House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was general.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
In the view of the Chair the hon. member did make a statement dissociating himself from this type of statement. I think it is quite clear, subject perhaps to my reviewing Hansard , but from my perspective here I did hear a definite dissociation and therefore I would conclude an apology of sorts.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, with respect, an apology of sorts is not good enough. An apology to all those who were offended by this is what is necessary and I ask the member for that apology.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
In my view it was an apology and I accept it as such on behalf of the House.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, the tradition of the House dating back to before Confederation is that each day opens with a prayer. I am deeply disturbed and appalled that the House committee on procedure has begun to reconsider the reciting of the prayer at the opening of the daily sitting and the removal of the word God from the prayer.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. I would take this perhaps as a point of debate. As I understand it the committee is still seized with this matter, but nothing has come to me at this point and I would be willing to wait for a report from the committee that is studying the matter.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a procedural point with respect to my statement.
As far as I am concerned the matter regarding the member for Okanagan Centre is settled. I took particular care in my statement- and I know members of the Reform Party did not like it-to refer to the Reform Party of Canada and not to the individual member.
I have been in the House for many years and the NDP has been attacked repeatedly. It has always been in order to criticize political parties. In my opinion I should not have been ruled out of order.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I will take the words of my learned colleague under advisement, and if I find in my decision on it I have been perhaps a little quick off the mark I will come back and so state in the House. I will have a look at Hansard myself.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with tradition, I would like to ask the government House leader to tell us what is planned for the balance of the week and the beginning of next week.
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, today, as we know, is an opposition day with a motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. Tomorrow there will be an opposition day with a motion proposed by the Reform Party.
On Monday we will deal with Bill C-9 and the amendments to the Income Tax Act. If second reading of that bill is completed we will begin second reading of Bill C-8, dealing with the right of peace officers to use a deadly force.
On Tuesday we will call the resolution regarding the Northumberland Strait Crossing. Wednesday will be another opposition day.
With respect to Thursday, I understand that if the Minister of National Defence proposes a motion to refer a review of defence policy to a special joint committee of the House and the other place, there would be a disposition in the House that the motion would pass after one day of debate. If that is the case I will be happy to have the debate take place Thursday of next week.
Doug Peters LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion respecting the Excise Tax Act, and I ask that an order of the day be designated to debate the motion.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to presenting reports by standing and special committees.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The report provides the list of associate members of standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I propose to move concurrence in the report immediately. In view of the length of the report, I would ask that we dispense with the reading of the report.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, last year, this government campaigned in favour of greater control of public expenditures. That is to say that we deeply share the concerns before the House today. Too many people, across the country, believe that our present fiscal woes are caused only by indiscriminate spending on the part of too many civil servants who have nothing better to do than to waste taxpayers' money.
It is indeed the underlying feeling which prompted the present debate. This debate is aimed at striking a special committee of the House with a mandate to examine public expenditures, in light of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, and overlap between federal and provincial government programs. Such a committee is already in existence. It is called the House Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Moreover, I will remind the members that each standing committee of the House has the right to examine the expenditures of the department it reviews. To establish a new committee to assess this government's management would duplicate the work already done through other mechanisms at our disposal for our job as public fund watchdogs.
On this side of the House, we think that what Canadians need instead is fundamental reforms that would go much further. This government promised it would keep its promises. If, today, we were to eliminate all the civil service positions across the country, and at the same time their operating budgets and all of their benefits, the government would only save $19 billion this year. The deficit for this year would still be around $25 billion.
Therefore, those who tell people that this is the way to get rid of the deficit are not telling the whole truth. The only way to solve this problem is to conduct an in-depth review of the roles and responsibilities of the federal machinery with a view to giving this country a government able to meet the challenges of the next century. That is what we committed ourselves to doing during the election campaign and in the red book, and that is I took the jump into politics.
Canadians have high expectations of the House. They are demanding that all their levels of government work together to better serve the interests of citizens and taxpayers.
