Dan McTeague

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition bears the signatures of 136 residents of my community from the Frazer Heights Co-operative in Ajax, led by Sandy Gray, and calls on Parliament to review to the acts respecting co-operative housing from the federal perspective.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions I wish to present.

The first petition calls on Parliament to provide legislation that would allow a 30-day notice period before a gas company could raise the price of gasoline at the consumer level.

[Financial Administration Act, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to take part today in the debate on Motion M-166 put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert. The hon. member has much experience in this area, having sat on the Standing Committee of Public Accounts for several years. The motion would call for amendments to the Financial Administration Act.

Departments and agencies would be required to table in the House action plans including specific time frames in response to the recommendations of the auditor general.

On the surface there appears to be some merit to the proposal. We are all interested in doing whatever we can to improve the level of affordable service to all Canadians. All members of the House want to see weaknesses corrected and problems addressed, however, there are several issues that must be perforce discussed.

As members are aware, one of the main tasks of the public accounts committee is to review on behalf on Parliament the reports of the auditor general. This is done by examining in detail with departmental and auditor general officials the issues and recommendations raised.

At that point, the committee, based on its hearings, submits reports outlining its conclusions and recommendations to Parliament. The government is expected to table within 150 days formal responses to the committee's recommendations. As quite often happens, the public accounts committee asks the auditor general to do further follow up work on the responses provided by the government. The committee wants to know just how far departments and agencies have gone in meeting the original recommen-

dations. If it is judged the progress is unsatisfactory the committee can hold further hearings.

This process is an important part of the accountability process between government and Parliament. I must admit that in the past it has worked well.

Successive governments have taken the reports of the auditor general seriously. A review of the supplementary activities on which the auditor general reports every year in his annual report shows that departments and agencies have, on the whole, reacted positively to the auditor general's recommendations.

Will the amendments suggested in Motion M-166 add any value to this accountability process?

Will the departments and agencies improve their performance by settling the problems raised by the auditor general? Or would it be simply introducing an additional, and often useless, stage in a process that is already working well?

We must also consider what impact this proposal may have on the workload of the auditor general. In recent years there have been important changes to the Auditor General Act, significantly impacting on his office.

In 1994, as a result of a private member's bill, this act was amended to allow the auditor general to report to the House more frequently. It was a fairly substantial change. In previous years he was limited to reporting, except in emergency situations, only once a year.

The auditor general is now authorized to publish, in addition to his annual report, up to three other reports each year. In 1995, he tabled three reports in the House. I suppose he will take a similar approach in 1996.

Because of this change, the House now receives information from the auditor general in a much more timely fashion. The public accounts committee is able to examine problems as soon as they are identified and departments and agencies are able to respond more quickly with the necessary corrective action.

In December 1995 the Auditor General Act was again amended. A new position was created within the Office of the Auditor General entitled the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Substantial new responsibilities relating to environmental issues were given, obviously, to this new position.

As a result, the auditor general must now report to Parliament on the degree to which departments are meeting the goals and targets set out in their approved sustainable development strategies. These strategies must be tabled in the House by individual ministers beginning in 1997. This will be a tremendous task.

These amendments will provide real challenges for the auditor general as he seeks to effectively allocate his resources to his many responsibilities.

The motion before us today may well lead to even more demands on the auditor general, not only from a public accounts committee point of view but also from other committees.

I must ask again whether this additional work will be of great value or whether it will simply prevent the auditor general from exercising his other responsibilities. Canadians want the auditor general to use his meagre resources as efficiently as possible, like all the other government agencies.

Some said this motion will increase the transparency of government and improve the accountability of the government to Parliament. Again, this is an objective that we find admirable, on the whole.

I would like to take a few minutes, however, to remind the members of the many other important sources of information and of analysis already at their disposal. We often forget, in debates such as this one, that the auditor general is not the only source of information on government operations.

The sources of information are in addition to those provided by the auditor general. They provide us with the substantial tools by which the government is held accountable for all of its actions. The findings of the auditor general are important but they are only a part of the story. We need much more to truly understand and hold this government and all governments to account.

First, other parliamentary officers and organizations table important reports in this House. These include those from the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners.

