Debates of Feb. 7th, 1995

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to add yet another perspective to what is happening here today with Bill C-65.

The government has undertaken to reduce the membership on some of the boards. It has even undertaken to eliminate some of the boards and direct their activities to other government departments or agencies. My first response is to give a mild cheer because this is definitely going in the right direction.

I cannot help but relate an analogy that came to my mind. I remember when I was a very young lad on the farm in Saskatchewan before we used tractors exclusively. For a while we had tractors as well as horses. I remember on one occasion the tractor got stuck and we had to use the horses to pull it out of the ditch. My dad hooked up the horses and lined them up perfectly in the right direction. Then he said chlick, chlick', because that was how one got the horses to go, but they just tightened up the traces. They did not make any great effort. So my father again wentchlick, chlick' and still nothing happened. The tractor would not move. Then very unexpectedly he hauled out, brought down his hand on the rump of one of the horses in the team and gave a yell like I had never heard my father give before. The horses leaped forward and pulled the tractor out of the ditch.

I want to applaud the Liberals because I think they have the horses lined up. The problem is we need to give them a yell; we need to give them a motivation. I will not use the one we used on the horses but we need to get them going. We need to get them moving. While they are headed in the right direction, they have not yet begun to move.

One might say that cannot be because we are going to reduce costs here and this is really significant. We are going to cut government expenditures and help balance the budget. Yes, that is true. As I am going to show in a few minutes, the direction is correct but unfortunately, all we have done is just barely tightened up on the traces. We have not yet begun to pull the tractor out of the mud. It is still firmly bogged down.

This act has a lot of potential to look good in the press. There is a possibility here of some good symbolism, because as I said, it is moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, I do not believe it has enough substance. It is not substantive enough to do anything real and tangible. As a matter of fact, it will be very interesting to see whether there actually are savings that result in basically terminating the employment of a number of board members in these different agencies; then turning around and hiring a bunch of them back.

Undoubtedly these different departments and components of government need leadership. However, the real problem is not so much how many people are giving that leadership as how much money those departments and different agencies are spending. I briefly looked at the list of organizations that are being revised.

In the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act the number of board members is being decreased from 18 to 7. Yet, we know the proportion of money spent in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act is very small with respect to the board members as opposed to the money they are giving away.

Perhaps we ought to look much more seriously at how they are spending their money and how that can be reduced instead of reducing simply the number of people that are, shall we say, trying to manage the affairs.

In the Broadcasting Act the number of members is decreasing from 15 to 12. In the Canada Council Act the number is decreasing from 19 to 9. I could keep on going all the way down the list.

The National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport is being dissolved. That is a very wise decision in the sense that nowadays there is so much awareness already of the need for physical fitness that individuals should be taking the initiative on their own. We do not really need a government bureaucracy that is taking taxpayers' money in order to try to promote this.

One of the items I noted in the minister's statement was that there was a full review of all of the agencies. That too is good. I am one who is much in favour of looking at a problem, analysing it, trying to break it down into smaller pieces if possible. Identify the problems. Identify all of the possible solutions. Choose from the better solutions and eventually nail it down to those solutions which will work.

Presumably that is what this review was all about. However, it is not possible for us to get a copy of the review. I find that rather distressing. As members of Parliament who have input into whether or not this act will pass and whether it is good, we will be dealing only with the issues the government has decided to bring forward. The whole review is in fact being kept under wraps.

This is a violation of a principle of democracy as well as being a substantial violation and a breaking of a promise of the government members when they were running for election. They promised more openness and accountability. We are not receiving that in this particular process because of the fact that the total report of the review is not being made available. We are told succinctly that it is not available to us.

Why does the government not release these findings? Why is the government keeping it a secret? Speculation is all I can do because I do not have the report. Perhaps the reason might be that there were more cuts identified by the review than the Liberals are prepared to go ahead with.

Consequently they choose the few they want. Really what they have here are a few cosmetic changes, minor reductions in the number of board members but no substantial cuts in terms of total cost and the total efficiency of these organizations and groups.

Some of these reductions appear suspect in any case. The way the act is written is rather interesting. It says that all of the members will cease their employment, but then when that takes place the government will be ready to reappoint new members. It does occur to me that perhaps one reason we have the legislation that way is because a number of the members of these boards are probably carry overs from a previous government of a party which essentially no longer exists. There is now an opportunity to replace the members of the board from those old appointments with brand new appointments where the government so chooses.

Frankly, this adds to my cynicism and the cynicism of Canadians who are observing this. We all ought to look at that type of activity very carefully. Again I am speculating. We will be watching with interest to see what happens when this bill is passed. I am certain it will; it is a government bill. The Liberals have the majority. We will speak and will show the obvious shortcomings of it, but in the end it will pass because of the majority and because of the rule of voting with the party. Consequently, it will pass and then we will watch to see how many of the new appointees have Liberal connections.

I would also like to speak very briefly about the need to go beyond reducing. I guess this is the part of getting the horses moving. We are going in the right direction when we say: "Here is a department or an agency and we need to cut back". However, perhaps what we ought to do is to start pulling Canada's fiscal tractor out of the mud by getting the horses moving.

