Shaughnessy Cohen

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I feel constrained to rise because of the comments of the hon. member opposite about this wise and logical social program for Canada that his party is suggesting.

I would suggest to the hon. member that the program the Reform Party seems to be proposing is a program that would work for the rich and not for the underprivileged or for people who just need a leg up in our country. It is a program intended to put more money in the pockets of people like the hon. member, people who have an upper middle class income and is not a program to support the people who need our assistance.

There is another interpretation for the fact that Liberals are voting together on the budget. As Liberals, unlike members of his party, we have the same common goals. We have the same common core set of beliefs and we do agree on this issue.

[Cystic Fibrosis, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the members of the House and all Canadians that May has been Cystic Fibrosis Month.

Although significant scientific discoveries such as the identification of the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis have been made in recent years, the challenges of developing better treatments and a cure remain.

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation of Canada is a national voluntary health organization dedicated to improving the lives of those who suffer from this disorder. It supports a Canada-wide network of specialized clinics providing diagnostic treatment and care as well as information to patients and health care providers.

Please join me in congratulating the dedicated scientists and volunteers who contribute to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation of Canada for their excellent work and in wishing the foundation and its volunteers a very successful future.

[Cbef 540, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, at 5 a.m. on May 18, 1970, francophones all over southwestern Ontario turned to 540 on their radio dials to hear: "Bonjour Windsor, bonjour Tilbury, bonjour Pointes aux Roches, bonjour Belle Riviere", the first French words on the most crowded radio band in North America.

CBEF 540 serves 50,000 francophones in Windsor, Tecumseh, Sarnia, London, Paincourt and other vibrant southwestern Ontario communities. For 25 years CBEF has provided a vital link between francophones in southwestern Ontario and francophones in the rest of Canada, indeed in the world.

The Right Hon. Paul Martin, Senior, helped along a hard working group of local francophones to make the station a reality.

I want to congratulate it on its 25th anniversary.

[Occupational Health And Safety, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as others have noted, today is a national day of mourning for the workers of Canada who have been maimed, injured or killed while on the job.

In recognition of these tragedies and in solidarity with these workers, their families, their friends, I ask you and hon. colleagues to join me in a moment of silence in the House at this time.

[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]

[Workplace Accidents, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on this national day of mourning we commemorate those working men and women who have been killed, maimed, or injured on the job.

In Canada, on average, a compensable work injury occurs every 38 seconds. One out of thirteen workers is injured at work, and two workers are killed every day. This is not acceptable. The human loss and the pain are devastating. Workplace injuries rob us of more than 10 times the number of work days lost due to strikes and lockouts in Canada. And workplace accidents are expensive. In 1993 compensation plans paid out a total of $5.2 billion in benefits.

Although the rates of occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities have substantially declined in Canada over the past decade, they are still too high. Improving occupational health and safety is a must. It makes financial sense for business, for workers, and for government, and it makes even more sense in human terms.

Please join me in remembering those who have paid such a heavy price in the workplace. Let us work together to reduce the pain and suffering of victims, their families, and friends.

[Financial Administration Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-263 has as its goal the bringing of five crown corporations under the accountability provisions of the Financial Administration Act which now applies to all other crown corporations. The corporations this act seeks to include are the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, Telefilm Canada and the International Development Research Centre.

Hon. members have listened to earlier discussions on the merits of having all crown corporations operating under a sound system of control and accountability. I can only add my support to those expressions of interest that crown corporations should be appropriately managed, but I cannot support Bill C-263.

The objective of good government management of crown investments is neither a mountain of bureaucratic rules and regulations nor a flawed system that fails to provide the adequate tools to evaluate corporate performance. Appropriate accountability must balance control against an adequate degree of empowerment for corporate managers to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. After all, crown corporations have a real and valuable public policy purpose.

I am sure all hon. members would wish to ensure that important publicly owned institutions such as the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation and others are held accountable for the results they achieve and the money they spend. I am equally certain hon. members would not wish to see the mandates of these corporations compromised, mandates that Parliament carefully protected in corporate enabling legislation. Or is that the case with this particular bill?

Perhaps the real agenda here is to remove from these particular crown corporations their arm's length quality, their ability to act at arm's length from the government. Perhaps the real agenda is to stifle the creativity which is part of the Canada Council, part of Telefilm Canada and part of the National Arts Centre. Perhaps the real agenda is to suppress the work of the International Development Research Centre or to prevent the wheat board from performing its mandate which has been so valuable particularly to the western provinces.

What is appropriate accountability for these corporations? That is the real question. Clearly, the present system of laws, regulations and government policies affecting crown corporations has evolved considerably. It can provide both Parliament and the government with much useful information and the assurance that crown corporations are being well managed.

The Auditor General reports to this House on a regular basis on crown corporation matters. Indeed, the Auditor General is the auditor or the joint auditor for 35 out of 48 of these corporations, including four that are part of this bill: the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council, the International Development Research Centre and Telefilm Canada.

