Peter Milliken

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the point. I hope I will be in a position to furnish the House with an answer to her question later this week.

I note that the reply will be lengthy because the Canada Council hands out a great number of grants to numerous individuals and bodies across Canada. The first reply was received. Certain information that the member requested was missing from the answer and it was sent back so that it would be made complete. I expect to be in possession of the complete answer later this week.

If the hon. member is so concerned about saving taxpayers' dollars I have no doubt she would have gone to the Library of Parliament and looked up the annual reports of the Canada Council wherein all its grants are listed. She could have obtained the answer there instead of putting a question on the Order Paper which will cost many thousands of extra dollars to provide to the House in the copies and in the form that she wishes to have it.

Having given that response, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Order In Council Appointments, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

Pursuant to Standing Order 110((1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

[Business Of The House, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent in the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the Order made February 16, 1995, during the proceedings in the Chamber on February 23, 1995, two television cameras, one operated by American networks and one operated by Canadian networks, shall be permitted on the floor of the House in locations below the Bar of the House, as directed by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Points Of Order, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to do exactly that. This is the third time the hon. member has got up in the last seven or eight days on this particular question.

I pointed out to him on the first occasion that when he looks at the question, and he knows this perfectly well because he wrote it, he has asked for a list that must be quite substantial.

The question asked what contracts for services, supplies and leasing have been awarded by Public Works and Government Services since October 25, 1993 in all federal constituencies in Quebec and what federal government properties are located in those same constituencies? It will be an extremely substantial list.

In providing an answer to the hon. member, the government wants to make sure it is accurate. I have no doubt great pains are being taken to ensure a full, accurate response will be given to the member.

The hon. member has asked for an answer within 45 days. It is impossible to prepare such a lengthy reply in that time and he knows that. We are doing our best to get the answer. I assure him I am working on getting an answer for his question. I will continue to work to get an answer for his question. I hope to be in a position to table that answer soon.

In the meantime, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Financial Administration Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to try to respond to the very windy comments of the hon. member for Kamloops. With his typical hyperbole he went on to grossly exaggerate the deficiencies of the Canadian tax system, I am sure for the benefit of his viewers in Kamloops.

He sounded a little like the premier of Ontario did when he was in opposition, and we have all noticed how he has changed his tune since he came into government. Of course he has made the worst mess we have ever seen of any government in any province. I suspect the hon. member for Kamloops would agree with me if he lived in Ontario. He does not, so he has missed out on some of the worst aspects of NDP rule in our province.

The NDP is involved in the tax system in Ontario and the Ontario taxpayers are complaining about high taxes. What they have not fully realized in every case is how many of those taxes are charged by their provincial government. It has really slapped it to Ontarians in a big, big way, in spite of having a massive deficit and total incompetence in its government and running the economy of that province.

I agree with him that the fundamental basis of a sound tax system is that everyone pays his or her share. When a minority of taxpayers are able to avoid paying their fair share, the legitimacy of the whole system suffers.

Like the hon. member for Kamloops, the Minister of Finance and indeed every member of this caucus is committed to trying to restore an element of fairness to our tax system. But the government in fact has already taken steps to do that. It did it in the last budget.

I did not see the hon. member for Kamloops applauding the minister on budget day last year. I am sorry he did not, but I can safely tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I know you will agree, that none of us have ever seen the hon. member for Kamloops applaud a budget in this House.

There is a good reason for that. None of them has been an NDP budget. If there had been one, no doubt he would applaud it. But as long as the budget is presented by any other party, no matter how fair it is, he will say it is not fair enough for him. He does not talk about Bob Rae's budgets. If he did, I think he would be complaining about the lack of fairness. I am sorry we are not able to hear his thoughts on that tonight.

I want to point out examples of some of the things the Minister of Finance did last year in his budget.

He eliminated the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption that had been put in by the previous government that benefited high income individuals almost exclusively. The deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses was reduced from 80 per cent to 50 per cent, another item that benefited substantial taxpayers. Large Canadian controlled private corporations are no longer eligible for the small business deductions which benefit small business and which the hon. member for Kamloops ignored in his remarks. I think that is important.

