36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 78
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 4, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| STATISTICS ACT
|
| Bill C-468. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Canada Post Corporation Act
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1010
| Mammography
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| National Unity
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1015
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Departmental Audit Reports
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion
|
1020
1025
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1030
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1035
1040
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1045
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1050
1055
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1100
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1105
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1110
1115
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1120
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1125
1130
1135
1140
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1145
1150
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1155
1200
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1205
1210
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1215
1220
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1225
1230
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1235
1240
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1245
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1250
1255
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
1300
1305
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1310
1315
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1320
1325
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1330
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1335
1340
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1345
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BORALEX SENNETERRE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| MURDER OF HAITIAN JOURNALIST
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1400
| TERRY FOX
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| PRIME MINISTER DAVID ODDSSON
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| ASSISTED SUICIDE
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| VAISAKHI
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1405
| HUTCHISON CREEK FISH HATCHERY
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| FIRST NATIONS ACCOUNTABILITY COALITION
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| GLOBE AND MAIL
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| CANADIAN ARMED FORCES ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1410
| C.H. TUNG
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| VIA RAIL
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1415
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1420
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1430
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1435
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| FISHERIES
|
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1440
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1450
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HIGHWAY 407
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| COMMUNICATIONS
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1455
| Hon. John Manley |
| MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| BIOCHEM PHARMA INC.
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1500
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Bill C-206
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1505
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Departmental Audit Reports
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1510
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1515
1520
1525
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1530
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1535
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1540
1545
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1550
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1555
1600
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1605
1610
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Departmental Audit Reports
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1615
| Mr. John Bryden |
1620
1625
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1630
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1635
1640
| Mr. John Bryden |
1645
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1650
1655
| Mr. John Bryden |
1700
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1705
1710
1715
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-222. Second reading
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1720
1725
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1730
1735
| Mr. André Harvey |
1740
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1745
1750
1755
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1815
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Departmental Audit Reports
|
| Motion
|
1825
(Division 1259)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Division 1260)
| Motion negatived
|
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
1830
(Division 1261)
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-238. Second reading
|
1840
1845
(Division 1262)
| Motion negatived
|
| FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-222. Second reading
|
1855
(Division 1263)
| Motion negatived
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Transfers to Provinces
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1900
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1905
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1910
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1915
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 78
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 4, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
STATISTICS ACT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-468, an act to amend the Statistics
Act (ethnicity question).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf
of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my private
member's bill in the House today. The purpose of the bill is to
ensure that no question will be asked about a person's ethnicity
in the population census.
Ours is a great country that respects equal rights and equal
opportunities for all Canadians. Thus program initiatives must
be available to all with no discrimination. One common thread
that holds us all together is that we are all Canadians.
I hope my colleagues will recognize the intent of the bill and
will support it because we are and will remain always Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 21st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Industry presented to the
House on March 22 be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its
consent, I move:
That the following member be added to the list of associate
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:
Dave Chatters.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure this morning of tabling two petitions.
The first contains 25 names and calls upon the federal
government to pass legislation on the labelling of genetically
modified products.
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a second
petition here from 32 people calling upon the government to
amend the Canada Post Corporation Act so as to repeal subsection
13(5), which bars collective bargaining for piece rate workers
who deliver mail.
1010
[English]
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition signed by hundreds of residents of the Windsor and
Tecumseh area who urge the government to establish an independent
governing body to enforce mandatory mammography quality control
standards in Canada.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to present a
petition on behalf of about 125 people in my riding.
The petitioners ask that the federal government recognize that
marriage in this country is indeed the union of a man and a woman
to the exclusion of all others. They are concerned that the
government has failed to define this in legislation that would
withstand a court challenge. They ask that the government take
action to make sure this is put into law.
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present to the House
four petitions from concerned constituents in my riding of
Cambridge.
The petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Canada
act to amend the criminal code to extend the same protection to
unborn human beings that is currently enjoyed by born human
beings.
BILL C-23
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by 178 individuals and highlights the
concern of my constituents that there is legislation that would
extend benefits based on a person's private sexual activity while
excluding other types of dependent relationships. The
petitioners ask parliament to withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm
through legislation that marriage is and will remain what it has
always been, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion
of all others.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recognizing that one in nine Canadian women will develop breast
cancer and that early detection is a vital weapon in the battle
against this disease, 120 petitioners ask parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
CANADA POST
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition contains 30 signatures from concerned citizens in my
riding of Cambridge.
The petitioners draw to the attention of parliament that rural
route mail couriers have not been allowed to bargain collectively
to improve their wages and working conditions. Since workers who
deliver mail in cities have collective bargaining rights, the
petitioners request that parliament repeal section 13(5) of the
Canada Post Corporation Act to permit rural mail couriers to
bargain collectively like urban mail workers.
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from citizens across
Canada, but most notably from the province of Quebec.
The petition calls for the Prime Minister and the Parliament of
Canada to declare that Canada is indivisible and that this state
is presently alterable only by all citizens of Canada and their
government. Mr. Speaker, I concur.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton East
knows that his agreement or otherwise with the petition is not
relevant for the purpose of presentation of petitions and he
ought not do such a thing in the course of his presentation.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present two
petitions. Both are the same. One has 715 signatures and the
other has 220 signatures.
The petitioners, many of whom are from my riding and elsewhere,
call upon parliament to establish a multi-year budgetary strategy
to eliminate child poverty by the end of the year 2000.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a
petition from my constituents in Calgary—Nose Hill.
These constituents are concerned about the non-action on the
resolution of the House of Commons of November 24, 1989 that
child poverty in Canada be ended by the year 2000.
1015
The petitioners point out that the number of poor children in
Canada since that resolution has actually increased by 60%. They
call upon parliament to use the federal budget to introduce a
multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—DEPARTMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That an Order of the House do issue for all
departmental audit reports to be tabled within 15 days of their
completion and permanently referred to the appropriate standing
committees, that audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled
within 15 days after the adoption of this motion, and that all
audit reports requested under the Access to Information Act be
tabled forthwith.
She said: Mr. Speaker, today is the day that the Canadian
Alliance Party is able to set the agenda for debate in the House.
The topic for debate, the issue which we wish to have debated
today, is the issue of unlawful and unreasonable delays in
providing to members of parliament documents under access to
information.
This may at first glance seem like a rather administrative,
routine matter to be debated in the House of Commons, but in fact
the issue goes to the very root of democracy. Democracy means
rule by the people, but clearly the people cannot govern in any
effective or meaningful sense if they do not know what is
happening, if they do not know what is going on, if they do not
know what government is doing with their money and with their
affairs.
In recent days we have come up against a refusal or delay or
neglect of the government to follow legislative guidelines, that
is the law with respect to the provision of information requested
on behalf of the people of Canada.
This is an extremely serious matter. I urge all members of the
House to take it seriously. If government is able to hide and
cover the actions it is taking then clearly the transparency,
openness and accountability which are necessary in a true
democracy are being undermined and even destroyed. Therefore we
have brought forward the motion today for debate. I will read it
for the House and for Canadians:
That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit
reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and
permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees, that
audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days
after the adoption of this motion, and that all audit reports
requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled
forthwith.
What is so alarming about the motion is that it should not have
been necessary. Under the law, under the government's own
guidelines and indeed pursuant to its own promises to Canadians,
the motion should never have had to be brought before the House.
It is a treasury board guideline that all departmental audit
reports are public as soon as they are completed. We should not
be having to ask that those reports be tabled. They should
automatically be made public, but the guidelines of the
government are being ignored and flouted by the government
itself. It is a shameful situation.
We have asked that when these reports, these audits come
forward, they be immediately referred to the appropriate standing
committee of the House.
Instead they are being hidden and kept under wraps. We have had
a very difficult time receiving them. Even audits that have been
produced years ago have not been forthcoming to committees of the
House.
1020
We are also asking that all audit reports since January 1, 1999,
be tabled within 15 days. Again we should not have to ask that.
This is a clear guideline already of government which it is not
following. We are also asking that all the audit reports we have
requested under access to information be tabled immediately.
Why are we asking for that? It is because a number of audits
the official opposition and other opposition parties have
requested have not been provided as the law requires. The law
requires that access to information requests be responded to
within 30 days. Contrary to the law, the government has now
delayed some requests for audit reports for over 45 days.
I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development. The committee asked for two audits
which were completed in 1991 and 1994 for the Department of Human
Resources Development. It was fully three weeks before a
committee of the House was provided by that government department
with the documents requested, documents which were done years
ago. There is absolutely no excuse for this lack of openness and
responsiveness to clear direction and requests from members of
the House.
The department kept saying it had to translate them. In an
officially bilingual country it is (a) beyond belief that those
important documents had not already been provided in both
official languages and (b) unbelievable that they could not have
been translated very quickly with the first class translation
services available in the House of Commons. I have seen the
government translate reams of material virtually overnight when
it is motivated, but all of a sudden when it does not want
documents to be provided to members of parliament all these
procedural obstacles magically appear.
It is completely unacceptable. I hope that every member of the
House, whether on the opposition side or the government side,
will be outraged by this abrogation of their clear privileges and
of the clear duty owed to Canadians for openness, transparency
and timeliness in the provision of information.
We are all aware that the government's refusal and delay in
providing even the most basic information requested is due to the
fact that it has been caught in the most flagrant and outrageous
abuse and misuse of public money in the human resources
department. There is troubling evidence and increasing evidence
that misuse and abuse is happening in other departments as well.
I would like to advise the House that I am splitting my time with
the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
The government has gone into an alarming bunker mode. That
alarm was brought forcibly to the committee one week ago by the
information commissioner, an independent individual appointed to
be a watchdog over government to ensure that it carries out its
responsibility to Canadians to be open and timely in the
provision of information to which Canadians are entitled.
1025
The information commissioner tabled with the committee what I
believe is an unprecedented document, a memo from the Treasury
Board of Canada which essentially said two things. One was to
make sure it knew about any access requests brought forward. Big
brother is watching. Instead of information just going out, now
the highest reaches of the government are making sure they are
told everything that is being requested. The memo also asked for
the audit reports so that it could look them over and decide how
to deal with them.
We have some very troubling developments in the way the
government is operating. We see a lack of openness and
transparency that Canadians have a right to demand and expect
from their government. We also see the tendency of the
government to flout the rules, regulations, safeguards and even
the laws put into place to ensure openness in government.
This will be our concern for debate today. We urge all members
of the House to support our motion to put an end to what we see
as a very difficult and unacceptable situation for the House and
for Canadians.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite and
was quite dismayed that she would use words such as flout the law
and like skirting around the issues.
She has tried to grandstand on the precise issue of HRDC for way
too long and to carve out her so-called 15 minutes of fame. It
will not work. Canadians see through that kind of shenanigans by
whatever that party is now calling itself, be it Reform or CCRAP,
or Alliance of whatever nature it tries to be. She has never
once apologized to the House and to Canadians for the outrageous
statements she has made vis-à-vis the HRDC department.
Here and now in this great house of democracy, the Parliament of
Canada, I ask the member whether she has the internal fortitude
to stand on her feet in the House and apologize for the
outrageous statements she has made against people who are
disabled and have received HRDC grants, students who have
received HRDC, and people in need across this great country of
ours. Will she stand on her feet today to apologize and say full
well that it was not, as she likes to say, a boondoggle but
rather money well spent?
Instead of going after us on the government side for investments
well made in terms of jobs and other things, will she state
finally and categorically that she apologizes for the outrageous
statements she has made repeatedly?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that a
member of parliament, an elected representative of the people of
Canada, would ask for an apology from someone who is doing a job
on behalf of the Canadian people.
I hope the member's constituents were listening to him just now,
demanding an apology for someone holding his government to
account and trying to stop it from stonewalling and hiding
information to which the people of Canada are entitled by law.
I notice the member is not dismayed that his own government is
flouting the law of the land because the law of the land under
the Access to Information Act says that documents requested must
be provided within 30 days. Access requests are now routinely
delayed far past the 30 day limit. Some of them, without any
notice or request, have already been delayed for 45 days.
1030
We have also received letters saying that we will not receive
the information that we requested which, by law, we must receive
within 30 days. That is not being done. In fact, we have been
notified that we will not receive it for 60 or 90 days. In other
words, we will not receive information to which Canadians are
entitled until after the House recesses for the summer in which
case the government will be off the hook.
I wonder if the member is dismayed by this clear breaking of the
law by the government and the disrespect for Canadians that
entails.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to join in this most important debate. The
motion before us should not be necessary. Unfortunately, the
Liberal government has taken upon itself to eliminate or reduce
the ability of any of the opposition parties to effectively hold
the government accountable for the public good.
Since 1993 the government has used one form or another of time
allocation over 60 times in the House of Commons. That does not
include the many times that committees have used similar tactics
to limit or pre-ordain the witness list and the amount of time
the committee will spend on a given topic or to select an issue
and where or if the committee will travel.
In addition to the time allocations the government has imposed
on all opposition parties in the House, I believe that it has
made every attempt to thwart true democracy. When the government
attempts to hide the information that should by law be readily
available to all members of the public, including the opposition
parties, then we have a travesty of democracy. It is for this
reason that the Canadian Alliance has brought forth this motion
today. It is appalling that the official opposition must be
forced to bring this motion forward. Let us look at the
government record. Unfortunately it is not a very pretty sight.
This past January the Minister of Human Resources Development
held a hastily prepared news conference to break the bad news
that an internal audit did not meet the standards that are
expected by Treasury Board guidelines and more important, the
standards of the general public. Although the minister has
unsuccessfully attempted to overshadow the real reason that she
suddenly came clean on this issue, the truth is easy to see for
all who want to see it.
She did not release the audit simply because she wanted to act
in a transparent and clear manner. She did not release the audit
because the audit had just been completed and an update to the
general public was therefore appropriate. She did not release
the audit because her colleagues in other ministries were
conducting the affairs of government in an accountable manner.
That would be too straightforward for the government and it does
not like to do things in a straightforward manner.
No, the minister released the damning audit for one simple
reason. The official opposition had filed an access to
information request for it. The official opposition had asked
for it and both the minister and her officials knew that the
report must have the government's spin prior to its falling into
the hands of the opposition. The audit paints the Ministry of
Human Resources Development in a terrible light. Full disclosure
is required; in fact, it is absolutely necessary.
Within days of the access to information request being filed,
the minister found herself in front of the cameras and media and
the firestorm had begun. The minister has felt the heat of the
opposition in the House of Commons and the heat of the press
throughout the country. Even the spin doctors cannot control this
one. The government has been caught in its own web of arrogance
and will ultimately fail because of it. Of that I am certain. We
only wait for the day when it occurs.
We all know the access to information guidelines. For the
benefit of those who do not, let me summarize the overall
concept.
The government maintains a vast database of information on
everything that it does. The access to information regulations
state that the majority of this information is to be available to
the public.
1035
I recognize the benefits of the Internet in this part of the
equation. Many documents, including the words that we speak
today, will be on the Internet by tomorrow, available to
virtually anyone who has access to a computer.
The guidelines also state that the citizens of Canada have
access to these documents. By filling out a simple request form
and submitting it along with a $5 administration fee, they can
ask for almost anything that the government has on record. The
guidelines are also very clear in the length of time that the
department has in order to complete the access request. All
requests, by law, must be completed within 30 days.
Let us look at the reality of the situation. Does the
government meet its own guidelines? Unfortunately the government
does not even come close. While many requests are submitted, the
results are often extremely slow in returning. For example, the
official opposition currently has 29 access to information
requests that one government department, Human Resources
Development Canada, is now late in responding to. That should
not come as a great surprise. However, some responses are as
much as 90 days overdue.
Some will ask is this is really important; is the opposition
just being picky with its criticism? The answers to these
questions may be found in a quote from the information
commissioner when he appeared before the standing committee on
HRDC on March 28, 2000. He stated, “The right of access is one
of the cornerstones of our democratic process and one of the best
tools available to ensure responsible government”. The
information commissioner, the person who oversees the access to
information process for the federal Government of Canada, regards
the right of access as one of the cornerstones of our democratic
process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible
government.
A cornerstone of our democratic process, that is what the
government is sadly lacking. Simply put, the party opposite
lacks the integrity of a democratic government. Its arrogance
and lack of accountability have placed true democracy on the
endangered species list.
This is not just some pie in the sky theory that my colleagues
and I are addressing. Listen to what Treasury Board stated in
its letter of decision dated May 26, 1994. The access to
information policy is: “To simplify the process for acquiring
copies of reports, and to deliver on the government's commitment
for more openness, the policy requires that departments make the
final version of review reports, including internal audit and
evaluation reports, accessible to the public”, and this is the
really good part, “without requiring a formal access request”.
HRDC and Treasury Board are breaching their own policies by
withholding this information until an access request is final.
This is not acceptable. Furthermore, it is not right. Public
access and disclosure is being grossly mismanaged. Now, as a
result of the negative report that has slammed HRDC, both
Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office require that they be
told what audits have been requested, what bad news is within
them and what the official spin will be prior to their release.
Listen again to what the information commissioner stated on
March 28, 2000 when he appeared before the standing committee on
human resources development. He said “The problem, however,
arises when the communication concerns of the government are
allowed to take precedence over the public's right to timely
access to information”. I hope that the members of the
government are listening today to what that means and what it
says.
I respect any member of the House when we have philosophical
differences of opinion. When we are collectively trying to solve
a problem, I may not agree with their proposed solution. But it
is a very sad day indeed when members of the public and the
opposition parties are thwarted in their ability to have full
disclosure to the government's activities. With the loss of
access to information is the loss of trust, the loss of public
accountability and the loss of true democracy.
1040
I fully support this motion and ask for the support of the
members of the House of Commons.
In conclusion, I move:
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For
clarity's sake, did you read the motion to say the numbers 15 or
the number? I heard only number and it is plural.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe it is only one number but I
will check the wording on the motion. There is only one number
in the motion. The number is 15 and it is being replaced I
understand with the number 30.
The question is on the amendment. The hon. member for
Waterloo-Wellington.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan. I was astounded to hear him try to take
credit for somehow flushing out the government in this
all-important area when in fact it was the minister herself who
brought forward the audit results.
I find it somewhat disconcerting that the members opposite, the
Reformers, CCRAP party, alliance, or whatever they are these days
would try to take credit. They should apologize.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It
was only a day or two ago that the Speaker ruled specifically for
the second time that the proper name of our party would be used.
It is the Canadian Alliance. I urge you to not allow other
people to distort that.
The Deputy Speaker: I had pointed out the name Canadian
Alliance to the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington. I hope he
will use it since that is the name of the official opposition.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be told about
the real name by the hon. member for Elk Island who not so
recently called me a liar in the House. It was so recorded in
Hansard.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think we had better go
there. It would be better if we stayed with questions and
comments on the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about the
grandstanding by the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I read
a comment from her constituent, a Calgary psychologist, Dr. Allan
Mandel, about her allegations with regard to the HRDC money which
she raised this morning. He said, “In my case, I can certainly
say that this is absolutely not true”, and that he in fact had
not donated any money especially to the Liberal Party. He said,
“To me, this is a program to stimulate employment and to
stimulate getting young workers into the workforce. I think it
is great”.
Gina Cameron, program co-ordinator for the Beddington Heights
Community Association in the member's own riding had this to say
about her MP attacking these all-important programs: “To say
that they are a waste of money, she has not been in these doors,
she has no concept of what goes on, so it is sort of probably an
empty statement”—coming from the member for Calgary—Nose
Hill—“I could not run an efficient, well-run program without
it. I really could not”.
I would say to her she should get into her constituency and try
to see the good work that is done.
1045
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The last presentation was made by the member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan. Any member who would like to make a comment
or ask a question should be referring to the presentation made by
him, not by the former speaker. If the member wants to make
political cheap shots at least they should be directed at what
the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington can ask a question of the member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan. It is supposed to deal with his speech.
It may be a question that arose out of the other speech and
there may be some connection so the Chair has been patient, but I
agree with the hon. member that these are questions and comments
on the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan and not on
the speech of the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill which is now
finished. I know the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington will
want to pose his question quickly.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I am getting to the hon.
member for Nanaimo—Cowichan but I needed to build my case a bit.
I was interested in the first ballot that went out from the
United Alternative.
We are speaking now of audits, transparency and accountability.
It printed 6,000 additional ballots and when it came down to the
vote all of a sudden, according to one of its executive council
members quoted in the Edmonton Sun, it ended up destroying
the ballots. This is a party that is trying to lecture us about
accountability and about transparency. It really is outrageous.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I feel very slighted by the member. I took time to make some
very valid points and now he is going into the past history of
the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party. He is not talking at
all about what I had to say. This again is an example of how
democracy is thwarted in parliament.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington will want to come to the point very quickly
with a question that is relevant to the speech of the hon. member
for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Mr. Lynn Myers: I will, Mr. Speaker. Your judgment, as
always, is dead on. When the member for Medicine Hat called the
programs wasteful, stupid, and garbage, and when the member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands called them a manure pile, I wondered
if the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan agreed with that. I
wonder if he agreed that loans to the—
The Deputy Speaker: I think to give him a reasonable
amount of time to reply we will go to the hon. member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we have you up
there guarding the interest of democracy. Again I am astounded
at the member who uses a smokescreen to deflect any kind of
comments or any kind of good judgment we in the official
opposition might bring to the motion by raising these kinds of
issues.
We want to talk today about our concern about the lack of
democracy in the House. In the opinion of many Canadians, and
certainly those of us in the official opposition, the House does
not act upon democratic principles.
The matter we are bringing to the House this morning is simply a
case in point. We as the official opposition and all Canadians
across the country have a right to know what the government is
doing. We have filed access to information requests time after
time and we do not get the answers. That is the problem, and it
would be nice if the hon. members across the way would address
the problem and not deal in smokescreens.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to split my time today with the hon. member for
Mississauga West. I wanted to pick up a bit on what I was
talking about previously, simply that some members opposite have
called the programs of HRDC, among other things, a manure pile,
stupid, garbage, and such.
Those members opposite do not understand how important money to
the disabled, to students, to the elderly and to community groups
across our great country really is. They should take a lesson
appropriate to knowing our country and determining that great
things are done as a result of the money that flows through
grants and contributions. I remind them that with their holier
than thou attitude it seems it is very easy for them to dish it
out, but it sure seems not so easy for them to take it.
Given their new alliance with their right wing friends perhaps
they should try to develop thicker skin. I think it would be
more appropriate for the House.
1050
We on the government side have processes and procedures in place
whereby we fully understand internal audits and how best to
proceed. We deal with access in audit reports in a timely
fashion. I can say firsthand, as a former vice-chair of the
public accounts committee and working with the Auditor General of
Canada who is by the way, I need not remind members, an officer
of the House, that we have dealt and do deal effectively with
audits in a timely fashion.
The motion being presented today is not only flawed, not only
silly, but is unnecessary, redundant and otherwise unheard of and
quite out of character. In addition to creating additional
paperwork, something members opposite seem to claim that they
want to reduce, it would actually add to the number of days they
would have to wait until they got access to this information.
Let us think about that for a minute. We are talking about
members of a party that want to have things done quickly and
efficiently. They take the moral high ground and say that they
made it all happen, that they put the minister of HRDC under a
microscope and therefore must take credit for doing all these
things. The very motion they are proposing today would add time
to the release of audits. It would add time by approximately 15
days. That simply is ridiculous and not worthy even of those
people opposite.
By the way, why should Canadians have to request audits anyway
when we under government rules have audits released in a timely
fashion in any event? The smokescreen members opposite are
trying to portray is quite ridiculous. To have to request under
access to information audits that we would in the normal course
of events make public in any event is quite frivolous and, in
fairness, vexatious.
I would like to remind the House of something that happened not
so very long ago. I was interested in reading in The Hill
Times that it was one of the Reform members own researchers, I
believe the name was Laurie Throness, who actually was on record
as saying that the human resources department was one of the best
departments in the Government of Canada when it came to
responding to access to information requests.
I take full congratulations on behalf of the government from
that wonderful researcher who seems to know what he or she is
talking about. It is appropriate to duly note that. It was
interesting to see and I think the researchers who are saying
that should tell their political masters how important the
Government of Canada is in this very important area.
It is somewhat encouraging to have a silver lining in the cloud
today. We share the view about the importance of internal
audits. The Government of Canada and we on this side of the
House have always done that. Audits are a critical tool for
managers within the public service and an independent and
objective means for parliamentarians to hold governments
accountable. We have had that process for many years and I think
it has worked effectively.
When I see the motion before us today I know it is yet again
that party opposite, the Alliance or whatever it calls itself,
trying to grandstand and to score cheap political points where
none can be scored. After all, it has to do what it thinks is
best for a party that is sinking fast.
Clearly the evidence shows that the government is committed to
an effective and independent internal audit function. We are
taking the necessary steps in keeping with what we have always
done to ensure that the internal audit function is spread
throughout government in a meaningful, transparent and
accountable fashion.
1055
In 1997, not long before the audit at HRDC, an independent
review panel of recognized leaders in the management and
accounting professions wrote a report on the modernization of
comptrollership in the Government of Canada.
It was a very important document. The report made a number of
observations about the role and practice of internal audit in the
Government of Canada. As a result, the Treasury Board
Secretariat, to its credit, understood the requirements,
recommendations and objectives of that report. It indicated and
undertook a comprehensive examination of the internal audit
function.
The objective of that government-wide study was to set internal
audit practices and policies standards geared to the management
environment of today. The study was largely conducted in the
summer of 1999 and the draft report was completed in January
2000.
I do not want to take a lot of the time of the House to go into
the details of the study, but suffice it to say that over the
last decade, especially and perhaps even beyond, the whole area
of internal audit has evolved considerably. That is important to
note. Not only do auditors audit under financial statement
requirements and the rules of financial management. They also get
into the whole area of management control and the framework of
management control.
I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House
that it is now an extension of what auditors do not only in the
Government of Canada but across Canada in other areas as well.
That is important. We need to make sure we have the kinds of
checks and balances in place to ensure that the proper internal
audits are conducted in a meaningful way which helps and assists
not only governments but Canadians wherever they live in Canada.
In the audit that came down there were a number of
recommendations. The first priority would be the development of
a new treasury board policy on internal audit to set the stage
for further development of the function. That is important
because it sets the stage, the foundation, where we now act in an
appropriate fashion.
The second priority would be the development of a new set of
professional standards to support the expanded role of an
internal audit. Again it recognizes that there is an important
role in this area to play, and I believe rightfully so. I think
Canadians expect that. Certainly we on this side of the House,
unlike those people opposite, understand fully the importance of
those kinds of things and do it effectively in the interest of
all Canadians.
Finally, the third of these cornerstones is that once they are
in place the Treasury Board Secretariat must then work with the
internal audit community to address human resource issues. These
include determining the required core competencies, recruitment,
professional development and succession planning. There are many
more but I do not have time to go into them. I would like to do
so for the record but I cannot.
These then underscore the commitment of the Government of Canada
to move in this all important area in a meaningful fashion that
underscores our party's commitment, the government's commitment
under the leadership of the Prime Minister, to ensure that we do
the kinds of audits necessary.
I need not remind the House as the Prime Minister did not so
long ago that years ago the auditor general would report once a
year. It was under our government that was changed to four times
a year. Why did we do that? It was because we wanted to enable
that the books of Canada and all audits were made in a timely
fashion, were done so effectively and efficiently, and were done
so knowing that Canadians expect transparency and accountability.
By way of conclusion I want to say that the motion as presented
is frivolous. It is vexatious. It is annoying. It is not in
the best interest of Canadians and what they should do. It
should be voted down because it is simply not something that
needs to see the light of day.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened pretty well to every word the hon. member
said. Just in passing, it is ironic that he would take a swipe
at us and our researchers when he does not even have the name of
the researcher right. He cannot seem to get much right today.
1100
At any rate, I would like to ask him a couple of questions. The
member said that the motion was vexatious, redundant and all of
those things. I agree with that. If this government and if
those departments were doing what they were supposed to do, as
required by law, then we would have never even thought of this
motion today. We put it forward because it is a response to the
actual facts.
The other thing that is so very important is, what is the
government trying to hide? Why does it not release this
information in a timely fashion? It must be because it is not
proud of what is in it. Otherwise it would be having press
conferences and blowing it up to all proportions. The fact is,
it is not only not proud of what is in it, it is ashamed of what
is in it. That is why it tries to suppress the information as
long as possible and that is why this motion is very much in
place today. We are simply asking the government to behave in
the fashion prescribed by law and it is not doing so.
I would like the member to retract his statement that the motion
is redundant. It is in fact very much in place and it needs to
have the total support of the whole House to assure Canadians
that there is accountability, openness and transparency in the
way their money is being spent in this place, which is totally
lacking.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I need not be lectured by
the member opposite when it comes to accountability and openness
when his own party had to print 6,000 additional ballots when it
came to a vote and then, before the real scoop got out, had to
destroy those ballots. Talk about duplicitous. Talk about
hypocrisy in the extreme. It really is too much to take,
especially from the member opposite.
He should be congratulating the Government of Canada. He should
be congratulating all of us in terms of the openness and
accountability that we, on this side of the House, portray on a
day to day basis, year to year—decade to decade for that matter.
We have implemented the kinds of checks and balances in our
system which enable us to conduct internal audits and release
them in a timely fashion.
Instead of bringing forward this frivolous kind of nonsense that
only those people opposite seem capable of doing, he should be
celebrating the Government of Canada and congratulating us for
the kind of good work we do, not only on behalf of the people in
this House, but on behalf of Canadians wherever they live in this
great country.
The member for Medicine Hat has repeatedly referred to the
grants and contributions portrayed by the HRDC minister as, I
believe his words were, stupid and garbage. He should instead
take a lesson from his constituents and understand that those are
in fact good investments made in the regions of Canada which
assist Canadians wherever they are. Instead of bad-mouthing
people, constituents in the ridings and people across Canada, he
should be celebrating and congratulating the Government of
Canada, as should all those people opposite, whatever they term
themselves as these days. The member should be celebrating and
saying what a wonderful thing that we on the government side are
doing.
In direct response to the member for Elk Island, I would simply
say that he should go back and do his homework. As a former
teacher he should know that we cannot do the kinds of things that
members opposite are doing, state the kinds of things they state,
without doing their homework. He should do that. If he did, he
would begin to understand a little more about what it means to
govern this great country of ours.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with much of what the hon. member said. He suggested that
the audit process is a vital tool for management to bring
forward, with different eyes, through the auditor general,
efficiency audits to identify some of the inefficiencies within
the departments.
Recently the auditor general appeared before the agriculture
committee with three organizations, three departments of
government. The auditor general told the committee that it was
necessary that committees be there to get the commitments from
the departments in order that the departments follow what the
auditor general puts in his reports.
1105
Why does the hon. member have difficulty having those audits
tabled within 30 days of their presentation to the departments?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member
opposite that we on the government side have made a very
consistent effort to ensure that this very, very important audit
information is released in a timely fashion, and we have done so
in a manner consistent with normal auditing practices and in a
way which underscores the government's commitment to
accountability, to transparency and all of the things that
Canadians, wherever they live in this great country of ours,
determine to be important.
I am convinced, as are most Canadians, that we continue to do
the right thing in this very important area and to do so
consistent with the values of Canadians. I think it is important
that we continue to do so and that we do so in an efficient,
effective, transparent and accountable way.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to change the tone of the debate a bit and the direction,
because I think there is something fundamental in the nature of
an opposition party which puts forward on its opposition day a
motion which suggests that the government is being dishonest and
that funds are not going to the right people in the communities.
I can appreciate the fact that opposition members might disagree
with government programs. They might disagree with the direction
we take. They might disagree with where the money goes in terms
of helping certain people in the community. If I were on that
side and they were on this side, I might have some questions
about what was happening. That is a scary scenario, I admit, but
it is obviously the role of the opposition to question and to
hold government to account. I have no problem with that.
What bothers me about this almost incessant attempt to get at
the HRDC grants and other government grants that are community
based and go to help people in the community is that while they
may succeed in the public's mind in marking up, if you will, the
government, they do serious damage to the community groups and
the people who need the help. Members opposite know full well
that the audit procedure has improved dramatically since this
government came to office. However, I do not want to stand here
and spend my time simply defending the government. I want to
talk about some of the programs.
We know that HRDC, for example, helps to fund the Ontario March
of Dimes. What is the role of the Ontario March of Dimes? It is
to help adults with disabilities integrate into the community. If
that program is in jeopardy because the opposition is in
hysterics about questions to do with audits and things that were
actually instituted by the minister and the government, then I
would suggest to members opposite that they do a disservice to
that organization.
I received a frantic phone call two Fridays ago in my office on
Parliament Hill from the chief administrator of the Canadian
Mental Health Association. He told me that people in the area
HRDC office were so frightened and afraid to move that they would
not release the money so that he could pay the staff. The
Canadian Mental Health Association could in fact be put in
jeopardy.
We corrected the problem. We contacted the office and the money
flowed in time for people to be paid and for that organization,
which does tremendous work in all of our communities across
Canada, to live up to its mandate. But why should it be put in
jeopardy so that opposition politicians can simply mark up a
minister or mark up the government, or score what some might call
cheap political points?
Last Thursday evening in Mississauga I was pleased to be part of
an event put on by Community Living Mississauga. Many members of
the House were part of it, even some members of the opposition.
A roast is held every year by members of Community Living. I
think they have been doing it for 22 years. This year, as one of
the roasters said, they scraped the bottom of the barrel and I
was the one they were roasting.
1110
I was delighted to be put in that position, mainly because I
knew at the end of the night that the outcome would be a
successful fundraising event for Community Living. Including an
auction item, we raised close to $70,000 in one evening for
Community Living Mississauga.
