Gordon Kirkby

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments that were directed toward this legislation.

It is often easy to ask a lot of questions about self-government legislation. Questions have been asked of the government to define self-government. When an agreement like this is put forward does that not aid the members of the Reform Party to see what the government means by self-government?

Second, if there are perceived problems with the legislation what specific measures would the hon. member propose to deal with situations like the comprehensive land claim issue?

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question of the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has gone unanswered. This agreement has been signed for quite some time now and I believe the hon. member mentioned it has been about a year. Could he not have asked for this agreement in order to get ready for this debate? We would like a direct answer to that.

[Committees Of The House, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding the conservation of the Porcupine caribou herd.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a response to this report within 150 days.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in both official languages.

Your committee has considered Bill C-16, the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claim Settlement Act and has agreed to report it without amendment.

[National Transportation Week, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, His Excellency Governor General Ramon Hnatyshyn has said that this year's observance of National Transportation Week is a special one as it marks the 25th anniversary of the celebration of the achievements and importance of jobs done by thousands of workers in the transportation industry.

This year's theme is "Intermodalism-The Perfect Fit". Intermodalism is surely the way of the future. It counts heavily on computer applications and streamlined procedures to get goods to market quickly and cheaply.

The transportation industry is making the best use of new initiatives and electronic data interchange and other electronic commerce techniques. Barriers to more integrated and cost-effective transportation services are falling.

The transportation industry can be proud of its achievements. To the organizers of the 25th annual National Transportation Week, I extend best wishes for continuing success.

[Infrastructure Program, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the infrastructure program.

During the last election campaign the Liberal Party promised that job creation would be its number one priority. An important part of this job creation initiative was the announcement of the $6 billion national infrastructure program.

Could the minister inform the House of the number of jobs that have been created by this program and the number of specific projects approved.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, just a quick comment. There probably are some distinctions that could be drawn with the situation when people are put in army detention and regular detention. One certainly being that there would be the desire on the part of those put in army detention to get back and to continue serving in the military. They have something to lose if they do not obey.

I think what has to be recognized is that many of our young people do not have anything to lose and would not be helped by this type of treatment.

Members of the Reform Party are talking about fiscal restraint. We are talking about reducing the age to which the Young Offenders Act would apply. We are talking about reducing the minimum age and we are also talking about reducing the maximum age. This is going to put a much greater burden on both the adult prison system and the young offender incarceration system.

I would suggest that if we go across this country we would see that the jails are already overburdened. When we talk about fiscal restraint how are we going to build many more jails and prisons in a society that has difficulty affording what we have now? How are we going to afford to staff them? As usual it is a case of proposing solutions but forgetting about the cost on the other hand. How does the member answer that?

[Income Security, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on this motion that has been brought forward by the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.

In his motion he suggests that while the reform of the tax system needs to go ahead, it needs also to be harmonized and integrated with the reform of the Canadian system of social security.

If we look at what is involved in reforming a tax system and what is involved in reforming a social security system we can see some very complicated and very difficult, long and tedious hard work to do.

For instance, if we look at the GST, a very small portion of the taxation system that is now being reviewed with a view to changing it and making it better, we see that hours and hours of study need to go into it, consultation, hearing from the people affected by it.

It would seem even this small area within the taxation system that needs to be reviewed takes a lot of work. We can imagine the effort it is going to take to completely review the entire tax system.

At the same time, with the social safety net review the Minister of Human Resource Development has begun an unprecedented consultation across this nation with provinces, with citizens across this country to find out what they are thinking about these issues, what the problems are, what the needs of Canadians are.

In this motion it is suggested that these two massive reviews be brought together. I see a lot of danger in this. This proposition in my view would delay reform in an interminable fashion, years to complete this type of integrated review.

I am not saying that there is not overlap in specific areas between the taxation system and the social safety net system. For instance, we have the child tax benefit, child care expense deduction, the personal pension income credit, the age credit, the disability tax credit, the medical expense tax credit and there are certain other tax measures for people who have disabilities within the taxation system which assist with the social safety net.

Where there are these links, they can be dealt with on their own. There does not have to be a complete linking of these reviews. What is so dangerous about this is that we can see that our present welfare system and much of our social safety net system are designed and have created dependencies across this country.

Welfare and a lot of the housing and things like that, all the things that have gone together to compose the social safety net, have become a prison from which people cannot escape.

I have gone around my riding a number of times before the election and after the election. When I talk to people who are on social assistance there is no doubt that they want to work. What is the biggest inhibitor to going to work? It is the dependency and the rules created and put in force dealing with welfare that keep people from being able to earn money, that keep people from using their initiative and drive to make better lives for themselves and their families, that keep people from having the dignity that comes with having a job and putting bread on the table.

What worries me is that if these two major reforms are brought together the pace of reform is going to slow down to nothing. Then perhaps that is what the hon. member who is proposing the motion wants. Perhaps he wishes to keep a system in place that is going to prevent people from getting away from the dependencies that have been created by this very system.

That cannot happen in this nation. It cannot happen in my riding. There are too many people who have been asking for years for the opportunity to get out of the system that presently holds them captive. We cannot take a chance that this type of reform will be derailed, that it will be stalled.

We want to see a simplified tax system. We want to see an equitable tax system. We want to see the deficit go down. The Liberal Party has stated that it wishes to see the debt go down to 3 per cent of the GDP within the first three years, but we want to see people go back to work. We have undertaken a number of initiatives to achieve that, whether it is our infrastructure program, whether it is a number of the small business initiatives, or whether it is other initiatives designed to get people back to work.