That might involve complete elimination of a number of these agencies. Instead of reducing from 15 board members to nine perhaps we ought to be reducing from 15 to zero and winding up the agencies and what they do. We do not as taxpayers save money if all we are doing is taking the money spending function of these people and moving it to another government agency. The money is still going to be flowing through. We need to do some hard work to eliminate the deficit. That can only happen if we reduce spending. We can only reduce spending by eliminating programs which are no longer needed and which are at the lower end of the priority level.

I am going to say again what I say in probably every speech I make here. Even just a few minutes ago there was an innuendo from the member for Yukon who said that the government might want to take the Reform Party tactics and eliminate health care and education. That is wrong. That is not our policy. We have said it, we have written it, and we will just keep on repeating it and hammering it until members opposite hear.

Our members and the citizens of this country we represent have told us very clearly that health care and education are of a top priority. That is why we want government costs and expenditures reduced and the budget balanced, so that we can continue to provide the things which Canadians have placed at a high priority.

They are empty promises to say we will keep those programs if we lose our ability to deliver them. That is very important to us. We need to reduce the programs that Canadians do not want.

In that regard I want to talk about one program specifically. One agency which is being affected here is the National Capital

Commission. There are many others and probably some of my colleagues will speak about those. I want to talk a little about the National Capital Commission. I want to speak to this from the perspective of a person who lives some distance from Ottawa.

As a matter of fact, until just three or four months before the election I had never been to Ottawa, being way out in the west and never having the financial means to take the huge trip out to the east. I would always have liked to but we were not able to do that within the confines of our family budget. Of course since the election, I have had the privilege of spending a lot of time in Ottawa.

One thing impressed me and that was the tonnes, the truckloads of money Canadians have poured into this region. I suppose there is nothing wrong with saying that this is Canada's national capital. Surely in this part of the country, in this city which houses our capital, we can do some special things to make it good, to make it attractive, to make it a tourist centre, to make it fun for citizens to visit and to see more than just the workings of government.

It is quite evident that after the dog and pony show of question period is over most citizens find this not that interesting. The galleries are mostly empty now and I admire those who are still here listening to this. They come to Ottawa and after question period they want to go and visit some other things.

We have museums, we have parks, we have all sorts of things. However this being the seat of government, by that token it attracts tourists here, other Canadians and indeed people from around the world. Would it not then be reasonable to ask the city of Ottawa to capitalize on that and as every other city in Canada needs to do, have it look after making other attractions in the city that will attract and help entertain the people who come here?

That happens in every city in Canada except this one. This city alone receives this huge input of government money, which translates into taxpayers' money from across the country, in order to provide these nice things. I am not speaking against what is being provided. I am saying that the money ought to be provided in a much more efficient way, managed by private enterprise primarily but also with some involvement by the city itself.

The National Capital Commission is not accountable. It is another one of those places where the taxpayers are being coerced into sending their money to Ottawa. As I said, we send it here in truckloads. At the same time, there are many areas of government where we taxpayers do not have any say on how the money is spent. We can each legitimately ask the question: What value is this expenditure to me as an individual living in a part of the country away from Ottawa, or indeed what value is it in terms of the country itself?

It is unfortunate that the National Capital Commission has decided to hold all its meetings in camera. When suggested that those meetings should be made public it said: "No, this is the same as any other crown corporation. We are not required to and therefore we will not". I do not think that is acceptable. I know it is not acceptable.

People complain to me about the high level of taxation just about every day. Those people are very upset when their money goes into a black hole, a dark sinkhole somewhere and there is no accountability on how it is spent. We do not know how much is given to certain individuals. We do not know how contracts are let. We do not know whose friends are getting paid what.

Again, it is innuendo that could be so easily solved by just doing what the Liberals said they would do, that is, having open government: openness and accountability. If there is nothing to hide, why would you be afraid of having someone look at what is happening? If you have something to hide then you will hide it. If you simply hide it, then the conclusion on the part of many Canadians is that there must be something to hide.

Right now it is winter. People back in my riding who happen to be watching this are enjoying today, a plus one day, but right here right now we are feeling the brunt of winter. In Ottawa these days, we have a little thing called Winterlude, a wonderful cultural event. Last year it cost just under $264,000. We are told that it is time to restrain ourselves, to reduce our spending and to look after the mounting debt. What is the response of this unaccountable capital commission with the Winterlude concert? The best information I have is that instead of spending $264,000, as it did last year, it is spending $383,000.

I know $383,000 is not much in terms of total government spending, but when a citizen is having trouble making ends meet and is being asked to pay $800 or $900 a month in taxes, seeing one-third of a million dollars being spent here, to him it is a huge amount of money. That lack of accountability is something we need to really address.

I believe we need to look very seriously at disbanding the National Capital Commission. The parts that pertain to the Canadian government could easily be transferred to public works and government services. Yes, we want to keep the grounds nice. We want to keep the buildings in repair. We need to occasionally undertake to build a monument or something like that. It could be done under the aegis of the minister, with accountability to the people via Parliament instead of just being done by an unaccountable, appointed group.

Canadians universally will be upset when they hear me say that the National Capital Commission bought new office furniture for around $2 million, selling their old stuff for $50,000. I do not know how old and how decrepit it was. Maybe it really was down to the place where when it was sat on the chairs collapsed. That is possible but I doubt it. If that were the case I do not know how it received $50,000 for the used stuff.

