CONTENTS
Friday, March 25, 1994
Bill C-17. Motion for second reading 2775
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2775
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2784
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2784
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2785
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 2786
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2787
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2787
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2787
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2787
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2788
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2788
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2788
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2789
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 2789
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 2789
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2789
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2790
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2793
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2793
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2794
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2794
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 2797
Bill C-21. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2797
Bill C-232. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2798
(Motion moved and agreed to.) 2798
(Motion moved and agreed to.) 2798
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motion 2799
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2799
Bill C-207. Motion for second reading 2810
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 2810
2775
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 25, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the Chair is now ready to
take up the matter of gender neutral language raised on
Thursday, March 17 of this year by the hon. member for Ottawa
West, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board.
[Translation]
I wish to thank her for her comments and I would also like to
thank the hon. members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and
for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley for their
presentations.
There is no doubt a strong movement in society to eliminate
the occurrence of sexual stereotypes in all forms of
communication.
[English]
Concerning the word ``chairman'' specifically, the current
trend seems to be to remove any gender connotation, although
there is no clear consensus on the most satisfactory alternative.
For example, since the beginning of this Parliament the practice
has emerged whereby the chairs and vice-chairs of committees
have been identified using the terms ``chair, chairperson or
chairman'' as desired, in the publications in the House. My
colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville,
refers to herself as Deputy Chairperson of Committees of the
Whole.
In our standing orders we have eliminated any reference to
Mr. Speaker. At the end of each issue of our Votes and
Proceedings the Speaker is referred to simply as Speaker. As
well, any reference to a member or a minister is gender
inclusive; that is, the references are to ``he or she'' and ``him or
her''.
[Translation]
However, as the hon. Member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rightly noted, the Standing
Orders still contain a number of words and phrases which could
be considered gender-biased. This is also the case in a number
of other parliaments and provincial legislatures. In some of
these legislatures, just as in the House of Commons, the
terminology used in their Standing Orders is not necessarily the
same as that found in their publications.
[English]
This is an issue which has been raised many times over the
years both in the House and in committee and the Chair
continues to be deeply concerned about it. Given the
inconsistencies in the use of language in the publications and in
the House and its committees, perhaps it is time for a committee
of the House to examine the matter with a view to
recommending standardization of terminology.
I agree with the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that this is a matter which should
be pursued or might be pursued by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. I would urge that committee to
address it during its current review of the standing orders.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1005)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
on February 22, 1994 be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising on a point of order to make a procedural argument
concerning the omnibus nature of this piece of legislation.
This is a new Parliament which I think has been working
reasonably well in spite of our recent difficulties. I really would
like to call the attention of the Chair to the nature of this
particular bill and to urge the Chair to re-examine a practice we
have fallen into.
The particular bill before us, Bill C-17, is of an omnibus
nature. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule it out of
order and it should not be considered by the House in the form in
which it has been presented. I would hope that in making your
decision on the acceptability of Bill C-17 in its present form you
2776
will refer to the famous ruling by Mr. Lamoureux of January 26,
1971 in which he said:
However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West,
said that we might reach a point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the
start of the session for the improvement of the quality of the life in Canada which
would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That
would be an omnibus bill with a capital O and a capital B. But would it be
acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we can go beyond what is
acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
Even though the Speaker in that case went on to rule that this
point had not been reached, I submit to you that it has become a
standard practice with governments to bring in omnibus
legislation following every budget under what we might call the
kitchen sink approach.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 626 bears directly on this
aspect of the matter. It states:
(1) Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the
content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a
bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the
terminology of the long title of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is
so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members
in conflict with their own principles.
In this present case, the drafters of Bill C-17 have
incorporated in the same bill the following measures: public
sector compensation freezes; a freeze in Canada assistance plan
payments and Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act
transfers; extension and deepening of transportation subsidies;
authorization for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to
borrow money; and changes to unemployment insurance with
respect to benefits and the payroll taxes.
First, there is a lack of relevancy of these issues. The omnibus
bills we have before us attempt to amend several different
existing laws.
Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members
represent their constituents on these various areas when they are
forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such
concerns?
We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others.
How do we express our views and the views of our constituents
when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several
components would allow members to represent views of their
constituents on each of the different components in the bill.
The bill contains many distinct proposals and principles and
asking members to provide simple answers to such complex
questions is in contradiction to the conventions and practices of
the House.
(1010 )
As well this will cause fairly serious difficulties in
committee. This bill will ultimately go to only one committee of
the House, a committee that will inevitably lack the breadth of
expertise required for consideration of a bill of this scope.
Furthermore, the workload of that committee will be onerous
and it will be very difficult to give due consideration to all
relevant opinion.
In concluding my point of order, I would like to quote the hon.
member for Windsor West, the government House leader who
said on May 30, 1988: ``For all the reasons I have given, I
respectfully submit that this bill is of improper omnibus nature.
This is consistent with what I consider and I respectfully submit
to be, the relevant precedents. This is consistent with the
traditions of the House and, more important, the purpose of
those traditions in terms of the relevance of this House to the life
of the country now and in the future''.
This is a new Parliament. I do ask that we take a new approach
to this in spite of previous rulings on this matter. I would ask that
you give consideration to this, Mr. Speaker. I would also ask the
government members, particularly those who have spoken on
precisely this question in the previous Parliament with precisely
the same concerns, to give serious consideration to this issue of
democracy and the functionality of this Parliament now.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am surprised that the hon. member has raised this point today in
the House. The bill has been before the House for a period of
time. I am surprised that if he had objections to the format of the
bill he would not have raised them in a procedural way before.
However having done so, it is only fair for the hon. member to
bear in mind this is not a particularly onerous bill in terms of the
material contained in it. It is actually quite short. It is only 21
pages and by any standard in this House it is not a thick bill.
There are ones with many more pages which have been
introduced in this session already.
I also note that all the provisions in this bill are ones that arose
out of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance a month
ago. As such they were debated in the House for four days in the
course of the budget debate. All the issues were discussed
during those four days and those same issues will be discussed
again on second reading of this bill.
The issues are exactly the same as those raised by the minister
in his budget address and which have been debated by the House
2777
already. I do not think there is anything unusual about lumping
these together for the purposes of debate. The hon. member
suggests they are totally disjointed and I suggest they are not.
They are part of the overall economic plan of the government as
announced in the budget.
There are many different acts involved in terms of
amendments because of the freezes imposed on various parts of
the public service, including members of Parliament, judges and
so on. All those amendments to the various acts that are involved
in those freezes are part of an overall freeze on payments made
by the government.
Similarly the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act
fall into the same arrangement. The changes with respect to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation deal with freezes that were
put in place in previous legislation and previous budgets and
allow for some borrowing authority.
While the subject matter may be diverse, I suggest to the hon.
member that given the fact they were all introduced in the
budget, they form a whole, unified policy thrust which the
government has put forward and which it will be defending in
the course of the debate on this bill. Therefore in my
submission, the bill is entirely in order.
In support of my position I refer to Beauchesne's, sixth
edition, citation 634. I recognize the hon. member for Calgary
West quoted a citation from Beauchesne's and quoted from a
ruling of the Speaker in 1971 which is quoted in citation 634 of
Beauchesne's. Notwithstanding his very able argument, I think
he has missed the point. Citation 634 reads:
Speakers have expressed deep concern about the use of omnibus bills, and
have suggested that there must be ``a point where we go beyond what is
acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint''. Nevertheless, the practice
of using one bill to demand one decision on a number of quite different,
although related subjects, while a matter of concern, is an issue on which the
Speaker will not intervene to divide the bill.
(1015 )
I do not know what the hon. member is asking, if he is asking
Your Honour to divide this bill or not. The authority in
Beauchesne seems to be that the Speaker will not intervene to do
that. I suspect he is really raising this matter this morning as a
bit of a red herring.
I point out citation 635 of Beauchesne sixth edition. It says:
In the case of an omnibus bill, the Speaker has encouraged the use of motions
to delete a clause at the report stage, pursuant to Standing Order 76(2) to permit
the House to decide a specific issue contained in an ominbus bill, even though
the motion might offend the principle of the bill.
If the hon. member genuinely believes that this is an omnibus
bill that involves too many subjects for him to deal with in the
committee or for the committee to deal with in a reasonable way,
he has a remedy. He may propose amendments at the report stage
to delete sections of the bill that would constitute obviously a
one policy thrust if indeed he regards this as a series of different
policy thrusts and have the House make a decision on that at
report stage.
I suggest that is a fair and reasonable remedy, certainly in this
situation. I do not think this falls in the category of a bill that
deals with a host of subjects that are massive in their import.
This is a relatively modest bill by any standard. As I have
indicated it follows from a major policy thrust, namely this
year's annual budget from the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I want to add very briefly a few points to what has been
raised by my colleague the parliamentary secretary.
The member across the way invoked the fact, and I believe I
am quoting him accurately, when he said: ``We may be in favour
of some articles and against others''. That is precisely why
committees of Parliament exist. Clauses can be deleted from the
bill at committee.
There is a second remedy as well as was quoted by my
colleague the parliamentary secretary for those members who
do not sit on a particular committee. Of course that is the report
stage of the bill where motions can be introduced to delete
sections of the bill.
Finally, the member opposite indicated something to the
effect that the bill was disjointed or did not fit the criteria of
omnibus bills. He indicated that the subjects were diverse.
If that argument stands then surely it should have been made
on the budget itself. After all this is a bill to implement the
budget. If the bill has that disjointed characteristic that was
ascribed to it by the member opposite, surely the argument
would have also stood for the ways and means motion that was
debated in the House and the budget itself.
If that was not true or if it was not invoked at those stages, and
it has not been invoked since the bill in question was introduced
on March 16, may I suggest that the argument has no more value
today.
Perhaps I could add one last point. The Speaker ruled in the
last Parliament that a bill which was far more comprehensive
than this one, this bill only having some 20 pages, was not
deemed to be offensive and against rule 634 of Beauchesne. That
bill was at least 10 times the size of the one that we have now. If
a bill 10 times the size was not deemed to be so omnibus that it
offended this House, surely a bill one tenth the size of the
previous one would not be any more offensive.
2778
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, if I could just
comment. Of course I am disappointed that the government
cannot see the merit of its own previous arguments on matters
such as these.
I would ask you to consider one point that has been raised by
both of my colleagues on the government side. That is to
acquaint the scope of the bill with the size and the length of it
and the number of pages. I think that is an entirely inappropriate
consideration. We all know that the scope of the bill is not
necessarily related to the volume of paper it contains. A bill
could be of the absolute maximum scope conceivable and be
extremely short. Likewise we had a very thick bill in this
Parliament on the income tax amendments which was actually
quite narrow in scope. It is the scope of the bill rather than the
size that is important.
(1020)
I put it once again that this bill touches on a wide range of
areas of public policy, what would normally fall in the purview
of several House committees to look at.
I would also point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you examine
carefully the arguments of the government members on the tests
of the relatedness of these subject matters that the only relation
the government has really pointed to is the fact that they are,
broadly speaking, all part of the government's legislative
agenda. I submit to you that that is not an adequate test of their
relationship and their relevance to each other.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair would like to thank all three
members for their thoughtful interventions on this matter. In
fact, the severance issue as it is called has been argued in courts
many times. The lawyers in the House will know that. We have
all argued it often in court, usually in matters of criminal
charges. It is an issue which is most important.
The references that were made by the various members with
which this chair occupant is familiar and the matters will all be
considered carefully. Unfortunately it is going to take more than
an instant to give a proper ruling on the matter.
We have had many omnibus bills in the past in this House. The
bill will therefore have to proceed and if close examination is
made a ruling will be made on it further down the trail, so to
speak.
For the time being the bill will proceed and I would call on the
hon. President of the Treasury Board.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
one of the many groups of Canadians that are affected by Bill
C-17 is the Public Service of Canada. When we came to power
we found the public service under considerable stress. We have
already started the rebuilding process and by the end of our
mandate we expect the public service will have recovered its full
ability to serve Canadians.
The wage and increment freeze which was announced in the
budget is a difficult but necessary measure. The freeze which
ensures that $1 billion can be booked in the fiscal framework to
be reached in the year 1996-97 is something I recognize that
public service employees will not welcome with open arms. But,
frankly, we are freezing salaries to save jobs.
This government also announced in the budget an efficiency
in program review aimed at reducing the cost of government.
How that is connected is that if we find enough savings to meet
the reduced departmental expenditure targets, we can apply the
additional efficiency savings to reducing the length of the wage
freeze.
Though the cool reception of many union leaders to the freeze
of wages and increments announced in the budget is certainly
understandable, I want to place our actions in perspective and
show that we have been as fair as we could be to the public
service in the present circumstances. I am confident that public
service employees will accept this budget, especially when they
understand the sacrifices that we are asking all Canadians, other
groups of Canadians, to accept as well.
[Translation]
Most Canadians do not suspect how much they owe their
quality of life to the employees of the Public Service of Canada.
Let me give you three examples of the contribution of public
servants to Canadians' welfare.
[English]
For more than 150 years members of the Geological Survey of
Canada, using them as an example, have mapped the mineral
resources of this country. This year and in future years
commercial exploration will take place and new mines will open
because of the work that is being done now by these public
service employees.
(1025 )
Canada, as we well know and appreciate and as I have said
many times, has just about the most respected police force in the
world. Indeed, it is a national symbol. Everywhere Canadians
are safer because of the work of policemen and policewomen of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Every Canadian who flies in this country as we all do benefits
from a network of services that the Government of Canada has
developed and maintains. The maps used to fly the planes, the
air traffic controllers that guide them through the air, the
weather warning systems, all come from the public service.
The organizations and people working for government are too
diverse for any less to do justice to them. In addition to the
people I have just mentioned, the examples I have given, are
2779
peacekeepers, scientists, postmen and postwomen, grain
inspectors, trade negotiators and on and on.
The purpose of this list is not just to catalogue the jobs that
government employees do but, more important, it illustrates the
real and substantial value of these jobs. The people of Canada
are getting a good deal from the people who serve them.
Public service employees have long accepted the notion that
although they would never get rich working in the public
service, they would at least feel more secure in terms of job
security than perhaps in some other sectors.
The main source of employment security for our employees is
this government's policy to preserve jobs for Canadians. The
main instrument of this policy in the public service is the
workforce adjustment directive. In essence this directive says
that no employee will be laid off because of reductions in the
workforce unless he or she has received another reasonable job
offer, provided the employee is mobile and willing to be
retrained where necessary.
The previous government made it clear that its intention was
to legislate unilaterally an end to the employment security
features of workforce adjustment. It was saying to affected
employees that it was only a matter of time before they would be
out the door. Remember that phrase pink slips and running
shoes?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you can realize the effect that this
would have on the morale of the public service and its capacity
to deliver quality service to Canadians. That is why the
government will make no changes to the employment security
features affecting workforce adjustment without agreement of
the public service unions. In other words, it is subject to
negotiations. They may want changes, we may want changes.
We are not going to act unilaterally as the previous government
had suggested it would do.
This government has no dogma about downsizing the public
service. Our priority is and will continue to be to provide quality
service to Canadians in the most efficient way possible. Of
course some departments will shrink, others may even grow.
[Translation]
Our objective will therefore be to help employees affected by
the cuts in some departments to obtain another position in the
public service or elsewhere. Specific measures are provided for
this purpose.
[English]
First, we shall continue to limit external recruitment and
improve the management of the priority staffing process for
employees whose positions are being eliminated.
Second, we shall ensure that departments have access to the
incremental funds that they need to train for new jobs those
employees who are affected by the workforce adjustment. When
departments have additional training requirements because of
this program the Treasury Board will provide central funding to
complement departmental budgets for that purpose.
I would like to turn to the measures in this bill and explain
their origins. The measures are a realistic combination of two
elements. First, the budget recognizes that it is necessary for the
attack on the deficit to book savings from the operating funds of
departments through a wage freeze.
Second, it creates an opportunity for public service managers
and employees to find more efficiency savings in an effort to
shorten the duration of the wage freeze. Bill C-17 extends for a
further two years the wage freeze for the Governor General, the
lieutenant governors, federally appointed judges, members of
Parliament and senators, members of the armed forces, RCMP
as well as the employees of the public service. Why are we
freezing salaries and suspending pay increments? Why are we
taking these measures when the existing freeze still has another
year to run? Public service employees deserve and need the
answers to these questions.
(1030)
The Minister of Finance gave the most evident and
compelling reason for the freeze in his budget address. Simply
put, there is no money for increases. The total salary costs of the
government amount to $18.5 billion, thus making salaries a very
important part of federal expenditures.
Though the government would rather proceed by negotiation
than by legislation, I am convinced there really was not a
reasonable alternative. In my consultations with our
unions-and I did have prebudget consultations; other people
engaged in them as well-they made it absolutely clear they had
no interest in negotiating concessions. I understand that point of
view.
If we had waited until the 1995 budget, a year from now,
several bargaining units would have already been eligible to
start negotiations and could have been off seeking third party
arbitration by that point in time. Rather than let those processes
begin under false premises we decided, albeit most reluctantly,
to act this year in the budget and in this bill.
Bill C-17 also suspends normal pay increments. These
increments, which are the pay increases automatically awarded
to employees as they gain experience in new jobs, are common
in both the public and private sector. We have chosen to suspend
them because they were allowing a substantial number of public
service employees to continue to get pay increases while their
colleagues' salaries were frozen. The freeze on increments will
put everybody in the same boat for the next two years. At the
2780
same time this two-year measure on increments will reduce
costs by some $400 million.
I might add that even in the years where there were zero
increases in the existing legislation for wages the actual wage
bill was going up at about 3 per cent because of the increments.
Though Bill C-17 does not allow the government to shorten or
lift the freeze-it is not in the wording that we see before
us-the government has made a very clear commitment to do so
if efficiency savings in operating costs by December 31 of this
year warrant it. Therefore we will make the decision on the
freeze and our opportunity to lift the freeze, if it can be done, in
the run-up to the 1995 budget.
The government is initiating a review of its operations, I think
it is important to point out, to generate efficiency savings,
reduce overlap and duplication, and eliminate low priority
programs. The review for which my ministry will be responsible
is intended to produce results by the end of December for use in
the planning of the 1995 budget.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister
responsible for Public Service Renewal will lead with one
component of the review that will focus on government
programs, the roles and responsibilities. It will determine what
services the government should provide and what services the
taxpayer can in fact afford. It will also seek to eliminate overlap
and duplication both within the federal government and among
other levels of government and to reduce or eliminate programs
that are no longer a priority. The efficiency component of the
review will concentrate on increasing the efficiency of
government operations. The emphasis will be on how to deliver
existing services more cheaply.
We have invited public service unions to contribute to the
review with a focus on efficiency at two levels: national unions
working on issues with the Treasury Board secretariat on
governmentwide savings, and local components of the unions
working with departmental management on efficiency savings
in each department in each locale in the country.
My parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Ottawa
West, is meeting with union representatives this week to explore
the most productive ways for them to participate in the review.
We hope the review will generate savings over and above the
restraint measures that this and previous budgets have put in
place.
The added savings from changing government programs will
be available for such purposes as reducing the deficit,
reallocating funds to other major programs or shortening the
length of the wage freeze. The government's decision on what to
do with these savings will be part of the 1995 budget.
The government believes that unions, managers and
employees share a common desire to serve Canada well. We
therefore want to put before the public service unions and the
employees a broad range of issues for them to consider at
various times and in various forums. The unions have proposed
several of these issues for joint resolution. Management will
suggest others.
(1035)
Here are some examples. For years the issue of contracted
services has been a bone of contention among public service
unions, managers and government. The unions see it as an attack
on their members, while others consider it a cost effective way
of doing business. We want to look at all aspects of the issue and
make the best decisions for the people receiving our services
and for taxpayers.
