House of Commons Hansard #8 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions presented during the first session.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a document entitled "Getting Government Right: a progress report".
Program Expenditure Details:A Profile Of Departmental SpendingRoutine Proceedings
Hull—Aylmer Québec
Liberal
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to table a second document in both official languages entitled "Program Expenditure Details: a profile of departmental spending".
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Estimates of the sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, was presented by the Hon. the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker of the House.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table, in support of the estimates, Part I, "The Government Expenditure Plan".
In addition I will table with the Clerk of the House on behalf of my colleagues Part III of the estimates consisting of 76 departmental expenditure plans. These documents will be distributed to the members of the standing committees to assist in their consideration of the spending authorities sought in Part II of the estimates.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling and presenting, for the approval of the honourable members of this House, the main estimates of the Government of Canada for the 1996-97 fiscal year.
This is my first occasion to address this House as the President of the Treasury Board. And if I may say so, I am very pleased to be here in this capacity, although I am very aware of the many responsibilities that this position brings with it.
The control of the government's expenditures, the delivery of public services adapted to the needs of Canadians, and the well-being of a dedicated and efficient public service are all significant challenges facing the Treasury Board. They are issues that I was able to examine in depth in my former portfolio of President of the Privy Council and Minister reponsible for Public Service Renewal.
I would like to take the opportunity, today, not only to discuss the content of the estimates tabled in this House, but also the process and initiatives that preceded them.
In particular, I would like to highlight the program review begun two years ago and the prospects it offers for today, the many alternatives for delivering government services, and our vision of a renewed, dynamic, and efficient public service.
The estimates submitted to this House reflect the government's main priority-which encompasses all of the others-and that is to put Canada back on the right track a track characterized by fiscal
responsibility, by more effective program and service delivery, and by harmonious and productive relations between the federal and other levels of government.
When we assumed responsibility in 1993, the government was struggling with two major, endemic problems: a deficit and a debt that were out of control, and a lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the federal government. To put the country back on the right track, we had both to reduce the budget deficit and clarify the roles, responsibilities, and priorities of the Government of Canada.
Canadians clearly would not be satisfied with cosmetic solutions. They expected us to act methodically and with good judgment. This was the framework in which we launched a comprehensive review of all federal government programs and services in 1994.
We based this review on six specific criteria. First, the criterion of public interest: Was the activity still serving the public? Second, the role of the government: Did the government have a necessary and legitimate role in this activity? Third, the criterion of federalism: Could some other level of government deliver the program more effectively? Fourth, the criterion of partnership: What activities or programs could we transfer, in whole or in part, to the private sector or a volunteer organization? Fifth, the criterion of efficiency: How can we enhance the efficiency of the activity or program? And sixth, the criterion of affordability: Can the government still afford this type of activity?
This program review has been a success on many fronts. First, it has enabled the government to reduce is spending significantly. By the end of 1998-99, program review measures will have reduced program expenditures by $9 billion.
The program review decisions have also enabled the government to refocus its efforts and to concentrate on its priorities. For example, there have been almost no reductions in the programs for aboriginal peoples and those for corrections and the justice system. In contrast we have cut spending on natural resources and defence substantially and eliminated many subsidies to business.
The program has opened the door to very interesting prospects in federal-provincial relations. In particular, federal departments have a much clearer picture of their roles and responsibilities. This new vision is based on a recognition of the federal government's true spending capacity and a clear understanding of its priorities.
Our vision was evident in last week's throne speech and the subsequent statement by the Prime Minister. We are confident that it will have a positive impact on relations between the federal and other levels of government and will strengthen Canadian unity.
I have also tabled in the House, along with the estimates, a document entitled "Getting Government Right" which summarizes the government's approach to its review process and highlights the key results to date.
In addition to redefining its role and responsibilities, the Government of Canada must also attack another fundamental issue: What are the most efficient and least costly ways to deliver its programs and services? Like most organizations in the world, the government has rethought the way it delivers its services based on what many call the "client approach."
The government continues to develop ways to measure performance. It is making more use of modern technology to reduce costs and enhance service quality. And more and more, it is seeking feedback from Canadians on the quality of the services they receive. As a service provider, we must be flexible if we are to meet the expectations of our citizens. That is why we must be open to other ways of delivering our services.
