Debates of June 17th, 1994

Government Expenditures

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, on

March 8 of this year the Prime Minister announced a review of the operation of the administrative flight services.

I am pleased to announce today that the government has finished its review on how we operate the Challenger air service. As a result, we are completely revamping the delivery of this service to save Canada's taxpayers more than $24 million a year.

We are replacing the more costly service that the previous government ran with a more scaled down version. As the Prime Minister promised, on March 8 we looked at options that were in keeping with the government's objectives of frugality and integrity.

We have delivered on our promise. The costs of the new service will be nearly 60 per cent less than under the previous government, dropping from $41.4 million to $17 million a year.

I want to make it clear that a flight service for the royal family, the Governor General, the Prime Minister, ministers of this cabinet and foreign dignitaries is essential in a country as vast as Canada.

The severe time restraints under which these people work makes this service absolutely necessary.

Each of our major trading partners provides a similar service to its head of state and ministers.

Now that we are confident we can deliver the service cost effectively, I expect that ministers will make use of the fleet for their official duties when the schedules of commercial air services cannot meet their needs.

Variable costs for flying now are expected to decline from about $4,600 an hour to $2,200 an hour. The cost per flying hour, if you add in capital costs, is estimated to decrease from about $17,000 to $6,800. This is only one example of the kind of specific measures which I will be implementing and this government will be implementing with a view to reducing expenditures of the federal government.

We have cut back the number of Challenger planes from six to four. We have cut the flight crews from eleven to six. We have re-engineered maintenance arrangements and we have lowered training costs without sacrificing any safety.

From now on the Department of National Defence will continue to provide the Challenger aircraft and crews, but Transport Canada will provide service and maintenance, with the private sector providing many of the other support services, the baggage handling, the meals and the lounge services.

We involved the Auditor General in the review, addressing concerns he raised in his 1993 report. In a recent exchange of correspondence with the Prime Minister, the Auditor General has generally expressed support for the renewal of the service.

The government's decision to revamp the administrative flight service puts the Challenger service on a sound footing. It is a reliable, cost effective secure transportation service for the government and fits in well with the government's commitment to operate as cost effectively as it can.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There has been a very slight pressure of time issue that needs to be dealt with. I wonder if the House would give its unanimous consent to interrupt the statements by ministers for just a moment to allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to introduce a bill.

I think you would find there is consent to do that. I apologize for this interruption, particularly to members of the opposition who are going to make their responses. It will only take a second.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Immigration Act

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Government Expenditures

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is moderately satisfied with the statement by the President of the Treasury Board on the review of the operation of the Canadian government's Challenger air service. The circumstances of this review recall a less than glorious episode in this government's history and the use of government aircraft by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

After the public outrage at the federal government's undue expenditures, the obvious step was to rationalize the expenses of members of cabinet. I want to point out that the government could have avoided taking the blame for this widespread practice of wasting public funds if it had agreed, as the Bloc Quebecois requested and still requests, to set up a public spending review committee that would scrutinize every government expenditure. By refusing to allow this exercise and by resisting change until public opinion forces it to act, the Liberal government has shown that its approach to public administration is largely improvised.

How many mini-scandals will it take for this government to finally decide to change its expensive practices? How many scandalous episodes will it take for this government to stop wasting public funds? Is there any justification for this government's excessive spending, when millions of Canadians and Quebecers are living on welfare because the government lacks the courage and the political will to promote a genuine and pro-active full employment policy?

In an article published on February 1 in La Presse , journalist Claude Picher said we can never criticize enough the kind of mistakes made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if we want the government to manage public funds in a vigilant and responsible way. I agree.

At a time when the number of unemployed is increasing daily, at a time when the national debt puts Canada among the most indebted Western countries when the federal government's spending power flies defies rationalization of government spending, the government must not be allowed to forget these incidents so that government waste in all its forms can be eliminated.

The presentation by the President of the Treasury Board reflects confidence in the government's new system for managing air transportation for its ministers. I wish I could share that confidence, but I must say that it is not easy. This government has so far failed to show the political will to cut unnecessary spending. It continues to encroach on provincial jurisdiction, it continues to make partisan political appointments and to attack social programs while maintaining tax shelters for the wealthiest people in this country. In other words, today's announcement is no guarantee that the government will immediately win the trust of the Official Opposition.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Reform Party applaud the statement by the President of the Treasury Board regarding the completed review of the operation of the administrative flight services. The saving of some $24 million of taxpayers' dollars is indeed good news to all Canadians.