I have made a commitment to provide the Standing
Committee on Government Operations with detailed
information on contracting for services in the federal
government. I have suggested to the committee that it undertake
a broad review of the subject, here again opening to members of
Parliament the opportunity to be involved in the decision
making process.
In announcing the decision I wish to thank my parliamentary
secretary, the hon. member for Ottawa West. Through the years
of the previous government she and other members from the
national capital region kept Parliament's interest in the public
service alive. I know they are ready to make a strong
contribution to the committee, as will members from across the
country. After all, the public service is not just an Ottawa
institution. I should point out that two-thirds of its members are
located outside the national capital region in all parts of Canada.
The parliamentary committee may wish from time to time to
examine other public service issues. The government remains
committed to its employees and to their employment security.
We intend to stabilize public service employment levels as much
as we can. Nevertheless we must have the flexibility to make
program adjustments as the needs of Canadians evolve.
Accordingly we will seek to make some modifications to the
existing workforce adjustment directive, but we shall do so with
the public service bargaining agents through the negotiation
process that is now in place. They want changes as well.
Let me deal with pension management for a moment. There
are compelling reasons for fundamental reform of major federal
public service pension plans. The Public Service
Superannuation Act, for example, is more than 40 years old and
subject to criticism from several quarters. Plan members seek
greater security of benefits. Taxpayers see the unlimited
indexing of benefits as overly generous. The Auditor General
has advocated changes to the plan's funding arrangements.
Public service unions seek a greater voice in designing and
managing the plan.
2781
The government is determined to respond to these concerns
with reforms that make the plan simpler, more affordable and
easier to manage. We will develop the reforms in partnership
with my advisory committee which comprises representatives
of the plan's major stakeholders including the public service
unions. We will renew the mandate of the advisory committee
to develop a strategy for the complete overhaul of the program
and to produce a framework for a replacement.
The Government of Canada and its employee unions have
been unable to come to a full resolution on the issue of equal pay
for work of equal value. Indeed the issue is now before a human
rights tribunal where it could sit unresolved for another two
years if no means are found to settle the matter through
negotiation.
At the same time, to make it easier to resolve pay equity
concerns in the long term we need fundamental changes in the
job classification and remuneration structures of the public
service. I am looking forward to trying to find a less
confrontational way of ensuring that employees receive
compensation that is in fact gender neutral. We are looking for
ways to try to bring about a negotiated settlement of the matter.
The notions of what is a job and what is work are changing.
We are moving away from the 9 to 5 routine, the old office and
factory of the age of industry. For example, more work is being
done at home under a policy that we have: Treasury Board's
three-year Telework pilot project. Work schedules have to be
adjusted to the needs of clients. We need to be more flexible. We
need to change the structure of work. As the public service
unions and managers have a big role to play in the evolution, this
topic will be on the table for joint action.
I raise all of these matters, as I reach my conclusion, to
illustrate that even though there is a wage freeze, which means
we cannot go to the bargaining table on wages, we can go to the
bargaining table to attempt to deal with a number of other issues.
These are just examples. There are others that both we and the
unions want to raise at the table. Through those means we will
help to build the relationship between employer and employee
over the years ahead.
(1040 )
I hope my remarks have made clear the main elements of the
approach the government will take with the public service.
[Translation]
To begin with, we respect and are fully aware of the
contribution to be made by employees of the Public Service of
Canada.
[English]
We shall seek the broadest possible dialogue with public
service unions and managers.
[Translation]
We will involve Parliament closely in all the major issues
affecting the public service.
[English]
When necessary we shall act directly through legislation to
ensure that the government's fiscal requirements are met. We
shall respect the employment security of public service
employees. I summarize these principles because they will
guide all our actions. We expect to be held to them and I
welcome that.
Let me conclude where I began. This is a responsible budget.
A responsible bill flows from that budget. I look forward to
working with the managers and the union leaders of the public
service in implementing the budget measures that I have just
discussed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since there are no questions and
comments, debate is resumed. I will now recognize the hon.
member for Mercier.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to start by pointing out that the previous speech was made by the
President of the Treasury Board, and with respect, I think it is a
disgrace that this government wants to change substantially how
unemployment insurance works without introducing a separate
bill to do so. Something even the Conservatives would not have
dared to do.
The figures released yesterday on the total value of benefits
paid, which will be reduced during 1994-95 and 1995-96-and
I may recall that for each year this will be $630 million in the
Atlantic Provinces and $735 million in Quebec-these figures
show that the Maritime Provinces and Quebec will be hit with
nearly 60 per cent of the cutbacks, although together they
represent only one-third of the population. In fact, the
Maritimes are being hit even worse. The Maritimes, or should I
say the Atlantic Provinces, with 8.5 per cent of the population of
Canada, will feel 26 per cent of the cuts, while Quebec is also
seriously hit, with 25 per cent of the population and 31 per cent
of the cuts.
I wanted to make this point because this amendment to the
Unemployment Insurance Act does more than change the rules
and the number of weeks. It marks the end of the redistributional
effect of unemployment insurance. This effect was needed
because of the widely differing economies in some of Canada's
regions. I do not think the workers in these regions should be
penalized for the poor state of the economy, especially when a
government gets elected by saying: jobs, jobs, jobs, vote for us!
By making these cuts, the government is passing judgment on
the economy of these provinces and the Maritimes. It is saying:
It is useless to do anything to help you. Move somewhere else!
So workers will have to move, and if they do not, they will only
have themselves to blame. One minister says we can give them
2782
some hope for the future by letting them pick up trash when they
are between the ages of 50 and 65.
(1045)
This bill will endear the government to no one, especially in
the Maritimes, where the Liberals were elected with a strong
majority and where they never told the workers who voted for
them and their promises of jobs, that all these people who were
seasonally employed would soon see their benefits cut by an
omnibus bill.
These cuts are substantial, Mr. Speaker. We saw the overall
figures, but to the individual, it means a loss of thousands of
dollars and a change of status. For the benefit of those who have
never been unemployed, there is a world of difference between
being on unemployment insurance between jobs and being
forced to go on welfare and feel like a social reject.
Measures to provide that in some cases, people could be
employed for a certain time and then go on unemployment
insurance, were introduced by a previous Liberal government.
The Liberals initiated this mechanism to provide for a measure
of equity regions and between individuals.
Did the Liberals not realize that these cutbacks would come
down harder on the Maritimes and Quebec? Was this a
coincidence and were they convinced that this was the route they
had to take? No. Were they unaware of the consequences? Not on
your Nelly. In the unemployment insurance bureaucracy it was
common knowledge that people with short term employment
could depend on unemployment insurance to supplement their
income and could apply again, if they had to, but not every year.
They could have this security, this money to tide them over.
They knew, because there are plenty of tables at Unemployment
and Immigration Canada that say so. These tables show that
repeaters, as they are commonly called, tend to be from the
Maritimes and Quebec. Individuals with between 10 and 20
weeks of employment are from the Maritimes and Quebec. In
fact, in 1991, the proportion of repeaters was 65 per cent in
Newfoundland, compared with 4 per cent in Ontario.
If the Liberals wanted a debate on the redistributional effect
of unemployment insurance, they should have tackled this issue
head-on. If Ontarians are sick and tired of paying for the rest of
Canada, let us be honest about it, instead of hiding behind an
omnibus bill that is touted as a set of new mechanisms but in fact
introduces only technical changes.
What does this government want? What is it drawn to? The
American model? Is it adapting to the North American model? I
ask the question but, as a well-known Liberal Prime Minister
once said, to ask the question is to answer it. Is the government
adapting its policies to those of the United States, where the
norm is six months on unemployment insurance and coverage is
50 per cent of the average industrial wage? We are very close.
We are almost there.
These are the same Liberals who fought against free trade and
NAFTA, and they are going to make the workers, the victims,
pay for the impact of these globalization policies.
On the basis of the figures for the Maritimes and Quebec, our
conclusion is that economic problems experienced by
individuals can only be addressed by helping the individual. It is
economic policy which determines whether or not Quebec's
regions can develop. That is the issue.
(1050)
Since this omnibus bill is presented to implement the budget,
let me talk about the economic policy underlying it. This week,
during debate on the motion concerning job creation, I said that
there are two kinds of countries. There are those where
employment is the residue, the leftover, what remains when all
the rest has been dealt with, when inflation, the debt and
business subsidies have been considered. What else! In other
countries, employment is the goal and it conditions all the
parameters of a government's policy; it is part of an overall
employment policy or strategy, not half-measures. We find
half-measures not in what is done but in the promises. We are
promised half-measures.
The government has refused to address fiscal policy. It
rejected the Bloc's proposal to set up a committee to look at all
budget expenditures. The government has pursued the same
monetary policy as the Conservatives, unsuccessfully, since we
see how threatened the rates are now. The government does not
care; on the contrary, the Liberals have always been the natural
governing party, especially in Ottawa, so they do not care about
giving the regions what they need to develop.
Mr. Speaker, Alain Dubuc, the famous editorialist of La
Presse-by famous, I mean well-known; I do not always agree
with him-recently wrote something which I believe is very
important, especially coming from him. Unfortunately, I do not
have a copy of the newspaper with me, but I am not
misrepresenting him with this quotation: ``Lloyd Axworthy did
not do what had to be done. He cut before putting measures in
place to help workers''.
The unemployment insurance measures which arouse the
anger we see developing, understandably, will make the most
vulnerable and the most disadvantaged pay for a reform that is
still poorly defined, but whose outlines we can suppose. Before
putting assistance measures in place, before implementing an
employment-based economic policy worthy of the name, they
cut. They cut and attacked those in the most difficult situation.
As a member of the Committee on Human Resources
Development, I heard the testimony of people from Sydney who
are completely discouraged. Just raising the qualifying period
from 10 to 12 weeks in a region where unemployment is 15 or 16
per cent, there are no jobs and shutdowns are everywhere,
throws many individuals and families into despair, because
instead of having an adjustment period to find their feet, they
are forced to
2783
go on welfare. They are rejected. They feel downgraded,
abandoned, left behind by this government which, I repeat, was
elected by a very large majority of people who voted Liberal in
the Maritimes on the promise of jobs.
By the way, I want to point out the complacency of the Quebec
Liberal government as well, which is not speaking out strongly
to say how much these measures will cost it in additional
welfare payments.
(1055)
A booklet released yesterday by Employment and
Immigration Canada broaches the subject of social assistance.
The following is stated: ``The minister invited provincial
officials to meet with those responsible for human resources
development with a view to identifying estimates and
developing a common agreement on the implications of social
assistance''. Representatives in Ottawa currently put the
potential repercussions for the provinces at between $65 million
and $135 million. This means roughly $40 million for Quebec,
given the situation in which it currently finds itself.
Is the Government of Quebec complaining? No. Of course,
there is an election coming and the Quebec Liberal government
is a prisoner of its own political options.
Once again, it is the workers who are going to pay dearly very
soon for this government's refusal to keep its promises. The
least fortunate are going to have to pay for the complicity of
other governments seeking only to settle their own structural
problems by paying no heed to ordinary people.
I see that I must wrap up my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I would
have liked to continue, but I have been told that my time is
nearly up. When I speak from the heart, I can go on for quite
some time. However, before concluding, I would like to table
the following motion:
That all of the words following the word ``That'' be rescinded and replaced
by the following:
``this House refuse to proceed with the second reading of Bill C-17, an Act to
amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget
1) given that the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act do not
reduce the inequities between have and have-not regions in the country and
contain no specific measures to reduce youth unemployment;
2) given that the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act do not
cancel the increase in premiums paid by workers and employers in effect since
January 1, 1994.''
Having tabled this amendment, may I now use the time I have
remaining?
The Speaker: The hon. member may continue later. I will
take the motion under advisement, examine it and make a ruling
immediately following oral question period.
[English]
The Speaker: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements
by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
2783
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to inform hon. members of the issuing last week of a
commemorative stamp to honour the 125th anniversary of the
founding of Eaton's department stores by one of
Huron-Bruce's favorite sons, Timothy Eaton.
Canada Post has issued a prestige booklet which includes
stamps, photographs and a written text outlining the history of
the T. Eaton Company.
Last week in London at the Galleria Eaton store there was a
presentation of an enlarged commemorative stamp to the
Kirkton-Woodham Community Centre and to Ray and Wendy
Venturin, operators of the Kirkton market, the ancestor of
Timothy Eaton's original business.
After coming to Canada in 1856 from his native Ireland, he
settled and eventually opened his first store in the
Huron-Bruce town of Kirkton, Ontario. In a small wooden
cabin with his brother James, Timothy Eaton operated a small
general store and post office.
Later Timothy Eaton left Kirkton for St. Mary's, Ontario,
where he began a small dry goods store. In 1869 he headed for
Toronto where he founded the store that eventually became the
famous Eaton's chain, which prides itself on customer service,
and quality merchandise for a good price.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
congratulate Elvis Stojko, Isabelle Brasseur and Lloyd Eisler on
their dazzling wins at the World Figure Skating Championships
in Chiba, Japan. Elvis Stojko, the 22-year-old Olympic silver
medallist from Ontario, won the gold thanks to a nearly flawless
program. He won the gold after competing with the best in the
world.
2784
I also take this opportunity to point out the courage shown
by Lloyd Eisler and Isabelle Brasseur, who won the silver medal
at the same world championships in spite of a rib injury
sustained by Isabelle Brasseur a few weeks ago.
Congratulations to these athletes who make Canada and Quebec
proud.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, tragic
circumstances in my riding will now haunt a Calgary family
forever.
A cold-blooded murder, apparently premeditated, tells a
story that in Canada is becoming all too common. Something
must be done as Canadians everywhere are demanding major
criminal justice reforms.
The chairman of the justice committee stated on March 23
that the justice system should be more lenient toward first
degree murderers. He suggested that the eligibility for parole be
reduced from 25 years to 15.
My constituent died as a result of a shotgun blast to the back at
point-blank range. Why should there be any leniency in a case
like this? How can such a change, as suggested by the Liberals,
make our streets safer?
It is time to strengthen parole mechanisms, not to weaken
them. Despite what the Liberals want, I can categorically say
that Canadians do not want leniency at this cost. Convicted
killers indeed have a place: off our streets and behind bars.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to resolve an ongoing controversy over the
birthplace of hockey in this great country.
As documented by the Windsor Hockey Heritage Society, the
game of hockey had its origins in Windsor, Nova Scotia in the
early 1800s. It was first played by the students of Kings College
School where it evolved from hurley, an Irish field game. In fact,
hockey was played in Windsor for nearly a century before it was
played in most other Canadian towns.
I am proud that in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants the
Windsor Hockey Heritage Society continues to promote the
history of this great game, both locally and across Canada. I
would like to congratulate this organization for its dedication in
preserving such an important part of our heritage.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the residents of the riding of St. Boniface, indeed on
behalf of all Manitobans and Canadians, I rise today to salute
and congratulate 11 year old Anna Paquin.
Miss Paquin was awarded an Academy Award this week for
best supporting actress for her role in the movie The Piano.
Anna Paquin was only four years old when she left Winnipeg
and according to her uncle, Dr. Wayne Paquin of St. Boniface,
she was always ``very precocious, very bright, very outgoing
and very talented''. Miss Paquin became the youngest Oscar
winner since 10 year old Tatum O'Neil won in the same category
for Paper Moon 20 years ago.
Anna's grandmother, Mrs. Agnes Tuckwell, watched with a
great deal of pride from her St. Boniface home as her
granddaughter made her way to the podium on Monday evening
and with good reason.
Once again, I extend my warmest congratulations to Miss
Paquin, to her grandmother and her family.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker,
government should not speak out of both sides of its mouth. A
case in point is jury duty.
Unless excused for a very good reason Canadians when asked
are obliged to do jury duty. Most people do not complain
because it is a service to our country.
But consider what happened to one of my constituents. She
was on unemployment insurance when called to jury duty. She
met her obligation but discovered later she lost her UI benefits
while serving as a juror. What we have here is one department of
government ordering a citizen to carry out her duties to Canada
while another department penalizes her for doing so.
(1105 )
That is government speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Is
this hypocrisy? Is the law an ass? The verdict surely is guilty on
both counts.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, the recent Liberal budget cut unemployment
insurance benefits by $2.4 billion, $630 million of which comes
directly from the Maritimes.
Demonstrators took to the streets to protest these inordinate
cuts in a region hard hit by unemployment. Three large demon-
2785
strations were held in Shippagan, in Bathurst and, just
yesterday, in Sydney where over 1,500 protesters burned the
Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Transport in effigy.
Meanwhile, none of the 31 Liberal members from the
Maritimes had the courage to denounce this situation. Did they
forget those who elected them? Did they forget their first duty is
to be loyal to their constituents? This new version of the Silence
of the Lambs must be denounced.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to pay tribute to Elvis Stojko for his tremendous
performance last night in winning a gold medal for Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): This native of Richmond Hill,
Ontario is a perfect example of what can be achieved through
hard work and dedication.
There is a special feeling of pride in my riding since Elvis
trains in Barrie at the Mariposa Figure Skating School under
coach Doug Lee. No one attains a world championship without
years of dedication and the support of family and friends.
I am sure all members will join me in paying tribute to this
outstanding young Canadian.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, the standing
committee on agriculture has just completed hearings on
whether to allow the use of BST in Canada. The entire
committee process was conducted in public and open session,
including the work on the recommendations and final report.
The work of the committee has confirmed the new role of
parliamentary committees promised by our party during the last
election. The decision to examine the BST issue, which one
witness described as unprecedented attention to a veterinarian
drug, was taken collectively by the committee.
Throughout the process members of the committee worked in
a spirit of co-operation and commitment toward achieving a
consensus report which will soon be tabled in the House.
Once the committee report is tabled it will be up to the
government to respond with the appropriate legislation to
implement the moratorium called for by that committee. I would
hope that same spirit continues.
In that sense of co-operation, with a name like mine, I want to
wish everyone in the House and everyone associated with it a
very happy Easter.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, Ms.
Dawn Gardner is a Saskatchewan health journalist who is
concerned about alcohol abuse on the part of pregnant women.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is defined as a random pattern of
mental, physical and behavioural defects which may develop in
the unborn child when the mother consumes alcohol during the
course of her pregnancy. A pregnant woman never drinks alone.
Canadian estimates of children affected by fetal alcohol
syndrome are over 36,000 yearly. These statistics tell us that
over 50 per cent of these children become wards of the state. The
same percentage will need corrective surgeries while many will
suffer from blindness, deafness, epilepsy and most frequently
mental retardation.
The government must take some responsibility for this
situation and make sure that measures are taken to educate
people by labelling all bottles of alcohol, posting signs,
introducing health programs in the schools, et cetera.
Our youth is our future. Our children are the leaders of
tomorrow. Let us spare them.
A happy Easter to you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw your attention to an overseas exchange
program that has proved to be of immense value to the country. I
speak of the House of Commons parliamentary associations
which enable parliamentarians from other countries to visit
Canada and Canadian MPs to visit them. It is thus that we
cement the ties of democracy while building lines of
communication for international trade.
Therefore, I would hope that the House would acknowledge
those MPs who are taking part in these very important
organizations, especially the anglophone members who have
joined the French speaking associations and the francophone
members who have joined the English speaking associations.
(1110 )
It is when these members go abroad to France, to Europe, the
Commonwealth that we show the world we are indeed a united
Canada.
2786
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, the income gap between francophones and
anglophones, which keeps widening, is partly due to the fact that
francophone minorities in Canada do not have management
control of their elementary and secondary schools. This opinion
is also shared by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. After
thirty years of futile struggle, half of the Franco-Ontarian
students still attend English schools, and their parents are
getting poorer every year.
Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
reiterated the government's intention to reestablish the Court
Challenges Program.
Francophone and Acadian minorities in Canada do not need
federal subsidies to pay for their lawyers. The Supreme Court
has already confirmed their rights. These minorities need the
same degree of generosity displayed by Quebecers toward their
anglophone minority, which includes fair financing of their
schools as well as control of these schools.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
members will know that just this past Tuesday hundreds of
peace officers from across Canada gathered in Ottawa to
dedicate a pavilion in memory of Canadian peace officers killed
in the line of duty. The pavilion is 100 yards from this place.
I met with three widows of slain policemen. With tears in their
eyes, they asked me to use my influence to repeal section 745 of
the Criminal Code, a loophole that lets convicted murderers out
of jail after just 15 years.
In 1971, the Liberal Solicitor General said that rehabilitation
is a priority of the criminal justice system and not the protection
of society. Life means life.
When will Parliament's bleeding heart Liberals finally get in
step with Canadians and put teeth in our criminal justice
system? Protection of society must be the first priority of the
criminal justice system. Life means life.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, it being the last day before the Easter break, it is time
for a report card on the government.
House sales are up 14.3 per cent over the same period last
year. Employment is up 66 per cent February over January. The
composite leading index is up .8 per cent for one month. Car and
truck sales are up 12 per cent over the same period last year.
Merchandise exports are up 13.1 per cent over the same period
last year. Inflation is only .2 per cent.
Finally let me quote the Governor of the Bank of Canada who
said that the signs show that strong foundations are being laid
for a sustainable expansion to our economy.
This government deserves an A-plus.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker,
our senior citizens are our most marvellous resource. They have
made a great contribution to the country; whether it is risking
their lives at war, building our infrastructure, designing our very
enviable social safety net, preserving and transmitting our value
system.
Everything we have, everything we are, everything we believe
in, we owe to these men and women who are now seniors. Is it
not time that we began to repay the debt we owe to these people,
to begin watching out for those who have watched out for us for
so long.
I am thinking particularly of the poor among them, the abused
among them, the sick among them, the disabled. It is true that we
have old age security and medicare, but it is time to go the extra
mile, to reach out to those people really in need, those who want
to stay in their homes, those who want to preserve and maintain
their independence, those who want to live out their lives as they
would choose to do it.
That is the challenge to us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, today marks the end of
a very exciting week in New Brunswick. I am referring to the
Semaine provinciale du français, which began last Monday
under the theme ``Fêter, c'est français'', and concerns all of New
Brunswick, that is both its French and English-speaking
populations.
(1115)
All week, activities took place across the province to promote
French in New Brunswick.
On Monday, I was at the Cité des jeunes, where I met lively
young francophones from New Brunswick who strive to
preserve the French fact in that province.
2787
ORAL QUESTIONS
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the
downward slide of the Canadian dollar, coupled with the fact
that interest rates appear to be on the increase, is cause for great
concern. This disturbing situation comes at a time when the
dollar has fallen to its lowest level in eight years.
For the consumer preparing to renew a $100,000 mortgage,
this could mean an increase of $80 a month, just at a time when
the largest number of real estate transactions are made.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister
recognize that the downward slide of the Canadian dollar and the
upward pressure on interest rates are largely attributable to the
actions of Japanese investors who are divesting themselves in
mass numbers of their Canadian securities?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's question and the tone in which it was put. However, as
you know, international markets are extremely volatile and it is
really not the Minister of Finance's place to comment on the
reasons why this is the case.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister recognize that the falling Canadian dollar, which has
tumbled even further than the US dollar, and the reaction in
Japanese financial circles are directly attributable to the failure
on the part of the Finance Minister to introduce strong measures
to control public spending?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could refer the
hon. member to an article in yesterday's Le Devoir by Mr.
Sansfaçon who lists the reasons why markets are nervous and
gives his own views about the Canadian dollar. He notes that a
survey of the vast majority of foreign stock exchanges and a
review of their reports has revealed one clear fact, namely that
the reasons for the uncertainty surrounding our currency
obviously have nothing to do-and these are his own
words-with the February 22 budget.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Finance not agree that his strategy, which consists in
shifting the deficit onto the backs of the provinces, is being
judged very harshly by foreign markets and that this strategy is
the direct cause of the problems which the Canadian dollar is
currently experiencing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, when we were in
opposition, we made it very clear that shifting the burden of the
federal debt onto the backs of the provincial governments was
extremely harmful. That is why we did not take this kind of
action in our budget. In fact, we did quite the opposite.
A month and a half before the budget, we adopted our
equalization program which, I must say, is very beneficial to
Quebec and to the seven provinces which receive equalization.
This was a program that the previous government had neglected
to ratify, preferring instead to merely extend its provisions. We
have signed a five-year agreement and even Quebec has said
that we have been generous. Moreover, when the time came to
move on social security reform, we provided a two-year period
of predictability with respect to payments and we have indicated
that we will work with the provinces. And I must say that the
provincial ministers of finance, including Mr. Bourbeau of
Quebec, have reacted very positively to our actions.
* * *
(1120)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Confirmation was given to us yesterday that the poorest of the
provinces, that is to say the Maritime provinces and Quebec,
will be the hardest hit by unemployment insurance cuts. In
Atlantic Canada and Quebec alone, cuts will total $1.36 billion a
year for the next two years. Furthermore, these cuts will cause a
substantial increase in provincial expenditures for social
assistance.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm the statement made by
his colleague the Minister for Human Resources Development
to the effect that only 3 per cent of UI recipients will be affected
by reductions in benefit rates, which means that, in Quebec, 3
per cent of our unemployed work force will foot the $735
million bill passed on to the provinces as a result of the
minister's cuts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, in terms of per capita UI
benefits, Atlantic Canada will be receiving $970 and Quebec
$739, as compared to a national average of $575. Following
these changes to the UI system, Atlantic Canada and Quebec
will continue to receive much more than the national average.
So, there is no basis for saying that they are hit harder.
2788
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
that this answer will sound incredibly cynical to all unemployed
men and women in Quebec and the Maritimes, and the scale
of the demonstrations held by people who are seeing more and
more clearly what the government is up to should prompt him
to act.
Here is my question. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to
defer cutbacks in the unemployment insurance system at least
long enough to put in place a real job creation strategy to help
the jobless find work instead of forcing them onto welfare?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): I will answer the hon. member
through you, Mr. Speaker. Our budget is a real job creation
strategy. Atlantic Canada and Quebec stand to benefit the most,
because these regions are unfortunately the most seriously
affected by unemployment.
I must say that the rollback in unemployment insurance
premium rates will benefit small business in Quebec and
Atlantic Canada and thus foster job creation. I must say that our
technology network will help small business, Atlantic Canada
and Quebec. I must add that our budget will help those provinces
where the unemployment situation is the most serious because it
is designed to create jobs by calling upon one of their strengths,
small and medium-sized businesses.
Allow me to quote this statistical data published today
concerning Quebec. There are apparently real signs of an
upward trend in employment in Quebec. This fact was
confirmed by the Quebec manpower development agency. From
August to January, the employment level in Quebec has grown
by 51,000 jobs to 2,983,000, the highest level since October
1991. Last January, a net number of 23,000 jobs were created, as
opposed to 13,000 lost in December.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, the dollar is falling, interest rates are rising, the
government has stooped to writing its own report cards. Thank
goodness it is Friday and thank goodness it is Easter break.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Contrary to
repeated assurances by the minister that he is not terribly
concerned about interest rates, these rates continue to climb.
My purpose today is not to ask the minister why rates are
climbing, whose fault it is or even whether he can do anything
about it. My purpose is to get a straight answer to a specific
direct question: Can the minister tell this House whether his
department has developed any contingency plan to meet its
deficit reduction targets if interest rates continue to climb.
(1125 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we are on track for our deficit targets.
We have built into our budget sufficient room to manoeuvre
given the number of variables which well could affect our
targets. Let me simply say to the member that we are going to hit
our target.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, not only are interest rates rising but the dollar is falling
at a dramatic rate. The minister must realize that a falling dollar
will increase the cost of imports and will inevitably cause
inflation. The minister is counting on a low inflation economy
and that is not a traditional characteristic of the Liberal
government.
Can the minister tell the House if he has a strategy to maintain
low inflation in Canada if imports begin to drive the inflation
rate above 3 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not the case but the
member seems to be almost rubbing his hands in glee at what is
happening. I am sure that is not the case because all members in
this House will seek the best for the Canadian economy.
An hon. member: Right on.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Before Christmas the
Governor of the Bank of Canada and I sat down and set out our
inflationary targets for the next five years. Those inflationary
targets we did in a very short period of time, something that took
the previous government two and one-half years to arrive at.
Those inflation targets are among the most disciplined of any
of the industrial countries in the western world. They are a 1 to 3
target with mid-point 2. The Governor of the Bank of Canada
testifying before the Senate the other day made it very clear that
we are going to stay within those targets.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, certainly this boasting that the budget is a great success
may impress backbenchers but it has obviously failed
impressing those who finance Canada's $500 billion debt,
namely taxpayers and investors.
For six weeks now the minister's promise of a strong
medicine next year has been undermined by repeated statements
by the Prime Minister that all cuts are already on the table.
In light of rising interest rates and the falling dollar, will the
minister ask the Prime Minister to remove the handcuffs and
2789
allow him to use the only available solution to the problem,
deeper cuts in public spending and a revised fiscal plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Develop-ment -Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Prime Minister
repeatedly within this House in response to questions from the
other side say exactly what I said in the budget speech. That is
that the cuts in our budget in and of themselves are sufficient for
us to reach the 3 per cent of GDP target that we have within three
years.
The Prime Minister has gone on to say that within the budget
reference is made to the review of government operations which
is going to be undertaken by the Minister responsible for Public
Service Renewal in which we are rethinking the role of
government, rethinking the way in which we approach the
economy. That is an essential part of our budget and it is an
essential part of our ultimate plan to clean up this nation's
finances.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Finance.
At the end of February, Hydro-Québec received the go-ahead
from the Quebec government to start construction on the
Sainte-Marguerite project, in the Sept-Îles region, where
unemployment is very high. At the time of this announcement,
Quebec had obtained political assurances from Ottawa that the
federal government would support the project. But failing
federal permits, the construction of the dam, scheduled to start
next week, may have to be postponed.
While he is doing little to create jobs, could the minister at
least have the decency not to create difficulties for those who do
and will he give us the assurance that the federal government
will issue the permits required to allow Hydro-Québec to
implement this project which does not interfere with the regular
flow of the rivers and will create-
(1130)
Some hon. members: Put your question!
The Speaker: Order! The length of questions is becoming a
little excessive. I would ask that questions and answers be
shorter.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
When the government announced on February 24 that it had
accepted the BAPE report on the Hydro Quebec project it also
indicated at that time that there would be certain steps taken
before a permit was issued.
As the member should know, the environment must and will
be protected. The Department of Transport is working very
closely with the province and all other parties to finalize the
permit. It has only been a month since the government has
accepted the project. It will not be issued until all the pieces are
in place.
I can assure the hon. member that yes, we are concerned that
jobs are at stake and yes, we want the project to go ahead; but
there are conditions to be met before the permit is issued and we
are working relentlessly to make that happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, this is a
fine example of how cumbersome the federal system is. Will the
Minister of Finance give us today the assurance that, by the end
of next week, Quebec will have received the necessary
authorizations so that work can start in an area where
unemployment is running rampant?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): On the
contrary, Mr. Speaker. The negotiations that have taken place
regarding the Sainte-Marguerite river are an excellent example
of federal-provincial co-operation.
Complete agreement was achieved with the province with
respect to project description, conduct and content. At present, a
permit is to be issued by Transport Canada. Of course, this is a
complex and detailed document and there are still a few pieces
of information to be supplied by the Quebec government. The
province assured us we would be getting this information
shortly. It should be a matter of weeks before a permit is issued,
given the full co-operation of the provincial government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Revenue.
According to a poll released yesterday by Peat Marwick
Thorne, one in six Canadians now describe themselves as tax
anarchists and feel tax cheaters should be applauded. The main
reason given for the attitude was out of control government
spending.
Will the minister agree a major step toward resolving this
problem would be to cut spending and thereby encourage
Canadians back into the mainstream economy?
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the government and I want
2790
to acknowledge that the survey makes interesting points that we
are taking quite seriously.
However we also want to point out that it is a snapshot. It does
show changes in attitude over time. Therefore it would be
difficult to draw certain conclusions, for example, that
Canadians are either more or less disgruntled than at other
times.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
The budget projects an overall growth in the economy to be 10
per cent over the next three years, but it projects 15 per cent
growth in government revenue during the same period. These
figures seem to imply that Canadians will be coming back into
the economy rather than opting out of it or going underground.
In light of the growing underground economy identified by
this poll, could the minister explain how the 15 per cent growth
in revenue will be achieved?
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I believe I just stated that
this survey does not allow us to draw certain conclusions and
that is one. It is a snapshot in time.
The minister has consistently stated in the House that we are
continuing to strengthen enforcement in all aspects of revenue
collection.
* * *
(1135)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Government Services.
In a surprising decision, the Minister of Supply and Services
has terminated the contract under which the federal government
buys influenza vaccines from BioVac, a subsidiary of Biochem
Pharma and the only Canadian manufacturer of this type of
vaccine. Curiously enough, after awarding only a one-year
contract to BioVac for this vaccine, the government has now
decided to award a new, five-year contract to an American
manufacturer.
Why did the government decide to terminate its contract with
BioVac and award a five-year contract to Connaught, when
BioVac will put on the market within one or two years a
revolutionary influenza vaccine costing only ten cents a dose? Is
the minister determined at all costs to export Quebec high-tech
jobs to the United States?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question. The paramount concern in all the deliberations
must be and ought to be the health of Canadians, particularly
young children.
Since 1973 the Government of Canada, in co-operation with
the provinces, has been purchasing vaccines in bulk. No
determination has been reached. The information the member
has provided to the House is somewhat premature. No decisions
have been made with regard to contracts which have been let. I
am hopeful a decision will be made soon and I am hopeful we
will have a Canadian solution to a Canadian problem.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, is the
government, which claims to be so concerned about creating
jobs, willing to review this shortsighted decision supporting a
blatant case of dumping, since Connaught sells this vaccine for
$1.40 in Canada and $3 in the United States?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member
again that the paramount consideration is and must be the health
of Canadians, particularly young children.
No decision has been consummated by the Government of
Canada that has bought this vaccine on behalf of provinces since
1973. I want to assure the hon. member the allegations that are
being suggested by her will be reviewed. Hopefully we can have
a Canadian solution to a very serious Canadian problem.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Justice and I begin by wishing him and his
family a happy Easter.
However the chairman of the justice committee is widely
quoted as saying that he believes convicted murderers like
Clifford Olsen should not have to serve more than 15 years for
their crimes. In fact the chairman of the justice committee
believes the minimum murderers should serve is 10 years
without parole.
Is the chairman of the justice committee articulating
government policy, or is this merely a trial balloon on behalf of
the justice minister?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon.
member for his expression of good wishes at this time of the
year and I reciprocate them.
I have to respond very quickly to his suggestion about trial
balloons. The chair of the justice committee is speaking for
himself. The chair of that committee is one voice among that
2791
very disparate group. The chair is perfectly entitled to express
his own perspective on issues of the day.
For my own part I have already responded to that suggestion. I
do not happen to agree with him, but I think the justice
committee is just the place where that kind of discussion should
occur. I am sure the justice committee is going to have all
manner of controversial matters to deal with in the years to come
and I look forward to that kind of discussion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
president of the Canadian Police Association, Neal Jessop,
called for the removal of the chairman of the justice committee.
Mr. Jessop said that his association could not work with the
present chair, that he was out of step with public opinion and that
he was an embarrassment to the government.
In the interest of swift and co-operative action on judicial
reform, will the minister recommend to the Prime Minister that
the chairman of the justice committee be replaced as soon as
possible?
The Speaker: The hon. minister may wish to answer that
question even though it does not deal directly with his
responsibilities.
(1140 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity to
say to the hon. member and to the House that in so far as I am
concerned the chair of the committee has my full confidence. If
controversial positions or views were to disqualify us from
holding positions many members would not be in the House.
As I said earlier, the fact of the matter is that the chair of that
committee is entitled to express his view. He has done that and I
see nothing out of order with that. He has my every confidence
and I am sure he will stay on as chair of the committee.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, the
United States recently revived its trade ``atomic bomb'', its
``Super 301''. This measure, quite incompatible with the spirit
and content of GATT and NAFTA regulations, is aimed at
penalizing countries found guilty of trade practices deemed
unfair by the United States. A list of such countries will appear
in a few days in the
National Trade Estimates Report, and
Canada should be on it.
Under the circumstances, my question is for the Minister of
Finance. Given the number of unresolved trade disputes
between Canada and the United States, does the minister not
think that the United States could use Super 301 against Canada,
as it did in 1990 against Canadian beer?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, with Canada-U.S. trade
registering over $260 million a year, it is obvious that we will
have trade disputes from time to time.
As far as Super 301 is concerned, senior Canadian officials
have already conveyed our position on this issue to the United
States. For now, we will continue to communicate with them in a
positive way and we hope to reach a common solution.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, the GATT
General Secretary and several European countries are concerned
about the threats to the international community posed by the
United States' aggressive unilateral measures. What concrete
actions does the government intend to take to prevent Canadian
industries from bearing the brunt of the Americans' measures
against all their trading partners?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade): First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Uruguay
Round to be signed by April 15 will resolve many of the
difficulties encountered from time to time. We hope that the
international community will find ways to settle all trade
disputes between countries in a positive fashion, by keeping the
lines of communication open, encouraging dialogue and
avoiding controversy between the United States, Japan and the
other countries.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Industry.
I would like to know what kind of support the government is
giving to the publishing industry in Canada. Would the minister
also give his impression of this particular support?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The
government considers that the publishing industry is a vital
sector of the Canadian economy. I would add that I am also
convinced the strong culture or strong identity of Canada could
not do without a strong publishing industry.
This is why the Canadian publishing industry receives over
$120 million in government assistance every year or 5 per cent
of the entire value of the industry.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
on March 11, I raised a question with the Minister of Human
Resources Development regarding the Board of Referees in my
riding, the failure of his office to deal with our inquiries and an
2792
apparent plan to appoint a wholly unqualified Liberal supporter
as chairman of the board.
The minister assured me that if I provided details of the
problem he would respond quickly. The same day I supplied the
minister with a list of the number of calls made to his office and
the persons who called. I also supplied the names of three highly
qualified people recommended by community leaders to fill
these positions. To date I have received no reply.
(1145 )
When will we get action to re-establish this very important
board in the riding?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member can rest assured that this government will only
appoint people who are qualified to do their jobs. It is extremely
important that we keep the confidence of the Canadian people.
Every single appointment this government has made to date
speaks to the fact that this government will only appoint people
who are highly competent for the job at hand.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
the board of referees normally has two chairs but now is shut
down because the government chose not to renew the term of the
only current chair.
Will the minister agree to extend the term of Rocco
Mastrobuono so that the board can continue to function, given
the length of time the government seems to need to deal with this
problem?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
will take that question under advisement. We will report to the
member as soon as possible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. On February 24,
the Minister of Public Works said in this House that the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation intended to save $120
million over four years and that this amount would be used for
social housing.
Since the minister promised to use this $120 million to help
the poorly housed, can he tell us how many social, co-operative
and non-profit housing units will be built this year with these
savings?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
her excellent question.
I apprise her that we are attempting to achieve greater savings
than $120 million over the next four years in view of the
co-operation which is taking place between the Government of
Canada and the different provinces. Until such time as we can
identify for this fiscal year the amount of those savings it would
be premature for me to announce on the floor of the House of
Commons the exact way in which those expenditures are to be
made.
