Patrick Gagnon

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the comments made by the hon. member.

We often hear this New Zealand example being given either by the opposition members or certain doomsayers of all kinds. If I am not mistaken, the population of New Zealand is three million and the active economy is not any larger than that of Alberta. I understand the process in what it had to go through in restructuring its economy and what not. If we look at the industrial and economic profile of New Zealand in comparison to Canada there is very little to compare except the debt figures that the hon. member would probably like to bring to our attention.

I would like him to give us a better description of what the realities were at the time in New Zealand versus Canada. Canada has a population ten times that of New Zealand with an economy which is closely linked to that of the United States and other western powers. We are a G-7 nation and we have a lot of things going for us than New Zealand had at the time.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member as well as the one from her leader, the Leader of the Opposition. I find it strange that they should talk about real life, a life rather difficult for many Canadians, without ever mentioning the fact that, today, 25 per cent of children are born to families living below the poverty line. The Leader of the Opposition did not say a word about that. I think it is a national disgrace and, like a majority of the population, I am dismayed by it.

They also talked about students. They said that education was a provincial matter, but the Leader of the Opposition never acknowledged the fact that 40 per cent of young Quebecers never finish their secondary education. This is a tragedy. We know that in industrialized nations like Japan, 95 per cent of their young people graduate from high school. We know that South Korea has the highest per capita number of PhDs.

The Leader of the Opposition did not talk of the high rate of suicide among the young people of Quebec. In this in-depth debate we want to undertake with the people of Canada, the only concern of the opposition, and I found that regrettable, is that we do not mention the reality of life for young Quebecers or Canadians.

I also want to talk about job training. There are 25,000 jobs, 80,000 jobs that remain unfilled in Quebec and Canada through lack of job training. They only talked about university graduates who are a mere 12 per cent of young people. Nothing is said about job training. I am under the impression that the Bloc Quebecois is forgetting the large majority of Quebecers who want real jobs and long term positions.

What we want is to develop specifically designed programs for each region, that is what we heard constituents ask for during both the federal and provincial campaigns. When the federal government gets involved and offers various programs in order to interest young people in training, it wants these young people to take these courses locally. We are prepared to co-operate with local schools or CEGEPs, but not necessarily in large centres like Quebec City and Montreal, where most of the Bloc members come from.

I think we must insist on the fact that, if it is true that reality must be taken into account, we must also acknowledge the failure of the programs and services intended for those who are really in need. As I said before, we must consider the condition of young people, students and single parent families. Those people are not forgotten in our society. Unfortunately, the Bloc quebecois did not say a word yet about them.

In conclusion, I would like to hear the comments of a former minister from the Parti Quebecois. She had the chance to rectify the situation in Quebec and to ensure that young people had better occupational training or better chances to complete their high school. To think that today close to 40 per cent of young Quebecers drop out of high school. What a failure compared to the situation in the rest of the world.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. member and his colleagues. They always talk about duplication, waste and transparency.

In this respect, I think that the federal government has made a considerable effort to open up the process. In fact, we have an Open Bidding Service or OBS whereby even opposition members, small entrepreneurs and big businesses are invited to bid on federal government contracts, in order to provide services to businesses in your ridings.

I can even give some examples. In my riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, fishermen often submit tenders to provide various services to the federal government. For instance, bids have been solicited for providing CIDA with cases of herring. So I can tell you this: Because of the quality of their products and their competitive prices, Magdalen Islands fishermen got-

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-52, known as the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. It serves the purpose of bringing together or consolidating four former common service agencies of the federal government.

These are the former departments of Public Works and Supply and Services, as well as the Government Telecommunications Agency.

The new department will play an essential role in that it will allow the federal government to effectively increase the efficiency of its operations. This grouping of important services under a single authority with consistent policies and a co-ordinated long-term approach will allow us to provide better service to the federal administration as a whole and, consequently, to Canadian taxpayers.

The government is firmly committed to offer all Canadians a fair, efficient, innovative and accessible administration.

Canadians are aware that overlap, duplication and poor co-ordination have contributed to the tax burden they must all bear. Canadians expect and demand that we take every measure possible to streamline our operations, reduce administrative costs, cut out red tape and improve our service delivery in implementing government programs.

The creation of a new Department of Public Works and Government Services responds directly to that challenge. It will provide more effectively than ever before a central focus for the provision of a wide range of services that contribute in a vital way to the efficient operation of some 150 government departments and agencies.

