Dick Harris

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is simply Monday morning or whether it is my tolerance and my patience wearing thin as day after day in the House we listen to this little band of separatists as they stand in the House to talk about destroying the country.

There is nothing more divisive or nothing more destructive to the country today than to listen to this group stand every day to say that it wants to be a separate nation within Canada. The strength of the country is in the participation of all provinces and all peoples, not the separation this band talks about.

They do not have the support of the majority of the people of Quebec. Only when they soften their separatist stand and talk about some sort of mushy sovereignist association can they even get anywhere close to a 50 per cent vote in the polls.

This band of separatists should be ashamed as they stand in the House. They collect their paycheques every month from the Government of Canada, from taxpayers in western Canada, as they stand here to talk about destroying the country. They should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps they should consider going back to their ridings and staying there until they develop a different attitude, a Canadian attitude, before they show their faces in the House of Commons. The Parliament of Canada represents all people of Canada.

[Financial Administration Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-263 ensures that the federal government is accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. I feel strongly that members from all sides of the House should rally in support of Bill C-263 so that we can honestly say that we have tried to respond to the wishes of the people who sent us here.

As members know, in the 1993 fiscal year crown corporations incurred losses totalling some $57 million. Their net borrowing from the Government of Canada amounted to $14.2 billion. Crown corporations received $4.6 billion from government through budgetary appropriations.

Our task in this Chamber is to ensure that every government department and agency be accountable for every tax dollar spent. I dare say that everyone in the House wants to be able to say to the people at home that we are responsible to the people who ultimately pay the bills: the Canadian taxpayer.

The auditor general has a key role to play in this regard. In many cases, which I will refer to in a moment, the auditor general has not only made available the exact facts and figures concerning the activities and performance of the federal government but the auditor general has been able to improve such activities and performance levels by dissecting and evaluating agencies and departments.

No shame is involved in the work performed by the auditor general. The auditor's detection of poor performance and recommendations is seen by Canadians as routine and to be expected. Canadian firms large and small perform audits on their activities and performance. Often audits show they are on the right track with objectives and sometimes they must swallow tough medicine to cure ailments detected in their business by such audits.

This is a fact of life and it should apply to government as well. Canadians expect their government to follow the good business practices followed in the private sector.

No one can deny the performance of auditors general in recent history. In fact progress has been made. The auditor general has the power to follow up on his recommendations. The result has been that in many cases Canadians are realizing better value for their tax dollars because of the efforts of the auditor general.

With reforms instituted in 1984, most crown corporations have operated within the accountability framework established under part X of the Financial Administration Act. Part X of the act requires each crown corporation to submit an annual report. The annual report, in addition to its financial statement and the auditor's report also presents information on how well the objectives of the corporation were reached during the reporting period. Second, crown corporations are expected to submit a corporate plan and third, budget summaries for tabling in Parliament. These are good measures. In my view these requirements are basic and simple. They are not unreasonable and yet we have a system in government in which crown corporations are not required to do these basics.

Canadians expect their tax dollars to be spent within this framework of accountability. When Canadians hear of money being spent by the federal government without the above criteria being met they become quite naturally suspicious.

There are good reasons for Canadians to feel this way. The Financial Administration Act could easily be made applicable to crown corporations listed in Bill C-263. There are 49 crown corporations. Bill C-263 deals with five which are exempted from the Financial Administration Act: the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Board, Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre.

Bill C-263 would move these crown corporations under the supervision of the auditor general. This is an absolute necessity considering the amount of dollars consumed by these five agencies.

The CBC is not included in Bill C-263. The reason for this is that Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provisions for the Financial Administration Act were incorporated into the Broadcasting Act in 1991. In short, the CBC is already subject to the accountability requirements of Bill C-263 and the Financial Administration Act.

This latter point is important for members of the House to note. The CBC is the recipient of about 70 per cent of all government funding provided to crown corporations that are exempt. This means Bill C-263 is finishing a job already accomplished by Parliament. Since 1991 the CBC has adjusted to the accountability requirements of part X of the Financial Administration Act.

Hon. members may agree with my observation that the CBC, more than any other exempt crown corporation in Bill C-263, was most insistent about the idea of critical importance of an arm's length relationship to the government. The CBC has not had the difficulties it anticipated in adapting to these accountability requirements. The CBC has been operating within this framework for the last four years without too much difficulty.

I remind colleagues that the auditor general already performs financial audits on the five corporations in Bill C-263. However, these audits do not permit the auditor general to comment on the appropriateness of the activities of the five, nor is the auditor able to comment on the extent to which each fulfils its mandate.