I do want to assure the hon. member that we are consulting
with the provinces. We will be consulting with various
stakeholders across the country in order to try to achieve better
value for the taxpayer's dollar.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, in view of the
information which the minister wishes to give us, even though
we still lack quite a few details on this subject, I would like to
know if he could also confirm that he intends to offer shelter
assistance, that is, direct aid for tenants, instead of investing in
collective housing projects like low-income housing and
housing co-ops, in case he should change his mind.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of
changing one's mind. It is a matter of getting the best value for
the taxpayer's dollar.
All options will certainly be examined. There will be
meaningful consultations with the provinces and various
stakeholders. I want to assure the hon. member the suggestion
she has made which seems to be coming not only from members
of her party but also from other individuals in the province of
Quebec and elsewhere is something my government and
hopefully other governments will seriously consider.
I do not wish to raise false expectations that large sums of
money will be readily available for that sector. However it is on
the table. It is an option and we are considering it.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last Friday we complimented the Minister of the
Environment on the proposed action on the Irving Whale.
We also suggested that a problem existed in the adjacent
waters of Northumberland Strait. People who harvest lobster
and other fish in these waters have expressed fears that the
government appears prepared to agree to a proposal to discharge
effluent from the Scott Maritimes mill via a two kilometre
pipeline into spawning beds for lobster, scallops and other fish.
2793
What assurances can the minister give these people that their
fishery will not be harmed by a proposed new treatment
facility? Does this insurance include an EARP assessment of
the facility, a commitment made in 1991 by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada?
(1150)
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Delta for giving notice of his
question.
I want to assure the hon. member exactly as I have assured the
member for Central Nova. Neither the Department of the
Environment nor the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under
section 35 of the Fisheries Act has yet completed a full and
proper assessment of the proposal that has been put forward for
the effluent diffuser into the Northumberland Strait. No such
decision has been reached nor will it be reached until a full and
proper assessment is done and until a full consultation occurs
with the fishermen from that region.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): I appreciate the minister's
answer, Mr. Speaker, and recognize he is concerned about these
environmental issues.
However government officials have suggested that the
designation of the boat harbour treatment facility be changed to
allow some pollutants in the effluent to be increased by as much
as 800 per cent.
Can the minister assure this House that present effluent
regulations will not be gutted to allow Scott Maritimes to
increase pollutants by 800 per cent?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I have an obligation under section 35 of the Fisheries
Act to protect habitat. That is an obligation I have in law.
This government has not hesitated to take the most difficult
decisions in the name of conservation of habitat. This is the
government that took the decision to close down a food fishery,
a basic hook and line fishery, in the name of rebuilding critical
cod stocks. Decisions, like those to not allow pollutants contrary
to the Fisheries Act into critical spawning areas, would be easy
for us to take.
This government will not compromise conservation of habitat
for any reason. We have acted forcefully and we will continue to
act forcefully in the interests of conservation.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency.
Recently there has been a lot of controversy over the future of
the Preston and area development fund. This fund was
established to address the real systemic obstacles to black
entrepreneurs in Nova Scotia gaining working capital. The
mandate of this particular program expires on March 31.
Is it the intention of the minister's department and his
government to continue with this program? If not, will he be
announcing a replacement program for black entrepreneurs in
the Preston area in the near future?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his unexpected question.
I assure the hon. member his analysis is correct. The fund will
lapse on March 31, 1994. Through the efforts of the member
himself as well as other community leaders we hope to be able to
replace that particular structure and that fund in the foreseeable
future in order to provide economic benefits to one of the most
depressed areas of the province of Nova Scotia.
I want to thank the hon. member for his efforts in assisting the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in that objective.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. The minister still refuses to order a public inquiry into
the circumstances around the sale of Ginn Publishing to
Paramount. The minister would rather refer the matter for
consideration to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
However, in this morning's
Globe and Mail, we read that the
minister's Liberal colleague, the chairman of this committee,
has made it clear he does not want to conduct an inquiry into this
controversial matter.
Does this mean that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
suggested referring the matter to the Commons committee,
while he knew perfectly well his colleagues would refuse to
consider the matter, probably because they also sensed the
government had something to hide?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the government has absolutely nothing to hide. I am
very pleased to see that hon. members on both sides of the House
are capable of making up their own minds and making their
views known in committee, and I accept their decision.
(1155)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, since the minister is now aware of the fact that his
colleagues have refused to examine this matter in committee, is
he prepared to show his good faith and concern for transparency
2794
by reversing his decision and agreeing to order a public inquiry,
since the Liberal majority on the Canadian Heritage Committee
will not let us investigate the matter in committee?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I think it would be advisable for me to consult my
colleagues before making a decision, and I shall be delighted to
do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the finance minister.
The federal government and the provincial government of
Quebec have paid $46.4 million in government grants to
Hyundai motor company to assemble cars in Bromont, Quebec. I
understand the finance minister plans to spend another $32
million on this project in the name of job creation.
When is the finance minister and his government going to
learn that regional development programs do not work, that
injecting cash into the private sector distorts the marketplace
and that these dollars ultimately dig our debt hole deeper? When
will the finance minister learn something and stop wasting
taxpayers' dollars on direct grants and subsidies to businesses?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as has already been announced in this
House, the respective ministers responsible for the development
agencies, namely the minister responsible for ACOA, the
minister responsible for western diversification and the minister
responsible for FORD-Q, have all said the way in which
regional development policies have been carried out in the past
are certainly ineffective and really not in accordance with the
needs of a modern economy.
As a result, all three ministers have said they are reviewing
and in fact have either imposed or brought in substantial
changes in the way government interacts with the economy.
Our position has been very clear on that and we are in the
process of doing it. In fact a great deal of that is manifested in
the budget and will be manifested in subsequent budgets to
come.
In terms of the particular incident the member raises, first of
all this agreement was signed prior to our taking office. It was
also within the context of a larger overall agreement between
Quebec and the federal government, as has been signed with
many other governments. While there are numerous problems
with that, we are going-
The Speaker: Order. The questions and the answers should be
shorter. The hon. member for Calgary Centre for one final
question.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, has the
finance minister and his government even asked why Hyundai
closed its doors and why this project did not work, before
pumping another $32 billion of good taxpayers' money after
bad? Does he know the answer?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Just to show you that I have learned
my lesson, Mr. Speaker, yes we have asked those questions.
The Speaker: Colleagues, on two different occasions today I
intervened in questions. I simply want to inform the House why.
When we have questions with regard to committees or
chairman of committees, the ministers who would ordinarily be
involved with those committees are not responsible for those
committees. That is why I intervened on the two questions.
It being 12 o'clock, we will now proceed to the routine
business of the day.
_____________________________________________
2794
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to subsection 2.4 of section 11 of the Financial
Administration Act I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, the first ever annual report of the President of the
Treasury Board on the state of employment equity in the public
service. This deals with the fiscal year 1992-93.
* * *
(1200 )
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1) I wish to table explanatory notes and a notice of a
ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, and I ask
that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the
motion.
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the first annual report on employment equity in the public
service which I just tabled is a requirement of the Financial
2795
Administration Act as a result of amendments that were passed
in December 1992 as part of the Public Service Reform Act.
I would like to remind hon. members of the important
role-those who were of course in the last House will recognize
this-that my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for
Ottawa West, played in ensuring that this report would be tabled
in the House.
Indeed, when the act was in committee she introduced an
amendment that the government of the day accepted and that
became the section on employment equity in the Financial
Administration Act.
In speaking in the committee the hon. member for Ottawa
West said that the amendment represented a renewed
commitment to some very positive action to ensure that people
in the four designated groups are no longer denied opportunities
to be whatever they are capable of being in the public service of
this country.
[Translation]
To return to the annual report that I have tabled, I should note
that the Treasury Board has been publishing employment equity
data since 1988.
[English]
These information packages which were made available to the
public, although not tabled in this Parliament, have provided
useful information on the state of employment equity in the
public service.
However, they did not show the range of positive initiatives
and activities that the Treasury Board and the Public Service
Commission together with departments had been taking to
advance the goals of employment equity programs.
The annual report that I have just tabled tries to fill that gap.
As the act states, the purpose of employment equity programs
and policies in the public service is to improve employment and
career opportunities for four designated groups. They are
women, particularly women in non-traditional and executive
positions, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and,
finally, persons who because of their race or colour are in a
visible minority.
How are we to achieve this result: By eliminating
employment barriers against persons in designated groups; by
introducing and supporting, as the legislation requires, positive
policies and practices; and by trying to ensure that persons in
designated groups are represented in the public service in
proportion to their representation in the workforce of this
country and of the particular communities they serve in.
However, focusing on the number of designated group members
in the public service is not enough. Public service managers and
employees must value diversity and must show it consistently
through their actions.
At this time I want to reiterate the government's commitment
to employment equity and specifically its commitment to
employment equity in the public service. It was in the red book,
we made that point and we stick by it.
The numerical goal of employment equity may be more
difficult to achieve in times when the public service has stopped
growing. However, let me assure hon. members that the
employment equity program is a high priority of this
government and that we will do everything possible to ensure
that its goals are met.
[Translation]
For example, just three months ago, we made a lot of changes
to the Special Measures Program that was put in place by a
Liberal government in 1983.
[English]
The report does not provide details of these revisions because
it covers the period April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993 which is
before we came into office. However, I would like to inform the
House that the Treasury Board has approved funding for a
restructured special measures initiative program which will
provide for pilot projects co-funded with departments that help
increase our employment equity opportunities.
One of these initiatives aims to improve, for example,
employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in the
public service.
(1205 )
As of April 1, 1994, I am pleased to announce that a special
fund of $500,000 will be created to assist employees with
disabilities. This is replacing a program that was a mere $40,000
I might add. This assistance includes attendant care,
modifications to computer equipment, materials and alternative
formats and special telephone equipment.
Second, retention of aboriginal employees is of concern to the
government. The Treasury Board is developing a guide for
managers to help them create a work environment that will
encourage aboriginal employees to join and to remain in the
public service.
Furthermore, an executive development program for persons
in a visible minority is being extended. Of course the
recruitment program for visible minorities is also being
continued.
The progress of women in the public service has been steady
and we shall be putting more emphasis on the development of
opportunities for women in the public service.
Courses on cultural awareness and diversity in the workforce
are widely available to both public service managers and
employees who are encouraged to take such training. It is
important to set the right atmosphere in our public service and
that kind of program helps a great deal.
2796
Finally, the Financial Administration Act requires the
Treasury Board to prepare annual employment equity plans. All
departments and agencies are required to have employment
equity plans ready by this coming April 1, 1994. Anyone
interested may obtain copies of the plans from departments and
agencies.
I also invite members of this House to make suggestions on
how, since this is our first report, we might improve the annual
report on employment equity.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, first I want thank
the hon. minister for tabling his report, although we have been
waiting for it since June 30, 1992, in accordance with the Public
Service Reform Act.
This document highlights, among other things, the
representation profile of designated groups in the public
service. It also provides the evolution of this profile from
December 1988 to March 1993. It shows that, during those five
years, female representation in the public service only increased
by 3.2 per cent; aboriginal groups by 0.3 per cent; handicapped
people by 0.4 per cent; and visible minorities by 0.9 per cent. In
other words, the representation of designated groups barely
changed over the last five years.
In its red book, the Liberal government stated its intention of
doing something for these designated groups. Yet, the
Employment Equity Act still does not apply to the public
service, nor to federal commissions or agencies. What did the
government do in the light of these findings and policy
statements?
Today, the government announced pilot projects for the
restructuring of special measures programs. It announced the
creation of a special $500,000 fund for handicapped people
which, divided by ten provinces, barely represents $50,000 for
each province. There is certainly nothing extraordinary about
this initiative.
The government also announced a development program for
visible minorities which, for all intent and purposes, was
already in place. Consequently, this is merely a measure
ensuring the status quo. In the case of women, whose
representation only increased by 3 per cent over the last five
years, which means barely 0.6 per cent per year, the government
announced development initiatives for administrative support
positions.
(1210)
There seems to be a significant gap between the government's
avowed intentions, or at least its stated intentions, and the
measures actually taken to correct the situation. Just to give you
an idea of how inconsistent the government is, on the one hand it
announces measures which will have a very limited effect while,
on the other hand, it is going to court to challenge
representations made by the Public Service Alliance of Canada
in favour of pay equity. Moreover, the government tabled Bill
C-17, which freezes salaries in the public service, prevents a
reform of salary scales, blocks a reform of job classification,
and also delays wage parity and prevents it for the time being.
What will be the real impact of Bill C-17 on the
reclassification of groups of employees? What concrete
measures is the government taking to ensure that the salary
freeze will not jeopardize negotiations on wage parity? There is
a gap between the government's stated intentions, the
low-impact measures it advocates, and the real problem of pay
equity in the public service. That gap has not been closed and
nothing leads us to believe that it will be closed in the coming
weeks or years.
I will conclude by saying that the tabling of this report
highlights the obvious contradictions between the government's
real intentions and the weak measures it is taking to correct the
situation. The government would be well advised to state its real
intentions quickly, so that those affected can have some hope
and confidence. After all, some have been waiting since the
1980s to improve their plight, and they have to have some hope
that things will finally improve.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
this employment equity in the public service targets four
designated groups: women, aboriginal peoples, persons with
disabilities and visible minorities. It covers people in the federal
public service and other sectors under the public influence such
as banks of federal charter and certain businesses that do
business with the government.
In so far as the employment equity in the public service has as
its primary goals, one, the removal of barriers to employment
and, second, to encourage and support those in the designated
groups to apply for advancement, then we endorse these
activities and we applaud the public service for taking a
leadership role.
However, we would caution that it is one thing to remove
barriers to provide encouragement and quite another to promote
or hire because of ethnic or gender considerations. I would
caution the public service not to practise reverse discrimination.
As to persons with disabilities, the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons tabled a
report last year. That report clearly indicates that a primary
barrier to employment of persons with disabilities is a catch-22
situation. That is when persons with disabilities get a job and
gain income from employment they do so very often at the
expense of the very benefits they have been receiving that
allowed them to get the job in the first place.
This is an area that we already know the answer to which is
one of taxation. The standing committee brought the report
forward and it should be reviewed by the employment equity
people.
2797
Our position is that emphasis must be on individual
achievement. Employers must treat people as individuals in all
aspects of recruitment, training, hiring and promotion. The
emphasis must be on the individual's experience, ability and
performance. Putting the emphasis on individuals will ensure
that women, racial minorities, aboriginals and the disabled are
not held back by stereotypes or other discrimination.
(1215)
Finally, there may well be those in the identified groups who
need a helping hand and they should be encouraged. It is quite
right that the public service would have this body to do just that,
to encourage and to ensure that barriers do not exist.
However we should recognize that the vast majority of
women, visible minorities, aboriginals and the disabled would
resent being categorized as somehow disadvantaged and unable
to compete on their own merit. That is something that needs to
be understood, that many people have made tremendous strides
in their achievements. They have done so and will continue to do
so on their own merit, not because they have benefited by some
special program.
We are, all of us, human beings with the same strengths,
weaknesses, hopes and dreams as everyone else regardless of
our defining characteristics.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Your committee has considered Bill C-18, an act to suspend
the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and
has agreed to report it without amendment.
I also have the honour to present the 14th report of the said
committee on the membership of the various standing
committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 14th report later this day and I would ask for the consent of
the House to dispense with the reading of the report.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent among the
members to dispense with the reading of the report?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order of reference of February 8, 1994, your
committee has considered the modernization and restructuring
of Canada's social security system.
[English]
This interim report represents the first phase of your
committee's consultation with Canadians on the modernization
of Canada's social security system.
Your committee is already preparing its second phase of
consultation in anticipation of the release by the Minister of
Human Resources Development of the government's action plan
and proposed changes.
In conformity with the House's reference on February 8, it is
your committee's intention to table its final report with
recommendations on or before September 30.
[Translation]
I want to thank most sincerely all members and staff of the
committee as well as the hundreds of Canadians who have
contributed to that phase of our work.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say that the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, is
tabling a dissenting report that the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development has agreed to append to the
majority report.
I would like to point out that the time frame set by the House
in the committee's terms of reference is much too short to fulfil
the obligation to consult all Canadians, in spite of outstanding
and strenuous efforts on the part of the entire committee.
There is one major flaw in the report and it pertains to the
respective responsibilities of Canada and the provinces. You
will understand that this is a fundamental question, for Quebec
in particular. In our view, this matter was dealt with much too
quickly in the relevant section of the report for it to be
acceptable. In the second phase of our work, we will give this
matter all the consideration and attention it warrants.
* * *
(1220)
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Transport) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-21, an act to amend the Railway
Safety Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
2798
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(granting of access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by my hon. friend
from Nepean, for leave to introduce a private member's bill, an
act to amend the Divorce Act, by granting access to, or custody
of, a child to a grandparent.
In this year of the family it seems appropriate to recognize in
statute the rights of grandparents to have access to their
grandchildren or to be able to be informed of their well-being
should the parents of the grandchild divorce.
At present the Divorce Act overlooks the rights of
grandparents and this bill, should it become law, would put these
rights squarely before the judge in the divorce matter so they
will be taken into consideration when a divorce decree is
granted.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs presented to the House today be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Which
report is that?
The Deputy Speaker: The 14th report.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would also move:
That up to 10 members of the Standing Committee on Finance and up to 10 staff be
authorized to travel to Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver between
April 10 and 16, 1994 and up to 10 members of the said committee and up to 10 staff be
authorized to travel to Quebec, Fredericton, Halifax, St. John's and Charlottetown
between April 17 and 22, 1994.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1225)
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, these
petitioners ask for an overhaul of the Canadian tax system. They
would like special attention to be given to spouses. Often wives
stay at home to raise their family, so that those who have
children with special problems, often called handicaped, face
significant challenges.
[English]
The petitioners would like the government to look at the
system of taxation in Canada and pay particular attention to
people who stay at home, very often without choice, to raise
their children.
They feel the system is not as sensitive as it should be to that
situation, particularly when there are children with special
difficulties that need to be retained in the home or go to special
facilities.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add these petitions and the thousands of signatures
to the over 2.5 million signatures that I have already presented
in the House in the last two years.
The petitioners feel there are serious deficiencies in the
criminal justice system, that there are many vulnerable persons
who have little protection under the current system; women,
children and disabled persons are at particular risk.
The petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes
of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to
society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail
Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition
dealing with the prayer in this House.
I realize that we have already dealt with it but it is my
obligation to present all petitions which are in proper form. I
believe as well the response may correct some of the
misinformation being distributed by the member for Saint John.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
2799
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker I wish to inform the House that in view
of the ministerial statement, the time allotted to government
orders will be extended 16 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2)(b).
_____________________________________________
2799
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I should mention that the hon. member
for Mercier told me that she had to leave and that she had
completed her remarks. I must point out to the members of the
Official Opposition that the amendment moved by the member
for Mercier is in order and there is no procedural problem. In
short, the amendment is acceptable.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Bill C-17, the omnibus bill on the
implementation of a number of measures in the recent budget. I
am doing so on behalf of the hon. member for Lethbridge who is
unable to be here. He has asked me to make a few comments on
the general orientation of our caucus toward the bill and some of
the measures in it. I will also take some time to comment further
to that on some of our specific concerns with regard to the
sections on transfer payments to the provinces, the area for
which I am specifically responsible in the bill.
(1230)
Before doing so I would like to take a moment to draw to the
attention of the House that Ernest Manning High School in the
south part of my constituency of Calgary West has been holding
a model parliament this week where they are debating many of
the same things. I had been scheduled to attend their model
parliament today but due to this commitment and other
commitments particularly with regard to Bill C-18 and the
committee hearings we had last night, I was unable to depart
Ottawa.
