House of Commons Hansard #147 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was patronage.
Government AppointmentsOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am not sure that the question relates directly to the administration of government. However, if the right hon. Prime Minister would like to answer it, I give him the floor.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Callahan has been a journalist all his life. He has been the editor for many years for newspapers in St. John's, Newfoundland. It would be very difficult to find someone better qualified to serve in information services like the CRTC than a person who has worked all his life as a journalist.
I would like to say to the hon. member who talked about political parties that I remember some months ago members of the Reform Party asking us to call byelections. There will be three byelections on Monday. We will see how much support they get.
Walt Lastewka Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, small and medium sized businesses are struggling for funding from Canadian banks. Time after time business people in my riding of St. Catharines tell me the same story: they have a good business, they create jobs and they are the engine of the economy. However Canadian banks are forcing these businesses out of business.
When will the Minister of Industry follow the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, one of the key recommendations was the appointment of a financial institutions' ombudsman.
The member of Parliament for St. Catharines who posed the question has used his office in an extremely effective way on behalf of his small business constituents, working effectively as an ombudsman to help solve their problems with the banks. He has set an example for other members of Parliament on how they can make a difference.
We are going to reply to the report of the industry committee in the required time. Since the committee reported, the Canadian banks have put out a code of conduct. They have also proposed an alternative dispute resolution system.
I would like the members of the industry committee to look at those proposals and to give us their views on how far they go in solving some of the important problems that small business has with the banks.
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Canadian Synchronized Swimming Federation is still refusing to explain the real reasons why it chose Edmonton instead of Montreal as training site for the olympic team in preparation for the 1996 games in Atlanta.
With more than half of the athletes in this discipline probably coming from Montreal, it seems that this decision is politically motivated.
Can the minister explain why Synchro Canada-
Canadian Synchronized SwimmingfederationOral Question Period
The Speaker
As much as possible we should not in our questions impugn motives of any kind as to why decisions are taken.
I will invite the member to proceed with his question.
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to impugn motives. I was just telling the truth. Can the minister explain why Synchro Canada is unable to demonstrate clearly that Edmonton's bid is better than Montreal's?
Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, the member would like me to make a commitment and start interfering in the operation of national sports organizations. I will not do so because they have the right to their autonomy. However, I have asked for further information regarding this decision.
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Canadian Heritage committing himself to disclosing the information he has asked for?
Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I will have some information for the member and that he will not be left dangling over an empty swimming pool.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government is now committed to increasing spending on aid to 0.7 per cent of GNP when the Canadian fiscal situation permits it. To accomplish this taxpayers would have to spend billions more on aid every year.
Given Canada's $550 billion debt, impending cuts to social programs and possible tax increases, will the government please tell Canadians why we are committed to increasing our aid spending?
André Ouellet LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is able to read as well as all of us the document that was tabled today. It is quite clear that the Liberal Party of Canada, which now is the government, is committed to a long term goal of 0.7 per cent. In fact it was a recommendation of the parliamentary committee and we stand firm on this long term commitment.
In the meantime it is false, as the hon. member is trying to pretend, that we will put additional expenditures to the taxpayers. Obviously the budget will give more detail about this but it is absolutely incorrect for the hon. member to come to the conclusion that he is making by reading the document that has been tabled today.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister has surprisingly announced spending of 5.6 million tax dollars on public service reforms and tax reform in Lebanon.
With cuts and tax hikes on the way for Canadians, what are the government priorities, higher taxes to Canadians to pay for tax reform in Lebanon?
André Ouellet LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Canadians who listen to the hon. member, and know how important our aid program is to many people throughout the world, will understand the total lack of generosity on the part of the member and his party.
The budget of CIDA is a known budget. The amount of money that has been committed to this project is within the budget allocated. There is no additional amount in it.
I can assure the hon. member that this investment in allowing a country like Lebanon, which has gone through 15 years of war, to be able to become again a prosperous country which will deal and do business with Canada is a-
Audrey McLaughlin NDP Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last year the government undertook the social security review, and based on a document put out by the Minister of Human Resources Development, Canadians from across the country gave their time and energy to comment on those proposals.
It now seems all of that was in vain because the government is now clearly contemplating something that was not in those proposals at all; that is, a transfer to the provinces and territories of block funding for social programs, health and post-secondary education.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister directly, is it his government's intention to adapt the Reform Party's policy of abandoning national programs in health care, social programs and in post-secondary education?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, it would be very helpful if the hon. member would take the time to read the report that was just tabled yesterday by the majority of the House of Commons committee. It clearly points out that the proposal for block grants, which was part of the green paper proposal and clearly part of the set of ideas we presented to Canadians, was put forward as a way of also looking at how we can ensure a sense of national equity and fairness across the country.
Many of the existing transfer programs have no conditionality whatsoever attached to them and therefore national standards and principles are not being recognized right now.
Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I wish to draw to the member's attention the presence in the gallery of a former colleague of ours in the House of Commons, and now the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta, the Hon. Gordon Towers.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of statements by ministers this morning.
The hon. member for Peace River in his presentation remarked that he had not received certain copies of government documents from the Minister for International Trade until 20 minutes before he made his remarks in the House.