I do not think we should delay what we are going to do any longer. I think the motion is designed to do exactly that, not to allow another generation to go forth before getting rid of a system that creates dependency. The people need to be free to succeed and the Government of Canada is committed to making that happen.

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents of Prince Albert-Churchill River calling for the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code.

The petitioners strongly oppose this clause which allows convicted murderers serving mandatory life sentences of 25 years without parole to apply for parole after 15 years.

I urge all members to consider these views expressed by the residents of La Ronge, Buffalo Narrows, Smeaton, Shellbrook, Waskesiu, Holbein and Southend in my riding in northern Saskatchewan.

[Auditor General Act, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House on the frequency of reporting by the Auditor General. I would like to compliment the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for introducing this bill.

All members of the House are aware of the valuable contribution the Auditor General makes every year in improving the way the government spends the taxpayers' money. All of us look forward as do the taxpayers and the media of this country to the annual fall ritual of the tabling of the Auditor General's report.

The Auditor General as an institution in Canada dates back to before Confederation. There was a time in our land when every cheque issued by the government had to be pre-approved by the Auditor General.

The role of the Auditor General has changed considerably since then, as has the way government works. Yet the Auditor General remains the independent watchdog for this House and for the taxpayer. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is right in trying to make sure that the job is well done.

We should keep in mind that the Auditor General does not act in isolation. His work supports and affects that of other institutions and mechanisms in place to guard over the management of government. The financial program management of depart-

ments is scrutinized by the Treasury Board secretariat, by internal auditors as well as evaluators who work in concert with the Auditor General to provide an efficient and effective system of controls over the management of the public service.

The Auditor General's present mandate and his general approach including the fact that he reports annually dates back to 1977 when the present Auditor General Act was passed by this House.

Much of the preparatory work for that act was done by an independent review committee which examined the responsibilities, relationships and reporting procedures of the Auditor General's office. I should note that at that time the committee recommended that the Auditor General should report annually to this House and not periodically.

It will soon be 20 years since that report was tabled in this House. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is right to call for a review of the issue of frequency of reporting. However, I would like to take this opportunity to build on my colleague's efforts and suggest that as much has changed in those past 20 years this House should take a broader look and look at other issues concerning the Auditor General's mandate and procedures which the passage of time now calls into question.

This is a very different world from what it was in 1977. At that time the government was expanding and there were serious and legitimate concerns about the adequacy of existing financial and management controls. The then Auditor General, Mr. Macdonell, did us all a great service by bringing this to the attention of this House in no uncertain terms.

Things are quite different today. The public service is no longer growing and the reduction in the operation budgets of departments is imposing a discipline of its own. Things have changed and it may be that the Auditor General's usefulness to this House is constrained not just by the annual reporting requirement but by other limitations as well.

There are a number of areas I would like to recommend that this House explore as part of a review of the mandate and operational procedures of the Office of the Auditor General. For example, I note the hon. member who brought forward this bill expressed considerable concern during the recent hearings of the standing committee on external affairs of which he is the chairman about what role the Auditor General should have in commenting on government policy.

If we look at the Auditor General Act we find that section 7 sets out in detail the responsibilities of that office. Specifically it tells the Auditor General to report on instances of unauthorized spending, lack of due regard to economy and efficiency, and the lack of procedures to measure and report on the effectiveness of a program.

It does not authorize the Auditor General to report directly on the effectiveness of programs but rather only on whether there are systems in place to measure and report on effectiveness. This is an issue which the Auditor General has struggled with for several years.

If we look at his reports over the last 15 years it becomes evident that on some occasions the Auditor General decided that in the public interest it was necessary to go beyond a strict interpretation of his mandate and report on programs which he felt were ineffective.

There are other issues which I am sure the Auditor General would like this House to review which are at least as important to the Auditor General as the frequency of reporting. They include for example the question of resources.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Auditor General's resources grew faster than those of the government as a whole as it staffed up to meet its new mandate under the 1977 Auditor General Act. In 1977-78 the Auditor General's office spent about $20.5 million while its estimates for 1994-95 are for over $56 million.

If this House sees fit to change the reporting requirements of the Auditor General it should take the opportunity to examine whether such a change would affect the resources necessary to carry out this modified mandate.

I do not think there is anybody in this House who would wish to increase the costs of the Auditor General's office. However perhaps changing the reporting mandate as proposed could actually reduce the budget of the Auditor General's office.

At present over half the staff of the Auditor General is in the senior management category, a significantly greater proportion than in the rest of the public service. Part of the reason for this is having to staff up to meet the one annual deadline for all chapters of the report simultaneously. If the Auditor General were to go ahead with a format of periodic rather than annual reporting, would this enable him somehow to streamline his operations?

Finally there is the issue of who audits the Auditor General. I know the Auditor General is concerned with retaining his independence. At the same time like any other public institution, he knows he must be accountable for the resources he consumes and the quality of his work. At present there is no mechanism by which the Auditor General is made to account in a detailed way for his operations.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there are quite a number of issues waiting to be tackled if we are looking at the mandate of the Office of the Auditor General.

It is in the best interests of this House and of the Canadian taxpayers to make sure the mandate and resources of the Auditor General are right for the job which we want him to carry out. In my opinion these issues are interrelated. I would prefer that this House deal with all of these issues as a package and not on a one by one basis.

In conclusion I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier that it is time to review how the Auditor General reports to this House. However we should look at all related issues and not just the frequency of reporting to make sure the Canadian taxpayer gets the most out of the work of the Office of the Auditor General at the lowest cost.

Thanks to the member for Ottawa-Vanier for making this debate relevant to this House and bringing it forward so we can all do a better job for the taxpayers of this great nation.