The event is vitally important because of the young people it
supports, young people with mental handicaps who need help. Are
these people funded directly by HRDC? No, they are not. They
are funded by the social services programs at the provincial
level, which are in turn partially funded by the CHST from the
federal government. This is not about claiming credit and saying
that we are a great government because we are giving all of this
money to those groups; this is about the bottom line and the
impact when the rubber hits the road in helping these young
Canadians and in helping organizations deliver services to them.
A young man was born 19 years ago by the name of Tyler
Williamson. Tyler was born to Laurie and Jane Williamson. He
was autistic. Many people may have seen the movie Rain
Man, in which Dustin Hoffman portrayed an autistic young man.
Many people would recognize the incredible talents of Mr.
Hoffman in portraying that autistic young man. Tyler had those
same types of gifts; not exactly the same in terms of
mathematical skills perhaps, but he was a very special
individual. He passed away a month ago.
Tyler fought a four-year battle with leukemia, but what he
achieved in his short 19 years, by working with the organizations
at Community Living, and what his mom and dad achieved, was truly
miraculous. His sister, Taylor, actually donated bone marrow
to him as he went through this very debilitating time.
This was a young man who, if he had not had Community Living,
sure, he would have had the support of his mother and dad, his
sister, and the support of his aunts and uncles and many friends.
Tyler was known as the guy in charge of the keys around his dad's
car dealership, Laurie Williamson Pontiac Buick in Erin Mills,
Mississauga. He would take care of the keys. Everybody would
run to Tyler to get the keys for the car, the back shed or
whatever was needed.
He was an active young man in the community, but I would venture
to say, and I am absolutely sure that Laurie, Jane and Taylor
would say, that without the support of Community Living their
lives would have been much more difficult. While it was a
difficult time for them, and a tragic time for all to lose Tyler,
there was at least some recognition that he fought a tremendous
battle, not only against cancer and autism, but against attitudes
in the community.
One of the important goals of Community Living is:
We believe that the whole community is enriched when people who
have a handicap have opportunities to live alongside their
non-handicapped neighbours.
That is so incredibly important, because the community is
actually enriched as a result of young people like Tyler
Williamson being able to participate in community events. The
real tragedy, scandal and frightening aspect is the entire
acrimonious debate surrounding the issue of precious taxpayer
money. It should be on what is even more precious, the Tyler
Williamson and Community Living and all the young people who
benefit from it.
1115
At the roast I was delighted to see a video with the member for
Wild Rose in it showing less partisanship, having some fun.
There was a purpose to the video and he understood that.
While I can disagree strongly, passionately, almost physically
in some instances with the philosophies, comments and issues that
are raised by the former Reform Party, I cannot believe that
individually they are so inhuman as to want to jeopardize the
good programs that are put in place by the men and women who work
at places like HRDC or who work at social services departments in
our provincial governments, funded in part by the federal tax
grants that are passed on through the CHST.
The mitigating damage as this flows downstream is
potentially catastrophic.
I wish members opposite could come up with a motion with some
teeth to it. The big issue today is health care. We should be
debating that issue. Have we put enough money into health care?
Are we simply writing a blank cheque to the provinces so they can
reduce taxes while cutting health care? These are important
issues that need to be debated here, not an issue relating to an
administrative matter such as when an audit gets reported.
I ask members to think of the Tyler Williamsons of Community
Living and what this money has done to help Canadians with and
without disabilities right across the country.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member made the point that access
to information threatens the programs he described. I would like
to know how openness and transparency threatens the programs he
described and the moneys that government is spending. How in the
wide world can accountability of government spending threaten
these programs?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I
have no idea what the member is talking about.
The government is open. Access to information is clearly
available. The Internet can be used. There is no problem
getting information. The government increased the number of times
that the auditor general performs audits from once a year to four
times a year.
That party's own member is chair of the public accounts
committee on which I also sit. The auditor general brings forth
extremely detailed audits on various departments that he
determines he wants to audit. It is not the government and not
the opposition, but the auditor general who determines which
audits to bring forward.
The chair does a good job on the committee; I have no
problem with him. But I am constantly amazed at the lack of
research and lack of in-depth questions by members of the
opposition in asking the auditor about his audits.
In fact, the record would show that as a member of that
committee, I ask more difficult questions in relation to
government programs than they do.
If the opposition members want
to get information out to their constituents, let them do their
homework. Let them dig into the auditor general's reports. There
is more information in them than they could possibly begin to
disseminate. They could at least start by recognizing that
the programs exist.
The government is open and accessible and information is clearly
available to Canadians.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there is a contradiction here. The member says that ATI
requests, all the things we are doing, are somehow threatening
these programs. Yet he turns around and says that everything is
open. Either it is or it is not.
The fact of the matter is that treasury board gave instructions
that these documents, including internal audits, should be made
public without being asked for. The fact is that is not being
done.
1120
Second, he keeps pointing out that these are such wonderful
programs. That is a debate for another day. It could well be.
I agree that some of these programs are worthwhile but the
political slush fund programs are not. They will come to light
if there is openness and transparency. However, that is not
there.
I ask the member to tell the House that he will support the
motion of the day which says that there is going to be openness
and accountability as already required by law. He claims it is
being done but it is not. Therefore, I expect him to vote in
favour of the motion today in order to make sure that what is the
law will be done.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the very point the member
makes in referring to political slush funds makes my point. By
taking grants that are used to support organizations in our
community, whether it is the March of Dimes, Community Living or
whatever, and effectively throwing everything into a big pot and
calling it a political slush fund, denigrates the use of those
funds.
When Canadians read the front page of the National Post
they get excited because they somehow think the government has
misplaced a billion dollars. We know that is not true, yet
opposition members stand in this place every day and consistently
say it even though it is not true. What they are doing is
damaging the good work that is being done by all of these
organizations because people get frightened. They are afraid that
some reporter is going to show up. They are frightened to write
a cheque even though it is a properly approved, sanctioned and
processed grant that should go to those people.
In closing, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I referred to raising money
for Community Living on the Thursday night. There was also a
scholarship fund established, led by Jim Murray of J.J. Barnicke
in the amount of $5,000 in the name of Tyler Williamson to help
young people with disabilities. This is the community helping
out in addition to government grants. Anyone who wants to
contribute to that can contact Community Living.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would be
remiss if I did not return the serve by the hon. member for
Mississauga West, who informs us that it is absolutely incorrect
and totally ridiculous to say that there is a $1 billion hole in
the HRDC grants.
I could agree with him to a point that he is not completely
wrong on this. We do know, however, that the amount that has
been lost, wasted or misspent lies between the Prime Minister's
$252.11 figure and the $1 billion mentioned at one point in the
media.
Is it $1 million, $2 million or $50 million? This is the figure
the motion is intended to find out. We know it is perhaps not
$1 billion; however, as the Prime Minister has already stated, we
know it was $252.11—but he was slightly wrong in his figures—and
this is what today's motion is intended to clarify.
In passing, it should be noted that the member never answered
the question on whether he supported the motion or not. The
question was relatively clear, there was no need for 50% of the
votes plus one, just his opinion, but we will know it in due
course.
I will now come back to the motion put forward by the Canadian
Alliance member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
For the benefit of the parliamentarians who often talk of
nothing and everything and who will see that we support the
motion of the Canadian Alliance—they will think it has to do with
Quebec's separation—I will read you the motion. Our friends
opposite often have very delicate and sensitive hearing. This
is why I am going to repeat this motion slowly but surely so
they may understand what we are talking about today. The motion
reads:
That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit
reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and
permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees—
1125
What does that mean? The motion is asking for three things.
Under the Treasury Board standards, every federal department
must complete an internal audit report, as did the Department of
Human Resources Development.
The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill is asking that these
internal audit reports be automatically referred to the
appropriate standing committees. This means that the report from
the Department of Finance would go to the Standing Committee on
Finance, the report from Fisheries and Oceans would go to the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and so on.
It should not be necessary for an opposition member to make a
request under the Access to Information Act to have such reports
released.
It should be formal, normal procedure.
If I have time, I will explain later on that this is not just a
wish expressed by the opposition, but rather a standard set by
the Treasury Board and also a wish expressed by the auditor
general.
The second thing motion is asking for is that all internal audit
reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days after
the adoption of the motion.
If passed, the motion would ensure that in the future all
internal audit reports would be referred to the appropriate
committees. This requirement would also apply to internal audit
reports completed since January 1999.
Third, the motion calls for all access to information requests
for internal audit reports previous to January 1999 to also be
made public.
As everyone knows, this motion follows on the heels of the huge
HRDC scandal, which raises many questions about how departments
operate, and about their transparency as well.
I will list a series of responsibilities that must be recognized
within departments. First, public officials are accountable.
Ministerial responsibility ought to be restored. There is also
the need for the government to be transparent, which is
emphasized in this motion.
Members of the public have a right to know what is going on in
the public service and particularly where their money is being
spent. Too often, we hear the argument “HRDC's program and
grants are a good thing because some non-profit agency in our
riding received assistance, which was helpful”.
We do not have a problem with that. If $60 of every $100 does
go into grants, we have no problem with that, as all the
opposition parties have said. What we want, however, is for
$100 of every $100 to be well spent and not $60 to help the less
fortunate members of society and $40 to reward Liberals. This
is clear to everyone. People want to know where their money is
going.
Members are elected to represent their constituents and not just
to pat the government on the back, as the member for
Waterloo—Wellington does all too often, without looking any
deeper. For some members, everything is just fine, and they do
not look any deeper.
Opposition members, however, are public watchdogs who must keep
an eye on the money spent, wasted or badly invested by the
Treasury. Officials who are not elected, such as Deputy
Minister Mel Cappe at the time, must also be held accountable
because they are spending taxpayers' money.
This should not all fall to MPs.
There are also the unelected, such as the Clerk of the Privy
Council, Mel Cappe, who was Deputy Minister of Human Resources
Development, negotiator for the transfer of training programs
from Ottawa to Quebec, and also Deputy Minister of the
Environment. If I remember correctly, I had the privilege of
travelling across Canada with him on the Environmental
Protection Act.
Perhaps we also need to look at what went on at Environment
during his reign. This deputy minister has a long history in
the federal government and we believe that unelected officials
must also be answerable to the Canadian taxpayers for their
actions.
This is important.
I have listened to the speeches of the previous two speakers
with their references to accountability, and I believe they have
left out a few things, either by accident or by design.
1130
First of all, it is important to look at how the government is
obliged to be accountable. This has nothing to do with it being
a good government, with their being nice guys, with their
Liberal values properly. There are obligations, laws,
regulations. I shall try to be very brief, because one could
easily take 30 minutes on accountability alone, or even give a
post-graduate course in public administration on it, but I am
going to touch on it very briefly.
First we have the budget presented by the Minister of Finance.
At the start of the fiscal year, the Minister of Finance
presents his budget, which reveals how much money, by
department, the minister and the officials may spend. Also, if
we look carefully at the budget, we can often tell which
programs will have money invested in them.
However, on the subject of the budget, we wonder how the
Minister of Finance can announce his budget for this year, next
year, the other year and so on, over five years. The U.S.S.R.
used to present five year budgets, and we know what happened
there recently.
What can we say about the Minister of Finance, who brings down a
budget that provides for tax cuts, among other things, and who
the next day says “Perhaps this will happen faster than what I
forecast in the budget yesterday or the day before”. Did he
present a responsible budget or not? The Minister of Finance
presents a budget containing figures for the coming year. Then,
something the public knows less about are the estimates, what we
call the little blue books, which come out each year for each of
the programs and provide more precisely how the funds in the
budget will be spent.
There is also—the member for Mississauga mentioned it earlier—
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which examines the
audits and recommendations of the auditor general.
I sit on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and it is
true unfortunately that a number of members arrive at the
committee less well prepared than they should be and that the
committee should be as unpartisan as possible.
Each year, before appearing before the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts, the auditor general reports to the House. He
can now, under legislation, table four reports a year. The fact
that he can table four reports a year has advantages and
disadvantages.
When the auditor general tabled only one report a year, the
report was expected and followed up and his recommendations got
fairly considerable media attention.
The disadvantage of having an annual report was that if a
serious flaw in the administration of public funds were
discovered early in the audit, the auditor general often had to
wait eight, nine or ten months before tabling his report and
reporting the flaw to the public.
So, it is a real advantage for the auditor general to be able to
table four reports every year. However, because the auditor
general now tables a report every three months, there is
somewhat less public interest and media attention. Heaven knows
that what the auditor general's reports say on the sound
management of taxpayers' money in Canada and Quebec is extremely
important.
When the auditor general tables his chapter by chapter report,
the Standing Committee on Public Accounts reviews each chapter
with designated officials. The departments must also—and this
is a rather strict accountability requirement—table annual
reports. Each department must table an annual report in which it
explains how it intends to spend the money allocated to it by
the Department of Finance.
In order to examine the departments' annual reports, to review
their expenditures, parliamentarians have the right, under the
Access to Information Act, to ask for documents that are not of
a public nature, and they can request specific information on
the management of accounts by departments.
The auditor general can also reply to written questions received
from parliamentarians.
My colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques asked a very
specific question to the auditor general concerning the
Department of Human Resources Development and the auditor
general will reply, not in his next report but in a written
answer, as to whether he will pursue the matter and investigate
that department.
1135
There is also the Financial Administration Act, with which all
departments must comply. We obtain a great deal of information,
it is true—I have just mentioned several types of information
that the government and the departments are obliged, by
regulation, to release to parliamentarians—but this information
system must also be improved, as the President of the Treasury
Board pointed out in her report.
Members, whatever their party—Bloc Quebecois or Canadian
Alliance—too often face large hurdles when requesting more
critical information, information more specific to the
management of public accounts.
It is important to remind members of the public that, when the
auditor general tables his report, he is making observations.
The auditor general cannot force the government to take specific
action. There is nothing binding about his observations: they
are only recommendations. So the auditor general recommends to
the government that it take specific action to correct a
particular situation.
In general, the recommendations made by the auditor general, who
is non-partisan, are implemented by the government. But, as the
auditor general pointed out in his last appearance before the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status
of Persons with Disabilities, in the ten years he has been
making recommendations about the disbursement of grants and
contributions by Human Resources Development Canada, these
recommendations have not been implemented.
We can therefore see that some departments take the auditor
general's recommendations into consideration and institute
specific corrective action. But there are two departments which
have long been corrupt and in which a miracle will be needed to
put things right and they are Human Resources Development Canada
and National Defence.
These will be two of the last departments that I hope and
believe the auditor general will examine before he concludes his
excellent work, because he is leaving us in one or two years to
take up very important duties within an international
organization. Perhaps he will be followed by the Minister of
Finance, who knows?
In the United States, for instance, when the auditor general, or
the person who has the same duties there, submits a report, the
government and the various departments are required to be
accountable to the public; accountability is an obligation. It
can be seen that his role is far more restricted.
Here in Canada, what has happened in the past 20 years or so to
modify the auditor general's role is that he has been instructed
that, instead of tabling one big document once a year, he should
divide it in four and report four times a year. Then they said
to themselves that everything is fine, that they did not have to
do anything else for another 20 years. As the auditor general
was doing a good job, everything was just great. In our
opinion, the auditor general ought to have closer control over
government administration.
When the present auditor general, Mr. Desautels, leaves, the
Liberals will be the ones to appoint his replacement for the
next seven years.
I am certain, I am convinced, that the Liberals are going to
appoint an auditor general on his abilities, not his political
allegiance. He may be in place for the next Liberal mandate,
but he certainly will be there for the next government.
This auditor general needs to be recognized as impartial and
non-partisan. When he makes recommendations, all
parliamentarians and taxpayers must assign to them the
importance they deserve.
As far as ministerial responsibility is concerned, there is a
flaw as far as accountability is concerned. Only the minister
currently in charge of a department are be answerable for the
actions of that department.
In that context, we saw how the current Minister for
International Trade washed his hands of any responsibility and
even refused to answer, this after having said in his adopted
city of Paris “Yes, I will answer the questions that will be
asked of me on this issue”. But the Minister for International
Trade has said nothing.
The current Minister of Human Resources Development said “I do
not have to answer, because this did not take place under my
administration”. When things start to heat up in a department,
they change ministers, thus avoiding having to answer questions.
1140
What happened at Human Resources Development? An internal audit
report was tabled, as is required. They did not do so because
they are nice people or because they wanted to see how things
were going in their department. Internal audit reports are
important documents and they are compulsory.
The minister had known about the internal audit report for a
long time, but the information was only disclosed on February
21. Was there a cover up attempt? We have our opinion on this,
but let us say that I am merely raising the question.
As we know, asking the question often brings the response. Did
they hope these data would not become public in the House of
Commons? What data are contained in the internal audit report?
It is this report that is the model for the other reports we
want tabled in this House.
Seven categories of programs were analyzed in the report. The
programs analyzed totalled grants and contributions of around
$1 billion a year for three years. There is therefore $3 billion
in programs that were analyzed.
The internal audit report prepared by officials within the
Department of Human Resources Development revealed significant
problems in program management. Grants were awarded when no
application had been made.
I asked people in my riding “Is it easy to obtain a grant from
the federal government before you apply?”. They replied “It is
so hard to get one when you have applied that if you get
$252.11”, as the Prime Minister pointed out, “and you spend
$250, they want the $2.11 back and they are after you until you
have paid back the $2.11”. Management at HRDC is so efficient
with quotas that they can even cut benefits to the unemployed.
At section 6.5.1 of a Treasury Board internal document on
internal auditing, the President of the Treasury Board asks the
government and says that departments should expect these
internal reports will be made public, not only under the Access
to Information Act, but by the intrinsic desire of the various
departments to make them public, as the motion by our colleague
from the Canadian Alliance requests.
She asks to have these reports be released to parliamentarians
and the Canadian public so that we may know where the money goes
and ensure that the money duly earned by Canadian taxpayers
which is paid in taxes to the federal government is wisely
invested.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Repentigny has given us an overview of spending and
of the money that makes its way into the Minister of Finance's
coffers.
He mentioned the scandal at Human Resources Development Canada,
with its new minister who is unfortunately not very up on
matters or familiar with all the issues, because it was her
predecessor who was responsible. But since he is afraid to
answer, it is left to the minister or her parliamentary
secretary to field questions.
I congratulate the member on giving the background and telling
us about the one to three billion dollars that were probably
misspent. I would also like to know what the member for
Repentigny thinks about the advertising inserts the federal
government sprang for in all Ontario's daily newspapers in an
attempt to pin the blame directly on Ontario's premier, Mike
Harris.
This advertising appeared in both languages and I cite the part
in black “Last year, the Government of Canada's share of
Ontario's health care spending was 55%”.
1145
These are only numbers of course and sometimes a malicious spin
is put on them. What premiers and provincial finance ministers
want is for payments to be restored to 1994 levels.
They are not asking for an increase. They know that budgets
have been slashed. Jean Charest, when he was here, said that,
if Canada's health care system was in disarray, the Prime
Minister, and he pointed at him, was responsible. He pointed at
the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, as he said
this.
Today, the federal government has paid for advertising in all of
Ontario's daily newspapers.
This will cost goodness only knows how much, probably the better
part of $1 million. Instead of putting this money into health
care, it is going after Mike Harris, probably to damage his
credibility with Ontario voters.
I would like to know what the member for Repentigny thinks about
this.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic for his question. The government shows
partisan leanings too often, with examples such as this.
Last week, however, there was a federal-provincial meeting of
ministers of health, focusing on Canadians' urgent priorities in
connection with the health system. A consensus was reached—and
this is often what people hear, or want to hear from the
government, as my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic has said—on
the restoration of transfer payments for health care.
The federal Minister of Health said “It is not my responsibility
any more. It is up to the premiers”. The Prime Minister said “A
meeting is scheduled in August or September, and I will discuss
it with my provincial counterparts at that time”.
We can see the contempt with which the government treats matters
that are under provincial jurisdiction, according to the
Constitution, in this instance health. When we call for the
restoration of transfer payments, they come at us with all kinds
of figures.
I do not want to say that the government is robbing people, for
that would be unparliamentary language. I will, however, give
an example from outside parliament. I put it this way to the
people in my riding “It is sort of like someone stealing $100
from me, then coming back in a week or two to tell me he would
give me back $20”. As if I were supposed to be grateful that he
stole just $80. That is more or less what the government is
saying to us “Come on now, I borrowed money from you without
your permission, but you need to thank me because I am giving
one-quarter of it back, or one-third, or some other amount”.
What we are asking is to have back, not the interest on the
money borrowed without our permission, but the money itself.
In conclusion, to complement the motion by the Canadian Alliance
member, section 6.5 of the Treasury Board manual, which I was
not able to read earlier, provides, and I quote:
In accordance with the principles of the Access to Information
Act, government information should be available to the public.
Departments should develop cost-effective means—
I do not know what cost-effective means in this context.
This is a request by Treasury Board to make public internal
audit reports “without requiring a formal request under the
Access to Information Act”.
The government is being asked to do as the President of the
Treasury Board asks, apply the policies of this government and
the wishes of this government.
As members will see, consistent as they are, the Liberals will
not apply their policy, they will not support their request and
will not apply the standards set by the Treasury Board. It is a
bit of a paradox.
1150
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
opposition day motion by the former Reform Party, as I understand
it, calls for an audit of all government programs to be tabled in
a more prompt fashion and for better and easier access to
information.
Our caucus does not disagree with either of those points. They
are both valid points. However, after reading the motion this
morning at our caucus meeting my first reaction was that it was a
waste of a good opposition day. What a terrible thing to
squander an opportunity to hold the government accountable on so
many pressing issues. What a shame that party is so devoid of
ideas that it has to nitpick about relatively insignificant
things when there are so many pressing issues that we could be
talking about in the House of Commons today.
After reading the motion I felt that it was very poorly crafted.
I could hardly understand what it meant, and once I did
understand, I thought it was a shame. We could have used this
time today. It must be one of the luxuries of being the official
opposition in that it has more opportunities for these opposition
day motions. We do not treat our opposition days lightly. If
my party had been given the opportunity to choose the topic of
debate for a whole day in this hallowed Chamber, I would like to
think that we would have found something of more significance.
We could talk for a day about a national housing strategy and
about being the only developed nation in the world that has no
national housing strategy. We could talk about a commitment to
full employment and about putting the whole country back to work.
Would that not be a theme worth dedicating one day of debate to?
There are so many issues. We could talk about saving our
national health care system. Why are we not talking about that
in this golden opportunity we have to choose the topic of debate?
We could talk about cleaning up the environment. How often do we
hear that debated in the House of Commons while we, as Canadians,
are busy poisoning our own nest to the point where we will not be
able to live here anymore if we do not do something about it?
That is not being debated in the House of Commons today.
Frankly, we are talking about nitpicking. We are talking about
little incidental administrative details. Is that the worst
thing that party can think of to accuse the ruling party of, that
they are poor administrators? How cruel. What a condemning
comment. What a waste of an opportunity and it saddens me.
I will speak to the motion because, as I said, we do not
disagree with the idea of more accountability and transparency,
although those words are getting to be such a cliché that I am
not sure they have any meaning anymore. They are the two most
overused words in the House of Commons.
We agree with the whole concept of increased accountability on
spending on government programs. We do agree with the former
Reform Party. What does one become when one is no longer a
reformer? If one is no longer interested in that anymore, one
must be a conformer. The opposite of a reformist is a
conformist. Maybe that is what we should be calling them now.
We do come from diametrically opposed positions. Our party and
that party may agree on this one issue of increased access to
information, et cetera, but it is very transparent. The one thing
that is truly transparent is what motivated the Reform Party to
debate this motion today. It is not even a call for greater
accountability. It is that it disagrees with government spending
on social programs.
What it boils down to and the reason the Reform Party keeps
hammering mercilessly away at government spending is that it
disagrees with public investment in a human resources strategy at
any level. It disagrees with public spending whether it is for
human resources, income maintenance or access to services for the
disabled. Any public spending is bad. All things private are
good. If one tears down the former Reformers' political
ideology, that is about as basic as it can be put. Public bad;
private good. No more public spending is really what their
message is.
We disagree wholeheartedly because our party believes that
government not only has a role in public spending for social
services but it has an obligation. One of the finest things we
do as government is that we do our best to distribute the wealth
to care for those who need it most in our communities.
1155
The one thing that is very obvious and transparent about the
former Reform Party is that if it ever did have the authority,
heaven forbid—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think it is really a very simple thing to get the name of the
party right. The Speaker ruled somewhat over a week ago and
ruled again when the name was being misused. The name of the
party is Canadian Alliance and it is not asking a great deal to
have the member just follow that Speaker's ruling.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure the hon.
member for Winnipeg Centre is duly admonished.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to co-operate. I
will call the party by its proper name.
One thing I would ask the movers of the motion today to take
into consideration is that one of the reasons we are having a
difficult time administering complicated government programs
might be the fact that the ruling party, the government, has been
cutting, hacking and slashing jobs in the public sector to such a
degree that it is perhaps getting more difficult to actually do
the necessary follow up on these programs. Under the questions
and comments portion of my speech, perhaps we could talk about
that somewhat. How can we possibly take 50,000 jobs out of the
public sector, increase the workload and still expect the same
access to services?
The public sector has been cut, reduced and slashed to the point
where even right-wing analysts are looking at the public service
and wondering if they have gone too far; if they will have to do
a massive hiring to try to plug some of the massive holes that
were left.
Every time the government cuts the public sector it seems to cut
the people who are most valuable, the people in the middle band
of experience, the people who have been there for 20 years and
maybe would take an early option, an opportunity to retire
earlier. We cannot replace those people overnight. It is not
like flicking a light switch on and off. Once we cut those
50,000 jobs we cannot just say tomorrow that we went too far and
we should get them back. They are not coming back. They have
already slipped away and the damage has already been done. We
are fond of saying that some cuts do not heal. The cuts to the
public sector will not heal easily and certainly not overnight.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Vancouver East.
One of the real motivations that the official opposition had in
putting this motion forward was to draw criticism again to public
spending programs like the transitional jobs fund. This is a
sensitive point for myself as well coming from the riding of
Winnipeg Centre. We were horrified to learn, even though we are
the third poorest riding in the country, with unemployment levels
of 13% and 14%, the third lowest per capita income per family and
the highest incidence of poverty, that we did not qualify for any
of the transitional jobs fund money. We were just as horrified
as anybody else that the Minister of HRDC's riding qualified with
an unemployment rate of about 7% and my riding, with an
unemployment rate of almost 14%, did not qualify. The public
certainly needed to know that something untoward was going on
with that one particular program.
When the government was pressed on the issue more and more facts
started to surface, things that people cannot be comfortable
with. All Canadians were shocked as the truth started to
surface. The House leader for the government side had his binder
ready and any time a member from one of the ridings stood up to
question this, it would be thrown back to the member “You
probably qualify for all kinds of other grants. You might not
get any transitional jobs fund grants but you do get other kinds
of HRDC spending”. We do and we appreciate that.
In the process of this debate, we learned that my riding gets
more HRDC funding than any other riding in the country. I am
quite proud of that. It means that the people in my riding have
been aggressively trying to get some federal spending going on in
the inner city of Winnipeg. As transfer payments are cut or
reduced year after year, we needed to get that flow of dollars
coming to us in some way or another. Thankfully, the people in
my riding have been creative enough, quite often with the help of
our office, to avail themselves of the various programs that can
help the situation in my riding.
We have watched the federal transfer payments dwindle. In the
short time that I have paying attention to politics, we have seen
the established program funding system chucked out the window and
in its place we saw the Canada health and social transfer.
1200
This is something that the National Council on Welfare called
the most disastrous social policy initiative this country has
ever seen. It could see the writing on the wall that when the
Canada health and social transfer came in there was going to be
trouble. Really what the federal government was trying to do was
distance itself from any obligation to social spending across the
country and to offload that burden on to the provinces.
First the government provided block funding for health, post
secondary education and social services, then it started
dwindling it away. From $19 billion worth of CHST, with the bat
of an eye it went to $11.5 billion per year for all the
provinces. Now the government is slowly inching it back up a
billion at a time. I think it is back up to $14.5 billion in
total spending.
We are supposed to toot the government's horn and cheer that it
is going to put some of the money back which has been cut so
drastically from that side of social spending, but really it is
still four or five billion dollars short from when the CHST was
initiated in 1996.
So it is a bit of a smoke and mirrors game and it leaves us no
choice but to aggressively go after any kind of program spending
that we possibly can in the riding of Winnipeg Centre.
To sum up my brief remarks today, I am disappointed that the
Reform Party, or the former Reform Party, could not have been
more creative in choosing a topic for debate today. It certainly
must be completely devoid of ideas if the worst thing it can
accuse the government of is being poor bookkeepers. There are
plenty of other travesties that the government is guilty of which
we would love to point out had we the opportunity to choose the
subject of debate today.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today after my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, a former
member of the CCF, to speak in support of the motion that is
before us.
I want to begin my remarks by saying that I just came from the
human resources development committee where we had the President
of the Treasury Board appearing before the committee. It is
quite an interesting debate that is taking place to really
examine the relationship of a department like HRDC with the
treasury board and to try to figure out what rules are in place
to ensure that there is financial accountability for the
expenditure of public funds.
Just a couple of weeks ago we had the auditor general before
that committee. He said:
I cannot help but express frustration with the way the government
manages grants and contributions in general. Our audit work in
various departments back to 1977 has identified persistent
shortcomings, from problems with compliance with program
authorities to weaknesses in program design, instances of poor
controls, and insufficient measurements and reporting of
performance. We continue to find many of the same kinds of
problems each time we audit grant and contribution programs. The
recent internal audit at HRDC again pointed to the same types of
problems.
I think that is a real condemnation of the way the government
has managed grants and contributions and the expenditure of
public funds. Although this motion before us today is fairly
narrow in scope, I think it does afford us the opportunity to
examine in a public realm, and to bring to public light, the
inner workings of government.
As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said earlier, obviously the
issue that we are grappling with is not just an issue of
financial administration and financial management. It is also an
issue of political management of grants and contributions in
HRDC.
From the very beginning of this scandal, the members of the New
Democratic Party have been very clear in calling for a full
disclosure of information. In fact, the motion before us today
is within that realm of trying to ensure that there are
procedures in place to make sure that audits are tabled in a
timely manner and that access to information is provided in a
timely manner.
1205
Looking back over the debate that has unfolded in the last more
than two months, it is amazing that in the beginning weeks
members of the opposition had a hell of a time even getting
information about moneys that were spent in the transitional jobs
funds, the Canada jobs funds and other human resource development
programs. Member after member got up in question period and in
committees, and in the media through access to information, tried
to pull that information out from the government in order to get
a sense of what the picture was really about.
I remember the government House leader, with his huge binder,
slipping the pages to the Prime Minister so that information
could be doled out little bit by little bit, as it suited the
government. I thought to myself, what a travesty of the way to
do public business.
The issue of public disclosure, of transparency in government
workings, of financial administration as an important part of a
democratic institution, parliament, is of great concern to
Canadians. Maybe a couple of years ago somebody would have
looked at a motion like this and asked why we would want to
debate it. But I think this motion and what is underneath it,
the substance of what lies beneath it in terms of the very
political management of these huge funds, is something that more
and more Canadians are very concerned about.
I also want to say that the NDP from the very beginning has not
only called for disclosure and a full audit by the auditor
general, it has also made it very clear that from its point of
view it supports public expenditure of funds on job development
and job creation programs. It thinks that it is a wise and
credible way in which to expend public money but the problem is
it must be done in a way where the rules are clear, consistent
and where there is transparency so that Canadians can be assured,
no matter what region or city they are in, that the rules
operating in their region are the same as the rules in another
region, with the understanding of course that there are
differences across the country.
One of the things that has really concerned me, representing a
riding that has high unemployment and very high poverty levels,
is that Vancouver East, my riding, did not qualify for
transitional jobs funds apparently until we found out that these
pockets of unemployment existed.
It has really been a very disturbing exercise to unravel and to
deconstruct what has happened with the grants and contributions
program and to learn that not only were audits and
recommendations from the auditor general's office ignored for
more than 20 years, but that the rules that have been put in
place seem to be made up as the government goes along. They seem
to be made up in a way that is convenient to suit the political
fashion of the day, to dole out some money here or there and,
interestingly enough, to very profitable large businesses.
Job development and job creation should be community based. We
have the reality that of the 100 most profitable businesses in
Canada, 49 of them received some kind of grant or contribution
from the federal government. I think most Canadians would kind
of scratch their head and ask, what is the priority there? I
could think of many other instances where those funds could be
better expended to create long term sustainable jobs in a local
community.
The other matter that I want to mention briefly is, as we have
now sort of uncovered what is going on in HRDC and recognize the
magnitude of the problem and the scandal that has unfolded, what
has not come out very strongly is the fact that the decisions by
the Liberal government to cut back the civil service has really
had an impact as well.
1210
Just a couple of days ago I had a visit from the Financial
Administration Offices Association that worked for the federal
government. It pointed out some quite alarming facts. These are
folks who provide financial administration. They are the folks
who within the system should be in a place to figure out when
things are going wrong and to provide the necessary financial
controls. What I found out from the association is that it has
suffered major cutbacks of about one-third which has seriously
impaired its ability to work effectively within various
departments to make sure that the necessary financial controls
are in place. That is just one small instance of how this picture
has gone so terribly wrong.
I want to say in closing that the NDP supports the opposition
motion that is before us today, but clearly we do not believe
that it goes far enough. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We
want to see timely audits that are made public. We want to make
sure that MPs and parties are not running around in circles
trying to get access to information. We do not want to see
10,000 pages of material dumped on members that it is very
difficult to make any kind of sense of. This is about democratic
disclosure. It is about ensuring that there is transparency in
government operations.