I want to point out first of all he admitted he received a copy of the minister's speech. I am also informed that at 5.45 p.m. yesterday the minister's staff attempted to deliver copies of the two documents that were tabled this morning at ten o'clock to the member's office but it was closed. They were taken to the post office and put in his post box at that time.
I am further advised that copies of the same documents were delivered to the hon. member for Red Deer through the Reform
House leader's office and were therefore available to him as a co-member of his committee.
I can only say that if the hon. members opposite do not share the information they receive in order to make intelligent comments in the House the government cannot be responsible for that.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I do not know if that was a point of order. Perhaps it was a point of clarification.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think the kind of partisan comment we just heard is quite uncalled for. I had to make phone calls from 4.00 p.m. until 6.30 p.m. to get those documents.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
As I mentioned to the hon. member, I do not feel this was a point of order. We are clearly now getting into debate.
I accept that all hon. members are very busy. We all do our jobs as best we can. I am sure all hon. members know that sometimes papers do not arrive on time or they are occupied otherwise and that should be taken as an explanation.
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)Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for La Prairie still had a few minutes left. Therefore, he has the floor.
Richard Bélisle Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, why did we not abolish these positions first, since every million dollars saved has an impact on the deficit?
The Auditor General certainly made the point in his 1993 annual report. A few billion more in spending increase the deficit and, in less than a decade, inflate the accumulated debt tens of billions of dollars because of compounded interests.
In his July 8 press release the minister said that he had undertaken a thorough review of the 350 agencies and advisory boards, hoping to find reasonable and practical ways to eliminate overlapping and duplication, and to streamline in the best possible way government operations.
The minister did not say whether he consulted his provincial counterparts. Is he really going not only to reduce overlapping and duplication within the federal system, but also streamline management of the public sector in Canada, considering that there is only one taxpayer, at the federal and provincial levels?
It is so true that the main brokerage firms and credit rating agencies are talking more and more about the public sector debt in Canada.
The increased pressure resulting from public borrowing reduces the taxpayers' capacity to pay. Streamlining public administration requires agreement between the federal and provincial levels of government, and the minister did not seek the agreement of his provincial counterparts.
The most tragic in all this is that in the time it took the minister to deliver his speech, the debt of the federal government increased by $1,3 million, while the whole bill will produce less than one million dollars in savings. In the time it took me to deliver my response to the minister's speech, the debt went up two million.
In his July 8 press release, the minister said that he does not have a set objective as to the number of agencies which will be affected or the savings which could result. He added that it was the government's aim to identify the logical and practical changes to be made to improve the workings of government.
The minister does not appear to have a structured or well defined approach. He has no specific streamlining objective in mind. This does not come from me, or the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party, but from the actual press release issued by the minister's office.
The President of the Privy Council, who should be providing the coordination, leadership and training needed to make the project a success is leaving most of the responsibility for recommending changes within their portfolios to the ministers themselves. How can the ministers do the job? There is no objective, no plan, no decision-making criteria or parameters and no decision grid for either the departments or the ministers involved.
Are the decisions made by guess and by gosh? Is this a rigorous approach? The poor results show how poorly the thing was thought out.
All of this upheaval, this whole game of musical chairs in political appointments for a saving of less than a million dollars, which we are not even sure about, since a number of jobs have been transferred to the public service.
On the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, five advisory bodies will be eliminated because they are no longer active, we are told. It is only normal, in our opinion, to abolish them. What do they advise on, when there are hardly any more fish to be caught on the east coast.
The minister's press release of December 21 promises that a total of 72 agencies will be abolished and 16 others will be restructured.
This in fact represents only 25 per cent of all federal agencies. We are told that this should result in the elimination of 589
positions, the incumbents of which are appointed by the governor in council. The total savings should amount to four million dollars. When will we see a piece of legislation enacting these promises?
Each press release from the minister's office mentions old measures to which some new ones are added, every time, to reach the magic four million number, but we are still waiting for a piece of legislation enacting these measures.
In our view, Bill C-65 does not go far enough in the present context. Eliminating 150 positions, adding up to a real saving of less than one million dollars, is not enough when the federal debt is growing at a rate of more than 100 million dollars a day.
We should, instead, review federal advisory bodies in the context of the fiscal restraints we are facing currently. First of all, the government must maintain the integrity of its tax base. It must recover the $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes, deal with tax evasion, tax havens and family trusts as well as the underground economy, all of which the Bloc Quebecois has denounced on several occasions. Taxes must not be increased. The middle class is paying enough as it is. We must fight resolutely and unwavingly on all fronts to wipe out the deficit.
Bill C-65 only skims the surface and shows a lack of determination and political will on the part of the government. We must first and foremost reduce the deficit and this will demand steps much more significant and substantial than those the minister is suggesting in the bill before us today.
All this will only amount to savings of four million dollars, of which more than three have not materialized yet. I will admit that the original idea was good, but in the end the objective is not bold enough. We must act much faster and go much further. In view of the huge deficit, Bill C-65 seems like a drop in the bucket of necessary reforms which can no longer be avoided.