The purpose of this bill is not to table new policies but to set up a structure which, thanks to the synergy and dynamics generated by the new organization, will help us streamline government services to Canadians and improve their effectiveness.

The new department is a major service element of the federal government. At the time of amalgamation it was comprised of 18,000 employees based in 200 locations across Canada and with an annual budget of approximately $4 billion. The range of services is extensive, including providing telecommunications and professional and technical informatic services to departments and agencies; acting as the chief contracting agent of the federal government; ensuring value for money through a procurement process that is open, fair and competitive; issuing some 200 million payments annually by cheque and direct deposit as part of the receiver general's responsibility; giving the government a full range of communication services, including publication of thousands of titles annually; providing consulting and auditing services on a fee for service basis; handling most of the architectural and engineering services needed by the government as well as providing a wide variety of realty services; and, my personal favourite, providing translation services for the Parliament and the public service for which we in the House are grateful. It also provides for the disposal and sale of crown assets. These are just the highlights of the many and varied services offered and provided by the department.

To fulfil its mandate effectively, Public Works and Government Services has to establish close and productive working relationships with a number of varied interests, most notably those who do business with the Government of Canada, the many departments and agencies of government that depend on

Public Works and Government Services for its services, and the Canadian public that wants and expects fast efficient delivery of government services.

We must remember the federal government is by far the largest purchaser of goods and services in the country. Annual federal procurement, exclusive of crown corporations, is in the order of $16 billion. Public Works and Government Services is responsible for the orderly processing of about 65 per cent of the total or $10 billion.

There is no doubt that this more global approach regarding government procurement will benefit all Canadians concerned.

Indeed, it will allow us to implement better co-ordinated and standardized methods and policies, to use state-of-the-art technologies enabling us to streamline existing procedures, and to give eventual suppliers a more precise idea of who they are dealing with.

Initial reaction to this amalgamation process has been positive. It will be even more so once legislation is passed and the new department's structure is farther advanced.

Our government has stressed again and again that the operations of government must be responsive and geared to action and results rather than to the bureaucratic process to which some members on the opposite side often refer.

This is very true of the central services provided by the new department. I believe it will be better equipped to develop stronger, more responsive relationships with its client departments in its new formation.

Direct benefits of this amalgamation, for the government but particularly taxpayers, are quite remarkable. Already, overlapping, which the Bloc Quebecois constantly talks about, and duplication have been significantly reduced everywhere in the department, and the streamlining of operations is well underway.

Taking into account operational reviews and related recommendations, as well as the new systems to be implemented and the amalgamation itself, the estimated savings over five years should total approximately $180 million.

The overall staff requirement will be reduced by more than 20 per cent, from 18,000 at the time of amalgamation to about 14,000 at century's end. Specifically the administrative services of the component groups in the new departments have already been consolidated and this will result in savings of some 500 full time positions.

I want to point out that all these savings will be made by eliminating duplication, streamlining systems and making increased use of state-of-the-art technologies such as infometrics.

I can assure you that these savings will in no way diminish the quality of service currently provided to the department's clients and to Canadians in general.

Regardless of the structure of joint services, efficiency will always be the key to success. In that regard, we must reduce overlapping and duplication everywhere in government operations and we must become a centre of excellence striving to develop new methods and technologies to deliver services.

The net result will be savings to taxpayers, a one-stop service centre for existing departments, a special expertise accessible from anywhere within the government, a single-window service for suppliers and entrepreneurs dealing with the government-this single-window concept is important, because that is all the opposition talks about these days-and, more importantly, an improved ability on the government's part to serve Canadians.

In the current climate of fiscal restraint the pursuit of efficiency and economy in government operations is clearly not a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Bill C-52 which will integrate the majority of all common services into one department will help us operate more efficiently and deliver the best we can to our clients.

I hope all members will join me and this side of the House in supporting this innovative legislation. Much has already been achieved, and with the passage of the bill we could move forward with confidence in further streamlining and improving the operations of the federal government.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member's comments were most interesting. There was some discussion of the technical aspects, since according to him, copyright should be patriated from Industry Canada to Culture Canada, and I thought that was very interesting.

However, according to his last comments, the role played by federalism, Culture Canada, the CBC, Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and all agencies concerned with promoting French Canadian culture in Montreal and Quebec is an attempt at assimilation. I think that is strong language that does not reflect the real situation at all, because I explained in the House-and I got no reaction-that 40 per cent of the films produced by the National Film Board were French. I think that is a very real aspect of our Confederation.

