Joe Clark

[Auditor General's Report, October 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the issue of secret deals made by the government which were raised by the auditor general's report. In particular I want to refer to Downsview Park. The auditor general said:

Normally, when a new Crown corporation is established with unique operating characteristics, it receives a mandate from Parliament through legislation establishing a parent Crown corporation.

Instead in the Downsview case the Prime Minister acted by order in council. Will he tell the House of Commons what he was trying to hide when he kept the Downsview corporation away—

[Information Commissioner's Report, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says everything is fine. He followed the rules he wrote. The rules he wrote said he could hide a $100 million expenditure from the House of Commons but he would let parliament look at it after the money was gone. That is perverse and that is wrong.

Will the Prime Minister of Canada undertake now first to change those rules his minister hides behind and, second, to stop this pattern of secret deals that betray the public interest of Canada?

[Information Commissioner's Report, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the auditor general revealed today a growing pattern of deals made in secret by the government, whether they have to do with specs that are changed or offices in Sydney or whether they have to do with approvals for HRDC grants that are given directly by the minister in the riding of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

May I ask the Prime Minister one specific question about a deal made in private? Why was the $100 million expenditure on Downsview kept from parliament?

[National Defence, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is a scandal that has already cost the lives of Canadian pilots. It is a scandal now in that the bidding process is regarded by at least two of the participants as being rigged.

There has been a formal request following the rules that the truth be told, the documents be published. Why does the Government of Canada continue to hide the facts of this issue? Why will it not tell the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada the truth on the helicopter bidding process? Why will it not table the documents now?

[National Defence, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it is about helicopters.

There are concerns that the bidding process has been rigged to rule out the EH-101. Last week that company formally asked the Government of Canada to “order complete documentary disclosure of all documents in the possession or control of the Department of National Defence or Public Works Canada” that are relevant to the matter in question.

The Deputy Prime Minister knows this file very well. Will he cause all those documents to be published this week and not let them be hidden?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for ACOA has just stated the new government policy that government operations will be moved from lower unemployment communities to higher unemployment communities.

My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is, which other agencies will be moved in accordance with this policy? Will CBC headquarters be moved out of downtown Toronto? Will downtown Toronto lose all its agencies? Will Ottawa be de-populated?

Will the Deputy Prime Minister spell out exactly how—

[Market Revenue Insurance Program, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that for thousands of Ontario farmers discussions are not enough. They know and the House should know that StatsCan in August reported that there were on the prairies some 22,000 fewer farmers this fall than there were last fall. That crisis is now spreading to Ontario.

When will the discussions end? Will the minister give us a firm date by which the Government of Canada will announce its unequivocal commitment to extending the MRI program rather than leaving Ontario farmers subject to—

[Market Revenue Insurance Program, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. It relates to the market revenue insurance program, which is cost shared by the federal and the Ontario governments. The minister knows that is an amber program under WTO rules like NISA and like crop insurance.

Will the minister give the House a firm commitment today that the federal government is prepared to extend the MRI program beyond 2001?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. I will certainly check the premise of my question, as I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will check the premise of his answer.

Let me ask him a question about those churches that are a part of this action only because the Government of Canada has joined them to the action. However many those churches specifically are, will the Government of Canada assist those churches in meeting the legal costs that flow from the fact that they have been joined to this action by the public policy decision of the Government of Canada?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, they had better bring the boss back.

I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister about a sorry and sordid chapter in Canadian history: the abuse of aboriginal children in residential schools.

The federal government has been the object of legal action brought against the government, which of course has the legal resources to defend itself, but the government has now named as co-defendants several churches which do not have the legal means to defend themselves.

I am not asking a question about the details of litigation. I am asking a question about public policy. What is the public policy reason of the government—