As it stands now these are not value for money audits. This must be a necessity for these five corporations. Value for money audits are done every five years. They are different from annual audits in that they comment on corporate management, goals and objectives.

It is fair to say the boards of the exempt corporations should welcome the value for money audits in much the same way private sector enterprises welcome their annual audits in which their forecasting and business plans come under the scrutiny of their shareholders and an auditor.

It is not unthinkable that the board members would look on the audits as helpful to their own work as well as a positive accountability measure, something that has been missing in many of these crown corporations within the framework of government operations.

It has been 10 years since this accountability framework for crown corporations was established. Exempt corporations have now had a decade to review and analyse effects of the Financial Administration Act on the independence of non-exempt crown corporations. By now it is highly likely the crown corporations exempted from the act would conclude that the Financial Administration Act poses no real threat to them. The CBC is an illustration of this. Provisions of the Financial Administration Act were incorporated into the amended Broadcasting Act in 1991.

It is reasonable to require the five crown corporations to prepare a business plan so that annual reports can allow the Canadian people, the taxpayers, the funders of these programs, to monitor and gauge the performance of these five.

There have been some cases in which crown corporations' annual reports differ from the business plan objectives, even though there are no provisions for exempted crown corporations to invite the auditor general to conduct special examinations. The audit is released only to the board of directors, not to Parliament. It must be released to Parliament. It must come under the scrutiny of all members of Parliament so we can ensure taxpayers' money is being accounted for.

Providing the corporations with the option of inviting the auditor general to do an audit is not good enough. If the auditor general's office were involved in the corporation on a regular basis, business plan objectives would not deviate from objectives stated in the annual report.

We all agree that in times of restraint such as we have now those who spend taxpayers' dollars must be more aware than ever that they are answerable as to how the dollars are spent. Part X of the Financial Administration Act has been so effective for other crown corporations, it seems reasonable, logical and simply common sense to bring the five crown corporations outlined in Bill C-263 into line as well. I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-263.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Maybe more so, yes.

The police officers in Saskatchewan have demonstrated that they have absolutely no faith in Bill C-68 and its ability to affect crime rates.

As time goes on we will see the police forces in some of the other provinces come forward with the same conclusion.

We have had a handgun registry in this country for about 60 years. It was revamped in 1977 by Bill C-51, which was introduced again by a Liberal government to, as they say-and this is wonderful-enhance public safety. This sort of sounds familiar. We have heard this same phrase from this government and the Minister of Justice himself over the last several weeks. It is to "enhance public safety". Since 1977, studies by Sproule and Kennett, Robert Mundt, and Mauser and Holmes all showed that the changes enacted in 1977 had no effect on firearms homicide rates in Canada.

That is what we call substantive evidence, not the rhetoric and the words that the Liberals use with nothing to back them up-statistics.

It is very clear that while Bill C-68 does contain some measures to deal more harshly with criminals and people who commit firearms offences, which we can support, we would have liked to have seen the government and the minister introduce a whole lot stiffer penalties than what they have done. While it contains some legislation that is good and that we can support, I challenge the part that deals with firearms registration.

I have been on talk show after talk show with anti-gun advocates. When I gave them the specific opportunity to bring forward substantive evidence that gun registration would cut crime, not one single time were they able to give a substantive piece of evidence. The most common answer was: "Well, we register cars; what is wrong with registering guns?" That is the standard answer from these people and this government here.

Let us go with that. Mr. Speaker, you tell me and any member over here whether the registration of automobiles cuts down on stolen cars, on traffic accidents or on the carnage that is on our highway. How does car registration cut down on people who steal cars and commit crimes with cars? Not one single bit.

I ask this government and any member over there to show me clearly, please, how they substantiate their claim that universal registration is going to in fact cut crime. I give that challenge to them and so do millions of firearms owners in this country who can see no justification for universal firearms registration.

[Firearms Act, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can just imagine all the criminals in Canada waiting to run down to the nearest registration office to say, "I own this gun. Put my name on that list, by golly, because I want to get on that computer." They just cannot wait for that.

Unfortunately, this is a tragic thought, but I can also imagine how much better future victims of firearms crimes are going to feel when an offence is committed against them with a registered firearm. I say that facetiously, but still very seriously.

The motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton-Melville will split Bill C-68 into two portions. I believe it is imperative to be able to discuss separately, in a substantial fashion, the so-called merits of universal registration, as the Liberals would like to have Canadians believe that there actually is some merit to it, and also to discuss the improvements to the Criminal Code that would deal with people who commit firearms offences. It is important that this bill be split. Canadian people must have a chance to have input on both sides of the bill. To create a bill that deals with these two issues in one simply leaves the Canadian people and this House with no opportunity to stop the bad side of the bill and, at the same time, vote for some of the good points.

