisle
Collenette
Dhaliwal
Gaffney
Godin
Grose
Guay
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacDonald
McGuire
Ménard
Payne
Richardson
Verran
Wells
Young
de Savoye
(2245 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-97, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1996, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be read the second time and
referred to committee of the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
13441
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will
again find there is unanimous consent to apply the results of the
vote on the first motion this evening, that is on vote 10 under
Department of Human Resources Development, to the motion
now before the House. I move that the vote taken on the motion I
indicated earlier be now applied to the motion before this House.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 247]
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 100, I do now leave
the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went in committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair).
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order. The House is now
in committee of the whole to consider Bill C-97, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1996.
Shall Clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
(2250)
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, could the President
of the Treasury Board please confirm that this bill is the same in
every respect as those passed in previous years?
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to intform the
House that the form of the bill is the same as that passed in
previous years.
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
[English]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
13442
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that the vote taken at second reading also
apply to concurrence of the bill.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 247.]
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent that the result taken at second reading of the
appropriation act now apply to third reading.
While I am on my feet I want to indicate to all of my
colleagues, particularly the whips of the other parties, my
thanks for their co-operation. Through the efforts of everyone
tonight notwithstanding our differences we were able to take
some ten hours of voting and accelerate it to one hour.
I want to indicate to all of my colleagues our appreciation for
their excellent work; we can differ and yet we can work together.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add some words
to what the government whip said.
I thank him for his appreciation and his co-operation and his
intelligence in listening to our advice on how to deal with the
estimates next year.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 247.]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Speaker: The government whip and the Reform whip
both had words to say. May I, as your Speaker, say well done.
Thank you.
It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10.56 p.m.)