Debates of Oct. 26th, 1994

Department Of Industry Act

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to enter into this debate. This is an important bill even though it appears, as my colleague opposite indicated, to be a purely regulatory type of bill that tends to condense a lot of the difficulties, bureaucracies and regulations that are appended to the Department of Industry.

This is an important function nonetheless. It is important because the country desperately needs a Department of Industry that is fine tuned, well honed and whose processes for decision making are adapted to the conditions of the day, conditions that require immediate action that addresses the problems as they have emerged over the course of the last 10 years.

I say the last 10 years because some of my colleagues here are more familiar with the tradition of the last administration that stretched from 1984 to only 1993. However, in the latter part of that administration we saw the devastation of the economic dynamics of this country. It is the economic dynamics of this country that a bill such as C-46 addresses today.

It addresses these because the directions of the previous administration allowed forces of an economic nature to pull this country apart and to weaken the dynamics that allowed even on a regional basis for some growth, for some wealth and, I dare say for my colleagues on the Reform side of the House, for some fiscal generation so that we could either maintain programs on a national basis or at least support and continue programs that we felt were of a need from a regional point of view.

Let me give some examples. I come from that part of Canada which people love to hate but which is also very important to the economic vibrancy of the entire country and whose citizens have very dedicatedly and very willingly contributed to the consolidated general revenues of this country and have also done their utmost to engender that spirit of thrift, sacrifice and risk that comes with the responsibilities of those who would live in a country dominated by an entrepreneurial spirit.

The greater metropolitan area of Toronto, an area which I know, Mr. Speaker, you are quite familiar with, used to provide close to 40 per cent of all the revenues gathered from the consolidated general revenue fund. Some of my colleagues from the Reform side, not having had the glasses to adapt them to a larger vision of the country, might not appreciate that, but it is true.

Even in such a place the devastation and inadequacies of a government imposed on the economy saw, for example, the labour force go from 2,022,000 in 1989 at the end of the boom to 1,984,000 last year. In the process we saw employment drop from 1,934,000 to a mere 1,755,000. These are statistics dated at the end of December 1993.

What is interesting about that is not only the drop in the labour force but the increase in the unemployment. Unemployment went from 81,000 in Canada's richest city in 1989 to 222,000 this last December-222,000 unemployed.

For some of my colleagues who have a rose coloured glass view of the world, that is a population that exceeds almost all cities except the top six in population in this country. It exceeds the number of unemployed in most of the regions in this country. To make matters worse, the kind of dynamics that were unleashed by the last administration, the welfare cases rose to 672,000 in that same area and welfare payments ballooned, as one can imagine.

What we need-the Canadian public told us this in 1993-is a government that is structured such as to be able to address the needs of Canadians wherever they might choose to live in this country, and make that an absolute certainty, that it is where they choose to live.

If we are Canadians one of the hallmarks of our identity is that we have mobility and our country must be governed by a government that is willing to address not only our aspirations and our objectives and our needs, but also the development as we move along. We are not a country that pits one region against another. We need government instruments that allow us to address the needs as expressed on an ongoing basis, capable of meeting the changes that we see the world economy and our domestic economy impose on families, groupings, communities, cities, provinces and regions.

As my colleague from Bruce-Grey said a moment ago in a most eloquent fashion and a most precise fashion when he gave some specific examples of the potential that has yet to be exploited, one of the objectives of new Department of Industry, after it is structured, will be to highlight tourism.

Our Department of Industry has recognized that the current account deficit that we hold with the world cannot continue at the rate that we currently see. It is especially onerous on the tourism side because this country has enormous potential for tourism development, and yet we have very few programs that target the tourists emerging in various places around the world. For example, we do not have adequate programs to address the emerging tourism potential of western Europe or even the vastly and quickly growing tourism potential of Asia.

We see that if we are going to allow Canadians to look for a more aggressive future, one that promises fiscal security, monetary security and aspirations for our young people and for families, what we would have to do is take a look at where the jobs are being created. In some of the statistics I gave we could see that while there has been a decline in manufacturing not only in my own region of Ontario and the city of Toronto but virtually everywhere in this country unfortunately, what we have experienced at the same time is a growth in the service sector. There is no better sector than the tourism sector.

In the area of tourism we find that about 50 per cent more jobs are created in non-tourism related industries and businesses. These are not Canadian statistics, these are studies that come out of the OECD. This is an area where other countries have found similar experiences.