But this does not mean that the government's presence will no longer be important, because it will continue to play an active role. Alternative delivery will not be appropriate for all federal programs or services. The Treasury Board will review carefully individual programs or services put forward as candidates for alternative delivery.
The government will continue to restructure service delivery where this is a sensible thing to do. A few examples will illustrate some of the ways in which we have experimented with alternative service delivery.
For example, for some years the government has been shifting its role from an operator of the transportation system to focus on developing policy and legislation and enforcing standards for safety and security. This has led to the transfer of airports to local airport authorities and the proposed sale of Transport Canada's air navigation system to a not for profit operator.
The sale of both Petro-Canada and CN Rail illustrates situations where it makes sense to privatize government assets or activities that the public sector no longer needs to retain.
Using an alternative delivery model, Canada business service centres provide single window services to small businesses from 21 federal departments and agencies and related provincial services.
Recent announcements have enhanced the development of new approaches to services. The government has announced the cre-
ation of three new organizations, a parks agency, a single food inspection service and a Canada revenue commission. These organizations, which will remain within the public sector, will be established under separate legislation.
As our experience with these new structures increases, we expect other departments and agencies to submit more candidates for alternative program delivery.
In addition, the Treasury Board has recently established a new policy for employee takeovers which will make it easier for groups of employees to take over activities their departments previously did. We already have some early examples of this process. We see real potential here to privatize or commercialize certain functions in a way that protects the jobs of former public service employees and yet allows the government to reduce costs.
Our approach to service delivery is pragmatic. Our goal is to identify flexible and efficient delivery options so that we can continue to offer Canadians the services they expect.
Each case must be evaluated on its merits and the solution made to measure in the spirit of innovation, efficiency and service to the client.
The past six years have been difficult ones for the Public Service of Canada. As a former career public service employee, I am very much aware of this fact. The significant reductions in the number of jobs have created uncertainty and anxiety among employees. For those who remain, there has been no collective bargaining and their workloads have increased. Salary increases have been suspended for five of the last six years.
I am pleased to say, that we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. Not only do we wish to treat our employees fairly, we what them to be motivated and feel valued for the work they do for the public service.
In the near future, we will introduce measures that will help to recognize our employees' contributions and modernize our human resources practices.
I am pleased to announce that the Public Sector Compensation Act will not be extended and will expire as scheduled. This act was introduced as a temporary measure in 1991, and has been subsequently extended and broadened in its application. It has been an important component of accomplishing much needed fiscal objectives.
As the Minister of Finance confirmed in the budget yesterday, the government is on track with its fiscal targets. Now it is time to resume more sustainable compensation practices. This means that, beginning this June, we will lift the two-year suspension of annual increments, as was promised when this provision was introduced.
At the same time, we will reintroduce performance pay, the equivalent of such increments for more senior employees, which has been suspended since 1991.
Because of the timing of the application of the Public Sector Compensation Act, some junior ranks in the Canadian Forces have a salary shorfall when compared with other public service employees. We will compensate these groups by lifting the freeze on them sooner. My colleague, the hon. David Collenette, will announce details shortly.
The government is committed to returning to collective bargaining in a way that is fair to employees and to taxpayers. Many critics say collective bargaining cannot work in the present public sector environment. The success we have had with most of the unions in negotiating terms for alternative service delivery gives us cause for optimism. It shows that collectively it is possible to find better solutions to difficult issues when both sides are prepared to make a reasonable compromise, the very essence of collective bargaining.
We need to bring together at one table issues such as wages, benefits and employment security which have a cost for the employer and economic value for employees rather than dealing with them separately. Where we can increase efficiency by streamlining existing policies and practices such as the travel and foreign service directives, we will share the savings at the table.
We will ask the unions to sit down with us shortly to design such a process. However, given the difficult times ahead of us we must be cautious. Obviously with our continued need for fiscal responsibility we cannot leave determining the results of collective bargaining to a third party unaccountable to Parliament. For this reason we will introduce legislation shortly to suspend the binding arbitration in collective bargaining for the next three years.
It is clear that both the services of government and how these services are delivered must change. While it is not possible to guarantee continuing employment for all public service employees, we want to protect employees when arrangements are made to transfer activities out of public service departments to alternative service delivery structures, whether they are inside or outside the public sector.
