[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, June 8, 1995
.1143 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Today we have as our witness the minister, Mr. Marcel Massé. He's here as a result of a request that originated with the official opposition, the Bloc. Under House rules the official opposition can ask for a 10-day extension of the consideration of the estimates of one department. The Bloc has exercised that prerogative of the official opposition; hence, we have Mr. Massé here today as part of this extension of the consideration of the estimates.
I don't believe Mr. Massé has a formal statement. I think we know at least some of the substance of what I'm sure Mr. Marchand will be bringing up. Perhaps in a general way he can give us his perspective and background on the issue of the allegation that the Province of Quebec is paying twice when it comes to certain matters such as Oka compensation, education of the Cree in northern Quebec, and income stabilization claims going back about four years.
So before we get to Mr. Marchand, please just give us a short thumb-nail sketch of your perspective on these issues, and then we'll go to the Bloc.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President, Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister Responsible for Public Service Renewal): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say I'm very grateful for the opportunity to appear again in front of the committee to be able to give further explanation for questions that may be quite important now and in the future.
.1145
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by introducing the people who are with me. They are Ronald Bilodeau, my Deputy Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet for Intergovernmental Relations, Bill Pratt, Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services, and Eileen Boyd, Director of Financial Services.
You asked questions regarding three claims, one of which concerned certain costs related to the Oka crisis.
[English]
On that question, as you know, the services of the Sûreté du Québec were requested at some point, as were those of the Canadian services, in particular the Canadian defence forces. In fact, the Canadian defence forces spent more than $122 million at the time to contain the problem and eventually come to a peaceful solution, which was the objective of the operation.
At that time a federal act that permits the federal government to provide aid, usually in cases of physical damage to property and people, physical or natural emergencies such as floods or earthquakes and so on, was invoked to permit the federal government to pay some of the costs incurred by the Province of Quebec in the Oka incident. So far we have paid about $5 million, and claims have been made for considerable amounts additional to that.
The federal government has looked at these claims and there has been controversy over whether some claims should be allowed, and whether they were properly incurred according to the Emergencies Act.
Since we want to be absolutely fair to Canadian taxpayers, including Quebec taxpayers, we cannot pay without being sure these sums are owed. We took what I think is the proper course and asked a third party that has credibility all across the country, the Auditor General, to look at these various claims and bills to determine which ones are legally acceptable and which ones are not, and give us his views and advice on this. We expect his report in June or July.
We do not consider these amounts to be owed until they are declared to be owed. Therefore it would be improper to pay them unless we are convinced they should be paid.
In the second case, which is the education of native people in northern Quebec, you will remember the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, passed in 1975 or 1976. It clearly indicated that the federal government was to pay for the education of people of native origin and the Province of Quebec was to pay for the education of people of non-native origin. It also indicated that the budgets for education had to be submitted so a judgment could be made by the federal government as to which expenditures corresponded to the rules and regulations. It's a very normal process, obviously, that permits us to be accountable for the amounts of money we pay.
Over that period we did not receive the necessary information from the Province of Quebec, and as a result, we have paid what we thought we owed, which, by the way, over the period is a considerable amount, about $464 million.
.1150
You have to remember that in the area, depending on which school board it is, up to 25% of the student population may be non-native and therefore is the responsibility of the Province of Quebec, since they're responsible for education. In this case we have indicated very clearly that we will pay what we owe, but that we at least owe it to Canadian taxpayers to pay it on the basis of proof to be submitted, according to the agreement that was signed by the federal government and the Province of Quebec.
When I met my counterpart, Mrs. Beaudoin, a few weeks ago, we discussed that.
I sent a letter about a week ago indicating that, unfortunately, we cannot just decide to compromise on a certain sum and pay it, that we owe it to Canadian taxpayers to have the relevant provision in the James Bay Agreement implemented and we must have the information necessary to be able to decide whether or not we owe the money.
This obviously is not the behaviour of a government that does not want to pay; it's the behaviour of a government that knows its taxpayers, including its taxpayers in Quebec, want it to pay only when a bill is justified and payable.