If we are going to build on something that is tangible, something that is there, we ought to take advantage of the natural beauty of this country, the natural resources that it offers from a tourism point of view and we ought to be able to marshall an industry that allows us to provide jobs today and tomorrow for a country that yearns for those days when it was realizing its potential. Those days can come again. We must take the appropriate measures to put the right structures and procedures into place, and this bill is one. I urge all members to support it.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to address the House on the subject of Bill C-46, the Department of Industry Act.

I would not be doing justice to my own feelings on this bill if I did not state at the outset my firm belief that this is good legislation, a measure of which the government can be proud.

Bill C-46 and other organizational legislation introduced in this session are clear evidence that the government intends to live up to its commitment first stated in the campaign that saw it elected to power to restore and renew our administrative machinery. I am convinced that Canadians will view it as a positive step that will help restore public faith in the way our country is governed.

I have been listening to the discussion on the bill with considerable interest and have noticed that a constant focus of debate by the opposition has been the topic of regional development.

Here we have a bill, as the members opposite have themselves acknowledged, that deals with a tremendously broad range of responsibilities. The department has responsibility for industry and technology, trade and commerce, science, consumer affairs, corporations and corporate securities, competition and restraint of trade, bankruptcy, patents and copyrights, packaging, telecommunication, investments, small business, tourism. I have to pause and I have not yet exhausted the list.

All these responsibilities are vital to Canada's industry, trade and economic development. They affect all Canadians in every province and region, including Quebec. I, for one, think it would be unfair to my constituents to focus on a single aspect of the bill and ignore all other very important elements.

The arguments raised by opposition members are seriously flawed. First of all, according to them, since the Constitution does not define regional development as a federal responsibility, it therefore comes under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. The federal government has a special responsibility to the regions of the country whose economy is growing more slowly, as provided for in Section 36(1)( b ) of the Constitution Act, 1982. This section requires the federal and provincial governments to further economic development to reduce disparities in opportunities throughout the country.

The way these responsibilities are discharged has changed over the years, just as the various regional requirements have evolved. The federal government used to try to reduce regional disparities, but it now emphasizes small and medium-sized business competitiveness and regional development.

Contrary to what some critics claim, the government remains very active in Quebec regional development. The Economic and Regional Development Agreement, or ERDA, with Quebec has not been renewed yet but it only expires in December, despite the opposition's allegations. The ERDA agreements will remain in force long after they expire, in some cases in 1996 and 1998.

If we stick to the facts, no one can say that funding for Quebec regional development is drying up. Between 1989-90 and 1993-94, federal contributions to Quebec regional development rose by 15 per cent, compared to the previous five-year period, to $1.4 billion over five years. I would like to see northern Ontario get part of that; it is not even in the same ballpark.

I admit that by making a commitment to reduce spending and to lower the deficit, the federal government was forced to cut the amount allocated to regional development. We made a special effort, however, to ensure that these cuts are spread fairly among all regions of the country.

That being said, the current approach to regional development in Quebec does not require the same level of funding as in the past. Business clients of FORD-Q were quite clear during recent consultations: they do not want any more grants. They want assistance in a form that helps them realize their potential and they want the government to reduce the size of our deficit.

There is a contradictory aspect to the opposition argument on regional development in Quebec. On the one hand, the federal government is faulted for not establishing a separate department or agency for Quebec as is done with WED and ACOA. On the other hand, the federal government is criticized for wanting to ensure that all regions of Canada benefit from economic development.

I repeat, the constitutional provision to promote economic development exists so as to create a more level playing field. The field we are talking about is not only Quebec but all of Canada.

I am confident the people of Quebec will demonstrate their confidence in the federal government's plans for encouraging economic growth and job creation.

There are practical reasons FORD-Q does not have separate legislation. The main preoccupation, the main priority of the government is job creation, not creating new administrative structures. Bill C-46 is intended to consolidate, not separate. Therefore it retains existing provisions regarding regional development. As is currently the case, control of regional development in Quebec will again be transferred to the Minister of Finance by order in council.

I am sure that the opposition wishes, as do all members of the House, to see the Quebec economy prosper. The government is steadfastly dedicated to that objective. Bill C-46 creates an organization that will assist Quebec and all of Canada move toward that goal.

I urge the House to give it speedy passage.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

During the ringing of the bells:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ) I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on Bill C-46 which is the bill setting up the new Ministry of Industry.