In these times of restraint it would be totally appropriate to say, okay, it would be nice to have $2 million worth of new furniture, but perhaps in deference to the taxpayer we should not spend it. Perhaps we ought to be under budget instead of working so hard to spend every penny that is allocated in the budget.

The NCC now has a new building that occupies 11 floors. It is larger than most city halls. We have an organization just in this city, aside from the city hall organization, occupying 11 floors in a building with $2 million worth of new furniture. I am upset with that. I represent all of the citizens in Elk Island and I believe most people across the country would agree when I say that is an obscenity which has to be stopped.

I know it is nice to have a beautiful family rendezvous centre on Sussex Drive for $250,000, but when we cannot afford it that is when you say it is a lower level of priority.

I would like to point out to the members here and to all Canadian citizens that when I say we need to get the horse moving it is not just rhetoric. It is not just trying to make a point. There have been some accusations even today about the Reform Party trying to gain popularity by making the tax revolt thing. We did not cause it. We were talking to citizens who were telling us increasingly that the deficit must be brought under control.

What is the government's plan? I will round off the numbers so I do not have to read them all. The income of government is around $120 billion per year. It spends $160 billion; hence it needs to borrow $40 billion. As a result of this bill and the savings that are promoted by it, which I cannot really figure out, when I add up the numbers in the document that we were given they come to $5.9 million. I believe the minister said the savings would be $15 million. The member for the Bloc said it was going to save $1 million. I guess at this stage we do not have any solid accounting for how much it will save. However, if we take the safe number of $15 million how big a dent does that make in the deficit? Instead of having to borrow $40 billion we now have to borrow $39,985,000,000. Big deal. It is almost insignificant.

I was a math teacher in my previous life. I taught for 31 years. Let us look at this as if it were proportioned down to a family. Let us say that a family has an income of $48,000. If it was patterned along the Canadian government that family would be spending $64,000 a year. With a family income of $48,000 it has to borrow every year $16,000 in order to keep going with its spending patterns which it is not willing to give up.

That family would have to reduce spending or get more income. If more income was not available it would have to reduce its spending by $16,000 a year in order not to go further into debt.

It is illustrative to look at the Liberals' projection and their goals. We hear so often-and this is wonderful-the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying, "We will meet our goals". The minister was very clear. That is great.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Go ahead and applaud. It is a wonderful goal.

Again, if you look at the goal in terms of the family, it would bring its borrowing down to $10,000 per year from $16,000. That is the goal. In other words, it is still going into debt $10,000 per year.

What does this bill do to reduce the deficit? For this family, which is spending $64,000 a year and borrowing $16,000, it reduces its annual spending by $6,000.

Yes, it is important. But I am saying let us get the horses moving. It is good to save $6, but we need to save $16,000. That is the proportion that this bill proposes to save in our budget. I am appealing to hon. members in the government who have the responsibility, who have the power to do something about it: Let us get with it. The longer we wait the harder it gets. While this is good, we are wasting a whole day talking about pennies when we should be talking about the billions that are threatening the well-being of all of our citizens and, indeed, this whole country.

I am very pleased the government is heading in this direction. But from all of the information and all of the input that I get, not only from residents in the Elk Island constituency but from right across the country who write to us in huge volumes, it is becoming very urgent that we reduce our deficit. Let us get on with it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We will now proceed to the next stage of the debate where members will have up to a maximum of 20-minute interventions, subject to 10 minutes of questions or comments.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Outremont.

I would like to respond before I begin debate on this bill to the points raised by the hon. member for Elk Island. One of his specific remarks was when he talked about the agency review being conducted in secrecy. In fact, there will be a report on the process which will explain what the process was, how it was

carried out and what the results will be. That report will be appearing very shortly.

Second, he talked about his early days with his father on the farm and about a tractor and a horse. He suggested that in the case of the Liberal government we have the horses tugging at the tractor but it is not yet out of the mud. In fact, if you look at the details of what we have done-and this touches on some questions which were posed earlier today-I think the hon. member will agree that the tractor is out of the mud and is moving fairly briskly.

We have eliminated 589 governor in council positions, agencies close to the type we talked about. I accept the congratulations that he offered to the government for what we have achieved. In fact, we have made only 700 appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. Despite what the hon. member suggested, some of these boards and commissions such as the National Archives Advisory Board are essential to the operation of the government. It brings to government the advice of ordinary citizens of the type we hear of so often from members of the Reform Party, and rightly so in that respect.

Even the Globe and Mail , when trying to find information on this particular matter, could identify only 80 of the 700 appointments we have made with the Liberal Party. To give members an idea of how the tractor is moving very quickly, in the period November 4, 1991 to February 3, 1993, the previous government, the Conservatives-and I recognize that the hon. member was not a part of that government-made 1,819 appointments. In summary, the Liberal Party has abolished 589 of these positions and has appointed only 700. The previous government in exactly the same number of days appointed almost four times as many as the number we did. That is not quite the right math, but it is close enough for my friend who was a mathematics teacher.

Having made these comments it is my pleasure to begin debate on Bill C-65. This bill, as the minister indicated earlier, amends the statutes that established 15 federal boards, agencies or commissions in order to reorganize the boards or reduce the number of members and to dissolve seven other federal organizations. The passage of the bill will eliminate and streamline the operations of these federal agencies and will improve their efficiency and their service to Canadians.

