House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Official Languages May 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, federal documents should be released to the public in both official languages simultaneously, not just in English and later in French whenever they have the time. We must all be treated equally. All that they have done is put a French title page in front of an English document. That is what I call a one way highway.
Official Languages May 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The official opposition checked the information network Internet and found that at least 10 federal government institutions provide information exclusively in English. Among the guilty you will find the Department of National Defence, the Royal Military College of Kingston, the Department of Industry and the Department of Natural Resources.
Does the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for applying the Official Languages Act, intend to take immediate action to ensure that these federal institutions and organizations start offering information in both official languages on Internet on the double?
Film Industry May 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, as my supplementary, I would ask the minister what measures he is considering in order to force the major American film companies to reinvest in Canadian culture some of the billions of dollars they are making here, as is being done in France, for example?
Film Industry May 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
According to the director of Telefilm Canada, the Minister of Canadian Heritage plans to charge the major American film companies a tax of between 5 per cent and 10 per cent on their revenues for the distribution and showing of their films and videos in Canada. The director of Telefilm Canada has confirmed that the Minister of Canadian Heritage discussed this matter during his now famous trip to Los Angeles.
Would the minister confirm having discussed such a tax with the representatives of the major film companies during his short trip to Los Angeles?
Sega Company Of Japan May 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, given the minister's answer, I would like to know if, in the event that a working group is set up to review the exemption, the minister will pledge that the committee will hold public hearings, so that all those who want to express their views on this issue will be able to do so?
Sega Company Of Japan May 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, on January 13, the CRTC issued a new exemption order concerning the Japanese company SEGA, which is about to offer its video game service on cable television. Yet, the CRTC admitted that this was a broadcast service.
Given the consequences of the exemption order granted to the Japanese company SEGA, can the Minister of Industry tell us if his government intends to set up a working group to review that decision, as was done in the case of Power DirecTv?
Charles R. Bronfman Foundation May 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, while the budget of all the organizations receiving government support has been significantly cut, are we to understand that the more than substantial increase given the Bronf-
man Foundation has to do with the particular lobbying abilities of its officials or with the imminence of the Quebec referendum?
Charles R. Bronfman Foundation May 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
While the francophone and Acadian communities struggle to conserve their rights with exceedingly limited financial resources, we discover that, under the 1994-95 budget, the Minister of Canadian Heritage subsidized the CRB Foundation to the tune of $2 million from official language programs in order to finance a series of historical vignettes to be broadcast on television.
How can the minister justify such a substantial grant-$2 million-to the Bronfman Foundation, which is managed by Tom Axworthy, the brother of the Minister of Human Resources Development, whereas in 1992-93, the last year the public accounts recorded a figure, this organization received only $200,000, or ten times less?
Lobbyists Registration Act May 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for the second time to Bill-43, which amends the Lobbyists Registration Act.
The first time was when the bill was at second reading and we discussed amendments hoping that we would be able to force the government to take more seriously the promises it made in the red book and also to stand by the positions it took when many of its members were in the opposition and discussed a situation identical to the one in which we find ourselves today.
Unfortunately, like the majority of my colleagues, I feel that I am wasting my breath. However, we are not asking the Liberal Party for anything very special. We are not asking it to attain the goals of the Bloc or the Reform Party. We are only asking it to keep the promises it made in the red book. The promise to tighten controls on lobbyists' activities and make the legislative process or the awarding of government contracts more transparent was one that should have been easy to keep. This time, the government cannot use the usual excuse that the till is empty to avoid doing what it promised to do. This promise costs nothing. The government had the power to tighten up the rules and to issue new standards of conduct. It had the unanimous support of the opposition to act but did nothing.
Where are the Liberals who clamoured against the carelessness of the Conservatives? Where are the Liberal Party hardliners? Where are the transparent and honest Liberals? They have vanished and unfortunately their words have also vanished without a trace.
Liberals have changed the meaning of the word promise. A promise is a firm commitment to do what you said you would, but for the Liberals, a promise is something you talk about but never do anything about or which you achieve in an incomplete or uncertain way. Indeed, it is becoming more and more obvious that, for the Liberal Party, there are two kinds of promises: the promise made to the people and which deals with public interest. That kind of promise is achieved only when all favourable circumstances are present but you can always find good reasons to postpone them and bring them back at election time. The second kind are the promises made to friends of the government, those who finance the slush fund. Those promises are often tied to private interests and can take the shape of bills or orders in council for the benefit of a few individuals or companies, or expensive contracts which are often overvalued and given without a real call for tenders.
In the case of Bill C-43, there were once more conflicting interests. On one side, the general public and all the people who elected the Liberal Party, that is a few million people, and on the other side, a few hundred lobbyists and the thousand or so big companies which employ them. By not keeping its red book
promises and by watering down and thus weakening this bill, the Liberal government has shown its contempt for the public interest.
The clear message that this government is sending to the backers of the Liberal Party, to former organizers and dignitaries of the party and to the friends, relatives as well as former and future associates of government members is this: everything is allowed, but would you please be very discreet. That will certainly not help restore public confidence in politicians.
The message from the government should have been that lobbyists, like any other professionals, must follow certain rules and be more transparent in their work, as promised on pages 94 and 95 of the Liberal red book. This bill is not all bad, but it does not go far enough in terms of supervising and regulating the work of lobbyists. I am not implying in any way that lobbyists are in the business of corrupting. The great majority of them do their job in a most honourable fashion. This bill should be aimed at preventing abuse and influence-peddling, not at preventing individuals and companies from dealing legitimately with the government.
In this regard, Simon Reisman, chairman of Ranger Oil Limited and star witness for the liberal government, expressed the opinion, at the hearings on the bill, that the practice of contingency fees, which will not be precluded by Bill C-43, "encourages the wrong kind of people into the business and-contingency fees perpetuate the perception of cronyism and back-door access to government insiders".
In another vein, I would like to remind members that in the red book, the Prime Minister committed himself to: "regulate the activities of lobbyists by appointing an Ethics Counsellor". The Bloc, like all Canadians, expected the appointment of someone who is beyond reproach who would go after people engaged in murky business. In reality, the ethics counsellor has only limited powers in spite of all the goodwill this person brings to the task. The code of conduct that the counsellor produced does not have the force of a statutory regulation, but is just so many empty words.
The ethics counsellor is not accountable before the House of Commons. The counsellor is chosen by the prime minister and is accountable to him alone. All investigations are conducted in private. Moreover, it has become clear that the prime minister does not always deem it necessary to consult his counsellor or that he consults him only after the decisions have been made or after the fact. Such a manner of proceeding is not calculated to raise public confidence in our political institutions. What we needed was a counsellor appointed by the House of Commons, having real powers and accountable to the House.
A code of conduct having the force of a set of regulations would have been appropriate, as would more stringent disclosure rules for lobbyists.
Working Language In The Public Service May 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages also confirmed that the French language is almost never used in written communications between public servants in the national capital region. I would like the parliamentary secretary to enlighten me on that as well.
How can he tolerate the fact that, in the federal capital, only one French speaking employee out of ten is allowed to write in French?