Over the years governments in Canada have lost this client centred focus. Collectively they have promised more than they could deliver and delivered more than they could afford. Programs and services have often been poorly co-ordinated and public services have been used inefficiently. Inefficiency is a luxury that no government can afford any more.
Too often in the past intergovernmental debate has been characterized by acrimony, entrenched positions and grandstanding. Relations between Canadians and their governments have become cumbersome and confusing.
We were elected to effect change. We will respond to the demands of Canadians for client centred government.
In future, reforms will mean that a person coming to a federal civil servant will be evaluated, and served according to his or her needs.
In the speech from the throne we committed ourselves to work vigorously to ensure that federalism meets the needs of Canadians by clarifying the federal government's responsibilities in relation to other orders of government. This is the way to eliminate overlap and duplication and to find better ways of providing services that represent the best value for taxpayers' dollars and respond to the real needs of Canadians.
We intend to work in partnership with the provinces to refocus government programs and services. We want to provide public services that do not work at cross purposes. We want to get beyond the kind of relationship that is built on obstinacy and narrow mindedness. We want to find a new equilibrium in which the roles and responsibilities of each level of government are more sensibly and reasonably aligned with their competence and financial and human resources.
Our first ministers at their December 21 meeting made a commitment to co-operatively eliminate overlap and duplication. The Prime Minister has given me the responsibility of working with other orders of government to help improve the climate of federal-provincial relations. Our goal is to build a
strong, united country. I have had exchanges with premiers and territorial leaders to start that process.
To move ahead we will develop a framework within which the process of discussions and negotiations with the provinces can take place. We will identify the essential functions of the federal government of the future, taking into account changing circumstances and priorities.
We want to identify those responsibilities which need to be maintained at the federal level in order to protect the overall national interest and the integrity of the state, as well as those which can best be performed by other levels of government.
We will look for a process to move federal-provincial discussions away from the recrimination and bickering which has too often been seen in the past. Our goal is to reinvent the process of negotiation with the provinces so that it is more productive, so that there is less arguing over turf and more emphasis on solving problems in the interests of citizens.
We want to develop a citizen centred approach to federal-provincial relations. We also want government that is accessible and responsive to citizens' interests and needs. This government recognizes that debt passed from one level of government to another simply winds up on the same shoulders, those of the taxpayers.
In the past there has been a tendency to lose sight of the interests of the public which both governments are elected to serve. Our guiding objective will not be simply disentanglement which suggests the reordering and sorting out of what exists now, but service enhancement which suggests collaborative citizen focused initiatives in which the interests of taxpayers and service recipients are the priority.
In so doing, the federal government is prepared to be flexible, to accommodate different priorities and circumstances, to experiment and innovate and to build on best practices which have been used in different provinces.
Our process will be transparent and open and we welcome ideas and suggestions.
The members of this House have the heavy responsibility, during this last decade of the 20th century, to ensure that the bold wager taken up by the Fathers of Confederation is not lost. This responsibility is ours not only with respect to future generations in our own country but also, and probably even more importantly, toward the have nots of the planet who envy our political and social stability, as well as our prosperity, in spite of our present economic and budget difficulties.
Although serious, these difficulties are not insurmountable. If we in this blessed land cannot resolve our differences and overcome problems which to the majority of the world's people seem at worst manageable then there is not much hope for humanity.
We have been elected by the people of Canada to address our common problems and, above all, to make the very best of our tremendous economic and human resources. We will not shrink from that challenge. We will keep our commitment.
Benoît Tremblay Bloc Rosemont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the President of the Treasury Board and I am filled with dismay. This is the President of the Treasury Board speaking, the man in charge of preparing the government's expenditure budget. That is incredible. I can see that a minister would consider that $200,000 or so is not too much to pay to go and deliver a speech, that there is no fat to cut in the federal administration, that nobody here is spending too much.