Why are we doing this? We are doing this because we know that the world is changing rapidly and government must as well. In order to remain a strong competitor in the marketplace, as a country we need to adapt to the new challenges we face in the global environment. To remain competitive we know that we must, as the private sector has, undergo an unprecedented period of change and restructuring. We recognize the inevitability of change and we are committed to bringing good and efficient government to Canadians. In managing this change we wish to do it in a fashion that is fair, careful and never casual.

Earlier the hon. member for Elk Island talked about the possibility of abolishing certain boards quickly. We have carried out a careful process that looks at what the boards do. I would suggest that if members look at the list of boards they will find many with whose functions they agree in their entirety. They will also find many boards that are carrying out functions that are essential to the operation of government.

The danger, as the member for Carleton-Charlotte said to me, to make an analogy to another animal, the cow, the Reform Party cow if you like, may give a good pail of milk but it will then kick the pail over. We do not want to do that. We want to look at the agencies that work and many of them are working very well.

The Public Service of Canada is an effective and efficient public service by any measure internationally and it has over the past provided Canadians with services of the highest quality. Where services are duplicated, and they are, they will be merged and streamlined. Where agencies and boards are obsolete they must be eliminated. In other words, the government must continue to serve our taxpayers effectively but it must do so in alignment with their needs and with less resources.

We promised Canadians in the red book that we would renew government and reduce its size and unnecessary cost. As part of the initiative, the finance minister announced in his budget last year that a review of all federal agencies would take place. That review has been conducted under the leadership of the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. The objective, as it was set out in that review, was to eliminate unnecessary or inactive organizations, streamline operations by examining the size of boards and the remuneration of members; ensure that the role of these bodies was geared to meet the challenges of today and the demands of the years ahead. Those were the criteria for the decisions made about these boards.

The first decisions were announced in July of last year by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. These announcements reflected the recommendations given to the minister by the individual ministers responsible for agencies. They included the Ministers of Canadian Heritage, Finance, Fisheries and Oceans, Health and National Defence as well as the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

This bill then is the first of two omnibus bills to implement through legislation the streamlining measures for agencies and boards announced since this government took office. It also allows for the streamlining of the operations of a number of agencies, boards and commissions by reducing the number of board members, as has been done with the boards of the Canada Council and Petro-Canada, folding one organization into another, as in the case of Emergency Preparedness Canada which was

folded into the Department of National Defence, the kind of approach the member recommended earlier, or combining functions of organizations such as merging the Procurement Review Board of Canada with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

When these decisions were announced the Ottawa Citizen wrote an editorial congratulating the government: ``Yuletide is a traditional season of political patronage appointments with a generous distribution of partisan favours at public expense, so it is especially happy news that 314 patronage positions have just been abolished by the Chrétien government''.

It goes on to point out that not all these boards are bad and that patronage sometimes serves a good purpose: "Boards and commissions can do work beyond the competence of the public service sometimes and patronage in its place can allow a government to choose the people it wants to execute policies it was elected to advance. Jean Chrétien's ministers are right to scrutinize these governor in council positions, all 3,000 or them, one by one", which is what we are doing. "If patronage appointments are not doing something essential to the public interest or doing it better than public servants could, the positions should be eliminated".

That is the criterion we have employed.

In conclusion, the agency review was conducted in conjunction with a number of other reviews, including the program review which has examined federal programs and services as well as policy reviews.

This process of examination will not come to an end with the formal completion of the agency review but will, members have suggested earlier, continue as an integral part of providing Canadian taxpayers with value for their money.

We know the importance of meeting our commitment to provide Canadians with good government. Improving how our nation is governed remains a priority with this government.

The bill before us makes sensible changes in a reasonable way while ensuring national interest is served. It will result in administrative savings and increased efficiency and delivery of government. I would urge hon. members to ensure speedy passage of this legislation because it is the kind of bill that all members can support. The Ottawa Citizen said in December: ``Marcel Massé is on the right side. He is on the side of fairness, flexibility and efficiency in government''.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener for his very well reasoned, prepared speech. It was well delivered.

I want to say something about this farm analogy which occurred to me the instant he said it. He indicated that he thought Reformers, after the pail was full of milk, would then kick over the pail-not so. We are more committed than anybody around here to very carefully carrying that pail because it is not our milk. It belongs to the taxpayers.

Also, the thought occurred to me that before they kneel down on the stool beside the cow, they are forgetting to check whether the pail has a bottom. Theirs does not. When putting $120 billion a year into the government coffers as Canadian taxpayers are and there is $160 billion coming out of the bottom, we know the hole at the bottom is larger than the input at the top. That is an item of great concern.

I want to ask the member to respond to a question having to do with the urgency of reducing the deficit. Does he acknowledge-I know he cannot speak for the other members of his party-that the leadership of that party is an item of great concern to thinking Canadians because of the rapidly growing debt? Even if they are on target they are going to be adding roughly $80 billion to $100 billion to the debt before this Parliament is finished. Even very modest interest rates of 5 per cent indicate an additional cost of $5 billion per year. Just having the debt grow at this rate adds basically one-eighth to our present deficit without any additional programs being financed.

What I would like to hear just one Liberal member say is it is time they attack this, attack it vigorously and quickly and very effectively to get government spending down.