Second, many reports are submitted to us by departments, organizations and crown corporations. These report concern their activities, their achievements and their plans. I would mention, among others, the annual reports, the economic outlook and part III of the Estimates.

The government has undertaken many initiatives to improve the quality of its tools.

Third, the reports prepared within the departments by internal program evaluation and audit groups. These reports, which can provide good explanations on matters hon. members are concerned with, are not well known.

A major step in promoting the use of these reports was taken in November 1995 when the President of the Treasury Board tabled in the House the first annual report on strengthening government review.

This report provided detailed listings of the many important reviews undertaken by government departments. These reports are available to parliamentarians.

It is important when assessing the success of government operations that we consider all of the information available to us. We must not spend too much of our time focusing on one source, the auditor general.

There is no doubt the government has demonstrated its seriousness about following up on issues raised by the auditor general. The record speaks for itself. I was pleased to note that in February 1996 the Minister of Finance included as an annex the government response to the auditor general's report. The annex addressed the government's actions on selected important issues raised by the auditor general.

I refer to the minister's address to the comments raised by the auditor general in the 1995 report on the need for better information about the public debt. The minister provided an update on the actions taken and the results achieved to date.

To conclude, let me reiterate how much the government's accountability to Parliament means to me and how important a role the auditor general and his reports play in this process. However, as I said, this debate cannot come to an end before we examine all these issues.

Taxpayers want their government to be effective and affordable. To help achieve this goal we must always look at what works and what does not. We must put our time and energies into those areas where improvements can be made.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have another chance to speak. Although the member spoke of things that took place in the thirties, the members across the way and I are members for the nineties. It would be very dangerous to have a form of blackmail. To my way of thinking, making threats about not protecting anglophones in Quebec if the same protection is not given to francophones outside Quebec really illustrates the crazy thinking of the Bloc Quebecois.

I would like to ask a question somewhat different from the first one I put. It is simply this: Given that, in the Toronto area, more and more people can be seen speaking French to each other, and given that the political, and perhaps even the economic, pendulum is in the process of swinging the other way in that same area, and that it is now the in thing to speak two languages, does the member not recognize the importance of French, not just in Quebec, but elsewhere in the country?

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, once again I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member who is from a party who wants to divide the country, a party with a philosophy, an ideology. I am neutral in this debate because, even though I sit on the government side, I remain a pure product of Canadian bilingualism.

The hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois do not like the fact that some French speaking people become English speaking people and vice versa. The hon. member quotes statistics and tries to show that the fate of francophones outside Quebec is very serious. I must say this question to the hon. member: If you did separate from Canada, you would be backing off and you would abandon the francophones outside Quebec like me. I find a bit disgraceful for you to claim to be there to protect and defend the interests of the

francophones outside Quebec when your agenda goes totally in the opposite direction. So, I ask this of the hon. member: When will you finally change your policy, whose result would be to leave the francophones outside Quebec to fend for themselves, into one that would help them?

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I guess it is always annoying to find a bilingual member from a province where-according to the Bloc Quebecois-French is not spoken.

As you can see, I am not a francophone, but I am a francophile. It is not by chance or by accident that some members of my generation can express themselves in both official languages.

Unfortunately, I arrived here a bit late because I was held up by my work in committee. I would like to ask the hon. member how she can claim to help francophone minorities outside Quebec, considering the Bloc Quebecois' proposal, ideology and philosophy is to separate Quebec from these minorities? What kind of leadership does she think the Bloc can give to protect French language minorities outside Quebec, if its goal is to leave Canada?

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition.

It comes from literally hundreds of merchant time mariners from the second world war.

These petitioners call on Parliament to consider the advisability of extending benefits or compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to those enjoyed by the veterans of Canada's World War II armed services.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member for Mississauga East had the intestinal fortitude and courage to listen to her constituents, her heart and her mind on a matter of fundamental importance which I believe is at the base of what we should be doing in the House of Commons.

Previous speakers have alluded to the fact that the process by which we determine whether an item is votable is fair. The place where we ought to make that decision is in the House of Commons. We should do it in an open fashion as transparency is extremely important.

