Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand before the House and discuss the report stage of Bill C-53.
Bill C-53, as I mentioned during the first and second reading, is riddled with problems which are quite evident if we look at the number of motions that have been put forward by the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. Because of time constraints, I will attempt to keep my comments extremely brief and focus solely on the motions before us.
Motion No. 2 deals with the removal of clause 4 in section 2(a). While I am in no way against "the promotion of the greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values". I am against the idea of having more than one minister responsible for these issues. In fact I wholeheartedly believe that the Department of Justice is better suited to ensure the noble intentions of this clause.
Passage of Motion No. 3 would result in the elimination of multiculturalism from the bill. I believe that the continued funding of programs like this will ensure a Liberal defeat in the next election. Canadians want less government, not more. They want to see the government manage its allocation of revenues and stop running up astronomical debts and deficits.
In short, what they are looking for is a government to priorize its spending programs to ensure that everyone is maximizing the benefits from his or her tax dollars.
Government funded multiculturalism programs do nothing to address this fundamental attitude toward government spending and programs. In fact, the Liberals seem more content to raise Canadian taxes than they are to control spending. We have a spending problem in Canada, not a revenue problem. Therefore not only is multiculturalism financially unsound but in fact it is politically unsound as well.
As a member of the standing committee on heritage I have had the pleasure of listening to witnesses describe the multicultural funded programs as a poor way to promote culture. Moreover, I have heard and talked to many Canadians who believe that multiculturalism does nothing but make us all hyphenated Canadians focusing on what separates and not what binds us together. Its day has come and gone and it is time that the Liberals face up to this fact.
Motions 5 and 21 deal with an issue that is also of great concern to the Reform Party. I am speaking of overlap and duplication. Why should one department oversee areas which should be under another portfolio such as national parks and marine conservation areas, or even historical canals. It should be our goal as parliamentarians to do everything in our power to decrease the amount of bureaucracy and administer services in each department by themselves.
Motions 5 and 21 will be a step in the right direction. They will allow parks and conservation to go back to the Department of the Environment and historic canals to return to transportation.
Historical canals belong to the department of transportation for the simple reason that they are administered by and are subject to the regulations of the department of transportation. A perfect example would be the Ottawa canal. It is a historical canal yet it is still in use and therefore subject to the rules and regulations of the department of transportation. Therefore why is it in the department of heritage?
Motion No. 6 has been clearly stated and illustrated in the Reform Party's blue book policies. Essentially we believe that there is no need for the official bilingualism policy. We feel there should be a policy based on territorial bilingualism where bilingual services will be maintained and supported where numbers warrant. That is the reason we have recognized the need for bilingualism especially in key federal institutions such
as Parliament and the Supreme Court which are explicitly outlined in Motion No. 6.
Clause 7(a) of Bill C-53 is of extreme concern to me as it allows the ministers to facilitate the implementation of any program and the minister also to provide financial assistance in the form of grants, contributions and endowments to any person. The concern arises from the idea that the minister may at his or her discretion provide financial assistance in the form of grants, contributions and endowments. Where are the checks and balances? Where is the accountability? Where is the financial control? Where is the openness and transparency?
Another concern relates to the fact that the minister could be allowed to implement other programs, such as multicultural programs, unilaterally. This would not only be unacceptable to me, to the Reform Party, my constituents, but also to a majority of Canadians.
Motion No. 12 would alleviate this concern as far as it relates to clause 7. Directly related to clause 7(a), clause 8 should be eliminated. Clause 8 deals directly with the notion that the minister can fix fees and charges which the minister considers appropriate. Again, what happened to accountability and openness or checks and balances?
Prior to the bill the minister was responsible and subject to any regulations that Treasury Board made. After Bill C-53, the minister may or may not be subject to these regulations as set out by Treasury Board. It is unclear and therefore it should be removed.
Although for the most part Treasury Board is no more than a rubber stamp in terms of approval for rate increases or fees or changes, there is still an institutional check on the powers of the ministry.
Motions Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 alleviate the concerns which the Reform Party has outlined in clause 8 regarding the accountability and powers of a minister.
The last motion I would like to discuss briefly is Motion No. 20. It deals with the inclusion of an annual report which would be brought before Parliament outlining the expenditures and revenues of the department of heritage. I speak in support of this motion because I believe in accountability, openness and fairness.
An annual report would help not only parliamentarians but also Canadians to understand where, why and how much funding was allocated to ensure the best accountability possible. Although I have heard that part III of the estimates will be improved to accommodate the lack of an annual report, I believe it is still in the best interests of Canadians to have an annual report simply because it would be more accessible and clearer than the estimates.
I appreciate this opportunity and I hope that all members of the House listened carefully to why these motions should be supported. I look for them to support these motions when the time comes for a vote.