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the member when he sees the budget when it is produced probably later this month will see that this government is serious about the deficit. We have given every indication in public statements by the Prime Minister, in statements by the Minister of Finance who has engaged in a very long process of consultation, longer than any other consultation by previous finance ministers. He has done so with a commitment to fighting this deficit and of course by implication the debt.

In terms of the debate about various animals there is a difficulty with the Reform Party's approach to government and we can talk about Animal Farm . There is a slogan in that book: ``Two legs good, four legs bad''. What I find troubling, with respect, about the criticisms of agencies which I heard from the hon. member for Elk Island is that all the agencies were lumped together.

If we actually look at the list of agencies affected by this legislation we see that some of them are essential. As I said before the National Archives of Canada advisory board decides independently apart from the bureaucracy what documents must

be kept. I am certain the hon. member would not want to entrust to the public service the decision on which documents generated by bureaucrats should be kept. Obviously it has to be private citizens with some knowledge of the subject.

The Canadian cultural properties export review board looks at the value of properties that are exported in terms of their value as part of our national heritage. These are essential boards with activities that are best done by private citizens appointed to these boards.

In terms of appointments we can see that these boards are being reduced in size. We are eliminating positions where they are not necessary. It seems to me that anyone would agree a lot of these agencies are essential.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the parliamentary secretary for sharing his time with me.

I should say from the start that I am very proud to be able to contribute to the efforts made by the minister in charge and the government in general.

Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, is a piece of legislation that fits into what we could call changing times. It is no secret that governments the world over are facing dramatic changes. Canada is embarking on a significant economic realignment. The same is happening in Europe and in many other areas of the world. Free trade zones which will define our future and create the jobs of tomorrow are being created everywhere.

When I talk of major realignment, I am thinking of the major changes that are taking place, changes that we must accept in Canada and to which we must adapt. To face these changes, we, the Canadian government, must essentially rethink the role of the state. Speaking of reforming and rethinking the government's role, you will remember that when the current government came to power in 1993, the Prime Minister declared in this House that we would be proceeding with four major reforms, which essentially aim to rethink government's role in order to better serve the interests of taxpayers as a whole. That is our role as the government, and that is our task as elected representatives.

Speaking of four reforms, I think I should take the time to list them. These four reforms are the cornerstones of the government's policy.

There is the reform of Canada's economic structure, which will now lead the government to concentrate its efforts on small and medium size businesses, which, as we know, create 85 per cent of all jobs in the country.

There is also the reform of taxation. The parliamentary secretary stressed earlier that we will obviously have a clear idea of what the current government means by tax reform when it tables its budget at the end of the month. Let us also talk about a major reform, a most comprehensive reform, on which a partial report was tabled yesterday: the reform of social programs. These programs make us the envy of many countries around the world and ensure that we Canadians have in common the values of co-operation, sharing and tolerance. And lastly, there is the fourth reform we are dealing with today, the reform of the government machine.

I am proud to support this bill because of its intrinsically very modern and dynamic vision of what the government should resemble in 1995. The objective of this bill is to reorganize 22 government agencies. Of these 22 agencies, 15 will be completely dissolved. As a result, firstly, approximately $1.5 million will be saved annually. But given the vision of the present government, the machinery of government will be much more flexible, much lighter, closer to the population and, obviously, will be called upon to deliver much more appropriate service. This is our role in government, as parliamentarians, and I am proud because that is the desired objective of this bill.

You know that Bill C-65 represents a continuation of the government's policy of reforming the government machinery since the minister has already taken certain other steps in this regard and, in sum, there are presently 119 agencies in Canada which have been reorganized, some of which have of course been dissolved.

Reorganizing the machinery of government also involves new policies. People are looking for clear and straightforward policies, with government structures existing solely to serve the public. And when we speak of streamlining the machinery of government, which this bill addresses, we are meeting the needs of the people as a whole in this regard, too.

When the Conservatives were in power, from November 1991 to February 1993, they appointed a total of 1,819 of their friends to these quasi-governmental agencies; these 1,819 partisan appointments did not in any way serve the interests of the taxpayer. So there you have Liberal government policy, a policy issued by a government which regards itself as, and indeed is, very progressive.

This bill of ours is indeed a dynamic one. It shows the commitment of the government to tackling the real problems. It also shows that our government is a responsible government, and fiscally responsible as well. That is what the Canadian people as a whole expect.

Of course, on the subject of responsible government, I must admit that, if you compare what is being accomplished in this House to what the separatist government is doing in Quebec, the contrast is quite striking.

While we, in Ottawa, are downsizing, trying to have a system that will serve the people better, the separatist government in Quebec wastes public money, as you know, on the famous commission on the future of Quebec, a regional commission that

will cost at the very least between $5 and $6 million to the Quebec taxpayers. And this commission will deal with a biased bill in which only one option is considered, it being, of course, the separation of Quebec, the option advocated by the Parti Quebecois as well as all the members of the Bloc Quebecois in this place.

The problem with these people is that, basically, fundamentally, they are not there to serve the interests of the taxpayers and the people of Quebec, but the very narrow interests of a group of people with one political purpose in mind, namely the separation of Quebec.

I for one am convinced that the step we are taking with this bill, the policies put forward by this government, will show the people of Canada and Quebec that you can go a long way with a government who has vision, a government intent on building. In that context, I am convinced that, in the referendum, the people of Quebec will tell the separatists that they have had enough of this squandering of public funds and, from now on, that they want their political leaders to deal with real problems and help improve the standard of living in Quebec and build a better Quebec as part of what I might call the Canadian coalition, as part of the Canadian federation.