In the third case, which is the stabilization program, this is an act in which there are criteria for payment of stabilization to the province. We have made these stabilization payments to a number of provinces, including, by the way, over $100 million in 1992-93, so clearly our position there is not to delay payments. Our position is that we have to pay according to the criteria that are there. The Minister of Finance is the federal minister who is empowered to determine whether payments should be made or not.
By the way, there are provisions, for example, on whether we should pay for the movement in revenues that makes it difficult for a province to be able to pay for their expenditures. But we will, of course, pay for movements in revenues that are due to unforeseen events, especially events that are not influenced by the provincial government itself. If, for instance, the government decides to reduce a tax or a tax rate and then charge us for the difference in the product of the tax, that obviously cannot be accepted. So it's rules like this that are in the law.
We have come to the conclusion that these amounts are not payable. We do not owe them. However, we may be wrong in our interpretation of the statute, and we have indicated to the Province of Quebec that if they think we are wrong, then they should take the proper recourse to the courts. If the courts decide we have misinterpreted the provisions, then obviously we will pay.
But as far as we are concerned, this is a debt that is not due. Therefore this is not a question of delaying payment; this is a question of, after having decided that the amount is not due, not paying it, which I think is what Canadian taxpayers would ask us to do.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Marchand, you have eight minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): I hope that the Liberal Party and the Bloc will continue to work together as they did this morning in the House and that we will receive answers to our questions on the amount due to Quebec.
As you know, Mr. Massé, there is a considerable amount at stake. It's more than $300 million. Regarding the Oka situation, aborigenes in the north and stabilization payments, these are three relatively complex issues, but certain agreements have in fact been signed.
It's also a question of time, of years. Quebec has been claiming for a long time that it is owed this money. It's true that the federal government contributed $5 million out of a total debt of approximately $84 million to address the Oka crisis. However, significant amounts are still due, and I have the impression that the federal government is trying to obstruct Quebec's claims.
.1155
There really is a lack of good will on the part of the federal government. Perhaps it reflects the same attitude as in the case of their debt to Quebec for the 1992 referendum. In the end, the federal government had to pay $35 million. That happened only after pressure was put on the government and a member of the House of Commons accused the Prime Minister of lying and of having deliberately prevented settlement. Do you think the government's lack of cooperation and its desire to punish Quebec are evident again with these three still unresolved issues?
Mr. Massé: It all depends on your interpretation of the substance of the issue. The explanation I gave shows very clearly that we do not feel there is any outstanding debt. We are therefore not dragging our heels. For the reasons given, we clearly object to the suggestion that there is a debt owed to Quebec. It is a considerable sum of money: a total of approximately $300 million.
But the total could be between $400 and $500 million and the question would be the same: do we owe Quebec that money? For each of the three cases, I explained procedures being followed and the process implemented to settle the problem.
As regards Oka, we do not believe those sums are due, and we therefore asked a credible third party to decide on the issue. I think that it is the right thing to do and that no reasonable person can criticize us for not fulfilling our obligations.
Mr. Marchand: You know, Mr. Minister...
Mr. Massé: Just a moment, I have not finished.
As regards the second case, the native debt, it is true that agreements were signed by both parties. But you must also bear in mind that the province of Quebec did not claim it had fulfilled its part of the contract. The province did not give us any information that would enable us to determine whether the $464 million we paid represented our share of the debt or whether there was some money left over.
I indicated very clearly, both publicly and in my letters to Louise Beaudoin, that if the province of Quebec provided us with documents it was obliged to give us under the terms of the James Bay agreement it signed, we would be perfectly willing to settle this matter based on information provided.
As for the third case, financial compensation payments, there again, our interpretation of the legislation is very clear: we do not owe that money.
There is an obvious difference between these cases and the referendum debt. During the process, it became clear that Mr. Mulroney made promises his government did not keep. You may recall there was less than 24 hours between the time Mr. Mulroney sent his message and the money was paid. In that case as well, we clearly indicated we would pay once we received proof, and when we did receive it, we paid.
