Debates of Oct. 26th, 1994

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup-Manpower training.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the debate on Bill C-52, the public works and government services act.

Less government, less cost, a more responsive attitude: This is the message Canadians are giving us with respect to our government operations.

I conducted a social policy forum in my riding just last Sunday. It was held at Durham College in Oshawa. Many speakers gave me their views on how to change our social programs. This is an important part of our democracy in ensuring that the people who are affected by policies are involved in them. While this forum did not deal specifically with the structure of government, speaker after speaker expressed their views of the need for a smaller and more efficient government that would interact with the public in a manner that would restore meaning to the phrase civil servant.

Many of our civil servants are in fact caring and responsible hard working people who work diligently in the best interests of Canadians. Sustained salary freezes and a moratorium on hiring has created despondency in the ranks of the civil service. The concept of upward mobility seems to have been roadblocked.

Now is the time for new and innovative changes which not only reduce the cost of government operations but most important deliver services more efficiently and more responsibly to the public. Often people are treated to telephone answering machines with messages never returned, or overworked line people who after their 90th unemployment insurance case seem uncaring and unsympathetic.

We must do better. We must rethink our whole attitude toward public sector employment. We must involve employees and the public in the evolution of a new system which will still meet the demands of all Canadians.

We must be prepared to experiment in the public sector in order to achieve a more efficient system. When we say experiment, we mean just that, being prepared to start on a test basis certain pilot projects which will then in turn be monitored to see how they can be extended to the public at large.

I know members would like me to give an example of such a system. We have all been dealing with trying to struggle with a harmonized consumption tax system. The duplication between the provinces and the federal government along with the burden to small and medium sized business has been mentioned many times in this House. In addition, two collection authorities duplicate the work of the government side on this transaction. Indeed in the case of the federal government, it results in over 7 per cent of the funds collected. Currently the harmonization of these taxes has eluded both jurisdictions.

Here is the start of a solution: Why not form an agency for consumption tax collection? This agency would have transferred to it the necessary staff and equipment to collect existing federal tax. The agency would then be set free from the government. The federal government would then become its client.

We could work out a formula for the receipt of tax based on the quantum of moneys collected as well as a bonus for the satisfaction of the general public. The agency would then sell its collection services to the provincial governments, offering to collect their taxes as well. Members will note that there will be no change in tax authorities or who gets what money. It seems to me this would eliminate some of the distress which now exists between jurisdictions. At the same time it would afford for a more efficient collection system.

From this initiative it would not take long for such an agency to suggest to the provinces and the federal government an effective way to only collect the tax once rather than requiring the duplication which now exists.

This is just one illustration of how government could change in order to meet the objectives of Canadians which is for an efficient and effective government, working better and smarter.

Bill C-54 follows this vein by consolidating certain departments of public works and creating a new procurement policy. What is in it for the taxpayers? A reduction of $180 million after five years in operation. A reduction in jobs from 18,000 to 14,000. In addition, due to the last budget, a further reduction of $30 million. These are no small accomplishments, even though members in the opposition would have us believe otherwise.

I would now like to turn my attention to an important new aspect of the procurement policy as outlined in the bill. It relates to contingency fees.

Before coming to the House today I looked up the definition of contingency fees: A future event or circumstance regarded as likely or as influence on present action. This means someone profiting by the success of securing government business. This is a concept of reward not consistent with the public's demand to move toward more integrity in our system. This is the sort of thing that should be abolished and should also be abolished in general lobbying with the federal government.

Since last May all the department's contracts contain a clause requiring bidders to certify they have not hired a lobbyist to solicit award of the contract, where any part of the lobbyist's payment depends directly or indirectly on a client obtaining the contract, or a contingency fee. This is a very good thing.

The minister has also moved quickly to make major improvements in the way contracting for advertising and public opinion research had been handled by the previous government. Previously, there were no effective guidelines for the purchase of these important and sensitive services which left the door open for widespread abuse and political patronage.

For the first time ever, new guidelines have been developed and promulgated with the approval and backing of cabinet. They have brought the procurement of advertising and public opinion research into line with the thrust and policies governing all procurements, namely fairness, openness and transparency.

These guidelines ensure that all contracts awarded for these services advance the policy interests of the government. They ensure that they reflect the government's determination to restore public confidence in the system and the way it conducts the public's business.

