Ronald J. Duhamel

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

I am glad to be so popular with my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. I understand what my colleague is saying, I am not the government, but I do understand what he is saying, and I can assure him that the government understands it as well. You are telling us that the Auditor General needs more information.

You want me and everyone listening tonight to believe that the existing committee does not have the authority to give to the Auditor General all the information he needs. Well, I want my colleague to know that it is possible, the existing committee can do just about anything it wants. The question is will the Bloc allow the committee to do it? I do not have the answer to that.

We can give the Auditor General exactly what he wants. We can give him all the information he needs, whenever we want to. There is nothing magic to it; it is possible, now-

The previous government did not want to do it, but we have a new government that wants to help.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

I would like to add that where I come from, and I do not say it in an unkind way because I am not a nasty person, we are trying not only to keep what we have and to improve it but we also want to try to understand others and to develop ways of working and living together to make everyone's life better. For us, that is very important.

I drew attention in the House this week to a big Voyageur Festival we were having and I invited all my colleagues to come and see how things were in our part of the country. I would be really glad to see you because we hear people speaking French, we have native people, we even have people from all over the world. Frankly, it is wonderful. Tomorrow night, I will be with francophones from France and francophones from Manitoba, because we still have people who speak French.

I want to go back to the comment regarding what is going very well in Manitoba. I think the hon. member was listening, but he was not paying attention as closely as he should have because I gave an example of something which was not going well. I said that there are problems. If the hon. member thinks there are no problems, whether we refer to Quebec, Manitoba or another province, then I honestly think that his vision must be blurred.

There are problems everywhere. And we are here to solve those problems. I recognize that what we are doing here is very important. I recognize that everybody wants to reduce spending. If this is what you want to do, and I believe it is, fine. But we also want to do it, and the Reform Party wants to do it as well. However, what I said was that there is already a committee where this can be done.

The chairperson of that committee will be a Bloc Quebecois member. Do we have a majority? I think we do, but you are not going to tell me that because we have a majority we are not going to listen to common sense, even if it comes from a member of another party. If that was the case, it would not work at all.

The hon. member might want to reconsider what he said, because he is suggesting that we, Liberals, do not have people who can sit on this committee, listen to a proposal which makes sense, and say "yes, this is a good idea". I want to assure the hon. member that we do have such people. In fact, we have a lot of talented men and women who are willing to work for you. They want to create jobs and cut non-essential government spending, and they also want to make our country better for everyone.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question. I want to emphasize that my riding is indeed St. Boniface. I quite agree that many more people spoke French in Manitoba a century ago. Unfortunately, there has been a large drop. People still speak French in Manitoba, even though only a small number really care about the language and culture and have deep feelings towards this language and culture.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Opposition motion that says essentially this: to examine federal expenditures by focusing on overlap between federal and provincial government programs.

This is a noble and essential objective. But why is the Bloc asking for such a committee? It is something we should look at. Of course, like us and like members of other parties, they want to know if it is possible to spend better or less. It is a very good thing and I share this feeling. I want to do it and I think we all agree that it must be done.

We heard today an interesting comment from a member of the Reform Party. There are still a few differences between the Bloc and Reform. It is sometimes difficult to see these differences but I think there is at least one. This member from the Reform Party indicated that, in his opinion, the Bloc was trying to open a constitutional debate.

Why would the Bloc want to open a constitutional debate? If we analyze this comment carefully, could it be to promote their goal, namely separation from Canada? I hope I am mistaken. I do not want to accuse them, but I should remind Bloc members that this comment was made today by a Reform member. If there are any doubts as to the validity of my interpretation, one only has to check Hansard .

It is one possibility, but I think that the Bloc may want to move in a different direction. Every now and then, they remember that they are the Official Opposition so it is only natural that they want to embarrass the government. It is only natural that they try to create a situation suggesting that the current system of government, namely federalism, is not working.

Why is it that I make those particular points?

The Bloc knows very well that there is a committee which exists right now.

There is a committee which exists right now that can attain all of the objectives that are in the opposition motion. The Bloc chairs that committee. It has the key position on the committee. If there is a mechanism that exists to achieve the objectives that have been enunciated here on paper then are there other objectives that it is trying to pursue? Why is it asking to create something that already exists essentially to do those things it says it wants to do and that we all want to do, and that is to see whether we can spend better and more wisely fewer public funds?

As we examine this question I would hope that we would ask ourselves some very serious questions. We talk about concepts such as overlap and duplication as if they were the same thing. When I raised a question today of a member of the Reform Party, whether the member made a distinction, the member sloughed it off, I cannot say the party did, as simply being interested in saving money. Let me assure the members that we are interested in saving money as well.

It seems to me that before we go forward we have to have a clear sense of what it is we are trying to accomplish. Do we want to attack duplication only which to my way of thinking is another program that is essentially the same? Do we want to simply look at overlap? Do we know the difference between overlap and duplication? Overlap is where there are similarities but not necessarily a total similarity and a total duplication. We are just sloughing that off.

There may be a necessity for overlap in some situations. It is my view that the more we can eliminate overlap and duplication the better off we are.

Let me give an example. In the whole question of environment there are certain provinces that abut territories. There are questions of environment that flow from the federal government to the territory as well as to the province. There may even be a need for duplication.

Let me give but one example. We have schools, generally speaking that are administered by school boards. In certain instances we need schools that are administered by the federal government for our aboriginal people. That is changing and it is going in the right direction.

To simply say we want to get rid of all overlap, all duplication without knowing the distinctions between overlap and duplication, without considering whether there are some needs for overlap and duplication, is not doing this particular activity justice.

Everybody would agree that there is overlap and duplication between the federal and provincial governments that needs to be looked at in a very serious way. What I am surprised at as well is that we have not talked about another level of government. Is there a need to examine whether there is too much overlap and duplication among the various levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal? There is in many instances.

