Ronald J. Duhamel

[Festival Du Voyageur, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I invite you and all my parliamentary colleagues to come to St. Boniface, Manitoba, to take part in the Festival du Voyageur, which starts Friday, February 10.

This festival is a celebration of our history, our traditions and our culture, as well as the contribution of Manitoba's other founding nations, including all of Canada.

Well-known stars will perform in Manitoba this weekend. We offer an impressive line-up of shows and events and we also have our joie de vivre.

This will be an opportunity to demonstrate how a small, rather isolated community can still be quite vigorous and willing to live and work with others.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says there is an assumption that we are a good government. What I said was that we were doing a reasonable job, in fact a very good job in certain sectors and we are going to get better. The polls would confirm that. Check our polls against Reform's which are lower than those of the Bloc Quebecois and it is trying to tear this country apart.

With respect to travelling around the country and calling it a charade, let the record show that the Reform Party said consultation was a charade. What a shocking statement.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

In fact some of them have to rise from their seats because they cannot stand the heat. They are probably hungry too.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall that during the last budget the Minister of Finance announced that we would have a full-scale review to examine the size and relevance of existing agencies, boards, commissions and advisory bodies in order to achieve cost savings and ensure that if they were no longer needed or no longer played a useful role they would be taken out. That is what this bill is all about as well. The government has moved simultaneously on three fronts, which will lead to a leaner, more cost effective and efficient government.

Bill C-65 will bring into force decisions taken last July to reduce the numbers, and streamline or reduce the size of operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions where there is an interest to do so, when they are no longer as relevant or as important to Canadians, and where we can perhaps do without them.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on July 8, 1994 the minister responsible for this particular initiative issued an interim report on the progress to date with the co-operation of his cabinet colleagues. He was able to report that decisions had been taken affecting 41 agencies and 9 different portfolios. Some people will scoff at that, but I assure you it is a major initiative and has been a successful one.

The legislation before the House today will place into law those decisions requiring legislative action, as necessary.

What I wanted to stress more is that we are abolishing and streamlining 22 government agencies. We are eliminating 150 positions filled by governor in council appointments. This is a lot; it is concrete, a success for this government. In concrete terms it means an annual saving of $1.5 million for taxpayers. This is only the first round of measures.

I am going to give you a few examples of how thorough planning pays big dividends. This is planning that the minister initiated with his colleagues. He then began a long process of consultation which ended in success, as in the case of Petro-Canada with a reduction of its board of directors from the current 15 to three. This is a major reduction.

I will give a few other examples quickly: the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, created 25 years ago, will lose 24 posi-

tions; the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will now have seven board members instead of 18. Another major reduction. Seven positions will disappear with the abolition of the board of trustees of the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian research fund, which manages funds intended for research on children's diseases.

But the interesting point is that this agency will no longer exist to manage the funds, yet research will be carried on and will from now on be performed by the Canadian Medical Research Council. That is good planning.

I can give the House another example of amalgamation of this type, namely the elimination of Emergency Preparedness Canada as a separate body. The protection it provided will not disappear, will always be necessary and Canada will continue to be well served in this regard, but this role will be taken on by National Defence and that makes sense. There is another example.

We tried to establish whether certain roles were still relevant, still served their purpose or had become superfluous. If they were found no longer to be relevant, had become superfluous, we eliminated them.

In cases in which it proved necessary to retain an agency, we attempted to determine whether its role could be carried out with fewer people, at a lower cost and perhaps more effectively.

Over a dozen organizations will have the number of their board members reduced resulting in significant savings. A few of those included in this group are, for example, the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Arts Centre and the boards of four of Canada's national museums.

Bill C-65 will give effect to the government's objective of identifying sensible and practical actions to eliminate overlap and duplication, and simplify government wherever possible.

As I have already mentioned, the review of agencies, boards and commissions is but one aspect of our government's overall approach to streamlining, restructuring and reorganizing government. The program review and the work in improving the efficiency of the federation are two additional initiatives which attempt to reach similar objectives.

For example, the government has signed action plans that deal with specific sectoral issues where overlap and duplication can be reduced or eliminated within specific timeframes. That has been done, if my memory serves me correctly, with nine provincial governments and two of the territories. That is important progress.

The program review is the other very significant initiative that will give the government a new look. It will result in a substantially different government, which focuses on core roles and responsibilities. It is very important to focus on what can be done and what we can afford to do.

There will be more announcements made with respect to those initiatives very shortly.

I would also like to mention, and I believe this is a point we should emphasize, the status quo does not exist, federalism is evolving. It is a system, not because of its ability to evolve but rather because of its ability to change and respond to changing needs and always be aware of the needs of its population.

Our ability to embark upon the measures which I have just mentioned is a function of a body, a system which is flexible, adaptable and able to respond to the needs of our society and our country.

By the same token, federalism is a form of government characterized by its adaptability. Our entire history illustrates the extreme flexibility of our system of government.

