38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 150
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
|
 |
Parliamentary Delegation Report |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
National Capital and Gatineau Park Act |
|
|
Hon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Gasoline Taxes |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Foreign Adoptions |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) |
|
|
Holiday Act |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) |
|
|
Bill C-391 |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) |
|
|
Gasoline Taxes |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Opposition Motion--Access to Information Act |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Powers |
|
|
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Powers |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Powers |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
|
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Ted Menzies |
|
|
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Ted Menzies |
|
|
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Navdeep Bains |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Navdeep Bains |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
|
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Forestry |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) |
|
|
South Asia Earthquake |
|
|
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada-Philippine Friendship |
|
|
Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.) |
|
|
La Mosaïque |
|
|
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ) |
|
|
Cambridge Memorial Hospital |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Dr. Peter Zwack |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.) |
|
|
Wildlife Protection Officers |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
The Family |
|
|
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.) |
|
|
Volunteer Firefighters |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC) |
|
|
Ski Bromont |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.) |
|
|
Status of Women |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
Banting Homestead |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.) |
|
|
Marc-André Fortin |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Christmas Miracles |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Route of Honour |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTIONS
|
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Keeseekoose First Nation |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Parliament of Canada |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Keeseekoose First Nation |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Works and Government Services |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Intergovernmental Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Economic Statement |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Airports |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Equalization |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Human Resources and Skills Development |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Parliament of Canada |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Ms. Diane Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Economic Development |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Order Paper Question No. 151--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Opposition Motion — Access to Information Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
|
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 180) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Sending of Documents by Members of Parliament |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 181) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan |
|
|
(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 21, Mr. Chuck Strahl in the chair)
|
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
The Assistant Deputy Chair |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Assistant Deputy Chair |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
|
Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Anthony Rota |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Anthony Rota |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Anthony Rota |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Anthony Rota |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
(Government Business No. 21 reported)
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Parliamentary Delegation Report
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation that visited the Russian Federation from October 11 to October 14, 2005.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine proceedings]
* * *
[Translation]
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-74, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to facilitate the lawful interception of information transmitted by means of those facilities and respecting the provision of telecommunications subscriber information.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
National Capital and Gatineau Park Act
Hon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-444, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my bill, an act to amend the National Capital Act, Gatineau Park. The bill is seconded by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.
The bill would amend the National Capital Act to establish for the first time legal boundaries for Gatineau Park. If brought into legislation, it would give legal status to the park and would recognize that one of the objectives and purposes of the National Capital Commission is to acquire privately owned real properties or provincial properties situated in Gatineau Park. It would also require owners of real property situated in the park to give the NCC a right of first refusal on the sale of the property. In short, it would ensure Gatineau Park remains a treasure for future generations of Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1005)
Petitions
Marriage
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several hundred individuals from Ridgeway, Fort Erie, Welland, Crystal Beach and Niagara Falls.
These petitioners say that because marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children and that the majority of Canadians support the definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single male and a single female, they petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
* * *
Gasoline Taxes
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to present a petition from several hundred people from Regina and the Regina area, including Regina Beach, Buena Vista, Kinookimaw, Kannata Valley, Chamberlain, Marquis and Bethune, Saskatchewan.
All of these signatories want to express their belief that the government should reduce the level of taxation on gasoline. They are petitioning the House of Commons to ensure the GST is eliminated on taxation so we do not have tax upon tax.
* * *
Foreign Adoptions
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I have done so often this fall, it is my pleasure to rise again and present this petition on behalf of citizens from two provinces: first, from Waterloo, Kitchener, Paris and Cambridge, Ontario; and second, from Salmon Arm, Vancouver, Richmond, Port Coquitlam, Surrey, New Westminster, Port Moody and the great city of Chilliwack, all in British Columbia.
These citizens wish to draw to the attention of the House that on average about 2,000 children are adopted from foreign countries and brought to Canada each year and yet the government continues to refuse to grant them automatic citizenship.
Therefore the petitioners from both Ontario and B.C. are uniting to call upon Parliament to immediately enact legislation to grant automatic citizenship to those minors adopted from other countries by Canadian citizens with this citizenship being immediately granted upon finalization of the adoption.
* * *
Holiday Act
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present three petitions containing thousands of names from Canadians across the country.
Since we came back this week from Remembrance Day events in our ridings, my first petition calls upon Parliament to enact Bill C-295, an act to amend the Holiday Act to recognize Remembrance Day as a legal holiday that honours the men and women who died serving their country in war and in peacekeeping efforts.
* * *
Bill C-391
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon the House to enact Bill C-391, an act to recognize and protect Canada's hunting and fishing heritage to ensure the rights of present and future Canadians to enjoy these activities are protected in law.
* * *
Gasoline Taxes
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the final petition deals with the gas tax. The petitioners call upon the House to eliminate the federal excise tax on diesel fuel and gasoline used in farming operations and commercial fisheries, to cap the amount of tax it collects on gasoline and to eliminate the practice of applying the GST to the provincial fuel tax and the federal excise tax, a practice that charges a tax on top of a tax.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 208 and 210.
[Text]
Question No. 208--Mr. Loyola Hearn:
With regard to the use of chemical agents by the Canadian military, were chemical agents tested by the Canadian military and, if so: (a) in what year(s); (b) which chemical agents were tested; (c) where were chemical agents tested; (d) were there different locations where chemical agents were stored and not tested; (e) were there chemical agents tested or stored at CFB Shilo and posted to CFB Petawawa and, if so, what type of tests were performed and how often; (f) what quantity of agents were stored at CFB Shilo and CFB Petawawa respectively and for how long; (g) were there ongoing shipments of chemical agents from base to base; (h) were military personnel made aware when they were involved in the transport or storage of chemical agents; (i) was there a safety policy relative to chemical agents at the time of storage or testing; (j) how many times has the safety regulations protocol pertaining to chemical agents been amended since the 1960s; and (k) does the current policy differ greatly from military policies of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and, if so, in which way?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as agreed with the member of Parliament, the department has interpreted the original question on the order paper to read: With regard to the testing of agent orange/agent purple or other herbicides tested by the Canadian military, were such chemicals tested by the Canadian military at CFB Shilo and CFB Petawawa and, if so: (a) in what year(s); (b) which chemicals were tested; (c) where were these chemical tested; (d) were there different locations where these chemicals were stored and not tested;(e) what type of tests were performed and how often; (f) what quantity of these chemicals were stored at CFB Shilo and CFB Petawawa respectively and for how long; (g) were there ongoing shipments of these chemicals between CFB Shilo and CFB Petawawa; (h) were military personnel made aware when they were involved in the transport or storage of these chemicals on or between these two bases; (i) was there a safety policy relative to these chemicals at the time of storage or testing; (j) how many times has the safety regulations protocol pertaining to chemicals been amended since the 1960s; and (k) does the current policy differ greatly from military policies of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and, if so, in which way?
To date, with the records available, there is no indication that agent orange, agent purple or any other herbicide was tested at CFB Shilo and CFB Petawawa and therefore our answers to questions a. to i. inclusive are nil.
That said, as a longer term due diligence project, National Defence, in early 2006, will initiate research to determine all of the herbicides that were routinely used at military bases across Canada. This project will review and report on factual historical information related to the regulation, the production, the sale, and the use in Canada of herbicides used or likely to have been used at Canadian Forces military bases. The information gained through this research project will provide the department with the information being requested by questions j. to k. This study will likely take at least two years to complete, as there are more than 50 years of files to be researched from sites all over Canada. Should any new information emerge that indicates agent orange, agent purple or any other herbicide was tested at CFB Shilo and/or CFB Petawawa, this information will be provided.
Question No. 210--Mr. Brian Pallister:
Did the government provide a severance package for André Ouellet when he resigned from Canada Post and, if so, what were the details and monetary figures of this package?
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, government policy provides that all ministerial responses should respect the protections afforded by the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act, regardless of whether those acts apply to the government organization providing the information in the responses. Consequently, ministerial responses prepared by a government organization should not include information whose disclosure would be prohibited by those acts, if they were to apply.
* * *
(1010)
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 206 and 207 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 206--Mr. Ken Epp:
With regard to the formal dinner held for the Queen on May 24, 2005, in Edmonton, and the procedure for invitations for such: (a) when were the invitations sent to the invitees; (b) to which individuals were invitations sent; (c) were the whips of the recognized political parties of the House of Commons asked to extend invitations to their Members, and, if so, when were they asked to do so; and (d) do the final calculations for the total cost of the dinner hosted by the Prime Minister include any and all commissions to contracted agencies?
(Return tabled)
Question No. 207--Mr. Randy White:
With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada: (a) how many inmates have escaped custody while taking either an unescorted or an escorted temporary absence for personal development in 2003, 2004, and from January 1 to June 30, 2005; and (b) given that the February 1998 joint Correctional Service of Canada and National Parole Board report on Personal Development Temporary Absences shows that 10 inmates were given 15-day escorted temporary absences for recreation purposes and 11 inmates were given 15-day escorted temporary absences for other purposes, what type of recreation and other activities were these inmates involved in?
(Return tabled)
[English]
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Opposition Motion--Access to Information Act
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) moved:
|
That, in the opinion of the House, the Access to Information Act should be amended to: (a) expand coverage of the act to all Crown corporations, all officers of Parliament, all foundations and to all organizations that spend taxpayers' dollars or perform public functions; (b) establish a Cabinet-confidence exclusion, subject to review by the Information Commissioner; (c) establish a duty on public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions; (d) provide a general public interest override for all exemptions, in that the public interest should come before the secrecy of government; and (e) make all exemptions discretionary and subject to an injury test. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in this House and speak to this very important motion, one that I believe all Canadians as well as all members of this House should participate in and which members will hopefully vote in favour of at the end of the day.
Before we go into the actual details of this motion and why I believe it to be important, I think it is also important to once again give a bit of a history lesson to those Canadians who may be watching as to why I believe that access to information is such a vital part of our democratic process, both in government and across the land. For quite a while, in my opinion, there has been a need to expand and change the access to information legislation. In fact, members have attempted, on a number of occasions in the past few years, to introduce a new piece of legislation to this House.
I recall that back in 2004, a former member of this House, John Bryden, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-462, which dealt with changes to the Access to Information Act. This piece of proposed legislation came in the form of a private member's bill. That private member's bill received widespread support from members on all sides of this House when it was first introduced. In fact, it made it past second reading with I believe unanimous consent by members of this House and then was referred to committee. Unfortunately, that is when it died.
However, it was about to be resurrected by the member for Winnipeg Centre, who had sought on a number of occasions over many years to introduce and support changes to access to information, because, and let us make no mistake about this, access to information is a fundamental part of every Canadian's right to know what governments do and what political parties are doing in government.
The member for Winnipeg Centre, who felt so strongly about increasing the level of access to information within government, was about to reintroduce this private member's bill first introduced by John Bryden when he had a conversation with the current Minister of Justice. At that time, the Minister of Justice told the member for Winnipeg Centre that he, as minister, was about to bring forward new legislation, legislation that would be complementary to John Bryden's bill and would open up and make more transparent the dealings of government. He convinced the member for Winnipeg Centre to stand down on his private member's bill.
The member for Winnipeg Centre, being a man of a trusting nature, a man who believes the word of others, ultimately decided not to enter his private member's bill dealing with changes or new legislation regarding access to information, believing that the Minister of Justice would keep his word and introduce his own piece of legislation at his earliest opportunity.
Lo and behold, what happened? In April of 2005, I believe, rather than introduce legislation, the Minister of Justice brought forward a discussion paper. There was no legislation. It was a discussion paper. To add insult to injury, this discussion paper was not complementary to Mr. Bryden's original private member's bill. It did not support the initiatives, the thrust and the objectives of Mr. Bryden's private member's bill to open up levels of government so that all Canadians could determine for themselves what their government was doing. In fact, this discussion paper suggested that there be even more secrecy in government than there is currently. It was, in other words, an absolutely opposite view to the intent of Mr. Bryden's bill.
I can only say to members of this assembly that what the Minister of Justice brought forward was an absolute betrayal of trust from the conversation and the commitment that he made to the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg Centre. He did not bring forward legislation to deal with increasing the level of access to all government departments, crown corporations and foundations. He did absolutely the opposite. I think that is shameful.
(1015)
I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will speak on this matter himself later today, but I must say for the record, and I think all Canadians should understand, that the Minister of Justice betrayed not only the member but all Canadians when he made a commitment to bring forward legislation and then reneged on his promise and his commitment.
It is also important for Canadians to understand why it is so important to bring forward changes to the current legislation. Why should we bring forward this motion today? Why should we bring forward in the future a proposed piece of legislation that deals with access to information and increasing the levels of access? In light of what has transpired over the course of the past few months in Canada as a result of the government's actions with respect to the sponsorship scandal, I think it is quite apparent that we need to be more open, accountable and transparent in all of our dealings in government.
I would suggest to members today that had we as a government, a party, an assembly, passed increased access to information legislation, there is a chance, although I cannot guarantee it, that some of the things we saw happen with respect to the sponsorship scandal might never have happened, because the ability to allow Canadians access to information is vital to guaranteeing good, transparent, accountable and democratic government. If Canadians had had the opportunity to investigate through access to information requests what was happening with the sponsorship program, there is a chance, although perhaps not a high degree of probability, I agree, that some of the activities within the sponsorship program may never have occurred.
Unfortunately, the sponsorship program is an example of that cloud of secrecy and it shows how this is pervasive not only in the government but within the Liberal Party. If there is legislation that allows opposition members and Canadians at large the ability to ask questions and receive answers as to the activities of government, it will in effect act as a deterrent to any proposed or planned or perhaps even inadvertent abuse of the public trust. All parliamentarians, after all, whether they be on the government side or the opposition side, have a responsibility to respect the taxpayers and the Canadian public.
After all, we are servants of the public, not the other way around, but unfortunately we have seen time and time again that this government has done just the opposite. Rather than be responsible to the Canadian public, rather than be accountable to the Canadian taxpayer, the government has consistently over the last 12 years been secretive and has acted, as Justice Gomery puts it, on “a culture of entitlement”. In other words, the government feels that what is best for the Liberal Party of Canada is best for all Canadians, but in fact we all know that is absolutely not the case.
The access to information piece of legislation that I am referring to, which I hope will eventually see the light of day and be passed in this assembly, is something that is absolutely vital to ensure that Canadians' interests are protected. Time and time again, we have seen examples of crown corporations engaging in activities that later are found to be perhaps irresponsible and perhaps illegal. Yet we only find out that information through investigation by outside parties. It would appear that it is never this government which brings forward some of the problems that have occurred within crown corporations, agencies or foundations. It takes others to dig out that information.
(1020)
If a set of rules is put in, as the Minister of Justice attempted, to try to make it more difficult to get information on potential wrongdoings or on just incompetence, it is not serving the interests of Canadians and Canadian taxpayers. That is just the reverse of what we need to do.
We all remember what happened in the past few months with a former cabinet minister by the name of Mr. David Dingwall. We remember some of his activities, particularly some of his lobbying activities. Basically he engaged in a lobbying effort that was contrary to the rules. In other words, he accepted a contingency fee from a client based on the success he would have in lobbying for a contract for that particular client. It was contrary to the rules. We found out nothing about that wrongdoing until much later. In fact, the statute of limitations had run out, so we were not able to have Mr. Dingwall prosecuted. We were not able to have Mr. Dingwall punished by this assembly.
Part of the reason we were not able to do it is that we did not know. That is the whole point I am trying to get at. The public has the right to know about the activities of the government and the activities of people who lobby the government. The public has a right to know about all the activities done supposedly on its behalf.
In Mr. Dingwall's case, it gets progressively worse, because from there he was then appointed head of the Canadian Mint. After resigning, he stated for the record when asked about a potential severance that he was “entitled to his entitlements”, which I believe was part of the reason that Justice Gomery put that famous phrase in the Gomery report, saying that the government basically lives under a culture of entitlement, where its members feel they are entitled to either cash or benefits and perks to which in fact they should not be entitled.
Beyond just this culture of entitlement that is so pervasive in this government, there is a culture of secrecy. I believe that if we combine the culture of secrecy and the culture of entitlement, that is a surefire recipe for potential abuse, for corruption and for scandal.
We have seen examples time and time again over the last 12 years where there have been “scandals” perpetrated upon the Canadian public by the government. Whether it be the example of Shawinigate, the HRDC boondoggle or of course the sponsorship scandal, with which all Canadians are so familiar by now, I believe that if there had been an increased ability of Canadians and members of the opposition parties to receive that information through access to information requests, while it at the very least would have stopped some of the abuse, it would also have acted as a deterrent.
Members of the government would have had to--and future governments would have to--think twice before engaging in activities that might be considered either illegal or bordering on illegal, because they would have realized that members of the media, members of the Canadian public and members of the opposition would have the ability to request that information through ATI requests and receive that information in a timely fashion. It would act as a deterrent to future misuses of power. That is something all members should agree upon.
Right now we talk about the government's wish, in the words of the Prime Minister, to increase the ability of the government to increase the access to information. I can only say it has been my experience, in listening to the Prime Minister talk about more openness and more transparency or accountability in government, that once again it is only lip service. The Liberals seem to talk the talk but they never seem to walk the walk.
I point out that on a number of occasions, three that I know of, this very Prime Minister voted against increasing access to information legislation in the House. On the one hand he is saying that it is his commitment to increase the level of accountability and transparency of the government and put to an end things like the sponsorship scandal and other abuses of government power, but we have seen no evidence that the Prime Minister actually believes what he says, because he has voted against changes to the access to information legislation on at least three separate occasions. Not only is that contradictory, it is unconscionable.
(1025)
The Prime Minister has a responsibility as the head of the government, as does any prime minister, to be responsible to the Canadian taxpayer and the public. Yet he has proven absolutely no such knowledge of his responsibility.
Even though the Liberals and the Prime Minister have talked about meaningful access to information reform, they have proven to continuously stall and delay important legislation to this very day. For the life of me, I cannot understand why they would do so.
Let us talk about other areas where access to information serves a useful purpose. I am not talking not about direct scandal and corruption. I am talking about the waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. The most glaring example of how an ATI request has brought to the light the abuse of these dollars is our national gun registry.
My colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville, several years ago repeatedly made access to information requests about the cost of the national gun registry. It took a long time, but eventually he was able to uncover the massive waste of taxpayer dollars that have gone into this boondoggle called the national gun registry. Had he not had the ability to receive this information through ATI requests, even though it was deliberately slow walked by the government, the Canadian public perhaps even today would not have realized the massive cost overruns that the program has cost Canadian taxpayers. The program was originally thought to only cost $2 million. It has escalated to close to $2 billion now.
If there is no more glaring example of why ATI, access to information, requests are necessary to protect the Canadian public and its taxpayers that is it. How many more examples of abuse of taxpayer dollars could we find out about if we had proper ATI legislation today? The problem is we do not.
Many crown corporations are exempted from access to information requests right now. We have heard of abuses by heads of crown corporations, whether they be Canada Post or the Canadian Mint, but we have not yet had the ability to file a formal access to information request and receive information from the government about our questions. Why? Because the access to information legislation does not cover all crown corporations. It does not cover foundations which have billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer money sitting there. Not even the Auditor General can find out what is happening in those foundations. That is a travesty and it should not be allowed to happen.
Clearly, if we were to increase the level of access to information requests to include crown corporations, foundations and basically every public function that deals with taxpayer dollars, democracy would be far better served.
We understand, as per the motion, that there should be exemptions, cabinet confidentiality is one example. However, we can make exemptions as the motion purports. What we need to do is come together on this, realize, understand and agree that without the ability for governments to provide information when requested to the media, to the opposition or, more important, to the Canadian public, we will not be serving those very people who have elected us to this place.
Therefore, I hope every member of this assembly will vote in favour of the motion to show the Canadian public that they understand the meaning of transparency, democracy and accountability.
(1030)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the ad hoc John Bryden committee on access, I am very interested and supportive of a number of aspects. However, I would like to ask the member for clarification.
As he knows, in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on the process for funding of officers of Parliament, there is some concern about the definition of officer of Parliament. The Speaker, the Clerk, the law clerk, counsel, et cetera also are officers of Parliament. For the edification and maybe information of the House and those watching, would the member care to qualify how we define officers of Parliament?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague and I sit on a newly formed committee that will deal with some of those questions, I appreciate the timeliness of his question.
In my definition, the officers of Parliament are the Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. To truly define what should be subject to access to information is something that can be a collaborative approach. It is something that could be determined perhaps in committee.
The main point I am trying to make is simply this, and I hope the hon. member agrees with me. If a person is defined as an officer of Parliament and responsible to Parliament, then that person should also be covered under the access to information guidelines. There should be no secrecy. The cloak of secrecy is something the Canadian public is most concerned about and, frankly, most upset about. I think citizens feel they find out about misuses of their own dollars after the fact rather than in a timely fashion.
Whether they be officers of Parliament, or foundations or arms of government, we can determine those definitions through committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for his remarks.
As members of the committee, both he and I heard the presentation by the Minister of Justice, who came to propose a framework for action and a frame of reference, rather than a bill. This is cause for concern.
We learned from the sponsorship scandal and the Dingwall affair that crown corporations, such as Canada Post, the Royal Canadian Mint and VIA Rail, are not subject to the Access to Information Act. I do not know if the member feels, as I do, that the minister wanted to shield crown corporations that experienced turbulence as a result of the sponsorship scandal or, in the case of the Royal Mint, the Dingwall affair from the Access to Information Act. There is a sense that the minister is uncomfortable. Does the member share my interpretation?