I have had the honour on many occasions in the past to attend
model parliaments at Ernest Manning High School. If my
experience is any example, I am sure the students would have
much to recommend to the House in terms of not only the
informed level of debate but also the democratic procedures that
are in place in that particular parliament.
Having said that, let me move to Bill C-17. As I indicated in
earlier remarks today when we were discussing a point of
procedural order, our party would be opposed to this kind of
measure, to an omnibus approach to government legislation. In
my remarks today, specifically to start with, I will deal with the
five general parts of the bill: part I which applies to public sector
compensation considerations; part II, the cuts in the Canada
Assistance Plan and PUITTA transfers; part III, the reductions
in transportation subsidies of various kinds; part IV, the
authorization of borrowing authority for the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation; and finally part V, the significant
changes to unemployment insurance.
Our party has mixed views on these various items. It is
unfortunate that the nature of the legislation itself would not
allow us to independently support some of the more desirable
aspects of the bill, at least at the voting phases.
In part I, public sector compensation, the effect of the
measure as in the budget is to extend wage freezes that have
been in place now to the end of 1997, saving the government up
to $1.5 billion over the next three years. In the zero in three
deficit reduction program Reformers ran on during the election,
we supported general reductions to the costs of the federal
bureaucracy, the civil service, and to some degree civil service
compensation, although certainly we would prefer to see most of
the savings in the public sector concentrated on non-wage
overheads.
However it has been our experience that in the private
sector-and, as members know, my area in particular is
dominated by private sector activity-a general lack of raises in
private sector wages has been the norm for several years now
and downsizing in many organizations has been commonplace.
In comparison, the public sector has been relatively lightly
affected by the ongoing recessionary problems that we believe
ultimately originate in the public sector through not only the
expenditure practices of governments but also their taxation
policies and taxation responses to deficit situations.
Public sector compensation has continued to remain generous
during this period and downsizing relatively light compared to
that experienced in many other areas of our society. It is only
justified that the public sector would experience these kinds of
wage freezes during the period in question.
(1235)
I hope the committee will examine some of the specific
measures and some of the broadness of the wage freezes which
are actually very rigid across categories and do occasionally
lead to some inequities or incongruities in application. There
may be some specific things the committee could do to examine,
while not violating the principle of freezing the overall wage
bill, whether any more flexibility could be given.
We also would like to support the one-time adjustments
involved in government policy for relocation and incentive
payments to workers who are being displaced from the public
sector, particularly in the military area. There may be
disagreement with the specific programs proposed, but I think
no one questions the principle that there is a need to provide
interim relief to those affected by government cutbacks. In
particular we compliment the government for beginning to
encourage the use of these funds toward retraining and
relocation rather than just
2800
payments that encourage recipients to welfare when adjustment
payments run out.
We strongly support the freezes we are applying to ourselves
in line with this, freezes to senior people in government and to
members of Parliament. We would also take this opportunity to
urge the government once more to make substantial cuts in
benefit related areas to members of Parliament that are out of
line with standards the public expects.
I refer specifically to the MP pension plan. Even the
contribution levels of members of Parliament to that plan
exceed normal contribution to a plan. On top of that, the
government is now matching our contributions on a six to one
basis to preserve the soundness of the plan over the long haul.
This simply cannot be justified at this time. I call on the
government once again to bring in serious measures to cut back
the benefit of this plan. It should ensure that the tremendous
liabilities which have built up are not simply the responsibility
of the taxpayer and that some of the current recipients who quite
unjustifiably and quite irresponsibly voted themselves this kind
of defined benefit also share in the reduction of the costs of the
plan over the long run.
In addition I raise the concern we have in this party about
non-accountable expense allowances being used as
supplementary pay. These allowances are substantial. I receive a
cheque of $3,000 a month for my work here but then I receive an
extra $1,775 for an expense allowance for which I do not have to
account. I have absolutely no problem in saying that my
expenses as a member of Parliament are high and I will account
for them. However I know the total value of that particular
money plus the additional expense accounts in our operating
budgets exceeds the expenses I incur. I am certain they exceed
the expenses incurred by members who live much closer to
Ottawa. That is something the House should re-examine while it
is looking at the compensation of ordinary public sector
workers.
Part II of the bill concerns reductions in transfer payments to
the provinces, specifically in the area of the Canada Assistance
Plan and the public utilities income tax transfer arrangements. I
will not comment on those at great length here because I want to
do so when I am finished my more general remarks. Let me just
say in summary that these measures in many ways are an
extension of some existing policies of government.
Nevertheless we have concerns. We do support the fact-and
we said during the campaign that the government was realizing
it-that transfer payments to the provinces are substantial and
will be affected by any kind of long term deficit reduction plan.
We are seeing the government do that. Nevertheless it is doing it
without a plan. We have some specific concerns with some of the
proposals here and where exactly they are going. I will discuss
that in a few minutes.
Part III of the bill concerns reduction in transportation
subsidies extending and deepening some reductions in the area
of subsidies both to Atlantic sectors and to western grain sectors
of our economy. During the campaign our party had called for a
general reduction in money spent in the area of subsidies to
transportation.
(1240)
We would prefer rolling together all grain transportation
moneys for farmers along with other agricultural programs into
a series of two or three programs. That would basically have the
effect of giving individual farmers much more choice in how
they utilize government assistance, particularly in the area of
the type of transportation and the methods of transportation
chosen to move their product. That is the direction in which we
would like to go.
We emphasize, though, that we only support the continuation
of these subsidies as long as there is not an equal playing field
with regard to the farm situation internationally. We favour a
multilateral approach through the GATT to reducing these
international subsidies. In line with that we would see our
subsidies drop as well.
I note that this question came up once before in the House of
Commons. The government insisted that was everyone's
position but of course it is not. There are people in this country
and particularly in other countries who are opposed in principle
to any kind of reduction in this area. We will not sacrifice our
farm sector when other farm sectors are not experiencing similar
reductions.
Part IV of the bill, as I indicated, is the part that perhaps gives
us the greatest difficulty. The Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation is being given its own borrowing authority for the
first time in its history in the magnitude of $25 million. This is a
thinly veiled attempt to give the CBC more money without
increasing its direct grants. We have already seen the
government restructure the downsizing, the subsidy reduction
program to the CBC, and spread it over a number of years to
allow it to be less costly to the broadcasting corporation and
more costly to taxpayers.
What assurances do we have that in next year's request for
moneys the CBC will not include the increased costs of paying
back these loans as yet another financial need? In other words it
could be a backdoor way for the CBC to get increased funding
once again.
In our view there will have to be a thorough examination of
whether we support a large or small reduction to the budget of
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a significant
re-evaluation of its role and its mandate. Particularly as
technology
2801
advances and we see these tremendous changes in the world, we
recognize that the CBC will have to be re-examined.
Whether or not the government likes it, shortly we will have
the choice of hundreds of television stations for ordinary
viewers. The CBC will be in a very different position than what
it was when this kind of policy was first brought on to the stage.
In recent years the CBC with this borrowing authority has been
increasingly forced, like it or not, to compete, to go out into the
market to raise revenues.
With the implied backing directly or indirectly of the
Government of Canada, it is crowding out the efforts of private
advertisers and private investors to fund their own activities,
their own borrowing and expansion requirements, at a time
where money is very tight in the markets. The complaint I hear
constantly from people in the radio and television business, not
only in Calgary but in other cities where I visit, is that the CBC
is not on a level playing field.
It is a very tight and very competitive business right now. We
know that a large percentage of private radio stations, for
example, have gone out of business in the past several years.
This is not the kind of competition they look upon favourably.
We need to decide whether CBC should be strictly a medium
to promote and produce Canadian television or whether it is a
market player just like other stations. If so, does it compete on a
level basis or does it have an unfair advantage? Before we
extend this kind of borrowing authority we should be asking
what mechanisms are in place to ensure the investments made by
borrowing this money are profitable. Ultimately the CBC is
fully supported by the Government of Canada and may lack the
necessary incentives to invest prudently.
(1245 )
Part V of the bill concerns the government's changes to
unemployment insurance. As I have said in previous speeches
on the budget, these are the most significant changes in the bill
and we certainly support the general direction the government is
taking.
In the second year of implementation of these changes, we
will be saving the taxpayers in the order of $2.4 billion. This is a
significant amount of money. It is certainly the most significant
expenditure reduction in the budget. It is also a very significant
reduction not just for the money saved but for the direction the
government now appears to be mapping in this area which is
very much along the lines of what Reformers have been
advocating for a number of years.
These changes are an important signal to the marketplace. The
government is hinging a great deal of faith on holding its budget
through the first year to try to keep things on track, convincing
the marketplace that this is the direction it is looking at and that
it is looking at only less costly social programs in the future but
much more responsibly structured ones.
It hopes the marketplace will buy this signal even though it is
really the sole big dollar application in the budget and will be
able to hold off any kind of precipitous developments in the
financial markets toward the dollar and toward the Government
of Canada in the next year.
As I said in my speech on the budget, that is the gamble the
government has taken. I would note that except for this measure,
the will is not in this budget. It is very unclear at the moment
with the problems we have with interest rates and the dollar that
the market is accepting this signal as the real direction of the
government.
Let me mention the good things in this development with
unemployment insurance. There are several. First, it shows the
government is moving in a good direction by not only reducing
expenditure but also reducing payroll taxes.
What is interesting is that the government claims reducing the
payroll tax is one of the centrepieces of its job creation program.
It is nice for us to see that the Liberals are acknowledging that
decreases in these types of taxes are a real solution to the job
creation problem and to the unemployment dilemma we have in
the country. Certainly it is a more effective approach than things
like the infrastructure program, an approach we hope they will
expand in the future. We need to stimulate through tax relief
sustainable private sector job creation. That really should be the
focus of our economic strategy.
The second desirable point about this is that the change
proposed by the government to unemployment insurance is
making the program more of a true insurance program rather
than simply a haven for seasonal workers to top up their income,
in other words, an income support program.
The long run drift of the unemployment insurance program
from insurance principles has been extremely costly in the
number of dollars spent but also many economists would agree
it has had a lot to do with the increase in structural
unemployment and the distortion of the regional economies.
Through the changes the government is proposing in the bill
and in the budget, it is taking us down the path of linking through
contributory programs like UI, contributions to the program
much closer to the benefits that one is eligible to receive. Of
course that is really the justification on which such contributory
programs should operate.
The third point in the government's proposed changes to
unemployment insurance is that it is good to see the Liberals
slowly crumbling their mantra of universality. I have already
noted that while the government has attacked us on our proposed
changes in these areas, for example changes to seniors'
programs, the government itself has taken absolutely no steps to
restore the clawback to old age security which it fought when it
2802
was in opposition. In fact it has gone additionally in that area. It
has now imposed means testing on some of the tax benefits to
senior citizens. This is another example of getting away from
universality. We could disagree with the specific mechanism but
the drift is definitely there. In the case of unemployment
insurance there has been an increase in benefits for lower
income Canadians under some circumstances and a decrease for
others.
(1250)
The government is moving in all of these directions, and I
repeat them: the reduction of payroll taxes, the return to a link
between contribution and benefit in unemployment insurance,
in other words, insurance principles and finally a move toward
some targeting in this program and away from universality.
These are all positive aspects in our view. I also acknowledge
they were difficult decisions. The changes will be significant for
the people affected and this particular decision I am sure will not
be an easy one for the government although it will have our
support. I regret it is one of a very few difficult decisions
contained in the budget.
I want to express one reservation. There is also a change
which gives employees the benefit of the doubt when dismissed
for misconduct. In our view it has the potential of encouraging
employees to dispute all dismissals in the hope of collecting
premiums. This could clog up the system and result in increased
claims. We hope the government in committee will examine the
direction it is going although I would acknowledge that some of
the things the previous government did in that area were
questionable.
Finally, we also acknowledge the need for the pilot projects
that are part of the bill and we urge the government to keep the
House current on the spending of this money and to report to the
House evaluations of the success of these kinds of projects. Too
often in the past we announce initiatives for the sake of
lessening the impact of unpopular measures. These continue
permanently, they are never properly evaluated and they end up
being simply a way that we mitigate the effect of having tried to
save money in the first place.
Having said those things, I regret we are unable to support the
bill over all. There are many things we do support but do not
support the bill over all because of its omnibus nature.
[Translation]
I would also like to comment very briefly on the position
taken by the Bloc Quebecois regarding Bill C-17, an act to
amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.
I may add that most of the measures in this bill concern
specific cuts in the government's budget, especially the
government's proposed cuts in unemployment insurance.
Apparently, the Bloc is opposed to this bill, as it is opposed to
any major changes proposed by the Reform Party which concern
major government programs, and I find this disturbing, because
I see a party that is in favour of the greatest change of all, the
break-up of this country.
When we talk about federal programs, programs created
under the federal system, our party is proposing major changes,
while the Liberals are proposing changes that are as significant
as ours, but when the government starts to discuss issues that are
vital to the future of our country, we see that the Bloc is always
opposed to these changes.
I find it hard to explain to my constituents why a party that
cannot abide the Canadian federal system still supports federal
programs and in fact supports the status quo.
(1255)
The Bloc Quebecois is always prepared to recognize the
benefits of federal programs and it does so clearly and
incisively, but when it talks about what is wrong with the federal
system and especially about the programs we are discussing
here, they tend to lack that incisiveness. I must say that I find it
hard to understand why they are opposed to the system, to the
program in general, while they are not to specific cases.
[English]
I hope that we will get a better understanding of these
positions as we debate these things in the future.
If I could for a few moments turn specifically to Part II which
is the area of my particular expertise, the fiscal arrangements
section of this bill, I note that it affects two areas, the Canada
assistance plan and the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer
Act.
The Canada assistance plan changes are in clause 12 of the bill
and the purpose is to limit future federal CAP contributions to
each province to the amount they received in the year ending
March 31, 1995 until superseded by social security program
reform in fiscal 1996-97.
Our position generally has been to recognize the need for
reduction in the area of federal transfers and specifically in the
area of welfare. I guess what we ask is why we are imposing
targets for reduction in the absence of any particular policy for
change and even in the absence of any particular policy direction
that would indicate what the changes would be.
In our view there have already been inequities created through
this situation. The previous government brought in specific caps
to the payments that went to the so-called have provinces:
2803
Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, caps that reduced quite
significantly the expected revenue of these provinces from
federal transfers for welfare payments. This has been a big
problem in the case of Ontario.
This seems to be happening without an overall plan and now
we are asked to implement additional projected cuts. Once again
we do not know where this is going. In fact, we have various
committees studying these things at the moment.
I am concerned about the lack of restructuring of the program,
the lack of overall financial direction, just these arbitrary
reductions. What is interesting is they are done really on the
basis on which the Liberal Party often criticizes us, saying we
are slash and burn, we have no plan and we just cut the dollars. In
fact, this is precisely what this bill does. It lays out some areas
for reduction to a significant social program and provides
absolutely no rationalization why that would be done or plan to
implement it.
Just to give some idea of the money involved, Canada
assistance plan payments have been a rapidly growing area of
government expenditure. In the last 10 years they have grown
from $3.4 billion in 1984 to approximately $7.7 billion in fiscal
1993-94. They are projected to grow by another 5.4 per cent this
year. Obviously we can agree with the fact that there does need
to be some reduction.
The social assistance case load in this period has grown from
about 750,000 in March 1980 up to 1.6 million today. I would
point out once again to hon. members that the period of massive
deficits, structural deficits, ongoing deficits and accumulation
of debt has not been a period in which we have produced jobs in
economic growth but one in which we have restricted and stifled
it. I once again would ask the government to re-examine its view
of the link between financial mismanagement at the federal
level and job creation.
The ministers often assert that there is a positive link between
deficits and job creation. I think the evidence is increasingly
otherwise. There are projected savings from the reforms here of
$466 million up to 1995-96. These are significant amounts of
money. However, once again I suggest that we do not know the
direction and we are concerned about further penalization of
particular provinces as we had in the past as opposed to
something that may treat all provinces much more fairly.
(1300)
Clause 13 of the bill is the changes regarding the Public
Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. What this really does is
preserve the current 10 per cent reduction of transfers under that
act for an additional period of time.
Just to inform the House, the Public Utilities Income Tax
Transfer Act exists because in some parts of the country,
particularly Alberta but not exclusively, utility companies are
private sector whereas generally speaking they are public sector
utilities. As a consequence the operations of these corporations
are subject to taxation whereas crown corporations are not taxed
in the same manner. This has given rise to an inequity that is
compensated for by the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act
which transfers back to the provinces some of the corporate
income tax revenues that are taken out of certain provinces
because they are private sector companies but not out of other
provinces.
The purpose of this program has been to create a level playing
field in other words. This is obviously undone when we begin to
freeze or reduce these kinds of payments.
By the way this goes back to 1948. We recognized this
inequity a long time ago. From 1966 on we refunded to the
provinces virtually all, about 95 per cent, of the moneys that
were collected from private utility companies back to the
provincial governments. It was only in 1990 that we began to
effectively freeze these payments. It had been done in the past
but was reversed. However, in 1990 we started the pattern of
freezing payments at fixed levels and of reducing the percentage
that will be returned to provincial governments. In our view that
is not fair.
It has a particularly unfair effect on the province of Alberta
which is the major beneficiary. These tax revenues in other
provinces are generally retained by the province, but in Alberta
the province rebates these tax revenues to the utility companies
with the stipulation that they must be passed on to their
customers. In other words the purpose here is not to allow the
operation of the Income Tax Act to lead to higher utility prices in
the province of Alberta.
I suggest that the purpose of the act is fair. The government
proposes to continue the present reductions in freezes that the
Conservatives implemented. It is certainly no worse than we
have at the current time but it is not an issue of equity.
I come back to that time and time again when I speak about
transfer payments and how we change transfer payments to the
provinces, whether it is through the equalization formula on
which we have already had a bill or through cap changes here or
through PUITTA changes.
In all cases what we see are programs that proceed without a
plan. We either give money with minimal restriction in the case
of equalization or cap it in the CAP or in the case of PUITTA. We
have no particular rationalization for these things. The common
theme seems to be that certain provinces, of which mine is one,
seem to always come out at the short end of these
non-systematic changes and revisions to policies that transfer
money to provincial governments.
2804
I remain unclear of what my view is of these measures. I can
support the philosophy of the CAP transfers but I do not know
where they are really headed or what the public policy purpose
is. In the case of the PUITTA transfers I do not support the
philosophy but I do recognize that the government has not
introduced additional cuts. Of course we would fight that quite
strongly. Those are measures we are going to have to examine
in committee.
I see your signal, Mr. Speaker. I believe there will be other
speakers on some of the other matters. I say once again there are
things in this bill to recommend it. I just regret that we are
proceeding with this omnibus approach to legislation which,
because it lumps in things we support and things we do not
support, unfortunately deprives us of the ability to support the
government in votes where that would be appropriate.
(1305)
I appreciate very much your patience, Mr. Speaker. I believe
we will hear later in debate from the hon. member for
Lethbridge, who was unable to be here today, as well as other
members of our party.
The Deputy Speaker: There are no questions or comments
for the first three speakers on these matters, so the hon. member
will have a chance with another speaker.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
noted the hon. member for Calgary West who just spoke was
bemoaning his lack of opportunity to vote against segments of
this bill, but I assure him that he will have that opportunity in
committee and if he moves the appropriate amendments at
report stage, as I indicated in my argument this morning. We
will see how many of the clauses of this bill he supports and in
fact would vote for.
I look forward to the support of the Reform Party for a large
part of this package because this package of proposals I submit
is a sound one.