The need for increased equity and simplicity in the tax system is recognized. The finance minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that his budget will be fair and will try to reduce inequities in our tax system.

I am sure the member for Kamloops will applaud the minister on budget day and thank him for the great service he is doing for Canadians.

[Financial Administration Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to the bill presented by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

The bill has as its basic purpose the removal of exemption from application of divisions I to IV of part X of the Financial Administration Act for five crown corporations. These are the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, the International Development Research Centre, and the National Arts Centre Corporation.

[Translation]

These corporations, together with the Bank of Canada and the CBC, are exempt under section 85 of the Financial Administration Act. All other crown corporations, which number about 41, are subject to part X of the FAA.

If we study part X, we see that the goal was to provide a more or less standard accountability and control system for all our crown corporations.

The role of Parliament was to hold the government and the crown corporation accountable through the appropriate minister for the public funds allocated to the corporation.

The government's role was seen to be to provide co-ordination, direction, as necessary, and control with the objective of protecting the public's investment and ensuring that public policy objectives are met.

Part X of the Financial Administration Act represents a comprehensive accountability system allowing crown corporations to adopt private sector management systems and practices, while ensuring that government and Parliament exercise certain key approvals.

For example, corporate plans of crown corporations subject to part X require approval annually by the governor in council. As well, the corporation's annual report must be tabled in Parliament. Part X requires that it contain information on how well the corporation has met its objectives.

At the end of each calendar year, the President of the Treasury Board must submit to Parliament his annual report on crown corporations and other corporate interests of Canada. This report contains a section which is audited by the Auditor General and which shows to what extent activity summaries and annual reports are submitted in accordance with established criteria for every minister responsible.

It can be seen from this one example how part X is designed to ensure that not only government but Parliament as well is viewed as integral to a sound accountability and control system for crown corporations.

As previously indicated, certain crown corporations are exempt from this part X system. The grounds for exemption, while not found in any written or formal criteria or regulation, reflect some of the special sensitivities in the relationship between the government and these particular corporations.

For example, the perception of arm's length freedom from government direction and decision which involve awarding grants to juried recipients is viewed as fundamental for the Canada Council. The government should not be seen to be dictating artistic merit as a matter of the politics of the day. Similarly, the mandated freedom for the CBC in areas of programming and journalistic independence led to the provision that this corporation also be exempted from part X.

The remaining exempts, five of which are named in the bill before us today, are subject to the elements of accountability found in their own enabling legislation. For example, all are required to provide annual reports for tabling and for those which are dependent upon government subsidization, they are subject to the annual process and procedures of parliamentary supply.

Bill C-263 contains two additional elements of some concern to me.

The first of these is the provision that employees of the National Arts Centre, the Canada Council and the International Development Research Centre become members of the public service. This is moving in the wrong direction.

Crown corporation employees are, for the most part, not public servants. In fact, the legislation creating the four museums crown corporations specifically states that museum employees are not public servants. We do not want to increase the size of the public service for no good reason.

The second element deals with the concept of agent of the crown status being introduced for these three corporations by the bill. This is a complex legally challenging subject that requires some thought.

I believe the International Development Research Centre was specifically made a non-agent for compelling reasons relating to its mandate and the freedom to choose fields of research of international significance. Agencies should not be arbitrarily invoked under the assumption that it removes autonomy.

Clearly, the experience we have had over the last 10 years indicates that generally there may be merit in bringing other exempts under a modified form of accountability framework

similar to the regime that is now in place for the CBC which is different from some of the others. I can and do support that general principle.

Bill C-263 however, while moving these corporations in the right direction, contains certain fatal flaws which I suggest would preclude my support for it today. I urge hon. members not to support it.

The most serious flaw is that the bill does not recognize the need for a thorough review of the mandates given to these corporations in order to develop an appropriate accountability framework, without the appearance of unjustified political meddling in sectors where a certain level of independence from the government is in the public interest.

For example, part X contains sections which provide for a directive power for government to override decisions taken by crown corporation boards of directors. This could be construed as a fundamental change in the traditional approach of successive governments allowing cultural crown corporations the freedom to engage in decision making affecting artistic merit or research matters. This issue was thoroughly reviewed in the debates and committee hearings on Bill C-24 back in May and June of 1984.