By increasing the use of the open bidding system, by introducing the lobbyist clause and by developing new strict guidelines dealing with advertising and public opinion research, the minister has demonstrated his commitment to building a fair and open approach to government procurement.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that restoring public confidence in the integrity of government is a matter of high priority. Dealing fairly and honestly with the thousands of Canadian individuals and companies who do business with the government can go a long way toward achieving that goal.

Passage of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act will ensure there is a central point of responsibility within government to ensure that the principles and policies governing government procurement are enforced, monitored and adhered to.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour 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 yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[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., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes.

The House resumed from Tuesday, October 18, consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When we stopped the last time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had the floor, but since he is not in his seat, I recognize the hon. member for Drummond.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is introducing for second reading Bill C-53, an Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other Acts.

The purpose of this bill is to give legal form to proposals of the previous Conservative government to merge several departments. This exercise is presented as a political and economic measure, that of reducing the size of the Cabinet.

At first glance, one might agree with the economic arguments for this operation. By merging a number of governmental responsibilities and activities, with a view to streamlining operations, we could achieve some savings. However, to do that, the government would have had to limit itself to the mere merging, in one single department, of services scattered in different departments. The government would have had to take this opportunity to do the necessary house cleaning and to streamline its operations while looking for duplication of responsibilities with the provinces.

It did not do that. In this bill, much praised for its economic virtues, streamlining takes a back seat compared to the reaffirmed will to occupy fields of jurisdiction which constitutionally belong to the provinces.

In the area of culture, in particular, the government had a good opportunity to satisfy its stated economic interest while giving Quebec something it had been claiming for years under the Constitution. Unfortunately, it does nothing of the kind, and instead, maintains duplication and overlapping with programs the objectives of which are short-circuiting those of similar provincial programs.

All this at a time when neither Quebec society nor Canadian society can afford such counterproductive and expensive interventions. This operation, which could have been economically rational, is anything but. It perpetuates one of the economic flaws of federalism through continued spending in a field of jurisdiction which is not federal.

With respect to this bill, had the government not wanted to listen to economic reason, it could at least have listened to its own Constitution. In 1867, the Canadian Constitution gave authority to the provinces in the areas of communications and cultural matters. The Constitutional Act of 1867 gave the provinces jurisdiction over all private and local matters and recognized Quebec civil law. Education, which is closely connected with culture, was recognized as a provincial field of jurisdiction.

Section 40 of the Constitution, which was unilaterally patriated in 1982, states that when an amendment is made regarding education or other cultural matters, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.

In fact, the constitutional acts are clear and give the provinces exclusive legislative powers over cultural matters. Had it not been for the spending power of the federal government, we would not be witnessing today this futile fight, the main victim of which is the specific cultural identity of Quebec.

With this bill, once again, the federal government fails to recognize the cultural reality of Quebec as a distinct society having, as its main characteristic, its language, which it inherited from one of the two founding nations of Canada.

Instead of recognizing Quebec's cultural reality and taking appropriate action, this bill reflects a pan-Canadian cultural identity based on the theory of a bilingual and multicultural society. The federal government is feeding utopian views which pose a real threat to Quebec from a cultural and linguistic point of view. Bilingualism, in particular, is utopian.

Every report, every study has come to the same conclusion: the use of French in Canada has not improved, quite the opposite. As a journalist, Michel Vastel, so rightly put it, the use of French in everyday life never spread even here in Ottawa, the capital of an officially bilingual country. Twenty-five years after the Official Languages Act was passed, we are still waiting for French to take its place in the sun, beyond mere use in legislation, whether it be in day care centres, at school board meetings, in movie theatres, in hospitals, or in banks.

Sixteen years after moving here, in an article published in the magazine L'Actualité , Michel Vastel sums up his experience of bilingualism in the nation's capital, by stating: ``In Ottawa, only in public buildings will you find the illusion that the two languages are equal. Beyond this facade, Ottawa is like any small, unilingual city in Ontario. Here, people leave French at home''.

This is just one testimony among many that will certainly leave many of my colleagues sceptical. Unfortunately, all the reports tabled by the Commissioner of Official Languages are packed full of such examples which tend to indicate, if one were to read between the lines, that outside our main institutions, bilingualism is still sheer utopianism.

The province of Quebec has realized that bilingualism does not help to preserve and promote its cultural identity. However, Quebec still provides, in many areas, exemplary services to its English-speaking minority. As a French society completely surrounded by the English culture, Quebec has the duty and the historical responsibility to preserve its cultural identity, its distinct identity.