Mr. Marchand: There are perhaps differences in terms of time and effort required to force the government to pay a debt. We know the prime minister dragged things out for quite a while.
.1200
I want to come back to the Oka crisis. As you know, the federal government has a special responsibility towards the aboriginal people. We are all aware of just how serious the Oka crisis was. The federal government has paid part of that debt - some $5 million of a total of $84 million. But why did it decide to stop there? Why has the federal government not contributed more money - at least half or more of the amounts owed?
That money is still owed. So that is the real question. Even if you claim that money is not owed, it has already been proven, in the case of the 1992 referendum, that the federal government did owe that money to the provincial government. In the case of Oka and the agreement on education for young aboriginals in northern Quebec, the situation is no different.
Why, in the case of Oka, given your special responsibility towards the aboriginal people, did you contribute such a small amount of money, knowing that the expenditures associated with the crisis were considerable? You have responsibilities at the federal level. The aboriginal people are a federal responsibility. So, why have you contributed so little and why are you going to the Auditor General in this case? That is not only unusual but abnormal. Is this not just another way of slowing down the settlement process?
[English]
The Chairman: I should just remind you that verbiage has a way of consuming time. We're over time for this round, but I'll let you answer the question, Mr. Massé.
Mr. Massé: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
First of all, it is not entirely logical to state that money was owed for the 1992 referendum. According to you, that means that money is also owed in other cases where the situation is in fact completely different. I must admit the logic of that thinking escapes me somewhat.
As far as Oka is concerned, this is clearly an aboriginal issue, but I think it is important to point out that the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility. That is the reason why the provincial authorities - the Sûreté du Québec, to be precise - moved in to deal with the events in Oka without asking for the federal government's help because this is an area of provincial jurisdiction.
We ensume that we scrupulongly respect areas of provincial jurisdiction. We are very strict in that regard. Only when Quebec itself asked the federal government to intervene did we do so. Also, Oka is not a reserve. These points were raised just to give you an indication that this is one case where the federal government has been extraordinarily understanding. We contributed some $5 million dollars because that was the amount corresponding to regulations under the Emergency Act. The other bills submitted were not, in our view, clearly allowable under the regulations.
However, so that our own opinion would not be considered final, we asked the auditor general to review the situation. We thought it necessary to get a ruling from a third party with the kind or credibility and expertise to rule on such matters. In this way, we felt we could be fully respectful of the rights of Quebec, as the case may be, and the rights of Canadian taxpayers, including Quebec taxpayers.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
I'll go to Mr. Strahl for eight minutes.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Thank you for coming, Mr. Minister.
I would like to take a couple of minutes to ask questions about something that takes up a lot of space, both in your outlook document and in the estimates. As you know, it's something I have an interest in - the program review, and the whole thing surrounding it.
The program review really started with just two sentences in the government's first budget. There were virtually no plans or details in the first Liberal budget that said where this was going or what the cost would be. It just evolved from a sort of offhand comment in that first budget. Since then, however, it's come to dominate the agenda of the government in many ways, including the budget process and so on.
.1205
Today, I have to express to you my frustration at not being able to get a copy of any of the program review documents created to date. From recent local papers, I could read you two or three quotes on what not having these documents in public is doing: ``The fear and loathing in the public service continues, with thousands of workers still not certain about what their future holds'', or ``Industry workers screamed in horror because Harry Swain, Manley's deputy, had just held briefings for employees''. I don't know what the ``screaming in horror'' is about, but it doesn't sound as though it's doing much to establish a good rapport with the civil service.
In May of this year, it expanded from eleven most-affected departments to fifteen. All of a sudden, there were four more departments added to it, seemingly out of nowhere. I don't know if it was a spur-of-the-moment thing, but the buy-out was extended to four more agencies.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the announcement was made that two-thirds of the Canada Employment Centres could be closed. I guess that's based on a program review, but a spokesman for the department said that no decisions have been made as to how this would be enacted.
All this indecision is put on the backs of public servants, and we can't get a single program review document from your department. The closest I got - and I could show you a stack of documents, including all the letters and access to information requests I've sent - was on one particular request made through the Library of Parliament on an access to information inquiry. They said they could give me parts of it if I was willing to pay $550. They weren't sure exactly how much it would cost, but it would be at least that much for a partial revelation.
