House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Liberal MP for Hull—Aylmer (Québec)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 54% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Professional Services October 24th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, within months of our taking office, it became very clear that the previous government had left its fiscal house in much worse shape than we had expected, with the deficit having actually risen to $45 billion.

Under the circumstances, we had no choice but to take much more drastic measures than those contemplated in the red book regarding professional services contracts. We immediately realized that a program review had to be put in place to look not only at reducing professional services by 15 per cent but also at ways of realignign many government programs.

By implementing a better idea than the one announced in the red book, we were able to save not only $1 billion but $9.2 billion.

Government Expenses October 24th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, government travel cards, of course, according to Treasury Board rules, should be used only for expenditures that have to do with official government business.

Whenever they are used for other purposes, which may happen in some circumstances, it is clear that all the expenditures not for official government business must be fully reimbursed.

In the present case there is no doubt that all the personal expenditures have been fully reimbursed. We consider the matter closed.

Supplementary Estimates (A), 1996-97 October 24th, 1996

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) and 81(6), I would like to table a motion to refer the estimates to the standing committees of the House.

Therefore, I move:

That Supplementary Estimates (A) for 1996-97 be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:

As there is a lengthy list attached to the motion, if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act October 21st, 1996

moved that Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address Bill C-49, the Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures) Act. This bill illustrates once again our government's commitment to fulfill the promises it made to Canadians.

The bill is part of an integrated and consistent effort to promote sound public management and economic growth. It is also a major component of our goal to restore the confidence of Canadians in their national institutions.

We must continue to build this confidence by displaying openness, honesty and integrity, while also managing our finances in a responsible way. Members of this House are aware of the results of the program review, this fundamental analysis of all federal departments, programs and activities.

Members will also remember that last year we discussed Bill C-65, the first legislation on government organization, before eventually passing it. This legislation stemmed from a review of all the federal government's boards, agencies, commissions and advisory bodies. It was the first omnibus bill designed to eliminate redundant organizations and to streamline the operations of federal organizations and boards, so as to improve effectiveness and the quality of services provided to Canadians.

The legislation before us today is the second omnibus bill to implement the decisions I announced in February of last year in the final report stemming from the agency review. The bill also seeks to implement other changes deemed necessary following the review, while increasing administrative accountability and uniformity for 30 organizations by winding up seven organizations and restructuring or downsizing 13 others.

Last year's act eliminated 150 governor in council positions, wound up 9 organizations and downsized 16 others. The bill before us will wind up 7 organizations and eliminate a further 271 governor in council positions for savings each year of about $2.5 million.

I am also happy to report that as a result of the agency review over 400 other governor in council positions are being eliminated by order in council, by separate legislation and administratively.

In total, the review will see the wind-up of over 80 organizations and the elimination of over 800 governor in council positions.

I suggest to all hon. members that these results, while not insignificant in themselves, are indicative of a much larger issue. When we start thinking hard about getting government right, as we promised we would do, when we take some clear decisions about putting the government's affairs in order, the pay-offs to taxpayers and all Canadians can be very substantial indeed.

When I say pay-offs I do not simply mean saving tax dollars, important as that may be. Like most major western democracies facing severe financial pressures, Canada has been seriously rethinking the role of government in the modern state.

How do we restore the hope and confidence of Canadians in their future? How do we reconnect citizens with their government so they can see that government is immediately relevant to their daily lives?

Government itself is critical in answering both questions.

How then do we reshape the federal government so that it focuses on the things that only government can do or can do best? Canadians repeatedly told us that they have had enough of big government. The message was clear and simple. Government is too big, it is too costly and it is not close enough to the people it serves.

To give Canadians the government and economic opportunities they expect and deserve, we have provided leadership in reducing the deficit, rethinking the whole role of the federal government, reforming our social security system, making federalism more efficient and streamlining government agencies.

Clearly the bill before us is an integral part of this government's coherent and wide ranging program of government renewal.

Program review was another key feature of our strategy to promote job creation and economic growth. This was the most comprehensive review of governmental programs and services in two generations.

The purpose was to reduce government operations to a bare minimum, a core of essential services, in an orderly fashion. And this is exactly our approach in pursuing the three program review objectives: first, to reduce the public administration function of federal programs and services, resulting in a leaner and more effective federal government providing high priority programs to Canadians; second, to modernize Canadian federalism, enabling our government to ensure the provision of programs and services only when the federal government is the most appropriate level of government to do so; and third, to help the government meet its financial targets.

This essentially entails reviewing all of the federal government's responsibilities and determining which of these Canadians can afford. Now that positive results are starting to show, I am sure that the distinguished members of this House will agree that we made a wise decision in taking measured steps. The review was not just another bureaucracy bashing initiative. Neither did it reflect the latest fad in management styles. And it definitely was not an absurd slash and burn exercise.

In the past, many studies were conducted on behalf of the federal government by the Lambert Commission in 1979, by the Nielsen

Task Force in 1986 and as part of the Public Service 2000 initiative in 1990. We are strongly encouraged to eliminate waste and inefficiency within the public service, especially during election campaigns. It is obvious however that the review should not result only in little squares being moved around on public service organization charts.

Why is this review different? Simply because our government has the political will to act and enough imagination to take whatever action is required. This review focuses on the main problems we are facing, namely the need to reduce government spending and improve the economy in order to promote job creation.

Another distinctive feature is that this review involved every minister and department. Departments are now setting aside their secondary responsibilities and merging so that similar programs and services can be grouped in a single portfolio. They are eliminating costly overlap and duplication and using new technologies to reduce the cost of providing services while raising standards. Finally, they are funding necessary programs through cost recovery and user fees.

