38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 115
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Order in Council Appointments |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Status of Women |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) |
|
|
Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) |
|
|
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Russ Hiebert |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Young Offenders |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Opposition Motion--Child Care |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Canadian Women's Health Network |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Cancer Society |
|
|
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Steamship Lines |
|
|
Mr. Réal Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse, BQ) |
|
|
Cole Harbour Heritage Farm Museum |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Perth—Wellington |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) |
|
|
Arnie Hakala |
|
|
Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Federation of Canadian Municipalities |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.) |
|
|
Fraser River Bird Habitat |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Open Doors 2005 |
|
|
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Awareness Month |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Canadian Forces |
|
|
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC) |
|
|
Police Youth Corps |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Sponsorship Program |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
AudioTaped Conversations |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.) |
|
|
Maher Arar Inquiry |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Medicinal Marijuana |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Aerospace Industry |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Heritage |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Admissibility of Oral Questions--Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Opposition Motion—Child Care |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Martin |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Dean Allison |
|
|
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Dean Allison |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Main Estimates, 2005-06 |
|
|
Concurrence in vote 1—Privy Council |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Diane Marleau (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Marc Boulianne (Mégantic—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Hon. Diane Marleau (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Opposition Motion — Strategy to Help Older Workers |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 103) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Opposition Motion--Child Care |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 104) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Main Estimates, 2005-06 |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 1--Privy Council |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 105) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 20--Solicitor General (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 106) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Concurrence in Vote 25--Solicitor General (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
(Division 107) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Hon. Roger Gallaway |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
(Division 108) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
|
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 109) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Strahl in the chair)
|
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
(On clause 2)
|
|
|
(Clause 2 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 3 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 4 agreed to)
|
|
|
Adoption de l'article 5
|
|
|
(Clause 6 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 7 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Clause 1 agreed to)
|
|
|
(Preamble agreed to)
|
|
|
(Title agreed to)
|
|
|
(Bill reported)
|
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 110) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 111) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2005 |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 112) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 113) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 114) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 115) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 116) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
(Division 117) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
(Division 118) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 119) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
(Division 120) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Remote Sensing Space Systems Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
(Division 121) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
|
The Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Order in Council Appointments
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of orders in council recently made by the government.
* * *
(1005)
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 am also pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
Committees of the House
Health
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Health. The committee recommends that the federal government appoint the Auditor General to provide external performance audits on certain health related government foundations.
* * *
Status of Women
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
The committee is calling on the Department of Justice and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to table legislation based on the comprehensive recommendations of the pay equity task force no later than October and that the legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee has requested a comprehensive government response.
* * *
[Translation]
Finance
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments. The committee agreed on Monday, June 13, 2005 to report it with amendments.
[English]
I want to thank all the members who worked diligently and expeditiously on the clause by clause last night so the House could get the bill passed and we can get out of here for the summer.
* * *
[Translation]
Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Accessibility for All”.
[English]
Accessibility must be a right and not a privilege. This is the report that I have presented here today and this is what it signifies in the lives of persons with disabilities, regardless of the severity. It is important to remember that we are all temporarily able-bodied so this report will have a far-reaching impact on all Canadians.
I would like to congratulate and thank the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River, chair of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and other members who worked so diligently. The views of witnesses who came before the committee are reflected in the many recommendations, some of which call for more thorough monitoring, review, coordination and improvement of systems in federal buildings, including the parliamentary precinct.
[Translation]
I also want to thank my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
* * *
(1010)
[English]
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented on Wednesday, May 11, be concurred in.
The fifth report deals with the appointment of John Reid, who is the current Information Commissioner of Canada, and asks that his appointment be extended by an additional year, effective July 1, 2005. The recommendation would not preclude Parliament from further extending the appointment after the one year extension.
This is a very important motion and that is why I want to speak to it. Right now, as everyone in the House and probably every Canadian knows, we are experiencing a time of great political turbulence and instability and we need someone who is as experienced as Mr. Reid to continue on in his role as Information Commissioner.