More than that, it is also about political accountability of the
minister and of the government to ensure that these public funds
are expended in a way that is fair, open and consistent. The
evidence shows us that this clearly has not been the case.
We will support the motion and we will also continue to bring
forward other issues and questions about the management of funds
in HRDC.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
It is with pleasure today that I speak on this votable supply
motion which will effectively encourage and instil a greater
sense of accountability in this place. I think it is extremely
important that we should expect from governments at least the
same level of accountability, and I would suggest an even greater
level of financial accountability that we expect from private
corporations. Private corporations and publicly traded
corporations require through the auditing process a greater level
of accountability in terms of their bookkeeping and the auditing
of their statements than in fact this government seems to deem
appropriate.
There has been a secular decline in the role of the private
member since the late 1960s. Commensurate with that there has
been an increased amount of power in the cabinet and ultimately
in the PMO. As such, there has been a reduction in the level of
parliamentary scrutiny over spending and again starting in the
late 1960s.
I would argue it would benefit all members of the House and all
Canadians, regardless of political affiliation, if we were to
restore greater levels of parliamentary accountability over
spending.
There was a time when the estimates for departments were debated
here in the House of Commons, scrutinized by committee of the
whole. I would propose, as we did in the PC party's prebudget
position last year, that we should restore a system which would
provide the ability for parliament to actually scrutinize the
estimates of a certain number of departments each year in the
House of Commons without a time limit. This would ensure that
first, the minister has to be very aware of what is going on
within his or her department, but also that Canadians who are
paying among the highest taxes, business and personal taxes, in
the industrialized world, will be ensured that their
money—again, it is their money, it is not the government's
money—is being invested or spent in ways that are consistent
with the goals and the aims of Canadian taxpayers.
1215
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the nature of some of the
government spending is immaterial in some ways. What is most
important, and what the motion speaks to, is that whatever
government spending occurs the government is held accountable
through an audit process that is open, transparent and clear to
Canadians on an ongoing basis to show that the government is
maintaining taxpayer money in a way that is appropriate.
The PC Party is supporting the motion. The accountability issue
is critical. We should not have to go through what we went
through in recent weeks with the HRDC debacle in trying as
members of parliament to get information that should have been
available openly, transparently and instantly, and then having
the dissemination of an immense amount of information in one day,
to the extent that it almost became impossible to absorb and deal
with it in an effective way. This kind of information should be
available on an ongoing basis and all Canadians would benefit
from it.
The motion addresses some of the issues from the perspective of
parliamentary involvement in this very important area of
spending, but we would like to see parliament move further in
this direction. We would like to see the restoration of the
right to debate the estimates in the House of Commons and in
committee of the whole, which would provide greater levels of
scrutiny over the spending of taxpayer money. This would also
increase the role of the private member whether that member was
sitting on the backbenches of the Liberal government or on the
opposition benches. It would benefit all of us.
In these times of hyper competitiveness on the global stage when
taxes are comparatively higher in Canada than they are for our
trading partners, we must recognize it becomes doubly important
that taxpayer money be spent in such a way that Canadians are
aware of where the money is being spent. The government should
take very seriously its fiduciary role in maintaining the proper
levels of financial procedural control over these investments.
The motion goes in the right direction, but we should also
reconsider the involvement of government departments. Prior to
the HRDC scandal I was not aware of the degree to which the
government was clearly involved in projects that it should not
have been involved in. I was naive enough to believe that a lot
of the pork barrelling and use of taxpayer money to buy support
in an election had subsided. I thought we were in a new age and
that all parties in the House recognized the importance of
creating sound economic policies and environments to create
economic growth.
Direct government involvement in investing in some of these
businesses may have been considered less important or less
effective than it would have been at one point. I saw some of
the most egregious examples of government spending with HRDC. I
think $500,000 were given to Wal-Mart to build a store that it
would have built anyway. I forget the exact sum but I believe
$300,000 were given to a company to move 30 kilometres from one
member's riding to a minister's riding.
Some of these examples smack of the type of old style politics
of which Canadians have been skeptical. They have lost faith in
governments and institutions. Any structure we could put in
place to ensure greater levels of procedural accountability and
audit accountability would be very positive.
We in the PC Party are supporting the motion. We hope it is
just one of a number of steps that we can take to create in a
multi-partisan or non-partisan way greater levels of
accountability and scrutiny over taxpayer money in parliament.
1220
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to this supply day motion from the party
formerly known as Reform. In fact the motion should have been
put forward. I heard a previous speaker from the New Democratic
Party suggest that it was unnecessary to bring the issue before
the House and that there were other priorities and other issues
that we could be talking about which certainly had a greater
resonance now with Canadians.
I disagree to a certain extent because this issue certainly does
resonate with Canadians. It speaks to the specific management
capabilities of the government of the country to control and put
into place the necessary services required by Canadians. There
has to be some control over that either in the House with
parliamentarians or with administrators at the top of
departments.
I am a fan of internal efficiency audits. If I can go back a
bit into a previous lifetime when I was involved in municipal
politics, my administrator of the day and I set up a complete
process by which we would identify specific departments within
that municipal entity and then put into place internal efficiency
audits.
Why we did that was not to witch hunt. We did not suggest that
we or outside auditors could do the job any better. We looked at
the operations with different eyes, especially operations that
have been in place for a long time. Whether it be municipal
governments, provincial governments or the federal government,
there is a tendency, if the bureaucracy has been in place for a
while, to do the job by taking the path of least resistance.
The path of least resistance may not necessarily be the best way
to attain the necessary efficiencies within the department.
Bringing in outside eyes allows someone else to see how better
the operation could run. It is not a witch hunt. It is simply a
matter of listing the way the job is completed now, the numbers
of steps that have to be taken for necessary approval processes
and perhaps identifying ways of doing the job better.
That is what happens in the federal government with the auditor
general's department. I am a fan of the auditor general. Mr.
Desautels does his job extremely well. Members of his staff are
extremely competent. When they go into a department they do not
go in for a witch hunt. They go in simply to look at the
operations and say what could be done better or what could be
done in a different fashion.
A lot of what has been said today in the House has a tendency to
focus on HRDC because it has been the audit that has been put
forward with the most regularity over the last two months and has
identified certain deficiencies within the particular department.
HRDC is just one of the departments within the federal
bureaucracy. Let me give a little example. The auditor
general, Mr. Desautels, appeared before the agriculture committee
last week. Four specific departments of agriculture were there.
Mr. Desautels and his staff went through the audit with us as
members of that committee and highlighted some of the areas where
we could improve upon the service delivery of those departments,
whether it be on cost recovery, which we have talked about in the
House at great length in terms of agriculture, or whether it be
an accounting process which in fact would bring forward some
deficiencies within the department.
When the committee questioned the departments it was given some
commitments from those departmental heads, which I expected to
have regardless. We had an audit. We showed them the
deficiencies. They were responsible to put into place in their
departments changes within their operations to try to comply with
those recommendations.
They told us as committee members, as parliamentarians, that they
would comply with those recommendations.
1225
I asked the auditor general a question and he said that he was
very glad to hear that the departments would comply with those
recommendations. I was a bit shocked because I assumed it was
automatic that the departments would follow the auditor general's
recommendations and make the necessary changes, but that is not
the way the system works. There has to be a watchdog. There has
to be a backstop. The parliamentarians in committee are the
watchdog and the backstop.
I was pleased to be able to say to the departmental heads that
we would follow up on it on a regular basis over the next 12
months and that we would insist their operations become more
efficient. The auditor general certainly thanked us for the job
we performed in the whole process.
The motion today speaks specifically to that requirement of
parliamentarians. It simply says that when we have an internal
efficiency audit we must make sure the audit is tabled with the
committee within 30 days of its being presented to the
department.
I cannot for the life of me understand why any member of the
sitting government would not agree with that. It is their job as
well as our job to make sure that internal audits which give
efficiency reports are seen and are acted upon. To hide them or
not to react to them is a dereliction of duty. It is an
abdication of duty. It is necessary that those reports be
tabled, so why would the government not agree on its own behalf
to ensure proper timeline and the process?
When we did internal audits at the municipal level we made them
available to the department to put forward its comments on the
recommendations. We then took the audits, the recommendations
from the auditor and the reports from the departmental heads on
the way they would comply with the recommendations, to council
and ultimately to the public. Those were done in a necessary
process. The public demands and the public deserves to know
exactly how services are being delivered and that the money is
being expended in an efficient manner. That is all the motion
speaks to.
All the motion says is that when we do an internal audit, which
we want to have, with which we agree and which we say Mr.
Desautels has the mandate, the right and the requirement to put
forward to the public, we should ask him to bring it forward to
the departments. That is fair ball. It should be taken to HRDC,
to agriculture, to finance, to the treasury board, to defence or
to any department he wants to, so that the departments can look
at the recommendations, put their comments forward and in 30 days
report the audit back to committee. Where better can we deal
with an audit than publicly at a committee table? There is
absolutely no reason the government should oppose that type of
resolution.
My hon. colleague from Kings—Hants spoke eloquently with
respect to the private-public requirements and to the fact that
as a federal government we were the watchdogs of the public
purse. That is the absolute essence of what the audit speaks to,
the watchdog of the public purse.
If the government is not prepared to bring forward audits in a
timely fashion then it is saying that we as parliamentarians
should not be the watchdog of the public purse. That is wrong,
absolutely wrong. I would ask hon. members to support the
resolution as in fact our party will support it.
Let us talk just briefly about access to information.
1230
Access to information has been a very important tool for us and
members of other parties. We require access to information
because the departments have not been forthcoming when we have
asked for information with respect to audits and other
information. I would prefer not to have to file another access
to information request in my life in parliament. Then I could
honestly say to my constituents and other constituents in this
great country that there is openness and transparency.
Earlier it was said that access and transparency are probably
the two most overworked words in parliament and I agree. We
should be working toward correcting the inefficiencies and making
sure it is open and accessible.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the two members of the party who spoke touched on it
briefly. Perhaps they would explicitly comment on the response of
the government today that this is a vexatious waste of time and
that the motion we have brought forward is unnecessary. That
totally ignores the fact, and I stress the word fact, that access
to information requests are long overdue and are past the 30 day
limit as required by law. Yet the Liberal government members are
denying this.
I would like to have the member comment on the Liberal
government's ineptness. I do not want to use that word but it is
really mismanaging the financial affairs of the country. It is
in continual denial.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the member for Elk Island
is absolutely correct. I would like to indicate to the member
for Elk Island that the members who spoke are from the
Progressive Conservative Party rather than that other party, but
we support the motion before us today.
I agree. To simply refer to this as vexatious speaks to the
attitude of the government when it says because we question the
ability for other members, opposition members as well as
backbench members, to get information on a particular department
that we are interfering with the operations of the government.
That is not correct. We must make the government and bureaucrats
accountable for public dollars that are spent.
To be perfectly honest, I am surprised that the Liberals will
not stand up and support this. It is just good management. It
is good management tactics that are done in any private or public
corporation. Why the government would hide audits, hide access
to those audits or not allow those audits to be available to
members of parliament really disturbs me. It is saying that it
will reward inefficient management, it will not question it and
it will continue in the same fashion it has been doing over the
last seven years.
The member for Elk Island is absolutely correct. The terms that
have been used by the government should not be used with respect
to this particular motion.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is again my honour to stand in the House to speak to a very
good motion. The motion before us is an interesting one. It puts
the government of the day into the dilemma of either voting for
the motion which makes good sense, or voting against it which
means that it wants to continue its policy of cover-up and not
dealing honestly and openly with all of the facts on many
financial issues that have come forward from time to time.
One of the best ways of providing accountability in government
is to have openness. When some access to information requests
that I put in were returned to me, we were dismayed that there
was so much whiteout. In fact there were pages and pages of blank
paper.
The code on the blank paper was that it was personal and
therefore could not be disclosed.
1235
My contention was then, is now and shall continue to be that the
instant it is public money, it should become public information.
In other words when I as a member of parliament spend my office
budget, I believe that office budget should be accessible to the
public. The people of my riding should know how their member of
parliament managed the money that was entrusted to him for
managing his office.
The minister of a department must account properly not only for
his or her own expenditures with respect to the manner in which
the minister handles the ministry but also the expenditures
within the ministry.
Mr. Speaker, I just noticed that my colleague has arrived so I
now want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the
hon. member for Prince Albert. I did not want to advise you
until he was physically here because I could easily speak for 20
minutes on this issue.
Many years ago when my wife and I were first married we moved to
a little town in Alberta called Duchess. It had a population of
some 200 people. It was a really good town and had a lot of fine
people. One of my friends from the big city asked how I could
stand to live in that little town with everyone knowing what I
was doing. I shrugged my shoulders and said “I do not plan on
doing anything bad so it does not matter. Let them know what I
am doing”.
In that small town I was the whole math department in the high
school; I was the department head and the total staff. I did that
job for three years in that delightful community. We have many
fond memories. We are looking forward to going to a reunion of
the class I had way back in the early sixties. It is hard to
imagine that those youngsters are now in their forties and
fifties. I will be really interested in picking up on that and
seeing how they are.
I was accountable. When I walked down the street everybody knew
the math teacher was walking from his home to the school. It was
such a small town that I lived on the east edge of town and the
school was on the outskirts of the west end and it took me five
minutes to walk there. It was a wonderful time. It underlined
my basic philosophy which I have learned from home which is that
one deals openly and honestly with people.
I find it distressing that we have this motion today. First of
all, as one of the Liberal members said, it should be redundant.
He said it is redundant. I would change the wording simply to
say that this motion should be redundant. We should not have to
use a day of debate in the House of Commons to debate a motion
which says that the government should obey the law.
We do not do that in any other case. We do not say to citizens
that today we are going to have a debate and we want people to
obey the law about murdering others, or on another day we are
going to debate that people should obey the law and not steal
from others. We do not revisit old bills, motions and government
decisions in this way for other things.
There has been a blatant breach of treasury board guidelines and
of decisions which are properly made and should be enforced.
Here we are as the official opposition debating whether or not
the government should actually obey the law, whether it should
obey the rules. My very strong contention is that it should.
Some time ago treasury board put out a directive saying these
internal documents which are basically report cards on the
operation of the departments should be made public. It should not
be necessary to file access to information requests in order to
access them.
1240
It is quite ironic that the government will make that decision.
It will have a big fanfare when announcing that decision and will
say to the people of Canada “Look how wonderful and accountable
we are. Here we are offering information”. That is wonderful.
It makes a great press release. It makes a great press
conference. But what happens when it comes time to release the
document? It is not released. The government just does not do
it, hence the motion today. Why does the government not insist
that the departments follow treasury board guidelines? One of
them is being breached.
To make matters worse, when some member of the public, or in our
case a member of the official opposition, files an access to
information request to get the information that should be public
anyway, we are stonewalled. We hit a wall. We know one thing
that happens is as soon as such a request goes in, there is a
heads up to the minister. We know that. The very first response
is “Get the ministerial staff informed. The minister may have to
answer questions because the official opposition or some other
member of the opposition is raising a question so we had better
make sure that we have our spin doctors out”.
It is absolutely ludicrous that the government is much more
interested in putting a spin on the facts than simply revealing
and dealing with the facts. It is a contradiction of the whole
concept of accountability. It basically says that the government
wants the people to believe what they hope would be true instead
of the government saying it would like the people to know what is
true. There is a vast difference in those two concepts. The
government often says, “We are so open, look at this
directive”. As I said, it looks good on the surface but it
would look so much better if it were actually practised.
To paraphrase the HRDC minister, on numerous occasions she has
said “We are so wonderful, we released this request for access
to information on the HRDC internal audit before it was
requested”. To be very blunt, that was not true. We got a copy
of a memo that had been doctored. We cannot prove that it was
but the suspicions are surely there because the document speaks
of the date of reference and says “We received your request on”
and I think it was January 23 or January 22, but the date of the
memo is January 21. It was the day before. They forgot to
change the date on top when they issued the public document.
That, to me, is evidence of a cover-up. What they are saying is
“Let us quickly produce a document that proves our case”. Using
a word processor they changed one date but forgot to change the
date at the top. As a result they were speaking of the next day
in the past tense. One has to be psychic to do that or guilty of
forging a document. It is part of the cover-up.
The government wants people to believe that it is honest, open
and accountable and all that. We want it to be and that is what
today's motion is all about.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, would the member who just spoke agree that treasury
board has in place a directive that all audits once completed are
released immediately? Also treasury board went even further and
said it would review all the internal audit procedures and report
to the House by June 2000 to make the policy even more effective
and enforceable.
Surely the member will agree that the very clear intention of
the government is to make internal audits available as soon as
they are completed. Members opposite do not have to wait even
for 15 days or go to the Access to Information Act.
1245
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked if I would
not agree that the government has this in place. The answer is,
yes, to the best of my knowledge it does.
The distressing part is that it has had it in place for some
four or five years. Treasury board policies announced in a May
25, 1994 letter of decision read in part:
To simplify the process for acquiring copies of reports, and to
deliver on the government's commitment for more openness, the
policy requires that departments make the final version of review
reports, including internal audit and evaluation
reports...accessible to the public, without requiring a formal
access request.
That is right from the letter of decision dated May 26, 1994.
It has been in place for six years and the government is not
doing it.
The member asked if I would not agree that the government has it
as part of its policy. Yes, I agree that it is part of its
policy. The motion today is that the government do it. That is
it, do it. Do it, do not just say it.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for sharing his time.
It should be noted that all speakers from the Alliance party will
be sharing their time from now on.
It was interesting to hear my colleague talk about being
accountable. He lived in a small town that took five minutes to
walk across. I lived in a town so small that if I looked out one
window of the house I was on the east side of town and if I
looked out the other window I was on the west side of town.
People were really accountable there.
We are in the opening days of the 21st century. This is a
century which has been characterized as the information age, yet
we are in the House talking about how to get information out of
the government.
People would think that rather than being in the information age
we were in the days prior to the invention of the printing press
by Gutenberg, for all the response we see to access to
information requests and audits which are meant to be released as
a matter of policy.
To quote from the 1998-99 annual report of the information
commissioner:
As early as 1986, the Justice Committee reviewed the operation of
the access law and unanimously recommended wholesale changes to
strengthen it and keep it current with technological changes. No
government since has had the motivation to implement the
suggested changes and address, through law, the persistence of a
culture of secrecy in the federal bureaucracy.
That was written in 1986 and quoted by the information
commissioner in the 1998-99 report.
Nothing has changed. The official opposition currently has 29
requests for information filed with human resources development
which are overdue. Of those 29 HRD requests, 8 are for
departmental audits, which are supposed to be public information.
As I said earlier, this is the new millennium, the information
age. The government's response times are prehistoric. They are
stone age. There is no information forthcoming from the
government.
Quoting from the same report of the information commissioner,
this statement is still relevant today: “Frustration over
weaknesses in the law has recently spilled over to members of
parliament from all stripes in the House of Commons”.
That is why we are here today having this debate in the House.
No one, not members of political parties, nor people in the news
media, nor private citizens, nor researchers should have to
request departmental audits under the Access to Information Act,
and yet we find that it has become necessary to make such
requests.
Even more unconscionable is the fact that the department is
defying treasury board directives which require compliance within
30 days of acknowledging the request.
We only have to read the treasury board's words in a letter of
decision dated May 26, 1999, which has been referred to before.
Let us put it on the record again, so that anyone interested
knows what was said:
To simplify the process for acquiring copies of reports, and to
deliver on the government's commitment for more openness, the
policy requires that departments make the final version of review
reports, including internal audit and evaluation reports...
accessible to the public, without requiring a formal access
request.
1250
Those are fine words, but actions speak louder than words, as
the hon. member for Elk Island stated. If the government had
lived up to its stated ideals, this supply day motion aimed at
ordering the government to open up its information processes
would not be necessary.
The public is probably at home asking themselves why there is a
log-jam in responding to requests for information from the
government. They are asking, are there legitimate reasons of
national security? Or, are there problems with protecting
vulnerable persons from exposure? Only if we subscribe to the
view that it is in the national interest to protect ministers
from public scrutiny, or if there are questions about the
management of taxpayer dollars that might embarrass the
government. All of the legitimate issues could be dealt with in
an expeditious manner.
On March 20 the information commissioner testified before the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. In his
testimony he stated the reasons for this huge backlog at HRDC. I
quote from his testimony:
With respect to the audit reports, there has been a slowdown, but
the slowdown is government-wide, and the reason for that is that
as a result of the HRDC experience...all audits now go through an
additional process by Treasury Board and the Privy Council. What
has happened is that Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office
want to know what audits have been requested, whether they
contain bad news, and what the official media line will be.
This is a regressive attitude for the government to take. It is
not in the people's interest to have government manage bad news
to avoid accounting for it. Ottawa is spin city for this Liberal
administration when it comes to the release of information vital
to holding it responsible for its actions. The current attitude
has always been a major concern of the information commissioner.
In his recent testimony the information commissioner added “The
communication concerns of the government are allowed to take
precedence over the public's right to timely access to
information”.
Despite ongoing concerns by the commissioner, it appears that
HRDC had a fair track record when it came to the release of
public information until recently. Now it is because of HRDC's
intransigence that we are debating the issue.
Someone from another planet may not know why this is so, but in
case there are other aliens who are listening, other than federal
Liberals who have not figured it out, it can be summed up in
three words: billion dollar boondoggle. That is the reason.
That is a lot of taxpayer money and it is in question. Every
time another audit or response to an ATI request is released
there is more bad news for the government.
Being true to their roots, the Liberals are engaging in spin
sessions to manage the message, when what they should be doing is
reviewing the need for the programs and how to properly manage
and account for them.
Information is crucial to accountability. If this government
wanted to be truly accountable it would welcome scrutiny to
improve its stewardship of the public credit card. And it is a
credit card, because we do not have any money in the bank.
The information commissioner has rightly stated that the right
of access is one of the cornerstones of our democratic process
and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible
government.
If the Liberals agree with that statement—and I bet they do
privately, never mind what they do publicly—they should cast
their ballot in favour of the supply day motion proposed by the
Canadian Alliance in the name of the hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill.
It should be stated again that this is no trivial matter which
is under consideration today. We could consider the list of
outstanding audits and ATIs filed by the official opposition to
get an idea of it. Human resources development is late in
replying to five departmental audits which should be public
information according to treasury board guidelines. All five are
45 days overdue.
There are outstanding ATI requests with agriculture and
agri-food, and Canada Customs and Revenue, which asked for a 30
day extension on March 9, I suppose for the purpose of figuring
out how to respond to the bad news included within the response.
1255
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation requested an undefined
extension due to third party consultations. We do not need much
imagination to figure out who the third party was. Citizenship
and immigration asked for a 90 day extension. Then there is
fisheries and oceans. Some audits received 30 day extensions
requested for others. Then there is the National Capital
Commission.
When the members opposite talk about open and accountable
government, they certainly are not looking at the facts, they are
looking at the spin. That is not acceptable.
I am not sure which report of the auditor general it was in, but
there was an interesting quote. I cannot remember how it went,
but it concerned a Tammany Hall organizer from the United States,
and we all know what that is about. He said something like “If
you don't have to speak, grunt. If you don't have to grunt, nod.
If you don't have to nod, wink”. I am not saying that is an
exact quote, but that is the exact meaning. That has been the
attitude of the government when it comes to releasing
information. A wink and a nod is all we get, along with a few
promises and the questions “Why don't you believe us? Why don't
you like us?” The answer is obvious.
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member
for Mississauga South.
I am pleased to address the House today on this opposition
motion. I begin by expressing my disappointment that members of
the opposition do not understand and appreciate what the
Government of Canada is doing for all Canadians. Maybe they do
not want to understand for political reasons.
I doubt that all members have taken the time to read the
document tabled in the House last Thursday by the President of
the Treasury Board, along with 84 reports on plans and priorities
for all federal departments and agencies. It is even more
unlikely that they have taken the time to reflect on the actions
and accomplishments of the government.
I do not intend to speak today about the excellent 2000-01
budget of the Minister of Finance; however, there are a few
things I must mention. A few years ago, when the government
gained power, there was a $43 billion deficit. The debt load was
at an all-time high of some $490 billion. We also took over at a
time when unemployment was very high, around 11.8%. It is now at
a 30 year low of around 6.5%.
A lot of money in this budget was directed to the RCMP, which
very badly needs it across Canada. It is a good budget. I
talked to Deputy Commissioner Watt who said that the budget was
great and much appreciated.
The number one issue was medical. Health and welfare needed
more money. We gave $2.5 billion in the budget. Our health
minister has met with all health ministers from across Canada to
talk about more money and the need to modernize the system.
With respect to the health system, in my community, in British
Columbia, there are hospitals every four or five miles which have
a lot of modern, sophisticated equipment. I suggest that some of
the equipment which is only being used four or five hours a day,
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., could be used 16 hours a day, until
midnight, for people who get off work in the evening. They would
be able to get their medical attention, their scan or whatever,
at that time.
There has been a lot of progress since we took over as far as the
government is concerned.
1300
I know the Minister of Health wants to do the right thing with
the provinces and give them more money for health. But we must
work together. There was a very good comment by the health
minister of British Columbia, Michael Farnworth. He mentioned
the fact that it is going to take time and that it cannot be done
in a day. He said that we must work together. I think that is a
very fair comment. If everybody put their political stripes
aside as far as the provinces are concerned and work with the
health minister, I am sure we could accomplish a lot. I am sure
there would be more money in the budget.
I want to bring to the House's attention a document from my
colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, entitled
“Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the
Government of Canada”. This document sets out a program of
change providing long term direction for enhancing management of
the government's affairs.
Since 1997 the government has been working hard to build a
higher quality of life for all Canadians. We must constantly
work toward improving our policies, programs and the framework
governing the government's activities.
We have a solid foundation on which to build our efforts to
modernize management within government. This foundation will
also help all departments to focus on citizens, to draw upon
values, to build on results and to spend responsibly.
Canadians know and appreciate that their government is operating
from sound values, is results oriented and that it is continuing
its sound approach to spending. There is a philosophy that goes
along with the management framework for the Government of Canada.
It is an operating philosophy that requires effort and control
but a control that is achieved through instruments that encourage
initiative and creativity by the departments.
Few people are aware that the Treasury Board Secretariat has
been working with the departments and agencies since last summer
to complete its review of the policy on transfer payments and to
strengthen the internal audit function.
The purpose of an internal audit function is, among other
things, to help identify shortcomings, to learn from those
shortcomings and to make the necessary changes. One of the
priorities of the Government of Canada is to regularly review its
spending to ensure the responsible use of taxpayer's money in
terms of results and values. One thing is certain with this
framework and this philosophy. Canadians can continue to enjoy
one of the best standards of living in the world.
The government has introduced the millennium fund. I can tell
the House that in my community many applications have been filed
and fulfilled. Those applications are very helpful to our
community in building our communities, by bringing people
together and by employing people.
Heritage Square submitted an application under the millennium
fund for $84,000. It is outside my riding, however, I was mayor
there for many years. The Reform member whose riding this is in
refused to endorse the application so I endorsed it.
There was another application submitted for $348,000. This was
also in a Reform riding. I approved it and they received the
grant. This project looks after 1,800 kids. It is in a great
area in Mallardville where all the residents get together with
people from other communities. This facility looks after the
community. When I was the mayor we spent $5 million in enlarging
it and even now it is much too small. Every room is filled and
they are looking for more space.
These are things that are happening. These are things that our
government is doing. I am sorry I referred to the party across
from us as Reform because it has been changed to Alliance. They
had a CCRAP Party and a few other things, so really we cannot
tell what it really is.
1305
Our public works minister put a vote to the House related to all
municipalities getting grants in lieu of taxes for government
buildings. Guess what? The Reform Party voted against it. It
voted against the municipalities receiving grants for the
communities. I am just wondering what side of the fence
Reformers are really on. Do they support the municipalities that
they represent? Do they really support the ridings that they
represent, or do they really represent themselves and nobody
else?
I have been a politician for going on 28 years. I was in
municipal politics for 25 years. I am appalled at some of the
comments that I have heard. When I came to Ottawa, some of the
things I saw were frightening. I wish that every mayor and every
council member in Canada would tune in and listen to the dismal
performance of the Reform Party as far as the—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
Speaker of the House ruled just a little over a week ago that the
name of our party is now Canadian Alliance. When people were
misusing it, that ruling was reaffirmed and requested. Here we
have a member who somehow does not have the ability to even learn
two words. I would like to have him repeat three times after me:
Canadian Alliance, Canadian Alliance, Canadian Alliance.
The Deputy Speaker: All hon. members try to get it right
and I know the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam will make every effort to get the name of the Canadian
Alliance Party correct.
Mr. Lou Sekora: Mr. Speaker, it looks at this particular
time that its name is being challenged in court. I do not know
what its name will be when it goes to the Supreme Court of
Canada. The leader of the Reform Party lived at Stornoway for
many years. He said he would never live there and that he would
open up a bingo hall in there. It was to become a bingo hall. I
wonder how many times a week the party plays bingo in there.
Another time—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This individual is now so far away from the motion of the day
that there is no question he is irrelevant, so please call him on
it.
The Deputy Speaker: I can see that when we get into
debates on party names we do tend to get away from the motion.
The hon. member I know will address his remarks to the motion.
Mr. Lou Sekora: Mr. Speaker, certainly in my community
there have been a lot of HRDC grants. I can assure the House
that they are well accepted and well represented in my riding.
There are wheelchair cases, handicapped people and kids who need
parks in my community. There are many, many things that can be
done in my community. I think it is a great place to spend our
money and a great accomplishment for our communities.
The Canadian Alliance Party members do not realize that. They
do not believe in it. They do not believe in taking HRDC money,
outside of a few of them maybe who write letters, like I have on
my file, stating how good it is for their ridings once they get
the money. But I do not believe they endorse it, outside of a
latecomer's letter that will arrive about six months later
stating how good it is for communities after they wake up and
spend some time in their ridings.
Those are things that I stand for and this is what our
government stands for. I hope that there will never come a day
when we will lose that identity to be part of all governments
across Canada, provincial, municipal and otherwise.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
took some notes in preparing questions for my Liberal colleague
from British Columbia. He said from the outset that he was
disappointed to see that opposition parties did not understand
all the things that this good Liberal government is doing for
his fellow citizens.
1310
This government created a big mess in health care services
across the country. This government made it harder to qualify
for employment insurance, with the result that barely 58% of
contributors to the employment insurance fund can qualify, and
most do not even have access to social assistance.
This same government created a scandal the likes of which we
have never seen under the Progressive Conservative Party, a
scandal that could total anywhere from one to three billion
dollars.
The member said that his government was spending in a reasonable
manner.
Is it reasonable to spend in the Prime Minister's riding to help
the Placeteco plant, when HRDC paid out $1.2 million, of which
more than $1 million was transferred directly from HDRC to the
National Bank to repay a loan, or else the company would have
gone bankrupt? As for the other $200,000, we do not even know
where it went, to whom it was paid.
Is this the member's idea of spending in a reasonable manner? I
challenge the Liberal member to give me three examples where, in
the past seven years, his government acted reasonably. Let him
quickly give me three examples.
[English]
Mr. Lou Sekora: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we have
been very responsible for is health care, not like the Bloc
across the way.
It was with great dissatisfaction that I found out that Quebec
did not spend the money which was given to it by the federal
government on health care. If the money has not gone to health
care, a report card must be given to the federal government
explaining where every dollar went. Quebec has some $8 billion
from years ago that it did not spend on health. If it has a
problem with health care maybe it should dig into that money. It
is there for health care. British Columbia has $471 million,
Alberta has millions of dollars, and I can go on.
I would like to ask the Bloc members why they are not here
singing “O Canada” with us every Wednesday? How come it does
not feel a part of Canada although it is? Is there something
wrong with being a part of Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
hope that you understood the question I put to the member. I
asked him to give me three examples, not to sing the national
anthem. I made no mention of the parties of Mike Harris or
Lucien Bouchard. I want him to give us three examples.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe that what we have here is an
argument, not a point of order. The hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
[English]
Mr. Lou Sekora: Mr. Speaker, the clarity bill was one and
certainly health care was another. I could go on for
three-quarters of hour.
I came here two years ago. Every Wednesday all members of the
House get together and sing “O Canada”. We put our political
stripes aside and everything else. Does the Bloc join us? No.
It does not want to be part of Canada. I wonder when that is
going to cease and it becomes a party that helps the government?
It seems to resent us calling it to come aboard. It wants to
stay away from here, especially when the national anthem is sung.
They have some other kind of song to sing and nobody wants to
listen.
The fact is all the money across in the provinces is for health
care.
1315
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with the House's indulgence, I want to congratulate the member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière on the success of his private
member's motion on shipbuilding. I know he has been working very
hard on that and it is always good to see a private member have
success in this place. It makes us all feel some measure of
achievement.
I also seek the indulgence of the House to welcome, on behalf of
the House, the Forum for Young Canadians who are here again this
week. As members know, these are high school students from right
across our country who have come to observe parliament. Today I
have two guests in the lobby, Derek Snyder from your riding of
Kingston, Mr. Speaker, and John Bowden from my riding of
Mississauga, who are here to observe the process. I know they
will have a good time learning about our government.
Today is a supply day, which means that an opposition party, in
this case, the Canadian Alliance, has the opportunity to table in
the House a motion for debate by the House.
I must admit that when I saw the motion I had some difficulty
with the flow of it and understanding it. For the edification of
those who may not have seen the motion, I will take the
opportunity to put the motion forward again. It says:
That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit
reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and
permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees, that
audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days
after the adoption of this motion, and that all audit reports
requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled
forthwith.