Looking forward, I see merit in exploring better ways to ensure accountability for the crown corporations named in this bill. Subject areas such as auditing, corporate governance, financial management and control, corporate planning, reporting to Parliament and borrowing plans have been very thoroughly addressed in part X of the Financial Administration Act and have resulted in a system which the Auditor General noted is working well. The hon. member acknowledged that in his speech.

This system can probably be further modified to meet the special circumstances of the majority of exempt crown corporations. Whether this is best achieved through a series of initiatives amending existing enabling statutes for each of the named corporations in question requires further study.

I am informed that discussions have already occurred with some of these corporations as to the best way of achieving this.

I have no doubt that additional efforts will be invested to improve the accountability system while giving exempt crown corporations the appropriate level of freedom that Canadians will continue to perceive as being in the public interest.

As this bill stands I cannot support it and do not recommend it to the House.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am frankly sick of listening to the flagrant misrepresentations the hon. member is indulging in with his efforts to mislead the Canadian public as to what is going on in this bill. He knows perfectly well he is doing it and he should be ashamed of himself.

I refer him for the purpose of clearing up the error-perhaps he will admit his deliberate error-to section 92(1) of the proposed new bill currently before the House. Page 68:

Subject to subsection (4) and section 98, every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of

(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and

(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.

Subsection 3 says:

Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable-

-to the 10 year imprisonment to which he referred. This is a person who committed an offence possessing a firearm knowing the person was not the holder of a licence and that the gun was unregistered. In other words, it is the criminal misuse of firearms.

Let us go back to section 91(1) of the bill:

Subject to subsection (4) and section 98, every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, unless the person is the holder of

(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and

(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.

Then it says in subsection (3):

Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

He knows that an offence punishable on summary conviction carries a maximum sentence of six months or a $2,000 fine. It also carries the possibility of an absolute or conditional discharge. He knows that the innocent gun owner who fails to register will be charged under that section, not someone who is committing an offence which is the section he is referring to when he talks about 10 years. He is misleading the Canadian public. He should apologize for his deceit.

[Points Of Order, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke rose and put a question.

I am informed, although I did not see it as I could not see it from my seat, that on the television cameras it was quite obvious that he was holding a prop. The prop was in the nature of a sign posted on the back of the document or portfolio that he was holding. The document was clearly visible on television and contained a slogan that related to recent meetings on taxes in Canada.

The person who told me this saw it on television in the lobby. I was not in the lobby, I was in the House and could not see it from where I was sitting.

I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 501:

Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber. Thus during the flag debate of 1964, the display of competing designs was prohibited. At other times boxes of cereal, detergent and milk powder have been ruled out of order.

Citation 502 states:

When a member produced samples of grain in the House, the Speaker deprecated the practice, saying, `If we allowed hon. members to produce such exhibits, we would get ourselves involved in a position where perhaps all too often hon. members would want to table dead fish, herrings, or red herrings, damp grain or wild oats'.

This quotation from previous Speakers indicates the grave nature of this offence against the rules of the House and I ask the Chair to apply the proper discipline to the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 16th, 1995]

I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Canadian Heritage as follows:

In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, DIAND, is concerned:

(a) For the year ended March 31, 1993, 159 Indian bands, tribal councils and aboriginal organizations are in a deficit position.1-2

(b) With respect to the names and deficit situation of Indian bands, tribal councils and aboriginal organizations, this information is confidential third party financial information under section 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and cannot be released.

1 DIAND does not fund Metis organizations. Please refer to the answer by Canadian Heritage.

2 DIAND determines a recipient's deficit position by applying an indicator of whether the recipient's cumulative deficit is greater than 8 per cent of its total revenues, one month's cashflow. Statistics are collected on this basis.

In so far as the Department of Canadian Heritage is concerned:

(a) Based on the 1992-93 audited financial statements available-48 per cent were available-27 organizations were in a deficit situation.

(b) With respect to the name and deficit situation of these organizations, this information is confidential third party financial information under section 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and cannot be released.

Question No. 128-