Like the member for Eglinton-Lawrence, I was surprised to hear members of the opposition referring to this as merely mechanical, organizational legislation.

Bill C-46 which sets up this new department is in fact a part of the-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I realize that things often happen very quickly here but the member's comments thus far relate to a different bill. We are on a different matter now. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding but we are on Bill C-52.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wonder if you could clarify for the House how we moved from Bill C-46 to the next bill. Somehow this happened at a time when the member for Peterborough was about to speak to Bill C-46. Of course, we were interrupted by the amendment from Her Majesty's official opposition.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Members are always of good faith. The matter actually went through. The question was called and the vote on the amendment was deferred. Once that vote is taken we will come back to Bill C-46.

We have now moved to a different bill. Does the member for Peterborough wish to speak to the new bill?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-52.

Since the House resumed sitting, we have been looking at a new structure for several federal departments. This restructuring exercise results from a wise decision made by the Prime Minister to streamline the federal administration in order to make it healthier, more efficient and, in particular, to save precious dollars for Canadian taxpayers.

Under the Conservative government, Cabinet had no less than 40 ministers, not to mention the political and bureaucratic support required, as well as the costs involved. We now have 20 departments which are more efficient and which will provide better and quicker service to taxpayers. The government is convinced that it can meet its objectives by pursuing four goals: streamlining the delivery of a number of services and programs; eliminating duplication and overlapping; defining the responsibility of each sector; and transferring some activities to other levels of government.

The bill which we are looking at today meets these objectives. Indeed, its goal is to make policies and programs more efficient, more affordable and also more accessible to our clientele, the citizens of our country. To determine, in consultation with provincial governments, who is in the best position to deliver a program or a service, and to make provision for adjustments to cope with changing priorities and situations from province to province are specific and realistic objectives designed to provide a better service to Canadians.

There is no doubt that, with the co-operation of the provinces, we can quickly make significant progress in this area. There is no doubt either that the review of all our programs and services in order to reduce duplication and overlapping is very important to Canadians. Every level of public administration is experiencing budgetary problems. Every government must find solutions to the growing deficit. We must spend wisely the money entrusted to us.

We must do more with less. In the past, everyone wanted their own structure, their own showcase, their own projects and their own service centres. However, we can no longer afford to support all that. Generally speaking, Bill C-52 will streamline the administrative procedures which allow us to reach agreements with the provincial governments.

I think that the infrastructure program is a perfect example of co-operation between the various levels of government. It confirms that, by pooling our resources and projects, we serve Canadians better while also creating many jobs in the process. The infrastructure program, which was clearly presented in our red book, is ideally suited to our current needs. We all agree that there is nothing to be gained by letting a country's infrastructure deteriorate, since this reduces its efficiency and, consequently, its competitiveness.

In Quebec, about one hundred very valuable projects were supported and approved by municipal, provincial and federal authorities. In several cases, work has already begun. Consequently, it is not surprising that people were shocked when the new Quebec minister of municipal affairs announced his intention to review dozens of these projects.

A new government has the right to do things differently from its predecessor. It can certainly do so when its plans and intentions were clearly stated to voters during the election campaign. For example, during the last federal campaign, we clearly indicated which programs we were going to eliminate.

We also said that we would look at the Pearson Airport deal and would cancel that project if we felt that it was not in the best interests of Canadians. And we did just that. So, it is normal for the new Quebec government to review projects, provided it indicated its intention to do so during the election campaign.

There can be no misunderstanding on this issue, and voters clearly got the message. However, in the case of the infrastructure program, we are talking about projects which have been proposed by municipalities, reviewed at the provincial level and, once approved and recommended by the Quebec government, reviewed and accepted or rejected by the federal government. All these projects were approved according to specific rules clearly stated from the beginning. We are therefore concerned to see the new Quebec government start from scratch.

I do hope that once the new Quebec minister of municipal affairs looks at these projects-hopefully in the very near future-he will confirm them, so that the communities and municipal organizations concerned can pursue the work which had already begun regarding these very important projects.

For example, in my own riding of Saint-Léonard, residents have been asking for years that a community centre be built to provide various services. The construction of that centre has now been put on hold and I hope that the minister will give his approval as soon as possible, so that work can begin on this very important project.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-52; I am especially pleased to speak on it because the riding which I represent in this House, Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, clearly lacks government services. I want to talk about this before getting into the main subject.