Mr. Reid has served with great distinction over the past seven years in this capacity. Furthermore, it is not without precedent that we can, if we wish, extend his term of office. We have already seen that the Governor General had an extension of one year to her term. Basically, the reason for that extension was again due to the political instability in which we currently find ourselves. It is certainly appropriate that the House and Parliament at least consider the extension of Commissioner Reid in his current capacity.
I want to speak for a moment or two to the capabilities of Mr. Reid because, quite frankly, as I mentioned a few moments ago, he has served with great distinction. Mr. Reid, as most people in the House would know and I hope most Canadians recognize, has served in many capacities throughout his career. He has been a parliamentarian. He was a member of the former Trudeau cabinet. He was first elected to Parliament in 1965, stayed as an elected member of Parliament through six consecutive elections and finally left this House in 1984.
However it was during his term of office that I think it really speaks to his capabilities and qualifications as Information Commissioner.
During his time in office in the mid-seventies when he was parliamentary secretary to Privy Council, he initiated a review of information practices, such as what was acceptable and what should be extended in terms of information and access to information, that all Canadians could receive.
In fact, because of Mr. Reid's fine work, eventually in 1983 the House introduced the first Access to Information Act by Minister Francis Fox. John Reid was instrumental in bringing that legislation to the floor of the House and eventually it became the law of the land.
That was the genesis, I suppose, of Mr. Reid's involvement with access to information. Subsequent to that, he was eventually appointed Information Commissioner seven years ago. Since that time he has again served the House and Parliament extremely well. His experience and his knowledge are such that I feel it would be remiss of the House to let a man of that quality go when we know we will be bringing down changes to the Access to Information Act itself.
The Access to Information Act is now 22 years old. The justice minister has promised to table new legislation before the House. It needs to be updated and amendments to that 22 year old act are needed.
The justice minister stated that by now he would already have tabled new legislation. Unfortunately, that did not happen. He forwarded and tabled a discussion paper instead. However the justice minister continues to assure the House that he will be tabling new legislation.
(1015)
If we are to take the justice minister at his word and he does introduce new legislation to amend the Access to Information Act, we will need Mr. Reid to assist in the transition. This is a 22-year-old act that is in dire need of changes. It is paramount that we update the act.
We on the access to information committee recognize that. When I say “we”, I mean all opposition members on the committee voted in favour of extending the appointment of Mr. Reid for another year. The only members of the committee who opposed the motion to extend Mr. Reid's appointment were the members of the Liberal Party of Canada.
It is fascinating to me, when a former Liberal cabinet minister, someone who served for six consecutive elections and for close to 20 years in this place with great distinction, that members of his own party would be the only ones on the access to information committee to oppose his extension for one year.
We all have to ask ourselves why the Liberal members of the committee oppose such an extension. It cannot be because of his qualifications. He has served this Parliament well for seven years. It cannot be because of lack of experience. He probably has more experience as a parliamentary officer than anyone else. In addition, he has extensive experience in the field of access to information. His lack of experience just does not hold true. It has to be something else.
The only thing I can think of is that Mr. Reid has categorically stated that what he would like to see in new access to information legislation would be the increased level of information that would be available to all Canadians upon request.
Mr. Reid has stated that if his vision of a new act comes into being, we could probably safely say that incidents, such as the sponsorship scandal, would not have happened in the first place. Individuals, whether they be members of this place, members of the media or individual Canadians, would have the ability to receive information from government departments that would have triggered the fact that the sponsorship scandal was in full bloom.
However the Liberal members of the committee have stated that they do not want to see Mr. Reid's term extended. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the Liberals do not want more accountability and transparency. They do not want Canadians, members of the media or parliamentarians to have the ability to find out what they have been doing behind closed doors. I have to say that if that is the reason it is absolutely shameful.
We have a situation in the country right now where Canadians have been outraged, with good reason, at what they have found out during the Gomery commission about the sponsorship scandal. We should all be working on behalf of Canadians to put into place processes and procedures that prevent that type of action from ever occurring again.
With the sponsorship scandal we have seen the literal theft of taxpayer money that was ultimately put back into a political party for clearly political purposes. No Canadian and no parliamentarian should stand for that. We should, as a body of parliamentarians, come together and state what can we do to ensure this never takes place.
