André Harvey

[Rcmp Investigations, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

With the number of RCMP investigations on the rise, does he think that the RCMP will have sufficient resources to conduct all of them and protect the interests of Canadian citizens?

[International Organizations, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on his initiative.

Organizing a meeting of like-minded organizations and nations in order to reform international organizations may seem a bit utopian. Someone famous once said that our achievements are always rooted in utopian dreams.

I encourage the Canadian Alliance member to pursue his efforts in this direction. I am sure that important initiatives often begin with initiatives that do not always seem momentous. A way must be found to reform all these international organizations.

I therefore think it important that the motion by the Canadian Alliance member be given very serious consideration. I hope that the government will pay close attention and that it will do everything possible to promote the reform of international organizations.

I also wish to pay tribute to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who is working hard on all issues having to do with intergovernmental affairs, as well as international trade. These issues are not always very obvious.

I feel that Motion M-30 is modest, but extremely important for the future of all inhabitants of this planet. It is of the utmost importance for us as Canadians. Even if we are considered a developed nation, the motion, with its ultimate goal of getting international organizations to devote a bit more of their energy to the service of humankind and all inhabitants of this earth, deserves to be treated seriously and with respect.

Although we belong to different political parties and are often ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum, I think we must congratulate the member on his initiative.

Internationally, we must consider all the criticism that has accompanied meetings of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization. When these organizations meet, there are many demonstrations. Ordinary people, people in our communities realize that globalization, which is really being pushed by private interests, does not always fully respect the citizens of the world.

Corporate interests—just think of international mergers and ongoing negotiations—are not always consistent with the best interests of our fellow citizens, far from it.

It is obvious that the countries involved in negotiations within international organizations chose those that best serve their interests. For free trade agreements, the Americans and the Canadians may turn to the World Trade Organization if they feel they have a better chance of getting something out of that organization. They may also call on the dispute settlement panel created when the free trade agreement was signed, a treaty regarding which the Conservative government played an extremely active role. The FTA promoted trade, with the result that our exports to the U.S. market increased from $90 billion to $250 billion in just a few years.

In the end, these changes did not prevent poverty from increasing world-wide. I think the hon. member's motion suggests that we look into these issues. Wealth is more and more concentrated in the hands of a corporate minority and in the hands of a minority in each of our respective countries.

These changes did not prevent poverty from becoming more prevalent here in Canada. If I raise the issue of poverty time and time again, it is because poverty, particularly among children, has increased by about 50% since 1993. I have asked the Minister of Finance to take a close look at the issue of guaranteed minimum income. There are 37 federal-provincial programs, yet the problem of poverty keeps growing.

The Quebec government is beginning to take an interest in the issue of guaranteed minimum income, which will be on the agenda at the Parti Quebecois convention, in May. A number of European countries are also taking an interest in that option. That is why, in order to halt the rise in poverty resulting from globalization and internationalization, which are inescapable, the best way of ensuring that the globalization of trade is achieved a bit more humanely is to have national measures that allow us to help those in the greatest need.

It is unbelievable that poverty has risen 50% since 1993 and that the government continues to think that small, stopgap measures will eliminate the problem. Commercially, there is an enormous amount of compensation due nationally if we are to assume our responsibilities and do everything possible to stop poverty from growing at the frightening pace it has so far.

One of the organizations that is often mentioned is the United Nations. There are many who question its existence. First, from a budgetary point of view, it has some work to do; second, when there are major conflicts, very often, the United Nations are called on thanks to the leadership exercised by one political figure.

I recall former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney—to whom I pay tribute—being instrumental in ensuring that the Gulf War be conducted under the aegis of the United Nations, thanks to his relationship with members of NATO in particular. He managed to have the UN put in charge of the operations. I think this is an important step.

It is important that international organizations be reformed. We cannot continue to soft-pedal our efforts to have all countries assume their responsibilities in connection with such things as the environment. Everybody is concerned about what is happening in that area. We cannot think that we will be able to control climate deterioration through ad hoc measures in each country. I am sure our own organizations should review their practices.

I am thinking about the Canadian International Development Agency, whose mandate it is to help the poorest countries. What we hear about it is not always nice. Perhaps we should make a greater use of NGOs. For each dollar invested in poor countries, 65 cents find their way back here one way or another. We have been told that wells have been dug, but that there is no water. This is bad management.

I think the motion brought forward by our colleague from the Canadian Alliance deserves serious consideration. I hope this simple motion will bring all parliamentarians, particularly on the government side, to greater awareness of international organizations and the need for reform that will make these organizations more effective for every human being, be it in relation to international trade, environmental issues or finding a better way of resolving armed conflicts. I think we must give that very serious consideration.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this motion, because we have a tendency to look down on private member's motions. I think we must give this motion all the consideration it deserves. I am sure that, if we want to live in a better world in the decades to come, all these organizations need to be better co-ordinated and restructured to meet real targets.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote in favour of this motion.

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, April 4th, 2000]

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.

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.

[Division No. 1258, March 30th, 2000]

Terrible. It is the beginning of the end.

[Division No. 1258, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity to question my colleague.

A lot of the Ontario members are nervous. A lot of things are happening in this country. This government has a very slim majority, after winning almost all the seats in Ontario. I would be tempted to advise my colleague to control his disdain.

In his speech and in a question he addressed to one of my colleagues in this House a few minutes ago, I heard him mention our leader, say that our party was like a sick dog. I think the hon. member should be very careful, because a number of governments have faced election upsets.

The member has not been in the House long, I understand that, but I advise him to temper his disdain for the opposition parties. He could be in for some big surprises.

In this spirit, I would ask him what he plans to do after the next elections.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Division No. 1249, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Division No. 1252, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote no on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 42, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 1237, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party are in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was negatived on the following division:)