Last month this government introduced its first budget and
today we are considering legislation that will help turn the
budget goals into a bottom line reality for the long term benefit
of Canadians.
[Translation]
Just a week ago, the Minister of Finance and a few other
ministers attended in Detroit the G-7 special Summit on
unemployment. The G-7 members confirmed the view held by
many that February's budget was exactly what Canada needed at
this stage of its economic development. This budget promises
no panacea. Instead, it restores confidence in our capacity to
cope successfully with the economic, financial and social
challenges we are facing.
We will succeed because our budget proposes innovative
measures taking effect immediately to deal with three major
concerns raised by Canadians in our pre-budget consultations.
It contains measures to ensure job creation and stimulate
economic growth. It reduces expenditures and brings them
under control to enable us to substantially lower the deficit.
Finally, the budget is laying the groundwork of an
unprecedented reform and renewal of our social security
system.
Each of these points is dealt with in one way or another in this
bill before us in second reading. Together, these measures will
help set the strong foundation on which the future of our country
will be built.
[English]
I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the leadership that
he has shown to Canadians in presenting this budget of which
this bill is the obvious manifestation in legislative form. I
congratulate him also on the consultation process that he
engaged in that has resulted in a budget that is acceptable to so
many Canadians.
Before describing the specific measures in this legislation we
should remember the broader budget context that the measures
reflect. In the lead-up to the February budget the Minister of
Finance and his colleagues, as I indicated, listened to what
Canadians told them.
Canadians wanted a government to set the stage for job
creation and this government has done that. Canadians wanted
action to restore our country's economic vitality. This budget
does that.
The government responded with such important measures as
the $6 billion shared cost infrastructure program, the restoration
of the residential rehabilitation program, new programs for
apprenticeship and youth service and support for technological
innovation and for the small business sector in particular.
Canadians also told the government that they wanted to have
the deficit reduced. They wanted to have the government stop
pushing the tax burden constantly higher.
The February budget makes fiscal responsibility part of a job
strategy for Canadians. At the same time it recognizes that
getting the deficit down is important. It also means that getting
economic growth up is very important. Increasing economic
growth will result in a decreased deficit and increased economic
growth will lead to greater employment for Canadians.
(1310)
That is why this legislation contains key measures that will
reduce the demands on the public purse and accordingly on the
taxpayers' wallet. These are measures affecting Parliament, the
public service, the private sector and Canadians in all regions of
the country.
2805
The measures in this legislation work to one clear goal. They
will set us on the path to bring down the deficit to our interim
target of 3 per cent of gross domestic product by 1996-97, as
promised in the famous red book.
I note that members of the opposition delight in quoting from
the red book. I am delighted to see that they have taken the time
to read and study that work because as my colleagues know it
represents a blueprint for action. Although it is a red book it is a
blueprint for action by our government and one that we as
candidates in the last election were proud to support. It
represented, in my view, the standard by which all other parties'
programs were judged and Canadians expressed a clear
preference for the blueprint in the red book.
There should be no question about the government's ultimate
objective, and that is to deliver a balanced budget. Equally
important, over the next three years there will be $5 of spending
cuts for every dollar of revenue increases on a net basis.
Under our budget plan, gross fiscal savings including the
savings announced in previous budgets and secured by this
legislation total $28.6 billion over the next three fiscal years.
Net savings in that period after taking into account the cost of
new economy boosting initiatives total $20.4 billion.
These measures will help shrink the deficit from $45.7 billion
in the year just ending to $39.7 billion in 1994-95 and to $32.7
billion in the year thereafter. The measures announced in the
budget will be supplemented with further initiatives next year as
we reform major spending programs. The government is taking
action now and will take action in the future to ensure that the
deficit continues to decline steeply.
What I would like to do now, Mr. Speaker, is turn to the
specific elements in the bill before us today.
First, the bill proposes amendments to the Unemployment
Insurance Act. In making these changes the government had two
goals in mind. First, it wanted to provide a concrete incentive to
the private sector to create jobs and, second, it wanted to begin
to deal in a fair way with the serious problem of dependency that
the unemployment insurance system has created for many
Canadians.
Payroll taxes are recognized as a significant barrier to job
creation. To ease this burden the government will roll back the
unemployment insurance premium rate for 1995 and 1996 to $3.
As a result, by the end of 1996 the government expects there will
be 40,000 more jobs in the economy than would be the case if the
premiums were allowed to rise to $3.30. That is the level
required by 1995 under existing legislation if the government
takes no action.
This rollback must be done in a way that supports deficit
reduction. That is why this legislation proposes measures to
reduce unemployment insurance expenditures by $725 million
in 1994-95 and $2.4 billion annually thereafter.
It must be stressed that we are taking these steps to encourage
job creation while ensuring the financial integrity of the
unemployment insurance program.
Members of the House can also be assured that the
unemployment insurance changes in no way prejudge the social
security form process announced by the Minister of Human
Resources Development. Indeed, many of the provinces have
undertaken their own work in this regard and of course the
federal government will continue to work closely with the
provinces to ensure stability for Canadians.
Second, the bill deals with the process of social security
reform which will involve the federal government and the 10
provinces and the two territories.
(1315 )
The common goal of all will be to renew and revitalize
Canada's social security system over the next two years. The
government will preserve and protect those most in need in
order to survive. The government will work to improve
incentives for Canadians to work and the government will
ensure that the social safety net remains affordable.
To help create a positive, co-operative climate for this
challenging task the government is providing a two-year period
of predictability and modest growth in social security transfers
under the Canada assistance plan and established programs
financing.
This means that in 1994-95 there will be no new restraint
measures applied to either CAP or EPF transfers. The legislation
before us today however will place a ceiling on subsequent CAP
transfers to each province. As a result, these transfers will not
exceed their 1994-95 levels. This ceiling will remain in place in
1995-96 pending social security reform in 1996-97.
Established programs financing transfers are not affected by
this legislation. However existing restraints will be maintained.
EPF will grow in line with the population in 1994-95 and then a
GNP minus three percentage points for subsequent years.
[Translation]
The following part of this bill affects us all personally. It
extends the present salary freeze for public servants, the Prime
Minister, members of Parliament and senators, federal
magistrates, the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and other
government workers for a two-year period. Also, pay
increments will be suspended for two years.
We recognize that this measure will have repercussions. Some
391,000 people will be affected by this freeze. The need to take
this action is explained by a simple inescapable reality: salary
2806
costs make up much of the government's operating budget. Any
measure to control the deficit must take these costs into account.
[English]
Many public servants in my riding are affected by this freeze.
Like them I feel the pinch the government has applied in making
this applicable to all members and to all members of the public
service. I do not think there is a member in this House who has
not had some comment from a constituent about the freeze. It is
regrettable but it is a necessary part of the government's fiscal
program.
Next, this bill provides for changes to regional transportation
subsidies under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, the
Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Western Grain
Transportation Act. Some brief background perhaps would be
helpful.
Under the first two acts, government payments defray part of
the cost of certain freight shipments in the four Atlantic
provinces and the Gaspé region of Quebec. Payments to the
railways under the third act help reduce the transportation costs
paid by western grain producers.
The budget proposed to reduce these subsidies by 5 per cent.
This legislation takes that action. As well, it implements the 10
per cent reduction announced by the previous government for
1995-96 and subsequent years, a reduction not yet implemented
in legislation.
This saving is in keeping with the overall reduction being
made in most federal grants and contributions. It is important to
remember that during the pre-budget consultations a constantly
repeated suggestion was to reduce subsidies to business. This
measure honours that advice. The 5 per cent cut to these
subsidies announced in the February budget will save in the
order of $40 million annually.
The bill also confirms a reduction in transfers under the
Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. These transfers return
to provincial governments most of the federal business income
tax paid by privately owned utilities.
(1320 )
In 1990 the federal budget established a ceiling on PUITTA
transfers. Then in 1992 a 10 per cent reduction was imposed for
1993-94 and 1994-95. This legislation confirms last year's
budget announcement which extended both of these measures
beyond 1994-95.
Finally, this bill implements a measure to provide flexibility
to the CBC. We propose to give the CBC authority to borrow up
to $25 million subject to case by case approval by the Minister
of Finance. As well the granting of this borrowing authority will
be reviewed in two years' time.
This borrowing authority will allow the corporation to operate
more efficiently. It will give the CBC the flexibility to take
advantage of investment opportunities that promise a healthy
return. It supports the government's pledge to provide this
important national institution with a more stable funding
environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the bill before us today is an
essential element of this government's program to put
Canadians back to work. This bill would ensure that our budget
goals translate into concrete results. It is based on the advice we
received from every region of the country. It outlines our overall
socio-economic situation and meets the challenges facing us. In
short, it proposes measures to create jobs and revive the
economy, measures to reduce the deficit and bring the debt
under control, and measures to overhaul and sustain a social
safety net all Canadians are proud of.
[English]
By taking this action this bill, as with the budget announced
by the Minister of Finance, builds a solid foundation for
success. It is one based on frugality, on fairness and on a clear
focus on the future.
With that in mind I urge all members of the House to join the
Minister of Finance, his cabinet colleagues and members on this
side of the House in supporting this bill.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, in one part of the hon. member's speech he specifically
mentioned a freeze on the general percentage grid increase.
There is a contract in place and the movement within the grid,
the annual increments, should be honoured and the savings made
elsewhere. We can support the broad general percentage
increase. However we believe the increment freeze itself within
that grid will increase disparities rather than relieve them. Will
the hon. member comment more specifically on the rationale for
the general freeze as well as for the freeze on the increments
within a grid?
This is particularly disturbing to the RCMP. I understand
there was a meeting in Surrey, British Columbia of over 800
members of the RCMP. They were very upset that promises were
being broken. Certainly within its structure the RCMP is given a
budget and rules to live by and therefore cannot do much about
it.
We are saying that the breaking of a promise or a contract to
honour the increments within an overall framework needs to be
addressed even though we agree with the broad approach of a
spending freeze.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my
colleague from the Reform Party talk about the virtues of
undoing any of the freezes the government has put in place,
given that party's obsession with deficit reduction.
The government chose the freeze as the method of dealing
with this problem. It was not because it was going to be a
popular method or an easy sell to the public servants, the
members and the senators who are affected by the freeze. The
government chose this option because it was very concerned if it
did something else, it would result in substantial layoffs in the
2807
public service. We have witnessed that in the provinces,
particularly in Ontario where there was a social contract put in
place with rather disastrous consequences.
(1325)
The purpose of the government in choosing this particular
option was to ensure that as many members of the public service
as possible could retain their jobs. In spite of the significant
cutbacks in funding that are available for all manner of
government programs, by freezing we have avoided the
necessity to eliminate jobs while others get an increase.
Even if the increments could be allowed to employees, as I am
sure the government would like to do, that would result in an
increased salary cost to the Government of Canada. That would
have to be met out of the existing budget. Since the government
has no additional funding to give to government departments for
this purpose the only solution to capping the total salary cost
would be to eliminate someone else's job. That is why there is a
freeze on the increments and that is why there is a freeze on
salary increases.
I do not think it is popular. I do not think it is the greatest thing
by any means. However it is the best thing the government could
come up with given the financial circumstances we are facing.
I know the hon. member and his party are very supportive of
government cutbacks and government freezes. I am delighted to
know he will be supporting this part of the bill.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the point my hon.
colleague raised. Our party has very little problem with freezing
salaries. However when we start talking about freezing
increments it goes a little bit further.
With the RCMP constables the government is cutting into
what was considered training advancement through an
incremental process.
British Columbia has the largest number of RCMP. It is the
largest division in the country. There are over 700 constables in
the E division. A large part of the cost the member is talking
about controlling is municipal. It is through the municipal
taxpayers.
In the Surrey detachment 90 per cent is picked up by the
municipality. Provincially, 70 per cent is picked up by the
province. When the hon. member starts talking about saving real
dollars for the federal government he is talking about minimal
savings on the backs of low paid constables who are in training.
The Reform Party certainly supports the concept of freezing
salaries. However it does not support freezing increments which
are based on training that are part of an ongoing contract with
these individuals and should not have been put into a collective
package.
I do not think the government can make those kinds of
decisions without looking at individual circumstances in
different programs that fall outside the normal salary range. I
would like the minister to give this further consideration.
Morale in the RCMP is at an all time low. There was a meeting
of 800 members of the RCMP in my constituency last night. The
deputy commissioner made the statement: ``It would be futile
for me to say that there is not a morale problem in terms of this
incremental freeze''. Would the hon. member please respond to
this.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear this from
the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
because she is a member of a party that keeps telling us there is
only one taxpayer. It does not matter two hoots if the federal
government raises the salary costs for these people but then
recoups 90 per cent of the cost from her municipality which
taxpayer is paying. It is the same taxpayer that is going to pay
that cost. It is just that instead of the federal government paying
it, the municipality or the province in which she resides is going
to pick up the tab.
She nods her head that that is okay. Yet the other members of
her party, and I am sure she has been part of this, keep telling us
there is only one taxpayer and we have to cut costs. When we do
it I am surprised we face criticism from the Reform Party on this
matter.
Let me turn to the essentials of the question. She says it would
not cost the federal government anything to allow the
increments to go into place for a group of RCMP officers in the
province of British Columbia. I do not know for certain but I
would bet any money that the rates are the same across the
country. If the federal government is to give that kind of
increase in British Columbia, it will have to give it in other parts
of Canada too. It will have to give it in parts of Canada where it
does not receive a subsidy from a province for operating a police
force such as all RCMP forces in Ontario and in Quebec. While
there may be fewer, the cost would still be significant for the
federal government.
(1330)
Surely the hon. member agrees with me when I tell her that it
would be unfair to give the increase in the provinces where the
federal government picks up only a part of the share and not give
it in the provinces where it is paying the full shot. I think she
would agree with that. She must recognize the wisdom of the
government's decision in this matter, given the regrettable
circumstance that led to it, the very substantial deficit that her
party said it would eliminate in three years.
2808
The next time she asks a question, I ask her to tell us where
she was going to make the cuts to eliminate the deficit in three
years. She would not have only frozen the increments. She
would have slashed the wages of these people and she knows
it. She would face much tougher criticism then.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I have a short comment to make. The member opposite knows
well where the Reform Party would makes its cuts because they
were well publicized.
Would the minister be prepared to amend the bill so that the
increments were paid if the Reform Party showed him how to
save $2 for every $1 it costs without causing any job loss?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party likes to talk
about its steps to reduction plan. As I read the figures, it
announced an $18 billion reduction in government expenditures
and said that $18 billion would bring the deficit to zero in three
years.
The deficit we now know is something like $45 billion or $47
billion. Whatever it is this year it is a very substantial figure,
and $18 billion off that takes it down to about $28 billion. Where
would the other $28 billion come from? That figure was a fraud.
The whole paper put forward by the Reform Party during the
election was a complete fraud. I invite hon. members to tell us
the truth. Where was the $45 billion coming from? That is what
the deficit is. We have never heard that figure from anybody in
the Reform Party and we never will.
The Deputy Speaker: There are about three minutes left to be
divided between the two members.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, it will not even take me that long to
expose the hoax of the question he posed.
The parliamentary secretary knows well that much of the
reduction was coming through a growth in the economic
situation in the country. Using a figure lower than the one
proposed by the finance minister at that time, using a figure that
was compatible with the one that the Liberal government is
using right now, it was based on a real deficit, not one that was
propped with non-recurring factors added to the budget to make
it look worse than it really was.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can argue that if
he wishes. I will go back to Mr. Mazankowski's budget deficit
figure last year which I think was $35 billion, if I am not
mistaken. If the hon. member subtracts $18 billion from $35
billion, my arithmetic takes it down to about $17 billion. Where
were the other $17 billion in cuts? The question is the same. It is
only a matter of the amount. However $17 billion is $17 billion.
Maybe it should have been $25 billion, I will not argue that. I
still ask: Where are the other $17 billion in cuts?
The Reform Party had no idea where those cuts would come
from. It still has no idea where those cuts would come from. We
will never hear from them as to where those cuts would come
from because I predict that when the time comes for the Reform
Party to tell us those figures it will be a dead duck.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. I should perhaps tell
the hon. member for Lévis we have about ten minutes of debate
left.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, I will do my best in
ten minutes.
Bill C-17, an Act to implement certain provisions of the
budget, reveals this government's true identity. Liberal
government members succeeded in getting elected by
denouncing the unfair policies of the Conservative government
which widened the gap between rich and poor, as well as the gap
between anglophones and francophones. A study released this
week showed this to be the case everywhere, except in Quebec.
(1335)
However, once again we see today how the public's hopes for
justice, dignity and equity have been blithely crushed by
politicians who, when in opposition, denounced others for doing
exactly what they are now guilty of.
Once again, the government is attacking the least fortunate in
society. A recent analysis carried out by three experts from the
economics department at the University of Quebec at Montreal
showed that 60 per cent of the cuts to the federal deficit
announced in this budget will be borne by Canada's
unemployed. This is totally unfair since the government will be
forcing the least fortunate to bear a bigger share of the burden of
putting the nation's finances in order.
Lowering the number of weeks of benefit entitlement while at
the same time increasing the number of weeks of work needed
for benefit entitlement does nothing to address the problem of
those who defraud or take advantage of the system. What this
measure does above all is attack the vast majority of
unemployed workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of
their own and who must now face increasingly harsh economic
conditions.
This unravelling of the social safety net on which workers
depend will also affect regions and provinces already hard hit by
the recession. By taking this action, the Minister of Finance is
getting the provinces to foot the bill by forcing the unemployed
onto social assistance sooner than necessary.
According to the figures provided by the Department of
Human Resources, the federal cutbacks mean that the
Government of Quebec will have to spend an additional $65
million to
2809
$135 million on social assistance. Benefits paid to Quebec's
unemployed in 1994-95 will be cut by a total of $735 million.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance still claims to promote
job creation. How can he indulge such fantasies when he is about
to take more money out of the pockets of a large group of
consumers in this country, the unemployed?
Although it makes no sense at all, the Liberal government
continues to apply the same policy as the Conservatives, in other
words, it prefers to attack the unemployed instead of creating
jobs. So far, the present and previous governments' mindless
cuts in unemployment insurance have produced very
unsatisfactory results. In 1989, 1 million Canadians were
unemployed. In 1993, there were 1.6 million, an increase of 60
per cent.
On the subject of job creation, I think we must realize it will
take more than a good old fashioned infrastructures program to
improve the employment situation. Although this program
invests federal funds, it also involves additional expenditures by
the provinces and municipalities. In most cases, this money will
have to be borrowed, which means additional debt.
In this scenario, I think reducing the number of insurable
weeks will have no effect at all. In fact, this reduction will come
down harder on regions and provinces where the unemployment
rate is high, in other words, Quebec and the Maritime provinces.
This measure will affect six regions out of thirteen in Quebec
and seven out of thirteen in the Maritimes. The proposed
amendments will not only affect whole regions, they will also
have a devastating effect on the most vulnerable people in this
group, and I am referring to claimants who work only for short
periods. Unfortunately, the majority of workers in this category
are young people.
In Quebec, youth unemployment is around 20 per cent,
involving about 137,000 unemployed in this age group. The real
problem, in their case and in the case of other labour market
``rejects'' is not that they have no incentive to work because
unemployment benefits are too generous, but that there are no
jobs available.
(1340)
Here we have a perfect example of a government saying one
thing and doing another. On the one hand, we have the
government stating in its official discourse that the gap between
the poor and the rich must be bridged and, on the other hand,
implementing measures which shamelessly make the less
fortunate bear the brunt of the federal deficit.
It is more obvious than ever today that this ship is sinking.