It is a complex motion. There are some elements in it that deal
with audit reports, on which I will make some comments. I will
also comment on the part about referring information or
additional responsibilities to committees. The last thing I hope
to comment on are some of the rules in the Access to Information
Act.
As an overriding statement, all members will fully appreciate
that on behalf of the people of Canada, the Parliament of Canada
and the government departments of Canada work to the very best of
their ability to ensure that the best interests of Canadians are
represented and protected.
It is so very important that we work every day on the integrity
and credibility of this institution. The motion raises an
important issue. I am not sure whether the motion hits the
target squarely but I think the motion is important in terms of
its subject matter. It is important for us to reassure Canadians
that there are rules and policies in place that give us and
Canadians the tools to ensure that credibility, integrity and the
best interests of Canadians is kept in mind in this place.
The motion generally calls for audits to be referred to standing
committees for review. I want to advise the House that internal
audits are released by departments to the public domain
immediately upon their completion. This has been the policy of
the Treasury Board since 1995. This is not a reaction. This has
been our policy since 1995. With regard to accessibility to that
information, to internal audits, it is a very important part of
the policy. The policy states:
Departments should make these review reports, or summaries of
them, accessible to the public in both official languages by
making use of electronic public networks, timely press releases
to inform the public of the results, or by placing them in
departmental libraries.
In other words, the policy does in fact direct itself
specifically to the concerns raised in the motion, and it has
been in place since 1995.
The policy also states that “Completed internal audits are
available for review by every interested Canadian immediately”.
Therefore, there is no need for some formal process to make that
happen because it is already happening.
It continues to say:
Further, there is no need to make access to information requests
for completed internal audits.
The motion calls for that and yet it is already in place.
The issue of access to information requests does come up with
regard to other internal audits that may not have been completed
or other reports that have been prepared by a department but not
released.
These audits or other internal departmental material may be
subject to access to information requests. Indeed, that is in
place and it is done.
1320
Canadians should be very assured that mechanisms are now in
place to safeguard the interests of Canadians. The principles
that guide us, in terms of right of access, are: first, that
government information should be available to the public; second,
that necessary exemptions to the right of access should be
limited and specific; and, third, that decisions on the
disclosure of government information should be reviewed
independently of government. That is directly contrary to a part
of the motion which asks committees to look at this.
Knowing the mover of this motion, the hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill, HRDC has been of particular interest to her.
I do not know whether there was information that prompted her to
take some interest in this department through access to
information or whether it was an audit report that was the
subject of the information.
When the HRDC officials appeared at a press conference shortly
after this issue broached the House, the officials described a
process whereby HRDC personnel visited over 400 locations where
applicants had received funds from HRDC programs and projects.
They described those visits as look-see visits. They looked at a
file or something else and they had what was described as a bingo
chart on which they ticked off what they saw and what they did
not see. As a result of that, some 37 files showed deficiencies.
In a nutshell, that is what happened.
All of a sudden it comes out that there is this damning audit
report which indicates that money has been misappropriated,
misused or mismanaged by applicants or someone else. In the
first instance, this motion is talking about audits. I would
suggest to the House that what kicked off this whole HRDC
question had nothing to do with an audit. It concerned
information that was assembled by HRDC personnel through visits
but which did not constitute an audit.
As a chartered accountant, I have been involved in the public
auditing process. I was also in charge of an internal audit
department during my corporate life. I know what is involved in
planning, preparing and executing an internal audit. What was
done by HRDC with regard to those 37 files was not an audit or an
internal audit by any definition. I would challenge any member
to find anybody in the industry to suggest otherwise.
The proof was in the pudding when the auditors were subsequently
sent out to these 37 locations to follow up on the points raised
by the visits from those HRDC personnel. In all the cases—and I
believe 34 of the cases are now complete—every single item
raised as being a deficiency in the file was cleared because they
asked the questions or looked for the documents. If an audit had
been done, those questions would have been asked, the search
would have been conducted and they would have been cleared even
before the original visit was completed.
Admittedly, the issue here is the credibility and the
accountability of the government and parliament to the people. I
believe that the provisions and the tools are in place for this
to happen. I also believe it would be inappropriate to suggest
that we need to have more of the operating information from
departments come through the House and go to our committees. Our
committees are not trained to do this and they would be obligated
to actually review them and to do reports. Committees already
have the opportunity. They are the masters of their own agenda.
They can call for this information if they want to look at it.
They can make the decision themselves whether or not it is
important to review. I do not believe that all reports should
have reviews. I believe that only those reports that merit
review by a committee should be reviewed. That is contrary to
what is prescribed in this motion. As a consequence, I will not
be supporting the motion.
1325
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would have loved to have got my debating claws on the
previous member who spoke, but I guess that opportunity slipped
me by.
I listened intently to the speech of the member who just spoke.
I was absolutely amazed to hear him declare that he was voting
against the motion. I he had read the motion he would have seen
that is almost exactly what are presently Treasury Board
guidelines. Treasury Board said that these internal audits and
other internal reports were to be released within 30 days. The
motion, if it were amended, would say that we should release them
within 30 days.
How can the hon. member possibly stand in this place and say
that he will vote against the motion that we are putting forward
that will simply underline the importance of doing what the
Treasury Board guidelines say? He is saying “No. I'm going to
vote against it. I don't agree with that”.
What does he propose in its place? Does he proposed to hide
them forever? We have all these audit reports, which are long
overdue, and they are not available. We are not getting them
through access to information. Does he want to continue to hide
it? If he votes against this motion does he have an alternate
proposal?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in my speech,
the rules of Treasury Board are already in place. They require
that internal audits are released by departments into the public
domain immediately upon their completion. That cannot be
clearer.
The member asked directly why I would not be voting for the
motion. I will repeat directly why I will not be voting for the
motion. First, it is very poorly worded and, in particular, it
requires that all these audits from all departments at all times,
everything that has ever been done, somehow be magically referred
permanently to committees which would be responsible for
reviewing them. It would simply tie parliament up totally and
not put the priorities of the nation ahead of ordinary day to day
work.
The motion is flawed not only in its language but also in its
intent.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have to take some umbrage with the latter comment
by the hon. member opposite, who I have the greatest respect for
and who I think has the highest degree of integrity.
However, we have found, throughout this entire affair that has
been going on now for some months, that there have been
incredible efforts undertaken by his government to not only deny
that the problem existed but to then point an accusatory finger
across the way at the opposition.
It would be ludicrous for me to suggest that there was not a
political element to all this. However, when it comes down to
the facts of the case that are before the Canadian public, we
have the auditor general himself saying that 85% of the programs
were flawed in one form or another. We know that when we talk
about flaws we are discussing things like companies getting more
money than they applied for, companies applying for money under
numbered companies and then did not set up the company in the way
that they were supposed to or create the jobs that they were
supposed to. Therefore, there is a very serious undertone to the
motion that is before the House.
The hon. member should not simply shrug his shoulders and say
that there is a process in place that is doing this work. He
should admit that the problem is there. This motion is worded in
such a way as to perhaps give Canadians some confidence that this
problem will be dealt with in a very open and transparent way,
which is again just a word when it comes to this government and
is not in fact the practice.
I think Canadians would like to see—and it applies to
opposition members as well—the government stand before the
Canadian public and say that it was wrong, that it made a mistake
and that maybe, based on the information it had at the time, it
did something that it would have done differently in retrospect.
Canadians have now come to expect that from the government.
Will the member please elucidate to us why it is that the
government is not prepared to admit that the problem is there and
that it will do something in a substantive way to give Canadians
confidence in the future about this?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
kind comments and his words of encouragement.
1330
First of all, the member will readily admit that when the HRDC
issue came up, whether it was $3 billion or $1 billion or whether
it was mismanaged by the government or the applicants, a lot of
politics was being played. That is unfortunate because it is at
the expense of the interests of Canadians.
Canadians have a right to know the facts. The facts are that of
the original 37 files in the HRDC matter which is what the member
is referring to, 34 have been completed. It was found that none
of the deficiencies in the files were valid and all of the items
were cleared.
The motion calls for all audit reports to go to committee. I
will not be supporting this. I am sure the member would not
support it on that basis. Certainly the House has the right to
send audits to committee, but all audits would just grind
parliament to a halt.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the
comments made by the Liberal member. I am a little concerned
because I get the impression members such as the member for
Mississauga South do not realize the concern that Canadians have.
Canadians have watched over a period of time what they consider
to be democracy and accountability in government diminishing. We
have seen how a government has taken authority away from this
place, the Parliament of Canada, and has placed it in the courts
of the land and in the orders in council, the executive branch of
government. We have seen how the executive branch of government,
which is really a handful of individuals hand picked by the Prime
Minister and the Prime Minister himself, is running the country.
This motion has brought to our attention the fact that not only
is it running the country, making the decisions and ignoring
parliament, but it is also refusing to share information which is
legally available to Canadians.
I think there was some misinformation about the motion. I am
going to read it just so Canadians know exactly what the motion
is about:
That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit
reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and
permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees, that
audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days
after the adoption of this motion, and that all audit reports
requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled
forthwith.
All the motion is trying to do is to make information that is to
be public made public through the committee process.
The hon. member for Mississauga South was quite right. This
motion really should not be needed because treasury board has
policies under which it is to operate. I will read from a memo
from André Robert, the acting director of internal audit division
of Treasury Board Secretariat. His memo is quite specific as to
what the requirements under ATIP, access to information, are:
With regard to the issue of accessibility under ATIP as raised in
the first paragraph of page two of my February 14 memo, I would
like to clarify that once such reports are completed, they are
public documents. This means that when completed, they should be
accessible to the public without requiring a formal request under
ATIP.
The memo is very clear. And, Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time.
Requests for “draft material” of any kind should be dealt with
through the normal ATIP process. Your departmental ATIP
co-ordinator is familiar with these matters and requests received
for draft reports should be referred to your departmental ATIP
co-ordinator for appropriate action.
As a final point, I would ask that you please disregard my
previous request to fax a copy—
It is very clear from this memo that the policy is in place. The
problem and the reason this motion is before the House is that
the government is completely ignoring the policy that is on the
government books.
1335
That policy is prohibiting Canadians from accessing information
they are entitled to. It is their money that is being used.
This policy has been in place for a period of time and everybody
on the government side is aware of it, yet we have access
requests for audits that we know are completed which are 45 days
overdue.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: You do not need access. We gave you
the file.
Ms. Val Meredith: Precisely. A member on the opposite
side says we do not need access. Then why are the audits not
available to us if we do not need access to information? The
truth of the matter is that the government is withholding this
information. Why?
The member for Mississauga South claims that the government was
ensuring its credibility, its integrity and its accountability.
He did not use the word transparency because he could not. If
this is true, then why do we have to go through the access to
information process to get audits that are supposed to be
available without an access request?
It is because the government is hiding information and one has
to ask why. It is to control the timing of the release of the
information. The government wants to withhold this information
until the summer recess when we are not sitting here and cannot
draw the public's attention to the mismanagement of government
departments. Or perhaps it is withholding this information until
after the next federal election so the Liberal members do not
have to hold themselves accountable to the electorate during that
election. The government is controlling the timing by refusing to
release these audit documents.
Most important is that the government is breaking its own
policies. It is breaking the policies and the established
process of releasing government audits. It is the government
that is to rule under the law but it seems to have no hesitation
to break it whenever it is appropriate to do so.
The member for Mississauga South commented that it was
information that came up, that perhaps it was not an audit at all
that raised this concern in the Department of Human Resources
Development. He also said that it was one audit.
It is not one audit. Canadians are smart enough to know that it
is not one audit we are talking about. It is a number of audits,
and it is a number of audits that we cannot get our hands on. And
it is not just one department. A number of departments other
than human resources development hand out grants and subsidies to
individuals and corporations in this country. It is their audits
as well.
Our job in opposition is to hold the government accountable for
spending the good hardearned tax dollars of the Canadian public.
The government does not seem to be responsible or really care
whether it is held accountable or whether the integrity of
government is protected.
We in opposition feel that it is important for the government to
share information. Government departments should be available to
the public for scrutiny. It is very important that a government
that places so much control and power with the executive branch
show itself to be transparent so the Canadian public can have
some degree of confidence that the government is doing what is in
the best interests of the Canadian population.
Everything we have seen in the past three months in the House
would indicate a number of things, that the government is
contemptuous of the Canadian taxpayer, the government has no
intention of being transparent and its integrity is in question.
The government has to decide whether it is going to continue down
the path of withholding and controlling information or whether it
is going to offer to the Canadian public information so it can be
held to account for how it spends the tax dollars that are
provided to it to provide programming for Canadians.
I ask the government members if they intend to uphold the laws
of the land or if they feel they are above the laws of the land.
1340
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell the member from British Columbia
that all of us on this side of the House and in government
understand it is the opposition's duty and responsibility to hold
us accountable. Many of us have been in opposition and we know
what that role is. We do not challenge that role.
We also would say that we do not know of a business or a
government in Canada, even this government, that has not made
mistakes. There will always be mistakes. That is the way life
is. We are not proud of mistakes, but we will admit there are
some mistakes.
It is absolutely shameful that the members of the Canadian
Alliance try to create the illusion that somehow $1 billion sort
of vanished when—
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: No, the government is mismanaging $13
billion.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, now the members
opposite want to create the illusion it was $3 billion that just
vanished.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: No, it was $13 billion.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians realize
that every one of those Canadian taxpayers' dollars went for
projects in every single riding across Canada for people in our
communities who tend to be most in need.
I say with respect to the member, we have to be transparent. We
put 10,000 pages of documents out there and I cannot believe that
members opposite have read all of those documents.
The point I want to make is that whether we are on the
government side or the opposition side, we are all here to look
out for those people in the country who are most in need. The
people who are most in need tend to be those clients of HRDC. I
respectfully ask the member, why would she cast aspersions on
99.9% of those dollars that go to good causes for children at
risk, for seniors, for people with disabilities? Why would the
member or her party do that when essentially her argument is with
those few files where there have been honest, human mistakes?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it quite
clear that HRDC is only one department and that the problems do
not sit just with one department.
When we talk about $1 billion, one audit of $1 billion worth of
projects showed very high instances of non-compliance, of poor
management.
When the hon. member talks about those most in need benefiting
from this government largesse, we know that is absolutely
misrepresenting the facts. The Liberals cannot tell me that the
government in helping Amtrak, the U.S. passenger rail service, is
helping those most in need, that Bombardier, a very large
international corporation which has 32 plants around the world is
in dire need, that they are those most in need.
The government member is misrepresenting to Canadians where all
the money is going. It is not just HRDC. It is EDC, it is
DIAND, it is industry, it is HRDC. The taxpayers' money goes to
many different areas in government spending.
All we ask in the motion is that the internal audits done on how
the government is spending taxpayers' money be made public and
available to the opposition and to Joe Blow citizen so that we
can hold the government accountable and be able to decide whether
the government is spending our money wisely.
1345
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have a brief question, because I know that there is not much
time left.
In the first part of her speech explaining the reasons for the
motion, the member said that more transparency was necessary.
She had harsh words for the way the federal government now
operates.
I agree with her, in that the Prime Minister of Canada is not
elected by the voters of Canada. Yet the Prime Minister
appoints judges and senators. Through his executive power, the
Prime Minister has almost complete authority.
Could the member tell whether she and her party agree that
reform is in order on this point?
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, this party agrees with the
need for some reformation, some changes in how parliament
operates and in how the patronage system needs to be corrected.
The concern is not just about the appointments. The concern is
about how the government is bringing legislation to the House
that removes power from the House and places it with the
executive branch of government. That has to stop.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
support my colleagues in the official opposition on our supply
day motion which reads as follows:
That an Order of the House do issue for all departmental audit
reports to be tabled within 15 days of their completion and
permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees, that
audit reports since January 1, 1999, be tabled within 15 days
after the adoption of this motion, and that all audit reports
requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled
forthwith.
We are recommending these actions because we are finding that
the government is being less than forthcoming with respect to
reporting and providing information to Canadians on how our tax
dollars are spent.
The motion we are debating today simply asks this weak Liberal
government to reaffirm its own regulations. The wording of the
motion is the same as the regulations of the treasury board and
the privy council office. That means if anyone is opposing the
motion, he or she is opposing the government's own regulations.
A very serious and disturbing point has recently come to light
in terms of how the government is governing our nation. All
Canadians respect the fact that certain information is not made
public in order to protect our national security. That is okay.
Other information may be kept secret in order to ensure fairness
in competition in certain cases, but for the most part we expect
our federal government to come up with the facts and figures on
the nation's finances in detail and without hesitation.
We only expect to be stonewalled if there is something to hide.
We are proud of and trust our public service employees. If there
is something to hide it is the political managers that want to
hide something. Who are those managers? It is the Liberals who
are hiding something. They have found out that it is too
difficult to hide a $1 billion boondoggle.
The official opposition has received no reply to formal requests
for audit reports from the following government departments and
agencies. I will list some of them. The official opposition put
forward many ATI requests to the Department of Human Resources
Development, and HRDC is late in replying. It does not want to
reply. Five of these requests are for departmental audits that
should be public information according to treasury board
guidelines and are now 45 days overdue.
1350
Canada Customs and Revenue requested a 30 day extension on March 9.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation requested an
undefined extension due to third party consultations. The
Department of Citizenship and Immigration requested a 90 day
extension on March 9. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans
provided some audits and asked for a 30 day extension for others.
Similarly the National Capital Commission, the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and so on are on the list.
I want to speak about the treasury board guidelines. Treasury
board policies were announced in a May 26, 1994, letter of
decision which stated in part:
To simplify the process for acquiring copies of reports, and to
deliver on the government's commitment for more openness, the
policy requires that departments make the final version of review
reports, including the internal audits and evaluation reports,
accessible to the public, without requiring a formal access
request—
The treasury board is now breaking its own policy by withholding
such information even when a formal request is filed. HRDC had a
good record of responding to ATI requests on time until the
billion dollar boondoggle came along. As a result of the HRDC
experience, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council
Office now insist on being told what audits have been requested,
whether they contain bad news, and what the official political
media line will be before the audits are released.
In testimony before the HRD committee last week the information
commissioner attributed the backlog of information requests in
the department largely to new treasury board and privy council
rules. Let me give some quotes from the information commissioner
to the HRD committee on March 28 of this year. The information
commissioner said:
The right to access is one of the cornerstones of our democratic
process and one of the best tools available to ensure responsible
government.
He further stated:
With respect to the audit reports, there has been a slowdown, but
the slowdown is government-wide, and the reason for that is that
as a result of the HRDC experience...all audits requested now go
through an additional process by Treasury Board and the Privy
Council. What has happened is that the Treasury Board and the
Privy Council Office want to know what audits have been
requested, whether they contain bad news, and what the official
media line will be...The problem, however, arises when the
communication concerns of the Government are allowed to take
precedence over the public's right to timely access to
information.
The information commission said as well that it was clear from
what had been said by the access to information commissioners in
the various departments that they could not meet the 30 day
stipulation because of the new process that had been put in place
by the Liberals. He also said that information delayed was
information denied.
The government should have no problem supporting a motion that
would entrench its own policies with regard to the release of
audit reports to the public on an order of the House. That way
the House would have some recourse if the government failed to
live up to its recent self-stated commitment to openness.
We have clearly witnessed in the government time and again a
lack of openness and a lack of transparency. We have seen in the
government time and again a lack of respect for democracy. It
has limited debate many times. It has used time allocation many
times. It has beaten the record of Brian Mulroney.
Similarly we have seen changes to the Canada Elections Act
before the House which favour the governing party, in this case
the Liberal Party.
It is so undemocratic that it is almost anti-democratic.
1355
The government denies information. It hides facts. It
exaggerates its own achievements. It does not answer questions
in question period, as we will see in five minutes. It
misrepresents the opposition parties time and again in the House.
It has not kept its promises to the Canadian public.
We know about the GST and national day care programs. The
government time and again has exhibited a cover-up mentality.
Despite its own mistakes it continues to ignore, ridicule the
opposition and defend itself and its ministers, but it will not
apologize or confess that it was wrong. It will not correct
mistakes and rectify the problems.
We are witnessing the lack of political will by the government
to fix the system. We are witnessing arrogance by the
government. It has lame excuses, delays and denials. It abuses
its power time and again in the House. It promised to introduce
visibility legislation and it has not done that. I will
introduce a private member's bill.
We see the role of committees. All parties tend to be partisan.
The committees can be more productive and can analyze the audits
we are talking about. They can analyze other issues and make
recommendations to the government.
The public's only access to audits occurs when they are leaked
to the media. I remember that CIDA released a very important
audit just before the Christmas holidays. This attitude is
continuing. All members in the House should support the motion.
The Speaker: We have five minutes left for questions and
comments but rather than do that now I propose we wait until
after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
BORALEX SENNETERRE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on April 3, 2000, with the Mayor of Senneterre and numerous
representatives of the municipality, government, industry and
local dignitaries in attendance, Boralex Senneterre held a
sod-turning ceremony to inaugurate the construction of its future
32-megawatt thermal power plant at Senneterre, in the Abitibi
region. It will be fuelled by residue from the forestry
industry.
This project represents an investment in excess of $50 million,
and is the highest capacity installation Boralex has built in
Quebec to date.
According to Boralex President and CEO Jacques Gauthier, “This
project fits solidly within our objective to make Boralex a
producer focusing on renewable energy and green energy, an area
in which we have already developed leading-edge expertise and
have already earned our laurels. We are particularly proud that
this project will be located in a dynamic community and will
enable us to contribute to putting to good use a large
proportion of the forestry residue from the Senneterre region,
to produce energy”.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the agriculture minister
appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food. I was hoping to get some answers as to why the
government was not getting the $1.7 billion it promised into the
hands of struggling Canadian farmers. Unfortunately the only
response I got from the minister was more Liberal rhetoric.
Farmers in my riding say AIDA is inefficient, rigid and filled
with complicated forms and bureaucratic red tape. Frustrated
farmers may not even apply for assistance this year as it appears
hopeless.
AIDA must be overhauled. The whole program must be reviewed and
revamped to help farmers. Taxes on fuel and other inputs could
be reduced immediately. The Liberals have already broken their
promise to get the money out in time to help farmers. Will they
make a commitment to get the remaining $1.2 billion out in the
next couple of weeks so farmers have the resources to put in
their crops?
Farmers send a lot of money to Ottawa hidden right in their
input costs. Why not refund it now?
* * *
[Translation]
MURDER OF HAITIAN JOURNALIST
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday morning we learned the sad news of the murder of Jean
Dominique, a Haitian broadcast executive and close friend of
President René Préval. He was killed in Port-au-Prince while on
his way to work.
Mr. Dominique was one of his country's most respected
commentators. He had been forced into exile on several
occasions as a result of his fight against dictatorship.
I would remind hon. members that the atmosphere in Haiti at the
present time is a very tense one, and President Préval is
hesitant to hold a general election.
This death brings to mind what a difficult job journalists have
in a number of places on this planet. In some cases, they are
truly living on the edge.
Fortunately, Canada has a spotless reputation as far as freedom
of the press and freedom of speech are concerned. Regardless of
the country in which such a terrible event takes place, it is
always a terrible shock for us to hear such news, as it runs
counter to all charters of rights and freedoms.
* * *
1400
[English]
TERRY FOX
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the magnificent legacy of Terry Fox continues to grow
year by year, country by country. A Terry Fox run is now being
held in more than 50 countries worldwide.
On the eve of our Prime Minister's visit to the Middle East, it
is heartwarming to observe the growing ties between Canada and
the nations of the region. On the streets of Beirut, Lebanon,
and Damascus, Syria, and throughout the Middle East, thousands of
people have gathered each year for many years to walk, run, and
roller blade in support of cancer research in memory of Terry
Fox.
May the legacy of Terry Fox continue to serve as an ambassador
for the spirit of Canada all over the world and may relations
between Canada and the Middle East continue to flourish.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER DAVID ODDSSON
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Prime Minister
David Oddsson of Iceland to our country. Prime Minister Oddsson
is the longest serving prime minister among western countries
today. He is an accomplished statesman, political leader and
author.
Mr. Oddsson's four day visit will commemorate Iceland's unique
historical ties to Canada. These ties stretch back l,000 years
to the birth of Snorri, the first white child born in North
America at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, 500 years before
Columbus and Cabot.
These ties also include the founding of New Iceland in 1875 on
the location of present day Gimli, Manitoba, and other
settlements throughout Manitoba's Interlake region.
Today, there are thousands of Canadians of Icelandic descent
spread across our country. I am proud to be one of them. My
father came from there when he was 13 years of age.
On behalf of all members of this House, I welcome Prime Minister
Oddsson to Canada.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, loyal Liberals are waiting by their phones as the Prime
Minister mulls over his choices for the seven vacant Senate
seats. The Alberta vacancy, however, is sending shudders through
the Prime Minister's office.
Albertans elected Bert Brown as their choice for senator in
October 1998 and now they expect the Prime Minister to appoint
him to the Senate.
The problem is the Prime Minister would rather bypass their
wishes in favour of a patronage appointee. What a change from
those long forgotten days when he was opposition leader. Back
then he said “The Liberal government in two years will make the
Senate elected. As Prime Minister, I can make that happen”.
A year later, he said “To meet the hopes and dreams of those
who live in the west and the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is
essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and
equitable”.
Will this be just another in the long list of broken Liberal
promises? The Prime Minister has a choice. Will he choose
democracy over patronage?
* * *
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, six years ago, Sue Rodriguez died after a long and
courageous struggle with ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease.
Sue also fought another valiant battle before parliament and
into the Supreme Court of Canada for a change to the criminal
code provisions on physician assisted dying for terminally ill
persons.
Even with the best of palliative care, too many Canadians are
forced to suffer pain, anguish, indignity or pharmaceutical
oblivion in their final days. Doctors must reject the eloquent
plea of people like Terry Graham of Brampton or of Dr. Cohn Woolf
of Toronto to allow them to die with dignity at the time they
choose. Some, like Halifax orchestra conductor, Georg Tintner,
jump from their balcony in despair.
I call today on the Liberal government to show compassion and
humanity and listen to the eloquent call of Terry Graham, dying
of mitochondrial myopathy, who recently said, “I'm just waiting
to die. I'd just as soon shoot myself. It's quicker.”
I urge our government: Listen to the voices of three quarters
of Canadians, amend this cruel and inhumane law now.
* * *
VAISAKHI
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this month the Sikh community in Canada
and around the world are celebrating Vaisakhi, the 301st birthday
of the Sikh nation, Khalsa.
Canada's Sikh community and myself are deeply grateful to the
Prime Minister for his continued involvement at Vaisakhi
celebrations on Parliament Hill every year for the last seven
years.
I am sure all members will join me in congratulating Canadian
Sikhs on the birth of the Sikh nation, and in recognition of
their tremendous contributions in all spheres of Canadian
society, like B.C.'s premier and minister of fisheries.
Finally, I thank all members of the cabinet and my fellow
members for their continued support and involvement with me since
1993.
* * *
1405
HUTCHISON CREEK FISH HATCHERY
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday I went to the Hutchison Creek
Fish Hatchery in Port Moody with students from the Heritage
Mountain Elementary School. The students had a hands-on
educational experience.
Larry Cardus operates an eight year old hatchery that is
monitored by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. He has let
over one million fish go in the 18 years of his involvement in
fish enhancement. He is also a great firefighter in my riding.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS ACCOUNTABILITY COALITION
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last year the United Nations stated that the quality of
life for Canadians living on reserves is a national shame. For
non-aboriginal Canadians the quality of life ranking continues to
be number one, while aboriginal Canadians tolerate a quality of
life ranked 35th, below that experienced in Mexico and Thailand.
I would like to salute Leona Freed and her colleagues with the
First Nations Accountability Coalition. In one year this group
has brought aboriginal accountability to the forefront and has
worked tirelessly to correct this inequity.
Leona held meetings for grassroots people last summer. The
purpose was to hear concerns about living conditions on and off
reserve. The grievances were many and were extensively
documented. Many had proof of mismanagement of tax dollars,
illegal and corrupt activities and electoral irregularities, just
to name a few.
I encourage all members, regardless of political stripe, to
obtain and study a copy of this report. In the words of Leona
“unless the grassroots natives' concerns are addressed and
thoroughly investigated, a new relationship with band members
cannot exist and self-government will not succeed ”.
Leona, I salute you.
* * *
[Translation]
GLOBE AND MAIL
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Jeffrey
Simpson, a so-called worthy and honest journalist, today used the
pages of the Globe and Mail to deliver a vitriolic attack on the
members of the Bloc Quebecois and on all Quebecers who even dare
to consider voting for our party.
He said, and I quote “The Bloc Quebecois caucus is mostly made
up of second-raters and shouters—not caring or knowing
anything about the rest of Canada—. In this, too, they are a
fine reflection of their electors”.
Rarely have we seen such contempt for Quebecers and their
legitimate political aspirations spread across the editorial
page of a respectable Canadian newspaper. This intolerant
attitude verges on hatred and racism. This is an embarrassment
to the Globe and Mail and to Canada as a whole.
Off come the masks. The constitutional general store is closed.
The Montreal love-in has been forgotten. Now is the hour of
Bill C-20, night sticks and “shut up and stay quiet”.
Quebec is of nobler spirit. When the day comes and it becomes
sovereign, it will reach out to Canada.
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on April 1, the Canadian armed forces association launched its
first Internet site.
The site contains a host of information on military and civilian
aviation with many links to museums, squadrons and organizations
in the world of aerospace.
The launch date of April 1 was no chance matter. This date
marks not only the 75th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Air
Force but the 50th anniversary of civil aviation as well.
The world of communications has never been such a vital element
in the context of openness to the world and exchanges of
information between people and organizations from all corners of
the planet.
Congratulations to the Canadian armed forces association on its
initiative. I invite everyone to visit this site full of
interesting discoveries and surprises.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government derives huge revenues from the sale of
gasoline in Canada.
It rakes in over $6.3 billion annually just from excise taxes
and the GST. If the $2 billion from taxing oil companies is
added in, the government has over $8 billion from which to draw
in tackling the hike in gasoline prices.
The recent increase in the price of gasoline continues to
benefit the federal government by bringing in additional
revenues.
As he often tries to do on many other occasions, the Minister of
Finance is trying to duck the issue, and is shirking his
responsibilities to taxpayers.
He must take action immediately to improve the situation for
taxpayers, and not try to shift the blame to the provinces.
Since we know that federal surpluses are much higher than the
Minister of Finance forecast, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that he
has sufficient leeway to do something about this problem
immediately.
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers are not stupid; they know where
the money is and who is in a position to take immediate action:
Ottawa.
* * *
1410
[English]
C.H. TUNG
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Canada-Hong Kong Parliamentary Friendship Group,
it is my pleasure to welcome Mr. C.H. Tung, Chief Executive of
Hong Kong, to Canada and to our beautiful capital of Ottawa.
The relationship between Canada and Hong Kong will only
strengthen as Canada continues to expand and develop new
partnerships through trade, education and through sharing of our
cultural traditions.
I hope Mr. Tung has a wonderful time and will take back a good
relationship.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance says he has more money for health care if the
provinces agree to the federal government's plan for health care
reform. While the government plays carrots and sticks with the
provinces over health care funding, people are dying while
awaiting operations, emergency rooms resemble war zones and
patients are sleeping on stretchers in hospital corridors.
Canadians want us to fix the system that is already broken
before we embark on any new schemes. That fix urgently requires
putting back the $4.5 billion a year that the Liberals have
already taken out of the system.
If the government is serious about building the health care of
tomorrow, it must first help save the system that we have today.
* * *
ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 8 the Ontario Chapter of Women in International
Trade was launched. Canada joined a worldwide network that aims
to significantly increase international trade opportunities for
Canadian businesswomen.
The Organization of Women in International Trade is comprised of
over 5,000 members in countries around the world. With
women-owned businesses significantly under-represented in the
global trade arena, this organization seeks to change the
situation by providing global business contacts, networking and
educational opportunities.
The activities of the Ontario chapter are presently focused on
electronic commerce. Women can now level the playing field by
accessing the Internet and making contact, marketing or selling
their products and services worldwide. With this technology,
some of the barriers women often face, such as the inability to
travel extensively due to family commitments or fears for their
security, now disappear.
Women in International Trade of Ontario hopes to play a valuable
role in assisting women exporters reach aggressive growth targets
through skill enhancement seminars, networking opportunities, and
by providing practical tips, resources and global contacts to
foster Internet marketing.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to challenge the Liberal government over
its lack of foresight and inability to seek out solutions for the
number one problem facing Canadians today, health care.
Funding is an integral part of the solution but the federal
government now only provides 11% of public health care funding in
Canada. Yet this government seems unwilling to work with the
provinces in an effort to find solutions to health care problems
it has caused.
As all of the provincial health care ministers showed last week,
there is an overwhelming need for the federal government to get
on board and join in the search for real solutions. The time for
empty talk is over. The time for action is now.
As I have done previously, I challenge this government to
co-operatively research and seek solutions to the health care
problems facing Canadians today. Bring the provinces on board
for this major task.
This afternoon the Standing Committee on Health will discuss
future business and I urge all members of the committee to adopt
my motion to study the state of health care in Canada.
Canadians expect solutions. The Canadian Alliance is actively
working to find these national solutions.
* * *
VIA RAIL
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Biggar, Saskatchewan, in my riding, is a railroad
town but you would never know it by the way it is treated by VIA
Rail. The train arrives in the middle of the night and if you
want to catch it, you have to stand shivering under a light pole.