Coalitions, huge trade zones are the way of the future, and Quebec wants to be a part of this. The people of Quebec are very broad-minded. They will never stand for the narrow and obtuse view represented by separation, because it is not in their interests.

This being said, let me tell you again, Mr. Speaker, how proud I am to join in the minister's efforts in support of this bill which is basically aimed at the renewal of federal administration and government.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised but when we know how the member who spoke before me is out of touch with Quebec reality, his vision of things should not come as a big surprise.

I wish to remind him that the government which, according to him, does not meet people's expectations was elected by 45 per cent of voters on September 12, 1994, that it was committed to holding a referendum on sovereignty and that even the Prime Minister wanted this referendum to be held as soon as possible.

Of course, when we look at the democratic process under way in Quebec from his perspective, no nation in the world is currently undergoing such a process in order to define itself, to say how it wants to prepare for the 21st century. Of course, that is not consistent with the centralizing vision of the government, which thinks that the truth can be found only in Ottawa, and we can see the results.

These results include the Axworthy reform, which required a five-week tour of Canada so that people could say time and again to the Liberal majority that a two-level UI system did not make sense. This required five weeks of consultations across Canada. I think that people throughout Quebec should have their say on how Quebec should define itself as a country. People are currently participating in all the different commissions.

People are flocking to say what kind of Quebec they want, to express their agreement with the bill tabled by the Quebec government, to say that Quebec belongs to them and that they have the right to define it as they see fit.

As for his opinion that coalitions are the way of the future, he should keep in mind that 28 new countries have joined the UN in the last 10 years and that, with free trade, it is no longer necessary to be a large political entity to reach major markets.

Small countries can have access to large economic markets and do very well on international markets.

It is not true that countries must be very big to hold their own in the new global economy. This theory is not consistent with current reality.

If, instead of holding a forum on health care without inviting the provinces, instead of using their majority to set aside a proposal to hear provincial authorities during the Axworthy reform hearings, the Liberal government had decided to hold real consultations while respecting the structure and jurisdiction of each level of government, we would have ended up with a much more democratic process, as the Quebec government's current process will be.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the remarks of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois do not surprise me either. He says that I am out of touch with reality. The members of the Bloc are welcome to look at my schedule to see who spent the most time in Quebec.

I can assure you that no member of the Bloc Quebecois was more present in Quebec than I was during the past year.

My honourable colleague from the Bloc wants to teach me a thing or two about democracy. He should start by looking at the actions of the Parizeau government in Quebec to see how democracy can be distorted, to see the shameful things that are taking place in Quebec as we speak. A democracy in shackles, Mr. Speaker!

In order to present the whole picture, Mr. Johnson's party asked for permission to distribute information pamphlets using government facilities. It was refused. And they call this democracy, they who use their majority to go ahead with commissions, the sole purpose of which is to secure Quebec's separation, by

any means possible. They are afraid of finding out what Quebecers really think, and this is the reason for this tainted process.

What is taking place in Quebec is shameful, truly shameful. There is much we could say about what is going on there. Take Mr. Parizeau's trips abroad. I regularly have the opportunity to travel abroad as a French speaking Quebecer, as a member of Parliament, and I am proud to be from Quebec, when I find myself in another country, and to be able to negotiate with other countries as an equal. But when I see Mr. Parizeau seeking the blessing of other nations, seeking their views on whether or not to go the independence route, I am no longer proud. I feel almost like some poor colonial when I see their cap in hand behaviour on the international scene.

Quebec is greater than that. It is a great province, great on its own merits. It has made its mark within Canada and we will continue to build this wonderful country with Quebec's best interests at heart.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I really hesitate to do this on a point of order, but Standing Order 11(2) clearly indicates this thing called relevance. I think we have strayed significantly from Bill C-65.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The member's time has lapsed and we will now resume debate.

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt this lively debate but I have a couple of consent motions I think the House will agree to at this point.

I move:

That the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to Montreal, Quebec City, Mont-Joli, Vancouver, Hamilton, Thunder Bay, St. John's, Charlottetown, Halifax and St. John, from February 6 to March 17, 1995, for the purpose of holding hearings in relation to the Committee's consideration of marine policy, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent?

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification of whether there is a limit to the amount of money allocated for this travel.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion itself does not limit the amount. In accordance with normal practice the transport committee has sought and obtained the consent of the liaison committee through the subcommittee on budget. Naturally they applied for and received a budget allocation for this trip.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know we discussed it in a House leaders meeting, but I do not know why there is reluctance to mention the amount.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is just not normal to review all those facts in the presentation of these motions. The motion is to authorize travel. There is an amount fixed for the travel in accordance with the decision of the subcommittee on budget, which was made yesterday.

(Motion agreed to.)

Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I think you will also find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That items standing on the Order Paper under Government Business, Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 18 be withdrawn, and further that item No. 19 on today's Order Paper under Private Members' Business, a motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell be also withdrawn.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion, that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-65, the purpose of which is to reorganize a number of federal agencies. I must say I was surprised to hear the minister refer to this bill as an example of renewed federalism, as an indication that the government is proceeding in a constructive manner and is adjusting to change.