While we acknowledge that some use by the royal family, the Governor General and the Prime Minister may be required, the important change in direction is the directive to ministers to use commercial air service as a first priority. With the Auditor General's being involved in this review, we trust an agreement has been reached on the cost per flying hour.

I would further request that this government keep Parliament informed by providing it with complete and accurate information about the flight services, as the Auditor General recommended in his 1993 report. In this way Parliament would be better able to monitor any wasteful spending and perhaps locate new areas of savings as they relate to this service.

I would also request that the minister table the review it conducted of the flight service. The government is finally doing what the private sector started doing three and four years ago, cutting costs in order to survive in these difficult times.

While we in Reform recognize this reduction in government spending, we suggest it is only the tip of the iceberg. There are millions more taxpayers' dollars to be saved by further cuts in government spending.

We encourage the government to keep looking. It is on the right track.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is a procedural report dealing with special debates in the House and will be of interest to all hon. members.

I also have the honour to present the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership on committees.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 31st report later this day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A point of order, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

Point Of Order

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you said that you would be ruling on my previous point

of order at a later date. How can these bills be reported back to the House before we have heard the Chair's ruling?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The point of order is an interesting one. The member may not realize it but the only way the Chair can deal with the matter, I am told, is if a report is filed today. There is nothing the Chair can do to stop the report from being presented to the House. Before anything is done with respect to the bills at issue, the Chair could rule that the bills had not been properly dealt with and therefore the matter would not go further.

I very much appreciate the concern of the member. I hope my explanation has made it clear what is happening.

Committees Of The House

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I present, in both official languages, the third and fourth reports of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land Claim Settlement Act, and Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act.

I would like to commend the work that was done throughout the night by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois and the government and the great patience they showed while dealing with these two bills.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-35, an act to establish the department of citizenship and immigration and to make consequential amendments to other acts, with an amendment.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move that the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in the House today, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 39 constituents.

The petition calls for the government to not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993, to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.

It is my pleasure to present this petition to the House today.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present, without prejudice, a petition signed by over 200 Canadians from across Canada on the situation in Kashmir.

They claim that gross human rights violations are being committed against the Kashmiri people and that the Indian government is not allowing any humanitarian aid, human rights activists or foreign journalists to operate or enter into Kashmir.

The petition calls on the Government of Canada to bring pressure on the Indian government to end its human rights violations against the Kashmiri people, to implement UN resolutions which include an impartial plebiscite under UN control whereby the Kashmiris can freely choose their own destiny, and finally, the Canadian government is called on to bring economic sanctions and an arms embargo against India until the above two objectives have been achieved.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase sexual orientation.

The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would indicate societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The petitioners believe that the government should not legitimize this behaviour against the clear wishes of the majority.

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from just about every community in my riding of Leeds-Grenville expressing concern for the family.

They ask that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same-sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds for discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

It is a great pleasure to present these petitions on behalf of my constituents.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 46 people from the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who ask that Parliament uphold the present section of the Criminal Code forbidding the aiding in the commission of a suicide.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have 962 signatures to be tabled today from people calling for the ban on the serial killer board game first edition.

These names are in addition to the 111,638 names I have tabled already for a grand total of 112,600.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the duty to present a petition signed by a number of constituents from the riding of Oxford.

The petitioners ask the government to uphold section 241 of the Criminal Code which disallows doctor assisted suicide.

The petitioners further ask the government to uphold the Supreme Court decision made last September 30 to disallow doctor assisted suicide.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands, particularly of the city of Kingston, who request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be retained without changes and enforced in order that Parliament not sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or euthanasia.

I am pleased to present this petition to the House.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, question No. 25 will be answered today.

Question No. 25-

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Will the government establish a national environmental technology advancement centre in Atlantic Canada following the release of a report entitled: "Environmental Industry Strategy for Canada"?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

The federal government has provided start-up funding for three National Environmental Technology Advancement Centres (NETACs) as non-profit corporations operating at arm's length from government, offering technology commercialization services to small and medium sized enterprises throughout Canada. The centres have so far obtained support from the private sector and other levels of government that exceeds the federal government's $12 million contribution over four years.

The competitive process to establish the NETACs included an extensive consultation with the environmental industry and other interested parties. Proposals to establish centres were subjected to a comprehensive and independent evaluation resulting in the announcement of three NETACs during the summer of 1993. No proposals to establish centres were received from Atlantic Canada.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.