So my concern centres around why I cannot get documents. Is it because they're not around? Are they still being made up and created? Is it an ad hoc, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants thing? Are there actually program review documents out there somewhere? That's the first question.
Second, is the program review still expanding? Is it covering more departments and more areas? We have no idea of the cost of the program review or of how many departments will eventually be affected. Instead of reassuring public servants, it's starting to create a lot of anxiety. The government seems unwilling to release the documents so that we can see what direction we're heading in.
So that's the gist of my questions.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Chairman, there are quite a number of questions there. Let me try to answer as many as I can.
Firstly, there is no such thing as an offhand comment in the budget. Through being in charge of departments, I've learned that you have to be very careful about every sentence. In this case, of course, the two lines developed into a very important process for the second budget.
As for the program review and the documents on which it is based, as you will remember, the first document to be produced by departments was the strategic action plan. Let me just back up a bit.
The purpose of the program review was to review government programs and to determine, department by department, what were the core roles and responsibilities of each department; how the services that were to be delivered by these departments corresponded to the national interest; how they fitted the six tests, including the federalism test; and how they could be made more efficient, and so on. This was made public, and this you have.
.1210
Each of the 22 departments produced their strategic action plan, and I have also enquired why these strategic action plans cannot be made public. I was told they represent the confidence of cabinet because they are, of course, an essential part of the decision-making process in the sense that the minister of a department would submit a certain allocation of funds, which would be reviewed by the program review committee, for his department. In the end, the collegial decision that we made was, in a number of cases, different from what was proposed.
One of the purposes of the principle of solidarity of cabinet is to permit ministers to keep that solidarity even when they have views that differ. These documents are therefore confidences of cabinet and are therefore protected.
Because there was a need for each department to make clear what its outlook was - in other words, this meant taking out the more difficult areas and taking into account the decisions made in the budget - each department prepared an outlook indicating what its core roles and responsibilities are going to be. Those outlooks are therefore guides to what these departments will do in the future.
So we cannot make public all the documents but we are making public as much of the information as is possible.
You also asked if this was still expanding. The purpose of program review was primarily a governance purpose, to review the roles and responsibilities of government, but the bottom line of the departments that we looked at, when added up, obviously had to fit with the government's fiscal plan.
At present, as we indicated last year - On page 36 of the accompanying document containing the results of program review and comparing 1994-95 with 1996-97 and so on - and you have this table in the budget - you have the results in terms of the bottom line for each department. For instance, it tells you that over the three years, the Department of Transport will reduce its expenditures in absolute terms by 50%. The outlook will tell you that the Department of Transport has changed its role and responsibility from a department that administered transport systems, such as Canadian National, to a role of policy and regulation, safety and security. In other words, we've reduced the roles and objectives, we've concentrated them on what we think the Department of Transport should do in a modern economy, and we've therefore cut its budget in half over three years.
Clearly, we have to monitor the fact that project review is being implemented and that it's being implemented properly. There is also no doubt that there are clean-up items. There are items, which were indicated in the budget, on which we did not come to a final decision and on which we now have to use the program review process in order to make sure the implementation is properly done, to make sure we clean up the items that we couldn't touch during the budget process, and to make sure we face up to new problems that are arising, particularly if there are marginal changes in the amount of money required for the fiscal framework.
It will continue, but for this year it will clearly not review department by department again. It's a different role. We are going to make sure the three-year program is properly implemented.
The Chairman: We might have to pick this up later. We're out of time for this round.
I have no indication of questions from my right, so I will go to Mr. Marchand of the Bloc for five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Minister, you said that the federal government never interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I think that's rather a cynical remark. With all due respect, it's a well known fact the federal government has never respected provincial responsibility, nor indeed the Canadian constitution.
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): Just a moment. You have no right to say that the government of Canada does not abide by the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Marchand: Well, it's a well known fact that it has never respected provincial responsibilities. By using its spending power, it has been able to interfere in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. No one can deny that fact.
