Debates of April 4th, 2000

Minister Of National Revenue

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Revenue.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

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.

Biochem Pharma Inc.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

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?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

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.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

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?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

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.

Genetically Modified Organisms

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

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

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

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.

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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[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.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

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.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

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.

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.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

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.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

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.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

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?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

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.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

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.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

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.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

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?