Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to make a few brief comments on the Strength at Two Levels report. My remarks will deal quickly with some content areas, but also with the process which must be used for implementing any changes which come out of the report.
This document, which has consumed so much of our time and attention, is useful, but it is not perfect in my view, Mr. Speaker. There is, for instance, very little content which deals specifically with the models for privatization of government services. As well, much of the government restructuring proposed in the report does not seem to have considered the long-range needs related to the creation of Nunavut.
I am also concerned about the impact of the Strength at Two Levels framework on our regional government, both in terms of what it means for regional councils and also for representation on government-created boards and agencies.
These are the larger issues which I believe we should be debating on the floor of the House. However, there has been, at the very least, an appearance that ordinary Members are locked out of the early decision-making on how this report should proceed. For that reason, I am strongly in favour of reviewing the complete Strength at Two Levels report and its Appendices, where necessary, when we meet in committee of the whole.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time I am reminded that there are dangers involved in the reduction process where we focus more on the trees than the forest. Sometimes we pay so much attention to the bends in the road that we lose track of where we are going.
I believe that this House can work concurrently to deal with the specific proposals on each page of the Beatty report while addressing the big picture of where our government is heading. It is important for all of us to maintain both of these perspectives. Thank you .
---Applause