Why not stop beating around the bush and provide the province of Quebec with what the Fathers of Confederation set aside for this province in 1867? Why does the federal government show such sterile and costly stubbornness when it comes to historical demands unanimously approved by every successive Quebec government for decades now, regardless of their political allegiance? For what economic or social reason has the government refused, during constitutional negotiations and again today in this bill, to give Quebec complete jurisdiction over cultural matters?

Mr. Speaker, will you let me finish my speech? It will take me perhaps five more minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to continue for five more minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

These are the questions that Quebekers ask themselves and which they will soon be able to answer, among others, during a referendum on Quebec's political future.

In the meantime, the government could have made the best of it and done something significant to prove its good faith concerning what it calls national reconciliation. For all provinces and especially Quebec, jurisdiction over cultural matters is of the utmost importance. Their numerous demands in that sense have always been rejected. For sure, the goal here is not only to put an end to the waste generated by overlap, but also to ensure cultural survival and development. And judging by this bill, the government apparently failed to understand this.

Last week, the finance minister said that we were in hock and that we could not go on like this. According to him, the economic situation of this country is unbearable. One reason for this unbearable situation remains that the Canadian government uses its spending power indiscriminately in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It insists on controlling everything whatever the cost. Well, the cost is unbearable. This is what we have been saying in this House, but to no avail.

With the government threatening to cut social programs by several billion dollars, what is even more unbearable is that the Canadian government has clearly indicated in Bill C-53 that it wishes to impinge on yet another provincial jurisdiction and to ignore every primary rule of productivity and overspend. This is why this bill also appears unbearable to me.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak on this bill on the reorganization of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

This department has many extraordinary, important responsibilities but the one I would like to speak about to the House today relates to its responsibility for multiculturalism.

As the House knows, the Department of Canadian Heritage will be responsible for the promotion of greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values as well as multiculturalism.

It seems to me that when we are speaking about this topic we owe it to ourselves to look at it from the point of view of our ridings, which includes our neighbours and our friends, and also our country and the importance which this subject has for the development of Canada. I would like to look at it from both those perspectives.

I have the privilege to represent the riding of Rosedale which includes some of the most complex areas of downtown Toronto. In St. Jamestown, which is part of my riding consisting of about 10,000 people, we estimate there are some 57 language groups represented. Some wonderful communities are there, including the Filipino community. I belong to a group called the Circulo Ilongo which is a group of Filipinos who come from a certain part of the Philippines.

I have learned a great deal about Filipino values and about Filipino food and about Filipino love for one another and their values and the strength they are bringing to my community of Rosedale and to my neighbourhood that I never would have known anything about had I not had the privilege of associating myself with them as their elected representative. I am proud to say to the member for Winnipeg North who is here with us today as a representative of the Filipino community "Mabuhai", welcome and love from the members of the Filipino community. He represents a great contribution that the Filipino community is making to our society.

We have a Tamil community in my riding and there we have located the Tamil resources centre. This centre, located in Toronto, contains the largest collection of Tamil language literature outside of India in the world. In Toronto today we are publishing three books in Tamil. I could go on.

The question is does one see this as a threat, or does one see this evolution in our society as a challenge and an opportunity?

There are two very diverse opinions. I have listened to the speeches in this House on this subject. I listened to the member for Wild Rose who, it seemed to me, considered this as really a threat to Canadian development. I had an exchange the other day with the member for Calgary South who seemed to have the same attitude and who attacked the heritage languages program of the department of heritage.

I listened to the member for Saint-Denis who lives in a complex urban riding in Montreal and who cited the president of the Royal Bank who said that it is precisely this complex, rich cultural linguistic grouping that represents the strength of Canada as we go into the 21st century, that represents the pool of human capital that will enable us to participate in an ever enclosed and more integrated global village in which we live.

I much prefer the perception of the president of the Royal Bank and my colleague from Saint-Denis because it represents the reality of Canadian cultural experience. It represents Canadian values, those of tolerance and acceptance. It represents Canadian interests in terms of how we are going to deal with the future of the world and it represents the way the world is evolving.

One of the members across the way called out that it represents the Liberals. It does represent the Liberals. It represents Liberal values. I am proud to speak for these values and proud to speak for a party that represents those values and insists on them. I am proud to be a member of a party that recognizes the way the world is evolving.