[English]
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the fine work he has produced in the access to information, ethics and privacy committee, one of the committees on which I serve.
He is absolutely right. There are certain exemptions to ATI requests now, and I mentioned that in my opening comments. Crown corporations such as Canada Post and VIA Rail are exempted from these requests. In other words, if people wanted to find out some information, because they had heard there may be something going on, and if they make a formal request for that information, neither Canada Post nor VIA Rail have to respond.
I use those two crown corporations because they were named in the sponsorship scandal. The presidents were political appointments. According to Justice Gomery, they were involved in the sponsorship scandal and must be accountable for their spending. Yet today they are not required to answer any access to information requests.
I talked earlier about the culture of entitlement combined with the culture of secrecy. One wonders how scandals occur. This is how they occur. Yet if they were required to respond to access to information requests, there is a chance those scandals may not have happened in the first place. At the very least, they would understand that they would be subject to ATI requests and it would act as a deterrent to future misuse.
(1035)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for bringing this issue forward today and allowing us, in what may be the twilight days of the 38th Parliament, to revisit what I believe to be one of the most important issues. I also want to note the generosity in his speech when he recognized John Bryden for developing this bill to the point it has reached today.
Would he agree with the current information officer, John Reid, who I also believe is a dedicated champion to freedom of information? He brought forward to the committee a detail that was not in the bill that stands under my name or under the name of Mr. Bryden. It is the issue of the failure to keep adequate documents and the fact that this should be, in and of itself, a punishable offence. Would that be a worthwhile addition to the efforts we have made to date in order to avoid this idea of an oral culture taking over? Should it be an offence to fail to keep adequate documentation?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with what the member for Winnipeg Centre has suggested. We have seen examples in the government where reports have been given orally upon request of the government. It has requested contracts or it has appointed and awarded contracts with the proviso that the reports be only given verbally. That is absolutely unbelievable. We are talking about taxpayer dollars, in some cases hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, yet when awarding the contracts, the government has suggested that it only wants the reports to be delivered orally because it does not want a written record of it just in case, God forbid, it has done something wrong.
I absolutely agree with the member's comments and the suggestion by the Information Commissioner. All reports should be written and if they are not, it should be punishable. It should be an offence.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for this move today. It is certainly timely. I want to ask him a question about the current regulations as they apply to departments now.
For instance, recently the government announced it would close four experimental farms in Canada, one is in my riding. I submitted an access to information request to find out what possibly could be the excuse for these closings. I received the information in response to my request, which is the best tool to do my job. Page after page is blanked out. Page 8 is a letterhead with nothing on it. Pages 25, 26 and 27 are deleted. Page 62 is deleted, and so on.
This is an experimental farm. It has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with our competitiveness. It has nothing to do with regard to people who would risk their jobs. Again, the government has just denied me the information to deal with an issue in my riding.
Could the member explain why these would be exempted and could he suggest what he would do if he were in a position to enhance the regulations to make departments provide the information that we need to do our jobs and to hold them accountable? After all, access to information is totally about accountability. In a case like an experimental farm, we should have access to all the information.
(1040)
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, in direct answer to one of the member's question, I cannot explain why some of the information he requested was not provided. Again, it goes back to what I call the culture of secrecy in which the government engages.
My belief is there should be exemptions. If we are talking about things of a national security nature, or if it is a cabinet confidence or if it is a matter of competitiveness, I agree there should be some exemptions. Beyond that, in my view there is no reason not to share the information.
The example which my hon. colleague has given seems to me a very straightforward request. It would appear to me that there is nothing of a national security nature, or a cabinet confidence nature, or a competitive nature that would prevent the government from giving the member the information he requested. I can only surmise that there has to be another reason for the government wanting to retain that information. Perhaps it is either embarrassing or damaging politically to the government, and that is not reason enough. If any government, of any political stripe, is doing its job and doing it job well, it should never be afraid of political embarrassment because it has done the job right in the first place.
Mr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to elements of the motion put forward by the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, many of which appear to be reflected in the draft provisions prepared by the Information Commissioner for consideration by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I wish to take a brief moment to provide the House with some important background information.
As most members know, the Minister of Justice appeared on April 5 of this year before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. At that time the minister tabled with the committee a discussion paper on access to information reform issues. This paper was presented to the committee with the intent of involving parliamentarians in this important reform process.
During his speech to the committee, the minister made clear his goal. His goal was to present the committee with a paper that described a number of key areas for reform, all of which have proven to be difficult to resolve because of their high level of complexity. This complexity includes the need to balance competing interests of apparently equal importance. During his remarks the minister expressed his hope that the committee would be willing to provide its invaluable assistance with a balancing of interests and the resolution of at least some, if not all, of the difficult issues raised in the discussion paper.
I wish to echo the minister's hope that the committee will indeed become engaged in this fundamentally democratic issue, which is the reform of the Access to Information Act, by hearing the views of interested parties on the questions raised in the paper.
The committee, of which I am a member, chose not to study the issues outlined in the discussion paper. Nor did the committee consult with a wide range of stakeholders whose views are of crucial importance in the area of access reform. Instead, the committee asked the Information Commissioner to prepare legislative proposals to reform the Access to Information Act. At the end of September of this year the deputy information commissioner presented the committee with these legislative proposals.
On October 25 the Information Commissioner himself appeared before the committee to discuss his proposals. During his appearance the Information Commissioner confirmed that he had not consulted certain key stakeholders, by which I mean regular requesters, affected government departments, agents of Parliament, crown corporations and other federal entities, companies that provide sensitive commercial information to the government, and foreign governments that share national security information with us. This may explain why a number of the commissioner's proposals may seem acceptable in concept, but are problematic or even unacceptable as drafted.
For example, the Information Commissioner proposes to clarify that ministers' offices are subject to the act, although it appears that the commissioner's intent is to subject only those records held in ministers' offices that relate to departmental matters. The proposal as is does not clearly exclude records of a personal or political nature. This means that a person could potentially obtain information about a minister's constituency business by means of the Access to Information Act which has nothing to do with ministerial accountability.
As stated in the discussion paper, the government is of the opinion that records in a minister's office should not be covered. The current exclusion of these records allows for the free and frank debates that are required to ensure that the political process functions properly.
Further, confidentiality is required for the offices of ministers to respond to constituents' concerns. Also, ministers and exempt staff are already encouraged by the Prime Minister to proactively disclose information about their travel and hospitality expenses. This information can be accessed on their web pages in a timely manner.
On another note, the Information Commissioner proposes to cover cabinet confidences under the act. Currently, cabinet confidences are excluded from the act. Ministers meet regularly in cabinet to exchange views and opinions on policy matters in order to make decisions on government policy. For this decision making process to be fully effective and in order to foster cabinet solidarity, it is essential that ministers be able to have full and frank exchanges between and among themselves and to have the assurance that these exchanges will be protected. As such, the government believes that the exclusion of cabinet confidences from the act should continue, with one important modification.
(1045)
The government would enshrine in the legislation the right of the Information Commissioner to go to court to challenge definitional issues. This would allow the Information Commissioner to ask the Federal Court to review the government's determination that information sought under an access request fell within the definition of a cabinet confidence and for that reason was properly not accessible pursuant to the act. If the court did not agree with the determination made by the government, the information would no longer be excluded from the application of the act.
The Information Commissioner on the other hand would make cabinet confidences subject to the act, but they would be protected from disclosure by a mandatory exemption. However, this mandatory exemption would have a public interest override attached to it. This means that any cabinet confidence could be disclosed if it were in the public interest to do so. Even leaving aside for the moment the question of whether cabinet confidences should be fully covered by the act, the commissioner's proposal is problematic for a number of reasons.
For example, the Information Commissioner has now consulted with the Privy Council Office to see what the impact would be of having a public interest override applied to cabinet confidences. Do we actually want the Information Commissioner telling the government when it is in the public interest to divulge the deliberations of cabinet?
As well, the addition of cabinet confidences to the act requires consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, the Privacy Act and the other statutes that refer to confidences of cabinet. These necessary amendments have not been considered by the Information Commissioner. This may seem like a small point, but underlines why the commissioner's proposals cannot be adopted without great care being taken.
The Information Commissioner would also broaden the coverage of the act by including all crown corporations. The commissioner would not provide protections for sensitive commercial information. As I mentioned, the Information Commissioner did not even bother to consult with the crowns when drafting this proposal. It is anticipated that many of the crowns would therefore not be satisfied with the Information Commissioner's proposal.
Further, the commissioner would cover all bodies or offices funded in whole or in part from parliamentary appropriations, as well as bodies or offices that provide services in an area of federal jurisdiction that are essential to the public interest as it relates to health, safety or protection of the environment.
I am not certain that the criteria proposed by the Information Commissioner for covering federal entities under the act are the correct criteria. The government considers that the criteria should be related to stable characteristics of the organization, such as function or controlling interest by the government, and not to criteria that relate to fluctuating characteristics such as the level of federal funding. Further again, the commissioner did not consult with federal entities when developing his criteria to add these organizations to the act.
The commissioner would also cover the five agents of Parliament. Related to this, he proposes to create a mandatory exemption for information obtained from another government institution in the course of a lawful investigation. The new exemption proposed by the commissioner would not, however, protect the information created by the agents themselves in the course of their investigations. Apparently the commissioner does not believe that this class of information deserves protection. We disagree and believe that the agents should have an opportunity to give their views.
In addition, the Information Commissioner would amend the exemptions for provisions that protect not only sensitive federal government information, but also the sensitive information of our government allies and businesses. The Information Commissioner would make most exemptions discretionary, which would give governmental institutions a choice as to whether or not they would disclose the information.
Some exemptions function well being discretionary. On the other hand, certain exemptions need to offer a stronger level of protection. For example, section 13, currently a mandatory exemption, protects information received in confidence from governments of other countries. The Information Commissioner proposes to make this exemption discretionary. There is a strong risk that foreign governments would be extremely reluctant to provide sensitive information to Canada without the high level of protection offered by a mandatory, not discretionary, exemption.
(1050)
Almost all exemptions would be subject to any injury test. This means that a government institution could only invoke the exemption if it could prove that the release of the record would cause injury. Again, some exemptions already contain an injury test and function appropriately. However, other exemptions would not work properly with the injury test attached.
For example, the exemption for information covered by solicitor-client privilege currently has no injury test, as is the case in all provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Subjecting solicitor-client records to the injury test would put the federal government at a clear and unjustifiable disadvantage vis-à-vis protecting the legal advice it receives.
Finally, all exemptions would be subject to a public interest override. The implications of such a general override have not been properly assessed. As I have already stated, the Information Commissioner did not consult with government departments and other entities that would be affected by such a sweeping change.
Currently, the act protects confidential commercial information supplied by third parties specifically including trade secrets which are not defined in the act. The Information Commissioner proposes to define trade secrets. This proposal may seem innocuous but we feel that it could be potentially problematic. When a term is codified it becomes frozen in time and may not respond to future developments in jurisprudence. If two years from now the generally accepted view of the term “trade secrets” changed, the Access to Information Act's definition would be outdated and stagnant.
As a whole, the Information Commissioner's changes to the exemption could result in less protection for sensitive information provided often on a voluntary basis to the government. As a result, third parties and other governments might refuse to provide information because they felt that their information was not adequately protected by the exemptions. This could impair the mandate of the departments that rely on those exemptions to protect, for example, information received in confidence from the governments in other countries.
Further, the Information Commissioner proposes to repeal section 24 in schedule II which contains over 70 statutory provisions that prohibit disclosure. Without this exemption, however, some government entities may be unable to protect sensitive commercial and personal information they need to carry out their mandates, as other exemptions may not adequately protect these types of information, or because the protection is not strong enough to assure those providing the information that it will not be disclosed.
For example, the confidentiality clauses in both the Statistics Act and the Income Tax Act are included in schedule II. My concern is that regarding the census, people would be much less willing to provide the government with necessary, but undeniably highly sensitive, personal information without an ironclad guarantee of confidentiality which the commissioner's proposal would not provide.
The Information Commissioner also proposes to legislate a statutory duty to create records. The failure to create such a record would be a criminal offence. This duty does not belong to the Access to Information Act. I understand what the commissioner is trying to get at and I certainly do not deny that the deliberate non-creation of records, an important decision, needs to be addressed, but does it need to be addressed in a law? Is a criminal offence necessary here?
Further, what would the operational requirements be to fulfill such an extensive duty? Would this actually help departments fulfill their duties or would it hinder them? Would a civil servant have to make a formal record for every conversation that he or she had with a colleague about departmental matters? This could be a crushing burden. The answers to these questions are not clear in the Information Commissioner's proposal.
The Information Commissioner would also allow any person regardless of citizenry to make access requests. This universal right of access could have significant costs for certain departments. More study needs to be undertaken on the costing and administrative burden of such a proposal before it can be adopted.
On November 3 a motion was agreed to by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics first, to accept the proposed open government act as drafted by the Information Commissioner's office, and second, to recommend to the House of Commons that the justice minister consider the advisability of introducing legislation in the House based on the Information Commissioner's proposed provisions by December 15 this year.
(1055)
While the minister applauds the movement toward a modernized act that would result in greater openness and transparency within the government, he feels that the Information Commissioner's proposals threaten to disrupt the delicate balance between the need for openness and the need to protect legitimate government interest.
Further, the Information Commissioner did not consult with stakeholders when drafting his bill to reform the Access to Information Act.
Truly balanced legislation that reflects all competing interests and maintains the critical balance between the right of access to government information and the need to protect sensitive information cannot be constructed without full and complete input from all affected parties, including government departments, crown corporations, agents of Parliament, other federal entities, affected third parties and, of course, the media, the Canadian people and foreign countries.
We feel that the access committee, in supporting these proposals, has not taken into account the necessary range of interests and, as a consequence, has acted in haste.
The decision to move ahead with this is that we had spent a period of time with a sense of frustration and a desire to move on. I think there was a desire to do something but in my opinion we had a fair amount of dialogue on the motion that we approved. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre had served notice. We had time to consider it. A lot of consideration took place by all the parties in question and ultimately it was modified.
I think the motion is very positive and there is a willingness to go forward. However, in doing that, it is not something that can be achieved overnight, even though a response has been asked for by December 15.
The Access to Information Act is a quasi-constitutional statute that has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada as a pillar of our democracy. As such, it is imperative that we strike the appropriate balance between openness and confidentiality in access reform. To do this, all elements and angles must be considered before we can move forward with an informed and balanced reform package.
As such, the adoption of the Information Commissioner's proposals to reform the Access to Information Act is premature. The committee needs to call on stakeholders from all sides to discuss potential areas for access reform in order to arrive at a balanced bill that reflects the needs and interests of all affected parties.
As the current Information Commissioner has stated on more than one occasion, the Access to Information Act is a good law. Equally true is that after being in existence for 22 years the act is in need of reform and modernization. On this I know that the Minister of Justice is anxious to proceed with access reform.
However the Access to Information Act cannot successfully be reformed by having people tinker with it in ways that do not recognize the complexities of the act. The Access to Information Act is a fundamental part of our democracy and we are fortunate to have a statutory right to check up on the government. We must not allow this democratic right to be altered in any way that is not entirely thoughtful and cognizant of the all the interests that are at stake.
(1100)
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the comments of the member and they confirm an impression that I have had for many years with respect to the Liberal Party on access to information.
First, what we have here is an excellent motion by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre which asks the government to bring forward legislation that would open up government, make public life in this country more transparent and have greater access to the works and the spending quite frankly of crown corporations and other government institutions.
I think the member's speech was typical of what we have seen for many years. It is a government that is not truly committed to the idea of opening up government, the transparency of government and, indeed, access to information. Members of the Conservative movement in this country over the last number of years have been consistent in that we want to see this.
The member talked about the proposals from the Information Commissioner and said that while the Minister of Justice is anxious to move ahead, he had at least 30 caveats and problems with moving forward. Instead of the member saying that the Minister of Justice is anxious to move ahead, let us cut out the nonsense and say that the minister does not want this to see the light of day. That is the bottom line. If he were anxious he would have brought in legislation at any time over the last couple of years.
In fact, what the Liberals would really like to do is absolutely nothing so that when there is an election they can say that they heard the Gomery recriminations, they read the Gomery report and they will bring in legislation. In that way they actually do not have to do it in any sort of time line. Is that not what is really going on?
Mr. Russ Powers: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think the response of the minister in introducing his proposals determined and reconfirmed the complexity of the legislation and the issues before us.
It is clear that there is a desire of the mover of the motion to bring it forward and ask for our consideration. However, when the minister tabled his report before the committee and in responding to the request of a former member of this House, John Bryden, and the initiative by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, he went through that and determined there were too many unanswered questions and reconfirmed the complexity of the legislation. There were over 30 elements within the act that required clarification so he asked us to consult Outreach, which is why his approach was very prudent.
[Translation]
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member's speech with much attention and interest. I am prompted to react to certain elements of it and to ask certain questions.
The last sentence of his speech was superb. However, the rest of his 17-minute speech made one wonder whether this government really wants transparency, really wants information to be distributed. The argument he presents is a desire to protect information from foreign countries and that relating to trade secrets, no more and no less. It is my impression that we are straying away from what we, as democrats, really want in terms of true transparency.
We want to take steps to ensure that this is a far better informed society and one in which we will be able to know more about what departments are doing with our money. Unfortunately, the examples are legion. As the hon. member pointed out, the Access to Information Act has not been revised for a very long time. Amendments are therefore very much in order. This must not, however, be done according to the conditions set by the government, since some serious questions can be asked about transparency and trust as far as it is concerned.
I would like to ask the hon. member to review for our benefit the real reasons behind our having an Access to Information Act. It must not be limited or overly amended. Judging from what he has said, the result will be to further hamper those who want the government to be both more transparent and more responsible.
(1105)
[English]
Mr. Russ Powers: Mr. Speaker, Parliament itself is responsible for legislation and we have a right to ask those particular questions.
As things have evolved, I think everyone recognizes that there is a need for increased transparency. The legislation does require a modernization and an upgrade. I indicated earlier that the legislation is 22 years old and no substantial changes have been made in the way we do business. Not too many years ago we did not have access to emails or the degree of telephone calls or communications. Just for those reasons there is a reason to modernize it. Not only Parliament but the public is asking for transparency and access.
The challenge we have, whether it is the doings or the operations of government, it is like that in our public lives. In other words, in dealings that I am doing on, say, a real estate deal or buying my house or things such as that, there are elements of that business that I realize rightly should be kept confidential. What we need to do, and I certainly think it is the proposal by the minister and it is very clearly the intent of the Information Commissioner, is to de-minimize those but ensure the protection is there.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in his last example, the member used a curious example of the sale and transaction of a home. I have just come from meetings involving the sale of a Crown corporation in my riding, Ridley Terminals, which is happening under increasingly suspicious terms. We cannot gain access to the government's handling of this very important file which is creating all sorts of uncertainty. All the while, the distinction does not seem to be made for the government between what is a private transaction, which is the sale of the hon. member's home, and the use of public funds in a transparent and open process. We cannot pry from the government the information required.
We heard testimony after testimony from the Information Commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner. Thank goodness for Ms. Fraser's diligence in pursuing what was blown open by opposition parties and the sponsorship scandal that came from it to show the Canadian public what was happening with their tax dollars.
Why after 12 years does the hon. member and others in the party talk about that sense of urgency they have toward transparency when they have had more than a decade in which to create that transparency? Why after so much time are Canadians meant to believe that in cases like the sale of the Ridley Terminal or other cases that have gone on before the government, they should have any faith in the government's sincerity and not believe just PMO rhetoric?
Mr. Russ Powers: Mr. Speaker, there is no disagreement on this side that Crown corporations should come under the jurisdiction. That has created some problems and certainly the move forward to the open government act and the suggestions made by the Information Commissioner will do that.
The fact is that there are ongoing negotiations. I can only surmise what they are because I am not privy to them. The hon. member is certainly more privy to the details of the dealings.
What the legislation would clearly define, which would ultimately become the property of this House, is what should be maintained in a confidential manner and what should be available to whom and when. There are just too many partners involved in this to go in and change it overnight at the whim of a carte blanche motion.
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion by the Conservative Party. A little background is needed to understand how, among other things, the Conservative Party came to table this motion today.
It is my pleasure to provide this background. It all began with the creation of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in this Parliament. Why was it established? Following the revelation of the sponsorship scandal, which I will address in part during my remarks, the Liberal government decided in the latest election to establish an independent committee to question officers who are supposed to be independent officers. The Information Commissioner is supposed to be one. No decision has been reached on the manner of their appointment, but it is hoped that the transparency of the Liberal Party will result in all parties being invited to appoint the Information Commissioner so as to guarantee his independence.
The background means that the access to information file is not new. I was surprised by my Liberal colleague's presentation. He is right. The act has not been amended for 23 years. Still, some Liberal members of this House have introduced bills. They include hon. member Bryden, who introduced Bill C-201 in the preceding Parliament, before the sponsorship scandal was revealed. At the time, there was already a certain Liberal intent in this Parliament, since the MP introducing C-201 was a Liberal.
