Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage to Bill C-53. I have proposed 14 amendments and present these as common sense changes. We are told the bill is a simple housekeeping matter, but I suggest this is not the case. The bill should not be passed in its present form and the amendments suggested will improve it.
The first glaring omission is the requirement by the department to submit an annual report. We have heard all the rhetoric from the Liberal side of the House on how accountable it is to Canadians, yet despite this it has neglected to include a clause requiring the department to explain its actions to Canadians.
The Auditor General has made it clear that Canadians and members of Parliament require more access to information about the operations of government than what was presently received. In light of this it is hard to understand why the government has chosen to move in a direction away from reporting of this kind.
We have heard in response to our concerns on this issue that information on the departments may be included in the estimates. However, this is unacceptable for a number of reasons. First, the estimates are prepared to outline in general terms the proposed spending priorities of the department, whereas an annual report provides information about how the money was spent. This is an important difference.
Second, an annual report will include a description of the plans and priorities for the future and an evaluation of whether former plans and priorities have been met. Such information is not contained in the estimates.
Third, the only assurance the House has that information which was formerly contained in the annual reports will be included in the estimates is a promise from the government-cold comfort indeed.
The bill is meant to streamline government and to get rid of bureaucratic redundancies. However consider the following. The inclusion of parks, natural marine conservation areas, historic canals and copyright create an array of confusion and wasted money.
During the review of the bill at committee we heard testimony regarding parks. The managing director of the association for mountain parks protection and enjoyment provided for the committee a balanced review of parks. His presentation did not promote a vision from either of the extremes on the issue. He did not promote a tree hugger approach to parks, which advocates a zero usage mandate for parks. Nor did he promote an industrialist approach, which advocates unsustainable parks use. The position suggested was one of compromise between industry and sustainability. He said: "Many Canadians have questioned why the government moved Parks Canada from the Department
of the Environment to a new and seemingly unfocused Department of Canadian Heritage. Over the previous 14 years Parks Canada had established a firm position within the DOE as the leader and innovator in matters affecting the environment. I have proposed an amendment which will delete from the bill all references to Parks Canada. This will allow us to move it to DOE where it belongs".
The same arguments can be made for natural marine conservation areas. Why should the Department of Canadian Heritage be responsible for natural marine conservation areas? It makes no sense. Presently transport looks after historic canals. I fail to understand why we are going to pass a bill that will add jurisdictional headaches, in this case specifically to canals. Again this is needless, wasteful duplication.
I have also proposed amendments which would have the effect of deleting from the bill the references to copyright which it now contains. As the American model demonstrates, the last thing that artists need is a bloated bureaucracy which fights over jurisdiction for copyright responsibilities. The most effective assistance to artists is to take the responsibility for copyright and to lay it squarely within one department. In this instance I believe that department to be industry.
Bill C-53 gives the minister jurisdictional powers over the promotion of greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms, related values and multiculturalism. No one would disagree with the nobility of the intent behind these statements, just as no one would disagree with the statement that racism is bad.
However, our concern remains with the number of ministers responsible for these programs. Presently they are covered by immigration, justice, health, heritage and who knows how many others. This kind of administrative overlap is wasteful and needless.
We have proposed an amendment which would transfer to the regions responsibility for national languages. When reviewing the bill at committee we heard a number of witnesses who criticized the federal government's language policy. The Liberals did not call a single witness to defend the policy. This can only be because it is so hard to find someone to defend it.
Regarding language policy, we recommend the bill include a clause which would read the minister has jurisdiction over the promotion of language policies centred first on freedom of speech, second on recognition of the French language in Quebec and the English language in other provinces; third on recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions such as the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada; and fourth, on recognition of bilingualism where the number of citizens is sufficient to warrant the provision of services in both official languages.
The Prime Minister has stated that in order to help bring the deficit down he wishes to replace duplication within the provinces. The amendment will do just that. It recognizes that the primary responsibility for languages should remain in the regions and the provinces.
Members of my party have been pointing out the wasteful spending of special interest grants since we arrived in this House and for seven years before our arrival. Clause 7(a) of the bill gives the minister the authority to issue grants, contributions and endowments.
The amendment I present finally puts an end to the special interest funding that Canadians have come to resent. The only people who defend these grants are those who receive them. Surely their opinions should be questionable because of an obvious conflict of interest. When we ask Canadians who do not receive these grants how they feel about them their answers are always the same. They do not understand why their tax dollars should be spent on small groups of people with narrow agendas, especially when that money could be spent in better ways like reducing the deficit and debt and to help protect programs such as health care.
Finally, the government has put in the bill clause 8 which will give the Minister of Canadian Heritage the unilateral authority to raise revenues by arbitrarily raising fees for services or facilities. According to the Financial Administration Act, the minister must take such decisions to cabinet. Such a requirement is the minimal process to be followed for the accountability and transparency of fee increases. Now with clause 8 of the bill, the minister will be able to raise any fees he chooses. He must only consult with the relevant party. What does that mean?
Our amendments bring a nominal level of accountability to government. I seek the support of the House to the changes we recommend.