Members opposite can laugh. Are they not watching the way the world is evolving? Do they not know what is happening around them? I have talked to their representatives on the trade committee. I have spoken to other members of the Reform Party. They know what is happening in globalization. Their members came with us when we travelled across the country with our international trade committee. We heard in Vancouver, Calgary and the Northwest Territories, where many Reform members come from, about the tremendous import and export opportunities that Canadians have.

We are living in an age of movement of goods, services and people across all jurisdictions and boundaries. As Canadians we have to be able to meet the demands of markets and complex areas of services. We must have knowledge of those markets. We have to be able to get into them. How do we get into those markets if we do not have the language skills and a knowledge of the culture of those markets in which we want to participate?

We have heard much about China in the House in the last while and for good reason. Many people estimate that by the year 2025 China will be the largest single economic factor in the world. As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew said about China: "It is not possible to pretend that this is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of man".

Napoleon said, when China comes on the scene: "Quand la Chine s'éveillera, le monde tremblera". This is true. Again, is this a danger or is it an opportunity for us? It is an opportunity for us. The third largest language group in Canada is Chinese. In Toronto alone there are 350,000 people of Chinese origin and in Vancouver there are more.

This month alone in Toronto we had four trade delegations from China led by senior representatives of the Government of China. All were spearheaded by relations that were established by people in our communities who speak the Chinese language, know the Chinese culture, are Canadian citizens and proud of it.

One of the proudest days of my life was a while ago when I talked to a colleague of mine, a person I consider to be a great friend who lives in downtown Toronto. He is Vietnamese. He told me the story of how he came to Canada 20 years ago as a Vietnamese refugee and how he barely survived. Today he has a prosperous business in downtown Toronto.

He told me of going to the Vietnamese embassy a while ago. He is Vietnamese of Chinese origin and so he speaks Chinese as well. He told me very proudly: "I went to the Vietnamese embassy, not cap in hand as a Vietnamese refugee but as a Canadian citizen who speaks Vietnamese and Chinese. I believe I can build a bridge between this society and the Asian society which is an important power of the future".

Those are the values to which this multiculturalism department addresses itself. The member opposite from the Bloc seems to consider this an invasion into the jurisdiction of Quebec. Quebec citizens do not consider it that. They consider it an opportunity to participate in an evolving, extraordinary world.

We are a bicultural, bilingual, bijuridical society that has become multicultural. By multiculturalism I do not mean dance groups and festivals. I mean the creation of a society where other traditions, values, languages and cultures are respected within the Canadian mosaic and in which those cultures may flourish alongside and strengthen our own.

As I said earlier in this speech, my riding of Rosedale has as many as 57 different language groups represented. All these groups have rich cultural experiences to offer Canada and through Canada to the world. In that sense Canada may be, as has been said by others, the world's first non-nation country.

We are not a nation in the tribal sense of 19th century nations but rather a country which in many ways reflects the global society of which we are a part. Many other older states are now evolving in this direction.

We in this party and in this government are anxious to create instruments of government which reflect this new national and global reality. This bill moves us toward that important goal. I am proud to be a part of it and proud to support it.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to discuss Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As a new member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I have been looking forward to this time when I can stand before my colleagues in the House and have the opportunity to hold the government and particularly this department accountable for its actions and decisions.

Bill C-53 is a prime example of what is wrong with the country. It lacks leadership and direction. This was a perfect opportunity for the government to show Canadians that it truly does care about the future of Canada, not just in the short term but in a future which our children's children can enjoy.

Bill C-53 was an opportunity for the government to take the lead and make some hard decisions regarding funding practices. We are, as everyone knows, in rough waters. Canada is currently barely treading water. Our debt and deficit are reaching astronomical levels. For that reason federal spending must be controlled and ultimately reduced.

We are spending $110 million more each and every day than we are currently collecting in revenues. To make matters even worse, we are continually funding programs and activities that must be seen as low national priorities when the debt is considered. These would include multiculturalism, official languages and amateur sports.

In fact, in a survey conducted in 1991 Canadians were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that the government should stop funding multiculturalism and make these projects self-financed by multicultural organizations themselves. Over two-thirds of all respondents agreed and in fact 45 per cent of them strongly agreed that multiculturalism should be funded by multicultural organizations rather than the federal government.

Another area of contention is official languages. The Reform Party would eliminate the unnecessary federal funding and the divisive official language policy and would instead implement a policy of territorial bilingualism, maintaining official languages in key institutions such as Parliament, the Supreme Court and in federal institutions where demand is sufficient to warrant cost effective minority language services.