The only government buildings in my riding are marine navigation lights, a post office, an employment centre and an empty office building. That is not much. First we have the navigation lights. I think that the federal government cannot avoid this responsibility since the Rivière des Prairies flows through my riding and it must be marked with navigation lights. This is an absolute necessity. Then there is a post office in the heart of Ville d'Anjou, but having a post office in my riding is certainly not unusual since the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies is one of the most populous in the Montreal area. In that regard, not having a post office would be inexcusable.

As regards the need for a Canada employment centre in my riding, I think that for a better understanding of what is at stake here, I should point out to the House that the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, located in the eastern part of Montreal Island, is considered by many experts to be an economically depressed area: the unemployment rate is much higher than in the greater Montreal area; the number of welfare recipients is at record levels; it has the lowest average household income; and the school drop-out rate is one of the highest in Quebec. That being said, I do not think having a manpower centre in my riding is a luxury. It meets a real need among my constituents.

However, according to rumours in my riding, the centre may be moved to the Saint-Léonard riding, next door. It seems this would allow for better allocation of available resources. In fact, the real reasons are pretty obvious. First they expand the area covered by the manpower centre responsible for East Montreal. They consolidate various services in the same building, so that offices already being used are now too small or redundant. Finally, the new Department of Public Works and Government Services decides to move the offices to a new building, where it

can offer government services first and foremost to a riding that, incidentally, voted for the winning side. Quite a coincidence.

In fact, if the rumours I mentioned earlier are true, the new government offices will be located in one of the least disadvantaged areas of Montreal.

Of course for the time being, these are just rumours. Nevertheless, there is a precedent. I realized this when I looked at the history of politics in this riding. The first Canada Employment Centre to open its doors in this riding was inaugurated in 1984. At the time, it was an extension of the employment centre located in the present riding of Saint-Léonard. Of course, at the time, in 1984, the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies did not exist and Ville d'Anjou was part of the riding of Anjou-Saint-Léonard. After the election in 1984, this riding was represented in the House of Commons by the present member for Saint-Léonard.

In the fall of 1988, we had an election, and Ville d'Anjou was then part of a new riding, Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies. The riding was represented by the future minister responsible for the development of greater Montreal, and interestingly, the employment centre in my riding became a full-fledged centre from that very moment. Since it was then too small, the employment centre's offices were moved, this time to the riding of Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies.

In 1993, another election. Voters in Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies elected a member of the Bloc Quebecois to represent them, as did many Quebecers during this last election, and hence current rumours that the employment centre is going to be relocated.

To end these rumours, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services need only have answered my question to him about the activities of his whole department in my riding, as several Bloc members asked him about theirs. The letters we received suggested that it was impossible for financial and accounting reasons to explain what is going on in the ridings.

Given that, you will understand my disappointment with the vote on the amendment moved by a fellow Bloc member for a committee to monitor this department. You will agree with me that setting up a public monitoring commission with the mandate of scrutinizing the contracts let by the Department of Public Works and Government Services would be the best way to ensure the openness that the Liberal Party promised us so much in its famous red book that everyone quotes abundantly.

We find such openness nowhere in any of the departments we address. I shall take a few current examples since they are very recent.

We have been trying to find out how many family trusts there are, how many billions are involved and for how long this money will not be taxed. We are not getting any answers. No one can give us exact figures.

There is also the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Some very serious allegations are being made that it has infiltrated a political party, specifically the Reform Party. This service's activities are subject to review by an independent committee, but when that committee's members appear before a House committee, the only reply they will make to our questions is that they have become accustomed to not giving a definite yes or no as an answer. This is not transparency.

Let us look at the events surrounding the Pearson airport affair. A bill to deprivatize Pearson was introduced, and of course the people who invested money in the airport will be making claims. The bill provides that these claims will be heard in camera by the minister responsible, rather than here in this House, or before the Canadian people. This is not what I would call transparency.

An ethics committee was struck to keep an eye on lobbyists. Rumour has it that this whole business is unsavoury. And to whom does the committee report? Instead of reporting to this House, it reports to the minister.

The Communications Security Establishment, which is allegedly involved in spying activities on a large scale throughout Canada and perhaps internationally, has been mentioned today, and indeed with increasing frequency for a few days now. Eighteen hundred people are involved in its operations, and although difficult to estimate, its budget seems to be in the range of two hundred and fifty or three hundred million dollars.