The station that was built by VIA in the 1970s has been closed.
I have had letters from CN pensioners, from the Biggar New
Horizons project and from the Catholic Women's League asking that
VIA Rail open the station so that people can wait for the train
in comfort.
The transport minister said yesterday we are getting more money
into the rail system and a new day is dawning for passenger rail
in Canada. The people in Biggar, Saskatchewan, just want to have
their station re-opened so they can wait for the train in comfort
and safety.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, political accountability on our
aboriginal reserves across Canada is a disaster.
1415
The chief of the Eskasoni reserve in Cape Breton took
honorariums and bonuses totalling more than $300,000 last year
alone, and yet his fellow band members are plagued by a 50%
unemployment rate and dire poverty.
Why will this minister not stand to protect the band members?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality of government to
government relationships means that we have to honour the
abilities of the first nations people to make their own
decisions.
The reality is that the first nations people will decide what
will be the wages of their elected officials. At election time
they will make that decision. When they make the decision they
will choose the best person on the ballot.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I wonder why
there is even a position for the minister of Indian affairs, if
he is not going to give any guidance to these people who have
such desperate situations on reserve.
Taxpayers have a right to know that their money is being put to
good use, and so do the aboriginal grassroots band members.
Asked to comment recently on the $130,000 tax free salary of the
chief of the Acadia reserve, the minister stood and said “I have
no reason to dispute it”.
Why is rampant poverty and dire straits not reason enough to
dispute greed at the top?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make this
very clear to the member, because she may not understand what
government to government relationships mean. When talking about
government relationships, we allow governments which are duly
elected by their memberships to make the decisions as to what
salaries their elected officials will make. It is not up to the
Government of Canada or this minister to make that decision for
them.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about government
to government relationships. Surely there is some responsibility
for government to taxpayers, the people who are footing the bill.
The amount of $640,000 went to the Acadia reserve chief and
councillors, over three times what it had been just two years
before.
Over that same two year period social services to the people and
the children on that reserve were reduced by more than $200,000.
So much for helping the poor.
If the minister is in this position to actually help people, I
would like him to realize that these are tragic stories. Why is
he ignoring them?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have stood and
said in the House a number of times in the last number of months,
to make it very clear, we are the most audited department in the
government.
One of the things we do is ask the Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants to audit first nations. Those audits
include information which any first nation can get. All they
have to do is ask the department for the information and it will
be supplied.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have read some of these audit reports and they are a
disgrace.
A crisis exists in Canada. The First Nations National
Accountability Coalition presented its report, pleading for an
end to the government's refusal to address the critical needs of
ordinary people living on reserve. The coalition reports waste,
corruption and dictatorship rule.
Will the minister and his government do the right thing and
respond immediately to the recommendations of the accountability
coalition, or will billions continue to be wasted on
boondoggles—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with
government to government relationships, we allow first nations
people to make their own decisions.
A number of years ago white governments made the decisions for
first nations. That is not the policy of this government. The
policy of this government is to let first nations make their own
decisions. Those decisions will be made much better at the
community level than they will be made by me as the minister or
by that party across the way.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is too bad it is not government to people. That is
what it ought to be.
The minister continues to hear the outcry of aboriginal people
living on reserve. Grassroots aboriginal people have been
begging the minister to stop the gross corruption and waste on
reserve.
Others in Canada can access an ombudsman. Aboriginal people on
reserve cannot. Will the minister respond to this request? Will
the minister give aboriginal people on reserve the same rights
and privileges that the rest of us have, and give them access to
an ombudsman?
1420
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first say to
the member that if he is making accusations of corruption in
communities about individuals and elected officials, I would ask
him to make those accusation in writing, give them to the
solicitor general and we will look at them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development needs more time, he may
continue.
Hon. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
issue of an ombudsman, it is a very interesting concept which the
government is prepared to look at. However, we need to do what
the hon. member who spoke yesterday suggested, that is, consult
people before we make decisions related to a number of issues.
This is the same issue. We do not make decisions on behalf of
first nations without holding consultations. We are in the
process of consulting with the leadership of first nations. Once
we have made the decision as to whether or not they think it is a
good thing, we will undertake to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
disturbing facts regarding Placeteco keep accumulating: non
compliance with Treasury Board rules, jobs not created,
agreement not respected, clauses deliberately ignored, triple
role played by Mr. Champagne as the department's trustee, Mr.
Gauthier's lawyer and creditor in the bankruptcy,
misappropriation of the grant, which was used to repay a loan to
the National Bank, creditors cheated.
What more does the minister need to request a police
investigation?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House well knows that this question
has been asked a number of times. It has also been answered a
number of times, and the answer remains the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
never got an answer. Some people, including the minister,
avoided the issue.
In the issue of the transfer of a grant from Rosemont to the
riding of the Prime Minister, Saint-Maurice, there was a lot less
to justify a police investigation. Still, after an
administrative inquiry, the accounting firm decided to ask for a
police investigation.
Why is there no investigation in the case of Placeteco, where
the facts are much more serious, even though they were
reprehensible in the other case? Is it because several of the
people who would come under investigation are very close friends
of the Prime Minister?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion is absolutely
false. As I have said on a number of occasions, we have had an
administrative review of this file at the highest level in the
department, and there is no overpayment that has been
established.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources
Development has told us that she has all the invoices justifying
the grant to Placeteco.
However, a document from officials informs us that Placeteco no
longer considers itself under any obligation to provide an
accounting, since it has gone bankrupt, which would indicate to
us that not all the information has been provided.
Given this contradiction between the two versions, should the
minister not table the vouchers in this House to eliminate any
ambiguity?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have provided a considerable amount of
information to the House on all the files related to grants and
contributions. If the hon. member wants more detailed
information in this regard, there are appropriate avenues that
can be followed.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since, in her responses to our
questions, the minister voluntarily mixes the files of
Techni-Paint and Placeteco and since she also refuses to table
the invoices she says she has in hand, could we not conclude that
the invoices she has in hand are not those of Placeteco but those
of Techni-Paint?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I can confirm that we have reviewed
this file in detail at the highest level in the department and
there was no establishment of an overpayment.
Again, I want to point out that there are approximately 78
people working on this undertaking who would not be working if we
had taken the approach of that side of the House.
* * *
1425
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
story of another victim of Alberta's private health care is being
widely reported. The patient was told she needed an MRI scan.
She called the clinic, only to find out that the waiting list for
a publicly funded MRI was nine months, but that she could be seen
the very next day if she could pay the $600 fee.
When will the Minister of Health stand and say that this is
wrong, that this is shameful, and when will the federal
government finally take action to stop it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would remind the member that this is the first government since
the enactment of the Canada Health Act to stop payment to a
province. In fact it was Alberta, which conducted practices
inconsistent with the act.
In relation to MRIs, I can tell the member that we are fully
aware of concerns. We are investigating them. In fact I took
the matter up with the Alberta health minister when I met him
last Friday in Markham.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
leaked report on Alberta health care shows once again that
privatization does not work. Instead of innovation and
improvement, it leads to queue jumping and it leads to a two tier
system.
When the evidence is so overwhelming, and the minister knows it,
why will he not speak up? Is not the real reason that the
government refuses to stand up to Alberta's privatization plans
that the Prime Minister actually supports the increased
privatization of our health care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is nonsense. More than that, it is offensive nonsense. The
Prime Minister is a man whose public career stands in testimony
to his deep commitment to the principles of the Canada Health
Act. It was under his leadership that this government acted to
stop payment when Alberta conducted practices which were
inconsistent with the act.
As to Bill ll, we have made it clear that at the appropriate
time we will play our role to ensure that it is fully and
entirely in keeping with the Canada Health Act.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport knows better than most that there are
shipyards sitting idle in this country from coast to coast. Yet
when the people of Newfoundland needed an additional ferry, his
personal appointee at Marine Atlantic bought a ferry built
abroad.
The Minister of Industry has long told the House, day after day,
that this government does indeed have a national shipbuilding
policy that is competitive. If we have a policy that works, how
on earth can this government justify buying a ferry that is
anything but made in Canada, but made in Europe?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astounded that the hon. member would
come forward with this question, given the fact that there are
members on her side from Newfoundland—only one left now—who
have come to me over the last year and said “Get more capacity
for the ferry from Marine Atlantic”. Now she is saying that
because we will deliver on our promises that is somehow bad.
How does she explain that to Tories in Newfoundland?
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a follow-up question for the Minister of Transport.
The people of Newfoundland were waiting for that greatly needed
additional ferry to service the North Sydney to Port-aux-Basques
run, but before they could get it the Minister of Transport
appointed a new chair of Marine Atlantic who changed the required
specifications, we are told, at the very end of the bidding
process.
Now that the ferry is apparently purchased, how can the minister
defend the process to purchase a vessel that is in need of a full
year of repair work before it will be ready for use?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the important issue here is, will there be
additional capacity on the gulf run this summer? There will be
additional capacity.
The new chair of Marine Atlantic, who is a captain from St.
John's, an eminent seafarer, somebody who knows the marine
industry, is an individual who has gone out and got the best deal
for the Government of Canada. It does not come cheap. We are
spending over $70 million for the service between Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. I think that is very responsible.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government spends billions of dollars on aboriginal
specific programming that it claims will better the lives of
Canada's aboriginal people, but too much of that money is getting
into the hands of those who do not really deserve it.
On the Samson Cree reserve the band deficit is $50 million. The
unemployment rate is 85%, and yet, according to the 1997-98
audit, the chief and council have been paid $1.9 million, tax
free, in salaries and benefit.
Why is it that grassroots aboriginals get so little and band
councils get so much?
1430
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, band
councils are elected representatives of their communities.
If the member has the gall to do it, he should take these
questions up with the band council in Samson. If he does that he
will find that the first nation people there who elected those
officials have a lot of respect and trust in their abilities to
manage their affairs.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I expect we would find no such thing.
According to statistics, one-third of aboriginals on reserve
live in overcrowded conditions, 50% of aboriginal children live
in poverty and the infant mortality rate is twice as high for
aboriginal children as for other children.
When Health Canada recently conducted an audit of eight British
Columbia bands, it found that every single one of the chiefs and
councils had misspent health care funds, often using money, which
should have been used to help children or spent on health care,
to go on junkets to Hawaii.
Why has the minister failed to protect the interests of
disadvantaged grassroots aboriginals by ensuring that money
earmarked for health care actually gets to those who deserve it?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very
interesting to hear this from a party that has opposed every
single piece of legislation brought to the House that would
improve the abilities of first nation people to govern
themselves.
Let me use one example. The Nisga'a agreement is a modern
treaty, a modern self-government agreement that will give the
first nation people the opportunity to be successful, and this
party now tells me that it has concerns about first nation
people. I think that is hypocritical.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask all hon. members
to please stay away from the words hypocrite or hypocritical.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when the Liberals were elected in 1993, the federal government
paid 29% of the costs of Quebec's health care system. Seven
years later, it pays only 13.5%.
How can the Minister of Health say that the problem facing the
provinces is not one of health care funding, when his government
has dropped its contribution from 29% to 13.5% in seven years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member must know that our transfer payments are now more than 33
cents on every dollar, or $31 billion over the next year, which
is a new high. Equalization payments will hit a new high next
year as well. As for the specific question, what I can do is
cite Quebec's Minister of Finance, Bernard Landry.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when a minister cites Bernard Landry in the House, would he have
the courage to say that Quebec's Minister of Finance clearly said
that the main reason for the difficulties the provinces are
facing in their health care systems is the federal government's
cuts to transfer payments?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will say it again: $31 billion, a new high.
This year, as last year, we also transferred money. It is in a
bank in Toronto, and Quebec's finance minister can go and get it.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
on this issue of native accountability, the minister is standing
up for the chiefs and we are standing up for the grassroots
natives.
Let us go to the Stoney Band in Alberta. Here the band
councillors receive $1.4 million in salaries. They have a $5.6
million deficit and just 90% unemployment.
Why does the minister give so much to the chiefs and so little
to the grassroots natives?
1435
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are negotiating some 80
self-government agreements right now. When I bring them to the
House, I look forward to this party supporting the
self-government agreements of first nation people.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the one thing we will need in those agreements is accountability.
The minister is standing up for no accountability for the
grassroots. It is pretty straightforward. The minister believes
that the chiefs should get a lot and the grassroots should get
little. My question is: Why?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not support
the Leader of the Opposition nor the previous leader of the
opposition. He was elected to represent his people, and I
respect that, as I respect the chiefs who were elected by their
people.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in his speech of March 24, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans seemed confident that agreements would be reached with
both the first nations people and the traditional fishers. The
industry has concerns, however, and wants to see more concrete
agreements.
Can the minister confirm that one of the hypotheses envisaged by
the federal government at the negotiating table is the transfer
of part of the Quebec crab quota to the first nations fishers of
the Maritimes?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House
that as of today we have six signed agreements with first nations
bands. I hope in the coming days that I will be able to announce
more agreements. We have learned that one of the ways to resolve
this issue is by bringing the communities together to talk and to
have dialogue.
Even though we hear the members opposite talk about helping the
members of the first nation band, the way to do it is to sign
agreements on fishing so first nations can truly earn an income
and be able to take advantage of the economic opportunities
available.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I get the impression that the minister is a little mixed
up. I will therefore ask my question again.
In fisheries, there is a very delicate balance. Can the minister
confirm that one of the hypotheses envisaged by the federal
government at the negotiating table is the transfer of part of
the Quebec crab quota to the first nations fishers of the
Maritimes?
An hon. member: That is the question.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: That is unfair. An attempt is being made to
imbalance the quotas of the various provinces. This is what
prompts the AQIP, the Association québécoise de l'industrie de la
Pêche, to believe there are going to be interprovincial
transfers. What is his answer to that?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should stand up
and congratulate the government. We have committed $160 million
to a voluntary retirement program. The hon. member should know
that we are spending the money to buy existing licences on a
voluntary program to provide access to the aboriginal community.
We have brought the commercial fisherman and the aboriginal
community together to find community solutions to build
communities across the country. We are doing it in Atlantic
Canada. This is good news for Canada and it is good news—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the EDC continues to shovel billions of taxpayer money
out the door to fund ecologically disastrous projects like the
Three Gorges dam in China and the Urra hydro project in Columbia.
I ask the minister in what way does financing ecologically
disastrous projects overseas benefit the Canadian taxpayer?
1440
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to see that the
now deceased reform party is taking an interest in the
environment. It has voted against every single piece of
legislation the government has tabled to protect the environment.
This being said, the EDC has its own environmental framework
which comes from its own policies to ensure that environmental
factors are taken into account before any financial support is
approved for all projects.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, since the financing of the EDC is not available to the
public we cannot clarify that fact, but the beneficiaries of many
of these EDC loans are donors to the Liberal Party.
Canadians are horrified to learn that EDC is financing some of
the most damaging environmental projects in the world.
I ask the minister again: Why are Canadian taxpayers forced to
fund the world's worst ecological nightmares?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of the environment is a
very important file.
As I said earlier, we have had the Gowling report and a report
from the standing committee of the House of Commons. Both
reports have dealt with the environmental aspect. The government
is now studying how it will respond to those reports. We will
provide our response before May 15 acknowledging the legislative
review of which EDC will soon be the object.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
matter of parental leave, senior officials of the Department of
Human Resources Development confirmed yesterday that negotiations
with Quebec would not resume until Quebec sends Ottawa the terms
of the program it has in mind.
How can the minister claim to refuse to discuss with Quebec
until it submits its plan, when this is a matter under Quebec's
jurisdiction and, in any case, she has her hands full with the
scandals and investigations in her own department?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me a
chance to remind the House that it was in the Speech from the
Throne that this government indicated it would double parental
benefits. Only four months later in the budget, we have made
that a reality. Between now and the end of the year parental
benefits for Canadians will double. The opportunities to make
them more accessible and flexible will be there.
The job that I have is to ensure that this undertaking is done
well for all Canadians, including those in Quebec.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
I raised the issue of trade inequities in international wine
markets on previous occasions. In 1996 Canada imported more than
$330 million worth of wine from the European Union while Canadian
exports to the EU were limited to only $1 million. In 1999 the
gap grew.
Why is there this huge imbalance? When will the minister
correct the problem?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that Canada will
continue to seek improved access for our wines, including the
Ontario ice wine which is having major difficulty in Europe. We
are working hard on that file.
We have discussed a limited aegis on bilateral wine and spirit
issues with the EU, including market access, protection for
geographic indications and mutual recognition of winemaking
practices. We had an exchange of views between Canadian and EU
officials at the end of March. Significant differences remain
but we will make further progress.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, maybe they can exchange papers after
question period instead and pay attention to the environment.
The government can study environmental investments all it wants
but Canadian taxpayers are still on the hook for the following
environmental disasters: the Three Gorges dam in China, $130
million; mine poisoning in Papua New Guinea, $88 million; and, a
gold mine cyanide spill in Kyrgyzstan, $30 million.
How can the minister defend blowing hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars on these disasters?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague in the House for
taking an interest in the wine exports of the country that will
do a lot better job. I do not think the opposition member should
question his own questions.
1445
As for the EDC, this is a very important subject on environment.
It has its environmental framework with its own policies and EDC
does go through these factors for every project that it approves.
There will be a legislative review. We will discuss these
elements further as our government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it seems like whining is all we are
getting from that side of the House. We are starting to see that
environmental boondoggles are the real return on investments to
Canadians, from the so-called team Canada trade missions that the
government has sponsored. There was $1.5 billion for a Chinese
nuclear reactor; another $245 million for a gold mine in Guyana,
and another cyanide spill; a pulp and paper mill in Indonesia;
chronic air and water pollution.
How can the minister justify spending billions of dollars on
these environmental boondoggles?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained a number of times that
the EDC has a mandate to help Canadian exporters gain access to a
number of markets. It works out of two accounts. I have
explained that in the House time and again. There is the
corporate account and the Canada account.
The auditor general has gone through its work and it is quite
appropriate the way it works. It is applying public criteria
that are well known with its environmental framework. We will
have the opportunity of discussing that further at the
legislative review of the EDC.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
Thursday, 300 people gathered on the Acadian peninsula to ask the
federal and provincial governments to assume their responsibility
in the matter of the black hole created by the changes to
unemployment insurance in 1996 by this government.
Yesterday, the Premier of New Brunswick told a group of 200
people that New Brunswick was not responsible for the black hole.
What is the Minister of Human Resources Development going to do
to resolve the problem of the black hole once and for all?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very sensitive to the plight of
seasonal workers. Let us face it, the best insurance for them is
job creation, economic development and skills training.
That is why in 1997 we conferred $240 million to the province of
New Brunswick to use in assisting seasonal workers and others in
the province to get the employment they need. I am glad to say
that I have had the chance to visit the Acadian peninsula and
have received a report jointly done with the men and women who
live in that area and my department. We will be looking at that
report to see if there is more we can do.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to renegotiate a
longstanding agreement with the province of Ontario to clean up
the polluted waters of the Great Lakes. There are 8.5 million
Canadians who live in the Great Lakes basin and another 4.5
million who live along the St. Lawrence River. Their health and
safety is at stake.
This agreement was important and it was working. Will the
environment minister tell us why the agreement was allowed to
expire?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that I wrote sometime
ago to the Ontario minister for the environment proposing that
the agreement be continued and re-established for another period
of years. The Ontario government has not yet substantively
replied to us. This does not mean that we are not continuing
with negotiations. We would like to continue so we can sign an
agreement as soon as possible.
I can assure the member that in the meantime we will make sure
that everything possible is done to maintain the quality of the
environment of the Great Lakes and to make sure that there is no
harm to the environment by reason of the lack of an agreement.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Transport just stood up and said he got the best
deal he could on a ferry for the run from North Sydney to Port
aux Basques, Newfoundland. He got the best deal and it only cost
$70 million. Our information is other vessels were offered for
$30 million to $40 million.
Would the minister stand up and say exactly how much was paid
for the ferry and how much it is going to cost to bring it up to
standard?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a certain amount of money has been allocated by the
government for the new ferry. That money will be spent to get
the best ferry possible and negotiations on this particular ferry
have concluded.
We on this side of the House believe we have to be responsible
in paying out a certain amount of money.
On the other hand we also feel an obligation to all those
passengers between the mainland and Newfoundland who demand a
good quality of service.
1450
It is obvious from the hon. member's question that the Tories
are not interested in quality service on the gulf.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
all I asked was how much he paid. I would like to ask the
minister again. How much did Marine Atlantic pay for the ferry,
how much is it going to cost to upgrade it and how long is it
going to take?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, a certain amount of money in
excess of $70 million was allocated to this particular project.
It will provide for first class ferry service which will provide
the capacity on the gulf for this year and years to come.
This is going to be a great boon especially to the tourism
industry in Newfoundland and Labrador that has really expanded in
recent years.
I think this government has discharged its obligations to the
people of Newfoundland and we have done it in a very good and
satisfactory way.
* * *
HIGHWAY 407
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
With respect to the Ontario government's proposed highway 407
extension project which has led to some public outcry, can the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the responsible authority
tell the House today whether he will call for a full federal
environmental assessment and public review panel to examine this
proposed extension?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the
hon. member for Davenport for his excellent work on the
environment. It is is something on which he has worked very hard
and to which he is committed.
With regard to the report on the environmental assessment of the
highway 407 project, it has just undergone a public review and
comment period which concluded on March 24. The report will now
be completed and a decision will be made in the near future
regarding the next steps in the environmental assessment process.
I can assure the hon. member that I am reviewing this file right
now. I hope to visit the areas that are affected personally and
have a decision very soon.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade
keeps justifying the billion dollars plus EDC loan to Amtrak by
claiming that these loans are creating jobs in Canada. We know
however that most of the jobs were created in the United States
with the Amtrak loan.
I ask the minister precisely how many new jobs were created in
Canada with the EDC billion dollar loan to Amtrak.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to explain to the now
deceased Reform Party how the new economy functions.
The EDC loan to Amtrak has been granted against purchasing some
groundwork equipment made in La Pocatière, Canada. They are
initially made there. They are initially built there. They
might be finished closer to the destination but that is exactly
how the new economy works. They are doing their job just fine.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Minister of National Defence established a task force to
look at the location and the costs inherent in setting up a new
military training program focussing on leadership, training that
would be offered to the officers in the Canadian army.
Could the minister confirm whether the only site being proposed
is still the military college in Saint-Jean, Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are still considering the enhanced
leadership program. It is a program that we want to put into
effect as quickly as possible. It is one of many recommendations
to help with the improvement of officership development in the
Canadian forces.
We are still looking at the location. We are looking very
carefully at the location the hon. member has mentioned in Saint
Jean and I hope we have an answer very soon on that.
* * *
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry. On Friday Bell Canada announced
that it would increase the basic residential rate for rural
telephone service by up to 600% more than the planned increase
for city phones.
1455
Does the minister support having a two tier price structure for
basic phone rates in Canada? Does he think it is fair that rural
Canadians in places like Plevna and Gogama pay more than Ottawa
residents for basic telephone service?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very important question with respect to the
accessibility of basic services to residents wherever they are in
regions which in some cases are rural or remote.
It is a matter, as the member knows, which has been discussed
and considered by the CRTC in recent decisions. Some of those
decisions are currently under appeal to the governor in council,
so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them until
those appeals have been dealt with. The member should know that
it is part of the government's policy to ensure that Canada is
the most connected nation in the world. That includes not only
basic telephone service but basic Internet service for all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
* * *
MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
September 1999 the Minister of National Revenue chartered a plane
from Gaspé to Montreal for himself and his assistant at a cost to
Canadian taxpayers of $4,280. Flights between Gaspé and Montreal
run three times a day and cost about $470 per flight.
Why did the minister take a chartered plane at 10 times the cost
of a commercial flight when there are three flights a day? Why
does the minister's champagne tastes cost Canadian—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Revenue.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member actually
said that it was the Minister of National Revenue but at the same
time I am the secretary of state responsible for Canadian
economic development in the province of Quebec.
Based on my duties I have to go to the province of Quebec very
often. I go across the province often. As well, very often I
have to charter planes, depending on the agenda and depending as
well on the commercial flights. I may have to charter planes on
a regular basis. It is as simple as that.
* * *
[Translation]
BIOCHEM PHARMA INC.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Minister of Industry announced a repayable investment of $80
million in Laval-based BioChem Pharma Inc. for a major R and D
project.
Could the minister tell us what the project involves and how an
area such as the riding of Laval West will benefit?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should be very proud of this company in her area. It
is truly a world leader in the biopharmaceutical industry.
The money invested in BioChem Pharma could lead to the
development of three new vaccines which could be very important
in the health sector, which could make Canada a world leader in
the biotechnology industry and which could enable Canada to build
the capacity to produce domestic vaccines. This is very
important for us in this sector.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Indian affairs minister claims he has no
responsibility for money he shovels out the door to native
self-governments. It is kind of like the HRD minister.
He claims his government respects the autonomy of native
governments, but his government never hesitates to hammer
provincial governments on issues like health care. Sometimes it
even withholds funding like it did with Alberta.
Why will the government withhold funding from provincial
governments but blindly funds native governments that siphon off
millions of dollars for themselves while impoverishing the people
they purport to serve?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member has
information that suggests some wrongdoing, I would think that he
would bring it forward to the House, as he would have an
obligation to do that.
On the issue of audits, if the audit is not complied with, in
fact we do, as the Minister of Health has done on occasion, hold
funds back until the audit is given to us in the form that it is
supposed to be as it relates to our requirements.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday, the Mexican senate unanimously adopted a bill that will
make it obligatory to label genetically modified foods.
The U.S. senate is now studying a bill that will make it
obligatory to label genetically modified foods in the United
States.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Does the minister realize that, at the rate things are going,
Canada may be the last country in which genetically modified
foods are not labeled and that its products will be banned in
export markets?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have reminded the hon. member in the
House before that there is a process in place with the Canadian
General Standards Board and many organizations, including the
federal government, consumer organizations, producers and
provincial governments, working to set the criteria for a
labelling process in Canada.
Before it can be available in any country, whether it is Canada
or elsewhere, it has to be meaningful, credible and enforceable.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of two visitors today: the
Honourable Steven Kakfwi, Government Leader of the Northwest
Territories, and the Honourable Erik Robinson, Minister of
Aboriginal and Northern Affairs of the Government of Manitoba.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL C-206
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to your ruling on a point of privilege raised
by the then Reform Party, I have again obtained the hundred plus
seconders for my Bill C-206.
However, between the time you made your ruling on February 8, in
which you said that Bill C-206 should be dropped from near the
top to the bottom of the order of precedence while you awaited
the advice of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House
Affairs, and now after the committee has debated, after it has
reported and after you have made the final ruling that I should
again get the seconders to my bill, and my getting those
seconders, there has been a draw.
1505
Consequently I find Bill C-206 to be not at the bottom of the
order of precedence as it existed when the member for Athabasca's
point of privilege was first raised but now in 28th place behind
all those bills and motions from the most recent draw.
On March 29, Mr. Speaker, you spoke of fairness to myself and
all those who prepared items by the hundred signature rule. The
essence of the member for Athabasca's point of privilege was
whether Bill C-206 could still command the requisite more than
100 seconders, given that he wished to withdraw his signature. I
have demonstrated that it can and does, despite a very narrow
timeframe in which to make such a demonstration.
I therefore question the appropriateness of dropping Bill C-206
to the bottom of a second round of order of precedence when all
seem to agree that I have not acted improperly and my Bill C-206
continues to have the confidence of more than 100 members of the
House.
Because of teething problems associated with the new procedure,
Bill C-206's scheduled appearance before this House has already
been delayed two months. Is it fair, not just to me but to its
100-plus seconders, that it be delayed a further two months? I
would ask that it be restored to where it would have been prior
to the last draw, immediately behind Motion No. 128, the motion
of the member for Langley—Abbotsford.
The Speaker: The hon. member is correct. We always seek
fairness. However, I thought about the ruling before I made it
and notwithstanding the fact that it did take a little more time
I am sure the hon. member's bill will eventually get to the top
and he will have his chance and his day in the House to debate
the bill. My ruling stands.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—DEPARTMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate was
interrupted it is my understanding the hon. member for Surrey
Central had about five minutes remaining on questions and
comments.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I feel very badly that my colleague's speech was
interrupted by question period. He made a very fine presentation
and put his finger on the problem when he said that the
government feared accountability.
There is a real dilemma. It appears, at least from speakers on
the government side so far, that the government will actually
vote against the motion. I would like my colleague to comment on
that because the motion is pretty well what is in place now by
treasury board. If the government votes against it, it will
basically say that the treasury board guidelines are not good
enough. There is a huge contradiction. I would appreciate my
colleague's comments on the Liberal contradictory statements.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Elk Island for asking this wonderful question. It is
shameful that the weak Liberal government is opposing the motion.
I doubt that it will support the motion during the vote, but it
still has some time to think about it.
To answer the question as to why the motion was put, it was
because government members are hiding their incompetence. They
are hiding their mismanagement. They are hiding their wastage
and patronage and all those things. The government is hiding its
arrogance. The government is becoming more and more arrogant day
by day. It has more lame excuses and more delays in providing
information. It denies the right to information. We see gross
abuse of power by the government, and it will continue.
1510
We are witnessing a continuous lack of willpower to fix what is
wrong with the government. It lacks the political will to fix
what is wrong with the system.
We are witnessing a lack of openness and transparency on the
part of the government. We are witnessing day and night from the
government a lack of respect for democracy. It has limited
debate by moving time allocation on all debates in the House.
Even on the elections legislation that was before the House, the
government tried to deny amendments that would have made the
system more transparent, open and democratic. It is so
undemocratic that it is almost anti-democratic.
We have also seen that the government is not keeping its
promises. It forgot what Canadians called on it to do. It
forgot its promises to Canadians about what it would do. Who
does not remember the GST promise it made? Who does not
remember the national day care program it promised to bring
forward? Who does not remember that it said it would bring
forward whistle-blower legislation? So far we have not seen
anything from the government which would enhance democracy in
this place.
We are witnessing a cover-up mentality. Despite the mistakes by
government ministers, the Prime Minister will stand to defend his
record and try to support his ministers who have made serious
mistakes such as the billion dollar boondoggle and the solicitor
general's actions in the House during the APEC incident.
The government has a cover-up mentality. The basic reason
government members are speaking against the motion is to hide
their weaknesses and arrogance. We expect the government to come
forward with openness, with true democratic principles being
applied in the House. Unless we see them, I am sure that what I
have said is why they are opposing the motion.
When the Canadian Alliance forms the government there will be
transparency, openness and democracy in this place. Canadians
will heave a sigh of relief when the Canadian Alliance forms the
next government in the House.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in this debate on the opposition motion.
If I may, I will begin with a brief review of the proposals
making up this motion.
It calls for all audits carried out within the government to be
tabled within 15 days of their completion. All audits carried
out within the government are made available to the public when
they are completed. Even when they are only at the draft stage,
they can be obtained via access to information.
The motion calls for all audits to be referred to a standing
committee. Any standing committee—indeed any committee of the
House, as hon. members know—is able to examine whatever audit
report it wishes, once it is completed.
The motion calls for all audit reports requested under the
Access to Information Act to be tabled within 15 days. All
access to information requests are processed. There have,
certainly, been some delays recently due to the very heavy
volume, but all requests are being processed and responses will
be forthcoming as soon as possible.
For example, last year the Department of Human Resources
Development had an excellent record for responses provided within
the deadline to access to information requests. This year,
however, the department is having to respond to four times as
many requests.
1515
I would like to point out that the information commissioner,
John Reid, pointed out recently before the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities, and I quote:
Not many people have the skills sought for this sort of work you
could find on the street. It is therefore exceedingly difficult
to find outside contractors to help you deal with this huge
workload.
The law requires, for example, that we respect the personal
nature of certain information. We must therefore see whether the
documents sought contain personal information and check a number
of other points before we can make them available to those
requesting them.
I cannot believe that the members of the opposition are asking
us to break the law. We will certainly comply with it and
therefore protect personal information.
My remarks may be summarized briefly: the motion by the official
opposition serves no purpose. What it seeks is already
available. I believe that, by presenting the motion we are
debating today, the official opposition is showing that it has
not grasped one of the vital changes that have taken place in
recent years in the way government is managed, in fact all major
organizations are managed.
As the hon. members no doubt recall, in June 1997, the Prime
Minister designated the Treasury Board as the management board of
Cabinet. This was recognition that, in an institution of such
magnitude as the Government of Canada, an inflexible style of
management cannot be effective. The old style of management
based on orders and control simply does not suit today's
realities.
There are a number of reasons for this change in the concept of
management, both in government and outside public administration.
In the private sector, business and other bodies, for example,
long ago dropped the style of management based on orders and
control, which reeked of authoritarianism.
Increasingly, decisions are made locally. Local managers have
increasing responsibilities. This is the key to greater
efficiency and the delivery of better services in less time to
all clienteles, including the Canadians they serve.
[English]
Governments must also adopt more modern management practices,
because our field of operations has changed over the years. Not
only have we introduced new and creative policy and program
directions to better, more efficiently and more effectively meet
the needs of Canadians, we are also delivering our services in
different ways; in partnership with other levels of government,
for example, and in partnership with the private sector and other
organizations. These changes have greatly increased the
complexity of administration and accountability for program
delivery.
In spite of this new complexity in program delivery, the
government is committed to both modern management practices and
good service to Canadians. That means that departments and
agencies must focus on achieving results in a way that ensures
clear accountability, proper stewardship of public funds and
transparent reporting on what has been achieved. That requires
effective control, but through instruments that encourage
initiative and creativity.