In fact, as we all know and every Canadian knows, Justice Gomery has been charged with the responsibility of trying to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal and then recommending processes that will prevent that type of action from ever happening again.
Every member of this House from time to time have stated that they believe in what Justice Gomery is doing and agree with his mandate. Therefore one has to wonder why, when we have an individual like John Reid, the current Information Commissioner, who wishes to put in processes to strengthen the recommendations that we will be hearing from Justice Gomery to prevent things like the sponsorship scandal from ever happening again, members of the Liberal Party of Canada on the committee are opposed to extending his appointment.
(1020)
Perhaps the Liberals do not want Canadians to have access to relative information. Perhaps the Liberals do not want parliamentarians to have access to information that could perhaps stop actions, like the sponsorship program, from occurring again. Perhaps, and I think this is probably closer to the mark, the Liberals did not want ordinary Canadians to have access to information at the cabinet level. Perhaps the Liberal Party is doing things in cabinet, having discussions in cabinet and perhaps there are cabinet documents that it does not want ordinary Canadians to see.
Why is there this need for secrecy? I think Canadians can draw their own conclusions but I would have to say that any parliamentarian who is fearful of Canadians, members of the media or some of his or her colleagues examining what he or she has done in the House or behind closed doors, he or she must have something to hide.
If the government is absolutely committed to what it says about openness and transparency in government, then it should be welcoming the extension of Mr. Reid's appointment. The Liberals should be encouraging all parliamentarians on their side of the House to extend Mr. Reid's contract for at least one more year but that is not the case. All we see from the Liberal side of the committee room is the rejection of Mr. Reid with no apparent reason.
An hon. member: Because he does his job.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Perhaps that is the reason, that he does his job and he does it well.
Again, we find certain members on the Liberal side of the House who oppose his extension. They oppose an individual who has served in his position with distinction and who will, if he has his way, bring procedures into the Access to Information Act that will strengthen the act.
This is a situation where once again we see members on the opposite side of the House saying one thing and doing another. All they are doing, in my opinion, is giving lip service to the fact that they want more openness and transparency in government while their actions are doing everything but that.
In my estimation we cannot allow this to happen. I would love to hear one good reason why Mr. Reid's contract should not be extended but the Liberals have not given one. All they are saying is that they oppose it, which is absolutely shameful.
Mr. Reid is not a Conservative by background nor is he a Bloc member or an NDP member. He is not only a Liberal but he was a former cabinet minister in the Trudeau era. He served the House and Canadians for close to 20 years as a Liberal and yet the Liberal members do not want him to remain as Information Commissioner. They have no good reason. All they want is him removed or his contract not to be extended.
To the point of belabouring this topic, let us go back to what Mr. Reid has done and why the Liberals do not want him to remain in this position. Mr. Reid has stated for the record, without equivocation, that he wants to strengthen the Access to Information Act to make it more transparent and easier for all members of the Canadian public, parliamentarians and members of the media to gain information and access to information from the government side of the House.
If there are situations that occurred that precipitated in a sponsorship scandal, Mr. Reid wants to ensure that all Canadians would be able to access the information on those transgressions as they were occurring. Right now we do not have that. Mr. Reid would like all Canadians to have access to every funding arm of government in terms of getting information. Currently they cannot do that.
(1025)
How can the government members stand in the House day after day and say they believe in accountability, transparency and openness? They agree, or at least they say they agree, with the mandate of Justice Gomery when in practice they do exactly the opposite. I think that is absolutely shameful. When we say one thing, we have to act as if we mean what we say. In other words, we can talk the talk but we have to walk the walk. This government does nothing like that. I think it is absolutely shameful.
Again, I urge any member on the Liberal side to stand in the House or even at committee and make one argument for why Mr. Reid's extension should not take place. The Liberals have failed to do that. I encourage all members today to put forward that argument. I encourage them to tell me whether it was his lack of experience that prevented them from endorsing Mr. Reid's extension. Was it the fact that he did not have knowledge of the department? Of course not.