Then, at the start of the present Parliament, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who had the privilege of introducing the first piece of legislation, had the unfortunate idea of negotiating with the Minister of Justice. A number of other bills could have been introduced, but his first thought was to introduce a bill to amend the Access to Information Act, which was practically identical to the bill tabled in the previous Parliament by MP Bryden. So he had the unfortunate idea of negotiating with the Minister of Justice, who told him not to table a private member's bill, since the government was going to table a bill to amend the Access to Information Act and especially to make it more transparent.
I agree with my committee colleagues. In order for there to be transparency, all government agencies, corporations and foundations needed to be subject to the Access to Information Act. We had just gone through the sponsorship scandal, which we are still going through. We are well aware that Canada Post and Via Rail are not subject to the act. I will spare you the indiscretions of their presidents, the money they spent to promote Canada and the commissions paid to the agencies, which were in turn handed over to the Liberal Party. That is what happened. Those who elected a large majority of Bloc Québécois members in Quebec and Liberal members in the rest of Canada expected more transparency, especially since the Prime Minister said he wanted to champion transparency.
The reality is that we, the newly formed committee, called the Minister of Justice as a witness. We asked him, since he had reached an agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, to introduce a bill. But what he brought forward was a framework for action. We realized that this framework addressed what the minister wanted and was not a bill. As my colleague was saying, after the presentation by the Information Commissioner, who said he was prepared to introduce a bill, the unanimous reaction in committee was to ask him to go ahead. We asked him whether he was prepared to introduce a bill that reflected his view of ideal access to information legislation. At the request of the committee and despite the fact that the minister did not want a bill, the commissioner went ahead with it. The minister instead wanted us to discuss a framework. Former MP Mr. Bryden gave a presentation in committee and shared his thoughts, as did our colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who was prepared to introduce a private members' bill. We welcomed the minister, who told all those people he would introduce a bill, but in the end submitted a framework for action. Accordingly, we asked the commissioner to introduce a bill.
(1115)
This is what the Conservative Party is basing itself on today in its opposition day. I will use this document, which was produced by the Information Commissioner.
It is a bill in due form with explanations and everything that is needed and which was prepared by the Information Commissioner. So I am surprised today to hear my Liberal colleague tell us that, ultimately, this is not what was requested. And yet we were unanimous.
We asked the Information Commissioner to introduce this bill, which is not a framework and which we are using today for discussion purposes. It is what we are relying on as we make our interventions and hear from witnesses in committee. All that is done when we have a bill. When we have a framework for action or frame of reference, there is a discussion before the bill is introduced. So the committee was not fooled. Even the Liberal members followed us in committee.
We do not want any more procrastination now. We want a bill that we could discuss, that we could call witnesses on in order to finish with the access to information file. We think that the Minister of Justice just wants to gain time so that people cannot ask any questions of crown corporations, including Canada Post and VIA Rail, all the foundations and all these agencies that manage the assets and much of the money of Quebeckers and Canadians. People might ask them questions about how they spend this money.
We certainly would have liked the presidents of VIA Rail and Canada Post to account to all the people who had questions for them, but that was impossible. It is still impossible today. And in view of the Liberal position, it will continue to be impossible because the Liberals do not want to act. They want to gain time before amending the Access to Information Act. Why? Because of the sponsorship scandal, because if people start asking questions, they will find other things and because, ultimately, the senior executives of crown corporations are all government political appointees.
So they had better not try to tell us that the government, in an effort to be transparent, intends to resolve the democratic deficit. Forget it. We saw this recently: the current Prime Minister appointed Dennis Dawson—his political organizer in the Quebec City region—to the Senate. It has not stopped and never will. This Liberal Party is using public funds to win elections and it will never stop. We saw this yesterday. It is using money belonging to all Quebeckers and all Canadians in order to win elections.
This is a perfect example of this Liberal political corruption. It is even worse to make indirect use of something no one else would dare say or do and to make it systemic: the Liberals created a system. We see it today in the Liberal Party's answer with regard to access to information and transparency. Ultimately, all the Information Commissioner wanted to provide—I will read the text—is a bill that was supposed to be transparent. He has called it the “Open Government Act”. The Information Commissioner no longer wants to call it the “Access to Information Act” but rather the “Open Government Act”.
In theory, the government, which wants to be the government of transparency, should be applauding but it is not. Today, we are being told that we have not examined it enough, subjected it to enough questions or called enough witnesses. The problem is that we cannot even begin to call witnesses because the bill has not yet been introduced. That is how the Liberal Party works.
The commissioner presented his position, when he appeared before our committee on October 25, 2005. So it is public and in no way secret. Here are a few excerpts from his speech:
|
This committee asked me, before the summer break, to provide a proposed reform bill and I commend the committee for its determination to ensure that we have, in Canada, the strongest possible right of access to government-held information. Members from all parties understand that transparency of government is essential to accountable government. |
Obviously, we unanimously asked the commissioner to provide what he considered to be the most appropriate bill possible. Thus, he has proposed a bill entitled the Open Government Act.
The following extract pertains to C-201. This was MP Bryden's bill. Members will recall what I said earlier. A Liberal MP introduced a bill before the sponsorship scandal. So, at the time, there was an incipient desire among the Liberals to really resolve the access to information problem.
The commissioner continued as follows:
|
My proposal, like Bill C-201, expands the number of institutions to be covered by the act; it reduces the scope of secrecy permitted by the act, it expands the powers of oversight by the commissioner in the courts, and it increases incentives for compliance and penalties for non-compliance. |
(1120)
The intent is to strengthen the Access to Information Act and in particular to have it apply to all the corporations not covered by it, including VIA Rail, the National Arts Centre, the CBC, Export Development Canada, the Canada Post Corporation, Atomic Energy Canada Limited, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and all foundations. As this money belongs to the public, the aim of the commissioner is to give the public the right to question those who manage it. In my opinion, this needs to be done especially when the managers are Liberal agents. And this has been the case for the past 13 years.
The commissioner continued in his presentation with the following statement, “None of these improvements can ensure accountability through transparency unless there is a foundation of professional record-keeping by public officials”. One of the important parts found as well in today's motion by the Conservative Party, is for officials to keep records. He went on to say, “The most fundamental, pivotal proposal I am making is that it be a legal duty to create appropriate records to be imposed and that an offence be created for failure to fulfil that duty”.
He then talked about Bill C-201. As I was saying, Mr. Bryden's bill was introduced before the sponsorship scandal. This scandal has also revealed that documents vanished and that it was impossible to find them. The commissioner said so, “Although this latter provision did not appear in Bill C-201, there is universal acknowledgement of the reality that the right of access is being rendered meaningless by a growing oral culture in government”. In other words, we no longer write anything down, we just talk. That is how it works. We no longer write to each other for fear of getting caught. That is how the Liberal Party of Canada operates and manages public funds. These are the very words of the Information Commissioner, an independent officer appointed by the Liberals by the way.
He continued by saying:
|
The failure by public officials to be professional in creating records is also undermining the work of Parliament, the Auditor General, the National Archivist, the police and judicial inquiries. Conducting governance by winks and nods simply leads to poor decision-making, inept administration and corruption. |
In other words, the Liberals' paperless mode of government can lend itself to corruption. It is not surprising that we had the sponsorship scandal. The decision had already been made to no longer keep documents but instead to just talk about things and make decisions based on that.
The Information Commissioner is the one who carries out investigations when questions arise. He noted what was going on only in the departments he needs to oversee, not the crown corporations headed by appointed Liberal Party cronies.
Further on in his annual report, he grades the departments, including the Privy Council Office. Hon. members need to understand that this is the body that gives all departments access to information, and supervises them. It got an F. This means that it no longer responds to over 30% of access to information requests. It is all very well for PCO spokespersons to say that they are short of staff and pressed for time, but the result is the same: they are not responding to requests.
As for delays and denials, the commissioner wrote the following on page 10 of his annual report:
|
The main causes of delay appear to be: |
|
Inadequate resources in ATIP offices; |
|
Chronic tardiness in the retrieval of records due to poor records management and staff shortages in offices—; |
|
Difficulties encountered during the consultation process with third parties and other government institutions; |
|
Top-heavy approval processes, including too much "hand-wringing" over politically sensitive requests and too frequent hold-ups in ministers’ offices; and |
|
Poor communication with requesters to clarify access requests. |
I repeat, one of the five reasons is “top-heavy approval processes, including too much 'hand-wringing' over politically sensitive requests and too frequent hold-ups in ministers’ offices”. In addition to documents not being available to the commissioner when he comes to do his job—because there are oral discussions rather than written documents—ministers and deputy ministers intercept requests in advance, hold on to them and examine whether they might pose a risk. When they see that they may be dangerous, they are not processed.
(1125)
It is as simple as that. They interfere and provide no answers. It happens only in departments that fall within the purview of the Information Commissioner. There was no talk of new corporations that should be subject to it.
A certain regime has thus become entrenched in Liberal governance. It has existed for decades now, with the result that this entire oral system leads to corruption, as the Commission so aptly put it. This is what happens. We should not be surprised at these realizations, nor at the answers that the Liberals give us today, nor the fact that they are not prepared to review the Access to Information Act expeditiously. They simply do not want to.
The Minister of Justice has decided that we would have a framework that would allow us to have discussions and call witnesses before we have a bill, which would also be subject to debate and would be referred back to committee where witnesses could still be heard. That is the Liberal culture: it does not stop, it is the same thing day after day.
Once again, in our view, as far as transparency is concerned, the Liberals did not display it prior to the sponsorship scandal, nor during that scandal, and they are still not doing so after it. All this means is that, whether we are talking about Chrétien or the new Prime Minister, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. That will not change and will never change as long as the Liberals are in power.
I will list the problems with access to information that even Judge Gomery had to deal with. We must not forget that the government sent a number of censored documents to the Gomery commission on the sponsorship scandal and refused to forward a number of crucial documents to the commission charged with investigating the case of Maher Arar.
How have we come to be defending an amendment to the Access to Information Act today? It is because we have examples, which we will list. The government misled Parliament in its answer to a written question on the order paper. In its initial response in February 2003, the government estimated at $137,500 the amount paid to the Prime Minister’s family business over 10 years. Following protests from the opposition, the government revised its answer in January 2004, bringing the total amount of federal grants to Canada Steamship Lines to $161 million.
These things are happening in Parliament. The culture that is entrenched in this government is an oral and figures-based culture. Obviously, figures talk. Since I am being told I have two minutes left, I will make full use of them.
We asked Parliament, the government and the then Minister of Finance who was in charge of the assistance programs to tell us how much Canada Steamship Lines had received in government grants. The answer to this question on the order paper was $137,500. Finally, after much research, the opposition said that this was not possible, that it had found other amounts in other areas. The government changed its position and came back in January 2004 to answer the question from February 2003—11 months earlier—and indicated that $161 million had been paid to the Prime Minister's company. This is how things work.
Clearly, the antics of André Ouellet, president of Canada Post, Michel Vennat of the Business Development Bank of Canada, Marc LeFrançois and VIA Rail were not enough. These people appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and before the Gomery commission. Following their testimony, it became obvious that they had wasted public funds, on sponsorships and commissions paid to firms that are all named in the Gomery report, that were part of the sponsorship scandal and that lined their pockets. Now, after all that, these firms, VIA Rail, Canada Post and the Business Development Bank of Canada are not subject to the Access to Information Act.
As a result, the public, which wants to know whether these executives may have skimmed a little off the top or what expenditures they did make, cannot find out. It is out of the question. The government is saying no. It is rejecting something a Liberal member had proposed in Bill C-201 even before the sponsorship scandal. It is rejecting what the member for Winnipeg Centre wanted to do, which was introduce a private member's bill, in view of the promise that the minister was about to introduce a bill.
The government has merely created a basic framework, with the emphasis on the word “framework". In other words, you were supposed to stay within the “framework”.
(1130)
It had already anticipated what we could not do.
Today, the Bloc Québécois will support the Conservative Party motion. It is a motion about transparency, and we want real transparency legislation when it comes to access to information. The public must be able to ask questions and obtain answers. We no longer have faith in this Liberal government, which has been in power for too long and has filled one too many pockets.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics where this particular motion was developed and discussed extensively, so he might be able to shed some light on some of the underlying questions that have been raised.
The motion refers to expanding the coverage of the act to include all foundations and all organizations that spend taxpayers' dollars. We understand the intent here. However, we have found some concerns in other legislation about, for instance, having the Auditor General audit foundations where the foundations were not exclusively or solely funded by the federal government. There are other partners such as private interests, provincial interests, and other stakeholders in which case the legislation could not apply. That is with regard to even our current foundations of which there are a number of examples. What would we do if there were foundations that were not solely under the funding of the Government of Canada?
With regard to organizations that spend taxpayers' dollars, I assume by that broad statement that every province that receives transfer payments from the Government of Canada and therefore spends taxpayers' dollars would also be subject to the same extensive scrutiny. I am not sure if that was the intent. Maybe the member could comment on that as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the intention—I trust—of the commissioner and the committee is that every time the people put their money into a federal body, they will be able to ask questions about it.
The bill introduced by the commissioner does, however, provide guidelines regarding trade secrets. Obviously, there is no intention of giving competitors the opportunity to ask questions and obtain trade secrets. That is understandable, and there are guidelines.
What we want is to ensure that, when the government invests the people's money into an agency, the public will be well aware that it can ask questions about what is being done with that money. I am not talking of money invested by private businesses. They will do as they please with their money, but we want to know where the public's money has gone.
That is what the Access to Information Commissioner and the majority of the committee are proposing to us at present, and I hope it will be accepted. We find it inconceivable that the people's investments do not entitle them to ask questions of those administering the money. This must be possible. We do know, however, that there must be certain guidelines, for instance where trade secrets and national security are concerned. We are aware of this and they are included in the bill.
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to first of all congratulate my colleague for his fair and apt presentation on the Access to Information Act. He has shown a great deal of perspicacity. I have a question for him.
This Liberal government has been in power since 1993. It administers public funds. Now it is 2005. This government has had to deal with several financial scandals, including the sponsorship scandal, where money was transferred in a special way to federal institutions at the time of the 1995 referendum. Still today, we note a degree of hesitation on the part of the government to justify all of its institutional spending.
This is my question for my colleague: in the aftermath of the many scandals we are all familiar with, what interest can this government still have, now, in wanting to conceal or deny public access to all f the facts about spending by the various institutions currently administered by it?
(1135)
Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I will first thank my colleague for his question. My answer is quite simple. It is nothing more than Liberal electioneering and opportunism.
By not amending the act, they are maintaining the oral and secret culture revealed by the Information Commissioner. He has said the act must be amended quickly. The most urgent requirement is for the government to keep spending records. The oral culture has led to corruption. When this sort of culture is practised for Liberal partisan purposes, corruption follows. No other reaction is possible. This is the only way to understand it.
In addition, they try to make it impossible for people to question how the president of VIA Rail or Canada Post or the Business Development Bank of Canada manages taxpayers' money. They make it impossible for people to criticize their chums appointed to these positions, who have been replaced by other chums. In fact, access to information means access accorded the public. They can ask questions. We can do so as MPs, but ordinary individuals can ask a question and receive an answer on a matter they have heard about. People are often interested in local and regional matters, such as VIA Rail, Canada Post or the Business Development Bank of Canada and would like to know why so-and-so got money or what happened.
Given their desire to maintain this ongoing culture of compensation for their friends, they do not want to amend the Access to Information Act. This is the answer I have for my colleague.
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too heard my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel take part in the debate on the motion to amend the Access to Information Act. Some comments are very disturbing. We have often heard such statements in the House, but now they are becoming much more specific.
In light of the remarks made by my colleague, I want to ask him a question. In his opinion, does the government secrecy that the Liberal government loves to surround itself with take precedence over the public interest, the right to know and the desire for transparency? My colleague seems to be indicating that, on numerous occasions and in many respects, the Liberal government has violated these great principles of access to information and the public interest before all else. He mentioned, in particular, that appointments are often made without any consultations or transparency whatsoever. As a result, members who lose their seats suddenly ascend to new heights or the Prime Minister's Office; they are appointed to very important and well-paid positions. On occasion, they are appointed to the Senate; Liberal candidates who were defeated in the last election become senators, in repudiation of the people's decision.
Does this motion being introduced today, which my colleague supports, speak to this need to sanction the public's democratic legitimacy? Is this motion, which was introduced by the Conservatives and which the Bloc supports, a way for citizens—especially Quebeckers, since they are our first priority, but also Canadians—to obtain the right to transparency and an indispensable honesty in the management of public matters? Does this motion suggest some possible ways to improve the public well-being?
Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Louis—Hébert for his question. Indeed, this bill will put an end to the culture of secrecy. As was mentioned, secrecy means corruption, or a culture of corruption, unless questions can be asked regarding the organizations and the major issues.
My colleague is quite right to say so and has said so politely. Ms. Scherrer is at the PMO and Dennis Dawson is now a senator. Again, this is a flagrant example of Chrétien-style political partisanship adopted by the current Prime Minister, who was finance minister under Chrétien. It is the same culture. It has not changed, but gotten worse. We have examples.
Some things are not easy to do. Yesterday one young woman in Quebec, Nathalie Simard, stood up and made a statement indicating that the person who mistreated her received a lot of money from Radio-Canada. That was mentioned yesterday. Yet, Radio-Canada is not subject to the Access to Information Act. There may be many people asking questions today. What happened? Did Radio-Canada know about it? Were any rules bent in awarding some of the contracts? People may have some questions. The problem is that the Liberal Party defends the current legislation on this crown corporation.
We will never get any information from Radio-Canada about what happened to Nathalie Simard or to the Simard family. We will never know because this information is not accessible under the Access to Information Act. Therefore, we must be very vigilant.
Quebeckers are proud to have as MPs men and women who represent them by telling the Liberal government that we no longer accept their corrupt way of running things. If it wants transparency, then we will give it legislation on transparency, as proposed by the Access to Information Commissioner, whom we supported and who was recommended by an independent advisor. Today we are proud to defend this bill.
(1140)
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for introducing today's motion and giving us the opportunity in perhaps the twilight days of this Parliament to debate such a critically important issue for the health and well-being of our democracy.
I do not think I am overstating things by saying that freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes. The single most significant thing we could do in this 38th Parliament would be to amend in a significant way our access to information laws and to strengthen the concept of freedom of information in our society.
I also compliment and thank some of the other members of Parliament who are dedicated to this goal. My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has been a tireless champion of this issue. My colleague from Mississauga South, who I am sure will be speaking to this motion, has dedicated much of his career to trying to drag the government kicking and screaming to embrace the concept of a regime of freedom of information.
It is fitting that other members have paid tribute to former member of Parliament Mr. John Bryden. Without exaggeration, he dedicated literally most of his time here as a parliamentarian to this issue. He was a member of Parliament for 10 years or so. Coming from the background of a journalist and an academic, he was a tireless crusader and champion on this very subject.
I cannot imagine the frustration he must have felt as he raised this issue over and over again with his own caucus colleagues, with his own Liberal government bureaucrats and was thwarted, undermined and frustrated every step of the way. Yet unilaterally, he formed his own ad hoc parliamentary committee of members of Parliament when he could not get his own government to embrace this concept. It is fitting that we recognize John Bryden today. He pushed the envelope as far as he possibly could within the limitations as a Liberal member of Parliament. He then crossed the floor thinking he might have better luck with the official opposition. He then sat as an independent and now he is no longer with us.
Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. The freedom of information laws are the sunlight of politics, the natural enemy of the culture of secrecy that allows corruption to flourish. It is hard to overstate what a central place freedom of information holds in our political structure. The members of the House of Commons justice committee spoke about Canada's Access to Information Act as holding a similar significance to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court recently referred to our access to information laws as quasi-constitutional. That is what we are dealing with. That is the weight and import of the debate that we are having here today.
Clearly though, too many senior officials in Ottawa subscribe to the views of Yes Minister's Sir Humphrey who said to his boss, “You can have good government or you can have open government, but Mr. Prime Minister, you cannot have both”. That seems to be the prevailing wisdom of the Liberal government today.
While transparency and accountability have been the buzzwords of the day in Ottawa, there are clearly many who resist them in practice. As I have learned in my exercise along these lines, very few government insiders are truly fans of the public's right to know. When members of the public submit requests for government information, too often these bureaucrats undermine the intent of the Access to Information Act by imposing unreasonable delays, performing inadequate searches, or charging prohibitive fees, and by opposing the expansion of the act as we have seen with the efforts of Mr. Bryden.
(1145)
It is my greatest regret in my political life to date that I had it within my hands to change the access to information laws. I will back up a little. When John Bryden ceased being a member of Parliament, I adopted his bill and re-submitted it under my own name. In fact, it was the first private member's bill introduced in this Parliament, Bill C-201, a substantial overhaul of Canada's access to information laws.
Then, as fate and fortune would have it, my name was drawn in the private members' lottery and a bill in my name would be debated at a very early stage. I believe I was fourth in the order of precedence. Not only did I have this bill to which I was very committed listed in my name but my name came up in the order of precedence.
This would have been back in November 2004. We could have started debating that bill. It could have gone to committee where it could have been amended and improved, but there would have been more than ample time to actually put in place changes to the Access to Information Act. It would have changed the way we did business forever in this country.
There was widespread support. Not only did we have the support of all the opposition parties for that bill because of the work that John Bryden had done in the previous Parliament, but we also had the support of 40 or 50 courageous Liberal backbenchers who could not live with themselves if they did not support this initiative. We were well on our way to passing Bill C-201, having it become law and implementing it.