Earlier, I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Outremont referring to Bill C-65 as though the changes that were taking place were truly impressive. He used any number of adjectives to drive the point home that this bill is a major change for the Liberal Party and a sign of the progressive and dynamic initiatives being taken by the government.

Well, if we take a close look at this bill, if this is supposed to be renewed federalism, it is not moving very fast. As the hon. member for the Reform Party said earlier, it may be the right direction but progress is slow.

The hon. member for Outremont has the audacity to criticize Quebecers with regard to the proposed commission on the future of Quebec and to accuse us of not being democratic in our approach. He prefers the kind of back room democracy that assumes that voters, all these people who are listening, will believe anything.

To claim that Bill C-65 marks an impressive change is to assume that people do not know enough to tell the difference between a thunder clap and a fart.

Because when all is said and done, what the government has produced with Bill C-65 is a mere fart, a fart they are trying to disguise as an impressive roll of thunder, a portent of fundamental changes to the government's apparatus. But under all the rhetoric it is just a fart, and one has to call it that because this lingering odour of-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I was not listening to the interpretation. I do not know how it was translated. However, I would like to ask all members to co-operate by using the most appropriate wording possible.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to use a more stylish expression, let us say that there is a significant gap between reality and what is being proposed. If we put things in perspective, we realize that the federal Liberal government is making fun of people, as did the hon. member for Outremont when he exaggerated with a little smile on his face.

Bill C-65 does provide for the reorganization of certain agencies and commissions. The number of members of some 15 boards is reduced from 12 to nine, while other agencies are dissolved. For example, the Canadian saltfish corporation is abolished, and it is not too soon. After all, it has been a long time since there was any saltfish to sell; yet, that corporation is still in existence. Such a measure is obviously appropriate, as are all the other changes proposed in Bill C-65. These changes obviously make a lot of sense.

I could mention other examples. In the past, there were such excesses that the least we can do is to make these cuts; in fact, we should go even farther. Indeed, this is the problem with this bill: the government barely cuts into the fat because, once again, there is the issue of patronage, of appointments made by the government to reward long time members and friends of the party, as well as those who helped get the Prime Minister elected. All in all, some 125 patronage positions, out of a total of close to 3,000, are being abolished. This is a small step in the right direction, and we are told that it will result in savings of about one million dollars. This is said to be a very important saving for the government.

To put this in perspective, I would like to remind you that while eliminating a few patronage appointments will apparently lead to one million dollars in savings, the government has already taken a few billion dollars from the unemployed in Canada and is constantly finding all kinds of ways to attack the poor. For example, with regard to public housing, 110,000 Quebec households will soon see their rent increased by about 30 per cent. These 110,000 households who live in low cost or co-operative housing are among the poorest in our society. Their average income is about $10,000 a year.

The government drags its heels when it comes to making significant cuts in patronage appointments, and yet it does not hesitate to take $500 more a year from the poor, who earn just $10,000 a year, in order to recover $26 million. This is only in Quebec, but it has already happened in other provinces. The government has already succeeded in increasing the rent in most provinces.

The government is giving the impression that it is cutting the fat, but it is really keeping the patronage system in place and making marginal cuts while increasing the burden that the poorest people in our society must bear.

So I am extremely disappointed when I see Liberal members rise in this House to say that Bill C-65 represents an important shift in the Liberal policy. People should understand that Bill C-65 brings only minor changes.

The elimination of 125 to 150 patronage appointments out of a total of nearly 3,000 is obviously a good thing; I cannot say that it is bad. The government is cutting some fat, but if it could eliminate half of these appointments, it would really show its willingness to reduce patronage, as it promised to do in the red book during the election campaign.

The current prime minister had indeed said that he would change the patronage appointment process and abolish or at least reduce such appointments. Now, with this decision, the government is reducing a number of patronage appointments, without however changing the whole system; the patronage appointment system remains the same. This is only the Liberal version of what went on these last eight or nine years under the Conservatives. The same type of patronage goes on, despite all the promises to get rid of it.

The director of Liberal appointments, Penny Collenette, the spouse of our Minister of National Defence, said in 1993, not long after the election of the Liberal Party, that the selection criteria for these appointments would rather be based on capacity, merit, integrity, honesty, and community service. In fact, Mrs. Collenette was only trying to reiterate to Canadians and convince them that things were about to change.

But of course, her statement was refuted by Liberal Senator Rizzuto, a Quebec Liberal organizer, who promised in October 1993 to find jobs for every defeated Liberal candidate. And indeed, he did it. In fact, a list was published recently in the Globe and Mail , containing around a hundred political appointments to various boards, associations, and commissions.

Under the title "It pays to be a Liberal", the Globe and Mail published a whole page giving a list of people for whom it really paid to be Liberals, people like Richard Croft, director, National Research Council, former Liberal fund-raiser and key leadership organizer for the present Prime Minister; Patrick Lavelle, chairman, Federal Business Development Bank, Ontario chairman of the present Prime Minister's leadership campaigns in 1984 and 1990; Jack Reid, Governor General of Saskatchewan, chairman of the present Prime Minister's leadership campaign; John Cordeau, director, Petro-Canada, Manitoba campaign chairman for the present Prime Minister; David McLain, chairman, CNRail, fund-raiser in the leadership campaign of the present Prime Minister. I could go on.