On the one hand, we must be flexible enough on the delegation of
decision making authority and on administrative rules to support
initiative and common sense. On the other hand, we must be
sufficiently rigorous on standards and control systems to ensure
clear accountability.
Modern comptrollership means integrating financial and
non-financial performance information, implementing sound risk
management, ensuring appropriate control systems and updating
related management policies.
1520
This government is committed to ensuring that public funds are
managed in an ethical, fair and responsible manner. This means
operating transparently. It also means focusing on the needs of
Canadians as citizens, clients and taxpayers. It means taking
action when problems arise.
I want to make it clear, in regard to the motion today, that the
Treasury Board Secretariat is addressing the task of
strengthening internal audits.
As I am sure everyone will agree, the existence of a strong
internal audit function is vitally important to sound management
and modern comptrollership. As part of its ongoing efforts to
modernize management and comptrollership practices across
government, the Treasury Board Secretariat began a study of the
internal audit function last summer.
This study was completed in January. It recommended that
changes to the internal audit policy are required to reflect its
role in modern management.
In addition, the study recommended that each department
establish an internal audit committee, if it has not already done
so, to ensure that audit plans address relevant management issues
and that there is appropriate follow up action taken to address
and approve recommendations.
These recommendations are substantial and the Treasury Board
Secretariat is now preparing, in partnership with the internal
audit community across government, a plan to improve our
professional capacity in this area to ensure we have the right
people in place with the right skills.
We are also studying ways to improve our ability to actively
monitor the effectiveness of control systems across government.
Last week I tabled a document which describes the various
efforts that are taking place to modernize government management
practices, entitled “Results for Canadians: A Management
Framework for the Government of Canada”. This document sets out
in a very clear way the management commitments that the
Government of Canada is making to Canadians. It also provides a
clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of departments
and agencies and of the treasury board and its secretariat in
helping the government to meet these commitments.
Work on the document began last fall and the final product is
the result of a great deal of collaboration across government.
Some have suggested that we in government should not delegate
authority at all. Some believe that we should return to strict
command and control regimes. I do not believe that the command
and control approach would serve the public interest.
The motion before us today would take us backward, not forward.
Canadians do not need more red tape. That is clear. Nor do they
need simplistic suggestions which ignore the complexity of
government in the 21st century.
Canadians want the government to continue to modernize its
thinking and methods, while keeping sight of the fundamental
reality that tax dollars need to be managed responsibly and
wisely.
One of the central themes in “Results for Canadians” is that
we must continue to implement modern management practices. This
involves delegating decision making authority to the right level
to achieve the results, but in a way that ensures clear
accountability, due diligence and proper control of public funds.
This framework emphasizes the need for clear standards, sound
risk management and early attention to control deficiencies.
It also makes clear what is needed in terms of active monitoring
to ensure effective control.
1525
As this framework is implemented across government it will
greatly strengthen resource management, reduce the likelihood of
serious control failures in the future and provide Canadians with
a more modern, more efficient and more effective public service.
That is what I believe Canadians want, expect and deserve, and
that is what the government will deliver to Canadians.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister attempts to paint herself and the
government as prudent financial managers when in fact the very
opposite is true. She is asking Canadians to trust the
government to fix the problem that it has purposely created. She
is asking a lot.
I would assert that she is doing a disservice when she implies
that members of the official opposition, the members of the
Canadian Alliance, do not understand the act. We understand the
act and we understand exactly what the minister is doing. She is
stonewalling, putting up excuses and not getting to the bottom of
the issue.
She knows that her own directives say to release these internal
audits. She knows there are some sitting on the shelf right now.
Yet she and her department refuse to release them. Why is that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would invite
members to address each other through the Chair.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, the opposition member
certainly does not have the right information. I cannot believe
that he would make such a statement in the House.
It is very clear that, under Treasury Board policy, internal
audits from all departments, once completed, are in the public
domain.
What does this mean? It means that there is not even a need to
apply under the Access to Information Act because the document is
already public. It means fewer procedures are required in order
to have access to the information. It means that any internal
audit from any department may be made public immediately. What
is this, if not transparency? It is extremely transparent.
All these reports can be made public immediately. There is no
need for a motion in the House demanding that we make them public
and refer them to parliamentary committees.
What is more, all parliamentary committees have the power of
initiative. They may ask to examine any completed audit report.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is a bit of déjà vu. I heard
all of this when the minister appeared before the HRDC committee
this morning.
I ask the minister how in the world she could ever feel that it
would be a step backward to provide documents which are supposed
to be in the public domain anyway? All opposition members are
doing today is putting forward a motion that basically reiterates
what the law states already, saying to the minister and to the
government that they are not upholding the law.
Why would the minister find this motion offensive when it is
simply reiterating exactly what the government is supposed to be
doing? Is it because the government is not following the law?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I am merely saying that
the motion is unnecessary. That is what I am saying.
The motion is unnecessary because all internal audit documents
from all departments are already in the public domain and it is
not even necessary to make an application under the Access to
Information Act.
The member is mistaken with his talk of complying or not
complying with the act. It is not a question of complying with
the act or not. It is a question of complying with Treasury
Board policies, which say that once internal audit reports are
completed they must immediately be made public. So the motion
before us today is unnecessary.
1530
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think the minister is missing the point here. She
talks about modern management practices. Modern management
practices require some accountability.
The simple intent of this motion today is to make reports that
are, as she professes, public documents to be made available to
people within a 15 day window of being completed. If we are to
have modern management practices that call for accountability,
this motion is in keeping with her own department's guidelines
which she gave us and which she wants us to support.
How can this motion move us away from what we want? In fact, it
moves us closer toward the accountability that she says she wants
by making these documents available to people within a reasonable
window of time.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, one would think the
official opposition had just suddenly discovered, in the year
2000, what an internal audit report is. This is not a new
Treasury Board policy. It has been around since 1994.
Has any member of the official opposition on a parliamentary
committee ever asked to look at the internal audit report of a
department? I have never known of a single one. All of a sudden
this year, the year 2000, because the Minister of Human Resources
Development herself has decided to officially make public an
internal audit report, they are discovering that there is such a
thing in administration.
There has always been. We have a very clear policy that these
are public documents. I am therefore saying again that today's
motion is pointless. If the members of the opposition who sit on
various committees want to look at these reports tomorrow, they
are welcome to do so. They can do so at any time. They have the
power of initiative in each of the committees.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
listening to the minister, she gives the impression to me and to
Canadians in general that there is a process that is currently
being followed by the government that in fact if there is an
auditor's report then the government will table that report
within a very short period of time.
I asked for a Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food audit. The
deputy minister at the beginning of March said I would have
access to that audit, but I am still waiting for it. I find that
the best way to access the audits of the government is through
access to information.
Is the impression to be that, in fact, all audits are
automatically given to the opposition and to the House?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a
completed internal audit report, not a draft report. We make the
distinction here.
As soon as this report is completed, it is in the public domain.
It must therefore be made accessible to all members of the
public, and all parliamentarians, on request, without having to
use the Access to Information Act. This is a far more open
approach than to require people to take the access to information
route.
That is why I say that today's motion is pointless, in that
these documents are already in the public domain and can be
requested by any parliamentary committee.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to follow up with another question
because the minister has been asked this several times but has
not answered.
She knows that opposition parties have filed access to
information requests for internal audits because they have not
been released, even though treasury board guidelines say they
should be released, and then directives have been sent after that
within her own department saying to release these internal audits
because they are supposed to be public. They are supposed to be
public, but they are not. In other words, treasury board is
hiding these audits, not releasing them or not putting them out
in a timely fashion. That is why this motion is before the House
today.
I will ask the minister once again. Why is it that her
department is not releasing these audits in a timely fashion when
there are already access requests which she says do not even need
to be applied? She is right on that, but we are bringing this to
her attention and the government's attention so they will do
something about this problem and fix it.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, it seems fairly obvious
to me that the hon. member does not understand the difference in
public administration between the responsibility of the
departments and that of the Secretariat of the Treasury Board.
1535
Responsibility for making an internal audit public rests with
the department itself and not with the Secretariat of the
Treasury Board. Each department is responsible for its own
management and must follow the policies of Treasury Board. Each
department must therefore make public an internal audit report at
the request of an individual. This is how the system works and
it is Treasury Board policy. We will actively monitor this
policy.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, after that interchange, it may be a good time to step
back a bit and review the rules, the goal line and what we are
trying to accomplish.
Some time ago there were some laudable goals put in place by
treasury board and the government. These goals and guidelines
were designed to establish a simple and open process for people
to get access to public information. That public information
included audit reports. A few years back the treasury board, for
which the minister who just spoke is responsible, said that it
required departments to make the final version of review reports,
including internal audits and evaluation reports, accessible to
the public without requiring formal access requests. I heard the
minister say that. It is a great idea, it is a laudable goal and
we applaud that open approach to public information.
Recently, the same concept was reiterated by the information
commissioner. He said that he regards the right of access as one
of the cornerstones of the democratic process and one of the best
tools available to ensure responsible government. The problem
today, and why this motion is on the floor, is that something has
changed in recent times. Although those are the goal lines and
although that is what we are trying to achieve, something is off
the rails. That is why we brought this motion forward.
Currently, there are audits done which are public reports. To
get access to these public reports, we have made formal requests.
It is clear that we do not have to make a formal request, but to
make it official we have made them formal. We are now waiting to
get access to these audit reports.
I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that I am sharing my time with
the member for Dewdney—Alouette.
In the past when we made these requests for information, the
response was generally not too bad. In recent times something
has changed. In fact, there are reports, which are public
information and paid for by public money, that we have made
formal requests for and 45 days later we are still waiting for
them. I do not think it is any coincidence that five of these
audit reports are directly related to Human Resources
Development, the area where the billion dollar boondoggle was
exposed by a previous audit report. There are five more reports
that we are waiting for. It has been 45 days plus and there is
no sign of those reports.
It does not stop at HRDC. This delay tactic seems to be
spreading. It is not only HRDC. Now we have requests for public
reports, paid for by public money, from a number of other
departments and agencies in the government that we are still
waiting for: Agriculture and Agri-Food; Canadian Customs and
Revenue, the new Revenue Canada; Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation; the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans; the National Capital
Commission; and the list goes on. This delay approach is
spreading to other departments. That is the reason for our
motion today.
It is the government's own guidelines and own rules and we as the
official opposition have to bring a motion forward to get it to
respect its own rules because we see a trend of delay in getting
access to public information in these audit reports.
1540
When did all this start? I do not think it takes a genius to
figure out that when the report for human resources development
came out, when we got access to it and the minister for that
department was aware that this was going to be exposed, that is
when it all started.
The government now has put in it appears a new vetting process
of any new audit. This vetting process requires that audits,
before they are released to the public as a public document of
reports and audits, be now cycled through the treasury board and
the Privy Council Office. They want to know what has been
requested, what is being asked for and what this public report
says. Then they develop a media spin to make sure that when the
report is released they have all the answers ready and they can
package this in a way that can do damage control, which is
basically what it comes down to.
The problem is that this is causing increasing delays. That
begs another question. How big are the problems? If the HRDC
audit which has exposed a billion dollar boondoggle is an
example, I am wondering if perhaps we have just seen the tip of
the iceberg with that particular boondoggle.
Why are so many audits being held back for so long? It is
taking 45 days for the government to figure out how it is going
to spin some of these audits in the public arena. It is more
than 45 days. We have been waiting 45 days. How much damage
control does it take to release a public document which reports
on the working of the government? Apparently it is taking more
and more.
In light of that, let us reflect again on the statements of the
information commissioner. He said, “The right of access is one
of the cornerstones of our democratic process, one of the best
tools available to ensure responsible government”. I like
another quote from the information minister. He said,
“Information delayed is information denied”. That is
effectively what has been happening with these damage control
tactics of the Liberal government on reports that expose things
like the billion dollar boondoggle which we suspect, and could
make a pretty good case for, is probably the tip of the iceberg
based on these many audits that we are waiting for.
What did we find in the HRDC audit when it came out? What is
being hidden here? Let us look at the HRDC audit for a moment.
This audit of a billion dollars a year in grants and
contributions handed out by HRDC revealed some interesting things
which have concerned Canadians across the country: 15% did not
have an application on file; 25% of these grants that were handed
out did not have a description of the activities to be supported;
87% showed no evidence of supervision.
To quote from one of the specific examples, McGill University
submitted a $60,000 proposal. It received $160,000, but when it
was audited it should have only been $30,000. If that is the tip
of the iceberg, we can see why the official opposition is asking
that these public reports not be hidden from the public so that
appropriate action can be taken and these out of control programs
can be dealt with in the light of the scrutiny of the public.
1545
The minister who spoke before me talked about modern management
practices and that being why these delays were put in place. I
submit to her that modern management practices are open,
accountable and responsive to the problems and do not use delay
tactics to cover up problems and spin-doctoring to misrepresent
facts to the people.
In light of that, if the minister really wants to modernize the
approaches taken by the Liberal government she would support the
motion because it is modernization and enforcement of their own
guidelines.
It should be easy for government members across the way to
support the motion on information being given to the public in a
timely manner from an open and accountable government. That is
what the motion is all about. We look forward to them supporting
it.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the end of the debate of the hon.
member and it occurred to me to call to the attention of the
House, by way of commentary, that this morning we listened to the
President of the Treasury Board inform us of the many initiatives
her department has embarked on to further strengthen management
control within government.
An outline of those initiatives would include assisting Human
Resources Development Canada, which is proper; strengthening the
management of grants and contributions; strengthening the
internal audit system; and active monitoring. Last Thursday the
minister tabled “Results for Canadians: A Management Framework
for the Government of Canada”. It is a very important document
which describes the various efforts that are taking place to
modernize government management practices.
The member spoke about tabling all the audit reports. While it
is one thing to ask for them to be tabled, it is another thing to
study the reports. Since “Results for Canadians: A Management
Framework for the Government of Canada” was tabled on Thursday,
has the member had an opportunity to read the report?
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
and I am glad to hear the report was tabled. I hope that the
five others from HRDC for which we have been waiting for 45 days
will soon be tabled and that the public reports of the seven
other departments in government for which we have asked will soon
be tabled. Those are the ones for which we have made specific
requests to be tabled and we are still waiting.
The member opposite does not seem to understand what the HRDC
fiasco has exposed. When grants and contributions are given out
to certain entities in certain riding and members of parliament
have a hand in it, there is a concern that there is a perception
of conflict of interest, that those grants can be used to advance
certain political agendas.
Whether or not that is the case, the appearance of the conflict
of interest potential is there. That is exactly why there must
be openness in government. As the commissioner said, the
openness and availability of public reports must be there so that
we can protect everyone in the House against the accusations of
conflict of interest through having access to the audit reports
on various departments of government.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that
the member was alluding only to perception and not to reality. We
must underscore what he said, but it is not responsible to keep
repeating the perception with the hope or at least the unwitting
result of creating a reality out of a perception. I am sure the
member did not mean that. I am glad to note that he indicated
that it was a perception. Of course the corollary is that it is
not a real fiasco.
1550
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, regarding perception and
reality, when the perception is continually laid before the
Canadian public that grants and contributions are going to the
ridings of certain members and that they have had a hand in it or
some involvement in it, the problem is that unless there is
openness on audit reports, unless there is openness to requests
for information, which is the treasury board minister's
guideline, there is concern. They will never get away from that
perception unless they allow openness in the public reports
generated by the government.
If they are really concerned about the perception, they should
deal with it by endorsing the motion the opposition has brought
forward today and by saying that they will let us have access to
public reports paid for by public money for which we have been
waiting for more than 45 days.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, government members opposite talk about perceptions
and realities. Let us take a look at them. Of course they would
like the perception of all Canadians to be that they are prudent
financial managers and taking care of taxpayer dollars.
The reality is the very opposite. This has been exposed to the
light of day through the HRDC fiasco. It is unbelievable and it
cannot be hidden. That is reality. That is the reality
government members are running from. They would like to create a
smokescreen, a diversion, and make up a bunch of excuses about
what they are doing, as though they really are prudent financial
managers.
Let us take a look at some of the information that has somehow
slipped through the minister's fingers, because we know she likes
to hang on to it very tightly. Here is some that has slipped
through the net. I will read from a letter from the minister of
human resources when she wrote:
It greatly concerns me that Treasury Board regulations were not
complied with in relation to issuing advances to sponsors and
carrying over between fiscal years. This is an unacceptable
practice that is completely avoidable. Every officer responsible
for managing this fund should be cognizant of the regulations
under which they work.
These are the minister's comments to people within her
department. She acknowledges that treasury board guidelines are
being broken. This is the minister and the government that put
these guidelines in place. They are the ones who need to be held
accountable and responsible for what it is they have done. We
are bringing the motion forward in the House today to hold the
government accountable.
The President of the Treasury Board said earlier in the House
that the motion brought forward by the Canadian Alliance did not
mean much, that it was meaningless. I would argue exactly the
opposite. The President of the Treasury Board knows that the
treasury board has been issued with directives to release the
internal audits for which we are asking, and it has not done so.
Members of the official opposition, members of the Canadian
Alliance, even filed access requests for some of the information
which should be made public. It should already be out there in
the open, and it has not been released.
We are bringing forward the motion today because of the
smokescreen mentality of the government. It does not want the
information to flow which should be in the public domain because
it would expose the government further to what it really is, an
irresponsible manager of the public purse. It has demonstrated
that through its actions throughout the HRDC fiasco.
We see it spreading to other departments now. The government
would like for Canadians to believe that it is a good manager
when the opposite is true. It cannot hide from that reality.
That is a reality and the government is in the midst of it.
Canadians are not happy about it at all.
I would like to read a little more from some of the information
we have from within the human resources department, some
questions and some draft talking points given to employees which
indicate in many ways that HRDC was not complying with the rules.
1555
Here is a question within an internal document:
We were told to be flexible and responsive and not to lapse
funds. Now we are being told we have to obey the Financial
Administration Act and Treasury Board guidelines. Why doesn't
management make up its mind?
That is a fairly indicting comment from within the department
itself about its own guidelines. It has to issue questions and
answers to its own employees about why management does not make
up its mind, be flexible or obey the rules. That is
unbelievable.
That is the kind of information that is being exposed in the
light of day when we get it. This information is not forthcoming
from the current government because it has to run and hide and
get into damage control mode any time information is released. It
is accountable for Canadian taxpayer dollars and it is blowing it
in a big way. The document goes on to say in answer to the first
question posed:
What does that imply? It implies that the rules were not
followed previous to this directive. It is unbelievable that
employees had to be reminded to follow the rules. Another
question was:
The answer was:
They were not enforced before. That is the implication of that
comment. Again I would state that this is glaring evidence of
the problems the government is running from with the whole fiasco
and why the President of Treasury Board and the government are
not releasing information as quickly as they need to do. They
are over the time limit in releasing information and as a result
information is not coming forward. That is simply wrong.
This document from the human resources department goes on
further with another question:
Do we really have to start these measures of enforcing the rules
before this year's fiscal year-end?
The answer was:
We must obey the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury
Board guidelines. This is not an option.
It is as though it were some new piece of information that they
should be obeying the regulations and following the rules and
guidelines, thereby implying that the guidelines were not being
followed previously. That is why there are major problems and
that is why we are bringing the motion forward today.
Canadians need to know this. They need to sift through the
information screen being placed in their way by the government
and take a look at the reasons behind it. The Liberals will
stand to say one thing but they will do a very different thing
with their actions.
I suggest that Canadians judge the government on its actions.
What are its actions? Its actions have shown very clearly that
it is a very poor manager of the hard earned tax dollars of
Canadians. Money has gone out through some of the HRDC programs
without individuals even applying for funding. Yet they receive
funding and very few checks and balances have been placed on that
funding.
That is not government money. The Liberals seem to think
somehow that it is government money. They are taxpayer dollars,
hard earned dollars that people go to work every day to earn, to
make a living. The government, which imposes the highest tax
rate possible on Canadians, then squanders away much of this
money in an unaccountable fashion.
I do not think people have a problem if dollars are being
managed wisely. Canadians are generous people, but they sure
have a problem when they see their money wasted and they see
their money blown on programs that do not even have
accountability measures built in.
That is unacceptable and that is why we are bringing the motion
forward. That is why we are holding the President of Treasury
Board, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Prime
Minister and the entire group over there accountable for
releasing information. They need to do that and they have failed
to do so.
It is almost like the Wizard of Oz. When we pull back the
curtain and see a little man sitting behind it we wonder how we
were bamboozled by this individual. It is amazing.
I ask Canadians to pull back the screen and examine in the light
of day the actions of the government and exactly what it has done
with Canadians' hard earned tax dollars. They will be appalled.
The government should be and needs to be held accountable.
1600
We are waiting in its stead to fill the void that is being
created by a government that has simply lost touch with Canadians
and with its responsibility to manage taxpayer dollars. That is
why we brought this motion forward.
We implore all members of the House to support this motion,
which will hold the government accountable, so that we get the
information that should be public but is not being released, to
examine the actions of the government and to make the government
accountable.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is amazing to see the happy faces of my friends in
the Canadian Alliance today. I have listened to many of the
remarks by the opposition today and I do agree on the issue of
holding us accountable. Many of us have been in opposition and
we know it is the opposition's job to hold us accountable. We do
not have a problem with that.
We would also like to remind members opposite that when they
asked for all the records relating to the human resources
development grants that happened across the country, we produced
them.
The thing that troubles me about this exercise that the
opposition is on right now is that it goes against the very
essence of what this Chamber is supposed to be doing. What do I
mean by that? I mean that we were elected to come to this
Chamber, which I sometimes call the nation's boardroom, to speak
for those in our communities, those in our country who need the
most help.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will be sharing my time with
my colleague from the beautiful county of Dundas.
We are not here to speak for the advantaged, although we do not
ignore the advantaged, but we are here to speak for those who
need the most help. In the last few years I think most Canadians
would agree that we have gone through a very difficult and
stressful time because of a tough economy. In a tough economy
there are a lot more people who need help.
In my mind, what the opposition members have done over the last
few months has been to put a spike in the heart of the essence of
why we are all supposed to be here. They have taken the human
resources development file, HRDC, and have tried to cast
aspersions on thousands and thousands of projects in every riding
across Canada, projects that have helped young people get into
the workplace, projects for seniors, projects for the disabled
and projects for farmers. The list goes on of thousands and
thousands of projects right across Canada. They have tried to
create a perception that this entire fund was mismanaged.
They tried to create a perception that somehow $1 billion—one
member today even went as high as $3 billion—just vanished, that
it went out the back door. I think Canadians are beginning to
realize that in all but a few examples, 99.9% of that money went
to important community-building projects in every riding right
across Canada.
1605
Members in the House will cite examples where maybe the
accounting procedures or the accountability of a particular
project should have been better. I have no problem when the
opposition stands up and tries to ask us about a specific
project. Ultimately, we, as the government, have to take
responsibility for all the officials. The notion of blaming the
officials, in my mind, is awful. It is terrible to strike out at
people who cannot defend themselves. It is our duty as elected
members to say that the buck stops with us. We have to speak up
and defend the officials. If they have made a mistake we have to
take responsibility. However, we do not, for the sake of 40 or
50 examples out of over 35,000 projects, have to cast aspersions
on the whole human resources development file. I, for the life
of me, cannot figure it out.
Does this mean that the opposition wants to do away with HRDC
projects? Is that what this line of attack means? Does the
opposition want to cast aspersions on the $1 billion that went to
all the projects? I see one of the members shaking his head no.
If they do not want to cancel the HRDC file, then why are they
trying to stain the whole envelope because of a few files that
they want to challenge? That is where I take exception to the
opposition's line of attack and line of accountability.
The opposition members have taken 40 or 50 files out of 35,000
and have tried to cast aspersions on $1 billion and sometimes
even as high as $3 billion. I think Canadians see through that.
If this had been a more straightforward accountability, they
probably would have had better luck with the public. However,
because they tried to take a few examples and say that the whole
waterfront was money out the back door, I will bet my seat in the
next election that all of those HRDC projects in my community,
which I am proud of and which I stand by, will help get me
re-elected.
The member across the way talks about this as being
pork-barrelling. That casts aspersions on the public service. I
am not sure if opposition members realize that public servants,
officials and bureaucrats—and I think it is important for the
public to know this—are bound by the Financial Administration
Act of Canada. Unless a project meets the criteria, there is
absolutely no way a contract will be processed because these
public servants risk their own integrity and their own future in
the public service.
I want to touch on one other area that is separate and apart
from the human resources development file. It has to do with the
Export Development Corporation. When the opposition members saw
that the HRDC campaign to discredit all those good projects in
every riding across Canada was beginning to falter, they began
turning their sights on the Export Development Corporation.
Boy, did they ever make a mistake there. This is an agency of
the Government of Canada that has a reputation for being one of
the most entrepreneurial units in the Government of Canada. Its
economic track record shows us that. It has a responsibility to
assist Canadian manufacturers of products to do business in every
part of the world. To try to discredit EDC is really a shame.
1610
In summary, I have no problems in being accountable to the
opposition, but I wish it would deal with the specific facts and
not cast aspersions on all departments and all the good work that
tens of thousands of public servants do across Canada on behalf
of millions of deserving Canadians.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to give the House my assurance that
discussions have taken place between all the parties and pursuant
to Standing Order 45(7) I believe you would find consent for the
following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Canadian
Alliance's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose
of the said motion be deemed put, a recorded division requested
and deferred to the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-222.
That at 5.15 p.m. today, the House shall resume debate on Bill
C-222 as listed on today's order paper for Private Members'
Business.
That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-222 all questions
necessary to dispose of this item be deemed put, a recorded
division requested and the bells to call in the members shall
ring for not more than 15 minutes.
That the order for the taking of the recorded divisions later
this day be as follows: all questions necessary to dispose of
today's opposition motion; the motion of the Minister of Industry
with respect to Bill C-6; second reading of Bill C-238; and all
questions necessary to dispose of the motion concerning Bill
C-222.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—DEPARTMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, taking a look at the defence offered by my
colleague on the Liberal side, he has used two modes of defence
in his debate. One is the minimize defence, which is that this
has not been very much of a problem at all. So the first tactic
in his argument is to say that this is not really a big problem
and that we should not worry about it. Mismanagement of a
billion dollars is okay.
I would also say to my colleague that there is between $13
billion and $17 billion offered up in grants and contributions—
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: We have him up to 13.
Mr. Grant McNally: The hon. member will not listen. I am
saying to him, and I will say it slowly and clearly so he can
hear me, that $13 billion to $17 billion is spent in government
departments in grants and contributions. I am only stating the
facts. I do not think he would disagree with that. What we are
asking is that if there is mismanagement in this billion dollars
with HRD, is there a possibility that there could be some
mismanagement in other departments with government funds? I would
say, yes, there is a possibility of that.
The hon. member's second defence is the casting aspersions
defence. He said it about nine different times. This is an
attempt by the member to say that those who would ask questions
might somehow be casting aspersions on individuals.
What we are doing is holding the government accountable and we
are holding the minister accountable for her responsibility.
Individuals within the different departments, the departmental
officials which he noted, are between a rock and a hard place
many times because they have to comply with those rules and
regulations that are ever changing from directives of the
minister.
1615
After using his aspersions defence and his minimize defence, how
can the member possibly defend this kind of spending of
taxpayers' dollars as though it were nothing major and was just a
minor thing happening—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is the
question. The hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, maybe we will get
unanimous consent to extend this.
First, I would not want anyone in Canada to think that I was
trying to minimize any mistake. By the way, I said earlier today
in the debate that there is not a businessman or woman in Canada,
there is not a government agency whether municipal, provincial or
federal, there is not a perfect agency anywhere in the country or
for that matter anywhere in the world. The notion that we think
somehow that everything we do is perfect, forget it.
Canadians know that we make mistakes. What we are defending
here is we do not think it is proper that in the opposition's
process of making us accountable for certain files that were
maybe not up to snuff, it has also cast aspersions on the whole
Government of Canada process and 99.99% of the work that is
proper. That is my point.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, again we have seen the
minimize defence.
I appreciate the fact that my colleague has admitted that the
Liberals have made mistakes. Unfortunately the Minister of Human
Resources Development has not done that. Had she done that right
off the bat, then this would have subsided and would not have
been the huge problem it has become for the government.
Would the hon. member talk to the minister and ask her to make
the same kinds of comments he has just made in this place?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, this is really amazing.
In my mind the minister has been doing a magnificent job. The
minister's role is to defend not the 25 or 30 files where we are
being held accountable, it is her responsibility to defend the
integrity of all those projects in every riding in Canada that
have been serving millions of Canadians. That is her
responsibility.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is late in the afternoon and there have been hours
and hours of rhetoric. I think it is high time for a reality
check. I do not include the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood
in the rhetoric. I was referring to the rhetoric coming from the
other side. I must correct myself on that.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would offer that if this is a reality check, that is
just unbelievable. The reality is that the government is trying
to create a perception that is not so.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite
would just wait for about two minutes, we will give him his
little reality check.
The gist of the opposition argument is while acknowledging that
treasury board practice and policy is to release audits as soon
as possible, it is suggesting that the government is somehow
dragging its heels because it cannot get the audits it requests
under the Access to Information Act in a timely fashion.
The reality check is that I am going to read from the
Access to Information Act. Section 21(1)(a) says:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any
record requested under this act that contains advice or
recommendations developed by or for a government institution or a
minister of the crown.
In other words, since 1994 it has been this government's policy
to release the very information that the Access to Information
Act entitles it to refuse.
1620
Read the section again, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker. You will
see it very clearly states that the minister does not have
to refuse to release that information and yet we have a
government that, starting in 1994, almost as soon as we came to
power, opened up that kind of information.
Mr. Speaker, when you resort to the Access to Information Act to
try to get this type of information and the government is
withholding it, if you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, the
suggestion is false. I believe that is in order, Mr. Speaker,
the suggestion is false.
In fact, all that is happening is that of course the government
when it is doing an audit wants to give time for its officials to
examine the results of the audit. That is what timely release is
all about. You have to give the government time to consider the
results and then release it to the public.
The member's colleagues suggest that all these internal audits
should be released to standing committees. This government, which
is very sincere in its desire to bring the best level of
management possible, does internal audits all the time, not just
financial audits but performance audits. If all of those audits
went out to a standing committee, the standing committee would be
absolutely smothered.
The real answer is to put this kind of information on the
Internet. Put it on the Internet where everyone can see it, Mr.
Speaker, and then you will have the type of management control by
the people of Canada that is the target of this government and I
think is very, very poorly understood by the members opposite.
Indeed, if they really and truly wanted to ensure
that it was government legislative policy and it was the law that
the government had to release these audits, then all the members
opposite would have to do is to support a certain private
member's bill that is around. Bill C-206 offers them the
opportunity to make amendments to the very clause I cited.
This particular private member's bill, Bill C-206, uses
that clause and adds the words that public opinion polls are to
be disclosed automatically. You could easily add the words that
government audits should be disclosed automatically to that
clause, but no, that is too simple.
To think that the Reform Party, or the Canadian Alliance as it
is now known, would actually take advantage of a legislative
initiative of a private member in order to bring more openness to
government is, just too much to ask. The party
opposite has made it very clear that it does not support reform
to the Access to Information Act. It does not support it at all.
It will be very amusing as time goes
on to see it vote against a bill that calls for openness in
government. But we will see.
However, I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this
particular issue because if they were really interested in
bringing more transparency to areas that really matter to
Canadians, then they should be looking at this whole question of
making the audits of non-profit organizations, charities and
crown corporations available to the public. This is a huge area
of secrecy. We have a President of the Treasury Board who has
established a policy despite the restrictions of the Access to
Information Act, a policy that does call for audits to be open
and yet we have all these other bodies that spend billions and
billions of taxpayers' dollars, who, when they are audited, can
keep those audits secret.
I would suggest again that there is an incredible
opportunity for the opposition members if they really want these
audits made public, and I think the majority of Canadians would
say that is correct, they should be supporting a certain
private member's bill, Bill C-206. If it passes and goes
through, it would overtake the Income Tax Act and its
restrictions on the disclosure of the audits of charities and
non-profit organizations and would make these available to the
public.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the opposition?
What is wrong with the opposition that it cannot get on board
with legislation that is supported by 70 backbenchers on this
side alone and dozens of backbenchers or members of the
opposition on the other side? For some reason I
cannot understand, the Reform Party has abandoned the issue
entirely and so has the Bloc Quebecois. They do not care about
openness and I know why.
It is because a government that is closed is a good target.
A government that is open, as we have seen from the minister of
the treasury board as she explains that these audits are
available now, you can get them now. Well, Mr. Speaker, that does
not give much opportunity to the members of the opposition. And
so they come up with a motion, Mr. Speaker, that I can even
barely understand. Mr. Speaker, I am in despair with them. I
just do not know what I can do with them.
1625
What they do not seem to understand is that our time in this
House is precious. They should get behind legislation, either
government legislation or private members' legislation, that is
good for Canadians, instead of putting trivial motions on the
floor that we have to vote against because the
motion goes nowhere and suggests by implication that the
government is not doing its job when in fact it is doing more
than its job.
This is a government that stands for transparency. We are
moving in the right direction. I do wish the
opposition would get on board.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his impassioned
plea for the opening up of the Access to Information Act and to
become more transparent than is currently the case. I could not
agree more.
I also agree with his advocacy that charitable organizations
open their books to the public insofar as it is desirable to do
so. I do not disagree with that at all.
I think the hon. member actually is in agreement with everything
we stand for over here. The interesting thing which I cannot
figure out is why in the world he moved from one bill to another
bill and somehow thinks that the second bill is better than the
first. He has not explained that to me at all. I do not think
he has explained it to anyone. I think that is why he is in
trouble right now, because he has failed to explain exactly what
it is that he wants.