A final illustration of the program which I will describe as low national priority in the Department of Canadian Heritage is amateur sports. However, I want to make it clear that this list of three, multiculturalism, bilingualism and amateur sports is by far not inclusive.

There are presently 88 sports organizations that are solely funded by the federal government. This amounts to approximately $45 million plus an additional $12 million through areas such as major games hosting, athletic assistance programs and applied sports research. The overall consensus by these same 88 sport organizations is that there are insufficient funds available and that the current funds are spread too thinly among a large number of sports.

The federal government cannot be all things to all sports and the issue of core sports must be addressed. The concept of core sports financing should be supported in the short term with the criteria for eligibility of the core program becoming more and more selective until such time that the federal government no longer funds amateur sports.

The Reform Party has a commitment to balance the federal budget in three years and therefore the time of priority spending must begin. Therefore, the elimination of amateur sports funding over a three-year period would enable them sufficient time to find funding in the private sector. We feel that more emphasis should be placed on community based involvement regarding funding through such areas as corporate sponsorships, membership fees and volunteers.

Canada has also created a bureaucratic, top-heavy sports bureaucracy. It ensures that the majority of funding which we as a government are allocating is not going where it was intended, to the athletes. It is for these reasons that the only role for the state in amateur sports is the provision of sports facilities which would be accessible to all Canadians.

Bill C-53 attempts to give Canadians the illusion that the government is streamlining its activities. We in the Reform Party live in the real world and see that the bill is not streamlined but rather an ocean of overlap and confusion.

To illustrate my point, between the departments of heritage and industry there are overlaps in such areas as the Broadcasting Act, the National Telecommunications Power and Procedures Act, Telesat Canada Act, Radio Communication Act, Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commissions Act, and the Copyright Act.

It is incomprehensible to me that we need such an overlap and duplication in areas where for the most part government has no business becoming involved in the first place. The level of separation and degree of responsibility created through Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry, and Bill C-53, an act to establish Canadian heritage lack clarity.

On the one hand we have Canadian heritage which ultimately oversees overall regulations for the CRTC and the Department of Industry becoming more and more entangled in the overall direction of industries involved in the information highway and technological industries.

The questions that must be asked are: Why is the Department of Industry interfering in the natural progression and expansion of the private sector by over-regulation? Why is the department of heritage interfering with the natural progression and expansion of the private sector by over-regulation?

The answers to these questions are unclear. Perhaps it is because the government sees an opening where it can generate more revenues in the form of some sort of taxation, or perhaps it just enjoys over-regulating certain industries.

Both of these explanations are plausible. It is my obligation as a Reform member of Parliament not just to criticize but to be supportive where warranted and to always present an alternative.

I would like to tell my hon. colleagues that both over-regulation and overtaxation stifle business growth so stay out of the private sector as much as possible.

From my research and dealings with the information highway every expert I have talked to has told me the same thing, that the government is for the most part one or two years behind the private sector and their involvement only impedes the growth and productivity of firms involved. I reiterate we must stay out of the private sector.

Specifically, looking at Bill C-53 the government has in its ultimate wisdom left the cable industry in heritage while transferring the telecommunications industry to the industry committee. Have the Liberals read the CRTC telecommunications decision 94-19 which deregulates the telecommunications industry which, in short, opens competition to local telephone markets and means the cable companies will now be able to compete with phone companies for local home and business service. If comments coming from the chairman of the CRTC, Mr. Keith Spicer, are any indication there will be more deregulation in both cable and telecommunications industries.

Yet these two similar industries are now under two different ministers. I feel therefore I have to give the Liberals credit here as they are truly looking as if they know what they are doing, even though nobody on this side of the House, or the business sector, or the Canadian public knows what they are doing or why they are doing it.

What the Liberals have to understand is that less government will ultimately mean more freedom and more prosperity for all Canadians.

We as parliamentarians have an obligation not only to our constituents but to all Canadians. We must start to make the right decisions which will enable our country to lower our deficit.

It is for these reasons that I am opposed to Bill C-53. It does nothing to reduce government spending or waste, government mismanagement or incompetence, government overlap or duplication. It does not set an example for other ministries nor does it have the direction needed to lead this country.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Department Of Industry Act

[The Deputy Chairman]

It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment at second reading of Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.