I believe there are members in the Liberal Party who would, if given the opportunity, instantly vote against universal registration and at the same time instantly support stricter penalties and tougher laws for people who commit firearms offences. We enthusiastically implore the Liberal Party to support the splitting of Bill C-68.

I believe members should be concerned when changes to the Criminal Code are tied to other measures that seek to impose on the right of law-abiding Canadians to own and enjoy property. This imposition is exactly what Bill C-68, when taken in its entirety, seeks to accomplish: to impose red tape, more regulation and more penalties on law-abiding firearms owners in this country. At the same time, the bill does little to impose stricter penalties, harsher penalties, rightful penalties on the people who commit firearms offences. We should be looking at deterring firearms crime while not imposing on the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

The motion of the member for Yorkton-Melville to split the bill is in accordance with a policy that the Canadian people want. If this bill was split, this party can support enthusiastically the part that deals with imposing stricter penalties on firearms offences, while at the same time enthusiastically opposing it, along with a lot of Liberal backbenchers who would love to do it. Unfortunately, because of party discipline in the Liberal party, they are not going to be able to oppose the registration.

The Minister of Justice, the Liberal members, with all their rhetoric and all their talk about this new bill, Bill C-68, have offered not one shred of substantive proof that universal registration will prevent firearms crime in Canada. Not one single shred have any of these Liberal members offered of proof that firearms registration is going to cut crime in this country.

The onus is on the Minister of Justice and this government to demonstrate clearly to law-abiding citizens affected by these new registration laws that they will indeed produce a desirable effect. That is what good legislation should be all about. This bill cannot demonstrate that in any way; therefore, it cannot be considered good legislation.

The onus was placed on the Minister of Justice to clearly demonstrate how registration is going to cut crime. He has not done it. The minister continues to state that registration will improve public safety. Again, he has not presented one single shred of evidence that it is going to do exactly that.

He says the association of police chiefs support him. I may get a few of these chiefs mad at me, but I would like to remind this House that the association of police chiefs has received about $150,000 in grants for their organization from this government. One can conjure up all sorts of thoughts of why there is this great support for Bill C-68 and the Minister of Justice.

However, the facts simply do not support his claim. In New Zealand the practice of registration was discontinued. They tried it. In 1983 their police force discovered-I have to assume that the New Zealand police are a fairly intelligent lot-that a gun registry did nothing to combat crime. In Canada police officers in Saskatchewan-I have to believe that police officers in Saskatchewan are as intelligent as police officers in any other part of Canada-

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendment the Bloc has put forward. It wants to delay the implementation of the budget for six months. I am sure it has a political agenda behind this amendment. I would imagine that it is to try to add more credence to its failing sovereignty program. I can think of no other reason for an amendment like this.

However, I suggest the government delay the implementation of the budget for eternity. This is not a budget the Canadian people were asking for. While the hon. member for Halifax a short time ago said eastern Canadians were smarter than western Canadians, there are a whole lot of western Canadians who apply some good, common sense to getting this financial crisis and the House in order.

I want to paraphrase part of a speech by Mackenzie King in the House in 1935. What he was saying applies to the situation we have today. He said that when a government loses control of its currency and credit in effect all talk of democracy in the country is both useless and futile. That is exactly the situation the country is in. We have lost control of our currency and credit. Every decision we try to make in the House is influenced by the

fact that we are some $500 billion in debt. We have an annual interest payment of some $47 billion.

As we discuss issues in the House, no matter what they are, industry and trade, Indian affairs and northern development, the health problems or the social problems, they are influenced by the fact that our country is seriously hemorrhaging in debt. Every decision we make has to take into account that we owe $500-plus billion and we are paying an annual interest rate to service that debt of some $47 billion. We are being held captive by the irresponsible spending that was started during the Trudeau administration and carried on by the successive governments under Tory prime ministers Clark and Mulroney.

Before the Trudeau administration came to power we were basically running a balanced budget. We had a small national debt that was perfectly manageable. Somehow the special interest groups got to the Trudeau government and said: "Listen, if you will give us more of this and more of that, we will vote for you". The Liberal government heard that message and thought: "This is a good thing. Let us go out and tell all of Canada they can have whatever they want and not to worry about paying for it. As long as they vote for us, we will give them whatever they want". They instilled in this country, in the Canadian people, during those years an attitude of entitlement, that the Canadian people were entitled to every single thing they wanted. The government told them: "Do not worry about paying for it. We will borrow the money and sooner or later we will get around to looking after the debt."