We will introduce legislation to provide fair and reasonable conditions for employees who transfer to a new employer in such situations. We will enhance these arrangements for employees in unions with which we have entered into agreements on such transfers.
We will also introduce a series of amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act to provide for pension vesting and portability arrangements that meet the requirements of the Pensions Benefits Standards Act. This will give public service em-
ployees the same range of pension options that other employees have when they leave their employees.
Yesterday, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, noted in the budget that more employment reductions are likely. We do not anticipate than these reductions will be as big as those resulting from previous decisions. Departments will decide during the coming months where to make these reductions for 1998-99 and establish what impact the reductions will have on employment.
We do not expect to have to extend the early Departure Incentive and early retirement incentive programs beyond their current expiry dates.
The Public Service of Canada has always been known for its competency, integrity, and hard work. I am confident that the men and women of the public service will continue to display these qualities of professionalism.
I would now like to highlight the key elements of the 1996-97 Estimates. This year's estimates package responds to concerns of parliamentarians and the auditor general about the need to make the estimates document more strategic, easier to read, and less oriented to accounting.
We have included in the package six pilot Part IIIs that test the new approach. Part III has been simplified and arranged to bring together in one section all the information related to departmental performance. We shall continue to work with parliamentarians and others to evaluate this new way of presenting information. If it is effective, we shall update the information and table more departmental performance reports in the fall.
The estimates provide details to support $157 billion in expenditure authorities for the 1996-97 fiscal year. Of this total, $45 billion must be voted and authorized through an appropriation act. The remaining $112 billion is statutory and has been approved previously by Parliament in various pieces of legislation. All those statutory programs do not require Parliament's approval.
The estimates provide information on how these programs are proceeding. Although the Minister of Finance presented planned program spending of $109 billion in his budget yesterday, this figure and the total in the estimates differ significantly.
In particular, the estimates do not include any program spending changes that require legislation. These technical differences between the estimates and budget figures can obscure the information parliamentarians need to examine departmental spending plans.
Therefore this year I am introducing a new document entitled "Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending" which provides information on program expenditures at departmental and agency levels. This document will undoubtedly help people who use the estimates to understand the implications of the program review and other changes in spending plans for the coming fiscal year.
The move to a smaller, more effective federal government means spending on programs and services will continue to drop. The government plans to spend $109 billion on programs and services in the coming year. This is almost $5 billion or about 4.4 per cent less than in 1995-96.
Let us now take a look at the challenge ahead. This government has taken a straightforward approach in its efforts to put Canada on the right track. First, we must get the deficit under control so that we have a reasonable margin to manoeuver in responding to the issues facing Canadians. Second, we must enhance our ability to assess and respond to the new pressures on Canadian society.
Finally, by relying on a motivated and dynamic public service, we must provide Canadians with a government that knows how to deliver its programs and services more efficiently and more flexibly. I know we are on the right track.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Given the size of the estimates, the dollar amount of the announced national debt and the impact this will have on Canada's social programs and future taxation, would it be appropriate to ask for a moment of silence to allow the minister personal reflection-
Main Estimates, 1996-97Routine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Clearly the hon. member does not raise a point of order.
Richard Bélisle Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board this morning tabled the Estimates of nearly $157 billion, of which $76 billion is earmarked for various transfer payments to individuals and the provinces primarily and nearly $48 billion will go to service the public debt, which is the government's largest budget item each year.
The minister said that deficit control, improved government ability to assess and react in time to new pressures exerted on Canadian society and support for a motivated and dynamic public service are the three main pillars underlying the 1996-97 Estimates.
Let us have a closer look at the merits of the minister's objectives and try to assess the means he will use to achieve them.
To control the deficit, they talk of controlling government expenditure through program review. What has come of these
program reviews? We should point out that all major regional development agencies are seriously affected in this time of high unemployment, when young people are leaving the regions for the cities.
There is, for example, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, whose budget has been cut by 36.1 per cent; the Western economic diversification program, cut by 24.3 per cent, and the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, the hardest hit by a budget cut of $102 million or 21.3 per cent of its total budget.
Meanwhile, the budget of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs has been increased by $6.3 million, an increase related to judges' salaries, allowances and pensions.