At that time the Liberal government, realizing the horse was out of the barn and this was going to become law, came to me and said it was going to do this anyway, that it was going to do it better and there was no stopping this idea whose time had come. The government said it would introduce everything that was in my bill and then some and if there was anything it forgot in the draft copy, I would have a role in making it at least as good as the one I proposed and maybe better. That was the government's commitment to me, that if I withdrew my bill, it would introduce a comparable bill which would go ahead.
That gave me the opportunity to choose another initiative to which I am dedicated, the bankruptcy bill. That was my choice for my private member's initiative. It was a tempting offer but, as I say, it became the biggest regret in my professional political life to date. Trusting the Liberals was the biggest single mistake that I have made in my political life to date because as we now know, in the fullness of time, they had no intention of introducing a bill.
Frankly, I do not blame the Minister of Justice. I think the Minister of Justice was sincere when he came to me and promised absolutely that there would be such legislation, but I think he underestimated the push back from the senior bureaucrats. I think he underestimated how much the Liberals actually opposed the idea of open government and freedom of information. I think he underestimated just how much the bureaucrats resist this type of thing.
Imagine if things had unfolded as planned. Many times in other speeches today we have heard people recognize the contribution that the Auditor General makes in keeping us on the straight and narrow. We rely heavily on the Office of the Auditor General to investigate and unearth misuse and maladministration of funds, not so much the actual malfeasance of the sponsorship scandal.
Imagine, instead of having one Auditor General that we had 30 million auditors general. That would be the effect of having true freedom of information laws, because every engaged citizen could play a role in keeping government honest. Government would not dare deviate from the straight and narrow because it would know it would be under the scrutiny of 30 million Canadians and a free press that would be able to analyze and assess the inner workings of government. Instead of one Auditor General we could have had 30 million auditors general and that would be good government.
Speaking of the role a free press plays in our efforts toward transparency and accountability, it would be wrong not to recognize the significance that the current Access to Information Act played in unearthing the sponsorship scandal, which will ultimately bring down the government in a few short days.
(1150)
We should acknowledge that it was a simple access to information request that revealed the original scam, as it were, the fraud that was sponsorship scandal. It was in fact a Globe and Mail journalist, Daniel Leblanc, who originally filed that access to information request. Further requests were filed by people like Campbell Clark. I believe there were half a dozen journalists involved, including Brian Laghi and a number of other journalists. We should express our gratitude to them for helping keep government accountable.
All too often now when access to information requests are filed we get back a pile of blacked out pages. The information is incomplete. There is edited information. That information is rationed out to us as if we have to beg for it in the first place and then somebody else arbitrarily decides that the information will not be released.
The recommendations put forward in the bill that would have been law by now, Bill C-201, would have pretty much embraced the opposition motion that we are debating today. It would have allowed coverage of the act to all crown corporations. To me it is crazy that only about 60 of Canada's 246 crown agencies and corporations are subject to the Access to Information Act. I can get all the information I want on the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, but I cannot get any information on VIA Rail or Canada Post. The places that have billion dollar budgets are excluded. We have all seen what that can lead to.
Again, it is this culture of secrecy that allows corruption to flourish. VIA Rail and Canada Post were directly implicated in the sponsorship scandal. That is why their CEOs' heads had to roll. At the Royal Canadian Mint, people are getting fired right, left and centre because of their role. If we had had adequate access to information laws in place, we could have been spared not only the financial loss associated with the sponsorship scandal but all the grinding humiliation associated with it as well as the loss of the confidence of the Canadian public in our institutions.
Let me say again that amid an otherwise thin legislative agenda from this government, the single most important thing it could have done would have been a meaningful reform of access to information law.
Canada's information officer, John Reid, put this in one of his many presentations to Parliament. We should pause here to say that another champion of freedom of information is our current information officer, Mr. John Reid. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for having the courage to use his office to call upon government to do what is right. Government has to listen. In one of his appeals to Parliament, he said, “In one way or another, all the checks and balances designed to limit abuses of government power” are meaningless unless there is “access by outsiders to governments' insider information....A government, and a public service, which holds tight to a culture of secrecy is a government and public service ripe for abuse”.
Truer words have never been spoken. We should acknowledge that Mr. Reid has put forward this substantial document and has brought it to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics as a recommendation for reform to the bill. It goes beyond what Bill C-201 was calling for. I am the first to admit that Bill C-201 was not perfect.
One of the key and fundamental points that Mr. Reid brings to the table is that if we are going to allow better access to government documents, we must make sure that those government documents do in fact exist. In other words, one of the points he brought forward under his idea and under his bill, the open government act, is that it would become an offence to fail to keep adequate records. The last thing we want to do is drive information underground so that the government can avoid an access to information request being filed. In other words, we need documentation.
(1155)
We should hearken back to what Auditor General Sheila Fraser first said when she was commenting on the sponsorship scandal. What struck her first as they began their audit investigation was the “appalling lack of documentation”. I believe those were the words she used.
There are two significant quotes of hers. One was that senior government officials “broke just about every rule in the book”. Second only to that, and what rings true to me, is the phrase “appalling lack of documentation”. People who do not want to be caught do not put anything in writing, so as we move forward with calling for amendments to this act, we must be cognizant of the fact that it has to be considered an offence to fail to record significant information.
I know that people who are more knowledgeable than I have dealt with this bill in great detail, but I have become a convert. In the time that I have spent studying this bill and working on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I am a vice-chair, I have come to the conclusion that this is the single most important thing we can do.
By extension, Canada has a role to play in helping to clean up developing nations and democracies of the culture of corruption that holds those countries back. We also have to put our own backyard in order first before we have any credibility on the international stage. As we lend help and support to developing nations, we should first put together a transparency and accountability regime that we can be proud of and point to by example.
In actual fact, we have fallen in the international standard. I believe there is a chart kept by Transparency International, in which Canada enjoyed at one time the number four position in the world as being the most open government. We have fallen way behind. I believe Canada fell 16 positions after the sponsorship scandal was revealed.
The international community knows that there are transparency issues in this country. That has an effect on confidence, both investor confidence and the confidence of the electorate. There is a profound number of layers and levels to the benefits associated with genuine freedom of information and access to information.
It would take a combination of courage and self-confidence for this government to move forward with meaningful access to information amendments, but I can tell members that the benefits we would reap would be immeasurable. Not only is there the finding and revealing of evidence of corruption that may from time to time take place, there is also just the simple maladministration or abuse of funds. That may not be criminal, but revealing it may in fact be a cost saving measure. Many of these issues that could be revealed by tighter scrutiny would be an ultimate cost saving.
The strengthening of the health and well-being of our democracy would be one of those less tangible benefits that we could all enjoy. Restoring the trust of a jaded electorate is one of those benefits that is difficult to measure.
As Mr. Bryden dedicated much of his career to this issue and champions such as John Reid are calling upon Parliament to address this issue without haste, it is fitting that in the twilight days of the 38th Parliament the House of Commons should be seized with this important and compelling issue.
I wish there were more Liberal members present to take note of the appeals made by the majority of the members of the House of Commons today. I can only hope that this issue will resonate from this day forward into the next Parliament. Perhaps the first bill introduced in the next Parliament will also be comprehensive reform of the Access to Information Act. It could end up being the most significant and lasting legacy of this or subsequent Parliaments.
(1200)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly like the member's analogy of the sunshine; it is certainly the best disinfectant I know of as well.
The member may also be interested to know that I did communicate with Mr. Bryden during the member's speech to let him know that the member who is championing Mr. Bryden's bill was speaking and he could tune into CPAC and watch. Members may be interested to know that he said he unfortunately could not watch the debate because, as he said, incredible though it may seem, “I am still on antenna”. He does not get cable. I suggested to him that he should go to the web and watch the simulcast on CPAC.
I have a very simple question for the member, because I know how active he has been on this at the ad hoc committee that John started with us, as well as on his advocacy with regard to Bill C-201. With regard to the exemptions, the overrides, the confidentiality and the concept of public interest, since the member has worked so hard on this, could he help the House understand the extent to which serious consideration must be given to legitimate exemptions because of the necessity for confidentiality, privacy or national interest? At what point do we cross the line such that the public interest becomes a greater priority for parliamentarians?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the member's comment, I am wondering if later today in the opposition and Liberal lobbies we could pass the hat for Mr. Bryden and take up a collection so that he too may join in the great cable network that enlightens the land. Perhaps he does not subscribe to cable by choice, though, and maybe it is just as well to turn CPAC off from time to time.
My colleague's question is a fair and legitimate question. Nobody should underestimate how complex the issue of freedom of information is, because by its very definition it treads upon other rights that we enjoy. We very much treasure our right to privacy, and someone else's right to know may trample on my right to be private. Those are issues that we certainly have to address.
The Information Commissioner himself may be the adjudicating party that rules on whether an access to information request is legitimate. On issues of national security, there should be no question. Issues that are commercially sensitive must be recognized as well. In other words, Canada Post should not be excluded in its entirety from access to information laws, but perhaps in regard to the aspect of its business that deals with competition in the courier delivery service, it would not be fair for its direct competition to have access to confidential commercial information.
(1205)
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. member opposite revolves around the phony assertion by the justice minister that there is some sense of urgency to do something about access to information reforms.
I want to draw a parallel to another issue that is very important to the member across the way: the whistleblower legislation. Of course we saw that whistleblower legislation came about only after the Auditor General's scathing report and the prospect of a spring election just over a year ago. Nothing had been done for the better part of a decade to protect or reward whistleblowers and then suddenly there was a sense of urgency, but it took a looming election and a hand caught in the cookie jar for it to come about.
Now we see a very similar phony concept of a sense of urgency. I am interested in the hon. member's opinion on whether we see this sense of urgency only because the Liberal government could be staring at an election in the very near future and is concerned about what it would look like to go to the public if it were not supporting the public's right to participate in holding the government accountable through ATI.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone here recognizes that the federal election has pretty much started already. Everyone is out of the starting gate. The starting pistol has been fired. We are seeing the Liberal government enjoying a multiple conversion on the road to Damascus regarding tax cuts, regarding virtually everything that is good and decent within a democracy.
I am concerned that should another party form the government in a minority or a majority, will the commitment to access to information follow from opposition status to government? No ruling government seems willing to accept the true scrutiny that comes from true transparency and accountability.
I am not questioning how sincere my colleagues in opposition are about this, but the government certainly was unwilling to introduce true accountability and transparency.
[Translation]
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I like having official government documents to tie into. Yesterday, we received and heard the Minister of Finance's economic statement. On page. 13 of the “Plan for Growth and Prosperity” under the heading “Building the Right Investment Environment” and the sub-heading “Driving Greater Productivity in Government” the minister says:
|
Getting government right is an important part of building the right environment for investment. The government must constantly strive to make its programs and services as efficient and cost-effective as possible. |
He goes on—and this is of special interest in connection with this morning's topic:
|
It must also maintain the highest possible ethical standards and ensure that its operations are carried out in ways that enable Canadians to clearly see and assess what our government is doing and why. |
I have a very simple question for my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, whom I thank for his speech. Does the hon. member not feel that, if the government were consistent, it would without hesitation come on side on the need for a thorough revamping of the Access to Information Act?
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians are wondering about the disconnect between what the government says and what it actually does. The day of reckoning has arrived where we are starting to blow the whistle, as it were, on that disconnect.
We want to see the government members walk the talk about transparency and accountability. As recently as yesterday we heard the Minister of Finance again feature the government as being open and transparent, but yet introducing an economic update that is mind numbing in its complexity and it is incomprehensible to any observer. If this addiction to secrecy cannot be dealt with, then Canadians will demand better and a higher standard.
We have been waiting for over a decade. We have been waiting for 13 years. My colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, pointed out that the Pope recently issued an apology to a group in Greece for an affront that occurred in the year 1260. By that standard we are not really waiting all that long. Thirteen years perhaps is not all that long to wait, but by the standards of what Canadians are used to, we have waited long enough. Whether it is this government that comes back in a minority situation again or a new party that forms the next government, this should be the first bill on a new legislative agenda, amending the Access to Information Act.
(1210)
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned at one point both the confidence of Canadians and our international partners in this democracy to function when we have things like the sponsorship scandal and a government still dragging its feet after more than a decade and unwilling to actually bring forward true transparency.
On the economic front, I have mentioned the Ridley terminal sale in British Columbia that has been mired in controversy and a lack of transparency in what the government is actually doing. It is a federal crown corporation worth $255 million that the government is trying to sell for $3 million and change which raises a lot of eyebrows in my region.
I am wondering if the member could comment on the impact of a government that holds its secret information so closely to its chest in terms of economic development that a lot of regions in our country depend upon.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I believe the secrecy has translated into lost opportunity on more than one level; first, the administration and control over our crown public assets; and, second, the lack of confidence in investors. For example, we do not know if $3 million is the best possible price we can get for an asset that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be useful to shine the light of day, shine some sunlight, on that particular deal. It is a good graphic illustration where freedom of information and the right to know may have a material benefit for Canadians.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Macleod.
Today's motion deals with an important matter dealing with reforms to the Access to Information Act. Specifically, it calls for amendments to the act to expand coverage to include all crown corporations, all officers of Parliament, all foundations and, indeed, any organization that spends taxpayers' dollars or performs public functions.
It further calls on public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions. Moreover, it seeks a general public interest override for any exemptions, so that public interest comes before the secrecy of government.
A plethora of waste and mismanagement scandals involving the federal government and its branches, from the sponsorship scandal, the Dingwall affair, the HRSDC boondoggle and the gun registry fiasco have severely diminished public confidence in the integrity of our public institutions.
Many have suggested that a culture of secrecy and entitlement is now prevalent within the federal government and that this has resulted in a system much more prone to abuses of the public purse.
To restore the public's confidence in the system, we must take action to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the mechanisms of our federal government and ensure the manner in which hard-earned taxpayer money is spent is always in the public interest. Indeed, as a 2003 National Post editorial noted, the “right to access information about one's government is integral to the functioning of a true democracy”.
To ensure that would necessitate a series of actions, chief among them are substantial reforms to the Access to Information Act. This issue is of notable interest to Canadians and the amendments that the motion calls for are extremely important.
Many observers, including Democracy Watch's Duff Conacher, have stated that without serious changes to the act, the Canadian public “will not have the easy access to government information it has a clear, democratic right to”.
Over 20 years ago the House passed the Access to Information Act. The act was intended to permit individual Canadians the ability to request and obtain information about the operations of their federal government. Using the act, any Canadian has the power to find out, for instance, how much money the government has spent on a program or department or what reasoning was behind an action. Members of Parliament, myself included, have used the act to discover, so to speak, what the government is doing behind the scenes.
In sum, the access to information permitted by the legislation is an important way of ensuring government accountability. The act has assisted in bolstering transparency in the federal government since its introduction in 1983. Indeed, Probe International called it “one of the few effective tools available to Canadian citizens that allow them to find out what they want to know about government actions, rather than what the government wants them to know.
However, throughout the years many shortcomings have become apparent. One major problem that many have identified is the fact that the act exempts a significant number of crown corporations and quasi-government organizations from its scope “for no good policy reason”, as that earlier National Post editorial also stated.
Currently, these agencies like EDC and Canada Post are protected from undergoing the same scrutiny that other government departments face. Even though many of them have politically appointed presidents and even though many of them have been involved in the plethora of recent spending scandals, they are not accountable to the same extent. That means Canadians, for instance, in rural communities are barred from finding out why, for example, Canada Post has closed its local post offices in rural communities. This is in spite of the fact that Canada Post and the other exempted crown corporations are taxpayer funded and have an effect on the lives of a large majority of people throughout the country.
(1215)
Many feel that this veil of secrecy over these important government operations is simply unacceptable and deeply troubling. For instance, Probe International, a Canadian NGO that works to hold government agencies accountable, recently stated that “over the past 15 years agencies of the Canadian government have become more secretive” and chided the government's “excessive and unreasonable use of the Access to Information Act (and agencies' exclusion from it) to withhold information, the disclosure of which would help save taxpayers' money, inform the public of government actions in their name, stop environmental destruction, protect the human rights of innocent citizens abroad, and save lives”.
Most reasonable Canadians would agree with the notion that no government agency or public servant should be able to avoid public scrutiny and responsibility for the way they spend taxpayer dollars or operate. Yet today this veil of secrecy allows selected crown corporations and quasi-government organizations to do just that. They circumvent full accountability and transparency on everything from directives that shape their decision-making to entertainment expenses.
Even though the current government has talked extensively about significant reform to the act, it has continued to hold up important changes to the legislation. As far back as 1994, then justice minister Allan Rock promised to strengthen the access law. However, according to noted democratic reform advocate Duff Conacher, “for the past 11 years the Liberals have successfully delayed this action through distraction”.
Many, like access to information advocate Ken Rubin, are questioning the government's commitment to reform at all. Recently, Rubin stated that instead of bringing forward the necessary reforms, the current government, specifically the justice minister, is committed to a pro-secrecy and stale line of thinking on the need for long overdue changes to the Access to Information Act. He added that, “Undoubtedly, the Liberals...would be relieved and would want if they got a majority (following an upcoming election) to regain control of the House access committee...and its future access legislative agenda”.
Fortunately for Canadian taxpayers, that is not going to happen. Conservative members of Parliament will not cease in their demands for greater transparency and accountability. Why? As former member of Parliament John Bryden stated, experience has shown that “legislated transparency of government institutions does increase efficiency. The bureaucrats may not like it, but public accountability makes good governance”.
Should the Conservatives receive the distinct honour of being chosen by Canadians to govern this country, the first act of a Conservative government would be to introduce a federal accountability act. This legislation would put into place all the provisions we are calling on the federal government to introduce in this motion among other measures aimed at ending the culture of entitlement that many feel has thrived under the current government.
Consequently, I strongly endorse today's motion and its aim of renewing faith in the mechanisms of the federal government, replacing the culture of entitlement with a culture of accountability.
(1220)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is fairly sweeping and covers all crown corporations, officers of Parliament, foundations and all organizations that spend taxpayers' dollars or perform public functions.
I wonder if the member would care to comment on members of Parliament, understanding that there are obviously some privacy matters et cetera, and that MPs are not subject to the Access to Information Act, particularly with regard to their spending, other than general disclosures that have been agreed upon. If there is a true commitment, would the member comment on whether the documents with regard to the activities of a member of Parliament should also be subject to the same scrutiny?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question because we are under scrutiny all the time. We have a disclosure form now that I filled out recently. I could not believe how much information I had to give to the public. My personal expenses and my personal life are out on the Internet for anybody to see or they could just go down to the office and go through that information. As for my offices and my staff, that is also public information and anyone at any time can easily access that information.
Therefore I do not feel we are in need of the same laws because the problem was the people making the decisions and having control of the money. I do not agree that members of Parliament have to fall under the same legislation but I do believe we are being watched very closely. We are being scrutinized, if not by the people who are out watching how we are spending our money, at least by the people at home, our constituents. It does not matter what I do, I always seem to have somebody questioning something about perhaps my office or what the wages are. We are very open so I do not think we are talking about the same thing in this motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, one of the terms used in the motion today is public interest and it is used in the context where it provides a general public interest override for all exemptions in that the public interest should come before the secrecy of government.
It would appear, based on the motion, that, for instance, the military or CSIS might be covered. In fact, the Ethics Commissioner, who reports to the House and who is an officer of Parliament, would be covered by this expanded coverage. I wonder if the member would care to enlighten the House about what she understands to be public interest, for instance, the Ethics Commissioner who reports to Parliament and deals with matters of certain sensitivities and investigations, whether or not there are exemptions there that she would consider to override the public interest.
(1225)
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, it is always a problem in any legislation to define public interest. I think we can go into any department and any minister's portfolio and sometimes those who think they are protecting the public interest are being lax and there are those also who sometimes are perhaps going too far to protect the public interest.
It is definitely a difficult term to define. I do agree that we would have to be very careful in defining it to ensure we do not jeopardize, in particular, our soldiers as was mentioned. I think there are probably times that it has to be defined or exemptions perhaps have to be made, and this motion does give us some direction.
We do, first and foremost, need to have the public interest in mind and many times some of the decisions that are made are not in the best interest of the public. However, on military and CSIS decisions we should be able to determine what is in the public interest. At least we have an opportunity with this motion to know what is in the best public interest. In situations such as the spending, one of the areas where we were going with this motion, is that the public interest has not been taken into account.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks today with a truth that is very self-evident: the Liberal Party cannot be trusted to clean up its mess of corruption and scandal. Only a Conservative government, under the leadership of the hon. member for Calgary--Southwest, has the integrity and the plan to show Canadians that good government is still possible.
The legacy of 12 years of Liberal government will not just be the smear on the party of the sponsorship scandal. The sad truth is that all parliamentarians and holders of public office at all levels are now viewed by Canadians with such disdain and cynicism that it will take a very long time to regain their trust and respect. That is why I am proud to rise today to speak to the motion introduced by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
In order to take the first steps forward toward regaining the trust of Canadians, the Conservative government is committed to introducing the federal accountability act. Everyone will notice I used the words “Conservative government” because I am optimistic about what will happen in the coming year.
There are two very important parts of this initiative that I would like to speak to today. The need for an open flow of information to Canadians can be secured by establishing a parliamentary budget office and the immediate need to provide Canadians strong, more transparent auditing and accountability laws for the federal government.