Moreover, Treasury Board reviews the operations of crown corporations. It deals with resourcing issues for those corporations that are exempt from part X of the Financial Administration Act but nevertheless require government appropriation.

Of prime importance also is the fact that each crown corporation by law has an appropriate minister. The corporations are accountable through their ministers to Parliament. These ministers must table a number of important accountability documents relating to their crown corporation, such as annual reports, summaries of corporate plans, operating and capital budgets.

Stepping back for a moment and looking at appropriate accountability in a broader context, I believe the fiscal challenges which the government is currently facing necessarily will affect the way it manages crown corporations. There will be an even greater need to find ways of delivering public policy in an efficient businesslike manner than there is at present.

Reducing or at least more carefully controlling the size of the public service would appear to be part of the solution toward meeting this need. Interestingly, I note that Bill C-263 would actually add to the size of the public service by adding those employees of the Canada Council, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre to the public service of Canada. This appears to be going in the opposite direction from that which the proponents of smaller government usually follow.

I might add that it also runs counter to the general philosophy of empowering crown corporations to be separate employers and to take direct responsibility for their personnel matters. This responsibility must be carried out fairly and efficiently in the best interests of the corporation.

It is one important example of how the use of crown corporations with their corporate structure based on the private sector model can remove layers of red tape in decision making. Less red tape in personnel administration and human resource management is one advantage of the crown corporation forum which may prove to be an increasingly attractive way of improving the efficiency with which certain government programs could be delivered. The focus will increasingly be on the expertise brought to bear on those directly responsible for the day to day running of those corporations, the expertise of the board of directors.

The public has demanded transparency and accountability from all government institutions. Foremost, the public expects integrity from those officers charged with the responsibility of running these institutions. In the early months of this government the Prime Minister made this value central to both the letter and the spirit of our actions. The quest must be for financial responsibility and common sense in the way all government institutions are run and held accountable.

We have seen a number of studies in the area of corporate governance in the past few years, including work done by Peter Dey for the Toronto Stock Exchange. What we know is that the public has effectively been expressing its frustration at being left out or ignored in both the process and structures of corporate governance in the private sector. Boards of directors and corporate managers are experiencing an upsurge in public sentiment for democratization that has affected many other aspects of the daily lives of Canadians everywhere: our families, our communities, our courts and our schools, in addition to private corporations.

The modern business corporation is now seen by many as both an economic institution and a social institution. This is closer to how our crown corporations have always been viewed in their quest to balance efficient and businesslike operations with the public policy agenda.

The growing public expectation creates pressure for more formal rules and regulations, values and ethics for both the process and the people who influence corporate decision making. The government is acutely aware of the changing scene in corporate governance. It has undertaken a number of important initiatives in this area as they relate to crown corporations, including those named in Bill C-263.

The Treasury Board Secretariat jointly with the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Management Development developed and published an introductory document on the roles and responsibilities of directors of crown corporations to provide important guidance on appropriate accountability for directors. It has been well received since its publication in July 1993.

In an effort to focus more attention on the goal of improving sensitivities in the area of corporate governance, a training conference was held this past fall for CEOs and chairs of crown corporations to improve the performance of crown corporate boards. One of the four major themes discussed was the challenge of balancing the corporate agenda and the public good.

These initiatives demonstrate that careful attention is being paid to the evolution of accountability issues surrounding crown corporations using an open process of consultation. Developing a new statutory accountability framework for the five crown corporations named in Bill C-263 should follow the same sort of consultative process. It should not be insensitive to the particular needs of those crown corporations affected or their many significant stakeholders among the Canadian population.

I can only suggest that the bill presented by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt while demonstrating concern for the interests of Canadian taxpayers does not equally meet the test of public consultation to which this government is much committed. I urge hon. members to vote against it.

[Human Rights, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Diary of Anne Frank is a poignant reminder of the tragedy of the Holocaust. March marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Anne Frank in the Bergen Belsen prison camp.

Canadians should not and must not forget the lessons of history. We must be vigilant at home and abroad to ensure that no minority is oppressed and that human rights are respected.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to continue the debate on Bill C-77, the Maintenance of Railway Operations Act, 1995, in order to ensure the country is not deprived of vital rail services essential to the economic well-being of Canadians.

My riding of Windsor-St. Clair is the beginning of the Quebec-Windsor corridor, or the end depending which way you look at it. In Windsor we think it is the beginning.

Thursday night and Friday morning I was in Windsor. I went to the VIA rail station, to the CN yards and to the CP yards. I spoke to the people on the line. I spoke to the people who have been telephoning my office and who have been asking to return to work.

The Ford plant in Windsor was slowed down. The Ford plant in Talbotville just east of my riding was closed, all because of the rail strike. People in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada are out of work. People in Quebec are out of work. These people are out of work and the Leader of the Opposition stood here today and told us that suddenly he is filled with the milk of human kindness for collective bargaining.