Although cut, defence spending still represents 21 per cent of direct program expenditures, excluding transfer programs. This is still far too much in a post cold war period.
The minister says we have to look and see whether, in the federal context, another level of government would be better placed to deliver a specific program more effectively. I would say to the minister that 11 years as councillor with the city of St. Lambert, a city in my riding, 13 years as a Quebec provincial official and two years here in this House as a federal elected representative have shown me very clearly that the closer a government is to the people, the more effectively it delivers a program and that the client approach the minister seems to favour requires the transfer of as many powers as possible to the provinces, the regions and the municipalities.
The increased control the government is preparing to exercise is what hurts the most. While it is talking about a client approach, the government is planning to create three new agencies, as mentioned this morning by the minister: a national parks board, a single food inspection agency and a national revenue commission that will be competing directly with Revenue Quebec, which already collects the GST and the QST on its territory.
There is a lack on consistency between the goals set by the minister and the means he intends to use to meet them. The government is talking about flexible arrangements with the provinces, but whenever it has a chance, it tries to centralize.
Similarly, we are told that, by the end of the 1998-99 fiscal period, the new measures brought about by this year's program review will allow the government to cut its program spending by $9 billion. However, the documents tabled yesterday in this House by the Minister of Finance clearly show that, due to the reallocation of funds to other programs, the net result of the program review will be a net increase of $34 million this year and a drop of barely $200 million next year, as the effect of this year's new measures will obviously be felt only in two or three years.
In short, cuts are badly targeted, reallocations are badly targeted, and, for the time being, these new measures have absolutely no impact on the fiscal situation.
To conclude, I would like to ask the minister how he thinks he will be able to rely on a motivated and dynamic civil service, when a more generous package is being offered to employees belonging to the unions with which the government has reached a settlement regarding the transition to a new structure, and when the Minister of Finance announced in yesterday's budget the possibility of more layoffs?
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will start by congratulating the minister on his appointment as President of the Treasury Board. I also congratulate the department on the six pilot projects on the reformatting of the part IIIs so that parliamentarians can more fully enjoy and appreciate what is going on in the departments. We hope this progress will continue and that parliamentarians will be able to have useful documentation in order to analyse what the government is doing. Unfortunately my compliments seem to stop there.
The government is spending $157 billion and the minister gave a fairly short speech to cover how the government intends to do that. He boasts about the fact that program spending is coming down by about $9 billion, but interest on the debt is going up by $9.8 billion. It is not even a saw-off; we are spending more money. That was quite evident in the budget which was tabled yesterday by the Minister of Finance. We saw quite clearly that the deficit is coming down on the backs of the taxpayers because as the deficit has come down by $25 billion, tax revenues have gone up by the same amount.
He talked about program review. In the last session of this Parliament I tabled Private Member's Bill C-289 which talked about program review. I said that four things have to be done. We should be looking at programs and reviewing programs on a cyclical basis, based on the following: What is a program designed to do? Is the program meeting that definition that we intend to serve society? Is it being done efficiently? Is it a better way to accomplish the same service to society at a lesser cost?
The program review which has been done by this government has been done behind closed doors. It has been politically motivated. We have not seen very much in the way of efficiencies and improvements. Yet the government continues to slash across the board each department by 2 per cent, 3 per cent and 4 per cent. That is not program review; that is management without intelligence. It is basically cost cutting for the sake of cost cutting. It does not focus on service to Canadians.
If we look at the main estimates which were tabled today, we wonder why the status of women and the office of the co-ordinator get almost a 9 per cent increase, up by $1.3 million, while every other Canadian has to do with less.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration will get another $8.6 million, which is an increase of 3.8 per cent. That amounts to $8.6 million extra with the concept that it is going to save money. It seems rather strange.
We all know what is happening in the fisheries, but the government is going to give an extra 47 per cent to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Maybe that is just to go out and look for some fish. We need programs that work and programs that help Canadians. Giving another 47 per cent to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not going to bring back the fish as far as I am aware.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency are both up, while Canadians get less. We want to maintain this facade of an image abroad that Canada is a wonderful place and that it has money to spend, while Canadians pay more and get less.
These are the types of things that have to change if the government is going to get it right. One of the documents which the minister tabled this morning was: "Getting Government Right". I think that getting government right is spending on Canadians, not maintaining this facade abroad by spending our money on other people.