First, I would like to address the need to ensure truth in budgeting with a parliamentary budget office: create an independent parliamentary budget office to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation's finances and trends in the national economy; require government departments and agencies, including the Department of Finance, the Canada Revenue Agency and Statistics Canada, to provide accurate, timely information to the parliamentary budget office to ensure it has the information it needs to provide accurate analysis to Parliament; and ensure that government fiscal forecasts are updated quarterly and that they provide complete data for both revenue and spending forecasts.
Yesterday's shameful display of financial pretzel making was the ultimate example of how the Liberal government secretly gerrymanders the nation's finances.
Less than a year ago the Minister of Finance was crying poor. The cupboard was bare and every Canadian would just have to wait until the fiscal picture got better for any tax relief or increased investments in productivity and competitiveness. It turns out that all Canadians had to wait for was a dip in the Liberal polling numbers, as well as the release of the damning Gomery report.
Along comes the member for Wascana, a man, by the way, who was once the minister of agriculture and responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and, I understand, represents a good number of farmers in southern Saskatchewan. He is a man who spent years telling Canadian farmers across the country that he would solve their problems and finally create a federal strategy for agriculture and agrifood, as well as for rural communities.
Yesterday's mini-budget was a perfect opportunity to make good on his commitments to agriculture. Farm incomes are at an all time low and producer groups from across the country have been beating a path to the minister's door asking for a real strategy to support Canada's farmers.
I was a grain producer for 30 years and it breaks my heart to hear that my neighbours are stretched to the breaking point, trying to decide if they can afford to pay their bills. No farmer wants to be paid a salary from the federal government to farm. All they want is to be able to make an honest living selling their products on the open market on a level playing field.
(1230)
I am proud to say that the Conservative Party has been a loud supporter of Canada's farm and agrifood industries here at home and around the world. For example, I travelled to southwestern Ontario last week with my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake and the member for Essex to speak with Canadian corn producers, greenhouse growers and dairy producers. These producers told us of how U.S. farm subsidies were killing their markets. Grain buyers in Canada are filling facilities with U.S. corn and not allowing for delivery of Canadian corn. Harvest is not complete as a result and, as members have noticed, it is now snowing out there. There is no space for their corn. This is just the beginning of the concerns in the farm community.
How is it that the Liberal finance minister can announce a sizable surplus but no commitment to farmers is ever a priority for that party? That is why we need a parliamentary budget office. Canadians clearly cannot trust the government to tell the truth. By giving Canadians a real financial picture we will allow all sides to craft real and effective results.
We also need to designate the deputy minister of each government department or agency as the accounting officer for that department. The deputy would be responsible to Parliament for the departmental spending and administrative practices of his or her department. It would also require that in the event of a disagreement between a minister and deputy minister on a matter of administration, the minister must provide written instruction to the deputy minister and notify the Auditor General and Comptroller General of this disagreement.
This initiative will be an important element of a Conservative government's pledge to Canadians to treat their hard-earned tax dollars with respect.
By opening up the access to information laws to all government departments, agencies and crown corporations, Canadians could be confident that their money is not being wasted, is going where it is intended and is achieving the goals that Canadians deserve.
For example, earlier this year there were calls for a farm income aid package of at least $1.9 billion a year for three years to support Canadian producers as they face crippling foreign subsidies and artificially low commodity prices. The minister ended up announcing $1 billion, slightly more than half of what was requested from the industry. None of this money has even flowed to the farmers yet. Strong transparency and accountability laws would allow Canadians to know why the money is collecting dust in Ottawa instead of helping them to get on with business.
In media interviews and to anyone who would listen to him, the Liberal House leader threatened that a BSE package would be lost if an election were called. How arrogant do the Liberals have to be to blame the opposition for the Liberals' foot-dragging on farm aid programs? Canadian beef producers have been struggling to deal with the BSE crisis for over two years. Where was the government? Why is it only acting now?
The government has had 12 years to create and deliver comprehensive rural and farm programs. The legacy is clear. The APF, the agriculture policy framework, is a disaster. The CAIS program is unworkable and farm incomes continue to fall. Rural communities are suffering massive out-flux and these hard-working Canadians are being told they do not count in the Liberal world.
That is why opening up access to information laws to all government departments, agencies and crown corporations is so important. Canadians can be confident that their money is not being wasted, that it is going to where it is intended and that it is achieving those goals. After 12 years the Liberal government has perfected the slippery game of hide the money. Farmers are the ones paying the price.
In response to yesterday's budget, Bob Friesen the president of the CFA, said:
|
The last three years of Realized Net Incomes of farmers have been the lowest in recorded history and it is incomprehensible that the federal government has abandoned rural Canada and not supported Canadian farm families at this time. |
(1235)
Along with my colleagues on this side of the House, we pledge to Canadians that the Conservative Party will not allow their tax dollars to be collected without thoughtful reason. We pledge that once collected they will be spent with care and efficiency. We pledge to tell them how, where and why they are being spent.
Canadians can take this pledge and this motion to the bank. If Canadians are unsatisfied with what we tell them, they will have full and free access to the information regarding how federal policies and programs are handled.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his remarks. In reading the motion put forward by the Conservative Party, it gives me a sense of hope that we may be able to smash down the barrier put up by 13 years of Liberal obstinance and stubbornness on the issue of access to information.
Would the member give us an indication if his sentiments are shared by his entire caucus and the leadership of his party? We are at the death rattle of the government and we will witness a new government being formed. If a new government is put in place in the coming days, is the member able to commit to us that his government will put in place meaningful access to information reform as the number one priority item in a new regime of a new Conservative minority government?
(1240)
Mr. Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I like the direction in which the question is headed. I tend to agree with the member that it is absolutely time for a new government.
Let me assure the hon. member that every one of my colleagues to whom I have spoken speaks only with great disgust when they look across the floor and see what has happened with the lack of accountability. Everyone in my party is determined and committed that there needs to be a process put in place, such as the one put forward in this motion, that will bring back the relevance of elected officials. We are accountable to those who elect us.
We believe we are not able to take taxpayer dollars and do whatever we want with them, to put them back into party coffers and spend them on buying boats. That will not be the culture of this party. The Conservative Party will be accountable to the electorate.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Conservative member. One of the major proposals made by the Bloc Québécois is to have the Access to Information Act based on an effective whistleblower protection system to ensure that information released is not restricted by political considerations. I think this is a very important element.
Something we learned in the context of the sponsorship program, which I consider fundamental, is that a number of communications agencies that no doubt received grants or sums of money were not necessarily uncovered by previous inquiries.
People are afraid to speak up. These agencies were receiving contracts and are afraid of not getting any more from the federal government for communications or advertising. So, not all the information comes out in a scandal like the sponsorship scandal. It would seem that people are afraid, for political considerations, of losing contracts if they say something.
So, how would a Conservative government resolve this situation?
[English]
Mr. Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental that those who are willing to step forward are able to do so. We have seen recently where that has seriously impacted one individual's life. That would be the individual who took a step forward, knowing full well that he was not protected at that time. He paid the price for doing so. That individual needs to be recognized and rewarded rather than penalized for blowing the whistle on what he recognized as inappropriate use of taxpayer money. We need good solid legislation in place. That would be one of the initiatives a new Conservative government would put forward, as most bills will soon die on the order paper.
The Conservative Party suggests that this protection is needed to ensure that there is accountability for any government that is in place. We would be very supportive of that type of legislation.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
Today's discussion is with respect to the opposition motion regarding reforms to cabinet confidences in the Access to Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act. By motion, the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre stated that in his opinion, the Access to Information Act should be amended to, among other things, establish a cabinet confidence exclusion subject to review by the Information Commissioner, provide a general public interest override for all exemptions and make all exemptions discretionary and subject to an injury test.
I will be voting against the motion, but I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to certain elements of the proposals set out by the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre.
On April 5, the Minister of Justice presented a discussion paper on the subject of access reform to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. In his opening remarks, relating to the issue of cabinet confidences, the Minister of Justice noted that it was an item “where current protections in the Access to Information Act have been the subject of much criticism and dramatic reform proposals”. A discussion paper provides useful background that should be considered carefully before proposing reforms to the cabinet confidence regime.
The pressure to reform the cabinet confidence regime by making them subject to the ATIA flows in part from the fact that neither the Information Commissioner nor the courts may examine a record request under ATIA in order to determine whether or not the government has properly identified the document as cabinet confidence as defined by ATIA.
The federal government's approach to the protection of cabinet confidences is unique. In the provinces and other Westminster-type jurisdictions, the law on cabinet confidence protection provides for reviewability and balancing by the courts and administrative tribunals, and in some cases for the examination of withheld information.
Both the Information Commissioner and the access to information review task force have recommended that cabinet confidences no longer be excluded from the Access to Information Act. Instead, they recommend that documents be subject to a mandatory exemption under the act.
While the Information Commissioner proposes that he should have the power to examine a withheld record to ascertain whether or not it is in fact a cabinet confidence, the task force recommended that only a judge of the federal court be empowered to make such determinations.
The Information Commissioner and the task force also advocate narrowing the scope of the cabinet confidence by confining it to the information which would reveal the deliberations of cabinet or among ministers and by reducing the maximum period of protection from disclosure of 20 to 15 years.
At this time, the government is also reviewing the proposed legislation of the Office of the Information Commissioner, entitled the open government act, which appears to reflect most of the elements of the motion which has been brought forth by the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre.
The importance of confidentiality for the inner workings of government at cabinet level has been widely recognized by Parliament and the courts. Indeed, the convention of cabinet confidentiality was expressly recognizing Canada at the time of change that was headed by the Right Hon. St. Laurent to the time period of the Right Hon. Diefenbaker in 1957. Furthermore, in its 2002 decision in Babcock, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to cabinet confidentiality as essential to good government.
The cabinet confidence exclusion was designed to protect key political functions of the executive, long recognized as essential components of our Westminster-style of parliamentary democracy. Collective decision making by ministers in cabinet ensures the solidarity of the government as a collective body which is responsible to Parliament. It also requires that the cabinet speak with one voice. Thus, if ministers are able to make decisions collectively, the privacy of their deliberations on government policy must be protected.
During the April 5 appearance before the committee, the Minister of Justice stated that the status quo was not an option by the government and that it was committed to substantial reform of both the Access to Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act. The government believes that any reform to the federal cabinet confidence regime must start with CEA and follow with consequential amendments to Access to Information Act and to the Privacy Act.
(1245)
The government's April 2005 proposals included narrowing the definition in the CEA, as well as in the ATIA and PA, to focus on core deliberations of cabinet. Currently, these acts do not define cabinet confidences but provide a list of examples.
The legislation in most provinces focuses on protecting the substance of cabinet deliberations, which we believe is the better approach.
The definition would continue to cover only information such as submissions made to cabinet, deliberations between ministers, cabinet decisions and draft legislation. This would allow more documents formerly considered as cabinet confidences to be brought under the acts, subject to other exemptions that might apply. For example, agendas of cabinet could be disclosed, unless they revealed the substance of deliberations of cabinet. Furthermore, the government agreed with the task force that the Federal Court should be able to review the Clerk's decisions whether a record was of cabinet confidence.
The Canada Evidence Act provides a judicial review by the Federal Court to hear challenges to the Clerk's decision to issue a certificate by weighing the public interests at stake, public interest disclosure and parallel regimes for Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, but without public interest balancing.
By allowing reviewability by designated judges of the Federal Court, it would give this specific forum the opportunity to build expertise and to ensure a consistent approach.
With respect to the period of protection, the government believed that it should remain at 20 years, based on the following. In other jurisdictions, namely, at the provincial level, the period of protection varies between 15 to 30 years. In British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Yukon, Nova Scotia it is 15 years. In Ontario it is 20 years. In Quebec and Saskatchewan it is 25 years. In Manitoba it is 30 years. In the United Kingdom the period is 35 years.
The government also proposed to maintain the exclusion of cabinet confidences from the Access to Information Act and CEA. Exclusion means that unless it is overturned by a court, a decision that is a record is considered cabinet confidence is final.
The Information Commissioner cannot examine the record to determine whether he agrees with the decision. The Information Commissioner would, however, have the power to go to the Federal Court to challenge the determinations made by the government that information falls within a definition of cabinet confidence.
As secretary to the cabinet, the Clerk is best placed to determine what information constitutes a cabinet confidence. He or she has institutional knowledge. The Information Commissioner does not possess the same institutional support or expertise.
The Clerk is the custodian of cabinet papers. The convention of access to papers of former ministers, which is based on British precedent and practice, appoints him or her as such. Based on this convention, the Clerk has a duty to ensure that a new ministry does not have access to the cabinet papers of the preceding one. Under this convention, members of incoming ministry agree not to have access to the confidential documents and papers of preceding ministers. These agreements are signed by the incoming and outgoing prime ministers.
By qualifying cabinet confidences as exclusions as opposed to exemptions, Parliament clearly has recognized the importance of the principle of cabinet confidentiality. If the Information Commissioner is of the view that the Clerk has not properly decided that something is a cabinet confidence, the Information Commissioner can go before the Federal Court. The proposal would make this clear in a way that was not the case before.
As I said earlier, the government believed that the proposals it put forward in its April 2005 discussion paper would enhance transparency while safeguarding principle of cabinet confidentiality.
As we know, the Information Commissioner has proposed reforms to the cabinet confidence regime consistent with the motion of the member who brought this forward today. The Information Commissioner would make cabinet confidence subject to the act. Although they would be protected from disclosure by mandatory exemption, it would be possible to override this protection against disclosure in the public interest. This means that any cabinet confidence could be disclosed if it were in the public interest to do so.
(1250)
In addition to cabinet confidences, the act requires consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, the Privacy Act and other statutes that refer to confidences of cabinet. These necessary amendments have not been considered by either the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre or the Information Commissioner. This may seem like a small point but it underlines why the motion of the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre cannot be accepted.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the parliamentary secretary. Now that we have the official party line from my colleague, what does he really think? I would like to know what his gut feelings are about the freedom of information laws as they affect the larger picture of the health of our democracy.
I did not hear a lot of passion in his comments. They were more technical answers to the specific language in the motion put forward by the Conservative Party. I am wondering if the member shares the passion of other members of Parliament as they spoke about how critically important and vital freedom of information is to the health and well-being of our democratic system and how the paucity of freedom of information has led to the culture of secrecy that has allowed corruption to flourish.
I would like to hear from my colleague in his own words if he shares our view that the single most important thing we could do in these twilight days of the 38th Parliament would be to reform the access to information laws completely so that freedom of information, transparency and accountability are no longer buzzwords in Ottawa, but in actual fact are practised.
(1255)
Hon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, the fact that I was very calm with my remarks does not mean that I lack passion or interest in this very important topic.
There is no doubt in my mind that freedom of information is a key pillar of our democracy and is a key pillar of how our government functions. We have a responsibility to recognize the openness of government but also to recognize the confidentiality elements of it with respect to the function of the executive branch of government. The discussion paper brought forth by the justice minister clearly outlines the various components of this very complex subject matter. It also takes into account the notion that we need to consult and further address these issues with very important stakeholders who have a vested interest to make sure that a decision we make is in the best interests of Canadians.
I might not speak loudly or use body language such as flailing my hands up and down, but that does not mean I lack passion for this very important subject. Clearly, freedom of information and access to information are very important components of our democracy. They are things which the government champions very clearly and it has made major reforms.
We all acknowledge that the status quo is no longer acceptable. We are all working toward those changes, but we are doing so in a more professional manner and in a manner that reflects proper public consultation to make sure that we make the best decisions for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for my colleague.
Does he not find it a bit odd that the point of the debate today—as he knows—and what the Conservative motion seeks, is to use the Information Commissioner's bill? The hon. member is a member of our committee. Our committee had asked the commissioner to introduce a bill. It is a new committee, formed during this Parliament. When we first looked at this issue, we discovered Bill C-201, which was introduced during the last Parliament by a Liberal member and almost entirely re-introduced by our colleague from Winnipeg Centre. It was adopted with a few changes by the information commissioner.
Does my colleague not find it a bit odd that the Minister of Justice, who had even promised the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that he would introduce a bill, decided to submit a framework for action instead? Does he agree with me that this was nothing more than a diversion by the Minister of Justice? Is he doing this to continue to allow crown corporations tainted by the sponsorship scandal—Canada Post, Via Rail and others—not to be subject to the Access to Information Act? Does he not find it a bit odd that the Minister of Justice did not take advantage of this to be more transparent and to bring forward a bill instead of a framework for action?
[English]
Hon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns brought forth by the member. The member sits in committee with me and we have had the opportunity to examine this issue in great detail. The member would have to agree that during our consultations with the Minister of Justice and other individuals who came before the committee, including the Information Commissioner, as we started to discuss the complexities of this particular subject matter, we saw the need to further investigate certain elements of it. I think he should have an appreciation for that. It is very important that we acknowledge that.
The discussion paper for me is not something we should take lightly. It is a very important part of the evolution of this important element we are discussing with regard to access to information and making sure that we bring about proper reforms.
I believe, as the member does, that we all want the same things. We want openness, transparency and accountability. We want to make sure it is done in a fashion that respects the laws and makes sure that cabinet can function and that we can govern in a fashion that is in the best interests of Canadians.
We cannot ignore the complexity of this issue. We need to be mindful of that. My remarks reflected on cabinet confidentiality and the components brought forth by the Information Commissioner and some of the concerns and reservations I had. I just outlined those and I hope that he takes them into account when we eventually vote on the motion.
(1300)
[Translation]
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for agreeing to share his time with me.
[English]
I will be voting against this motion which has been presented by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. Part of the reason is I find it is problematic and that it is precipitous of a proper process of discussion and consultation.
His motion proposes certain amendments to the Access to Information Act. We have heard members on both sides of the House, in particular the Bloc member who just asked a question of the parliamentary secretary, say that this motion virtually mirrors suggestions that were made by the Information Commissioner in the proposed legislation he brought forth at the request of the access committee.
Specifically, I intend to address the proposal that a general public interest override be provided for all exemptions in the act and the proposal that all exemptions be made discretionary and subject to an injury test. Those are exactly the recommendations that the Information Commissioner provided to the access committee in his proposed amendments to the Access to Information Act.
Indirectly, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre undoubtedly raises the issue of reform to the Access to Information Act in general. I will not bother to give background information. Everyone knows the Minister of Justice tabled a discussion paper before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Everyone knows there were previous private members' bills. One had been tabled by a former Liberal member, which was then taken up by the NDP member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre. His bill virtually mirrored the private member's bill that had been tabled by John Bryden when he was a Liberal member of Parliament. The Minister of Justice had committed to bring forth real reform to the access to information legislation. We all know that.
The question is, what is the nature of this particular motion? As I have said and as has been admitted by members of the opposition, it virtually mirrors the proposed amendments that the Information Commissioner brought before the access committee at the request of the access committee. I am a member of that committee.
The Access to Information Act states clearly that Canadians should have a right of access to government records “in accordance with the principles that...necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific”. The Access to Information Act in fact contains 12 exemptions. Let us look at what the nature of these exemptions are. Because the member's motion would make all exemptions discretionary and subject to an injury test, it is important for members to know what the act actually says now.
The act contains 12 exemptions. It also provides that certain records are indeed excluded from its reach. These excluded records, as we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, include material that is publicly available and cabinet confidences. Of the 12 exemptions, currently eight are already discretionary. Two of the 12 exemptions are mandatory but the two that are mandatory allow for discretion in certain circumstances.
For example, the exemption that protects information given to the Canadian government in confidence by the government of another country is mandatory. I think there would be, or should be, little disagreement among Canadians and members in the House that Canada has an obligation to take great care with regard to confidential information that belongs to other governments and that was provided under the seal of confidentiality to our government. However, this exemption also provides for discretion where the foreign government consents to the release of its own information. This is good sense.
(1305)
Another one of the 12 exemptions is also mandatory, but it already provides for a public interest override.
The point I am trying to make in going through these 12 exemptions is that, were one simply to keep oneself to the actual motion that has been provided, one would go away from reading that motion with the impression that under the current access to information legislation all of the exemptions are mandatory, that there is no discretion with any of those mandatory exemptions. That is not the case.
To come back to my point, there is also the issue of one of the 12 exemptions which has a public interest override. That, for instance, refers to the exemption that protects confidential commercial information given to the government by a third party. Here again there should be no argument. There is no doubt that the government again has to be extremely careful with the confidential commercial information that belongs to a corporation.
At the same time, this exemption already provides for a public interest override in relation to public health, public safety or the protection of the environment. If one takes the time to read the discussion paper that the minister tabled before the access committee, the Minister of Justice raises the possibility of expanding this existing public interest override to include consumer protection.
Finally, there is one of the 12 exemptions that is mandatory and does not provide for discretion, nor does it provide for a public interest override. I would like to explain to the House and to members of the Canadian public exactly what this is.
The exemption I am referring to makes a connection between the Access to Information Act and certain confidentiality clauses in other statutes or in other laws. For example, the confidentiality clauses in our Statistics Act and the Income Tax Act are linked to this exemption that does not allow for discretion or a public interest override.
Most Canadians, and indeed most members of the House, if they stop to think and reflect on this, would agree that it makes perfectly good sense not to allow a particular government department the discretion to disclose personal information that Statistics Canada rigorously and assiduously keeps confidential.
As someone who is a taxpayer, as are all of the members of the House, because we make more money than the personal exemption so we pay taxes, we would also want to be assured that the information we provide through our annual tax statement to our federal government remain confidential.