Where was he on December 15, 1989? Where was he when the cabinet and Parliament enacted the Government Services Re-

sumption Act? The parties were the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet.

There were two conciliation boards established and there were enforcement procedures, binding arbitration on the public sector. Where was the Leader of the Opposition?

The Leader of the Opposition was here. He voted yes to back to work legislation providing arbitration for public sector employees.

He was here. He voted yes and he put the public servants back to work. Where is he today? He is voting no. I ask why. All Canadians should ask why. The people of Quebec should ask why.

Could it be that he is trying to curry favour with the unions in Quebec? Could it be that he thinks they are so foolish, so naive, so stupid they will vote for separation because he turned his back on what he voted on in 1989? Could that be? I think not.

The people of Quebec who are out of work want to go back to work. The people in Windsor who are out of work want to go back to work. The people of Canada want to go back to work.

[Communications Security Establishment, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Canada's national security system and on the unique role played in that system by review agencies.

The amended motion before us calls for the establishment of an independent external mechanism to review the operations of the Communications Security Establishment or CSE.

I agree with the motion. It is my view that Canadians would be well served and would feel safer and more comfortable if they knew that this component of our national security system was overseen by both a cabinet minister and by an independent oversight committee.

Experience gained over the last decade with the Security Intelligence Review Committee which oversees the Canadian Security Intelligence Service may hold important lessons for the future.

The Security Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC was designed as a unique body to provide review for one particular agency, CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It provides an appeal mechanism as well for matters involving security clearances that are from time to time required under certain statutes.

SIRC was to fulfil its responsibilities within the framework of a national security system that is wider than SIRC and wider than CSIS and includes the Communications Security Establishment.

If the motion before us is to be successfully implemented, care must be taken to ensure that any new review body would have an appropriate role with respect to CSE. It must contribute as well in a positive way to what I would suggest is a delicate balance between the national interest and individual human rights, the hallmark of Canada's national security system.

In 1984 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Security Offences Act were established. In these statutes a new legislative framework was created to govern Canada's national security system. The new legislation was designed to create the balance I talked about, a balanced and accountable system for the protection of Canada's national security interests and for the preservation of the democratic way of life of its people.

Balance must be a distinguishing feature of any new legislation involving CSE, just as it is a distinguishing feature of the CSIS-SIRC legislation. I should like to categorize some balances that we need to maintain.

First, we need to protect national security that has to be balanced by respect for individual rights and freedoms.

Second, we need to provide the service with sufficient powers to produce effective security intelligence which we should then balance by statutory controls and strong policy direction.

Third, as with CSIS there is a need to employ certain intrusive techniques. These should be balanced by the requirement for a prior authorization by a minister of the crown and the Federal Court, or at the very least that is what we do under the CSIS act.

Finally the need for secrecy must be balanced by ministerial accountability and informed independent review. The principles of ministerial control and accountability are central to Canadian parliamentary democracy. The CSIS act ensured that the Solicitor General would have full knowledge and power of direction over policy. The act also equipped the minister with the means to direct and guide the service.

There is also independent review through SIRC. Responsibility for the independent external review function was given to the Security Intelligence Review Committee that reports to Parliament through the Solicitor General. The unique role of SIRC is an innovative and important component of our national security system in the CSIS act. SIRC's review role is a cornerstone of the accountability framework established by the CSIS act and an important element of our national security system. SIRC has a mandate to review the propriety of CSIS activities with emphasis on the delicate balance between national security and individual freedom.

Given SIRC's importance as presently constituted, it is my view that it would be inappropriate to expand its mandate to encompass review of CSE. Such a change would have the effect of either diffusing SIRC's functions with respect to CSIS or of diminishing ministerial accountability.

I am certain hon. members would not wish to see SIRC's effectiveness diminished by such outcomes. To expand SIRC's mandate to review CSE would almost certainly mean increasing significantly the present number of SIRC members. This would require adding to SIRC's staff that has acquired an enviable expertise in the domain of security intelligence on a domestic basis. The skills and the knowledge base required to review foreign intelligence activity are totally different from that needed to review a domestic security service like CSIS.

We need to examine closely the significant implications of what is being proposed in the motion before us. We are not without guidance. The experience we have acquired over the past decade with the existing national security system can stand us in good stead by looking at CSIS and by looking at the roles that the minister and SIRC play in relation to CSIS. I would suggest that we look closely at those lessons and apply them to the motion before us today.

The proven effectiveness of the national security system designed more than a decade ago is an excellent foundation upon which we can build. As we consider the motion our intention should be to continue the good work that has gone before, to build on that experience, and to create satisfaction within the community and within our country that the Communications Security Establishment is also accountable.

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to figure out what part of the anatomy is at the other end from the brain where the sense of Reform responsibility comes from.