It says here that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had a 20 per cent reduction in its budget, but yesterday the Minister of Finance said that the government was going to spend more. Money is going up and the numbers are going down just because they fudge it and move it elsewhere.
These are not the types of things we like to see in the estimates. We like to see some real solid facts and continuity from year to year so that parliamentarians can understand what the government is doing.
His own department, Treasury Board Secretariat, is going to get another $160 million. That is the department which is in charge of downsizing government, but he takes another $160 million for his own department to do that. It is incongruous that we see these types of numbers in the estimates.
I was glad to see the minister intends to remove the wage freeze next year. We have already called for the government to do that and we are glad to see it is doing it. At the same time we called for the unions to give up the job guarantees. We want to see merit in the civil service where people who do a good job are recognized. We want every civil servant to know that if they are doing a valuable job and doing it well, job security is there on that basis. We have to tell them that.
However, the government has gone one step further. It has suspended binding arbitration. It has said it is prepared to talk about an increase in wages, but it will suspend binding arbitration which simply says: "We are going to compromise, but we will do it our way". I do not think that is the message the government should be sending to the civil service. It is like the sword of Damocles.
Last year the Minister of Finance announced 45,000 job cuts. Tens of thousands of jobs were going to disappear and the civil service took it on the chin and carried on knowing that the morale was low because so many of their colleagues were going to go. Yesterday the Minister of Finance said: "That is not all. More are going to go". We do not know how many are going to go or when.
The minister said this morning that the civil service is known for its competency, integrity and hard work. The government has maintained the wage freeze during the two and a half years it has been in office. It has said it is going to eliminate 45,000 jobs and it has said it is going to eliminate more. It is going to deny binding arbitration to the civil service. I wonder how long Canadians can expect competency, integrity and hard work from those in the civil service while the government continues to treat them this way. That has to change. We have to treat our civil service well. We have to recognize that those employees are working under difficult circumstances and they deserve better treatment.
The minister talked about client approach. Client approach in the government has to serve Canadians. As a businessman I always knew I could look after my customers. Accountability and service delivery has to be number one. While the minister talks about it, what do we find?
The Canadian health and social transfer is being maintained at a constant level by the Minister of Finance. He said so yesterday. There is no accounting for inflation which means that the extra costs are going to have to be borne by the provinces. That is not service.
We have seen cuts to medicare from the 50 per cent that was guaranteed by the Liberal government many years ago. It is now down to the fact that it is only paying 23 per cent of health care. And the minister calls this client approach service delivery. Hospitals are closing, people are waiting for surgery everywhere. That is not a service delivery approach. It is budget cutting and Canadians suffer.
Total spending is $157 billion in these estimates and we know there will be more coming in the supplementaries. There is $112 billion in statutory spending and we as parliamentarians are going to vote on $45 billion. That is a disgrace. It is absolutely intolerable
that with the fiscal situation we are in today we as parliamentarians can only vote and express an opinion on $45 billion out of $157 billion.
We know from past experiences over the last two years that the government has maintained that absolutely not one nickel can change in the estimates regardless of what people on this side of the House say. That has to change. I look forward to the day the Reform Party is over on that side and introduces some meaningful change so that parliamentarians on both sides can have input on how money is spent in this country.
According to the minister, spending will continue to drop. Taxes are going to remain high. We got no tax relief yesterday. The amount of money being spent on programs is going down and down every year by the government's own admission and there is no tax relief. It points out that the Reform Party had it right when it told the government to balance its budget as quickly as possible. Every dollar that Canadians are denied from tax revenue is being spent on bankers abroad. There is no way the government can deliver or continue to deliver social services to Canadians that are so dearly needed. The government promised jobs and it has yet to deliver on that promise.
I see government is spending another $111 million on CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency. The estimates say aid is going up and yet the Minister of Finance said yesterday it is going down $150 million over the next two years. This is yo-yo accounting. One year the government jacks it up, the next year it cuts down and says it is saving money. This is no way to do things.
Let us be realistic. If cuts are to be made, let us cut, let us cut now and let us get the benefits so that we can ensure that things are going well.