I can remember a debate taking place in the House precisely about the opportunity for or the appropriateness of Revenue Canada, now the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, being allowed to provide some personal information to, for instance, what used to be Human Resources Canada. There was a major debate in the House about it.
Therefore, I think that when one looks at the 12 exemptions carefully, one has to admit that discretion is already allowed under the existing statutes and there is also a public interest override that exists.
I find it interesting that a member of the access to information committee, of which I am a member as well, would put forward as gospel a motion that mirrors recommendations made by the Information Commissioner when the Information Commissioner himself said on the record that he had not consulted with any stakeholders before making his recommendations.
(1310)
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the position of my colleague, who is on the committee and has given us his Liberal interpretation of access to information. In fact, the motion by the Conservative Party actually mirrors the bill the committee called for. It asked the commissioner to draft the bill. Part (c) of the motion we are discussing today refers to establishing “a duty on public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions”.
When it comes to the exceptions, major and minor, my colleague has referred to, they all need to be discussed when we are studying the bill and calling witnesses. We are talking about the overall rule here. I will read an excerpt from the presentation made by Commissioner Reid, particularly the part concerning the necessity of records from public servants. When he spoke to us on October 25 in committee, he said the following:
|
The most fundamental, pivotal proposal I am making is that a legal duty to create appropriate records be imposed and that an offence be created for failure to fulfill that duty. Although this latter provision did not appear in Bill C-201, there is universal acknowledgement of the reality that the right of access is being rendered meaningless by a growing oral culture in government. |
Let us keep in mind that Bill C-201 came from Mr. Bryden. So the independent analyst is telling us that there is no longer any exchange of written documents in the federal government; people no longer put anything in writing, they just talk. Denis calls Paul, or Tom, Dick or Harry calls Paul, or whatever, but nothing in writing. People keep saying “Don't write me, call me”. That is what he means by the oral culture.
He goes on to say:
|
The failure by public officials to be professional in creating records is also undermining the work of Parliament, the Auditor General, the National Archivist, the police and judicial inquiries. Conducting governance by winks and nods simply leads to poor decision-making, inept administration and corruption. |
Here is my question for my colleague. Might she, by not wanting to debate this and not supporting the opposition in this serious undertaking of making access to information available to all, not be defending this culture of secrecy and corruption within the Liberal government?
Hon. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am quite disturbed by the comments and observations or claims that my colleague in the Bloc just made. It is not that I have a problem with part of the motion introduced by the Conservatives, or that I am not sympathetic or favourably disposed to another part of the motion. The problem with this motion is that it contains five completely different components.
I agree with taking the necessary steps to ensure that an oral culture does not develop in the public service. But when I look at another part of this motion, which talks about making all exemptions discretionary and subject to an injury test, I have a problem with that. So this is what I spoke about for ten minutes. If I had had the time to speak for 40 minutes, I could have touched on all five components in the motion. Maybe it would have been easier if the Conservative member, instead of trying to bundle together all the recommendations of the Information Commissioner, who admits that he did not consult any of the parties that might have been interested in reforming this legislation, had taken just one of the recommendations. Then we might have had different positions.
But when he bundles several recommendations together in a single motion, I have no other choice than to concentrate on one of the components. I decided to concentrate on the exemptions because they are quite problematic. His motion implies that the existing exemptions are not discretionary, which is false. So I decided to concentrate on this. I reject his criticism and cannot accept people claiming on the basis of this choice that I am not concerned about the changing culture in the public service, which is tending toward a more oral culture. That is not true and I reject your criticism. That would have been another way of—
(1315)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Order, please. I would like to remind the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine that I did not criticize her. I would therefore ask her to direct her comments through the Chair. She still has 10 seconds.
Hon. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, it is true that you did not criticize me but a Bloc member did on the basis of false claims. It is not the first time that this has happened. That is why we already had a debate on a question of privilege. So it does not surprise me.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting exchange. I was a little surprised by it, because the motion we are debating today is a reflection of the recommendations of the Information Commissioner in a draft Access to Information Act that he presented at the request of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which I am also a member of and happen to chair.
The committee was very supportive of these recommendations when the Information Commissioner brought them to the committee. I am a little surprised by the exchange and the discussion that now comes to the House, but I guess that is the nature of this place. Certainly in terms of stakeholder groups and discussions, there will be ample opportunity for that discussion to take place.
The discussion of course is taking place here in the House today, but the discussion will also be broad-ranging and stakeholders from many different sectors will have their chance to discuss this very subject, this supply day motion being part of the broader discussion about a revised Access to Information Act. The Conservative Party intends to make this part of our accountability act, which we as the government will be introducing after the next federal election. This new Access to Information Act will be a part of that accountability act.
It is very obvious that the Information Commissioner speaks with great authority on this subject. I do not think that the draft legislation he brought forward was something that just came out of his head with ideas of how it should work. I think it was the result of years and years of doing his job as access to information commissioner and his experience in the courts in trying to pry out of this government information that rightfully belonged to the public. We know that the Liberal government did everything it could to withhold that information. The government tried in every way that it could to avoid releasing the information the public wanted, although under the current act the public is allowed to have that information.
I think it was an excellent piece of work that the Information Commissioner did and then brought to the committee. I certainly support it. I was absolutely delighted when my leader and my party adopted that draft Access to Information Act, made it part of their accountability package and promised to include it in one of the first pieces of legislation that our party would bring to Parliament to pass.
Of course, when we look back at the whole sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry, I must say that I do not think there is anything any party or any government can do to prevent someone who is determined to steal taxpayers' money from doing it. As for someone who goes to great lengths to create a way to do it, all the rules in the world cannot stop someone like that. If people have that ethical standard and are willing to do that, they do not pay any attention to the rules. Their only focus is on how they hide what they are doing from the public and the authorities. We certainly saw a lot of that during the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry.
Certainly everyone in this House, everyone on our committee and I think most Canadians realize that the Access to Information Act is long overdue for an overhaul. We have been talking about it in this place for a number of years.
(1320)
I heard one of the members talk about the John Bryden bill which passed through the House. It did not pass unanimously but I think only one person voted against it at the time. However the government did nothing with it and has not moved on it. Worse than that, the justice minister brought a discussion paper to the access to information committee and, in spite of the rhetoric we heard about the commitment to include Crown corporations in a new bill and a number of reforms that were badly needed for Liberal cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, the Liberals have done nothing to move that forward.
In the draft discussion paper that the justice minister brought to committee it in fact made government more secretive. It certainly did not meet the criteria of the Bryden bill and it fell far short of the recommended act that the Access to Information Commissioner created and brought to the committee. It is pretty clear, in spite of what we have been through in the last couple of years with the sponsorship scandal, that the government has no desire to make government more transparent and more accountable, which has been proven by the actions of the Prime Minister and the government.
While we hear promises of how the Liberals will solve this and never let another sponsorship scandal happen again, just a couple of weeks ago we heard that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs issued a contract with specific instructions that there be no paper trail on the contract. Therefore, any kind of a reformed Access to Information Act could not follow the paper trail or follow the money under that contract. This comes from a government that says it is dedicated to making government more accountable and transparent. It is simply a game. As we have seen so many times, it is just not believable and no Canadian would believe it.
These deathbed conversions on any number of issues, including tax reduction and reform of the institution of government itself, are simply empty election rhetorics designed to fool Canadians as to what the government's agenda really is. I would warn all Canadians to discount that kind of talk. I think if they look at what the government is actually doing they can only come to one conclusion.
I want to talk about our plans to reform government, to make government more accountable, to deal with the issues that came up in the Gomery report and the promises the government has been making for 12 years and has done nothing to fulfill them.
A couple of weeks ago, my leader, the leader of the official opposition, announced his accountability act and it includes much more than just a reform of the Access to Information Act, which is certainly a key part of it, but it also addresses in great detail political donations to candidates and political parties. That was part of the sponsorship scandal because much of the hundreds of millions of dollars that were taken ended up funding the Liberal Party in an election campaign, if not two election campaigns.
(1325)
Election financing is an important part of this. We would ban corporate and union donations while limiting personal donations to $1,000. We would ban ministers and their staff and senior public workers from lobbying government for five years. We would give more power to the Lobbyist Registrar, the Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Auditor General, all officers of Parliament.
It is pretty clear that the Liberal Party used the sponsorship program for not only unethical purposes, but criminal purposes as well, if I might say so. Judge Gomery made that pretty clear in his report.
Our objective would be to end the influence of big money going to political parties for elections and we would crack down on the lobbying culture that the current Prime Minister was very much a part of. His relationship with some lobbying firms is well-known and, quite frankly, needs more investigation. However Judge Gomery did not have a mandate to do that.
I have always believed that government, no matter which level of government we are talking about, is there to serve Canadians and, with a few exceptions, Canadians should be able to find out how their government is serving them and where their money is being spent, which has not been the history of the present government. Judging by the justice minister's proposal, that will not happen in the future. If the Liberals are re-elected, they intend to tighten up that information, thereby making it less accessible to Canadian taxpayers and the people who elect us to this place.
As I said in my opening remarks, simply changing the rules is not the only thing that needs to be done. If people do not have ethical standards, simply changing the rules will not solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem is to change the people who govern and elect people of a higher ethical standard, people who do not have the culture of entitlement that we have seen for so long across the floor.
The way lobbyists work, in my view, is pretty distasteful. I think of the latest episode involving David Dingwall, the head of the Canadian Mint. At the same time as he was in this very lucrative job of running the Mint and receiving a salary of more than $200,000 a year, he was collecting huge lobbyist fees to lobby the government, a government to which he belonged not too long ago, for a contract for a friend. The whole thing has a real smell to it and I think most Canadians do not find that acceptable. I think most Canadians would support our proposal to reform the way lobbyists work and how long they have to be out of government or out of the bureaucracy before they can engage in that kind of activity. That is an important part of the Conservative accountability act as well.
Part of the reform on the lobbyist side would give the Lobbyist Registrar more power and more ability to enforce the rules and to act on findings. In the latest cases we have heard about, the Lobbyist Registrar should have known what was going on and should have had the power to stop it, instead of helplessly sitting by and letting it happen. That is also an important provision.
(1330)
We would also make substantial changes to the financing of political parties. I do not think it is appropriate for people seeking to be members of Parliament to accept huge donations from anonymous people. It makes people very suspicious, and with good reason. It leads to the creation of some of these huge trust funds that are held by members of Parliament and they are not required to disclose where the funds came from. Those members who currently have those trust funds should account for them, make it public where they came from and show how much they have. I think that as well is a good move.
Another controversial issue under this transparency act, which the Prime Minister promised to resolve when he was campaigning to be prime minister but one he has done nothing about, is the appointment of people to various positions that serve government and the country. It should be easy to understand that these officers of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Registrar of Lobbyists, serve Parliament not the government and, therefore, should not be appointed by the Prime Minister.
Parliament should have a process to select these individuals and Parliament should be able to vote on the appointment of these people. I cannot understand any argument that would have it otherwise because these particular individuals are serving us as parliamentarians and are working for Parliament. Even if we do not get into a discussion about some of the other appointments, for example judges, perhaps there is an argument to be made on either side, but certainly the officers of Parliament should be hired by Parliament to serve Parliament.
Another issue with which I think Canadians are having a problem, these days in particular but for a very long time, is the whole issue of the hundreds of millions of dollars the government spends on polling and advertising. The advertising side was an integral part of the Gomery report on the sponsorship scandal. However the way governments poll and the millions of dollars they spend on polling is a huge issue because most prime ministers and most leaders discount opinion polls when they do not get the results they were looking for and then swear by them when they do get the results they were looking for. In my opinion and I think in the opinion of most Canadians these polls are very manipulative and can sway voters substantially one way or the other. I think that is what we are seeing right now in the lead up to the election that is coming very soon. We need to reform that part of it.
The last issue is that there is a need to change the way in which governments issue contracts for government services. The way in which the government chooses the same companies time and time again for single source or even bid contracts has long been an issue in my part of the country, in western Canada. I am thinking of the recent controversy over the contract to move Canada's armed forces personnel and the RCMP.
(1335)
We would certainly need some changes there. I think that all of us agree that the whistleblower legislation before the House is inadequate. We need to make some real changes and provide some real protection for whistleblowers and certainly that would help prevent this Gomery thing as well.
Finally, our proposal to give more stronger powers to the Auditor General to investigate and to audit departments is absolutely crucial to where we want to go. While our access to information reform package is what we are debating today and is extremely important, I think it fits into a package of broader reforms that will make this place transparent and accountable.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Westlock—St. Paul for his remarks. I also want to congratulate him, since he is the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I gather that his health has improved, and I am glad to see him here.
My question is simple. In the motion that his party introduced, clause (c) states:
|
(c) establish a duty on public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions; |
My colleague heard the Liberal members criticize the motion by saying that there were exemptions and things that should be discussed. In any case, all these exemptions are usually discussed once the bill has been introduced. That is what we want and that is the aim of the Conservative Party's motion.
I will reiterate what the Information Commission said in his October 25 presentation to the committee. He said:
|
None of these improvements, however, can ensure accountability through transparency unless there is a foundation of professional record keeping by public officials. The most fundamental, pivotal proposal I am making is that a legal duty to create appropriate records be imposed and that an offence be created for failure to fulfill that duty...The failure by public officials to be professional in creating records is also undermining the work of Parliament, the Auditor General, the National Archivist, the police and judicial inquiries. Conducting governance by winks and nods simply leads to poor decision-making, inept administration and corruption. |
He also said that, “—there is universal acknowledgement of the reality that the right of access is being rendered meaningless by a growing oral culture in government”.
Ultimately, he is saying that the oral culture and the fact that nothing is being written down anymore results in corruption. This is what the Liberal members of the House are now defending. They want the current legislation to continue to be enforced and to maintain a culture of secrecy and corruption. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.
(1340)
[English]
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. I cannot think of any single reason why a government would choose to operate on the basis of oral exchanges of information and planning other than to hide from the public what it is doing and hide what it is doing from the Auditor General.
The Prime Minister made all kinds of promises to end that and even as I mentioned in my speech, just a couple of weeks ago the government continued to behave in exactly the same way by issuing contracts from its departments with specific instructions to have no paper trail that an auditor or investigation could follow.
Clearly, the government has learned nothing from the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. It continues to operate the same way. It is very clear in listening as we did to the Information Commissioner that time and again departments abuse their exemptions under the Access to Information Act claiming excuses not to release the information. The Information Commissioner time and again has to go to court to access the information on behalf of Canadians.
I have great admiration for the job that the Information Commissioner did in creating this draft legislation for us and I support it completely. I absolutely reject, as I think 99% of Canadians would, the right of a government to operate orally and hide that information from Canadians. It is just wrong.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning that the suggestion made by the member that there were lobbyist fees being received at the same time by the president of the Mint may not be the case and he may want to check his facts before he repeats that.
Knowing that he is the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and that the committee has dealt substantively with this motion before the House today, I believe there is one area where the member may assist the House in understanding a little more carefully the concept of public interest and what constitutes public interest to the extent that it would override certain exemptions.
There are certainly some examples I could give. One example would be the Ethics Commissioner, who reports to Parliament and is an officer and agent of Parliament. He is involved in certain matters which, although they may be of interest to the public, I am not exactly sure would constitute public interest.
(1345)
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a bit of a play on words there. There is a difference between being of interest to the public and being in the public interest.
Certainly, it is in the public interest that the government operates ethically and transparently, that it makes sound decisions, and that it issues contracts fairly and those kinds of things. Those are in the public interest and it would be up to the Information Commissioner to put that request for information of whether it is in the public interest.
There are all kinds of things going on in government that might be of interest to someone in the public and there are exemptions that would prevent a person from finding things out. I am thinking of the personal business information of an individual or a company that is very important to the success of a business. Revealing that is not in the public interest although it might be in the interest of someone in the public.
We can play with the words but when the Information Commissioner came before the committee, he made it very plain what he was talking about and where he would not allow those exemptions to apply because it was in the public interest that they not apply. We can play the word game, but I think most people understand that.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's clear sincerity and energy with respect to this issue.
The member for Ottawa Centre from the New Democratic Party recently released a seven point ethics package that addresses much of what we have talked about here today. I am wondering if the member's party is supportive of the third point of that ethics package, which pertains to this issue, regarding setting spending limits and transparency conditions on leadership contests within political parties.
I know there has been some contention within parties to allow public access and transparency as to who is behind the leadership bids of various parties. I missed his leader's package, the transparency bill on good governance, but did I miss that in the bill? If it is not in there, would he be particularly supportive of such open and transparent accounting to the Canadian public?
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the issue that he raised and that the member from the New Democratic Party brought forward. That particular member was a very valuable member of our committee from the beginning of this Parliament. I would like to believe that he got a lot of the ideas that he presented on reforming government and ethics of government from the time he spent on that committee with us, listening to the witnesses who came forward.
While he presented a very interesting paper which had a lot of merit, the government accountability act that my leader presented encompassed all of the areas he included in his paper. I would very much expect that the New Democratic Party will be supporting the government accountability act for those very reasons when we bring it before Parliament after the next election because I believe it does address the issues that the member raised.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am rising in turn to speak about the important issue of access to information. For two decades, I have dedicated myself to the task of providing information. When I first came to the House of Commons, I thought it would be easy for me to get information, but I realized that government and political information was much harder to get in a parliamentary setting.
My remarks today will pertain to transparency. If all information were available, if everything were transparent in this Parliament, we would not even need the Office of the Access to Information Commissioner. Everything would function normally. Back in February 2001, after 10 years as Auditor General, Denis Desautels issued a warning, stating that the many special foundations, organizations and agencies created by the federal government made Parliament less and less accountable for overall Government of Canada spending. That was Denis Desautels’ finding.
In April 2002, the person who took over from him, Sheila Fraser, singled out foundations. She again criticized the fact that the federal government continues to use foundations to deliver public programs and that the transfer of funds to those foundations was not subject to ministerial oversight and effective parliamentary scrutiny. She also noted that there were significant gaps and weaknesses, including a lack of information, in the design of delegated management mechanisms to monitor foundations. She said that her mandate was limited in terms of the mechanisms she was able to examine. That prevented her from providing the Parliament of Canada with information on whether federal funds and powers were being properly used. She went on to say that billions of dollars of public money remain in the hands of foundations for years before they are transferred to the intended beneficiaries. She said that the government had little recourse when things went bad and that Parliament had few opportunities to examine those delegated management mechanisms. The Auditor General was already questioning her work in light of a lack of information.
I had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the spring of 2004. I saw that there were weaknesses regarding access to information in the Parliament of Canada. Information was made public in small doses, when it was made public at all. This is the age of communications. Information is distributed through the Internet and by satellite. However, when it comes from a minister’s office, the Treasury Board or the Privy Council Office, it does not even reach the members of the committees set up to monitor federal government spending. I was in a position to see how little information was released by the many crown corporations involved in the sponsorship scandal. The Auditor General complained that she did not have full authority to investigate.
The current Access to Information Act exempts major Crown corporations like VIA Rail, the National Arts Centre, the CBC, EDC, Canada Post Corporation, Atomic Energy Canada and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
(1350)
In addition to everything that has been said about the sponsorship scandal, there are a number of pages which meet the expectations of our friends on the other side of the house. However, if one looks at the Gomery report as a whole, these people, needless to say, cannot convince the public that they were not informed and did not know what was happening.
Indeed, this whole affair would never have happened if access to information mechanisms had existed. It is in this spirit that today the Bloc Québécois is supporting the motion introduced by the Conservative Party. We hope that, once we have the tools we need, we will be able to find out what use was made of the $4.8 million that was transferred to Option Canada during the 1995 referendum; that we will understand the decision by the Department of Justice not to lay criminal charges for copyright infringement against the Cinar company and its founders, when a report by the RCMP recommended otherwise; that we will know the name of the minister who, following the Auditor General's report, continued to defend the communications agencies and their exorbitant commissions in the cabinet communications committee.
We are working for the future. The past brought us the worst ever scandal in Canadian history. We realize that, given the refusal of the Liberals to expand the powers of the Access to Information Act, these experiences could well be repeated. Once again, I find it enormously difficult to understand the logical processes of the federal Liberals when it comes to transparency. We discussed it in committee and on that occasion, the committee agreed unanimously that it was essential to commit to a reform of the current Access to Information Act. What a surprise it is today to hear the federal Liberals say that they are not in agreement with what they themselves agreed on with the Opposition parties.
I also had one further occasion to note the weakness of the Access to Information Act when I was sitting on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Everyone will remember the tragedy of the submarine Chicoutimi. You should have seen the report provided to the members of the committee. It contained a large number of blacked out sections. We did not know what had happened. An attempt was made to have us believe that it was all to protect the public interest and the families. What we realized, in reading the actual report, was that the Department of National Defence systematically refused to acknowledge its responsibilities in this tragic affair.
I can tell you that the Bloc Québécois has long been working on a reform of access to information. In fact, I had the privilege of discussing the matter with former Liberal MP John Bryden, who is a former journalist as well. He considered this issue important.
There are lots of examples to show we need this essential tool to enable elected representatives, the media and the public to get the information they need. The government's desire to maintain the status quo would indicate once again that it has things to hide and that it cannot operate transparently.
The Liberals have the opportunity today to show they will change—pardon my skepticism—and support a real Access to Information Act, legislation that will provide the authority, the personnel and the mandate so the job can get done reasonably, legislation that will make it possible to obtain the information required.