I am perfectly comfortable with the presentation made by the hon. member who moved the motion and by the hon. member who seconded it, and who is the other member for Mississauga.

It is unfortunate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice would not provide concurrence to make this a votable item. That being the case, it is important for us to understand what the bill is about. If the bill is not allowed to proceed today, I can assure the House that the bill and bills like it will come again before the House of Commons and we will have a day where openness will once again prevail.

A person who commits a crime must serve the full time. Too much evidence in the past has supported the excuse that serial rapists or serial murderers should only serve one sentence for all their crimes. Justice does not fit the crime. For that reason it is extremely imperative that we try, at the very least as an open Parliament, to provide justice not for those who have been accused and tried before a fair court of law but for those who are the victims. We owe it to them. We owe it to their families. We owe it to safe streets and safe communities, a commitment in our red book of 1993.

That is why as a Liberal I am proud to say that the bill speaks to the heart of the Liberal Party as I understand it and as many Canadians understood it when they voted Liberal in the last election.

Canada's criminal justice system has to be transformed. Convicted multiple murderers and serial rapists must know they will not get away from serving the full time for all their actions and will not have their sentencing behind bars reduced by concurrent sentencing. Concurrent sentencing for murder and sexual assault serves no purpose but to let convicted individuals escape the full weight of society's repulsion for their acts.

Our government is committed to safe homes and safe streets. It is my belief and the belief of most ordinary Canadians that consecutive sentencing falls within the commitment stated in our red book in terms of the safety and security of all Canadians.

The hon. member alluded to the fact that the bill acknowledges what is a debate and what is currently acceptable discourse in the homes and among many people in the learned societies of the country. Far from being stifled it is my view that the bill should be allowed to see the open and fresh air of debate.

It is unfortunate that the legislation only reached second reading. I can assure the member who had the courage of her convictions to bring forward Bill C-274 that her words today will not be forgotten in her constituency or in mine. As a member representing one of the larger ridings not just in metro Toronto but in all of Canada, I know the member has the support of thousands of Canadians for her courage to do this in the face of adversity.

It is easy for me to explain the different ideologies of the criminal justice system, but one must understand that, in the end, the victims must benefit from a good justice system. The forms of justice we have today do not work. The bill is legitimized by what people said and also by the emotions created by people like Clifford Olson and Bernardo.

The bill is important in and of itself. It is important for the Parliament of Canada to be able to debate a matter of substantial importance to all Canadians. We cannot wait until another election to hem and haw about what we will do.

While it is important to bring in all sorts of theories and ideologies on how to get to the question of the root causes of severe criminal behaviour, we owe an obligation to Canadians to mete out important, significant and fundamental justice to those who commit serious crimes against ordinary honest victims who happen to be our constituents.

I do not believe I should shirk or cower from the notion that the House must consider the bill in a much more serious manner. There was an overwhelming desire to ram through Bill C-33 in record time. It took nine days. It took us longer to join the second world war in the fight against the Nazis than it did to get that bill through the House of Commons. Perhaps a bit of levity today might allow us to reconfirm the importance of the bill.

I seek unanimous consent of the House, notwithstanding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, to have it made a votable item.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not hear any objection to the unanimous consent.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few very short questions. I would like to congratulate the hon. member from Nova Scotia who just spoke.

I think that her comments and the way she came to the conclusion that she should not support this bill reflect very well the concerns most Canadians have.

The recognition that the bill has only had 10 days to be deliberated on, the recognition that there seems to be day in, day out new evidence which demonstrates the bill is more than simply an honourable question of removing discrimination begs the question that the legislation may at some point open the door to something which very few members of Parliament would support.

Would the hon. member agree with the position taken by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops? Its members are puzzled by the justice minister's presentation at second reading that somehow the Catholic church supports the bill.

Could she comment on the statement that they are generally concerned that a major redefinition of spouse and marital status may result from an otherwise worthy initiative aimed at protecting individuals who have historically suffered unjust discrimination?

If there is to be such a massive social reconfiguration and change in public policy, it should happen only after widespread and meaningful consultation.

Will the hon. member respond to what the bishops have had to say about this matter?