Once again, this is a man whose actions in the mid-1970s resulted in the first Access to Information Act being presented in the House in 1983 and who, upon his appointment as Information Commissioner seven years ago, has done nothing but perform his duties admirably, with distinction and, to his credit, in a non-partisan, impartial manner. That is why those Liberal members do not want to see him reappointed.
An hon. member: They want a partisan hack.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: They want a Liberal lapdog in that position.
When the new Access to Information Act is introduced in the House, the members opposite want someone appointed to that position who has no prior knowledge or experience so they can lead the new information commissioner by the nose, with a ring in the nose, and tell that person what to do and what not to do. They do not want somebody who is impartial. They do not want somebody who knows what cabinet confidentiality is all about.
How can we allow this to happen? How can any Canadian allow this to happen?
In the last year we have seen information come out of the Gomery commission that pertains to the largest political scandal in Canadian history. All I have heard from members opposite are these comments: this was a rogue group of politicians; it did not reflect on the Liberals; we want to get to the bottom of this; we are mad as hell and we will not stop until we get all of the answers. How can they say that?
How can Liberals stand in the House with any credibility and state to the Canadian public that they actually want to get to the bottom of this incident when exactly the type of legislation Mr. Reid is proposing that we introduce would prevent this from happening? They should be endorsing Mr. Reid's appointment or reappointment and yet they are not.
I see members opposite chuckling, because they know that once again they are pulling a fast one on the Canadian public. They think this is humorous. They think this is funny. This is serious business. I am absolutely offended by members who think they can get away with another one.
Eventually the Canadian public will understand what those members opposite are all about. They are about trying to suppress information rather than letting Canadians access information. This is something that all Canadians and parliamentarians in the House should absolutely reject with every fibre and ounce of strength they have.
Eventually this motion will come to the floor of the House; at least I am hoping that it will. I am convinced that all members on this side of the House and members of the New Democratic Party will endorse Mr. Reid's reappointment for one year. I can say right now without fear of retribution that we will see members opposite rejecting or attempting to reject the appointment of Mr. Reid. This is a government that has lost all credibility and should have lost all confidence of the Canadian public when it comes time to talk about things like transparency and accountability.
(1030)
Let me conclude by saying that while the members have talked the talk, again they have not walked the walk. If members opposite are serious about transparency, accountability and openness in government, I invite them to stand in their places today and join with me in asking for the immediate extension for John Reid as Information Commissioner of this Parliament.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do very much agree with one thing the member said, which is that Mr. Reid has served admirably and with distinction.
It was a seven year appointment. The appointment is coming due. Members may not have realized that the rules in this place changed. As past chair and now vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, I will note that in all committees we have had new powers to review all appointments. Indeed, every standing committee now has a majority of opposition members on it, so that when the review comes up they will have an opportunity to make sure there is an appointee once Mr. Reid's seven year term expires.
Mr. Reid was appointed by the government. He has excellent credentials and he has done an extremely good job on behalf of Canadians, but to extend for a year is tokenism, somewhat, and in fact this is not even Mr. Reid's wish.
I would also remind the member that we had an all party committee on the Access to Information Act and that indeed it will be a matter to be addressed by the House. I think the members participating in that all party ad hoc committee on the Access to Information Act did a total review of it, led by our former colleague, John Bryden. There are important improvements that can be made and there was consensus, and there will be consensus as we move forward.
I had hoped to be able to speak to this motion. I would simply like to ask the member if he is confident about the process that has been established, since this Parliament began, for the full review by committees of appointees such as the new chairman and CEO of Canada Post, which our committee has done. Also, there was the appointment last Parliament of the new Privacy Commissioner, which our committee also did.
Is he confident that in the process parliamentarians will be able to review the appointees, whether it be for the Access to Information Office or any other officer of Parliament? Indeed, the rules cover any director of any agency or board that has funding directly or indirectly from the government. Is he confident that appointees will be subject to parliamentary review, a review for which in each committee the opposition has the majority?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I am on the access to information committee. Let me remind the hon. member that all opposition members of that committee unanimously endorsed the extension for Mr. Reid for one more year with a proviso that the extension could go beyond one year.
The member also states that Mr. Reid does not want this. That is absolutely not true. Mr. Reid has been consulted and has said that if asked he would gladly serve in that capacity for another year. To suggest that Mr. Reid does not want to continue in that capacity is absolutely false.