Well, now some 28 or 29 years later, look what this got us. We have a half a trillion dollar debt and an interest payment that would pay for all the social programs in this country if we did not have it. This government talks about its famous red book and its promises. This government is trapped by the promises in the red book. The Canadian people are demanding that the government get control of its financial house. The Liberal government knows what it has to do. The Minister of Finance knew what he had to do, but the soft-headed Liberals in that party would not let him make the drastic and severe cuts that are needed.

They are trapped by the promises in the red book. The red book says: "We will bring the deficit within 3 per cent of our GDP". Big deal. That can be done by increasing the GDP. Spending does not have to be cut. That is fine as long as the economy stays buoyant. But what happens if there is a downturn in the economy, as was forecast in The Globe and Mail just a couple of days ago?

Under the government's budget plan and deficit reduction plans, if we have another downturn in the economy our fiscal house is headed for disaster once again. The government will use the same excuse the Tory government used. It will say: "Well, there is nothing we could do about it. We inherited this debt from the Tories." The Tories said: "There is nothing we could do about it. We inherited the debt from the Liberals."

The Canadian people are sick and tired of excuses. They want action. The people who invest in business in this country are sick and tired of excuses. They want action. Everywhere we go in this country people are saying: "We want a balanced budget". The Liberals say: "Oh, no. Sorry. Canada does not need a balanced budget. You do not know what you are talking about. We have a plan that is going to cut the deficit to $25 billion in 1997 and everything is going to be okay. It is a feel good budget". At the same time they are going to add $100 billion to our debt and maybe another $10 billion to the interest payments.

Madam Speaker, any economist will tell you that if you are deeply in debt-as a matter of fact, my wife will tell you, because she runs our household budget and does a darned good job, that the time to reduce your debt is when things are good, when you have a good paying job. Let us apply that same simple principle to this budget. This government should apply that same principle. Things are pretty good in this country right now. Now is the time to make some drastic cuts and get rid of the deficit. Get the fiscal house of this country in order.

The Canadian people, the consumers in this country, have no confidence in the financial affairs of this government. If they did, consumer spending would be far higher than it is now. The investors in this country have no confidence in the future of the financial plans of this government. If they did, investment would be higher now. That is where we have to target. We have to get back people's confidence in the investment community.

I would like to tell the Liberals how they can be heroes. All they have to do is balance the budget. Give the Canadian people a definite time line to balance the budget. Regain the confidence of the Canadian people in the way the government handles the fiscal problems. Get rid of the deficit. Say to the people: "We have shown you that we have our financial crisis under control. We have eliminated the deficit".

Once there is a balanced budget the Liberals can say to the Canadian people: "We think you have confidence in us once again. Here is what we want to do. About 30 per cent of our national debt is foreign owned. Let us bring that foreign owned portion of our debt home. We are going to issue something similar to a war bond. We are going to declare war on our foreign debt. We want all Canadians to invest in these war bonds". That is something saleable, but only when Canadians are confident once again that the government is in control of its financial house.

I think many Liberal members would agree with that. I thank the hon. member for her support. I think it is a good idea.

This budget should be thrown out the window. This government should bring in a budget with a definite time line on balancing it. If it is 1997-98, so be it; if it is 1998-99, so be it, but give Canadians a light at the end of the tunnel. Show Canadians the government is serious about getting the deficit and debt under control. Only then will confidence be returned to this government.

I can assure you that confidence will be returned once again in 1997-98 when the Reform Party of Canada forms the Government of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the hon. member for Wild Rose was speaking about the government hearing the message of the people, asking why it was not hearing the right message, the hon. member for Halifax made the comment "because people in the east are smarter". This is an affront to western Canadians-

[Petitions, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present four petitions containing over 1,000 names.

The first one is from Mr. Kralkay of Prince George, B.C. The second one is from Mr. Hackman and others of Prince George, B.C. The third one is from Mr. Carvell of Houston, B.C. in my riding. The fourth one is from the Fort Trap and Handgun Club in Fort St. James which is in Prince George-Bulkley Valley riding as well.

These petitions and the 1,000 names contained therein request that Parliament support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime. They request also that Parliament support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms.

They request the support of legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety, have proven not to be cost effective, or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

I personally support these petitions 100 per cent.

[Communications Security Establishment, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue which was brought to my attention the morning of March 17. It was reported that the Six Nation Indian Band has recently filed a lawsuit against the province of Ontario and the federal government. The suit reportedly seeks compensation for lost land, money from land sales, revenue from mineral rights, money taken from trust accounts and compound interest on these amounts dating back to 1784.