That is an impressive list. Interestingly enough, the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit indicates that in the 25 most important patronage appointments by the Liberal Party, in that long list, only three go to Quebecers. That does not mean there were no patronage appointments in Quebec. There have been many. The list contains the names of Benoît Choquette, Auguste Choquette, Margo Brousseau, a defeated candidate in Louis-Hébert who was appointed director of the Quebec Port Corporation, and many more.

For the sake of its squeaky clean image, this Liberal government has established new procedures to select political nominees. Some people can be fooled into believing that justice will prevail, and that administrative procedures will secure the appointment of the most qualified candidate, even if he or she has no political affiliation.

A certain Mr. Hall quickly came back to reality, as did many others when they lost potential jobs to the hands of candidates who had chosen the political path and who obtained the positions without even going through an interview.

The Prime Minister, who knows the answers to all questions, says he cannot eliminate the 65 per cent portion of the population who has the good sense to support the Liberals. He will not punish people who vote the right way. According to him, nominations are made on the basis of skills and competence, and that cannot be determined unless he knows the person. What an unshakable logic! According to that way of thinking, no one in the world would ever get a job unless he or she personally knows the boss. Goodbye personnel manager, hello contacts.

How strange that this government can maintain its popularity in spite of its inaction and its outrageous patronage. Just think, more than 100 Liberals profited from political nominations. I even read some editorials that claim that the figure is closer to 400. What is the exact number? In any case, over a period of fifteen months, it represents more than one nomination a week. Why were Canadians and Quebecers so deeply shocked when the Tories practised patronage if they can now accept the Liberal nominations with such lack of concern?

Whatever the reason, this government is well aware of its failsafe popularity and uses it shamelessly to its advantage. Whereas tories would place one friend in a position and everyone would shout murder, nowadays the Liberals make just as many nominations, if not more given the present pace, and all agree wholeheartedly that, after all, the candidate was the most competent one for the job. What hypocrisy on the part of the Liberals who, when on this side, denounced all Conservative patronage appointments and called them a form of political corruption, but now that they are in office, they ostentatiously play the same game, saying: See how good our judgment is, see how competent our candidate is. Is it not incredible how transparent we can be in politics?"

The prime minister should read his speeches anew. Here is what he said during the election: "I warn all my colleagues that they get into politics not to help themselves but to serve the Canadian people." They now realize that charity begins at home.

The Ottawa Citizen recently contained the following:

"The Chrétien campaign promise was emphatic and unequivocal. The Liberals would end nine years of Conservative misrule and the squalid patronage that went with it. In the Liberal red book's own words, a Liberal government will review the appointment process to ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of competence. That was the promise and a good one it was. Only a restoration of integrity could dispel public cynicism and replenish the strength of the government itself. But as it turned out, the Liberals have taken up the patronage trade with a Tory like enthusiasm". That is from the Ottawa Citizen .

Also, there was a general outcry concerning the Liberal patronage appointment process. Here is what a well-known individual said: "When appointing faithful slaves to various positions, the Liberal government has its nose in the trough, is bringing the cause of federalism into disrepute and is giving the rest of the world the impression that the Canadian political system is based on stupidity".

I will make no secret of the fact that these comments are from the leader of the Reform Party who is right for once. The government's shameless patronage appointment process undermines the integrity of the Canadian system and the image of federalism and reinforces the people's perception that the system is corrupt.

In fact, when a government is elected by making promises that it will not keep, when a government promises to reduce patronage but does not do it, and when it tries to reduce its debt on the back of the destitute, it is time that such a government be removed by the Quebec people. I think Quebecers now understand they will be better served by a sovereign government in Quebec.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened amusedly to the hon. member's remarks. He talked about loyal slaves and described political appointments as a shameful practice showing how corrupt the Canadian political system is.

I would like to know if he has a list of the political appointments made by the Parizeau government and a list of the Quebec senior government officials who have been dismissed when Parizeau was elected.

Just in the past four months, there has been a spectacular political appointment in Quebec that made the headlines: that of the president of Radio-Québec. Now the Bloc member comes and tells us that political appointments are used to reward loyal slaves and that the people of Quebec find it shameful.

I think that when the hon. member has the chance to get out of here and take a good, hard look at himself in the mirror, he will figure out whether his approach makes sense or not. He will see that we are a little bit all over the place today.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform my hon. colleaque that it was the leader of the Reform Party who spoke of loyal slaves. And he was right, because he was referring to the appointment of the governor general and the appointment of certain Liberals to the upper House, the other place, the Senate, which is perhaps the highest patronage appointment of all in the federal system.

Bill C-65, in essence, may be showing only a small part of the big picture of patronage in the federal system. It does not tell the whole story about the huge amounts wasted on all those appointments that are made-nearly 3,000 patronage positions-not including all the squandering going on regarding the other place. Here we have 102 extremely well paid individuals who may or may not be doing much to further the cause or the well-being of ordinary people. It is the highest body of patronage and it is a part of the federal system.

At present, the federal system is so mismanaged and is plagued with so much patronage and squandering that we are stuck with this incredibly huge debt, a $600 billion debt that is extremely difficult to reduce. Again, I think that the people of Quebec are getting the picture and I am sure that they are looking forward to the referendum to cast aside this system that no longer serves their interests.