What was the total dollar amount, direct and indirect, and source of government funding per annum from 1990 to the present, including the 1995-96 estimates, to the Valhalla Society?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper December 4th, 1995
What was the total dollar amount, direct and indirect, and source of government funding per annum from 1990 to the present, including the 1995-96 estimates, to the Valhalla Society?
Justice December 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response.
The minister promised in response to my earlier questions in the House to release relevant files to Clayton Ruby, Mr. Kelly's lawyer. However, the justice minister has been stalling for two years and refuses to provide the files required for Mr. Kelly's defence.
There is little reason not to release the files as the information being withheld from Mr. Kelly's lawyer was collected at public expense by a public agency for use in a public prosecution.
The minister has stated that he wants a fair and responsive system of justice. Will the minister stop stalling and release the files to Mr. Kelly's lawyer?
Justice December 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Justice said that the primary objective of his department was for a fair and responsive system of justice.
It is over a year and a half since I asked the minister to review the Patrick Kelly case. Over two years ago the key witness in the case admitted she lied during the trial. This witness's false testimony put Mr. Kelly, a former RCMP officer, behind bars.
We could very well have put an innocent man in prison for the past 14 years. Now this witness, presently in the U.S., refuses to testify further.
What is the minister's department doing to ensure the interviews with this witness are completed in order that a section 690 review in the Kelly case can proceed?
Access To Information Act November 28th, 1995
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-361, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (crown corporations).
Madam Speaker, my bill will make all crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act. These would be corporations like the post office and CMHC. At present, these corporations are exempt from access to information even though they are subsidized with tax dollars. This bill will open corporations to the public and make them more accountable to Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Department Of Public Works And Government Services November 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the proposed amendments to Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.
The four proposed amendments-now two, as two have been dropped-have been grouped together for debate. All address clause 17 of the bill. Clause 17 proposes to allow the minister of public works, subject to any regulations the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this clause, the authority to "fix fees and charges that the minister considers appropriate to be applied to products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes or approvals and the use of facilities provided by the minister, the department or any other board or agencies of the Government of Canada for which the minister has responsibility, including public works and federal real property under the administration of the minister".
That is a very longwinded way of saying that the minister would be free to set fees and charges for any department services under his portfolio completely at his discretion. This amount of ministerial discretion and power goes too far and is clearly unnecessary.
This clause moves in exactly the opposite direction to where we feel we should be heading. Canadians want a bottom up system of decision making. However, proposals such as clause 17, with decisions concentrated in the hands of the minister, support a top down system of policy and decision making. Somehow the Liberals must have their signals crossed, because this is definitely a move in the wrong direction. Either they are not listening, which happens quite often, or they are hoping to slip one by the public when it is not looking. This may explain why the government has sat on this bill for so long, nearly a year, because such controversial proposals simply will not be accepted by the Canadian public.
It is not surprising that a number of amendments have been proposed to address this clause. What is surprising is that these changes are being proposed in the first place.
The first proposed amendment by the member for Québec-Est is to change clause 17 so the minister would have to publish any fee or charge increases in the Canada Gazette and in no fewer than two leading newspapers in each province. This notice must clearly indicate the product, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes, approvals or use of facilities provided under subsection (1), and the fees or charges that have been fixed or increased.
However, this proposal would do nothing to change the intent of the clause as it stands. The only benefit, and it is a benefit, is that the public will be made aware of the changes. But the minister still retains complete discretion in the setting of fees. For this reason, this amendment is redundant and I see little cause to support it.
The member for Scarborough-Rouge River proposed an amendment and then withdrew it. The amendment had the effect that the fees and charges for government services did not exceed the cost of providing the service. The motion would have restricted the minister in how much he or she could raise fees for services. I could not have supported that in the long run, so I am pleased to see the amendment withdrawn.
The parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government also proposes an amendment to clause 17. However, I fail to see why this amendment was proposed in the first place, because it changes nothing, except perhaps the wording of a particular clause. The intent of clause 17 is the same. Fees would be set by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services at his discretion or whim, giving the minister far too much discretion, which I am not confident he can handle. I cannot in good judgment support this amendment either.
Motion 7 was proposed by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River and is the only amendment to clause 17 that makes any sense. Perhaps that was why he withdrew it today. Motion 7 would have proposed to delete clause 17 altogether. That made good sense. This amendment clearly would have had our support, because Canadians are demanding a more open and transparent system of government. They want honesty and integrity restored to our government.
Canadians are simply tired of governments that do not consult them, disregard their views, and especially governments that conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors. Yet closed door politics that allow government ministers to make random changes to fees and service charges, with no system to scrutinize and oversee changes, can hardly be considered a step in the right direction.