This brings us to another subject, the inquiry conducted by the Keable Commission which published some extremely important information. I may recall that the commission-I will read the first paragraph of the inquiry-started its proceedings on March 8, 1976. The commission reported as follows: Former RCMP officer Robert Samson was summoned to testify behind closed doors at his trial on charges of placing a bomb at the home of Samuel Dobrin. He revealed that in 1972, members of the three main police corps operating in Quebec searched the premises of the Agence de presse libre du Québec without a warrant. This unlawful search was part of a police operation under the code name "Bricole".

Subsequently, the Keable Commission was to question all the witnesses who appeared in this case, and the commission's initial terms of reference were gradually expanded as it discovered more and more facts.

At one point, the people conducting the inquiry tried to obtain specific figures and information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and when the RCMP refused, they went to court. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I would like to read to you what the members of the Keable Commission thought of this ruling. The following appears in Chapter 3, paragraph 3: "The Supreme Court's judgment recognizes the right of the Solicitor General of Canada to evoke, without further explanation, the interests of national security as grounds for refusing to produce documents relevant to a commission's inquiry. In so doing, the Supreme Court reinforces what Chief Justice Jules Deschênes of the Superior Court referred to, in a detailed study of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, as the absolute privilege which shields the executive from the judiciary. Of all the countries whose jurisprudence in this area was examined by Justice Deschênes, including England, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, Canada is the only country that repeatedly favours the doctrine of absolute privilege".

In other words, there are citizens in this country who are above the law, against whom no legal recourse is possible.

This is what transparency means, and unfortunately, Bill C-52 does not provide the controls we proposed. They are not in this bill, and we will therefore vote against this legislation.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about the legislation presently before the House and to look at the amalgamation of different government agencies into consolidated departments, particularly this one of public works and government services. The amalgamation of most of the federal government's common services into one portfolio is a sound step toward improved efficiency and better service delivery of government programs and services.

The first and most obvious opportunity is the capacity of a centralized body to reduce wasteful duplication with consequent savings to the taxpayers. This is already apparent within the Department of Public Works and Government Services. It will become even more so over the next four years as the overall staff requirements are reduced by close to 30 per cent.

This consolidation of operations will bring annual savings of hundreds of millions of dollars and make a real contribution to streamlining government operations and contributing to deficit reduction.

Cost effectiveness can only be one of the reasons why amalgamation of the government's common services makes good sense. It also provides a single focal point to the scores of government departments and agencies that depend on public works and government service for services. It creates an environment in which Public Works and Government Services Canada is better able to understand the whole range of its clients' needs and deal with them on a comprehensive basis. Similarly it provides a single operational point of contact for the tens of thousands of companies and individuals that do business with government every year.

By standardizing policies and procedures and by developing more streamline procurement systems, Public Works and Government Services Canada can make it more fair, more simple and less costly for these people to do business with the government. Finally, the consolidation of our common services creates a really impressive body of specialized expertise on a wide variety of matters relating to government services and government administration.

One of these centres of expertise that has come into the department through the amalgamation is the government's translation bureau. Few people are fully aware of the wide range of services and enormous volume of output that this organization provides to Parliament and to government on a continuing basis. With a staff of some 1,200 employees the translation bureau looks after translation and interpretation services for Parliament and government departments, agencies and commissions, as well as acts as the prime authority for the standardized terminology throughout government.

Besides its basic responsibilities relating to Canada's two official languages, the bureau provides translation services in more that 150 languages as well as interpretation services for some 40 languages and dialects including sign language. The translation bureau is also an important user of services provided by the private sector in this field, issuing in a typical year more than 8,000 contracts for outside work. On average the bureau translates over 300 million words annually. To give some idea of the scope of this accomplishment, it represents the contents of about 4,000 books each of 250 pages in length. If you have heard my French, Mr. Speaker, you would realize how important good translation is.

The bureau also translates more than 100,000 weather bulletins a year through its Météo system, a computer assisted translation system. It provides about 20,000 person days of interpretive services. On top of all this the bureau responds to an estimated 150,000 telephone inquiries each year from client departments, suppliers and the general public seeking information regarding correct terminology.

The move of the translation bureau under the umbrella of Public Works and Government Services Canada was and is a logical and sensible move. The bureau provides an important common service to departments and agencies and to the public. It does extensive procurement for services with the private

sector. In other words, it shares the same characteristics as the other common service elements of the department and will benefit from being integrated with them.