Constant infringment upon provincial jurisdictions, particularly
with respect to job training, has led the federal system to the
brink of bankruptcy. And now the supporters of this system want
the most vulnerable segment of our society to bear the brunt of a
misguided policy of infringement, which prompts more and
more Quebecers to say it may be high time we get out of that
system.
It has become nothing more than a vast and expensive smoke
screen for the financial abyss the Liberal government is leading
us to. Much would need to be done in terms of administrative
management and even about the way ministers carry out their
duties.
As reported last Saturday in Le Soleil, following the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs' example, the Minister of Human
Resources Development also used a government jet, at a cost
estimated, using the Auditor General's method of calculation, at
$117,900, to go and talk about cuts in compensation to
fishermen in Quebec and the Maritimes.
The minister has a lot of nerve to try to make the people of
Quebec and Canada believe that they are going to be consulted
concerning social programs reform. This is the kind of
consultation I do not hesitate to call a sham because the minister
did not even wait for the report to be tabled, which it was today,
to start making cuts in the unemployment insurance system.
As we speak, the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development is releasing its report on the first phase of the
consultations it has held on social programs. But by proposing,
as it did, the adoption of Bill C-17, which deals mainly with cuts
to the unemployment insurance system, that is to say one of the
most important elements of our social programs, the
government is actually going ahead and making cuts in that area
without even waiting for the report from its own committee.
What message is it looking to send to the public for the second
phase of the consultation process?
The minister did not wait either for the rapport of a study
group which held similar consultations in all provinces at the
same time as the committee. I myself attended last Tuesday in
Montreal a meeting organized for community organizations by
the coalition of organizations for the development of
employability, acting under a mandate only three weeks old.
Most of the organizations said that the time is too short; they
did not have time to prepare, but were coming anyway; they
have experiences to share; they will tell you what they think of
it; employment should be the priority; maintain the level of
social programs. But we did not expect this: the government
consults but meanwhile takes measures attacking the most
disadvantaged.
The second phase of consultations is approaching. I am a
member of the human resources committee; the report is to
come out in September. I think that it would have been wise
under the circumstances-with a less improvised, less rushed
consultation, with more serious briefs presented, further to the
2810
options announced by the minister himself-to wait for the
report from this consultation before passing Bill C-17.
No, when it comes to attacking the poorest people in our
society, the Liberal government is in a hurry. To help those who
need jobs, they propose measures and studies and suggest that
those people wait for the result of these studies. They say one
thing about jobs and another about cuts.
_____________________________________________
2810
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1345)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved that
Bill C-207, an act to amend the Auditor General Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to introduce
Bill C-207 and to recommend that it be passed.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Auditor General Act,
in order to allow the Auditor General to report to the House upon
completion of his report or as he deems necessary.
I am the adoptive sponsor of this legislation, since many other
members of this House have thought of this initiative. As well,
former colleagues in previous Parliaments have tried to have
such a measure passed under circumstances which may have
been different from those prevailing today.
This private member's bill was approved by nearly all of the
Public Accounts Committee chairpersons of the last 15 or 16
years. The bill is also based on several recommendations from
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing
Senate Committee on National Finance, and others. I am pleased
to say that the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Desautels, also
gave me his support in a three-page letter which he sent to me
last March 22, and which I will be glad to show to hon. members
if they wish to take a look at it.
The Auditor General of Canada is a senior civil servant of the
Parliament of Canada; he is an official of this House. This is a
very important position. That person has the responsibility of
reviewing expenditures authorized by the House, and must tell
us if these expenditures are done in an efficient and effective
manner, and if they meet the objectives.
So, the Auditor General's report, which is currently tabled
annually-members are familiar with this thick document
containing about 750 pages-is very important, since it allows
us to evaluate the government's business and strategic
management. This report provides essential data to help
parliamentarians and government to better evaluate the
relevancy of a program, and to correct within a reasonable delay
administrative practices which are not sound.
At present, the Auditor General must table his report on or
before December 31, in the year to which the report relates. Yet,
the evaluation included in the report covers the fiscal year
ending on March 31 of the previous year. Since the evaluation of
a department or an agency can take up to two years, this means
that the information contained in the Auditor General's annual
report is sometimes more than three years old. This, in my
opinion, hinders the efforts of the House to make the
government and its management accountable to Canadians. The
information is often not up to date and even less relevant.
Indeed, sometimes, after so many years, managers
responsible for the activities scrutinized have been transferred,
or the incumbent at the time the Public Accounts Committee
conducts its review has no idea of what happened, or was not
there at the time, or does not care about what happened or what
was reviewed by the Auditor General.
Of course, a department's management team may have
changed since the evaluation was done, since the department is
informed during the evaluation conducted by the Auditor
General. In fact, it even participates in the exercise and it is
invited by the Auditor General to submit reasons explaining the
situation which will be exposed in the annual report.
(1350)
Generally speaking, however, it is only after the Auditor
General of Canada has tabled his report in the House that we
parliamentarians are informed that departments or agencies are
under pressure to make the necessary changes to these bad
administrative practices.
Delays cost taxpayers billions of dollars. I will give you just a
few of many examples. In his assessment of programs for
seniors, as described in chapter 18 of his last report, the Auditor
General of Canada observed significant deficiencies in the
management of the Canada Pension Plan program. For instance,
pensions were paid to deceased beneficiaries. Systems and
procedures were inadequate to identify, control and collect these
overpayments.
According to the Auditor General, overpayments range from
$120 million to $220 million. If the act had allowed him to, the
Auditor General could have tabled his report four months
earlier, thus helping to save a large part of the hundreds of
millions of dollars lost.
The dividends paid to Canadian companies by foreign
affiliates have deprived the government of hundreds of millions
of dollars in revenues. I am not exaggerating, as close to $400
million have been lost.
Before the 1993 general election was called, the Committee
on Public Accounts tabled a substantive report proposing
measures to correct these practices costing money to the
government. In the time available between the audit and the
tabling of the report, the committee would have been able to ask
the
2811
Department of Finance, before the election, to submit its
response to Parliament within the 150 days provided for in the
Regulations for tabling a departmental response to a
parliamentary committee.
The delay is frustrating for the members of the Committee on
Public Accounts who worked hard to try to correct a situation
that is very costly for the government. If we go back ten years,
many of you will remember the scientific research tax credit,
which cost the government some $2 billion over ten months.
In 1985, the Committee on Public Accounts sharply criticized
the Auditor General of Canada for not bringing earlier before
Parliament the results of his audit. But the act forbids him to do
so. He may table only one report annually. That is where my bill
comes in. I want to change this situation. Had he informed
Parliament seven months earlier, the Auditor General might
have allowed us to save over $1 billion.
[English]
In his last report the Auditor General of Canada devoted an
important chapter, chapter 22, to airport transfers. The auditor
might have easily presented his report in May or June 1993 when
his evaluation was terminated. If so, the report could have had a
great influence on the Pearson airport transaction, for example.
Unfortunately the auditor's report was tabled after the event.
Chapter 15 in the same report indicated that $587 million was
spent by the government on the northern cod adjustment and
recovery program without clear legislative authority. The
Auditor General of Canada raised grave doubts regarding some
of the hurried allowances given to those ineligible persons who
ought not to have benefited from that program. The auditor
might have tabled his report in March of last year rather than
wait for December thereby again saving Canadians millions of
dollars.
Particularly in this era of budgetary restraints it is imperative
to improve governmental management practices. It is
imperative for us to have better accountability for public funds.
Moreover, I say that we in the Liberal Party said in our red book
during the election that we would exercise unwavering
discipline in controlling federal spending and would reorder
current spending priorities to make sure that maximum return
was obtained on each investment.
I am of the opinion that punctual reporting by the auditor
without being the only solution would give the Liberal
government of today additional tools to allow cutting of waste
while realizing valuable objectives. Therefore the adoption of
my bill would constitute a step in the right direction.
(1355)
Some would suggest that punctual reporting, and I have heard
it, would possibly reinforce or feed the media hype over this
annual report. As we all know it gets the attention of the media
for maybe two or three days a year, possibly a week sometimes,
but no more. After that it pales into oblivion and the public
accounts committee is asked to look into some things that
sometimes date several years and sometimes are frustrating for
us to examine because we know the press are not interested.
Let us not kid ourselves. Some people want to eliminate
waste. We as parliamentarians have an obligation to the people
of Canada to do our best to try to meet that challenge. Canadians
want to be assured that legislators have all the information to
reduce wasteful spending in the government infrastructure.
Moreover, the last annual report of the Auditor General for
1992-93 contains 775 pages. As I said it is a huge volume. It is
complicated. It is indeed technical sometimes and it is very
important in my view. The report, in my experience having
chaired the public accounts committee, is a source of invaluable
information for members of Parliament who want to know how
the government administers public funds.
It brings forth information to improve the management of
public funds. It would make us more efficient. It would make the
government certainly more effective in trying to come to grips
with the huge administration of some $160 billion a year.
The public accounts committee, as we all know, has been a
very non-partisan committee over the years. That is the way it
should be. It should be able to plan and order its business in a
more efficient and quicker way of doing business. It should be
able to profit from the examples set in England, Australia, New
Zealand and other parliamentary systems similar to ours where
the study or the overview of public accounts is done on a more
regular basis by Parliament.
I would be astonished, for example in my riding of
Ottawa-Vanier, if a business person or somebody said to me
that he had to wait a year and a half before knowing if he made a
profit and that he had to wait another two years to figure out
which corrective he had to use to reduce the losses. Nobody
could operate a business that way. The government should not
do it that way either. I would hope the House would see fit to
support the bill which only presents a small amendment but in
my view a very important change to the way we do business.
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech it is useful to note
that the Auditor General wrote to me on March 22, 1994. I want
to read into the record one paragraph of that letter if I have time:
2812
This office would benefit from efficiency improvements resulting from completing
work in progress rather than having to put it aside and then pick it up again at the time of
tabling of the annual report. This disruptive effect of the annual report tabling on the
smooth and orderly flow of work through this office cannot be overemphasized.
Underlying this Mr. Desautels said: ``Ultimately the
taxpayers of Canada will be the main beneficiaries''. Earlier
reporting of audit results will lead to faster correction of
problems. In my view this means greater savings for Canadians,
reduced risk, better management and generally better
government.
Therefore for these reasons I ask the House, in a spirit of
better accountability to Canadians, in a free and open spirit, to
assure the passage of the bill. By the way I am proud to say I
have the support of many members of Parliament. I have at least
70 letters of support for this bill from this House. I am very
proud of that. I think it is a good sign. It is a hopeful sign.
(1400)
I hope the bureaucracy does not meddle in this issue, that it
stays out of this debate and does not start trying to prevent this
from happening. It did it before. I hope this time we
parliamentarians keep our minds open, that we do it with an
open and free will. Let us not have the bureaucracy tell us what
we should be doing in this House.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier wish the unanimous consent of the House to
table the document? He did not move it at the end. I do not know
whether he wants to or not.
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): I would ask, Mr. Speaker,
that this letter be tabled. I think it is an important letter and it
should be appended to today's minutes.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See Appendix.]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, let me begin by thanking my hon. colleague from
Ottawa-Vanier for introducing Bill C-207. He explained very
well the overall nature of the bill which is aimed at giving the
Auditor General of Canada a little more room to manoeuvre so
as to allow him to present the information the House truly
requires as quickly as possible. The hon. member gave a good
account of several great examples of totally outrageous
spending. We had heard of these expenditures. He pointed out
that the Auditor General's report was enormously useful to
members, and I cannot disagree with this statement.
However, I would like to say that this report should also be
useful to the people. The public can obtain copies of the report
from the Auditor General of Canada. The published report is
available free of charge. Many citizens would do well to read it.
The Auditor General's Office will be happy to send them a copy
if they request one.
To all those who are listening to us at this moment, let me say
that the role of the Auditor General of Canada is to act as the
government watchdog in matters of national finance. Each year,
the Auditor General inspects a portion of the government's
books and each year, as my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier
said, he releases a report anywhere from 600 to 700 pages long
describing some administrative horrors of which the
government is guilty.
Very often, and that is something that my colleague also
stressed, the media jump on this report and it makes headlines
for two or three days, a week at best, and then it is shelved. I
believe my colleague was right to mention it.
Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill, but I must
say that ever since we arrived here, we have asked for something
much larger than this. We believe that the role of the Auditor
General is not wide enough. We have been asking the
government to open its books to the public, so it can review, item
by item, all government spending, including fiscal spending. By
the way, we know that fiscal spending is beyond the reach of the
Auditor General, he is not suppose to review that, it is nor part of
his mandate, and I talked about that with Mr. Desautels during a
meeting we had with him.
For those who would like to know what fiscal spending is, I
recommend a book published in Toronto I believe, a couple of
year ago. It is called The Lion's Share, by Linda McQuaig, and it
describes how people who control Canadian fiscal policy could
grab it for their own profit.
Unfortunately, the way things are now, I believe that
government operations are not fully transparent since some
elements which should be audited are not accessible to the
Auditor General of Canada.
(1405)
That is the case for tax expenditures; that is also the case for
family trusts, which the government does not want to touch. We
do not know how much money there is in these at the present
time. There were also other examples, such as Ginn Publishing,
things that remain secret, but that should be known in the House.
There should not be secret relationships between secret
people on secret decisions. What is going on in the government
should be known here, in the House, so that we could take good
decisions on the matter.
Unfortunately, that is why we got the budget that we did. If we
look at that budget, and that was still evident in the media today,
the government is directly attacking the unemployed. In that
budget, it is the unemployed and the old people who will be hurt.
2813
Unfortunately, in the meantime, the budget does not talk about
the billions of dollars in waste noted by the Auditor General of
Canada. It does not talk either about solving the issue of
program overlappings. It does not talk about eliminating family
trusts or at least taking a look at what is going on there. The
Auditor General should be the one examining that.
Unfortunately, the budget does not talk about that or about the
more than 90,000 profitable companies that presently do not pay
any taxes in Canada, while in the United States, which is
certainly not a communist country, all profitable companies
must pay a minimal tax.
In general, we are not satisfied with the way the current
government is fulfilling its task of managing public funds.
Canadians will not be either. Let us just think about the kind of
reception the Prime Minister got during his recent visit to his
riding. The same is true about the welcome they gave the
Minister of Transport. I am not talking here about members of
Parliament, but about people who experience problems which
the government has the power to solve.
Unfortunately, I think this dissatisfaction is bound to increase
because the measures implemented by the government affect the
poorest among the have-nots while we know that public funds
management could improve if they would only follow up on
reports like the one by the Auditor General and give him more
authority to push his analyses further.
However, I must stress the fact that the present bill does give
more authority to the Auditor General. On the whole, this bill
provides for better management and that is why the Bloc
Quebecois will support it.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this House
today and support the private member's bill of my hon.
colleague for Ottawa-Vanier.
Our party, as members know, is very supportive of increasing
the reporting opportunities of the Auditor General to this House.
We sponsored a supply motion in the early stages of this
Parliament that tried to set up a procedure for the Auditor
General to be able to make reports more often on a regular basis
to this House rather than just once a year giving his annual
report.
This bill, as mentioned by the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier, has been introduced at various times or
something like it has been introduced various times in this
House, in 1985 and 1988 just to mention a couple of occasions.
It is the feeling that this is a step in the right direction but not
necessarily the only step that should be taken. However, it would
start to solve some of the concern that with a yearly report is
more than often after the fact.
It has been brought to the attention of the House that the
public accounts committee holds hearings on chapters of the
Auditor General's report which deal with government waste and
mismanagement. It seeks to ensure that Canadians receive value
for their tax dollars.
Due to the fact that the Auditor General's report is only tabled
once a year, the committee is often dealing with problems that
are more than a year old and any remedial action that should be
taken is unnecessarily delayed.
We feel that this private members' bill C-207, that is
sponsored by a former chairman of the public accounts
committee, would allow the public accounts committee to deal
with reported cases of fiscal mismanagement in a more timely
manner than currently exists.
(1410 )
That certainly is a very positive step. We feel that it would
allow the committee to report to the House what remedial action
could be taken more expeditiously since it would be able to hold
hearings more expeditiously. We feel that is a very good step in
the right direction. We feel it would contribute to an improved
process to correct government mismanagement.
We like to think that if the government is truly concerned
about using taxpayers' dollars wisely that it will endorse this
completion date reporting as suggested in Bill C-207.
We feel that taxpayers are entitled to receive value for their
money and when they do not, such as when the Auditor General
reports cases of mismanagement, taxpayers are entitled to have
the problem rectified as quickly as possible, not once a year or
after the fact.
In conclusion, this idea has been supported by former NDP
and PC members in this House and endorsed by public accounts
committees and the office of the Auditor General. The Reform
caucus now has the pleasure to endorse it.
We feel that the member for Ottawa-Vanier, a Liberal MP
and former chair of the public accounts committee, should be
supported in this private member's bill.
I urge all members of this House to give their support so that
this can be referred to the public accounts committee after
second reading.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I too am delighted to rise in this House and give support
to this initiative.
[Translation]
I want to congratulate my colleague on taking this initiative
and I will tell you why. For me, the key point is that information
could be available when needed and before changes are made.
2814
When you look at the size of the government machine, which
is massive, it seems to me that, when there is a problem, it is
absolutely essential to be aware of it as soon as possible and
take corrective measures, so that we can still meet our
objectives. This is in keeping with other objectives set by the
Liberal Party of Canada which wants government's operations
to be much more open than in previous years. We want to
improve our cost-effectiveness.
[English]
This bill at least in principle, and one might want to quibble
with the niceties and the details and what have you which I will
leave to parliamentarians to do, not only reaches a prime
objective of providing information when we need it so that we
can take corrective action, but permits us to conduct a more open
and more transparent type of government which is one of the
goals of this party and this government and to improve our
accountability. For me that is of critical importance.
It is important, certainly for me, that the Auditor General play
a critical role in the efficient management of government.
Obviously it is not the Auditor General himself with his team
but certainly the Auditor General and that team are major
players working with government in trying to make it more
efficient and trying to make absolutely certain that we spend
taxpayers' money as wisely as we can.
I applaud not only this Auditor General but Auditor Generals
in the past for their efforts in that area.
Just the other day in the operations committee, a statutory
committee of the House of Commons of which I am a member, I
chatted with the Auditor General and his team about a number of
important concepts such as Renouveau 2000, of how we can in
fact determine criteria for success when we look at the civil
service and the operations of government, what measures other
governments have undertaken to establish that and how we
compare with other governments. We are going to have
additional discussions.
I want to underline the main point which is that the Auditor
General, with the team available and the tools that are there, can
help this government, its ministers, the members of Parliament
of this government and whatever party to understand
government better, to come forth with creative solutions to the
problems we have and to put forth mechanisms that are going to
help us reach the objectives that we think are valid for all
Canadians.
(1415 )
While the Auditor General is obviously a critical component
of government and has an important role to play, I want to
remind members that we have many other sources of
information.
Personally I feel as a member of Parliament that the greatest
benefit I have which is never mentioned is all the sources of
information at my disposal. Unfortunately the one thing I do not
have is the time to read all those sources of information. There
are many and excellent.
Let me mention just a few. For example, the Commissioner of
Official Languages brings forward a report that is insightful and
potentially very helpful, whatever our position happens to be on
official languages. I think mine is fairly well known.
There is a report as well from the Human Rights Commission
which is extremely useful and insightful that I would
recommend to all parliamentarians. There are reports from the
Public Service Commission. Again they have much useful
information.
Some will know that many valuable reports on a wide range of
public policy and management issues from Canadian and
non-Canadian institutions are available to parliamentarians
through the Library of Parliament. We must never forget the
Library of Parliament is there to make those available to us.