The Liberal government has made a lot of promises regarding open government. We often hear the term open government, but we see little action. On the contrary, we have seen quite the reverse. This is just one example of the government grasping at more power and control. When this government proposes decision making to be concentrated in one person, the minister, and conducted behind closed doors with no accountability, this is not open government. This is a step toward a more autocratic, not democratic, system of government.
The Liberals promised in the red book that "open government will be the watchword of the Liberal government". Right. It is obvious that the Liberals need to reread their book of promises. When put to the test on this government's commitment to open government, it has failed miserably again and again.
It is unfortunate to note that with the problems the government has had regarding patronage and abuses of privilege, clause 17 is certainly not appropriate. Clause 17 has no criteria in place to guide decisions to raise or lower fees. It is completely lacking in any system of checks or procedure for making fee changes known to the public.
In addition, who will scrutinize the minister's decision when fees and charges are raised or lowered at his whim? Will it be the ethics commissioner, who has been notably absent in a number of allegations of impropriety? I rather doubt it.
The government is proposing a system that will be left wide open to the possibility of abuse. That is what concerns me most with this portion of the bill. Unless the government will impose a system of checks and balances to ensure accountability, it is best not to leave the entire Department of Public Works and Government Services and all its operations open to the possibility of abuse.
Let me remind the House and Canadians who are watching that this is the same government that allowed one of its backbenchers to take money from two different government departments for one piece of equipment. In this case there was no system of checks and balances to assure that the money was used appropriately. This is just one example of the government's irresponsibility in the managing of taxpayers' money. And now we are looking at a proposal to give the Minister of Public Works and Government Services complete discretion over rates for his department. Give us a break.
This is the same government that promised to scrap the GST. Where is it now? Right back where it was.
There is a definite lack of accountability. This makes it very difficult to consider giving unlimited ministerial discretion. Time and again this government has made a mockery of open government. Last session closure was invoked on several bills in an effort to hide the bills from public scrutiny.
In conclusion, Canadians will not tolerate this abuse of privilege again and again. Canadians must be allowed to participate in debate and decisions. It is time for this government to take a step in the right direction, and that is to strike clause 17 from this bill altogether.
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition November 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I address some comments to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, currently the Bloc Quebecois supported by the Liberals, with specific reference to the words loyal and opposition.
According to the Oxford dictionary loyal means faithful, trustworthy, true, steadfast in allegiance and devoted to the sovereign or government of one's country. In the House the Bloc is certainly not loyal to Her Majesty or to Canada and is openly plotting against the government to set up a separate Quebec.
Turning to the word opposition, according to Beauchesne's the official opposition is the largest minority group which is prepared in the event of the resignation of government to assume office. How can we have an opposition party that has no intention of becoming government, at least not in Canada, and is attempting to set up a separate independent state?
Clearly Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this 35th Parliament is neither loyal to Canada nor is prepared to fulfil the role of official opposition. It is time for the Bloc to step aside to make room for the real opposition to the Liberals, the Reform Party of Canada.
Canada Post Corporation November 27th, 1995
"It is taxpayers' money", as my colleague says. Why can we not see the records?
I support my colleague's move to privatize Canada Post. I look forward to the review to see which direction the country will go with its postal system and hold the government accountable for listening to what Canadians say.
Canada Post Corporation November 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, we know we are in trouble when we see Liberals defending Canada Post. In the few minutes remaining I should like to deal with the mandate of Canada Post. Its mandate should be to deliver letters efficiently and cost effectively. That is the bottom line. Why it is in the courier business is a bit of a conundrum because it is using the postal rates to justify and undercut private courier businesses.
I must commend the government for its timely and upcoming review of Canada Post. However once we have the review I would then hold the government accountable to looking into the review and making some major changes such as changes in access to information.
Crown corporations are presently exempt from access to information requests. As such Canada Post is exempt. We cannot get an access to information request from Canada Post because it is exempt, as are other crown corporations. This is basically wrong. How are Canadians supposed to find out and figure out what is wrong with their crown corporations including Canada Post when they cannot get the basic information?
National Housing Act November 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the member said if the bill is turned down, CMHC will not be able to continue to operate. That is simply not true.
CMHC will still have the hundred billion dollars it has had for years to operate. This bill is about increasing that limit. It is not about whether CMHC operates or not. I believe there is an attempt by members on the other side to make it appear that if this bill fails, all mortgages across Canada will collapse. That is not true.
In the event of a collapse in the market, as in the early eighties, and if CMHC will not cost Canadians any money, in the event of a downturn, who picks up the tab on these defaulted mortgages?
National Housing Act November 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comment. It is agreed that CMHC is a benefit to the economy, absolutely. We do not dispute that. The difficulty we have is upping the ante.
We recognize where CMHC has been and will continue to be. To this point in time it is fine. The country is broke. Right now we cannot see increasing the ante by $50 billion. We think it inappropriate at this point in time.