Another of the important but sometimes overlooked common services that Public Works and Government Services provides for the government is that of the receiver general. This responsibility which was transferred to the minister from the former Department of Supply and Services Act covers a multitude of central financial and banking functions vital to government operations.

The duty of the receiver general includes the issuance of payments in response to inquiries, settlement and redemption of payments, performance of other treasury operations such as receipt processing, payment of banking fees relating to inflows and outflows from the consolidated revenue fund, maintaining the general ledger and preparing the financial statements of the government.

The receiver general is basically responsible for all public moneys received and disbursed by the government and for all balances held on deposit in the Bank of Canada and with other financial institutions. The receiver general must also maintain the official accounting records of the government and provide extensive analysis and reporting on the government's transactions and positions as may be required by Treasury Board, the finance department or others.

The volume of transactions generated by these responsibilities is enormous. Each year the receiver general must process some 30 million deposits and over 200 million payments. With this volume of work the function of the receiver general is one that can benefit from the application of new technologies now available to speed service, deliver and reduce the cost of delivery.

There has been considerable progress on this front. For example, of the 200 million payments made annually 30 per cent are now made by direct deposit and this percentage is growing each year. Over the last three years the department reports that some 133 million paper cheques have been converted to direct deposits. This conversion has resulted in initial savings of some $41 million in postage and banking fees, and annual savings are now in the order of $18 million. I am sure members of the Reform Party will be more than delighted at this progress and will be supportive of what we are doing here.

The cost cutting measures already taken by Public Works and Government Services Canada over the past year demonstrate the wisdom of consolidating the department's common services into a single department. The bill will give the department the legislative base it needs to continue to accelerate its efforts to provide better and less costly common services.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today.

The basic mandate of the Department of Public Works and Government Services is "to provide cost effective and efficient delivery of common services to government departments and agencies". This seemingly simple statement of responsibilities in fact represents an enormous challenge, given that the department must deliver a vast range of diverse products and services to more than 150 federal departments and agencies with physical locations scattered all across Canada.

The department bears much of the responsibility for fulfilling our government's directive that the administration of its operations must be made more efficient and that waste and duplication must be rooted out throughout the service.

As the primary provider of common services for the government it must take a lead role in meeting the government's goals in that respect. I think this is a good argument for the amalgamation and centralization of common services for which the department was formed, and for the bill which will give legislative force to its operations.

In pursuit of its mandate Public Works and Government Services must try to achieve greater levels of both standardization and flexibility in its operations. Standardization in such areas as communications systems, procurement processes and so forth can make a real and positive contribution to reducing administrative costs throughout government. In its service to client departments, Public Works and Government Services must also strive to be as flexible as possible so as to address the real needs and to respond quickly and effectively to them.

One of the techniques used by the department to give it flexibility of action, which has been carried forward from previous legislation, is the use of revolving funds. A revolving fund is essentially a revenue spending authority. It is a standing authority like a line of credit which given to the organization enables it to use its revenues to pay all or a portion of its expenditures.

The objective is that all revenues will equal all expenditures over time. It is the continuous authority to draw on the consolidated revenue fund up to a specified limit, as opposed to an annual appropriation of cash. Revolving funds are particularly useful in facilitating large scale, multi-year projects, the type of projects Public Works and Government Services Canada frequently undertakes in the service of its clients.

Bill C-52 provides for the transfer of six such revolving funds from their existing legislation with no change in their terms and conditions. These include architectural, engineering and reality services; consulting and audit Canada; the Canada Communication Group; government telecommunications and informatic services; optional services; and the defence production revolving fund.

In addition the bill establishes one new revolving fund for the disposition of real property. The new real property disposition revolving fund is being established to permit the repayment of expenditures made in the disposal of real property from the proceeds. At present parliamentary appropriations are used to fund these expenditures.

As members are aware, the new department and one of its predecessors, Public Works Canada, have been quite active over the past few years in disposing of unwanted and unneeded federal property which represented an unnecessary cost to the Canadian taxpayer. The establishment of the revolving fund will streamline and simplify the administration of this process in the future.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services was recently made aware of certain practices within the Canada Communication Group in which the revolving fund was used to carry over funding from one fiscal year to another.