There are reports from the private sector think tanks or from
international bodies such as the OECD while others are the
works of academics, business, labour, professionals,
associations or other interest groups. These are useful tools to
inform us, to help us get to know government, our country
better, to help us understand what the goals of a government
might be and how we might reach those objectives.
I want to say at this point how much I appreciate the
contribution of the Library of Parliament itself. I have seldom
found an institution that is as responsive as it has been to my
needs. I use it a lot. It responds with a great deal of sensitivity. It
responds rapidly and with excellent information that I have
learned that I can trust. There are very few instances where I
have not been very satisfied at the response to my request. I want
to applaud all the men and women who work very hard for all of
us.
I want to mention another source of information that perhaps
is overlooked on occasion. The Government of Canada has
established from time to time royal commissions, various task
forces to study in depth and report on issues which are important
to the public policy agenda.
Another source that is often forgotten is the Senate of Canada.
It often produces superb reports that are extremely useful. For
those members who have never had an opportunity to read them,
I would suggest that they do so. In fact, if they did I warn them,
and I can see the facial expressions of certain colleagues, their
view of the Senate and senators might change. If members do
not want their view of the Senate and senators to change then
perhaps they should not read them. If members are interested in
accurate information and insightful commentary I suggest that
2815
they read them and decide for themselves. I would be delighted
to chat with them about it if they want more information.
As members know, a steady flow of reports come to us from
the government departments, agencies and crown corporations
on their activities, their accomplishments and their plans. I find
them exceptionally useful as a member of Parliament,
particularly those agencies and institutions that are of interest to
me.
Finally, I want to focus on the departmental program
evaluation and internal audit programs. To my way of thinking,
they have not received the visibility they deserve. Some will
know I was a former deputy minister and had access to internal
audit reports and to program audits. I found them extremely
useful.
During the course of the year, we had an opportunity to sit
down and look at those with a team of colleagues and try to
decide what it was that was working, what it was that was not
working and what it was we could do to change our direction in
order to meet not only financial obligations but others as well.
I want to quote something useful with respect to the internal
audit. By the way this comes from the Auditor General. It goes
like this: ``The internal audit has the potential to contribute
greatly to improving management practices. The government is
looking to internal audit to play a vital role in providing
assurance on management systems and practices and in
addressing re-engineering productivity and government
issues''.
(1420)
My view is, actually it is one that has been communicated by
the Auditor General, that the internal audit has a tremendous
potential to help us all manage government more effectively and
to reach the targets that we have set for ourselves either as a
government or collectively as parliamentarians.
I want to point out as well that the program evaluation data
has a lot of potential because it provides information and
analysis for government managers on the results which
government programs are producing. It finds innovative and
less costly ways of serving Canadians. I think we have all talked
about that.
Apparently, this is something that should be noted because we
are not often willing, I think we do not do it often enough-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time has expired.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to address the House on Bill C-207, an act to amend
the Auditor General, proposed by the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier.
This bill will among other things allow the Auditor General to
report to Parliament on various matters of interest throughout
the course of a year. Under these proposals the Auditor General
would have the opportunity to bring his reports to the attention
of parliamentarians as his work on a particular audit is
completed or he could report to Parliament at a time he judged
appropriate on matters of urgency or pressing importance. He
would no longer be limited to one annual report.
These are most interesting and constructive ideas. They are
not new concepts. I know that the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier proposed them in the previous government and
I believe deserve thorough consideration.
However as part of our study of these proposals I believe it is
important to review carefully the existing system: what are its
basic precepts, how is it working, does it allow the House to
benefit to the fullest extent possible from the work of the
Auditor General and his staff?
First let us examine the current system and how it is
functioning. Currently legislation requires the Auditor General
to audit the accounts of Canada, including those related to the
Consolidate Revenue Fund and to report annually to Parliament
on his findings.
This annual report relates to the publication every year of the
public accounts. It facilitates consideration of these accounts by
Parliament which of course also operates on an annual
expenditure cycle. This procedure ensures regularity in the
reporting process. It makes it possible to compare one year's
performance with the next.
Once tabled in the House the annual report is then examined in
detail by the public accounts committee. This committee,
chaired by a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, looks
closely at the issues raised each year by Mr. Desautels and his
staff. The committee members look carefully at how
government departments and agencies are running, respond to
the Auditor General's suggestions for improvements, his
request for information from Parliament and for the public.
They call before them senior officials of government
departments. When their work is complete the committee gives
the government the benefit of its findings.
[Translation]
I agree with the member for Ottawa-Vanier who believes
that the Auditor General's role and responsibilities are of a
paramount importance for MPs and senators, for the
government and the Canadian people. Moreover, I am convinced
that the present system is a good one.
[English]
This year's report is a case in point. The Auditor General and
his staff made a valuable contribution to a better understanding
of the many complex issues faced by government. When this
year's report was tabled in February it quickly became clear that
the government shared many of the Auditor General's
preoccupations. I am pleased to report that we have already
acted on and publicly set out our plans for addressing many of
the areas of concern that he highlighted: more information for
Parliament
2816
and a more open budget process, a bigger role in policy making
for members of the House.
(1425 )
These are only some of our shared concerns. In addition, of
course, we agreed on the need to review existing programs and
policies to ensure they continue to meet the needs of Canadians.
Specifically, the Auditor General has consistently advocated
the need for better reporting of financial information for
Parliament. This year was no exception. This year Mr. Desautels
devoted an entire chapter of the report to his view that better
information is required on the debt and deficit.
To address this need the finance department has issued two
publications that will help Canadians understand the debt and
the deficit. A short booklet entitled ``Basic Facts on Spending''
summarizes spending as it is presented in the federal budget and
public accounts. It will help Canadians better understand the
federal government's budgetary spending. In addition, a longer
background document called ``Federal Spending'' provides
more detail.
As a member of Parliament it is a matter of personal
satisfaction for me that the public accounts for the year ending
March 31, 1993 were accepted without reservation by the
Auditor General.
Their fundamental purpose is to provide information to
Parliament and through Parliament to all Canadians. Their
purpose is to facilitate understanding of the full nature and
extent of the financial affairs and resources for which the
government is responsible.
It is the Auditor General's job to examine them. Last year the
Auditor General said that in his view: ``The government's
financial statements would be more understandable if they were
presented in a comprehensive but succinct annual financial
report''. What Mr. Desautels was calling for was a financial
report similar to the annual reports published by corporations in
the private sector. The government has done just that. To make
the financial statements of the Government of Canada more
understandable to the public we added a new section to the 1993
public accounts.
[Translation]
For the first time, we gave a summary of this year's economic
developments, a review of our financial situation and a set of
consolidated financial statements. The new graphs and
organization charts present complex financial data in a way that
is easy to understand.
[English]
In his remarks to the Canadian Club, Mr. Desautels
specifically lauded the new section in the public accounts which
he said included a number of indicators that should help
Canadians gain a better appreciation of the government's
financial condition. On the same occasion the Auditor General
gave the government good marks for beginning the process of
improving information about deficits and debt and for opening
up the budget process.
This government made great strides in opening the budget
process through pre-budget consultations. The Minister of
Finance met hundreds of Canadians and heard from them
directly what they felt had to be done to turn the economy
around and create jobs and to restore Canadians' faith in the
future.
In conclusion, I have emphasized the importance of the
contribution the Auditor General makes to a better
understanding of the issues facing the government. There is no
doubt that the Auditor General's work is an important stimulus
to constructive action.
However would this stimulus be any greater if Mr. Desautels
reported to Parliament several times a year? We have a system
now that is working well to the benefit of all Canadians. Would
we lose more in coherence, comparability and impact than we
would gain? These questions deserve the most careful scrutiny.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House on the
frequency of reporting by the Auditor General. I would like to
compliment the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for
introducing this bill.
All members of the House are aware of the valuable
contribution the Auditor General makes every year in improving
the way the government spends the taxpayers' money. All of us
look forward as do the taxpayers and the media of this country to
the annual fall ritual of the tabling of the Auditor General's
report.
The Auditor General as an institution in Canada dates back to
before Confederation. There was a time in our land when every
cheque issued by the government had to be pre-approved by the
Auditor General.
(1430 )
The role of the Auditor General has changed considerably
since then, as has the way government works. Yet the Auditor
General remains the independent watchdog for this House and
for the taxpayer. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is right
in trying to make sure that the job is well done.
We should keep in mind that the Auditor General does not act
in isolation. His work supports and affects that of other
institutions and mechanisms in place to guard over the
management of government. The financial program
management of depart-
2817
ments is scrutinized by the Treasury Board secretariat, by
internal auditors as well as evaluators who work in concert with
the Auditor General to provide an efficient and effective system
of controls over the management of the public service.
The Auditor General's present mandate and his general
approach including the fact that he reports annually dates back
to 1977 when the present Auditor General Act was passed by this
House.
Much of the preparatory work for that act was done by an
independent review committee which examined the
responsibilities, relationships and reporting procedures of the
Auditor General's office. I should note that at that time the
committee recommended that the Auditor General should report
annually to this House and not periodically.
It will soon be 20 years since that report was tabled in this
House. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is right to call for
a review of the issue of frequency of reporting. However, I
would like to take this opportunity to build on my colleague's
efforts and suggest that as much has changed in those past 20
years this House should take a broader look and look at other
issues concerning the Auditor General's mandate and
procedures which the passage of time now calls into question.
This is a very different world from what it was in 1977. At that
time the government was expanding and there were serious and
legitimate concerns about the adequacy of existing financial and
management controls. The then Auditor General, Mr.
Macdonell, did us all a great service by bringing this to the
attention of this House in no uncertain terms.
Things are quite different today. The public service is no
longer growing and the reduction in the operation budgets of
departments is imposing a discipline of its own. Things have
changed and it may be that the Auditor General's usefulness to
this House is constrained not just by the annual reporting
requirement but by other limitations as well.
There are a number of areas I would like to recommend that
this House explore as part of a review of the mandate and
operational procedures of the Office of the Auditor General. For
example, I note the hon. member who brought forward this bill
expressed considerable concern during the recent hearings of
the standing committee on external affairs of which he is the
chairman about what role the Auditor General should have in
commenting on government policy.
If we look at the Auditor General Act we find that section 7
sets out in detail the responsibilities of that office. Specifically
it tells the Auditor General to report on instances of
unauthorized spending, lack of due regard to economy and
efficiency, and the lack of procedures to measure and report on
the effectiveness of a program.
It does not authorize the Auditor General to report directly on
the effectiveness of programs but rather only on whether there
are systems in place to measure and report on effectiveness. This
is an issue which the Auditor General has struggled with for
several years.
If we look at his reports over the last 15 years it becomes
evident that on some occasions the Auditor General decided that
in the public interest it was necessary to go beyond a strict
interpretation of his mandate and report on programs which he
felt were ineffective.
There are other issues which I am sure the Auditor General
would like this House to review which are at least as important
to the Auditor General as the frequency of reporting. They
include for example the question of resources.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Auditor General's
resources grew faster than those of the government as a whole as
it staffed up to meet its new mandate under the 1977 Auditor
General Act. In 1977-78 the Auditor General's office spent
about $20.5 million while its estimates for 1994-95 are for over
$56 million.
(1435)
If this House sees fit to change the reporting requirements of
the Auditor General it should take the opportunity to examine
whether such a change would affect the resources necessary to
carry out this modified mandate.
I do not think there is anybody in this House who would wish
to increase the costs of the Auditor General's office. However
perhaps changing the reporting mandate as proposed could
actually reduce the budget of the Auditor General's office.
At present over half the staff of the Auditor General is in the
senior management category, a significantly greater proportion
than in the rest of the public service. Part of the reason for this is
having to staff up to meet the one annual deadline for all
chapters of the report simultaneously. If the Auditor General
were to go ahead with a format of periodic rather than annual
reporting, would this enable him somehow to streamline his
operations?
Finally there is the issue of who audits the Auditor General. I
know the Auditor General is concerned with retaining his
independence. At the same time like any other public
institution, he knows he must be accountable for the resources
he consumes and the quality of his work. At present there is no
mechanism by which the Auditor General is made to account in a
detailed way for his operations.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there are quite a number of
issues waiting to be tackled if we are looking at the mandate of
the Office of the Auditor General.
2818
It is in the best interests of this House and of the Canadian
taxpayers to make sure the mandate and resources of the
Auditor General are right for the job which we want him to
carry out. In my opinion these issues are interrelated. I would
prefer that this House deal with all of these issues as a package
and not on a one by one basis.
In conclusion I agree with the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier that it is time to review how the Auditor
General reports to this House. However we should look at all
related issues and not just the frequency of reporting to make
sure the Canadian taxpayer gets the most out of the work of the
Office of the Auditor General at the lowest cost.
Thanks to the member for Ottawa-Vanier for making this
debate relevant to this House and bringing it forward so we can
all do a better job for the taxpayers of this great nation.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, I speak with great
pleasure on this bill to amend the Auditor General Act,
introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
The issue of whether the Auditor General Act should be
amended to allow the Auditor General to report the findings of
his audits as often as he deems necessary or when he has
completed each audit rather than just annually has been
discussed in this House on many occasions over the last 10
years.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has been a long time
supporter of this notion. His experience as a former chairman of
the public accounts committee has undoubtedly given him good
reason to propose such an amendment to such a significant piece
of legislation. It is important that we have this debate today.
As I understand it the primary reason for introducing such a
change is to ensure that Parliament and the public accounts
committee receive and have the opportunity to discuss the
important findings of the Auditor General on a more timely
basis. This implies that corrective action could be taken on a
more timely basis and that Parliament would be in a better
position to influence that action.
I also understand this approach to reporting may lead to
certain efficiencies within the Office of the Auditor General.
These are admirable goals.
I also note as has been argued that other countries such as the
United Kingdom and the United States have a system of periodic
reporting. This does not mean, however, that we should jump on
the bandwagon without serious debate and consideration of the
issues.
(1440)
The United States of course has a system that is quite different
from our own and even the United Kingdom has different needs
and traditions.
The issue of reporting was discussed fully when the Auditor
General Act was first introduced in 1977. It was the considered
opinion of the experts at that time that annual reporting best
suited the needs of the Canadian Parliament. It was felt that
annual reporting was appropriate because it relates to the annual
issue of public accounts. It facilitates consideration by
Parliament which operates on an annual expenditure cycle. It
introduces a note of regularity into the report process and it
makes it possible to compare from one year to the next.
It is interesting to note also that the provinces have similar
reporting requirements to those of our Auditor General. There
must be some reason why, although there seems to have been
general consensus in previous debates on the purposes of these
proposed amendments, no government to date has taken action
to amend the act.
There are several possibilities for this lack of action. One
reason may be that the Auditor General already has the authority
to make special reports to Parliament. Section 8 of the current
act allows him to make a special report to the House of
Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that
in his opinion should not be deferred until the presentation of his
annual report. This provision ensures that Parliament can be
informed of major issues as determined by the Auditor General
on a timely basis.
Another reason may be that there was concern that allowing
the Auditor General to report more often during the year would
lead to a loss of focus by both parliamentarians and Canadians at
large on the results of the Auditor General's work.
The annual focus on the Auditor General's report is most
important. As we well know, it is this attention, this potential to
effect change through public scrutiny, that makes the work of
the Auditor General so valuable.
I think, however, that the real issue here is what would be the
impact of the proposed changes on the independence of the
Auditor General. We would not want to support changes that
would in any way put at risk the effectiveness of the Auditor
General. I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier
concurs.
The Auditor General is held in such high esteem by
parliamentarians and Canadians and his findings are given such
credence primarily because he is seen as being independent
from government and above the politics of Parliament.
If the Auditor General were put in the position of bearing the
sole responsibility for choosing the timing of his reports, as
suggested by this bill, he might be faced with the dilemma of
presenting a report on a subject currently being hotly debated in
the House. There is real risk that one or the other side of this
House would perceive that as being in some way partisan.
2819
Just one ill-considered accusation by a member of this House
or by the media could affect the non-partisan image that all
Canadians have of the Auditor General. It would therefore be
regrettable if the timing of the tabling of individual reports
were to become yet another concern for the Auditor General's
busy office.
There was further concern. Under the present system the
Auditor General is free to choose the areas and issues he wishes
to audit and report on. The office of the Auditor General has a
very considered planning process that has served us well. Of
course, when choosing he takes into consideration the concerns
of parliamentarians and Canadians. If, however, he reports more
frequently he may be put under increasing pressure by
parliamentarians, committees, the government and the media to
address hot topics of the day.
As I mentioned earlier, the general accounting office in the
United States does issue its reports-
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the item is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[English]
May I wish all members a very happy Christmas, Joyeuses
Pâques.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Easter, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Oh, Easter. Thank you to the hon.
member.
It being 2.46 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
April 11, 1994 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 28(2) and
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.46 p.m.)
2820
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6
22 March 1994
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier, MP
House of Commons
Room 443-S
Centre Block
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Dear Mr. Gauthier
I was pleased to learn that your Private Members' Bill C-207 to amend the Auditor General Act had been selected for consideration
by the House and that it has been declared a votable Item. As you well know, my Office wholeheartedly supports this adjustment to
our enabling legislation which would allow us to report our audits on a more timely basis.
The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm for you the major reasons why we feel the change proposed in your Bill would operate to the
advantage of all parties affected including government, Parliament, this office and the taxpayers of Canada.
First, Parliament, including the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, would benefit from having more timely audit reports and
being able to ensure more quickly that appropriate corrective action is taken. With the current annual report, audit findings can be
more than a year old by the time they are tabled in the House. Parliamentarians could keep informed more effectively about the
results of my audits if they were presented in a series of smaller reports through the year rather than in one large volume of some 700
pages. We would also be able to respond more rapidly to emerging Parliamentary interest, including those of standing committees,
by reporting on completed audits when Parliament is interested in the issue.
Second, there would likely be reduced intensity of media coverage and less concentration on the more negative findings that seem to
be natural by-products of the once-a-year ``event'' created by annual reporting. A related benefit is that the positive findings
reported by my office would have a greater chance of surfacing since they would not be submerged by the negative findings set out in
one annual report. Government managers, including the central agencies, would have a better chance of digesting and reacting
appropriately and in a timely fashion to findings presented in a series of smaller reports.
Third, we believe that the central agencies of government would benefit from the more timely support for their various initiatives to
improve management of government programs across all departments that would result from reporting our audits on a more timely
basis. Periodic reports would also assist the central agencies in monitoring compliance with their guidelines and in taking early
action to correct emerging government-wide problems.
Fourth, this office would benefit from efficiency improvements resulting from completing work in process rather than having to put
it aside and then pick it up again at the time of tabling the annual report. The disruptive affect of the annual report tabling on the
smooth and orderly flow of work through this office cannot be overemphasized.
Ultimately, the taxpayers of Canada will be the main beneficiaries. Earlier reporting of audit results will lead to faster correction of
problems. And this means greater savings, reduced risk and better management generally of government programs.
Times have changed since the annual reporting requirement was established by Parliament in 1977. The business of governing is
more complex. There is more information moving faster on more aspects of government today than in 1977. Periodic reporting is
one way of helping all stakeholders in the work of my office deal with this increased information flow.
The trend over the last ten years in national audit offices around the world has been away from annual reporting to the reporting of
audit results when the job is completed. The United Kingdom and Australia are two examples of this shift. The Comptroller
2821
General of the United States has always reported his findings to
Congress when the work is completed. From our exposure to the
practices of other nations' audit offices, it seems fairly safe to
say that periodic reporting is becoming the norm around the
world. In our view, this would be a good time for Canada to join
the trend.
I hope you will find these thoughts helpful. Should you wish to share them with any of your Parliamentary colleagues, please feel
free to do so. I would be pleased to discuss any of these points with you.
Yours sincerely,
L. Denis Desautels, FCA
Auditor General of Canada