.1215
I would like to go back to the three contentious issues Mrs. Beaudoin raised with you. With regards to the Oka crisis, I believe there will be a final decision when the Auditor General's report is tabled, possibly in July, if I'm not mistaken. As for the two other cases, I wonder whether decisions weren't already made, if there are negotiations going on, and why those two cases were not also submitted for an audit or a decision by a third party.
Mr. Massé: First of all, respect for provincial jurisdiction must be interpreted in a certain way, because legally, the federal government cannot act if the measure in question is unconstitutional. Anything we do must therefore be in accordance with the constitution. Otherwise, any of our acts could be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That said, this may all be discussed later.
As for your first question, you are correct. We are expecting the Auditor General's report in July and it should allow us to settle the issue once and for all.
As for your question on the Aboriginals, we are currently waiting for information from the Quebec government. In my letter to Louise Beaudoin I indicated what specific information we needed, including the number of students, the budgets, the schools' fixed assets, etc. Once that information is received and our officials have discussed it, we will probably be able to come to some reasonable agreement. As with any federal-provincial negotiation, one of my department's roles is to solve such problems day in, day out. That is what we are doing.
As for the stabilization program, it was the Finance Minister who ruled on this, since it is his responsibility to interpret the legislation and criteria. We indicated that the appeals process goes through the courts. We indicated very clearly that if the province of Quebec feels we misintepreted the terms, it can go through the normal procedure, namely the courts.
As far as we are concerned, the matter is closed. We are convinced we do not owe a cent. We have set up a process which, I feel, is fair and which allows any province to contest the matter in court if it feels we were wrong.
Mr. Marchand: So you do not have any data on Native education in northern Quebec. You know the matter has been dragging on for nearly ten years now since 1986. Has this matter not yet been resolved because the federal government is worried about Quebec contributing more of its fair share to provide good education for Natives in northern Quebec?
Mr. Massé: I obviously do not know what Quebec has spent in that area and whether it corresponds to any standard, because the Quebec goverment did not provide us with enough information for us to draw any conclusions. We made several attempts to reach an agreement. The last time was in 1989, if I recall, by the federal government.
We reached a tentative agreement that the province of Quebec refused because it said we had misinterpreted the facts, etc, which means that now, officials have to meet and additional information must be provided. Perhaps my opinion is somewhat biased as regards this case, since the province of Quebec did not provide the information it should have under the James Bay agreement. I am sure that once the information is submitted, analyzed, etc, a reasonable agreement can be reached.
.1220
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Epp, five minutes.
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here today. I have a couple of questions. First of all, I think I might like to make a statement with regard to your comment to my honourable colleague here on the federal intrusion into provincial matters.
I don't want to get into a debate on this, because I'm sure we will continue to differ. The fact of the matter is that what has been done probably is constitutional, but the result is unconstitutional. That is, by the extraordinary exercise of the spending power, the federal government has been taxing the citizens of the country, who are residents of a province as well as residents of the country of Canada, and then deciding arbitrarily how to give the money back, with certain restrictions.
For example, in the area of health, they have intruded into a provincial responsibility without breaking a constitutional law per se, because it seems so innocuous to just say we're going to help you fund this. So there are at first these unencumbered grants in health, and of course now we have restrictions on them.
So they take our money, and then they can decide whether or not to give it, which is all according to the constitution, but it's a tremendous intrusion in practical terms into an area which, according to the constitution, is a provincial matter.
If you want to respond to that, I'll hear you. It's not the main thrust of my question here today, but I guess it's unfair for me to say it without letting you respond.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Chairman, this is obviously a very important question, because it goes to the heart of the question of how the federal and provincial governments operate. I would just mention a few matters.
The federal government could not be involved - in health matters, for instance - if it were not constitutional for it to do so. You have numerous court cases indicating that it is constitutional for the federal government to be involved.