Again, I got no reaction when I said that the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada largely subsidized Falardeau's last film about the October crisis. I asked them if they could find an instance in which France provided funding for a Corsican or Breton nationalist to produce a similar film. I believe that the role played by the government reflects a wide-ranging, generous and comprehensive approach, and the maturity and confidence to consider the views of the opposition, as we are doing today.

We are still discussing the pervasiveness of American culture in our cultural industries. Sure. It is a fact of life that we, a nation of 6 million francophones, are like an island in a sea of anglophones. Incidentally, I was interested in the references to France, a country which I know fairly well. In 1984, when people went to the cinema in France, more than 70 per cent of the films they saw were French productions. Unfortunately, today, only 30 per cent of the films seen by French movie goers are French productions. It is clear that France has lost control of its national production, while we in Quebec, thanks to the generous participation of the federal government, have been able to produce quality films and support French Canadian songwriters and composers.

I am thinking of Canadian productions like Roch Voisine and Céline Dion, good singers all of them. The Canadian government has also helped small producers who were not a big international success and who were not a big success in the United States. I do not think these small producers really have to go and produce in the United States. We are here to encourage them to develop French culture in Quebec and Canada and to provide them with a market, not only in this country but also internationally.

Today, unfortunately, the opposition failed to take this opportunity to recognize that the federal government, thanks to its grant system and participation, has been a major factor in the growth and development of Quebec culture.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member's comments and I find it strange that he did not mention that, while there are 1 million francophones outside Quebec, 250 anglophones are now enroled in French immersion classes. We were even told that young Chinese are enroling in large numbers in Vancouver's French-language schools, a fact that should not be forgotten. I still think that they forgot to tell us about Canadian realities. Despite what they say, this is not a fictitious country. This is a wealthy country that belongs to the Group of Seven and that has achieved a great deal. We helped liberate France, Belgium and the rest of Europe in World War II. I think that Canadians have demonstrated their maturity, their know-how. They got involved when other countries did not heed the call. I think that we were able to accommodate Quebecers' needs and desires, because the federal government has invested heavily in Quebec to enable it to express its identity.

Our Quebec includes Natives and anglophones. The Quebec forest that their PQ friends in Quebec City talk about is not only French-speaking; it also includes several cultural communities. Yet, I hear the hon. member speak as though only those people descended from the 60,000 settlers identified by Lionel Groulx were real Quebecers.

I would like to know if, in his opinion, today's Quebec includes other cultures. We often hear about a Quebec open to the world but the hon. member would have us forget this 15 or 20 per cent of the population that is an important part of Quebec as we know it today.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if I had been asked to comment on the country's economic situation, I would say that the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is right. Much remains to be done. I think that together, united and strong, we stand the best chance of putting this country on the road to economic recovery.

However, and I am nevertheless mindful of what was said by the hon. member and by my department, and I am referring to the department I represent here today. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done a lot for culture in Quebec and for the culture of the francophone minorities outside Quebec. Thanks to the CBC, people know what this country is about. I do not know the exact ratings, but I do not think anyone can deny that Canadian productions are worthwhile. I think we have made some very good films with producers from Quebec and from English Canada. We have promoted the expression of Quebec culture, and I think this is largely thanks to the federal government, which gave Quebecers a chance to express themselves and say who they are, to Canada and to the whole world.

I think the Government of Canada is to be commended for having invested so much in Quebec, and what probably bothers the opposition is the fact that more and more performing artists and producers are aware of the positive role played by this department, and especially by the Government of Canada, in

promoting French Canadian and Quebec culture throughout the world.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

And everywhere else. It is important to note that the federal government has invested heavily in French culture to a point that our investments in CBC productions are far superior to what the French government invests in its own TV broadcasts. That is astonishing.

Forty per cent of the productions by the National Film Board are French Canadian. Regrettably, the hon. Bloc member is saying that Quebec wants it all for itself. However it would have to settle for 25 per cent if it opted for independence and right now it is getting 40 per cent.

What I am trying to tell the two hon. ladies is that the federal government is doing its part in promoting arts and culture in Quebec and across Canada and it is doing a fantastic job.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that we also have a department for Indian and northern affairs. We have a most capable minister with a budget who tries to address the varying issues that touch upon aboriginal communities.

I can speak for my area where the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs promotes various school programs for youngsters trying to lead very interesting lives as full partners in Canadian society. We may have to make a distinction however because when it comes to cultural affairs there is probably more that can be done in trying to enhance aboriginal culture.