My last point is defence. I have some correspondence from the minister of defence. Last year he said that the estimate to build a new range in CFB Gagetown was $2 million. I see in the estimates it is going to cost $3.5 million. That is a 75 per cent increase over the estimate in one year.
In Shilo, Manitoba, construction estimates according to documents that I have was $29.9 million last year and is now going to cost $47.2 million. That is increase of 58 per cent over the estimate of less than one year ago. There is no management in defence. In the meantime it has been cut overall by 21 per cent. There are morale problems in the ministry of defence. The chief of defence staff has said he cannot even fight a war to defend Canadians. Budgets are being cut and the estimates are out to lunch. There is a problem in the management of the department of defence. It should be fixed and fixed now.
I look forward to examining these estimates in committee over the next few months. Reform members will be calling the government to task. We expect that if we point out real, meaningful and
intelligent savings that government members will agree to them and amend these estimates when we vote on them in the months to come.
House Of Commons, 1996-97 Estimates, Expenditure PlanRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Dear colleagues, I have the honour to lay upon the table the Expenditure Plan in relation to the 1996-97 Estimates for the House of Commons.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
If the House gives it consent I intend to move concurrence in the fourth report later this day.
Department Of Human Resources Development ActRoutine Proceedings
Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick
Liberal
Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, an Act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts.
This bill is in the same form as Bill C-96 of the first session at the time of prorogation. Therefore, I request that this bill be reinstated as provided in the special order adopted on March 4.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Department Of Human Resources Development ActRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-96 at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12 entitled An Act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-111 at the time of prorogation of the last session. Therefore, I request that this bill be reinstated pursuant to the special order adopted on March 4.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like clarification from the Chair that these bills can be reintroduced without the consent of the House. Could you please give me the rules on that?
Employment Insurance ActRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I believe that a few days ago there was a vote on a motion regarding the appropriate procedure by the government to bring back certain bills from the previous session.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Employment Insurance ActRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-111 was at the time of prorogation of the first session, 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
(Bill deemed referred to a committee.)
Andy Mitchell Liberal Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act (construction charges).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill which is entitled an act to amend the Bell Canada Act (construction charges).
Rural Canada is put at a disadvantage by inadequacies in the cost and accessibility of advanced communication technologies. In rural Canada this disadvantage extends to the simple provision of telephone service. Rural Canadians often face steep costs for service provisions because of their increased distance from existing lines. Right now service is mandated to customers within 62 meters of distribution facilities.
This bill proposes that service be provided for customers up to 1,000 meters away from existing lines and that beyond that construction charges be capped at a reasonable amount.
Phone service is an essential service. It should be affordable to rural Canadians. I ask all members of the House to support the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-228, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Fraser Valley East for seconding this bill.
The purpose of this bill is to lower the age limit which defines who is a child or a young person for the purposes of the Young Offenders Act. It will now include young offenders age 10 and 11.
Currently the police cannot charge 10 or 11-year-olds who are picked up for robbery or for viciously beating innocent victims. Eleven-year-olds are deliberately recruited by gangs because the law cannot touch them. These youth need help but the system is failing them. They are falling through the cracks and we cannot get them into the appropriate counselling or rehabilitation programs because the current law says they are too young.
If they are old enough to pack a gun or a knife, sell drugs or their bodies, then they are old enough for the justice system to address their problems. The sooner they get relevant help, the easier it will be to reverse their criminal behaviour.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) as revised for fiscal year 1996-97 and to Standing Order 81(6), I wish to introduce a motion concerning referral of the Estimates to the standing committees of the House.
Since there is a lengthy list associated with the motion, if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it has been read.
Therefore I move, seconded by Hon. Ron Irwin:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, laid upon the table on March 7, 1996, be referred to the several standing committees of the House in accordance with the detailed allocation attached.
Main Estimates 1996-97Routine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Is there unanimous consent?
Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition signed by some of my constituents of Bourassa, residents of Montréal-Nord and the surrounding area. They are mostly motorists who are asking the government not to raise the excise tax on gasoline. Needless to say, I fully support this petition.
Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions on behalf of all British Columbians.
The first petition I present this morning, and I am honoured to do so, is due to the many changes to food and food products as a result of the current rise in genetic engineering.
Canadians request Parliament to ensure that all transgenic foods and food products be clearly labelled that they are transgenic foods.