Let us remember that if we are allowing ourselves to look at overlap and duplication between federal and provincial levels we ought to be able to extend that to municipal levels because municipal structures, governmental structures, are created by provincial governments.

What about overlap itself within certain levels of government, within, for example, the federal government, within provincial governments, within municipal governments?

Let me give a good example of overlap within federal governments. I am told that during the last government there were programs related to education, training, retraining; education broadly defined, if you wish, to be found in over a dozen federal departments.

Is that necessary? Is that good for the nation? Can we have a focus with that kind of spread, that kind of non-co-ordination. I think not.

In my own province of Manitoba a very serious duplication exists between the provincial and municipal authorities. It is social assistance. In some cases people receive social assistance from the provincial authorities. In other cases it is from the municipal authorities.

Sometimes it is very difficult to follow why one gets it from one level of government or the other level of government.

There are differences in programs. There are administrators in both and one could logically ask whether that should continue to exist.

Let me broach another topic. I do not think we have looked at the public accounts committee in a serious way. It can review spending. If it can review spending, clearly it can ask questions about overlap and duplication. Why would we not use this committee?

In a sense there is a contradiction there.

Since we already have a committee, why should we set up another one? The existing committee can reach the same objectives as those mentioned in Official Opposition's motion before us today.

It seems to me there is a glaring contradiction. We want to attack overlap and duplication and yet we are prepared to undertake an act that will cause overlap and duplication.

It doest not make any sense at all.

There are many studies that point out that there is a problem in this area. The House has heard reference to the 1937 Rowell-Sirois commission, the 1978 study of the École nationale d'administration publique, of the 1978-79 federal provincial duplication of services review, of the 1984-85 task force on program review, of the regulatory reform initiative, of the 1991 Treasury Board secretariat study on federal-provincial overlap and duplication.

The House will perhaps be happy to note something that falls in line with the debate today. In this most recent study, in all studies, there were activities of overlap in many areas and duplication in a number of areas. Overlap in federal and provincial programs took several forms. In general, governments were managing some of these overlaps and duplications in an effective way. However, they all admitted that there is considerable scope for improving program delivery through better co-ordination or harmonization.

Let me review the motion to make sure that we are talking about the same thing.

The motion before us today reads as follows:

That this House urge the Government to strike a Special Committee of the House, composed of representatives of all the official parties, with a mandate to examine public expenditures by the federal government, in light of the Report of the Auditor General of Canada, concerning overlap between federal and provincial government programs and in accordance with the following guidelines:

(1) the Committee's deliberations would be an open and transparent process allowing for the public examination of official matters;

This is not possible.

(2) the Committee would have the power to subpoena any witnesses whose testimony would be considered helpful;

This is possible.

(3) the Committee would be required to report to the House by June 23, 1994;

I believe that the date is different but surely accommodations could be made if this is important.

I see no reason to create an additional committee but I see reason to pursue the objective of examining where we could spend less and yet serve all citizens in a meaningful way. There is a committee to do it and I would urge that it be done.

Let us do it. I think we should all work together to cut government expenditures at all levels and to create jobs for all Canadians.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on his initial address in the House. I have just a few brief questions. They are very serious ones on which I would like his reaction.

The suggestion was made that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to further its own personal agenda which is in a sense the separation, not in the real sense of separation, of Quebec from Canada through constitutional wrangling and that may be one option it is pursuing. One never knows. Obviously the kind of dedication Bloc members show toward that objective is sometimes rather obsessive.

Is there not another possibility that it was their intent to attempt to embarrass the government by suggesting it is not being done and there is no mechanism for doing it? I would like my hon. colleague to consider that possibility and give me his reaction to it.

Does my colleague and his party make a distinction between the concepts of overlap and duplication? I do. To me overlap is simply some overlapping of something similar, but duplication is completely the same.

Finally, I have not heard anyone talk about the possible overlap and duplication among the different levels of governments, federal, provincial and municipal. In Manitoba we have a real problem in the social assistance field within the levels of government. Within the federal government I am told there may be as many as a dozen or more departments involved in education and related things.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

You should apologize for making those remarks-

[Petitions, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here in which these electors are asking that the government examine the bail provisions currently in existence. As well they want the government to study the situation of parolees from serious crimes. Finally, they want an in-depth examination of youth violence.

They understand that the government has already undertaken these initiatives. They want it to speed them up because they feel there are deficiencies in the criminal justice system and there is insufficient protection for certain groups of people, particularly women, children and disabled persons.

[Income Tax Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his speech. First, I want to assure him that our approach is totally different.

I have four quick questions for him. First, since some Canadians took certain decisions in response to budgetary measures announced by the previous government-I insist on that point-I would like to know if, yes or no, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the Bill.

Second, you heard the members of the Reform Party say in this House that they oppose all taxes. They said: "No taxes, no taxes, no taxes," even for wealthy corporations or individuals who benefit from tax shelters. I would like to know the position of your party on that subject.

Third question, I would also like to know whether the Quebec income tax guide and forms to be filled out are really different and more complex than the federal ones. I take that question at heart and no doubt you know the answer.

Finally, the member spoke about small and medium-sized businesses and indicated that one of the things that bothered them-and I want to make sure my colleague understands this last question since it is probably the most important-was the complexity and large number of regulations and so on. But he did not mention access to capital. At home, in St. Boniface, that great place at the geographical centre of Canada, we are mostly interested in access to capital for small and medium-sized businesses.

Maybe he can make very short comments on my four questions, answering by yes, no, or maybe.

[Income Tax Act, February 9th, 1994]

We listen quite religiously.

[Income Tax Act, February 9th, 1994]

I am listening.