In my speech I was speaking in terms of aboriginals in urban areas such as Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere. There is much to be done in trying to give them the opportunity to express who they are and their culture to fellow Canadians.

On the second point the hon. member quite correctly pointed out there are various views and opinions in terms of the role of the federal government in Quebec. As members know the Bloc Quebecois may have the majority of seats on the opposition side but it does not have the majority of votes in the province of Quebec. We are talking of only between 44 and 48 per cent.

We should also take these things into account. We do not speak for all Quebecers. I have tried to inform the hon. member that the federal government has been a most productive and viable force in my home province of Quebec in terms of encouraging cultural development.

[Canadian Heritage, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to speak on Bill C-53, An Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage. I believe the best way to use the time at our disposal is to review the programs and responsibilities which fall under the jurisdiction of this new department.

First, I want to point out that the Department of Canadian Heritage has actually been in existence for over a year. Since its inception, which goes back to the general government reorganization of June 1993, officials of that department have discreetly but confidently succeeded in strengthening the links between the various and excellent programs which fall under its scope. This "growth stage" has been exciting and enriching. The fact is that it is not over yet.

There is still a lot of interesting work and progress to accomplish before the Department of Canadian Heritage is fully recognized and plays its important role among other federal departments. Obviously, the tabling of this bill was a major step in that direction, as will its second reading.

I have just alluded to the range of programs within Canadian Heritage. I want to elaborate upon the department's composition and the scope of its activities. Before I begin let me add a caveat. Because of time constraints, my review of Canadian Heritage program areas cannot be all-inclusive. Nonetheless I am confident that the members present will find this description illuminating.

Undoubtedly, one of the most visible programs administered by Canadian Heritage is Parks Canada, one of the department's three principal sectors. Many Canadians, and for that matter many visitors to Canada, have been fortunate enough to experience the splendour and richness of the country's system of national parks, national historic sites and historic canals.

A steward of these unmatched examples of our national and cultural heritage, Parks Canada is charged with the protection and interpretation on behalf of all Canadians. Given the nature of its mandate, Parks Canada is primarily a regional organization. It has strong and respected presence in every region of this country, including the Gaspé Peninsula, contributing significantly to the local economies of communities all across Canada directly through expenditures on its own operations and indirectly through the tourism and economic benefits generated as a result of those activities.

The second major departmental component is centered around the Canadian identity and the contribution of all citizens. Without question, it represents one of the largest series of responsibilities and incentives throughout the government. It includes programs promoting the official languages, excellence in amateur sports, human rights, the welfare of aboriginal communities living in large urban areas, the development of our cultural diversity, and finally, the full contribution of all citizens, including recent immigrants, to our society. In brief, these programs are of interest to each and every one of us, since they deal with what it means to "be Canadian".

We live in an era marked by major social and economic change. No one can deny that. In this context, initiatives undertaken by this departmental component are considered even more important. In fact, by promoting and increasing our sense of community and identity, these programs can truly help us to understand today's goals and to prepare for tomorrow's challenges.

The purview of the third major departmental component can broadly be described as encompassing cultural development and heritage. The responsibility of this sector extends to the arts, broadcasting and heritage conservation programs as well as the cultural industries pertaining to film, video, sound recording and book publishing.

In an age of unparalleled technological advancement where adaptability to change has become a prerequisite for success and where globalization of markets presents both potential for growth and new competitive challenges, Canada's creators, artists and producers are looking to government to provide leadership in formulating the legislation and policies that will allow them to compete and thrive.

To cite but two examples it means taking action to ensure that creators are justly compensated for the use of their works. It means fashioning a policy framework that will ensure a place for Canadian content and cultural products on the information highway of the future.

In general, it means ensuring that Canadians continue to see themselves reflected in a strong and vibrant culture.

I have briefly described the department, the activities of which are far-reaching and of significant importance to all Canadians. Although these programs may seem disparate at first, a slightly deeper examination would dispel these doubts. I hope I have managed to demonstrate, to some extent, that the various components of this new department have much in common, that, given their purposes, they complete each other and generate a kind of synergy that truly makes it more than the sum of its parts.

I look forward to the enactment of the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. That step cannot fail to have beneficial and enduring effects in enhancing our sense of Canadian identity and participation in society, in furthering our cultural development and ensuring the continue appreciation and protection of our priceless array of natural and cultural heritage resources.