(1355)
My colleagues have told me they often requested access to information. On this, the commissioner was very clear in his justification for the delays in the case of many requests. We do not know the reason, but they do. It is the meddling by the offices of ministers and deputy ministers because of an unjustified fear with respect to the political sensitivity of the request.
What is needed is a clear desire for change in order to give the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada all the powers it needs. Auditor General Denis Desautels and current Auditor General Sheila Fraser have issued many warnings.
I will continue my speech after members' statements.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Forestry
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the pine beetle plague has now crossed the Rockies. Our Prime Minister and the federal Liberals were warned over and over again that this would happen, and over and over they ignored the warning. Now we have a pine beetle disaster on our hands that threatens to work its way across the entire country, and the federal Liberals must take responsibility for that.
Time after time, I implored the Liberals to provide the funding needed to battle the pine beetle and time after time they demonstrated that they simply did not care. Now the infestation has worked its way across the Rockies. It is in both Jasper and Banff national parks and in the forests of northern Alberta.
Under a Conservative government, $1 billion is targeted toward the pine beetle disaster. This is exactly what a responsible government should do.
* * *
South Asia Earthquake
Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Pakistan and Indonesia, where I witnessed Canadians offering aid to people whose lives have been shattered by nature.
In Pakistan I visited with the men and women of DART. I saw them producing clean, safe drinking water and providing much needed medical aid. They are the face of Canada to the people of Pakistan. These men and women are doing us proud, living and working in conditions that would try the best of us.
In Indonesia, I visited with Canadian Red Cross workers who are helping rebuild lives in Banda Aceh. These men and women are designing new communities that include pipes for water and sewers, roads, homes and places for small shops. They are rebuilding communities, not just structures.
In Banda Aceh, I stayed at Canada House, where Canadians offered an oasis of peace amidst all the destruction. I want to thank Karen Foss and Joyce Loosli for their assistance.
These men and women reflect to the world the best of Canadian values. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
* * *
Canada-Philippine Friendship
Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I attended the Canada-Philippine Friendship reception held on Parliament Hill. The reception welcomed over 250 Filipinos across the country, as well as numerous community leaders, MPs and senators. It was the first ever Filipino-organized reception on the Hill and included a luncheon, speeches, presentations and cultural performances.
The friendship reception was conceptualized by community leaders who wanted to strengthen the Filipino collective and national interest in Canada. An important part of this effort is to support Filipino heritage and the community's relationships and ties to the Philippines. It is estimated that a half million Filipinos live in Canada.
May this reception today be the beginning of an effort to organize the Filipino community in its loyalty to Canada and pride in its Filipino heritage.
Congratulations to the organizers on a very successful event.
* * *
[Translation]
La Mosaïque
Mr. Maka Kotto (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to mark the 20th anniversary of La Mosaïque, a community agency in my riding that anchors a great chain of solidarity reaching out to the less fortunate from LeMoyne, Greenfield Park, Saint Lambert and Brossard.
This chain is made up of some 800 volunteers who, day in and day out, doggedly focus their efforts on overcoming poverty and suffering.
Over the years, more than 30 different services have been set up to help parents and children, seniors, and others who are forgotten or marginalized by society.
What is more, so strong is this fantastic team that it has inspired the entire community, thereby generating several other humanitarian agencies.
The Bloc Québécois thanks this agency for creating a brilliant mosaic of caring and sharing over the past 20 years.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Cambridge Memorial Hospital
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to pay tribute to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital and its inspiring group of hard-working, dedicated staff and volunteers. The hospital is a credit and an asset to the entire Waterloo region. It is a prime example of how a publicly funded health care facility should operate.
This Saturday there will be in excess of 40,000 people lining the streets of Cambridge. A group of citizens will collect signatures protesting the backroom “who you know” deals of the provincial Liberals, deals that have taken away $70 million funding for our hospital.
For me, it is not about “who you know” but “who you serve”.
Today, I implore the provincial health minister to listen to these citizens and for once keep a promise. I implore him to stand up for Cambridge and North Dumfries. I implore him to stand up for Ayr and Branchton. I implore him to stand up for the whole Waterloo region, and serve.
* * *
[Translation]
Dr. Peter Zwack
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that we learned on November 8 of the passing of Dr. Peter Zwack, president of Autism Society Canada.
Dr. Zwack was a staunch defender of the social integration of disabled persons, especially those with autism.
[English]
Dr. Zwack was actively involved in numerous organizations that provided services for individuals with an autism spectrum disorder and/or an intellectual disability.
He served as president of Autism Society Canada, president of the board of directors of Miriam Home and Services, member of the executive committee of the Fédération québécoise des Centres de réadaptation en déficience intellectuelle, president of the Quebec Federation for Autism and other Pervasive Development Disorders, and vice-president of Autisme et autres Troubles envahissants de développement Montréal.
He was a great Canadian who was dedicated to issues related to autism spectrum disorders and will be sadly missed by the autism community. Our condolences go out to his family in this time of deep sorrow.
* * *
[Translation]
Wildlife Protection Officers
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, a tragedy occurred in the Chaudière-Appalaches region: a plane carrying a pilot and two wildlife protection officers went missing.
The public, ever hopeful, bravely took part in the long days of searching. It is with great sadness that we have learned that the two wildlife protection officers and the pilot of the plane died.
Officer Fernand Vachon of East Broughton and Officer Nicolas Rochette lost their lives during an anti-poaching surveillance mission. This expedition also cost the pilot, Yves Giguère, his life.
All of Quebec is in mourning over this tragic expedition. There will be a public funeral this afternoon so that people can pay their last respects. The Bloc Québécois joins with the public in offering its sincere condolences to the victims' families and friends.
* * *
[English]
The Family
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to pay credit to the family. As members of Parliament we are all too aware of the time this job takes away from our families, particularly those of us who travel a long distance to be in the House.
I am proud today to say that two very important members of my family, my son, Darren Bell, and his son, my very special grandson, Dylan Hunter Bell, are in Ottawa and are visiting Parliament Hill just to see government in action.
It is very nice to have their support here today.
* * *
Volunteer Firefighters
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to attend the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance hearings in Moncton, New Brunswick. We heard testimony from fire chiefs who supported an income tax deduction for volunteer firefighters.
I want to go on the record in support of the proposed income tax deduction of up to $1,000 for volunteer emergency workers. I want to encourage all members of the House to do the same. Especially in light of the billions in the federal surplus, we must ensure that this small measure of recognition is made to the thousands of volunteer firefighters from fire departments all across Canada. All regions of Canada rely on these volunteers. We certainly do in my riding of Fundy Royal and in the province of New Brunswick.
Volunteer firefighters give security to our communities by risking their lives responding to emergencies at a moment's notice and for no pay. They work under hazardous circumstances and physically and emotionally demanding conditions. They help us with the worst tragedies.
These volunteers risk their lives for their fellow citizens. Let us never forget that fact and show our gratitude.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Ski Bromont
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many ski buffs go wild at the first sight of snow. Ski Bromont, in my riding of Brome-Missisquoi, has made a name for itself over the past few years both in the province and nation-wide. Ski Bromont has just invested another $6 million for the new season, for a total of $26 million in six years.
This is a real achievement in this very competitive and seasonal industry. Ski Bromont, headed by Charles Désourdy, just won the national gold award given by the Grands Prix du Tourisme Québécois for the second year in a row.
Investments, job creation, development and innovation are making Brome-Missisquoi one of the most dynamic regions in rural Quebec.
Welcome to our little piece of heaven.
* * *
[English]
Status of Women
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today in recognition of Persons Day 2005, six women were recognized for their outstanding contribution to the quality of life for women.
Bonnie Diamond is one of those recipients. A true champion for advancing gender equality, Bonnie has been a mentor and a leader in the Canadian women's movement for over 30 years. She has been at the forefront of many struggles including violence against women and equality for women.
She was an organizer of the World March of Women in 2000 and volunteers with many organizations including FAFIA, Media Watch and the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa, all this while working as the executive director of the National Association of Women and the Law.
Bonnie is an important member of the Pay Equity Network, a group of more than 200 equality-seeking organizations and trade unions calling for proactive pay equity legislation.
Equal pay for work of equal value is a fundamental human right, yet more than 25 years after the adoption of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we have no federal legislation and women continue to earn less.
On behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to say good work sister, the struggle continues.
* * *
Banting Homestead
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday over 350 million people around the world celebrated World Diabetes Day. Nowhere was this celebrated more vibrantly than in my riding of Simcoe--Grey.
Sir Frederick Banting, the man who discovered insulin, was born on November 14, 1891 on a farm in Alliston, Ontario. The Banting committee, my provincial colleague, Jim Wilson, and I have been working hard to preserve the homestead since it has been neglected by the Ontario Historical Society. In fact, Jim now has a private members' bill at second reading that would return the homestead to the Banting family. Once this legislation is passed, I look forward to having it designated as a national historic site, which would include a diabetes camp.
I commend everyone on the Banting committee for their tremendous hard work and efforts. People from all over the world come to see the Banting homestead, the birthplace of a man who gave them hope and a future.
I call on all members of Parliament to support Sir Frederick Banting's homestead as a national historic site.
* * *
Health
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many members are wearing a button that reads “Mission Possible—A Made-in-Canada Cure for Juvenile Diabetes”. We are doing so to draw attention to the need for our government to support innovative research that could very well allow Canada to give the world the cure for juvenile diabetes.
Today we are honoured to receive delegates from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. They include Dr. Jonathan Lakey, one of the Canadians at the leading edge of juvenile diabetes research. Let us join in urging the government to provide funding for more life-saving research and a made in Canada cure for diabetes.
Also, November 16 is International COPD Day. Chronic obstructive lung disease is the fourth leading killer of Canadians, and is the only leading cause of death that is on the rise. Tomorrow the Canadian Lung Association and the Canadian Thoracic Society will release Canada's first ever report card on the disease. With an aging Canadian population, managing chronic diseases like COPD becomes increasingly important.
* * *
[Translation]
Marc-André Fortin
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all eyes in Quebec were riveted Sunday on the grand finale of Star Académie, which featured two finalists from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region: Audrey Gagnon and Marc-André Fortin.
The winner was Marc-André Fortin. Sensitive, a nature lover, a man with a heart, Marc-André is an artist through and through. His is a family in which music and song go hand in hand with freedom and love of life. And it was his family that recognized his talent very early on and encouraged him.
The performances by Audrey and Marc-André were moving. But it was all the potential of our young people that their simplicity, authenticity and style expressed first and foremost.
In this region, Quebec's blueberry capital, Marc-André gave a special meaning to the link between the Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean by sharing his $50,000 prize with finalist Audrey.
Audrey and Marc-André the entire region is proud of you and hopes the best is yet to come for you both.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Christmas Miracles
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister put on a pair of pants he had not worn in a while and he found $97 billion in the pocket. What a stroke of luck, because at that very moment the finance minister had been thinking that the government had been so generous to Liberal lobbyists and advertising agencies, the Liberal Party and David Dingwall and he was wondering what he could do to help out the little people at Christmas. I mean, as the Prime Minister says, Christmas is all about families.
What the minister did not know is at the very time that he was proposing to give people their money back, the country was about to go to an election. What a coincidence. I mean, what are the odds?
Here is the other coincidence. The Conservative Party and the other opposition parties actually amended the throne speech a year and a half ago so that it would include tax relief for low and middle income Canadians. The Liberals opposed it at the time, but they had a good reason. They just did not know at the time that tax relief would help families and the economy. They cannot know everything, but through an amazing series of coincidences, they are now on board. Thank goodness for Christmas miracles.
* * *
Route of Honour
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Battlefields Foundation was formed 13 years ago to ensure that the sacrifices of Canada's 1.5 million service men and women from both world wars would not be forgotten.
In this Year of the Veteran, the Canadian Battlefields Foundation has created a website depicting the Route of Honour. It is literally a road map that identifies the places where the great battles were fought by Canadian troops across Europe and the Far East.
The website is being promoted this month on tray liners in every Tim Hortons outlet in Canada. Today I rise to pay tribute to the principals of the Canadian Battlefields Foundation for the work they do, and to pay tribute to the executive of Tim Hortons for this demonstration of good corporate citizenship.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[Translation]
Sponsorship Program
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery's report tells us that $8,000 was paid to a volunteer in the riding of Louis-Hébert for the election campaign. The former director of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party himself has testified to this.
The candidate, Hélène Scherrer, is now the Prime Minister's principal secretary. The dirty money from the sponsorship scandal went toward campaign expenses.
How can Canadians have any expectation that the Prime Minister will clean up the sponsorship issue when he has not even cleaned house in his own office?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party is trying to out-Gomery Gomery. Not only did Justice Gomery not make any reference to this in his report, but on top of that Madame Scherrer says she never received that money. The Louis-Hébert Liberal riding association says exactly the same thing. They must be taken at their word. Justice Gomery says nothing more.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is in the report and it is in evidence.
Despite the Prime Minister's pre-election vote buying budget, his attempts to change the channel on the Liberal corruption will not change Canadians' impression of his party's entitlements. The Prime Minister refuses to launch a lawsuit against the Liberal Party to recover the full amount of money stolen through ad scam.
In fact, the justice minister has said that the government has made the determination of what his party owes. In other words, the party who stole the money decides how much it will pay back. The government only acts decisively when it is caught or when it is in its partisan interest.
When can Canadians expect the recovery of the full amount of money that the Liberal Party stole from Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberal Party of Canada has repaid any funds received inappropriately to the Canadian taxpayer. That analysis was based on the facts in Justice Gomery's report.
The Conservatives are basing their number on the Bloc number and it is another example of the collusion between the Conservatives and the separatists on a matter that is not in the interest of Canadians. They ought to be focusing on public policy to benefit the country, not on fearmongering and scandalmongering and on areas where they are absolutely out to lunch.
(1420)
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, fancy that: that member talking about party loyalty.
The Prime Minister kicked 10 people out of the Liberal Party as a result of--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I think I will refrain from comment on that one. Perhaps the hon. member for Central Nova could proceed with his question and maybe skip some of the preamble.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, they are sensitive over there.
The Prime Minister has kicked 10 people out of his party as a result of the Gomery report and only four public servants actually were given oral reprimands. This is the sum total of the consequences for Liberals in the worst modern political scandal in Canadian history.
The Prime Minister has refused to identify any of the ridings that received ad scam money, yet he has referred it to the police. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if there are any RCMP investigations actually under way to identify who stole the money?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is individuals named in the Gomery report are being held to account. Beyond that, the fact is the first thing the Prime Minister did upon receiving the Gomery report was to refer it to the RCMP for any further investigations.
We stand with Canadians who deserve and demand justice and the truth. That is why the Prime Minister appointed Justice Gomery, supported the work of Justice Gomery and accepts fully the conclusions in the report of Justice Gomery, instead of second-guessing the work of Justice Gomery who met with over 172 witnesses and read 28 million pages of documents in his work, unlike--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre-North.
* * *
Keeseekoose First Nation
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that the Keeseekoose First Nation was the subject of routine audits. I have a copy of the band's educational bank account records and there is nothing routine that I can see.
There was $600,000 stolen from the children's education fund and money spent in Santa Monica, California and in Hollywood at an exclusive jewellery store. Stealing money from school children seems perhaps routine to the minister, all in a day's work for a Liberal. Where is the forensic audit?
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first nations governments take accountability very seriously.
My department has advised me that this first nation identified financial irregularities in 2002 and 2003. The first nation acted appropriately. It called in the RCMP. Charges were laid. The matter is now before the courts.
Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): The issue is, Mr. Speaker, what does this government take seriously? Three years after this matter was brought to the attention of the department, there has been no audit and there has been no prosecution, just more stolen money and this minister once again missing in action.
Is this not just one more big cover-up to protect someone, to protect the former chief, the defeated Liberal candidate?
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the hon. member's behaviour in this is shameful.
The RCMP was called in and took the appropriate action. Charges were laid. It is now before the courts.
Shame on those members.
* * *
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first the Liberals tried to buy off Quebeckers with a sponsorship program paid for with their own tax dollars and now the government is trying to buy votes by promising tax cuts funded by Ottawa's surpluses.
Will the Prime Minister admit that nothing has changed, that this is more of the same and that his government, by trying to buy votes, is still exhibiting the same disdainful attitude toward the public that resulted in the sponsorship scandal?
(1425)
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, can the leader of the Bloc tell us whether he is against $30 billion in tax cuts? Is he against $4 billion for post-secondary education? Is he against $2 billion for enhancing ways for our country to prosper in a global knowledge-based economy? Is he against $1 billion for helping our businesses to benefit fully from the new markets in China and India? Is he against an economic statement aimed at ensuring a better future for generations of Canadians to come?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are against the blackmail such as that being used by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is threatening not to implement the promised tax cuts if the opposition triggers an election.
Will the Prime Minister admit this is shameful blackmail since, once a ways and means motion is tabled, the budget is effective immediately?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a threat but reality. First, the Bloc is never able to celebrate anything positive in Canada. Our colleague, the Minister of Finance, has shown how vibrant our economy is right now, how we have created jobs in this country and how we have managed to maintain a balance in public finances and to invest in what is important for Quebeckers and other Canadians. The government's plan is clear: we have an economic update in the fall and a budget in February. We all hope there will be a budget next year.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once there is notice of a ways and means motion, this year's tax cuts are implemented. There is no need to vote on them.
The Minister of Finance's figures change magically according to the proximity of an election. Nine months ago, the minister announced a surplus of $4 billion for 2005-06, and now, miracle of miracles, it is over $11 billion.
How can the Minister of Finance justify, other than by the proximity of an election, an error of nearly 300% in his forecasted surplus, with no change in forecasts for economic growth or macroeconomic parameters?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the economy of this country is performing very well. Accordingly, Canadians are able to enjoy an economic and fiscal situation that is really second to none.
[Translation]
Who said, “In general, I have to say that the statement by the federal Minister of Finance is good news”? Who said that? It was the Quebec finance minister.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind him that they are at 20% in the polls in Quebec.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec finance minister is a Liberal and has the same 20% standing in the polls as his party.
It is a replay of the same tape we have heard every fiscal year since 1998. Since then, this government's ministers of finance have been out by 300% on average in their surplus forecasts. This year is no exception.
Is it not obvious that the government is intentionally manipulating the figures for its own purposes and, in this instance, is doing so to buy votes and to make people forget its troubles with corruption?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I quote: “We are particularly pleased with the following measures: financial help for students; increased credits for workplace based training; the $1 billion for the fund for the provinces; $2.1 billion to sustain Canada’s leadership in university-based research and a plan to reduce personal income tax”.
That is what the Conseil du patronat du Québec had to say.
* * *
Parliament of Canada
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in a few days, a majority of parliamentarians will express themselves clearly in favour of a reasonable compromise to avoid having an election during the holiday period. This would allow us to accomplish everything the Prime Minister says he wants to get done this fall. That is what Canadians want, and what the opposition wants. The only one too stubborn to accept this sensible approach is the Prime Minister.
Why is he refusing to compromise?
(1430)
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already said there is no compromise on confidence. That is the answer.
Now, I have a question for the leader of the NDP. David Chartrand, of the Métis nation, has said that the leader of the NDP assured him there would be a meeting between the first ministers and the first nations. Is that true? If so, does he intend to keep his word?
[English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple way to achieve everything that needs to be done this fall, including the first ministers meeting with the first nations. That is for the Prime Minister to get off his high horse and compromise, to recognize the majority will in the House and what we had proposed in the House, which would accomplish the first ministers meeting, the work to be done during the fall, avoid an election in the holiday period and allow for Justice Gomery's report to be in front of voters when they vote.
Everything the Prime Minister wants to do, we are democratically requesting in the House that he do. Why does he ignore it?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, David Chartrand of the Métis Nation said at noon today that in a 25 minute telephone conversation with the leader of the NDP last week, the leader of the NDP assured him that the first ministers meeting with aboriginal leaders would take place.
The leader of the NDP is in a position to carry through on that promise. Is he a man of principle? Will he carry through on his promise?
* * *
Keeseekoose First Nation
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that there is a cover-up taking place at Keeseekoose, but that is not a surprise because the Liberals do not want anyone to know what is going on at the reserve.
The Indian affairs department spent $9 million to build a school for only 250 students. How can a school for 250 students cost that much? We know that over $600,000 was stolen from the school account. How much of that $9 million for a new school was stolen from the children of Keeseekoose? What is the minister trying to hide?
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the first nation reported this to the RCMP, which investigated. Charges have been laid. It is before the courts.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, bank records show that money from the St. Phillip's school account was withdrawn from at least five different casinos in Saskatchewan. In fact, in Casino Regina alone there were over 40 separate withdrawals totalling over $18,000.
When the Liberals heard these allegations of theft and corruption, did they call the police? No. They called a nomination meeting because they had just found the perfect Liberal candidate. When will the minister admit he is turning his back on the children of St. Phillip's school?
Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this first nation did the appropriate thing when financial irregularities were found. It called the RCMP, an investigation was conducted and charges were laid. This is now before the courts.
* * *
Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the Liberal government was approached by André Demarais, president of Power Corp., to purchase the Skyline Complex. Even though public works was warned about the mould problems within the complex, the government went ahead and bought the building for $92 million without any open tendering process.
How is it possible that the son-in-law of a Liberal Prime Minister can show up and convince the government to spend $92 million for a building that is rife with rot without any public tendering process? How do they do that?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that public works, on an ongoing basis, monitors real estate markets to find the best possible real estate and office space for our employees at the best possible value for the Canadian taxpayer.