The way we are involved, of course, is through, as you mentioned, health transfers that have conditions according to the Canada Health Act. There I think we have a problem that is not constitutional but political. The question we ask ourselves - because, of course, we are elected by Canadians in the same way that provincial representatives are elected by Canadians - is how Canadians want their elected representatives at the federal level to use the powers of the federal government. I say the powers of the federal government, once again, because we would not be involved in these fields if we didn't have the power to be involved in these fields.
Quite clearly, federal governments one after another, whatever their colour, have come to the conclusion that Canadians wanted the federal government to tax in order to redistribute money through a series of programs that permit the services given by provinces, whether the provinces are rich or poor, to be basically of the same level. This is more specifically of course the equalization payments, but this also happens in other services and the way social services -
Mr. Epp: Mr. Minister, with all due respect, it's surprising to me that we have all these very, very intelligent people here in Ottawa, both among the bureaucracy and those elected, and none of them can see that's what's happening in Quebec these days is a symptom of that problem, and that it could be fixed. To me that is quite remarkable.
I'd like to ask a question related to this. This actually was in my plan, although I'm sure I'm going to run out of time here.
We've just done the estimates expenditure plan for the House. They were approved yesterday, so it's almost redundant to talk about them, but one of the things missing in the estimates is any indication on how much this government expects to spend in the Quebec referendum. Based on the number of member statements that have been used to give free advertising to the Liberal Party provincially in the last several weeks, we know this present government is quite interested in provincial politics.
So it's not only not stated as a tax expense, it's also done at taxpayers' expense. I'm very offended by that.
But it's quite possible, I'm sure...and I think the federal government probably does have at least a more legitimate role to play in terms of the referendum in Quebec if it's on a continuum.
.1225
I would really like to know whether the government is planning to spend money and participate in that Quebec referendum. If so, how much? What kind of scrutiny and limitations are there going to be on the amount of money that is so expended?
Mr. Massé: First, it is clear that the federal government will participate in the Quebec referendum. There is an instrument for that under the provincial law. Under that law, there is a Yes committee and a No committee for the referendum period. We are members of the No committee.
The head of the Yes committee is the Premier of Quebec, and the head of the No committee is Daniel Johnson, the head of the opposition party in Quebec. We are represented on that group by my colleague, Lucienne Robillard. There is No doubt we will play our role in this question, because it is a question of Canadian unity.
At the same time, the Yes and No committees agree that this is essentially a choice for Quebeckers, and that the Yes and the No committees are structured so that this is what it will be. This is what Quebeckers will vote on.
Mr. Epp: Will the Reform Party be able to have access to its proportion of funds, based on, say, the number of members of Parliament? Will we get one-sixth of those funds for our participation in that campaign?
The Chairman: That will be your last question.
Mr. Massé: The participation in the campaign of the federal government, being done by, say, Madam Robillard...the funds expended are not funds given for all kinds of activities. These are regulated under the committees of the Yes and the no.
Basically, in terms of the federal government, they are the $2.5 million you see in our estimates. This means at present, we spend money on people who analyse the situation, follow it up and make sure we're fully informed and so on. You have, in any case, the list of all the people in that unity group. That is a governmental activity. That's how it's funded, and that's all we spend on it.
Mr. Epp: And it's wrong.
Thank you.
The Chairman: I think I should point that the minister is in a time squeeze. We were originally set to start at 11 a.m., but because of the votes in the House we started at 11:41 a.m.
I think as long as we can get an hour out of you, Mr. Massé, perhaps we'll have another ten or eleven minutes. Is that fair?
Mr. Massé: Yes.
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Marchand, for five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: As far as the Quebec referendum goes, you are well aware of what happened back in 1980. There was and still is a statute in Quebec that governs the holding of referendums and sets out very strict limits on spending. In 1980, it was limited to 50¢ per voter, so that each committee, the Yes committee and the No committee, was allowed to spend a maximum of $2.4 million.
But the Canadian Unity Information Committee under the Trudeau government, led at the time by Mr. Jean Chrétien, spent around $17 million, and perhaps even as much as $25 million. We don't have exact figures, because the archives were burned in 1986; however, we do know that between the months of January and May 1980, the federal government spent some $11 million, which would be the equivalent today of about $22 or $23 million - in other words, $2 million a month.