While you are at it, why produce government brochures in only fourteen colours? That is not enough. Why not twenty-two? That is incredible. I suppose that the President of the Treasury Board also considers that there is nothing wrong with building an embassy in Japan on a lot worth over $1 billion. That is normal I suppose. To have three embassies in Brussels, one for NATO, one for Belgium and one for the European Economic Community, with three ambassador's residences and three reception halls, one each, that is normal too, I suppose.
Now, he is telling us that, to solve the problem, we will refocus the activity of the federal and provincial governments. What has the government done in that area these past few years? Quite simply, the federal government has been pulling out. In that area as in health and post-secondary education, it is pulling out but keeping the tax money. That is incredible. Now the buzz word is refocussing, before that it was harmonizing.
Apparently the federal government will pull out from a number of areas, but it will continue to raise taxes, of course. That is how the federal deficit first got enormous. Then we saw the public finance crisis gradually spread to all the provinces. It is obvious that the federal government has been passing the buck to the provinces for years. As the minister just announced, instead of dealing with the problem from this end, by streamlining and restructuring the federal administration, he will keep passing the buck without making tax transfers. Is that what we are to understand?
Marcel Massé Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of humility that I accept the representations made by the opposition member, especially since he referred to me as the President of the Treasury Board when I am in fact the President of the Privy Council. But then again, such mistakes are to be expected from a new member of the House.
I would like to say that a member of the opposition should certainly be a lot more responsible. It is possible for some, including the media, to quote exaggerated figures, but when the Auditor General himself indicates in a press release that the figures used are erroneous and exaggerated, I would hope that opposition members would themselves be responsible enough to use the data correctly.
Also, if the member feels that giving a presentation to more than 400 Canadian studies professors from American universities is not making good use of public money, that I suggest that he take a look at what has been going on in recent years. He will realize that, in fact, this is a very useful initiative for the Canadian government. I also want to point out that a number of staunch separatists were at that conference and tried to influence the audience.
Such personal remarks should not be part of the debate. The important thing is to look at the evolution of governments' roles. The reality is that the federal and provincial governments have less money available to them. It must also be noted that, in recent years, management and information technologies have evolved sufficiently to warrant a readjustment of governments' roles.
In order to solve our current budget and tax problems we will have to redefine federal and provincial responsibilities. Similarly, our economic problems will persist unless the federal government makes the effort of redefining the roles and responsibilities which are incumbent upon it and which it can assume. And we will not succeed either if the provinces do not undertake the same exercise.
The problem is no longer one of jurisdiction. It is more a matter of redefining the responsibilities of the state. By this I mean not only the things which the state can do better than the private sector, but also the fiscal responsibilities which it can delegate.
Consequently, the important thing is not to see if jurisdictions can be improved but to fundamentally review the roles which governments must fulfil with the money they have.
Benoît Tremblay Bloc Rosemont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for mistaking the President of the Privy Council for the President of the Treasury Board. I can understand why the Prime Minister did not give the responsibility of Treasury Board to the hon. member.
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
You should apologize for making those remarks-
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak in the House I would like to begin by congratulating you on your election to the Chair. I would also like to thank my constituents for giving me the opportunity to represent them. I pledge to them I will do the best I can to take that responsibility seriously for the next term.
The motion the Bloc Quebecois has placed on the Order Paper is an issue which the Reform Party has been talking about for many years. We are very much aware of the heavy cost to Canadian taxpayers caused by duplication and overlap among various federal departments as well as between Ottawa and the provinces. We do however have some concerns with the Bloc's proposed solutions.
The Reform Party's deficit elimination strategy, known as the zero in three plan, outlines a saving of approximately $500 million to the federal government by eliminating these redundancies, particularly in natural resource sectors such as agriculture, forestry, mining and energy. We have calculated these savings by examining government accounts available to the public. We therefore question what is the intent of the Bloc in proposing this special committee to do the same thing.