This building was purchased, was renovated, was brought up to standard for public servants and does represent both principles: the best value for the taxpayer and appropriate quality office space for the Canadian public servant.
Beyond that, the hon. member is basing his allegation on an unsubstantiated media report that had its facts wrong. I would urge him to call my department. We will set up a briefing so he can learn the facts.
(1435)
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk about the renovations, let us look at these renovations. After spending $92 million to buy the building, to add insult to injury the government spent $82 million to renovate the building to downgrade it. Everybody knows the government could have built a brand new building for far less.
The minister makes hollow promises about fixing the rot in government building purchases. The truth is that the real rot that has to be fixed is the rot in the Liberal Party, those people who believe they are entitled to their entitlements. Is it not time that the Canadian people threw every single one of them out of this place?
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services may respond if he wants. I am not sure what this question has to do with the administrative responsibility of the government.
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will gladly respond to that non-question. The fact is that this government is committed to getting the best possible value for the Canadian taxpayer, which is why in the Department of Public Works and Government Services, through our changes to real estate practices and our strengthening governance, we will save over a billion dollars over the next five years for the Canadian taxpayer by adopting businesslike practices within our department and managing our real estate portfolio more effectively.
We are walking the walk over here, defending the interests of Canadian taxpayers. They are just talking the talk over there.
* * *
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Affairs
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just announced a number of federal government interventions, in the areas of education and skills training in particular.
How can the federal government justify taking advantage of a reinvestment in education to meddle so obviously in areas of responsibility that belong wholly to the Government of Quebec?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would again encourage the Bloc members to re-read the economic update. There is absolutely no question of getting into areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is a matter of continuing what is already being done under agreements with the provinces.
We have a country-wide loan and scholarship system. Quebec has its own and can continue to opt out. A trust fund will be set up that Quebec will have access to.
As for skills training, they may have forgotten, but my colleague here has even signed a skills training agreement with Quebec.
We in this Canadian federation are working together.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has announced its intention to intervene with social assistance recipients and even to repair class rooms in educational institutions.
How can the federal government claim to be respecting the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec when it is going so far as intruding into our very classrooms?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to show me exactly where it says that we were going to intervene directly in the classrooms of Quebec. No way would that be the case.
What we have said is that a trust fund would be in place and accessible to all provinces, who would then determine their own priorities and have access to the trust fund as needed. Our federation is extremely flexible.
* * *
Economic Statement
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite figures to the contrary, the government continues to deny the existence of the fiscal imbalance. Instead of resolving this issue once and for all, it showed, yesterday, that it is more interested in buying votes for the next election than in resolving the fundamental issue.
How can the government claim to have learned from the sponsorship scandal, after yesterday's exercise in blackmailing the public, again using our money to benefit the Liberals.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, nothing makes the Bloc happy. It complains, criticizes and objects but it will never admit that the Canadian economy is in good shape and that this is good for all Quebeckers. This is exactly what my colleague from Finance told Canadians, including Quebeckers, yesterday. Canada is lucky to have a strong economy and every one of us will benefit as a result.
(1440)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc, like the people of Quebec, is not happy about being blackmailed: if you fail to vote Liberal, you will not get a tax cut. We have heard this song and dance before.
Is not the attitude of federal ministers proof that nothing has changed in the land of the Liberals? They have the same mindset that they did during the sponsorship scandal. The end justifies the means. That is the reality and that was what we saw yesterday.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed in Bloc land. They continue to see themselves as victims, they continue to complain and to object. It is quite clear that the Bloc will never be able to offer Quebeckers tax cuts, because they will never lead this country; they will always be the opposition. I do not know how this will benefit Quebeckers.
Unlike them, we are in a position to tell Quebeckers our vision for the future, what we see for them, and how we can face the challenges of the global economy. This is what being a real government is all about.
* * *
[English]
Airports
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Pearson Airport, Air Canada's major hub, will see its airport taxes to Ottawa increase by 14%, up to $151 million this year. This tax increase will be passed on to travellers with a new fee that was announced today. Pearson is already the world's most expensive airport and it just became even more expensive.
How can the Liberals justify increasing taxes on what already is the world's most expensive airport, hurting air travellers, hurting the air industry and putting at risk 70,000 people who work at Pearson Airport?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, rent represents 14% of the airport's budget. The debt load will go up to 51% by 2009. The problem is not with the rent. The problem is with the debt load. Also Pearson Airport uses less of its concessions. Concessions all around the country represent 40% of revenue. At Pearson it is only 20%. It has to smarten up on that too.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is often hard to lower debt when the government comes in year after year with increased taxes. Since 1998, landing fees at Pearson Airport have increased 298%. The cost of landing a 747 at Pearson Airport is $13,000. At Tokyo Airport, the second most expensive airport in the world, it is $7,300.
Liberals are taxing Pearson Airport into the ground. Every stakeholder in the city of Toronto wants taxes lowered. The government has done nothing, and Toronto wants to know why?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that the rent is only 14% of the expenses at Pearson. The rent is going to go down by $5 billion over the course of the lease. That lease was signed by the same administrators. Now $5 billion less for rent at Pearson Airport is pretty good news to me.
* * *
Equalization
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been fighting for a fair equalization deal for Saskatchewan for years, but all along the Liberal finance minister has been fudging the surplus numbers and telling the people in Saskatchewan that they do not deserve a fair deal.
We want the same fair deal as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We want the Liberals to stop clawing back over 90% of our oil and gas revenues. That money should benefit the people of Saskatchewan, not a Liberal government trying to spend its way out of scandal.
Why is the finance minister still refusing to give a fair deal to Saskatchewan?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government began to reform and renew the equalization system beginning in 2004, and the province of Saskatchewan was the first beneficiary of that reform process. Over the last 18 months, the province of Saskatchewan has, because of that process, gained $799 million that it otherwise would not have had.
With respect to the anomalies in the formula, we correct those on an annual basis. If there are continuing anomalies, they would be further corrected in the budget in February.
(1445)
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, rectifying previous mistakes is not a fair deal for the province of Saskatchewan. The finance minister has again slammed the door on a fair equalization deal for Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan cannot afford to wait, yet the finance minister has delayed any deal until next year. This will cost the people of Saskatchewan over $750 million in lost revenue. Apparently, he has been too busy trying to buy off Canadians with their own money.
Why has the finance minister again failed to deliver a fair deal for Saskatchewan?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, raising transfer payments to an all time record high is good for Saskatchewan. Providing over the last 18 months about $700 million in extra payments to agriculture and providing early childhood learning systems for Saskatchewan of $146 million over the next five years is good for Saskatchewan.
On this new found interest on the part of the Conservatives in equalization, before they could even spell the word, the government put $799 million extra into the province of Saskatchewan.
* * *
Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Yesterday's economic update by the Minister of Finance contained some great news for post-secondary education, including direct support for students, some of whom are visiting Parliament this week. More funding will be made available to help students gain access to education, to upgrade their skills and to become the leaders of tomorrow.
Could the minister tell us how, in concrete terms, this new funding made available by the finance minister will get to students?
Hon. Belinda Stronach (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his hard work as chair of the post-secondary education caucus.
In today's labour market, a post-secondary education is essential for prosperity and for growth. Statistics show that two-thirds of all future jobs will require a post-secondary education.
I am pleased by the investments outlined yesterday: $550 million to extend the Canada access grant for low income students; $2.19 billion to assist post-secondary students by addressing access and affordability; $210 million to expand the number of Canada graduate scholarships available; and $150 million to support international education. An investment in students is an--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elmwood--Transcona.
* * *
Parliament of Canada
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister's position on when the next election should be held grows more untenable as more and more Canadians realize that there is nothing unconstitutional, nothing unparliamentary about Parliament expressing its opinion about when the next election should be held. This is an activity that the Prime Minister already has legitimized, by himself saying when he thinks when the next election should be called.
Why is it okay for the Prime Minister and not for Parliament, and why is he playing chicken with the aboriginal affairs conference?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the Prime Minister has been very clear and consistent in making his commitment to Canadians. On national television, he told Canadians that he would call an election within 30 days of Mr. Justice Gomery's second report. Canadians deserve all the facts and they deserve to have their say on the basis of those facts.
This morning, when we were on CBC Radio, it was the leader of the NDP who was sitting there with the Canadian taxpayers coalition arguing for an earlier election, while I sat with Phil Fontaine arguing to ensure that this Parliament continues to work.
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, somebody said, “Say it isn't so”, and I will. That is a totally false misrepresentation of what happened this morning.
All we are asking is a compromise which would enable the aboriginal affairs conference to take place and everything else the government says is important. Our compromise would do that.
I ask the Prime Minister to put the testosterone tactics aside. If the Prime Minister were at the United Nations, there would be a war every day because he cannot accept a compromise. Why can he not accept a compromise and respect the will of Parliament? What the hell is wrong with that?
(1450)
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what opposition members are suggesting is not a compromise. What they are suggesting is that they would want to be able to vote non-confidence in the government today, only to have the consequences of that vote sometime in January.
We are in a parliamentary democracy that operates on the principle that a government must have the confidence of Parliament. We either have confidence or we do not. If we do not have that confidence, the opposition parties can put forward a non-confidence motion.
We are here to make this Parliament work for Canadians and keep the Prime Minister's commitment to Canadians.
* * *
Agriculture
Ms. Diane Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Liberal campaign platform proves that the government has abandoned agriculture. This third budget of the year does not mention agriculture, not even once. The Liberals want to spend $40 billion, but not one penny of it will help anyone trying to scratch out a living by feeding our nation.
Our farmers are in terrible straits and they need help now, but the mini-budget is just an insult. Why has the government ignored farmers in its last two mini-budgets?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just to set aside the political rhetoric for a moment, I want to recognize the hon. member for coming back to the House after having faced serious health challenges. We appreciate seeing her back in the House.
Right now governments are making record payments to producers. We have provided over $2 billion in the CAIS program. We have provided our fifth payment this year, which was an additional billion dollars to producers.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to talk about their phoney numbers but are ignoring the facts.
On the Liberal mini-budget, Bob Friesen of the CFA said, “The Liberal government abandoned rural Canada and have not supported Canadian farm families...yet...given the opportunity, farmers were neglected again”.
The minister should consider the facts. The fact is grain and oilseed prices are below the cost of production. The fact is U.S. and European subsidies are driving down commodity prices. The fact is the CAIS program is not going to save family farms. The fact is the Liberals had a chance to put farm aid in their mini-budget and did not.
Why are Liberals ignoring the facts and ignoring our farmers?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is payments to producers are at record levels right now in Canada. The fact is this past year we provided an additional billion dollars, beyond all our other programs, to help Canadian producers. The fact is they cannot have it both ways. They cannot on one side call payments bribery and then on the other side criticize us for not making them.
* * *
[Translation]
Taxation
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government continues to deny the existence of the fiscal imbalance and does not hesitate to use its surplus funds for Liberal Party priorities and buying votes, while leaving the provinces unable to pay for health care and education.
When will the minister follow the lead of the Conservative Party, and commit to transferring tax points to the provinces so they can meet the needs of Canadians, not the needs of the Liberals?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, revenue flows to provinces and territories are now and will continue to be consistently higher than federal revenue flows. In fact, federal debt is higher than all the provincial debts combined. Federal transfers from the Government of Canada to the provinces and territories are at an all time record high. We have already announced that over the next 10 years those payments will be going up by $100 billion.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Lower Mainland of British Columbia is now Canada's capital of crime. According to the Vancouver Sun, “Crime is rampant throughout the GVRD, no community is immune”.
The Liberal failure to tackle grow ops, the Liberal failure to provide enforcement capacity, and its failure to toughen up the Criminal Code are all reasons why crime is rampant. It has been 12 years of Liberal failure.
Why have the federal Liberals allowed crime to skyrocket in the Lower Mainland?
(1455)
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish that the hon. member might have been at the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice where we unanimously adopted a four point strategy with regard to combating grow ops, and other drugs and synthetic substances.
Number one is law reform. Number two is more effective law enforcement. Number three is combating organized crime. Number four is a program for education and awareness. We are moving. We are not just asking questions.
* * *
[Translation]
Economic Development
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this economic update is a smokescreen. It contains nothing for agriculture, softwood lumber, textiles, clothing or, yet again, the regions. There is no shortage of problems, or money.
How did the Minister of Finance manage to produce an economic update while totally ignoring the serious problems facing a number of regions?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, barely a few months ago, we voted an additional $307 million for Quebec regions, which the Bloc members opposed. We invested $50 million in softwood lumber and $34 million in fisheries, despite the Bloc. We have developed the Gaspé, Chandler, Cap-Chat and Magog, despite the Bloc. We have achieved economic diversification, despite the Bloc. This is hypocrisy pure and simple.
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how could the regional economic development minister allow his colleague in finance to produce a mini budget with nothing for the regions? Is this not evidence of this minister's light weight in cabinet?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can hardly wait for André Harvey to return to this House and behave like a real MP.
The members of the Bloc voted against a $307 million increase in the budget and against Bill C-9. We have helped the textile industry with CANtex, but they did not agree. They were absent. We helped the regions of Quebec in need, despite the Bloc. I travel throughout Quebec, and the Bloc comes along behind me. I repeat this is total hypocrisy.
* * *
[English]
Justice
Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has consistently denied the positive effects of mandatory sentence reform. Yet under pressure from a Conservative private member's bill, the unanimous national police endorsement, the approval of provincial justice ministers from across this country and overwhelming public support, he reluctantly announced a vague proposal to increase mandatory sentences.
The minister now says he has no details since he has not discussed this idea with cabinet. When can we expect these details? Is this just another example of Liberal death bed conversion to Conservative Party policy?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposals are not vague. They were specifically endorsed unanimously by all the provincial and territorial ministers of justice. We will be introducing a legislative package with 10 legislative amendments but, more importantly, we will be providing hope and opportunity to prevent tragedy that the Conservatives are trying to exploit here in the House.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the B.C. solicitor general said that it was “absolutely unbelievable” that a man avoided jail and was given house arrest after stealing a car he crashed into a truck, killing his passenger. It is beyond comprehension that someone can kill people and not go to jail.
The government introduced phoney sentencing legislation and made phoney pre-election promises on mandatory prison sentences. When will the government take crimes that endanger lives seriously and impose prison sentences for violent and repeat offenders?
(1500)
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the opposition would stop mischaracterizing the legislation and pass the legislation, we will get exactly what the member opposite is asking.
* * *
[Translation]
The Environment
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is still engaged in negotiations with all the Canadian provinces, including Quebec. These partnerships will help us honour our Kyoto commitment.
Can the minister share with this House his determination to reach a positive and fruitful agreement with the Government of Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's excellent economic update, I am able to say with more certainty than ever that, through the Partnership Fund, the Government of Canada will be able to invest at least $300 million in projects co-funded with the Government of Quebec.
Quebeckers have many great ideas for reducing greenhouse gases in Quebec. They want their governments to work together. As always, I am reaching out to my Liberal counterpart in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health minister insulted every physician across the country last week when he wrongly accused them of putting their financial concerns ahead of the health of patients. The minister should apologize to physicians.
The president of the Canadian Medical Association has criticized the minister for his comments in numerous newspaper editorials. The CMA strongly supports timely access to quality health care based on need, not the ability to pay.
Will the minister apologize to the Canadian Medical Association and to all the hardworking doctors who deliver health care to Canadians?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am actually not surprised that the question comes from that member. He is criticizing me for defending and standing up for the Canada Health Act and public health care in Canada. That party has a policy that it endorsed at its last national convention to privatize health care. Conservatives should stand up and say it is not so.
* * *
Taxation
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberals have not learned anything from Gomery. In another attempt at vote buying, the Liberal government has announced another so-called tax saving measure. The reality is Canadians will not be fooled.
Canadians know that the Liberals are giving away massive corporate tax cuts while giving minimal tax cuts to individuals, some of which will not kick in until 2010. If the government were truly committed to helping Canadians, it would start cutting the GST, so that everyone would receive the same tax relief.
Will the minister take that giant step and provide tax relief for all Canadians by cutting the GST?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are many opinions about the statement yesterday, most of them favourable. Let me quote this one:
|
I think on the training agenda and the notion that some of that will be prioritized for aboriginal people is a very good idea...it's a good step forward. I think some of the suggestions on innovation and training and how we can improve the standard of living for all Canadians is a very positive step forward. I think some of the affordability issues for students are extremely positive. |
That comes from the hon. Gary Doer, Premier of Manitoba.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the Governor General Awards in Commemoration of the Persons Case: Ruth Marion Bell; Bonnie Diamond; Aoua Bocar Ly-Tall; Josephine Enero Pallard; Muriel Stanley Venne; and Erica Jamie (Samms) Hurley, the Youth Award recipient for 2005.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the hon. Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister Responsible for Democratic Renewal for Ontario.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the hon. Chris A. d'Entremont, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for Nova Scotia; the hon. David Alward, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture for New Brunswick; and the hon. Kevin MacAdam, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture for Prince Edward Island.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
* * *
(1505)
Privilege
Order Paper Question No. 151--Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 by the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East concerning the reply to Question No. 151 on the order paper.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House for his interventions.
The hon. member for Delta--Richmond East stated that the government's response to his question was that it could not provide an answer because the matters raised therein were presently before the courts. The hon. member charged that the government was withholding information necessary for the execution of his parliamentary duties and was misleading the House. He therefore asked that I find a prima facie breach of privilege.
The following day, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose to reply to these allegations. He responded that the government declined to provide the information sought because it wished to protect the integrity of the judicial process. He also denied that there had been any attempt to interfere with the parliamentary work of the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East. The hon. Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tabled a piece of correspondence in relation to this matter.
On October 3, the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East rose again in the House to reply to the comments put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary. In his argument, the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East referred to the 1977 report of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members. He cited the following statement from paragraph 13 of the report:
|
It is clear...[that] no restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to put questions respecting any matter before the courts particularly those relating to a civil matter, unless and until that matter is at least at trial. |
Finally, the hon. member argued that a minister has the obligation to justify any refusal to answer a question on sub judice grounds. He suggested that, in the present case, the government had not provided sufficient justification for its refusal, particularly since the matter is a civil case not yet gone to trial.
I have reviewed the presentations on this question and have looked at the relevant precedents. Certainly, disagreements over responses to written questions are not new. In fact, the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East has himself raised several questions of privilege relating to written questions.
[Translation]
Our practices with respect to replies to written questions are clear. The government may indicate in a response that it cannot supply an answer to a written question. To illustrate this, I refer hon. members to a ruling given by Speaker Lamoureux on May 5, 1971, found at page 5515 of the Debates, where he said,
|
It is correct, of course, to state as a general principle that a member should not be impeded in the discharge of his parliamentary duties. I suggest that this in itself does not create an obligation on the part of the government to supply any and all information sought by a member, either by way of an oral question or a written question. Indeed, there are many precedents to indicate that from time to time ministers have refused to answer questions on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest to do so. |
[English]
In addition, as I indicated on February 9, 2005, when the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East raised a similar point, the Speaker does not have the authority to review government responses to written questions.
In this instance, however, the hon. member has asked me to rule on whether the government is interpreting the sub judice convention properly.
So, it may be helpful for me to describe the convention briefly. The sub judice convention is a practice whereby hon. members refrain from making reference in debate to matters awaiting judicial decisions, whether it be before a criminal court, civil court or court of record. This convention also applies to motions and to oral and written questions.
Although the Speaker's role in enforcing this convention has not been defined in our rules, the Chair does exercise a certain discretion in these matters. Thus, on numerous occasions the Chair has warned of the need for caution in referring to matters pending judicial decisions.
In 1977, the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members recommended that the Chair play a limited role during question period with regard to the sub judice convention. This recommendation can be found in paragraph 23 of the special committee's report which the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East cited in part. Specifically, the committee stated:
|
The minister could refuse to answer the question on these grounds, bearing in mind that refusal to answer a question is his prerogative in any event. It is the view of your Committee that the responsibility of the Chair...should be minimal as regards the sub judice convention, and that the responsibility should principally rest upon the Member who asks the question and the minister to whom it is addressed. |
By extension, this principle also applies to written questions and their responses.
That being said, I agree with the comments of Madam Speaker Sauvé on December 16, 1980, comments cited by both the hon. members who intervened, that there could be instances where refusal to answer a question amounts to improper interference with a member's duties. However, I do not believe that is the case in the present matter and I acknowledge that it is in the best interests of the House to have questions answered as completely as possible.
Indeed, Speaker Parent stated this very well in a ruling on February 9. 1995 at page 9426 of that day's Debates:
|
It is incumbent upon all those involved on both sides of the process--the members formulating the questions, House officials reviewing those formulations, the individuals drafting the replies and the ministers of the crown tabling those replies in the House--to ensure that every care is taken so that these exchanges remain as fruitful and as useful as possible. |
In conclusion, then, I do not believe that the Chair can determine whether the government has interpreted the sub judice convention properly. Nor is it the Chair's responsibility to oblige the government to answer a question when the government has stated that it is unable to respond because the matter is before the courts, as is the case in this instance.
Therefore I do not find that the matter raised by the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank the hon. member, however, for his continued vigilance in these matters.
(1510)
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments and certainly accept them but I wonder if you could clarify a couple of points for me.
I fully understand that it is the minister's prerogative to either answer or to refuse to answer a question but I am somewhat concerned about the point that was made. As yo