I personally believe - although this cannot be proved - that back in 1980, the federal government did not comply with the provincial statute governing referendums and that it acted undemocratically. It did not abide by the terms of the provincial statute.
Minister, since, as you say, you are a member of the No committee, and you yourself used the word "regulated", I suppose you do intend to fully comply with the requirements of the Quebec Referendum Act - or are you planning on unlimited spending this time, just as the Trudeau government did back in 1980?
.1230
Mr. Massé: Again, I will not hark back and respond to arguments describing what may have happened in 1980. The only thing I can say is that it is clear that the federal government abided by the legislation at that time because it could not have done otherwise.
Mr. Marchand: It did not respect the provincial legislation, Mr. Massé. That is very clear.
Mr. Massé: Constitutionally, provincial Legislation cannot bind the federal government, and therefore, the provincial legislation was respected.
Mr. Marchand: You are clearly contradicting yourself. There was a law, which, in fact, still exists, on referendums in Quebec. If the federal government does not respect the provincial legislation on amounts spent, the federal government is not abiding by provincial legislation.
Mr. Massé: Provincial legislation does not apply to federal government activities of that sort. I would suggest the member of the Opposition check with his own lawyers and those of his party to confirm that.
Mr. Marchand: What you are telling me is...
Mr. Massé: That said, the federal government clearly abided by the law in 1980. It is also clear that we are respecting the legislation this year.
Mr. Marchand: You are contradicting yourself, Mr. Massé.
Mr. Massé: We are part of the No committee and I told you about our position therein. We are not in charge. We have a minister who is a member of it, and there is no doubt whatsoever that like all Canadians, including Quebeckers, we want the referendum to be held as quickly as possible, in a clear, unequivocal and efficient manner.
We are not the ones putting up ads in the Montreal metro. We have not used that tool, which is being used by the Conseil sur la souveraineté du Québec, and we have no intention of doing anything unlawful. The legislation is clear and specific, and I do not think it poses any problem.
Mr. Marchand: You are saying the federal government will not respect the Quebec legislation on referendums. You have just said the federal government does not have to abide by Quebec's provicial legislation on referendums, that it is above it and that it will act as it wishes. That's what you have just told me.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Marchand can interpret my comments whichever way he choses, but what I am saying is very clear. The federal government respected the law in 1980 and will do so again this time.
I am sure members of the Bloc québécois or the Parti québécois will have a different interpretation of some of our actions, but I am also convinced that to win the referendum, we do not have to go against the Act. Quite the opposite. We are convinced Quebeckers are sensible enought to decide what is in their best interest, in other words voting No in the referendum.
Mr. Marchand: I understand French very well, Mr. Massé. I understand you will flout the Quebec legislation again this time, as the Liberal government did in 1980. You will not respect Quebec laws on Quebec territory when it comes to a referendum and you will exceed the limits set in Quebec, just as Mr. Trudeau did the last time by exceeding those limits by $2 million a month.
Mr. Massé: Those are allegations.
Mr. Marchand: They are not allegations. They are facts. Mr. Massé, the federal government did not respect the provincial law in 1980 and now you are telling me you will not respect it this time either. So, as far as the federal government is concerned, there are no spending limits for the upcoming 1995 referendum.
Mr. Massé: I could not be any clearer and I will repeat what I said: the federal government fully respected the law in 1980 and will do so again for the legislation on the 1995 referendum.
.1235
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
We have only five more minutes with the minister. I'll give that to Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you.
To get on to the actual estimates here, as Mr. Epp pointed out, it's water under the bridge, but I have a couple of questions.
In the 1993-94 estimates, you said there would be 68 people working in the Prime Minister's office. It actually turned out to be 83. In 1994-95, they forecast 68 again, but there are 77 working there now. This year's estimates say there will be 78 people next year. When you're out by 20% or so, how do you know? Does that mean there will be 100 people there next year, or are you going up to 77 because that's what there really is going to be? How is it out by that much?