The minister responded quickly to deal with this problem. Working in conjunction with Treasury Board the minister took a number of steps to rectify the situation, including identifying and confirming the exact amount of funds that had been deferred for each department, invoicing departments for expenditures already made against these funds in the current year, immediately taking steps to return these funds to the consolidated revenue fund as a refund of expenditures for prior years, conducting a refund of all the revolving funds in the department, and instituting a series of processes and systems to improve management control over them.

The speed and decisiveness with which the minister responded to this problem attests to the government's absolute determination to govern with integrity and to take every possible measure to restore public confidence in the way in which government conducts its business. It also provides a good example of the value of amalgamating the government's common services within one portfolio.

In dealing with the situation the minister was not only able to correct the particular problem that had occurred in one area but also to take steps to ensure that similar problems could not arise in other similar operations within his department.

The new Department of Public Works and Government Services has demonstrated in its first year of operation that it is as valid and viable operation. It has already saved taxpayers' money by the elimination of duplication. It provides one-stop shopping for its client departments and a central focal point for suppliers and contractors to government. It has controlled a valuable body of specialized expertise in government administration and improved the government's ability to serve Canadians efficiently and effectively.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as stated in the red book our challenge is and always will be to do more with what we have. Governments everywhere are striving to maintain and to improve service levels to growing populations and to public demands that we do more and be efficient, more open and responsive in the delivery of services in communication with our citizens.

At the same time governments face equally challenging tasks of making their operations more cost effective, reducing expenditures and easing the financial burden that must be shouldered by the people. This is a universal challenge and one that must be met by this government and by all levels of government in Canada, the United States, Japan, Europe, and indeed the world.

The experience of the past decade indicates that one of the most effective ways of meeting the seemingly conflicting goals of better service at lower cost is through the development and application of advanced technology to the operation of government. The Department of Public Works and Government Services has made considerable progress in applying automated systems in delivery programs and services.

A new and advanced communications technology has helped to become more efficient in all aspects of communication within government, within communications and with the Canadian public. The technologies in this field are evolving rapidly. It is vitally important that the federal government keep pace with change, make maximum use of emerging technologies and make our operations more efficient and more cost effective. For this reason I believe the changes embodied in the creation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services represent that positive step.

I refer specifically to the decision to merge the government telecommunications agency, formerly the department of communications, with those portions of former public works and supply and services that dealt with informatics to a new a stronger unit known as government telecommunications and informatics service, or GTIS for short.

An amalgamation of the units will eliminate some duplication of function and will result in cost savings. More important, it creates a comprehensive centre of knowledge and expertise on all aspects of advanced telecommunications and informatics technology. Further, it recognizes the trend in the industrial sector toward convergence of computing and communications technologies.

By locating the agency within the Department of Public Works and Government Services at the very heart of government, it will be in a stronger and more central position. This will benefit the government chief informatics officer, the scores of federal departments and agencies for which PWGSC provides common administrative services, and its home department.

The new GTIS provides information management and information technology to assist in the automation of government administration and provides the common infrastructure for program delivery. GTIS is committed to constructing an information management and information technology infrastructure to support both central responsibilities such as the Receiver General and common services such as procurement and realty management.

It also is the functional and technical authority within the Department of Public Works and Government Services for information management and information technology architecture, standards, policies, practices and guidelines. Generally GTIS is working to develop open and standards based government-wide information management and information technology architecture and infrastucture.

The importance of applying these new technologies to government operations cannot be underestimated. To take just one example, the electronic procurement and settlement system which is being designed by PWGSC will when it has government-wide application offer annual cost saving methods of several hundred million dollars to government and suppliers.

This system, known as EPS, unites the traditionally separate functions of procurement and finance into a single process. EPS will link client departments, suppliers and central common settlement systems allowing them to do business electronically. It will achieve improved service and reduction in related overhead costs. It will put control of procurement in the hands of users without burdening them with the details of process. By next year it is expected that widespread use of EPS by suppliers and departments throughout government will begin.

EPS is a flexible system and one that is workable. The electronic procurement settlement system is but one example of the many applications designed to streamline the operations of government that are being designed with PWGSC and within the government telecommunications and informatics service. Others include the new public service compensation system, the standard payment system, the common departmental financial system, and the government message handling service.

The amalgamation of government expertise and capabilities in this important field through the creation of the government telecommunications and informatics service, GTIS, makes eminent good sense. It will continue to pay off down the road in the form of more effective service delivery and lower administrative costs throughout government. It is one more reason to support this measure to give legislative force to the Department of Public Works and Government Services.