He wants more access to information and that is correct. So do
I, as does this whole side of the House, whether it is the
Canadian Alliance or others. And I would like to educate the hon.
member opposite that there is a Canadian Alliance and there is no
Reform Party in Canada. Would he please remember that is the
case.
I ask the hon. member, exactly what does he understand an audit
to be?
Mr. John Bryden: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have
difficulty grasping this new name, but I believe it is in order
if I still call it the former Reform Party. I do not think there
is any rule in the House that requires me to call it the
perfidious alliance or whatever it is.
Apart from that, there are two types of audits.
There is a financial audit and there is a performance audit.
Actually since this government came to power in 1993, the civil
service has been moving more and more toward performance audits.
There is no question that there has been a
very serious problem in governments before and we are moving in
the right direction. The problem has been that the money has
been spent and there has not been a decent tracking of whether
that money has been spent wisely and well.
I think what we are talking about here in reforming accounting
practices and reforming the Access to Information Act is keeping
track of the money and making sure that money is spent well.
It is really transparency that you must have before you have
accountability, and I do believe, not just the political
government but our bureaucracy is headed in that direction as
fast as it can go.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, to
the member who just spoke, I find it interesting that there is a
party now in the House that would like to distance itself so
quickly from its previous name that members are standing
constantly and saying there is another name and they must
distance ourselves immediately from that party formerly known as
the Reform Party. It is very interesting that they not only
distance themselves from their name, but from their leader, their
party and their principles.
The issue of the day obviously is audits. The hon. member said
that performance audits are a very integral part of management as
we know it today in our society. It is true by the way. I am
very familiar with performance and proficiency audits.
The member also said that in previous governments it was seen
that those departments were not acting in a proper manner.
Certainly the performance audits being brought in now are the
ones now functioning in a proper fashion.
Can the member then answer please why it is that some of those
performance audits I have been asking for from other departments
are not forthcoming from his government? They are not
forthcoming and access to information seems to be the only way to
get those particular audits.
Is there some reason why this member feels that transparency was
only good in this government and not in previous governments? Why
can I not get my audits?
1630
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I think part of the problem
is the Access to Information Act itself which was passed in 1983.
It has not been upgraded or overhauled since that time.
We have to get at that legislation and make it so that it is
very clear the type of information that the bureaucrats
should release automatically. In other words, if he wants to
perform his audit, I would say to him that it should not be a
matter of an access to information request. It should be so
defined as being the type of information that should be
automatically released, and I think better out through the
Internet.
I think we are headed in the right direction. I served a little
while on the government operations committee in 1995. I was very
surprised to see how behind the times a lot of this performance
management, or lack of it, was. I think we are headed in the
right direction, but it is really up to us, the politicians, to
lead.
I really deplore it when I see members of the opposition, and
not the member who just spoke, because I know he is very
interested in reforming the Access to Information Act, but I
really deplore it when other members of the opposition do not
support what Canadians think is the right thing to do, for minor
political gain, for their party, Reform, former Reform. I am not
sure what it is, but whatever it is allied to, I am sorry, I have
just forgotten.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Transfers to Provinces; the
hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Criminal Code; the hon. member
for Brandon—Souris, Agriculture.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I am
sharing my time with the member for Kelowna.
When we listen to some of the members opposite, we would think
that there is not even a problem. But things are so bad that we
had to bring forth this motion today on behalf of all the
opposition parties.
I will be revealing something a little bit later on in my speech
that will probably be like a bombshell thrown into this place.
But first of all I want to describe my personal experience.
When I first came to parliament back in 1993, I thought that if
we spoke the truth and if we put forth arguments that were
reasonable and analysed the information available, it would
affect the decisions made in this place. What a surprise I
received when I got here. Government members really do not
listen. They invoke closure on controversial legislation that we
oppose, but most serious of all, we cannot analyse the
information because it is not available in a timely fashion. The
government delays its release.
For example, I have made about 80 access to information
requests. Hon. members will wonder why I even have to apply for
the information. They would think that it would be shared
freely. In fact, the government boasts that it is doing a good
job managing our money and running effective programs. We would
think that it would be anxious to share that information with us
and the public. But there really is a problem with open and
transparent government. That is the reason we brought forth this
motion.
The government, as the President of Treasury Board has said,
talks about the complexities of government and the need to
modernize. Canadians expect a government in modern times with
the technology available to have information readily available.
In fact, it appears as if the government is using the modern
means available to it to hide the information.
Some of the examples of government hiding information are almost
unbelievable. The information which should be made available in
30 days sometimes has taken almost a year. Hon. members have
heard that right, almost a year. In fact, after the government
was stonewalling some of my requests, I had to complain to the
information commissioner. It took almost one year to find out
how much money was being wasted by the RCMP on the gun registry.
Probably the information was embarrassing, but it is not being
released as it should be.
There are other problems. A billion dollar boondoggle is
unfolding with regard to the gun registry.
1635
Over $300 million has already been wasted on laying a piece of
paper beside every gun in Canada rather than improving public
safety by putting more police on the street, and the government
does not want the public to know about it. That is probably why
I am having difficulty having my access to information requests
complied with.
What are some of the other problems? I revealed on
approximately March 9 that the justice minister blocked 172 pages
of the Canadian Firearms Centre budget documents. The excuse was
cabinet secrecy. I did not know about that until I started
trying to find out how much the government was spending. It has
come up with a new excuse, cabinet secrecy.
The minister's departmental officials are even refusing to
provide the proposed budget allocation for this coming year,
saying that they do not need to release that information. The
government has also used cabinet secrecy to withhold from the
public a 115-page report on the negative impact of the Firearms
Act on the economy. It has done the study but it will not
release the results of the study and the cost of its legislation
for businesses, how it will destroy thousands of jobs and all the
money that will be wasted.
It gets even worse than that. I discovered through access to
information that not only does the government hide information
from members of parliament so we cannot hold it accountable and
tell Canadians what a mess it is making, it even hides it from
the courts.
That is the bombshell I will tell members about. Here is what I
found out.
I will give a preamble. An eight page document was released to
me entitled “Cost Presentations Options” was dated February 5,
1998. Here is what option C, the incremental approach, says when
it comes to releasing the costs, “If pressed, confirm actual
spending of the past three years on C-68. Provide arguments why
we can't produce a definite cost forecast”. In other words, the
government already planned strategy as to why it would not
release the information as to how it would explain it does not
want to release the information.
Under timing considerations it proposed releasing the cost of
the gun registry at the same time that the government went public
with the federal budget. The reason was that “A lot of numbers
are mentioned during that period,” referring to the budget,
“and we benefit from the sheer volume of numbers being released
(i.e. unlikely to attract a lot of attention)”.
The hon. member said that if the government does things in a
certain way, put it on the Internet and so on, that will help. We
have clear evidence here that it will release so much stuff, so
many numbers will be put out, that it will be mind boggling and
the public will not know. This is clear evidence that it is like
a culture of deceit over there.
Here is the bombshell. This is what the minister's bureaucrats
admitted in a document I received through access to information.
During the Alberta reference court proceedings, we argued that we
were not in a position to reveal costs. Announcing the costs
before a decision may add a bad `obiter' in their decision.
Documents provided to me in response to previous access to
information requests proved the justice department had been
keeping an annual summary of the gun registry costs since 1995
and even though those detailed financial documents were
available, they were telling the Alberta Court of Appeal that
they could not reveal them. They would not even tell the courts
and one has to ask why.
Deceiving the public is bad enough, but deliberately deceiving
the Alberta Court of Appeal must surely have some consequences.
Why should Canadians care about whether we have open and
accountable government? Does this debate even matter today?
Let me say this. This strikes to the very heart of democracy.
There must be a free exchange of information. Without
information as to how the government operates, we cannot hold the
government accountable. Democracy just cannot work.
Second, it is the money of the Canadian people that is being
spent. They should know where that money is. We are talking big
bucks. When almost half of some people's income is going to
government, that is a lot of money.
1640
Third, if the money is being used to buy votes, that thwarts
democracy and it should not be happening. How can proper
decisions be made if we do not have all the information
available? That really thwarts democracy. If it is being
misused, that is also of great concern.
Why does someone who has been drinking refuse a breathalyser
test after being stopped by a police officer on a public highway?
Why do they say “No, I do not want to take the breathalyser”?
If a person refused a breathalyser, they can be assumed to be
guilty. Is that why the government refuses to be open and
accountable and release the information?
The fourth point I want to make as to why Canadians should care
about what is going on here is the big issue of trust. Trust
does not just reflect on the government. It reflects on all of
us in this place. People do not trust the government because of
the fact that they discover huge boondoggles long after they have
been out of this place.
Maybe there is another bombshell I can drop right here. I made a
request on the cost of the gun registry and Canadians may find
this unbelievable. I cannot use a prop in the House but I
received a budget document on the cost of the gun registry.
Everything was itemized except the column where the numbers
should have been. It was completely blocked out. Is that access
to information? That is what I am concerned about. That has to
stop. We need to have that information because without it I
cannot do my job and that should be a concern to all Canadians.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, did I really hear right? I do believe the member
opposite said that the government is deceiving the people by
giving them too much information, too many numbers. That is
exactly what he said. I must say he really underestimates the
Canadian public because there are lots of people who have
computers. He may not know about computers but there are lots of
people with computers who can crunch numbers and check the
government's numbers if we can only get them out to them.
I listened to the member carefully when he talked about blank
spaces in the documents he was getting via access to information.
This is not a problem that exists with government, it is a
problem that exists with legislation that needs to be reformed.
If he wants that information, then he should get on board with
the rest of the backbench MPs and change the Access to
Information Act into an open government act so we can get that
information. He should get on board rather than sitting here
whining in the House and blaming the government when in fact it
is his Reform Party's lack of initiative, lack of getting behind
the private members who are trying to change the way government
operates, trying to make government open. I do not know why he
simply stands here and complains when he could get on board with
the rest of the MPs on both sides of the House and make a
difference.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked
two good questions.
With regard to the first question about the public and all the
information, what I was trying to explain to the member is that
the government has a deliberate strategy to put so much
information into a certain place and to put in so many numbers
that it is confusing. The government has a deliberate strategy
to confuse. That is the point I was trying to make.
In the access to information request that I put forward, I read
that part of the government's strategy is to try to deceive
people by putting information in and taking information out. When
questions are asked, the government indicates that it is
explained. The government puts out information that needs to be
cross-referenced and wiggles out of almost any accountability.
That is the problem.
As far as what the member was saying in regard to access to
information, that is exactly what we are trying to do here today.
We agree that needs to be fixed. We do not have a problem with
that, but it is the government that has to fix it.
The member knows that a private member's bill is open to a free
vote and we have no problem with having a free vote on that kind
of thing.
1645
However, without our raising the issue, I do not think the
member opposite would get much support. In fact I think he only
has 70 members supporting it so far. Perhaps we have to start
putting public pressure on the government to open up the
information act and make sure that it is available to everyone.
That is our point and that is why the debate today is so
important.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
opposite for his reasoned reply. We have over 70 backbenchers on
the Liberal side who are supporting it and about 40 members or so
on the opposition side. Therefore, the will is here.
I have to stress that I am a legislator too. It is not just the
government that passes laws or creates laws, it is we
backbenchers. In fact we are the very bread and butter of the
laws. It is right and proper for a bill of this type, of this
nature, of this importance to come from the backbench. There is
nothing wrong with that. Why should we always rely on the
government to have the initiative? Why can we not band together
and do good things around this place?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, give me a break. I
cannot believe it. We are all here to try to improve the lot of
Canadians and to pass good laws. For this member to give the
impression that it is only the government that cares about it is
demeaning to what we are trying to do on this side of the House.
I really resent that.
I want to make the point that it is an advantage not just to
backbench MPs on the government side, but to all MPs in the House
that we have a free flow of information. With a free flow of
information and openness in government all Canadians would
benefit. That is the bottom line. The only way democracy can
function is if we have a free flow of information. If something
is hidden we cannot make good decisions. That is what this
discussion is all about. The government hides information so
that we cannot hold it accountable, and it is the people of
Canada who in the end suffer. That is my main point. Let us not
lose sight of that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is really a very interesting debate that is taking
place this afternoon. I would like to commend my hon. colleague
from Yorkton—Melville for the very explicit and detailed
analysis that he has done and also the very specific examples
that he used to illustrate and support his particular arguments.
I appreciate that very much.
I would like to focus our attention a little more concisely,
because information is such a big word. In fact it has come to
the point today where to simply use the word information is
almost ambiguous. We have to ask ourselves what kind of
information it is that we want.
We are talking about audits. Audits have been divided by
various groups into different kinds. There are internal audits,
external audits, financial audits, performance audits and a
variety of audits. What we are talking about, at least in part,
has to do with financial audits. In fact I wish to speak about
financial audits primarily.
These audits have to do with examining in an official capacity
the financial statements and the financial records and accounts
that are kept by government, that are kept by business and that
are kept by individuals. The audit is a reflection, an accurate
statement, an official statement of the expenditures that have
been taking place in a particular government department. That is
what we are talking about this afternoon.
The audit is the official examination of whether there is an
accurate statement of the revenues that have been received and an
accurate accounting and record of the expenditures that have
taken place. However, the audit also follows the trail of the
money: Where did it come from? Where is it going? What was the
process used in spending the money? Was it spent according to
the plan that was originally established? That has to do with
the budget.
The audit compares where the money was supposed to come from,
where the budget suggested that the revenues be collected, and
where the money was supposed to be spent, and we have the
official record of the estimates.
Invariably, every year there is a statement that is brought
forward called the supplementary estimates. These are estimates
that are added to the original budget. They change certain lines
and they add certain amounts of money to certain lines so that
the intentions of the original budget document can be met.
1650
The budget is the guiding document. It is the policy document.
In fact the budget is a piece of legislation. It has the force
of law, it is the law and it must be observed. The audit is a
very clear comparison of what the budget said should happen and
what actually happened. It has to do with projects, with
programs and with the intentions of government as to where our
money should be spent.
There are two words that refer to the audit. One has to do with
accountability, that is, to hold the government to account as to
whether the money was spent the way it was supposed to have been,
and also to give an account. To whom should that account be
given? That account shall be given to the people whose money was
spent. The money the government has is not its own. Whatever
money the government has is money that has been collected from
the taxpayers, either directly or indirectly. It is money that
is held in trust. The whole concept of holding to account has to
do with giving an account of how the money that was collected was
spent. The government said it needed the money for these
projects and programs. Did the government deliver the projects
and programs? That is the first level of accountability.
The second level of accountability is, did the government spend
as much as it said it would spend, less or more? If less was
spent, why were the costs of the project underestimated? If more
was spent, why? Was it inefficiency or were there other reasons?
The government had better explain why it did not hit the mark
set in the budget.
The budget also establishes responsibility. It says who shall
get the money: the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of National Defence,
the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Industry, and
so on. The budget clearly identifies who shall get the money and
on which projects and programs it shall be spent. If the
minister does not do that, he or she should be held to account.
The responsibility is his or hers and no one else's.
The point has been made that the servants of government, the
public employees, are doing an excellent job of managing public
money. They had better, because it is the minister who holds
them to account. If the minister does not hold them to account,
then the minister is the one whom the audit should reveal and say
“Mr. Minister, you are the one who had this account. This is
your responsibility. Make sure that it is done according to the
regulations and policies that have been set up to do the job”.
That becomes the issue.
The budget clearly identifies not only what money should be
spent, how much should be spent, where it should be spent, but
who is to be held to account, who is responsible for the
expenditure of that money.
Then we have to look at the honesty, the integrity, the openness
and the freedom of the people to do what the government said they
should do, in trust for the people, in the name of the people.
When the Minister of National Defence spends money, he spends it
in the name of the people. The people trust that minister to
spend the money in such a way that their security and the
security of the nation will be looked after. If it is not, then
the minister is held to account, and the Prime Minister is held
to account for all of the ministers in his cabinet.
What is meant by honesty? It means that the government and the
minister have to be able to say “This is the financial
statement. These are the revenues that we received. This is how
they were spent. This is an honest statement of what happened”.
There are not two sets of books. There is one set of books.
That is honesty.
Then there is integrity. Integrity is very interesting because
the minister recognizes that it is his or her responsibility and
that he or she is accountable. The responsibility cannot be pushed
off by saying “I have delegated this to my deputy. Therefore, I am
not responsible, it is the deputy's responsibility”. If the
minister is a person of integrity the response would be “I
am responsible”.
What about openness? “Sure, here are the books. Here is
where I spent the money. Have a look and see whether it is not
so”. They do not bother to white out columns so as not to show
certain numbers. Why would they not want to let out this
information? It is a cover-up of some kind.
It is either the cover-up of a number on a sheet of paper or it
is the cover-up of a decision that is represented by that number.
In any event, any kind of whiteout, any kind of resistance to
give information is a lack of openness. This is all part of
responsibility. This is all part of integrity and honesty.
1655
There is also something else, and that has to do with freedom.
When it comes to the business of people giving to the government
their money, which the government is to spend on their behalf, in
trust, to do the kinds of things that the government said it
would do in its budget, the people have the right to know. They
should have the freedom to ask the minister and to ask the Prime
Minister if the government spent their money the way it said it
would. That openness has to be guaranteed.
It is not just openness for the sake of openness; it is openness
in a timely fashion. If a department's books are opened five
years later, it might be useful, but there would be a totally
different set of circumstances. There has probably been an
election and there may be a different government in power.
Timeliness is absolutely critical.
We need to be very, very careful when we talk about these
audits, that they are timely, that they are open, that they can
hold people to account and determine clearly where the
responsibility lies.
If that is the case, then we need to examine why it is that a
corporation like the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can
request an extension because it needs to consult a third party.
Whose money is this? Who made the decision? The Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation made the decision. It had the money. It
kept the books, but it now needs to consult a third party to see
whether in fact it is an accurate statement. What is going on?
Why does it have to consult a third party? The corporation is
responsible. The minister is responsible. He should be open and
he should be able to account.
The debate is very significant. It is very necessary and it is
in the interests of the people who are listening. I am here to
hold the government to account. The government should not be
afraid. If it is making good decisions, the people will say
“Yes, the government has managed my money well”.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I followed the member's speech with great attention, but
I found myself losing the thread slightly in the sense that he
seemed to be speaking about financial audits and which numbers
count.
He will realize, of course, that anyone who has anything to do
with reading the annual reports of any type of company,
incorporated or otherwise, will know that often these financial
audits tell us very little, other than the fact that money came
in, money went out and there was no criminality or fraud
involved.
It seems to me, when we look at HRDC, that what we are talking
about and what we want from government are the results of
performance audits. The whole kerfuffle about HRDC is not about
the actual moneys spent; it is whether or not the moneys were
spent effectively and properly, whether the proper records were
kept and whether there was proper management of the moneys. It
seems to me we are talking about two things.
When he is talking about numbers, is he not really criticizing
public accounts record keeping, criticizing the estimates and the
way the government keeps the estimates? If he is, I would agree
with him that work has to be done there. However, I am not sure
that this motion is really focused in quite the right direction
if it is the numbers which concern him.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
giving me the opportunity with that question to expand further on
this issue.
Yes, it is an expansion of the motion to a degree, but it is a
very necessary expansion. The audits themselves reveal the
processes to be used to follow the money to determine if it was
spent where it was supposed to have been spent. That is a
financial audit. We could call it a performance audit, if we
wished. It is a very fine distinction and one which the people
really do not care about.
What the people want to know is if their money went where it was
supposed to go and was it used for that which it was originally
intended.
One thing they do not want that money to be used for is to buy
votes. That was never the intention when the people of Canada
gave the money to the government and said “I will pay my taxes.
I want you to look after those who are poor, who cannot look
after themselves”, as in the case of HRDC. That is what they
want.
By the same token, they do not want that money to be used to buy
votes to give particular advantage to particular people because
they live in a particular way and have given money back to a
political party. That they do not want. The audit will reveal
that kind of thing if it is a proper audit and if it is open and
timely. That is exactly what we want.
1700
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member. He
knows that I have a lot of respect for him.
I am surprised that there is this assumption that voters can be
so easily bought. I have never yet met a voter who could be
bought. Maybe I have not asked the right questions.
Voters in Canada are well informed. They are thoughtful and
intelligent. I understand the political point the member is
making, but are voters in Kelowna really that stupid that they
can be persuaded to vote a particular way because somebody brings
a government cheque to them? I would be surprised if his voters
are really that dumb.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, the best response is
that is why they never voted in a Liberal.
I have too much respect for the minister to not recognize the
seriousness behind the question. I want to recognize that the
voters by and large are very intelligent. After all, that is
what makes democracy work. I also know that we are sometimes
very subtly influenced by getting certain kinds of money for
certain advantages. We are kind of selfish people. Most of the
people around here have a bit of a selfish interest.
We do have this kind of thing. We do have a penchant toward
doing that. We want to avoid that. We do not want the
appearance of public funds being used to influence a voter to
cast his or her ballot in a particular direction. That is the
issue. I do not think the voter would do so deliberately. To
suggest that they are not influenced is not the way it really
exists out there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): So the hon. member
is aware, the debate will terminate at 5.15 p.m. The hon. member
has about 12 minutes.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, being a former hockey player I was used to ragging the
puck whenever I was able to get it.
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock had a large number of grants in the
riding, in fact, the most in southern Ontario, next to Toronto.
With over 200 programs, it was a great concern to me when the
leader of the opposition started yelling the new word
“boondoggle”. I was very concerned because this was a word I
had never heard before and was one I was not sure if I was part
of.
I asked the local press to audit some of the programs in my
riding. The first one it audited was the Lindsay Boys and Girls
Club because it was the largest recipient. It has a number of
programs that cater to youth in the riding, that cater to boys
and girls programs and provides a large variety of very
worthwhile programs. It was one that I thought the municipality
and the county could not afford. Therefore, we were very
appreciative that these grants came into the ridings.
The audit on the Lindsay Boys and Girls Club looked at the
applications made, the method of what checks and balances had to
take place in order for them to receive and keep the grant and
how the money was actually spent. I felt that that program
withstood the scrutiny of the boondoggle by the opposition party
formerly known as the Reform. As in the largest majority of the
grants, I felt there were no problems.
1705
We wanted to make sure that the minister was well aware of the
good publicity received in our riding because we honestly took a
look at just exactly what the opposition was talking about.
Therefore, in doing our own audits and publishing the names of
every organization that received grants, whether it was a local
pizza parlour that was hiring youth for the summer so that they
could have their first job, so that they could afford to go to
university, so that they could pay their tuition, I felt that all
of these programs stood on their own merits.
As we looked at each one of them and as we looked at the ones
proposed again this year, we wanted HRDC to know that we are
quite pleased with the amount of grants, the number of grants,
and the proportion of them. Of course we would like more money.
Who would not? But we want them to know that these grants mean
something to ridings.
In Haliburton we do not have to go very far to find a population
with a high unemployment rate, with a seasonal work problem. We
have as many problems in trying to address that as the east coast
and, to some extent, the great north.
HRDC has already provided the results of an internal audit in
the grants and contributions program and we have done our own
audit in our riding. This total audit identifies some
shortcomings in the management of the department's grants and
contributions program. I think that is normal.
If we take my riding with over 200 grants, we cannot look at
that and say that there would not be someone who did not dot an
i or cross a t or send back the wrong form. That is
only human nature, but in fact the internal audits are made to
identify things that need fixing. That is why organizational
reviews and audits are basically tools used by modern managers to
make sure the right structures are in place and the right
resources are available.
We are in a changing world. We are in a world where certain
pockets need more help than others. We have to admit that not
everyone is caught up in the metropolitan Toronto boom. Not
everyone is caught up in the high tech industries. In my mind,
Ontario is not Toronto. That is maybe what happens with the
party formerly known as Reform. It has kind of looked at Toronto
as if it were Ontario. It really is not.
If we look at the riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, there
are 46 municipalities, 24 Santa Claus parades and 18 cenotaph
services. We never have a time where we are not busy. In fact,
last weekend I had the pleasure of accompanying the minister of
agriculture for Canada as he toured one of the newest operations,
one of the great new dairy operations.
If we go to that area we will find 450 active dairy farms. Let
us think about that, 450 active dairy farms in my riding alone.
The member for Wentworth—Burlington is waiting to heckle me
because he does not have dairy farms. Does he have dairy farms?
Mr. John Bryden: I do so.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Okay, he has good dairy farms, but
when we look at that as a part of Ontario, not many people from
Nova Scotia would think that Ontario has one of the largest
fishing industries in Canada. The internal waterway is a great
resource.
We have to think beyond the megacity of Toronto and the problems
it has, and go out into the ridings and areas which represent
mainstream Ontario and some of the recreational facilities.
It is important to note that the minister of HRDC voluntarily
made the report public. She did so as soon as the department
managers came together with an acceptable plan to meet the
identified deficiencies. These are not things which were brought
out by the party formerly known as Reform. They were brought out
by good control within the department's own management system.
Regarding controlling payments, no payments are made without
written confirmation that the criteria are met.
I know that to be a fact in looking at my riding and correcting
past problems. Some of these agencies are made up of volunteers
or made up of people who are not paid to be auditors, who are not
paid to be managers, so they do the best they can. There were 37
projects flagged in the internal audit report and all other
active files are being reviewed. I think that is a compliment.
1710
The HRDC people are key to fixing these problems. It is not
something that will happen through access to information. I
firmly believe we are the most open in the world on that. The
professional and dedicated people of the government who work on
HRDC are the ones who will certainly bring this program into
line, if in fact it needs to be brought into line, or whether it
is not just the new word “boondoggle” that the Leader of the
Opposition had a tough time even pronouncing, let alone spelling.
When HRDC is ensuring accountability, it has established a
performance tracking unit to monitor the corrective actions and
to provide regular reports. I think that is what is going on in
each individual member's riding in HRDC offices right across this
country, access to the best advice available. HRDC is in fact in
regular contact with the office of the auditor general and
several major accounting firms, so it is following up on all the
things that need to be followed up on and it has made a
commitment to openly report and to report objectively on the
progress.
What it boils down to is the six point action plan is certainly
seeing its way through the system and producing the results that
we thought it would produce, that is that there are very few
programs with which we have any trouble, other than in the eyes
of the party formerly known as the Reform Party.
As members of parliament, it is important that we let our
officials get on with implementing the plan. Many thousands of
Canadians depend on these programs. If I go back to the Boys and
Girls Club of Lindsay, I do not know how anyone in fairness could
stand up and openly contest the good work that it does. I had no
trouble throughout all these discussions, always leaning back and
looking at exactly what was going on in my own riding and how
that was helping the community. It certainly was helping the
community.
We have heard from Canadians all across the country. I have
heard from Canadians in my riding who are in support of making
sure that we look after people who need to be looked after, that
we look after people who are less fortunate than ourselves, that
we look after the needy regions of the country. They are not
just on the east coast or in the north. They are all over this
great country of ours. There are pockets that have great need.
I want to speak a little bit about the tens of thousands of
Canadians who depend on the support from HRDC. Whether it is
helping people become more literate or whether it is helping
people make their way in a world that is certainly difficult for
people with disabilities, I think that those types of programs
are in need of our support.
I recognize, as the member for Wentworth—Burlington has pointed
out so many times, there are some 73,000 registered charities in
Canada, all of which write members of parliament every day and
all of which lobby the government to try to get more money. Some
of them are very worthwhile and some of them we have our
questions about. Some certainly should be looked at more
closely. I think that is an area that the parties in opposition
could look at more closely and maybe find some result or find out
exactly what is going on there.
Madam Speaker, I know my time is coming to an end because you
are waving your finger. I want to wrap up by saying that I do
think that the auditor general believes the minister and her
officials are following the right course to improve the
administration of the department grants and contributions program
with the six point plan. I would encourage them to get on with
it and they will find, as I have, that the plan is working and
that the problems exist only in the minds of the opposition.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to
dispose of the motion of the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill
relating to the business of supply are deemed put and a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred until later this day, at
the expiry of the time provided for Private Members' Business.
1715
[Translation]
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed
to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
The House resumed from February 25 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of First Nations
Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to administrative
and communication problems between members of First Nations
communities and their First Nation and between First Nations,
allegations of improper financial administration and allegations
of electoral irregularities, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of the bill by the
hon. member for Wild Rose, Bill C-222. We are into the final
hour of debate. We have heard a fair bit about the bill and I
have listened to what members on the other side have had to say.
I am here tonight to tell those members that I have been to many
of these meetings. I have listened to the aboriginal people who
have showed up at these meetings. I have listened to their
concerns. Some of the stories I have heard would bring tears to
your eyes, Madam Speaker.
I had a speech for tonight. Instead, I will read into the
record a letter calling for financial accountability. It states:
We have been working for 5 years trying to get accountability,
democracy and equality to our First Nations communities. We
worked for three years under the name Dakota Action Group and for
two years under First Nations National Accountability Coalition
of Manitoba. To date, we have gone national and are in the
process of registering our organization under First Nations
National Accountability Coalition. We have organizations in
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and
New Brunswick. We get calls from all parts of Canada with
regards to mismanagement of band funds, corruption, nepotism, no
services, no equality and dictatorship rule in the First Nations
communities.
We have approximately 200 reserves that have joined our
accountability coalitions and there are about 213 that have been
in contact with our organization or affiliates. These band
members want their rights restored under the Canadian
constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms, the Human
Rights Act and the Indian Act.
As aboriginal people and as Canadian citizens, we have been
stripped of all rights by our very own aboriginal leaders as well
as the department of Indian affairs.
The Corbiere consultation process is proof of that. The supreme
court ruled in favour of the Batchewana off reserve band members
to vote in band elections, but they could not do the consultation
process nor could they get the funding for it. The government
gave the defendants—the Indian affairs and the chiefs and
councils—funding to do the consultation process. We believe the
government is letting the fox get security for the hen house.
Our organizations, which deal directly with the “grassroots
people” across Canada, were not informed of the Corbiere
consultation process or of the funding for it. Again, the
grassroots people have been neglected and forgotten. The
aboriginal people have no rights. The majority are ruled
“dictatorship style” on the reserves. There is no economic
development in the First Nations communities. Most reserves have
no money and huge deficits with no future in sight for band
members. This is one reason the suicide rate has sky-rocketed
and has reached epidemic proportions on the reserves.
The way the chiefs and the council operate their systematic
government is demoralizing, demeaning and discriminatory. There
are very few band meetings, if any at all. Few band members are
privileged to be employed. The grassroots people are not informed
of any developments on how their funds are spent. They can only
observe the chiefs and council and their relatives drive new
vehicles, get new houses or extensions on homes and the chiefs'
and council's children sent to private schools. Nepotism is
widespread. The band members are not educated and they are kept
that way. The chiefs and councillors are not available to be
accountable or to provide information because they are on exotic
vacations/trips and they are paid twice for per diems, travel and
honorariums.
Their cellphones are unlisted while grassroots people are forced
to live in third world conditions. Many cannot access money for
housing, medical, education, transportation, including all other
programs such as native alcohol and drug programs. Any activity
or requests for accountability results in all services being
discontinued. The aboriginal leaders do not consult with the
band members. They do whatever they want. They spend band funds
any way they want with little or no sensitivity to the needs of
their people. The grassroots people pay dearly and heavily for
the extravagant squandering of band funds (tax dollars) by the
chiefs and council. This is condoned by the department of Indian
affairs.
If the non-native people ran their businesses the way the
majority of the chiefs and councillors operate the band offices,
they would be in jail. This is proof of the double standard that
exists in a democratic country such as Canada. To go to Indian
affairs or the RCMP is futile. Numerous packages have been given
to both departments about fraud, corruption, embezzlement, etc.
A blind eye is turned. RCMP liaise with Indian affairs and so it
appears that Indian affairs investigated themselves and controls
the RCMP. This leads us to believe that the chiefs and
councillors are above the law. Their criminal activities are
untouchable. The band members have nowhere to turn for help.
We knew the band members needed to have a native ombudsman, so
we did a proposal and gave it to (the member for Wild Rose) to
take to the House of Commons on behalf of the grassroots people.
Without one, there will be more Waterhen, Gustufson and Oka
crises. Situations have deteriorated so badly that people are
threatening to take arms up against their chiefs and council and
to give up their lives for change.
We have a crisis in our First Nation communities and it is
crucial that a native ombudsman be enacted into legislation.
Fortunately for the grassroots people from coast to coast, there
is an organization like the First Nations Accountability
Coalition where people can vent their frustrations, hopelessness
and receive a glimmer of hope that there might be a solution
which is the native ombudsman who will be there on behalf of the
grassroots people.
We appeal to all members of parliament to support this native
ombudsman Bill C-222. If the government is sincere to remain in
good standing in their special relationship with Canada's First
Nations people, and if they truly want accountability, democracy
and equality in Canada, as well as lighten the tax burden, then
they will support Bill C-222. We see this as a major milestone
in building on a new relationship with the grassroots people of
Canada and we are PEOPLE too!
1720
This letter was written by Leona Freed who has worked very hard
to bring some of these concerns to the attention of the
government and to the attention of members of parliament.
I would like to quote from another article called “Chief
Injustices”. It will give members something to think about. It
says “if you dare criticize the abusers, you are ostracized. If
you dare speak out in favour of support groups who are off
reserve for urban aboriginals, if you speak out against the
aboriginals, you stand the chance that aboriginal goon squads
will come after you”.
This is not uncommon. It goes on and on.
