Madam Speaker, I suggest that all other remaining questions stand.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 39% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper October 17th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I suggest that all other remaining questions stand.
Questions On The Order Paper October 17th, 1994
Madam Speaker, Question No. 79 will be answered today.
Question No. 79-
Subcommittee On National Security October 17th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119.1(1), authorize the Subcommittee on national security of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to televise the meeting of Tuesday, October 18, 1994, in accordance with the guidelines pertaining to televising Committee proceedings.
Government Response To Petitions October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
Order In Council Appointments October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair that the hon. member for Malpeque is putting this amendment before the House. He has sought to draw attention to a very significant problem that he perceives in the legislation.
I want to say at the outset that the notion of accountability to Parliament is one that is central to everyone's thinking in this House and rightly so. It is a very important concept and a very important principle that ought to be upheld on all occasions.
I want to draw on the following experience if the member opposite will not take it in an insulting way. I do not intend it that way. Since my election in 1988 there has been a change in the reporting requirements for various departments to Parliament.
These changes were implemented by the last government. As the hon. member knows, I opposed most of its policies. In the case of the changes with respect to the annual reports I was supportive. The reason was because in my view they were a waste of the taxpayers' dollars.
Parliament was receiving in part III of the estimates not just spending plans but detailed reports on the way the department was spending the money that it had to account for during the past year.
I cannot speak for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food because I do not pretend to have read part III of the estimates for the department of agriculture. Most of the depart-
ments deliberately beefed up or improved their part IIIs. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tells me that agriculture led the way. Great. I am unfamiliar with those particular estimates. Most of them and the ones that I dealt with beefed up their part IIIs to make them better so there was full accounting given in part III of the estimates. Therefore the necessity for an annual report simply disappeared.
Annual reports, interesting as they may be and impressive as they may look with lots of glossy pictures of the minister handing out money or congratulating some group, as many of them used to do, had their place but frankly they were expensive. It cost a great deal to produce and to print them. The previous government eliminated them by order in council for those departments that did not have a statutory requirement to produce an annual report to Parliament.
In the case of the agriculture department, the requirement was in the statute. We are seeking in the amendments today, not the amendment moved by the hon. member but in the amendments to the act, to delete the requirement that the department provide an annual report to Parliament. Most other departments have eliminated that requirement. All we are doing is bringing agriculture in line with the other departments by this bill.
Given that, it is reasonable to propose to Parliament that we are providing the information in part III so why reprint it in a different format and pay people to redraft it and reprint at public expense for no good reason. The information is in part III. Parliament gets the information when the estimates are tabled annually and we have to approve those estimates in committee and in the House.
Therefore members get an opportunity to review the draft. They can see the part IIIs. There is a draft supply bill where they can move amendments and so on. I know hon. members may argue that perhaps our control over supply is not what it could be, but that is a separate argument for another day. The fact is the material is being provided to Parliament in the part IIIs. If there are specific inadequacies in those part IIIs the information can be elicited in committee. The agriculture committee has the power to call witnesses before it from the department at will, including the minister, and demand additional information.
The intent of the amendment to uphold the integrity of the House and its primacy in terms of reporting requirements for departments is a good one. Frankly however I think it is unnecessary for the reasons given by the parliamentary secretary in his very able argument and because of what I believe to have been the experience members who have been here a little longer have had. That is we have not lost the accountability process or diminished it in any way by relying on part IIIs instead of on annual reports.
I invite members to consider that as we come to a vote on this matter. I would ask when the question is put that it be negatived on division. I believe you will find there is agreement that that be so.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I think there have been some discussions between the parties. In light of the fact that there was some problem with respect to notice and this bill, we are prepared to give consent to the hon. member to move an amendment at report stage. I understand there will be two amendments before the House.
Questions On The Order Paper October 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the hon. member in the predicament that he has outlined. I know the government makes every effort to respond promptly to questions.
Sometimes questions are very lengthy in that they involve extensive consultation with numerous departments in the government. That often takes some time. In the case of the particular questions that the hon. member put on the Order Paper, I may say that the answers we received initially were sent back, because we were unhappy with the responses.
I understand his unhappiness with the responses, but the agencies in question were not prepared to disclose, or were not able to disclose, or did not have the figures. We could not imagine that was possible. The questions were sent back to those agencies to make sure the answers were correct. That was part of the reason for the lengthy delay. Of course, the House was not sitting during the summer, which adds to it as well.
I sympathize with him. I hope he will put more questions on the Order Paper. We will do our very best to answer them as we do for all hon. members.
Questions On The Order Paper October 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Committees Of The House October 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I move that the date for the final report of the special committee reviewing Canada's foreign policy be extended to November 15, 1994 and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours thereof.
TCC (Motion agreed to.)