This point needs to be accentuated time and time again. Some people like to pretend government and its institutions have not changed, but this is blatantly false. Government continues to change. Those who will not admit it have not taken the time to look at it, study it, and really get into government to understand the profound changes that are occurring.

Perhaps more than anything else, Canadians want their government to be more responsive. They want governments to listen to the people.

I understand that all MPs want to suggest they hold the truth, that they listen to their constituents and that they should be listened to. I believe that collectively somewhere lies the truth. I have never believed that there is necessarily one answer to one problem, particularly in today's society. I have never believed that one member or one party holds all of the truths. I wish all of us could think about that.

By the end of this program review, we will, as government, have dissolved many other agencies, boards and commissions; eliminated more than 600 positions and effected savings of over $6 million a year for the taxpayers. In my book, this is an enormous success.

To sum up, there are three points I would like to stress. First, we have just reduced duplication and overlap in government. Positive progress has been reported but, more importantly, work will continue in that area.

In addition, agreements were signed with the provinces and territories to ensure that every level of government can deliver the services it is responsible for. What we want to do, above all, it to ensure the efficiency of government operations, so that

goods and services are delivered as efficiently and economically as possible.

This work must and will continue because it is through such initiatives, bringing about improvements on a daily basis, that we will eventually have a better government in Canada. We already have a very efficient government, but there is still room for improvement. No organization can claim that it could not be better.

I can see one of my colleagues from the Reform Party smiling. I think that, in all honesty, he should answer the following question. When I mentioned that the government we have is already a good one, but that it is trying to be better, it made him laugh. I have challenge for this person, a person who I am unfortunately not at liberty of naming, although I would love to and am tempted to do so, but I will not. He belongs to a political party. Does he think that everything is perfect with his party? Does he think that it cannot be improved in any way? Does he think that his political party has all the answers?

I would like to hear what he may have to respond honestly to these questions I have just put to him.

These are my comments for the moment.

As I have indicated, the government should be lauded for these initiatives. They will bring about a more effective, leaner government but not a meaner one. It is one that will attempt to respond to Canadians' needs, in fact one that will continue to respond to Canadians' needs and one that recognizes that we need to continue to improve in order to get even better than we are.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to add something else that has nothing to do with presence or absence. Mr. Speaker, have you ever envisioned that when Reformers speak a halo suddenly starts to appear around their heads? They come across as pure, white fallen snow. It is quite incredible. I am delighted to be a Liberal, because I am an ordinary human being who has strengths and weaknesses, unlike them.

Today gross exaggerations that I want to address were made by a member of the Reform Party, but they have not fooled anyone, and certainly not Canadians. Reform Party polls in the whole of Canada are lower than the Bloc's in the whole of Canada, and it is trying to tear the country apart.

Stay tuned. One of these days one of those Reformers will trip and the halo will fall down and crack. We will find out that the freshly fallen white snow is rather darkened and blemished. We will shortly see whether or not Reformers sin.

I want to get to this important piece of legislation.

It deals with the reorganization and dissolution of certain federal agencies.

What we are talking about today is a bill aimed at renewing government and restoring confidence in it. That is what this bill is about. It is a new type of government. A less cumbersome one. A government aimed at increased efficiency. A government that is responsive to the needs of Canadians throughout the country.

A government concerned with increasing government efficiency.

I want to quote this because it appears to be the only safe way to not be misquoted by certain members of this House. The red book says, "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable". That has been extremely important to this government.

We know that Canadians are tired of large government. They have entrusted this particular party with the task of ensuring the careful management of public funds. They want honesty and integrity restored to their federal institutions. That is exactly what is happening in spite of the Reform rhetoric.

Some of my colleagues on the other side have a lot of difficulty listening to the truth. They jump and fidget and writhe whenever the truth is spoken.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House today to address this particular bill. Before I begin I need to make a few comments with respect to the previous speaker, a colleague from the Reform Party who did

not stay around to handle questions. He was probably frightened to do so.

[Manitoba Association Of Bilingual Municipalities, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, about ten days ago, the Manitoba Association of Bilingual Municipalities held a forum in St. Boniface entitled Think Globally, Act Locally or Vision globale, action locale .

This seminar was organized to look for ways to improve economic development in our communities. Weaknesses, such as duplication and lack of planning, were mentioned and examined, but strengths were also found: a well-educated and well-trained bilingual manpower, and a deep commitment to improving the quality of life.

This is an excellent example of English and French-speaking people working together to improve the quality of life of their citizens.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not losing my place in the order of speaking.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. My enthusiasm is a result of being upset at my colleague being so unfair and having exaggerated so much. In the spirit of Christmas I thought there would have been some gentleness.

I thought there would have been a little kindness, a little open-mindedness, but obviously they are not yet aware of the approaching festive season.

I think I have made the major points. The way it is worded, as I have indicated, the debate would be whenever it is possible. We simply cannot do this. We believe it has already been covered. We believe this government has been open and transparent and we believe we are going forward in the right direction.