Mr. William Pratt (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Privy Council Office): What is described are FTEs, which are full-time equivalents, not necessarily indicating a specific number of individuals, but really what the total yearly -
Mr. Strahl: We're comparing apples to apples, though. From 68 FTEs it turned into 83, and so on. So we are talking about the same thing.
Mr. Pratt: I think the significant aspect of that is to look at the amount of salary money that applies to those FTEs, which is an indication that while there may be more bodies, the total salary budget has not increased. In some respects, it reflects that there will be more people at junior levels and fewer people at senior levels.
Mr. Strahl: I know time is short. As the minister knows, I have quite an interest in Bill C-64, the employment equity bill the government is working on. I understand the Privy Council office will be covered under the provisions of the bill. Does he propose that the office of the Prime Minister will also be covered under Bill C-64? Will that also come under the jurisdiction of that act?
Mr. Massé: I don't know the answer to that question. I'll ask my officials.
Mr. Pratt: I would assume if it applies to the public service at large it would apply to the Prime Minister's office, but I don't know specifically.
Mr. Strahl: I know it's not specifically mentioned in the bill that it will. The Privy Council office is covered under the act, but the Prime Minister's office is not specifically covered. I just wondered if there would be an employment equity plan in place for the Prime Minister's office with that many personnel. You don't know that?
Mr. Pratt: Not for sure.
Mr. Strahl: Okay, thank you.
The Chairman: Is that it?
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Could I ask the Minister to stay for a few more minutes so that I could ask him one or two more questions? Could I impose upon you, Mr. Massé?
Mr. Massé: If the Chairman allows the question.
[English]
The Chairman: Well, he came at 11:41 a.m. It's now 12:41 p.m.
You have two minutes. Can you squeeze it in? Try to contract your words.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: My question is about the Privy Council's budget. This budget has increased from $22 million in 1990 to $31 million last year. During the days of the Charlottetown Accord, it even reached $36 or $37 million.
You have forecasted $29 million for this year. Do you expect to ask for an additional appropriation this year?
Mr. Massé: That will depend on a number of events which we obviously cannot predict at the current time. For example, we had budgeted $2.5 million for the unity task force because we hoped that the referendum would be held in June 1995, as we were promised, which would have meant that we would have had these special expenditures for only three months of the year.
Now that the referendum has been delayed until the fall, we will have additional expenditures that we certainly would have liked to have avoided.
.1240
Obviously, at that point, if there are additional expenditures that were not budgeted or which depend on events that we have no control over, we may have additional expenditures, and we may have to ask for an additional appropriation.
[English]
The Chairman: This will be the last question.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: I believe that the $2.5 million budget for the unity task force comes from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Massé: It's from an appropriation in the Estimates.
Mr. Marchand: For the Privy Council.
Mr. Massé: It's from an appropriation to the Privy Council.
Mr. Marchand: I see.
Mr. Massé: I have already provided the names of all the people on this task force who work for me, under Mr. Bilodeau's direction, and for the federal government in general.
Mr. Marchand: This task force is made up of 60 people who work on Sparks Street. You have two or three floors. What is the total budget for this group? Is it $2.5 million?
Mr. Massé: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: This could go on forever, Mr. Marchand. This will be the last answer.
Mr. Massé: This is a very easy question, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, that amount is used there for people who permit us to analyze the situation, especially as concerns national unity in Quebec. These people look at questions of communications, of reports, of analyses and of reviews so that we know exactly what is going on and as a government we are able to react whenever necessary.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Can we call these partisan activities?
[English]
The Chairman: That was the last one, please.
Mr. Marchand: That was the last one? Oh, I thought I had one.
The Chairman: No, I think you stretched it. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming on relatively short notice. That's very much appreciated.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd just like to say in connection with Bill C-224 that there has been some reaction in the newspapers in my riding to the recent decision of the committee to table it for the interim. If any members of this committee would be interested in that editorial reaction, I'd be happy to supply it. I don't think it's something I should distribute, but it's very relevant to this committee. I have copies of that material right here.
The Chairman: I'm sure the members of the committee would appreciate that. Thank you.
This meeting is adjourned.