Is this motion designed to revisit the constitutional relationship between the federal government and the provinces? We are somewhat confused as to where the Bloc is headed with this motion and are concerned that it is heading toward a new round of federal-provincial power bargaining.
I would like to speak for a few moments on this subject. The Reform Party has been on record for many years supporting a clearer division of powers between the federal government and the provinces.
Indeed our blue sheet, which outlines the complete platform we campaigned on last fall, expressly calls for the elimination, duplication and overlap between the two levels of government. Specifically our blue sheet states:
The Reform Party supports a re-examination and re-establishment of a clear division of powers between the constitutional levels of government. Legislative authority should rest with the level most able to effectively govern in each area, with a bias to decentralization in cases of uncertainty.
Furthermore we are convinced that for future constitutional negotiations to be successful we must move away from first ministers' constitutional conferences of the type that produced Meech Lake and Charlottetown and endorse a bottom up process of public consensus building.
We must seek to develop democratic, populist based mechanisms which would allow rank and file Canadians to participate in the process. In light of the fact that any fundamental change in federal-provincial relationships would by definition require constitutional amendments, and recognizing that a vast majority of Canadians have no desire for this at this time, I question why our friends in the Bloc are raising the issue. Canadians are in no mood for another round of constitutional deal making, particularly when government deficits and debt are seriously undermining the ability of our economy to perform.
While we agree with the general thrust of the motion before us, we do not see how the issue of federal-provincial jurisdictions can be effectively dealt with without revisiting the Constitution for which there is currently little or no consensus.
I would like to remind members of the Bloc that we have a very constructive set of specific proposals for constitutional reform which incorporate proposals to restructure federal-provincial jurisdictions in a manner we think will be attractive to all provinces, including Quebec.
I extend a sincere invitation to members of the Bloc and all members of the House to carefully examine Reform's written policy position on constitutional reform. The concerns which have led to the introduction of this motion before us today are specifically addressed in that position paper.
We believe that the entrenchment of private property rights and reform of the Senate are also very important to Canadians, as important as redefining federal-provincial relationships. This is because these elements define basic relationships between individuals and governments and underline regional fairness within Confederation.
The right to own private property without fear of being deprived thereof is a fundamental cornerstone of a free market economy and is ultimately the true test of a real democracy. Yet we have not embraced this principle to date.
An effective Senate, democratically elected on the basis of representation by region rather than population, would ensure the interests of all Canadians were protected from the tyranny of the majority, a way to ensure that Canadians would not have to endure another national energy program.
These issues are very important to many Canadians, and we think they deserve equal standing in future constitutional negotiations. However, Canadians have little desire to revisit the Constitution at this time. Until there is a clear consensus to proceed with constitutional renewal, Reformers are committed to advocate and support constructive change outside constitutional discussions. That is what Canadians want and need and that is what they have told us to do.
I understand the frustration of the Bloc Quebecois at the waste of taxpayers' money due to duplication and overlap of government services. I further believe that the turf wars fought by competing bureaucracies are in large part responsible for much of the tension between Quebec and the federal government. I can assure the House that Quebec is not alone in its resentment. The solution in the long run is a decentralization of powers.
Meanwhile we should all be aware of the cost of duplication and overlap. We urge the government to move to eliminate it in a manner consistent with my earlier statement within the framework of an existing Constitution. It is my understanding that the public accounts committee has the ability to scrutinize all spending programs.
Once again I say that although I generally agree with the Bloc Quebecois' intent with this motion I question why we need to create a special committee to cover ground which an existing committee has the ability to cover.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to say that I agree with the Bloc Quebecois' concern over the waste of taxpayers' money, but I believe that this motion comes close to striking at the heart of our Constitution. The Reform Party supports the position that our Constitution should be reformed and that Confederation should be maintained. It can only be maintained by a clear commitment to Canada as one nation in which the demands and aspirations of all the regions are entitled to equal status in constitutional negotiations and political debate.
Ronald J. Duhamel LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services
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.