Here we are just days before the new Liberal government produces its first budget. Nothing further having come out of the proposed review of federal government expenditure, the Official Opposition has decided to make it the subject of this allotted day.
The Liberal Party said in the red book, and let me quote from their dear book: ". . .cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians, and the political process is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored". I hope they remember what is written in the red book.
Did the Liberal Party think that the people would not demand transparency in government expenditure in order to regain confidence? Apparently not. The same red book states: ". . .give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons committees" and if I read correctly "these committees will also be given greater influence over government expenditures". That is what we are debating today.
Once in office, how can the Liberal Party honour this promise made in the red book other than by supporting the motion put forward by the Official Opposition? This is the first action the Liberal government could take to regain the confidence of the people.
Parliamentarians are accountable to the people, not obscure bureaucrats who develop behind closed doors measures that will apply to everybody.
We ask that the Liberal Party grasp the tools to honour their own promises, not ours but their own, and that parliamentarians devote themselves again to their primary function, which is to represent the interests of their constituents.
In tabling his report, the Auditor General tells us implicitly that parliamentary action is needed to solve the federal government's problems. In making an annual list of horrors in the federal government, the Auditor General is telling Canadians that the federal government cannot manage its affairs responsibly as long as parliamentarians do not throw open the doors of departments and turn on the lights in the offices where decision-makers meet. The hope for budget discipline is pretty slim.
In his 1990 report, the Auditor General points out the complexity of federal-provincial relations in environmental matters. The constitution acts of 1867 and 1982 are inoperative. This is one of the most difficult sectors for dividing responsibilities among the various stakeholders.
This constitutional confusion encourages duplication such as parallel assessments, similar inspections by each level of government, and endless disputes on issues vital to our societies' development. We must accept the fact that Canadian federalism is unable to meet tomorrow's challenges.
We now know that this federalism is impossible to reform, as we tried to do with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. These accords showed Quebecers that they could not, within this framework, hope to participate in building a society meeting their expectations. The environment is a perfect example of a major problem caught in jurisdictional battles that can only be resolved by a sweeping reform of our institutions, namely Quebec's sovereignty.
If environmental mismanagement was only a problem at the federal-provincial relations level, we could expect Quebec's sovereignty to be a done deal, so let us gather up our belongings and head back home to get organized.
But the federal government's involvement is so confusing that it is hard to find the department accountable to the public. This confusion is in no one's interest and the Official Opposition must act to eliminate it.
The Auditor General said that these "divisions in responsibility for environmental matters is a patchwork that makes it almost impossible to assign public accountability for safeguarding Canada's environment". In 1990, 24 federal departments had responsibilities under over 50 pieces of legislation impacting on the environment. The environment department alone had responsibilities under 36 pieces of legislation.
The St. Lawrence action plan is one example of the interdepartmental co-ordination problem at the federal level alone and not at the federal-provincial level. While Quebec and the federal government agreed on the St. Lawrence action plan, some federal departments got all tangled up in their respective areas of jurisdiction. Responsibility for financing and implementation was shared by three federal departments, namely Environment Canada, Industry, Science and Technology, and Fisheries and Oceans, with total contributions of $84 million, $20 million and $6 million respectively.
The St. Lawrence action plan called for these departments to co-ordinate their activities to meet common objectives, a difficult undertaking in the federal government. The problem was that the first two departments had different objectives.
The environment department focussed on the demonstration and application of technologies meeting the immediate needs of the 50 industries involved in the action plan, while the industry department focussed on the development and application of new and improved technologies that can be marketed nationally and internationally and be eventually applicable to industries along the St. Lawrence.
The Auditor General explained that "this difference in departmental objectives and program funding mechanisms led to co-ordination problems. Although an agreement was concluded between the two departments to provide for a management structure to co-ordinate their respective programs, it proved to be ineffective". I am talking about two federal departments and not about federal-provincial agreements.
We know that it is difficult to combine the objectives of the governments of Quebec and of Canada, we live with that, but when the confusion is within the federal government itself, the situation is downright unacceptable.
If only the federal government were satisfied to solve problems just on its turf, among its departments. But no, it feels the need to intervene and create problems on all sorts of issues with as much right as Quebec.
Environment Canada acts in almost all the 18 fields in which the Quebec Department of the Environment operates. Thus, two levels of government are acting towards the same goal of limiting industrial pollution. Because of this duplication, Quebec and Ottawa each have regulations on industrial waste from pulp and paper mills.
Pulp and paper mills are thus subject to two sets of regulations. For each company, the expenses incurred to apply these regulations are about $100,000 a year.
I conclude by telling you that the Official Opposition has given its word to Quebecers that it would defend their interests in Ottawa until they decide on the question of sovereignty for Quebec.
Our proposal is meant to get the federal government to clean up its finances and its programs, if necessary. I repeat: its finances and its programs.
The interests of Quebecers, as well as those of Canadians, are badly served by the way the apparatus of government now operates, and a thorough study is therefore necessary.
The federal government should respect its commitments to the people as written in its famous red book, it should seize the opportunity which we in the Official Opposition are giving them and it should let parliamentarians study government operations thoroughly, and in that way we can perhaps act in the best interest of the people of Quebec and Canada and get our respective societies back on a less chaotic road.