A chief councillor of the band estimated the total lawsuit claim at about $400 billion. Let us put this legal suit in perspective. $400 billion is about 80-some per cent of the total current federal debt. The Six Nation Band is also seeking an inquiry and demands detailed accounting for all transactions involving assets, funds and real estate since 1784 to present.

During question period on Friday, March 17 I asked the government for clarification on this issue with the specific intent of discovering whether the federal government was going to finance the Six Nation reserve lawsuit.

I was told on Friday that my question would be taken under advisement and a response would be coming from the appropriate minister. I have made inquiries at the office of the minister of Indian affairs and I have been assured that a response would be available yesterday or at the latest today.

To this moment, I have yet to receive a response. This is a very serious court challenge and I am astonished that the government, considering $400 billion estimate, was unable to respond to my question on Friday. I am shocked by the fact that I have yet to receive a response from the minister's department as I was promised. However I suppose this is typical of how the government and many provincial governments have been dealing with native issues. They prefer the response of simply no response.

Questions are left unanswered. Public debate is quashed. Negotiations are held in private and the taxpayer is left to pick up the bill. The taxpayers of Canada are seeking accountability. They want to know what these land claims will cost. They want assurance that the programs of Indian affairs will be reformed and altered to make them more effective.

They want to know how the government can proceed with a self-government and land claims settlement agenda without first giving a clear indication of how much these land claims will cost, how much land is involved and clearly defining the term inherent right to self-government.

These questions have been asked in the House and are yet unanswered. It is time for this Liberal government to come out of hiding and reveal to the Canadian people its actual agenda in respect of native land claims and self-government. Canadians deserve no less.

In conclusion, the Department of Indian Affairs has sacred cow status among Liberals. I point to the recent budget as evidence of this claim. I have no fear in taking up the dagger of accountability and leading this sacred cow to the altar of public scrutiny in order to determine exactly where these billions and billions of dollars in the Department of Indian Affairs go.

On behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, I will continue to press for clear and precise answers with respect to the expenditure of public money concerning native issues. Finally, I will press this case in the House, in the media, in my riding and wherever there is a concerned Canadian about how federal tax dollars are spent.

[Charitable And Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth's bill as well. Listening to the previous speakers, I heard the member for Cumberland-Colchester say that it could become the most important piece of legislation during this session. The member for Broadview-Greenwood said it was a magnificent achievement.

I am looking for words to give it even more applause but unfortunately, I cannot reach that high in my praise for this bill. However, to compliment the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, I will say it is a good bill. It is a very necessary bill and certainly I and my colleagues of the Reform Party have no problem supporting it.

When Reformers came to Ottawa we said we would not be here on this side of the House simply to criticize the Liberal government. The way it has turned out in this 35th Parliament we have not had much choice but to criticize. The Canadian people who tune in to what is happening in Parliament will know that whenever we criticize we do at the same time offer constructive alternatives.

This is one of the times when we really do not have to criticize this bill because quite frankly after all the exhaustive research we have done on it we really cannot find too much wrong with it bill. I want to the let the House know that while the member for Hamilton-Wentworth and his research assistants have done exhaustive research to define the bill clearly, we have done exhaustive research to determine whether this was a good bill or not and indeed it is.

We basically want the non-profit organizations and the charity organizations to become more accountable in their bookkeeping primarily so we can find out what the leading members of the organization are getting paid for their services.

We know the Government of Canada contributes a lot of money to non-profit organizations, special interest groups. Of late we have had examples where expenses have been seen to be exorbitant because of the lack of accountability in how these expenses are reported. We have seen many cases where these special interest groups and non-profit organizations will skip some of the lines on the income tax return and just put in a lump sum showing lump sum salaries paid to some of the top people in the organization. This will do away with all that. We are going to get more accountability.

When I am talking about accountability I have to hold the member for Hamilton-Wentworth blameless in this because he seems to have a good understanding of what accountability means. I would encourage him to apply the same principles he did to this bill to his conversations with other members of the Liberal Party. What the Reform Party came here to do was to demand accountability from the government.

The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth appears to have a pretty good handle on accountability. In supporting this bill I want to encourage him to talk to as many of his colleagues as he can so that we may finally get some accountability from the government as we go forward in the 35th Parliament.

We support this bill.

[Land Claim, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope in the future we will get a proper answer from the government regarding Indian affairs.

I anticipate we will hear no clear answer. I am surprised that given the magnitude of the lawsuit, being $400 billion, that someone has not been reached on that side of the House on this question.

Can the Reform Party and Canadian taxpayers be assured that a very clear and distinct answer will be given to this question?