I began by suggesting that Bill C-49 is an integral part of our well thought out program of government renewal, of getting government right. It is the second omnibus bill to implement decisions stemming from the review of agencies helping to simplify government by eliminating unnecessary or inactive organizations and streamlining others.

The 1994 budget launched this review and its major work is now virtually completed. We have no set targets. Rather, we wanted to identify sensible and practical changes to make government work better.

Ministers reviewed the various agencies within their portfolios and recommendations for change were made in consultation with the agencies themselves and with the Canadians they serve. For example, the changes range from eliminating a single governor in council position on the International Boundary Commission to reducing the governor in council positions on the Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunal from 400 to 300 members.

Other amendments relate to accountability, standardization and administrative efficiency. These affect 30 organizations.

Members will notice that the bill improve the governance of agencies, boards and commissions in two main ways. First, governor in council appointments have been reduced to the minimum number necessary for efficient operation. Second, accountability has been improved in several ways.

One example is the phrase "remedial and disciplinary measures" in the bill's title. This refers to the fact that several statutes do not provide clear mechanisms for those rare cases where it might be necessary to undertake remedial or disciplinary measures with regard to a member of an administrative tribunal appointed during good behaviour. The bill now brings in consistent provisions.

The bill's provisions clarify the complex accountability of persons appointed during good behaviour on the one hand and during pleasure on the other. Persons appointed during good behaviour may be removed only for cause. This applies to appointees of agencies at arm's length where independence and impartiality are important. An example is the National Parole Board.

Where appointments to serve during good behaviour are not justified by the need for independence and impartiality, the bill amends tenure to serving during pleasure. This means that appointees may be removed at the discretion of the governor in council.

Finally, to clarify accountability, consistent appointment mechanisms are being introduced for the chairpersons of administrative tribunals.

I think this bill illustrates on a reduced scale our preferred formula for rethinking the government's role. Until the basic questions are raised, the temptation is to go on as before. On the other hand, some are now saying about government that what has not been reviewed does not deserve to survive.

We are rapidly moving toward some radical changes aimed at reducing the size of the federal government so that it can focus on national roles, responsibilities and priorities and provide the services important to Canadians at a cost everyone can afford.

Programs and services must focus even more on client needs, not on jurisdictional hair splitting or administrative needs. I believe that national confidence in government can be restored if it is involved in activities that properly belong to it.

Government in today's world cannot be static. I see a constant and continuing rethinking about how we can do better. The results will be a more responsive, service oriented and leaner government. It will mean more sensible federal priorities concentrated on the major social and economic issues. As clients, Canadians want services that are speedy, accessible, reliable and responsive.

As citizens, Canadians want services that guarantee health and safety, public security, fairness and equity and economic well-being. As taxpayers, Canadians want a government that is efficient and cost effective. In other words, Canadians want a competent government with political imagination, leadership and courage. That is exactly what this government will continue to deliver.

Infrastructure Program October 8th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, we are at present looking at an infrastructure program. As the hon. member mentioned, there has been a submission by the universities of very high quality based on research and development. This in itself would be one very good reason for going ahead with an infrastructure program.

Point Of Order October 4th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, now that you have given me the opportunity to explain clearly why I responded as I did, I consider the allegation withdrawn.

Point Of Order October 4th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the false allegations that have been made show clearly through the hon. member's question, since it includes personal allegations which, in my opinion, show disrespect for the dignity of the House and the other hon. members.

This is an unfortunate tendency, and one which ought not to exist in this House. The members of the opposition should stop making false personal allegations, should stop attributing motives which are false, should stop claiming that any Quebecer who does not follow their way of thinking, for one reason or another, is a traitor to his race and his roots.

The question from the opposition members needs careful rereading, and it will be seen to contain false allegations that are not based on fact, that are contrary to reality, that are evidence of a type of effrontery and arrogance that ought never to be tolerated in this House.

Official Languages October 4th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly not true that the government, or myself, are disadvantaging the francophone minorities in Canada. The opposition does nothing but spread rumours which, they know to untrue.

What the report by the President of the Treasury Board demonstrates, and clearly demonstrates with figures, not with untrue allegations, is that the linguistic minorities in Canada have received far better service in recent years than in the past.

In fact, from the point of view of service to the public, from the point of view of language of work, from the point of view of their numerical representation in the public service, francophone minorities are better off now than they have ever been in the past, than they were 20 years ago. I myself bear witness to that, and the allegations being made by the opposition will not change those facts.

Official Languages October 4th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the allegations the opposition member is making are totally unfounded and, what is more, he is attacking my credentials as a francophone. Allow me to say that his French name does not entitle him to defend all francophone traditions.

My family has been here since 1648. My entire family has defended the francophone literature, culture, language, institutions, and no member of the Bloc Quebecois or of the Parti Quebecois can tell me what my family has done from the francophone point of view.

In my opinion, the Bloc Quebecois are the ones working against the interests of Quebec at this time, and the ones whose efforts will gradually weaken the influence of the French language and culture in Quebec. It is they who are doing a disservice to francophones.

Official Languages October 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, it is not true there is discrimination against francophones. About 63,000 positions in the Public Service have been designated bilingual. The

total percentage of francophone public servants in the Public Service is 27 per cent, while the proportion of francophones in the general population is 24.9 per cent. So there is no discrimination as far as numbers are concerned.

I would also like to point out that if there is a problem, it is due to the fact that in Quebec, the proportion of anglophone public servants is only 5 per cent, while anglophones represent 13 per cent of the population. We will make every effort to correct this imbalance as we have done in the case of francophone communities outside Quebec.

[English]