We went to meeting after meeting. I attended a meeting in
Alberta with the hon. member for Wild Rose. The native people
came up to us an told us they were threatened. They were at the
meeting even though they had been threatened not to talk to
members of parliament and not to raise those concerns. Is this
any way to live in this country when a person cannot take their
concerns to their member of parliament, let alone the RCMP,
without threats being made against their family? This is what is
going on.
It is not just the communities that are saying this. I will now
quote some examples given by a judge. The most high profile
example of aboriginal corruption is on the oil rich Stoney
Reserve, 60 kilometres west of Calgary, where an independent
audit in financial mismanagement resulted in 43 complaints being
turned over to the RCMP.
1725
In a precedent setting decision in 1997, Alberta Judge John
Reilly demanded a provincial inquiry into how such a wealthy band
could have such poverty and social ills, linking the Stoney
government to a banana republic.
In September 1999, after investigating the suicide of a Stoney
teenager, Judge Reilly produced a damning report that laid the
blame for the boy's death squarely at the feet of the corrupt
native leadership and the misguided federal bureaucrats.
Let us take a look at the Gitksan authority of B.C. which was
caught in 1998 investing federal health care funds in the Alberta
stock exchange. No charges were laid but the band lost over
$50,000.
The examples go on and on but does the government listen? Does
the government listen to the grassroots people? No, it listens
to the people it wants to, the Phil Fontaines who get all the
money and speak for the white people and not for the grassroots
native people.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock is a riding in central
Ontario that enjoys some prosperity and good relations with some
aboriginal groups and some that are even better.
It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-222. I believe the
hon. member's motion has been inspired by a sincere desire to
improve living conditions in aboriginal communities and to
promote greater accountability for the management of funds or to
encourage the development of aboriginal self-government.
Regrettably, his rhetoric today and in the past, and his party's
well-known and oft-stated position with respect to aboriginal
issues, leads me to a different conclusion.
The party, formerly known as the Reform Party, opposes
aboriginal self-government. It would prefer to return to the
good old days when a paternalistic Ottawa managed the affairs of
first nations. It does not believe that aboriginal people can be
trusted to manage their own concerns, make their own decisions or
determine their own destiny. When there are different reports
about poverty on reserves or financial difficulties in some
aboriginal communities, it seizes upon that as proof that
aboriginal people cannot be trusted and should not be encouraged
to manage their own affairs.
We take a different view. This government believes that first
nations can be trusted, that they are responsible and that they
deserve to run their own lives. Our preference is for
partnerships not paternalism and for co-operation not control.
Let me remind the House how we came to where we are today, how
the issue of financial management has evolved over the years and
why it is so important to demonstrate our continuing confidence
in first nations as they make their way through this period of
transition to self-government.
Until the late 1950s, the federal government delivered most
programs and services directly to first nations. By the late
1970s first nations were administering some programs in
accordance with terms and conditions set out by the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In the 1980s the process of devolution began to pick up steam
and new funding arrangements were developed. First nations were
administering more programs, but still under the mandate of the
Indian Act. Today 83% of our department's budget for programs is
transferred directly to first nations and a further 11% to
provinces for service delivery.
More importantly, in the 1990s, as we moved toward
self-government, more and more first nations are assuming
jurisdiction and greater responsibility for these programs. That
means more and more they are planning and managing services based
on the needs of their community. These new arrangements
emphasize the relationship between chiefs, councils and their
members.
This means that our primary role is no longer to deliver
services to first nations but to design and manage financing
arrangements that will allow first nations to deliver their own
programs and be accountable for those programs for their
memberships.
As we transfer more responsibility to the first nations, we are
also working toward strengthening and building the skills and
professional capacity within first nations that are needed to
support these programs.
As funding arrangements have changed, so too has the issue of
accountability. In the old days, when the federal government
provided most of the programs and services directly, the lines of
accountability were clear.
1730
The departments involved, through their ministers, were
responsible to parliament. Over time, as responsibilities
devolved to first nations, efforts were made to promote local
accountability; that is to say, first nations are becoming
accountable to their constituents for the expenditures of funds
and for the quality of programs and services they deliver.
In these times of limited resources, Canadians are insisting,
quite rightly, that we manage tax dollars prudently. This is
true of aboriginal and non-aboriginal governments alike. The
same principles of accountability which apply to non-aboriginal
governments also apply to first nations, principles like
transparency, disclosure and redress. This means, for example,
that first nations must disclose to their membership not only
annual audits, but information such as the salaries of chiefs and
councils, travel expenses and so on.
The federal government has worked with aboriginal governments to
put in place financial standards that are comparable to other
governments exercising similar responsibilities. The emphasis is
now on making the information within first nations financial
statements relevant and comprehensible to community members.
Similarly, the accounting industry is starting to consider the
needs of first nations when developing accounting standards.
Recently, as some first nations have assumed greater
responsibilities and acquired significant assets, through land
claims settlements for example, they have recognized the need for
more sophisticated accounting systems. What we have seen is that
first nations have gained the right to manage their affairs.
They are moving to strengthen accountability and management
practices.
Much of the progress in this area has not received the attention
or publicity it deserves. Too often it is only the first nations
communities that run into real financial problems that make it on
to the news or into the papers. In fact, last year only 2% of
first nations had their agreements placed under third party
management. The simple fact is that most reserves are managing
their finances properly. I believe this record reflects both the
determination of first nations to manage their affairs
responsibly and the creation of proper checks and balances.
When problems do arise, the department may intervene in a number
of ways, depending on the problem. For example, we may simply
make sure that the first nation is aware that there is a problem,
encourage it to find solutions and offer advice. In other cases
we will consult with the band more actively or hire a co-manager
to address the difficulty. Only in a very few cases, the 2% I
mentioned earlier, is it necessary to bring in a third party to
stabilize the situation until a solution can be found. Some
intervention does happen, but our favoured approach—and I am
sure the House will agree it is a good one—is not intervention,
but prevention.
The brief chronology I have sketched today shows the evolution
of our relationship with first nations as a government. It
highlights the increasing responsibility and accountability that
has been assumed by first nations in recent years as they move
toward exercising their inherent right to self-government.
However, we must keep in mind that this is a story that is still
being written. Yes, there have been growing pains along the way
as we make the fundamental transitions in our relationship, but
if we think that people are not exercising their judgment well,
is the answer to take away their ability to choose or to inform
their judgment?
The party formerly known as the Reform Party would have us take
away the rights of first nations to choose, to grow and, yes,
occasionally to make mistakes. Our government would rather work
with first nations—
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member knows well that the purpose of this bill
is to attempt to provide an ombudsman for aboriginal grassroots
people. Would he stick to the topic, please?
Mr. John O'Reilly: Madam Speaker, I am glad that I have
struck a chord with the party formerly known as the Reform Party.
Our government wants to work with first nations, not to put them
down, not to demean them, not to make them crawl into line
somewhere in the former Reform Party's policies. First nations
must have self-reliance. They cannot have a continued state of
dependency. We would rather work with first nations as partners,
not dictate to them like parents. In short, we would rather
build for the future than return to the past.
1735
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I would like
to congratulate my colleague from Wild Rose for bringing forward
Bill C-222. The purpose of this bill is to create the position
of a First Nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating
to administrative, financial or electoral problems between
members of first nations communities.
My colleague from South Shore—who has been working very hard on
this—and my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche have already
spoken in favour of this bill. They have said that the
Progressive Conservative Party supported it because it was
important for all levels of government and private enterprise,
including the first nations in this instance, to be accountable.
We have all read the newspaper reports about poor administration
among Canada's first nations. This problem has drawn media
attention in the maritime provinces, Nova Scotia in particular.
Members of two Nova Scotia bands have accused their governing
councils of mismanaging the funds received from the federal
government for the welfare of the entire band membership. In
some cases, the question is not whether the band has administered
the funds correctly, but whether it can justify their use.
More serious still, an internal audit at Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada has revealed that the department does not know
which bands have filed complete, detailed statutory financial
statements, because of poor co-ordination between the regions.
The department has no mechanisms by which it can verify the
administration of these various sectors. Audit has revealed that
monitoring of compliance was inconsistent and that, as a result,
the Crown was at risk of additional responsibility if monitoring
by INAC staff was insufficient or inconsistent.
According to the evaluation, there were four other factors with
potential negative effects on compliance with the terms of the
agreements. In certain cases, indicators of measurable
performance were not clearly defined in the funding agreements,
resulting in imprecise reports by recipients and imprecise
monitoring; post-audit follow up on qualified opinions and
reports of non-compliance was not uniform; payment authorizations
were not always supported by satisfactory compliance reports;
regional quality control assessments of the compliance monitoring
process were limited.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gives
first nations close to $4.6 billion so that they can provide
their members with social programs and services. Unfortunately,
this money does not always reach those for whom it is intended.
However, it is obvious that not all first nations are badly run.
On the contrary, many aboriginals are very well served by their
chief and their council. It also happens that some bands have
trouble managing their money properly because of a lack of
training or for a number of other reasons.
Some first nations are progressive and have created programs
designed to help their members achieve social and economic
stability, and they are to be congratulated. However, even in
their case, a ombudsman could provide an important service.
People need an office to which they can turn for information or
with which they can lodge a formal complaint and be sure it will
be investigated impartially and independently. The establishment
of the office of ombudsman does not mean that there are major
management problems to be resolved, although one of the
ombudsman's duties would be to look into these problems to make
sure that the money is getting to the right destination.
This bill is nothing new. Many provincial governments,
businesses and public organizations have created the position of
ombudsman to improve client relations.
1740
These offices provide people with a means of raising issues that
they feel have not been appropriately resolved through other
channels.
I think that the creation of the office of first nations
ombudsman would be an effective and useful means of responding to
the concerns of aboriginals, whether they have to do with
electoral irregularities, or financial or administrative
problems.
Aboriginals complain that there is no one to whom they can turn
to challenge the way their chief or band council is doing things.
The position of independent ombudsman would be one possible
solution, since the incumbent would be able to get to the bottom
of complaints lodged with his office.
In addition, it would allow aboriginals to pursue their
grievances when they felt they had not been listened to by their
chief or their band council, or when they did not want to discuss
them openly.
Under this bill, any first nation member could use this service.
Some aboriginals have expressed their support for the creation
of the office of first nations ombudsman. They recognize the
role that an ombudsman would play as an intermediary between
aboriginals and their chief or band council. It would be a means
of encouraging aboriginals to suggest ways of improving their
relations with their chief without fear of reprisals.
This bill sets out how the office of ombudsman would operate.
For instance, it stipulates that the ombudsman would be appointed
by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister
for a term of five years. The first nations would take part in
the appointment process by making representations to the
committee reporting to the minister.
I will not go into the details of how the office of ombudsman
would operate. I see advantages to creating such an office, but
I am not sure that it is a good thing to have the governor in
council make the appointment. I think this should be reviewed,
so that members of the first nations have a greater say.
It is only on the condition of being consulted and involved in
the entire process that they will have confidence in the position
of ombudsman. It is clear that the first thing to be considered
is their opinion and their suggestions in the process of
establishing this position.
The bill recognizes that aboriginal peoples must also look to
themselves and their organizations and their elected bodies to
protect their rights and access to service. Instead of
complaining to the Minister of Indian Affairs, they will be able
to turn to an independent ombudsman.
On condition that they are part of it, this process may help the
first nations assume responsibility and accountability for their
actions. As I mentioned earlier, I think this is a very valid
bill. Misunderstanding and discord may often be resolved when a
mechanism is in place for such purpose, and the position of
ombudsman may be such a solution.
Improved services to band members, increased transparency and
accountability are three objectives the office of the ombudsman
can help achieve.
The federal government could draw a lesson from all of this. Too
many departments are totally indifferent to these vital
objectives all responsible governments must set for themselves.
In recent months, it has become clear to taxpayers that there is
a shortage of transparency and accountability in the Department
of Human Resources Development and in other departments, and
others to come.
More recently, similar problems have surfaced in the Department
of Indian Affairs. If the position of ombudsman can contribute
to transparency, efficiency and accountability, our party
supports its creation.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, do I have a minute or so to make my presentation?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The debate will
continue until 6 p.m., at which time we will have a 15 minute
bell and then we will vote.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I understood the debate
would be over at 5.45 p.m. I really appreciate having this
chance to speak.
1745
Bill C-222 was presented to the House by the member for Wild
Rose. If this bill passes, it will put in place the position of
ombudsman for aboriginal people to go to if they are having
difficulties dealing with their leadership or a band dealing with
another or situations like that. The member is to be commended
for bringing this piece of legislation forward.
This was one of the recommendations of the Lakeland aboriginal
task force which I set up in my constituency in 1997 shortly
after the election. After the election, the new part of my
constituency took in eight Indian reserves and four Metis
settlements for a total aboriginal population of about 30,000
people. I immediately started getting phone calls from people
who had real concerns about issues like housing, alcohol and drug
abuse on their reserve and the lack of accountability as they saw
it on the part of chiefs and councils on their reserves. It was
not just one or two isolated calls.
As a result, I set up a task force made up of four aboriginal
people and myself. Over the next several months we met with
people in a three step process. First, we met confidentially,
one on one. Second, we sent out questionnaires and had several
returned. Third, we had three public meetings in the
constituency. Some very interesting things came out of this
process.
I will refer particularly to the recommendation which deals
directly with what we are talking about. That is recommendation
number four under the category of democratic accountability. It
says that “the government must establish an arm's length body,
an ombudsman or agency to hear and act on the confidential
concerns of aboriginal Canadians”. This proposal came from
people who made presentations to us throughout this process. It
was a recommendation that was almost unanimously supported by the
hundreds of people who took part in this process.
The suggestion came up because there were many people who felt
alienated from their band or settlement leadership, as well as
from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Some speakers at this meetings said they did not feel comfortable
in approaching Indian Affairs and Northern Development because
they had seen people who had felt negative repercussions when
they did so in the past. Even when they approached Indian
affairs in confidence, often the exact message that they took to
it got back to the chief and council. They did not feel they
could trust Indian affairs to keep their confidential issues
confidential. That is why they felt they needed an ombudsman.
In many cases, they felt the problem was with the leadership of
the chiefs and councils. That is not the situation in every
case, nor would I ever say that is the case. However, it is a
very common problem and we cannot ignore that.
The Liberal member who spoke previously said that it was very
unusual to have problems of the lack of accountability on
reserves. He either does not understand the reality or he is
trying to minimize the problem. It is a very common problem
across the country. It is not only the eight reserves in my
constituency.
This is what was said in one presentation:
“A lot of people in my community have been discriminated against
(by chief and council),” said one participant. “Where do you
go in your community for help? Higher government just refers it
down to the local elected officials. We need something for
grassroots people who can't speak out right now, because they
know there is a price to be paid. An advocate, or an
arm's-length agency. A hearer of all injustices within the
aboriginal community.”
1750
That is what this person said when presenting to the aboriginal
task force.
They did acknowledge that the logistics of setting up the
ombudsman position might be quite difficult, but it is something
they felt was worth the effort. That was a point which was made
very clear.
They suggested that the ombudsman should be in place for a time
period very similar to what this private member's bill suggests.
That is part of the reason I suggest this is a good bill.
The minister of Indian affairs on several occasions has said in
the House that he really cannot deal with issues when they arise
on reserves. He cannot deal with problems on reserves because
that is the responsibility of the leadership on the reserves.
It is an interesting point because the first thing is that the
minister of Indian affairs absolutely has responsibility for what
happens on reserves. It is clear in Canadian law. He is
abdicating his responsibility.
Second, how is it that the chiefs and council members are going
to deal with problems brought to them when the problem in many
cases is themselves? It is the chief and council. That is where
so many members who presented before the task force made the
point as strongly as they possibly could.
“It seems like a hopeless situation”, they said. “We can see
a situation where our council, including the chief, is
misspending money. We know this is happening and we have nowhere
to go. We see situations where we know elections have been
unfair and we can point to particular problems in the election
process, but we feel we have nowhere to go.”
This is the type of feeling which came up again and again. I
believe this ombudsman position will help deal with part of that
problem.
I congratulate the member for Wild Rose for bringing this forth.
I know that he brought this bill forth because he heard from
grassroots aboriginal people right across the country, including
the members in the gallery. He heard from them that the
situation is desperate, that they do need someone to go to, that
they cannot always go to leadership because in many cases the
leadership is the problem.
What does the minister of Indian affairs suggest when we bring
these problems to him? He says, “Well, you know, you have to
leave it up to the band because we have self-government”. He
talks as if the bands in this country are a separate level of
government, that they are somehow an equal government, to be
treated equally with the federal government. That is the way he
talks.
When we raise these issues, he says that he has no way he can
deal with the problem. He says that the answer to the problem is
self-government and more responsibility to chiefs and councils. I
believe that that is the case. That is part of the answer, more
ability on the part of leadership to deal with the problem, but
in terms of fiscal accountability, electoral accountability and
fair elections on reserves, we can only go to a system where
there is more self-government where these issues are dealt with.
They have not been dealt with.
It is interesting what people at one of the public meetings said
on exactly this issue. One member speaking at one of the public
meetings, and this was covered on television, said, “Ron Irwin
has sent a memo out to reserves saying that no one would be
forced to take self-government until everyone was ready. We had
a referendum and said no. Now Jane Stewart, we are feeling, is
being pushed into it.”
At a public meeting of about 70 people in St. Paul, Alberta, I
asked this question. I asked, “How many of you think that we
should be moving to a system of self-government now?”. One hand
out of the 70 went up.
I asked the question another way: “How many of you feel we
should not be going to self-government until the problems of
accountability are dealt with?” All the hands went up except
one.
Self-government is not the answer until accountability is put in
place. This ombudsman will help deal with the situation of a
lack of accountability. I applaud the member and I will support
this bill. I hope everyone in the House will support this bill.
1755
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this is a very personal issue to me.
My wife and I visited the home of an aboriginal family. We were
confronted by six women. One of the women there was just
completely shaken with the fact that the chief and council had
removed her family from her. She had no place to go. The host
who convened this meeting had helped her get her family back by
going to the provincial authorities. By doing so, this woman now
has her family back. She was really shaken with the concept of
self-government because with self-government, where would she go?
That is not the end of the story. The end of this particular
story is that the host of this meeting and her family were then
told that they must leave the reserve because the people on the
reserve, the chief and council, said that they had a requirement
for housing, notwithstanding the fact that there are 11 vacant
houses on that reserve.
She was not only required to leave, but she was literally frozen
out of her house last winter when the chief and council saw to it
that the power and water were turned off at her home.
The issue of the ombudsman is a real issue. It is a gut level
issue that I have seen and I have experienced. This is something
that absolutely must happen if the government is set on the idea
of going ahead with self-government. Along with self-government
there must be the position of ombudsman.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I understand and I have agreement with the members from the
opposition, and I am sure that the House would agree, that the
mover of the bill, the member for Wild Rose, be given the last
few minutes remaining to speak and summarize on the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Do we have the
unanimous consent of the House that the hon. member for Wild Rose
will have until 6 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank all the members in the House of Commons
who participated in the debate. I appreciate their opinions.
Although we may not agree with some of them, we certainly do
appreciate hon. members having a say.
I would like to especially express my appreciation to the
thousands, and I mean thousands, of grassroots natives across
this country who have taken the time to support the bill and have
input with Leona Freed to put together a final 200 page report
that we have released today which is available to all members of
the House of Commons. I encourage each and every one of them to
get a copy of that.
I am making a last plea on behalf of the aboriginal grassroots
people, many of whom are with us today in the gallery. I am
pleased to have them here. We are looking for support on the
bill.
I would like to remind all members that this is a very serious
consideration. There is not one member, you, Mr. Speaker,
myself, every member in the House of Commons, any citizen in
Canada who does not have access to am ombudsman to help deal with
grievances in their lives. The only people that does not apply
to are natives who live on a reserve. Is it not about time that
these people who live on the reserves have the same equality that
each and every one of us in the House and across this land enjoy?
These kinds of inequalities must not exist. If hon. members
vote no, they are saying no to equality and they should remember
that. Hon. members do not want equality on the reserves if they
vote no. I encourage hon. members to support these people and I
encourage them to remember that the basis of all of this is a
plea for accountability. A no vote means no to accountability.
I will remember how hon. members vote.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the order
made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the
motion are deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested.
Call in the members.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1815
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—DEPARTMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the amendment relating to the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment.
1825
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams – 107
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken on the
amendment to the main motion.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams – 107
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was
tied up with a constituent. I would like on this motion to vote
with the government, of course.
The Speaker: Your vote will be recorded.
* * *
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion in
relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, an act
to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal
information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain
circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to
communicate or record information or transactions and by amending
the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the
Statute Revision Act.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March
30, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion relating to the Senate amendments
to Bill C-6.
1830
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the hon.
member for Broadview—Greenwood, I believe you will find that
there is unanimous consent for the members voting on the previous
motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before
the House, with the Liberal members voting yes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting in favour of the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are strongly opposed to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote yes
to this motion.
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative
members vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, the Portage—Lisgar
constituents vote yes to this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 210
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp – 39
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Amendments read the second time and
concurred in)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-238, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (mail
contractors), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order made
Friday, March 31, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on the motion at second reading stage
of Bill C-238 under Private Members' Business.
[English]
I would remind hon. members that the division will be taken row
by row, starting with the sponsor.
1840
Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was not sure, as the clerk was counting the votes,
whether he recognized my vote in support of this motion. I would
ask that the record be checked.
1845
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether you
counted me in favour or not, but I am in favour.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bonwick
|
Brien
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Herron
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Muise
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Peric
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Proud
| Redman
|
Reynolds
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Wilfert – 110
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bellemare
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caplan
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harb
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Limoges
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Obhrai
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Strahl
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Williams
| Wood – 114
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
lost.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-222,
an act to establish the office of First Nations Ombudsman to
investigate complaints relating to administrative and
communications problems between members of First Nations
communities and their First Nation and between First Nations,
allegations of improper financial administration and allegations
of electoral irregularities, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
motion at second reading stage of Bill C-222 under Private
Members' Business.
1855
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Doyle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
| Lowther
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Price
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Shepherd
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Ur
| Vautour
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Williams – 57
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gruending
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 168
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
lost.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRANSFERS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on December
14, 1999, I asked a question about transfers to the provinces.
My question read as follows:
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 8, the Legislative Assembly
of New Brunswick unanimously passed a motion calling for
re-establishment of social transfers to the 1994-95 level.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to listen to his Liberal
cousins in New Brunswick and to restore transfer payments to
their 1994-95 level in order to ensure that the people of New
Brunswick may benefit from better social programs?
The Minister of Finance responded as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize that, including the
tax points, or in other words all transfers together, we are
already where we were five years ago.
The reason I referred to “his Liberal cousins in New
Brunswick” was because a motion in the New Brunswick legislative
assembly was passed unanimously.
1900
The Liberal Party of New Brunswick was even in agreement with
the Progressive Conservative Party in saying that the transfers
to the province of New Brunswick were—and we know this, for it is
the same everywhere in the country—not as high as those received
in 1994-95, because of the cuts.
As we know, according to the figures available, the federal
government is paying only 15% of health costs. Up until 1969,
the federal government paid 50%, as compared to a mere 15%
today.
I hear our Liberal friends across the floor saying “No, no, not
true”. If it is not true, the Liberals of New Brunswick are
telling untruths, because the provincial Liberals of New
Brunswick voted along with the Progressive Conservatives members
in order to tell their cousins in the federal government “We
want the same transfers as in 1994-95”.
So which ones are telling the truth? The provincial Liberals or
their federal Liberal cousins? This is a question that must be
raised.
The one thing we do know is that, in the health field, people
are suffering. Hospitals have been closed and patients are
being forced to go to the United States for treatment. This we
know, and we know what suffering it is causing. Every day, the
Minister of Health gets up in the House to tell us “New methods
have to be found”. Might this new method be to go the American
way? That is the question that must be asked.
Answers must be found and they must be found fast, because we
are paying the Americans millions and millions of dollars to
look after Canadians.
As we know, this is going on in every province. People are
forced to go to the United States for treatment. I is sad to
say but, here in Canada, animals are treated better than people
in the health system. A dog or a cat would not be allowed to be
mistreated the way the sick are in the health care system of
this, of which we are supposed to be so proud.
This country should be able to look after our health care
programs so that the provinces are not paying up to 85% of
costs. I am talking about costs, not just the tax points the
Liberals keep coming back to, but real day-to-day costs. The
government should look at the bill and pay half.
Tomorrow, I am sure that we could have better health care in
Canada, and our friends and families would not have to go to the
United States for treatment.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the New
Brunswick provincial Liberal Party, but perhaps the day they
voted there was a full moon because it is a well-known fact that
the federal contributions are more like 32% or 33% and that the
federal contributions were never 50%.
[Translation]
The federal government restored social transfers to their 1994-95
level.
[English]
Total CHST cash and tax transfers will reach an all-time high of
close to $31 billion in 2000 and 2001, and it will continue to
grow. This is up $900 million from the previous peak in 1995-96
and up $1.8 billion since the government took office in 1993-94.
[Translation]
Thanks to the solid performance of the Canadian economy, the
other major transfer payments to the provinces also increased
substantially. Equalization payments to the less prosperous
provinces are up $500 million this year from the forecasts in the
1999 budget.
[English]
Total transfers will reach an estimated $39.4 billion this year
and will continue to grow over the next four years. The increase
in total transfers means that provincial governments can
strengthen social programs that are important to Canadians.
What does it mean for New Brunswick? In 2000 and 2001,
transfers to New Brunswick will exceed $1.7 billion, will account
for about 37% of New Brunswick's estimated revenues and they are
expected to total about $2,348 per person, about 78% above the
national average.
[Translation]
Over the next five years, New Brunswick will receive over
$9 billion in transfers.
1905
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on December 13 last year I rose in the House to ask a
question of the Minister of Justice. My question related to a
young law student at the University of New Brunswick, Robbie
Peterson.
Robbie Peterson was brutally attacked in the early hours of the
morning the previous month on a downtown street at a major
intersection. He was attacked for one reason—because he was
gay. Similar gay bashings occur across this land.
I called on the Minister of Justice to recognize that this is a
serious problem and specifically to bring forward an amendment to
the Criminal Code of Canada to outlaw hate propaganda which
promotes violence and hatred based on sexual orientation.
The Minister of Justice recently tabled an omnibus bill in the
House amending a number of statutes, including the criminal code,
but unfortunately she did not include that important amendment to
expand the sections of the criminal code on hate propaganda to
include sexual orientation.
Under the current provisions of the criminal code, those who
incite hatred against any identifiable group where such
incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace can be
subject to criminal sanction. Identifiable groups include those
distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
That law has not changed since it was brought into force in 1966
and the silence of the code on this important issue sends a very
destructive message. I believe that the silence of the code is
unconstitutional.
Section 15 of the charter requires that the equal benefit of the
law, including the criminal code provisions on hate propaganda,
be extended to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons.
What does it mean for the criminal code to be silent on this
important issue? It means, for example, when a hatemonger like
the Reverend Fred Phelps wants to come to Canada to burn the
Canadian flag and to promote hatred and violence directed at gay
and lesbian people, the police in Ottawa cannot stop that man
from crossing our border. In fact, it was Sergeant Callaghan of
the Ottawa Police Force who said and I quote “If this was done
against a Catholic or a Jew or a black person, charges could be
laid. If we had that legislation, we would not have to put up
with this nonsense on Monday. We could have told him `If you
show up and you start spreading this hate, we will arrest
you'.”.
I plead with the government to give our law enforcement officers
in Canada the power to take that important action. It is
important because if we say it is all right to promote violence
and hatred based on sexual orientation, that is a licence to the
thugs in our country. It is a license to the thugs who get
involved in gay bashing. It also sends out a negative message in
terms of self-esteem for young gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people.
I want to note that a gifted artist in Peterborough, Spencer
Harrison, has pointed out that under the current provisions of
the criminal code and the denial of equality, this leads to
hatred and to violence. He has put together a project called The
Queer Project that documents the impact of this hatred.
I call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
to do the right thing, to join with provincial and territorial
attorneys general to listen to the premier of Ontario, the Leader
of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, Howard Hampton, to amend
the criminal code provisions on hate propaganda to include sexual
orientation.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government takes the issue of hate crimes and hate propaganda
very seriously and has been working actively to address this
issue. There are a number of measures already in place at the
federal and provincial levels to ensure that Canadians are
protected from discrimination and crimes based on hate.
In 1995 the government enacted legislation in the form of Bill
C-41 on sentencing reform which made it clear that hate
motivation is an aggravating circumstance to be factored in at
the time of sentencing. Paragraph 718.2(a)(i) of the criminal
code provides that evidence that an offence was motivated by
hate, bias or prejudice based on race, national or ethnic origin,
language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical
disability, sexual orientation or any other similar ground shall
be considered an aggravating factor in the sentencing of an
offender.
In other words, if there is evidence that an assault, damage to
property, threatening, harassment or any other criminal offence
was motivated by hate, bias or prejudice, it is an aggravating
factor for the purposes of sentencing and it should result in a
more severe sanction.
In addition, in 1996 the government brought forward legislation,
Bill S-5, which resulted in amendments to the Canadian Human
Rights Act and added sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds
of discrimination.
1910
My hon. colleague will also be happy to know that as part of our
ongoing discussions at the federal-provincial—territorial level,
the minister and her colleagues have been discussing Canada's
hate crime laws and recommendations to improve them. Given the
nature of the criminal law in this country with federal
responsibility for the enactment of the law and provincial
responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice
system, there is a collaborative process in the development and
implementation of criminal law.
Federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice
have approved for consideration, subject to an in-depth charter
review, a number of recommendations which would further ensure
that hate crimes are dealt with firmly. Many have suggested an
expansion of the criminal code definition of identifiable group
used for purposes of the hate propaganda offence provisions to
include sexual orientation.
It is important to remember, however, that changes to the
criminal code are only a part of a much broader strategy which
must be taken to combat hate motivated activities in this
country. This approach recognizes the importance of public
awareness and education on the values of tolerance and respect
which are fundamental to Canadian human rights and Canadian
citizenship.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
March 17 I posed two questions to the minister of agriculture and
I am very pleased to see the parliamentary secretary to the
minister in the House tonight.
As usual, the two questions I posed were very valid questions.
They were very succinct questions. They were very simple
questions. I expected an answer from the minister of agriculture
but as usual, there was a lot of doublespeak, there was a lot of
beating around the bush and in fact no answers to those very
simple questions.
The first question was rather interesting because at that time
there were a number of supporters who were in town supporting
this particular party. A number of people in that particular
group of people wanted to reinstate what was known as the GRIP
program, the gross revenue insurance program. Lo and behold,
when they went to this huge gathering, all of the people in that
gathering supported the fact that the government should reinstate
the GRIP program.
For your information, Mr. Speaker, the GRIP program was a farm
support program put into place prior to 1993 when this government
took power and when it got into power in 1995 it in its short
term mind decided to get rid of the GRIP program for in fact
short term gain but for long term pain.
Here we have a wonderful group of individuals who support the
government saying unanimously, “Bring us back the GRIP
program”. So I asked the minister a very simple question:
“Will you support that particular comment and resolution and
will you in fact bring back the GRIP program”. There was no
answer.
From there I then went on to very simply say that if the
minister does not want to support the GRIP, then let's identify
and let's analyze the program that was put in its place and that
is the AIDA program. We recognize by the vote itself that AIDA
was not being supported by the people who it was meant for, the
farmers of western Canada. So we looked at whether there were
some advantages to this AIDA program over the GRIP and we looked
at the administration costs.
Lo and behold, the administration costs of the AIDA program to
deliver some $500 million in 1998 came to a grand total of $35
million, about seven times what the administration costs were to
administer not only GRIP but the NISA. NISA and GRIP were less
than 2% of all of the program dollars delivered under those
programs.
We now have here a program that the government's own supporters
say is not good, that it is costing huge dollars that could be
going to agriculture and to the farmers themselves and now going
to bureaucrats to administer the program, so we ask ourselves,
why would the minister of agriculture not want to answer those
two simple questions. Why not reinstitute GRIP, a program that
is being accepted by all those who wish to have it back, and in
fact the government could save money by putting the GRIP program
back and not having to spend those exorbitant sums on bureaucrats
in the department to administer and deliver the AIDA program.
I would like the parliamentary secretary if he can to perhaps
just stick to the subject, not talk about previous deficits, not
talk about previous policies or previous parties and governments,
just stick to the questions and the issues that are before him
today.
Why not reinstate GRIP and please talk to the administration
costs of that program.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the member for Brandon—Souris for his St. Patrick's Day
question and for his interest in our policy convention.
1915
He did not want me to mention the platform of his party in the
previous election so I will not belabour him in that regard, but
I am glad he is watching what we are doing in our policy
conventions. I hope his party adopts some of our programs.
The Government of Canada is willing to consider various options
for farm safety nets. The national safety nets advisory
committee has been asked to look at a variety of proposals
submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food over the
past few months.
A few of these proposals share some similarities to the former
GRIP program. All of these proposals will be reviewed by the
committee and will be measured against criteria the committee has
established for an income disaster program. The criteria it has
established is split between essential and preferred criteria.
The first element is that any new disaster program be whole
farm, that is, applicable to all farm production. As well, the
committee is looking for proposals which will complement current
safety net programs. As safety net programs are cost shared with
provincial governments, any new programs must also meet their key
principle, which is that safety net programs are equitable, fair
and generally available, and that these programs do not put
producers at risk for trade actions or countervail threats. All
of the programs which have been submitted, including those based
on the former GRIP program, will be measured against this
criteria.
The national safety nets advisory committee will prepare a
report for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food after it has
met with the organizations or individuals who submitted each
proposal.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.)