Again, I would point out to the hon. member that we have discussed this at committee extensively. Once again, for the record, all members of the committee except the Liberals agreed unanimously to extend Mr. Reid's contract by one year.
As I mentioned in my opening address, a precedent has been set, because this government, without consultation or with very little consultation, determined to extend the contract of the Governor General by one year, because, as the Liberals put it, of the political instability of the current government. They felt that having some continuity in that position would actually strengthen the confidence that all Canadians have in what might be a short term government.
Mr. Reid's purview is such that he would be the one responsible for overseeing the transition of this new act that may be coming forth. I must say, because I see the member for Winnipeg Centre entering the House, that--
(1035)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): I remind the hon. member that he is not to refer to members being here or not. All members are in the House.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the last comment.
Let me rephrase this. At committee, at one point in the not too distant past, the Minister of Justice had committed to the member for Winnipeg Centre that there would be a new access to information act presented at committee. In fact, there was no such act. There was only a discussion paper. This is one more example of how this government does not want Canadians to have access to information. We must reappoint Mr. Reid.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion, and I thank all opposition colleagues on the committee for such a critical motion. I find it ironic that with a government that has brought forward a whistleblower protection act as one of the earliest pieces of legislation in this minority Parliament, it is the Conservative Party that is standing here today protecting and advancing a tough defender of access to information, a true whistleblower on the misdeeds and the shroud of secrecy that surround this Liberal government.
Access to information is such a vital part of opposition parliamentarians being able to do their job. Perhaps that government over there does not want a strong opposition. It just wants us to roll over and play dead, but no, we need to be able to do our job well. Canadians expect us to hold this government to account. That is why they elected us as opposition members of Parliament.
As a kid, I was always warned whatever one does secret is ultimately going to come to light. That is why it is important to have a motion like this coming forward. What this government has done in secret for 12 years needs to come to light. It is not just the sponsorship scandal that I am talking about. I am sure there are all kinds of scandals waiting to be uncovered. That is why the Liberals do not support the extension for this Information Commissioner.
Ultimately what really sticks with me is that this current Prime Minister was supposed to be a champion of transparency and openness. That is what he kept telling people on his nine year climb to power as he stepped over Liberal body after Liberal body to become the Prime Minister.
My question is simple. I look to my colleague. Why is this Liberal government so afraid of extending the term of this tough Information Commissioner for even one year? Does it not want a tough whistleblower constructively criticizing its lust for secrecy and its tendency for cover-up?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. colleague's question, I referred in my opening comments to the fact that the only conclusion I can draw as to why the Liberals do not want to see the extension of Mr. Reid is that there is more corruption and they are trying to cover it up.
They do not want someone who knows the political process, who knows the system and who knows cabinet. They do not want someone like that in this role, because, let us face it, if these new tough rules get implemented then he would be able to uncover the corruption that undoubtedly lies just below the surface with that government.
The Liberals have had 12 years of corruption and have the audacity to stand in this House and say that while they agree that Mr. Reid has served his position well and with distinction, they just do not think it is really within the rules to extend his contract for one more year.
I do not know how they believe that Canadians will swallow this line. All the Liberals are trying to do is bring someone in who does not have the knowledge, the experience and the political background to uncover the dirt and the corruption. They want someone that they can use as a lapdog. They do not want to get to the truth. They do not want to uncover their own corruption. That is why they are opposing the extension for Mr. Reid.
(1040)
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not want to reappoint Mr. Reid because they do not like what he advocates, but we know that indicative of any totalitarian regime is the control of information. It is central to the functioning of any dictatorship.
Previously, I talked to the Auditor General about this. She said that there are limits to laws and rules and policy directives, but they just get ignored. What is needed in addition is a culture of transparency.
I want the member to talk about what this current move by the government reveals about its character. We see its love of secrecy and its record of undermining the access to information law. We have seen its failure to expand resources to actually implement the law. The central element, which is basic to all of democracy, is openness and transparency, public access and the public's right to know.