I will limit my remarks at this time. I assure my colleagues that I am ready for a lot more.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on what has been said, and then I will highlight the key points with respect to this motion.

The first colleague who addressed this bill called it a routine bill, which it is. It is an important bill but a routine bill.

Members have complicated it. Either they have not understood it and therefore by virtue of that it has been complicated for them or they have understood it and by virtue of that they have tried to take advantage of it for political reasons.

We talk about not having been able to get witnesses. Of course we had witnesses but there comes a time when we have to stop meeting. Are we going to wait for the whole of Canada to come forward? We know that many of the witnesses had absolutely nothing to do, the witnesses they wanted, with clarifying the elements.

And the only reason was petty politics, an attempt to embarrass the government, pure and simple.

My colleague refers to backroom deals. What backroom deals? If he knows of a backroom deal put it on the table. He should not suggest that members of government have been dishonest. Either put up or be quiet. It is inappropriate behaviour for any member to be suggesting that someone else has been dishonest. Either he has proof or he does not. Do not slur the reputation of colleagues. That is not the way a parliamentarian is supposed to act.

He refers to the question of desire to compete. I have any number of quotes I can bring forward by reputable Canadian organizations, some of them from the province of Quebec, that indicate quite clearly that they do not see this as the government's intent to try to compete.

We are trying to get the best deal when we are dealing with other governments for Canadians. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to respond to the private sector if it asks us to respond to assist it. I would be delighted to share some of those in the process of this particular debate.

The second speaker referred to Canada Post and CMHC, I guess the point being that government is becoming increasingly involved with the private sector. I hope it was not suggested that Canada Post and CMHC are somehow involved with this legislation. I want to make it perfectly clear they are not. I would dispute the claims being made with respect to government competing with the private sector in those instances as well.

I want to point out very quickly that one of the weaknesses of the particular motion, and it has been addressed in part, is where possible what would happen if this were to go through?

The opposition would always say it was possible and we did not do it. All of us thought we would be debating in the House of Commons the interpretation of where possible is. On that very basis it has to be set aside.

As I said earlier, I do not wish to accuse all the members of the Bloc of engaging in petty politics. But the one who just spoke made accusations of patronage, without any proof, of favouritism, without proof, and waste, also without proof. It is very easy to make such accusations in the House of Commons and not back them up. This is unfortunate, most unfortunate.

He said that the minister lacks vision. This is insulting! Because he does not understand the bill, he blames the minister. Because the bill has limited scope, he accuses the minister of lacking vision. This is too bad. He says that the Liberal members are deaf and blind. How insulting to those people who are so afflicted! That is what he said, Mr. Speaker. Now, I suppose he will deny it. In the House of Commons, he can say anything he wants, without proof. He likes to hear himself speak. How very unfortunate!

To top off everything he has done and said, he criticized the motion and then went on to say that he will support it. What a contradiction!

I simply wanted to mention that I have been very patient in this first round. Not all of the comments have been terribly relevant but in the second round I shall try to make awfully certain that I bring to members' collective attention any comments that are off topic.

I have a few more comments to make and I shall be brief. I know that my colleagues are anxious to get on to other palpitating clauses and motions as I am. With regard to the motion that was made, the amendments proposed by my colleague from Elk Island are already addressed in clause 7(1)(a) as amended by the committee.

I want to read that clause and make awfully sure that I do not mislead anyone. Clause 7 has already been amended at committee and the words "and for enhancing the integrity and efficiency and the contrasting process" were added to the clause.

With respect to competition, one of the issues, we have already addressed this at great length in committee and we will be talking about it some more. This is the debate. This is it. We are in disagreement.

We are not in agreement. That is fine, no problem. Do you want me to produce my 1,000 witnesses? You will produce a thousand more, and then we will decide who makes the most sense. Well, I think that sometimes you have to pause and start afresh.

On public disclosure, members know as well as I that the minister has offered to the members of this House the open bidding system, the government business opportunities publication. He has provided guidelines for advertising and public research by the government.

This minister and this government have been open and transparent. Those members have not been able to get the figures when they wanted them in terms of what they wanted even though those have not been available, and so they choose to attack the government and pretend that it was less than up front.

With regard to the Queen's Printer we want what the member wants but we want it for all of the government's operations, that is, being efficient and cost effective. The Queen's Printer has had a long and proud history providing government and advancing the printing industry. When there was a problem in that sector, the minister moved forward boldly and corrected the situation.

With respect to efficiency and savings they suggest 4,000 people, a billion dollars saved by the year 2005. I guess when you say that you really do not care very much about the 4,000 families that are going to be affected or you do not understand how much a billion dollars is-

[Petitions, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, these petitioners are from all walks of life and of all ages. They point out that seniors have contributed and continue to contribute to the quality of life of Canadians.

There are growing numbers of seniors. Programs such as pensions and health care will experience additional growing

demand. Seniors need comfortable housing, social and community involvement as well as affordable medical care.

These petitioners ask that when governments consider changes to programs that they do not forget the contributions of seniors to our country and to our quality of life.