Can he explain in plain terms what the Liberal move means to the average voter? Why should the average voter care about us arguing about access to information?
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, in plain terms, why Canadians should be concerned is that the shroud of secrecy the government has perpetrated on the Canadian public for the last 12 years is reprehensible.
The sponsorship scandal never would have been uncovered had it not been for the Auditor General. Liberals do not want more transparency and more openness in government. If there were, then all the facts of every Liberal theft and corruption would come to the public's eye. They do not want more openness in government because they are afraid of what the political ramifications would be to that party if the public were able to find out how they have served themselves rather than than Canadians for the last 12 years.
Liberals do not want someone who will be tough. They do not want somebody who will ensure that Canadians have access to all information on what they consider to be their own government purview.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was a bit surprised this morning to learn the subject of today's debate.
[English]
A few weeks ago in the committee which I have the honour to chair, a number of Conservative MPs created a spectacle by complaining that they were not getting what they judged to be a sufficient number of opposition days. At that time, the committee decided it would report the issue to the House in its 35th report. The Conservatives then argued that not only did they need more opposition days, but they wanted them right away because they wanted to debate opposition issues.
Today is one of those days. Instead of debating their own opposition day, in which they should indicate their perceived failings in the way the government administers the business of the nation, opposition members have decided to filibuster by discussing a concurrence motion in a committee report. I guess they have been unable to find anything wrong with the government.
They claim that is not the case, but I challenge them to this. The next time they have an opposition day, what would happen if a Liberal moved concurrence in a committee report thereby displacing their opposition day? Presumably this would be perfectly okay because after all that is what they are doing to themselves. If they are doing this to themselves, presumably somebody else doing it to them would be similarly correct. Otherwise why would they be doing it now?
You are truly objective in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and non-partisan so you have probably fairly evaluated at this point the fact that the Conservative opposition does not know what it is doing, at least this morning. I will let others decide about other occasions. Clearly this morning those members do not want to debate their own opposition day.
What is the purpose of an opposition day? It is historically and constitutionally a process by which the Sovereign is not granted supply until the grievances of the people have been heard. That is very clear in our rules. The grievances of the people are manifested, in parliamentary terms, by way of opposition days and listening to the debates. Once all opposition days are exhausted, we vote on supply, which we will be doing tonight. Once we start with the supply bill, there is no more debate on the bill because debate was held prior to the bill's introduction on the floor of the House. That is the way the process works.
Today we were supposed to listen to the grievances of the people as manifested by the opposition days. This morning opposition members are saying that they have no grievance. They do not want to debate the grievance they said they had when they tabled their opposition motions. That itself is very indecisive on the part of the opposition. They cannot make up their minds what they want to grieve because they have tabled half a dozen opposition motions. They then have to decide whether one of them has any legitimacy for debate in the House of Commons.
I guess this morning they looked at the list of their so-called grievances and concluded that none of them had any merit. Having done that, the only thing left for them to do was to move concurrence in a committee report. Concurrence in the committee report in question has to do with reappointing an officer of the House, not a government official.
(1045)
[Translation]
We are talking, here about the hon. John Reid, who is the Information Commissioner of Canada. I am somewhat familiar with Mr. Reid's file because I was the one who moved the motion a few years ago that he be appointed to this position. At that time, another candidate had expressed interest but he failed to receive the unanimous support of the House. Mr. Reid had not officially submitted his name. Some members of the House, even some members of the opposition, suggested that the government consider appointing or officially submitting his name as a candidate, if he was interested. He was. The hon. John Reid, a former minister, expressed interest in this appointment. Prior to this, he had co-sponsored the Access to Information Act. He was well known in the field and continues to be today, since his appointment. In my opinion, he has done an excellent job.
John Reid's name was put forward for this position. He appeared before a parliamentary committee, and his appointment was approved by a unanimous vote in the House, as we all recall. This happened during the previous Parliament, some five years ago, I believe.
Today, some members feel Mr. Reid ought to be reappointed. I do not know if this is possible under the rules. He is certainly highly competent. The government will decide whether it wants to propose him again as a candidate.
A parliamentary committee is of course absolutely free to congratulate an officer of Parliament on his work. This is evidently what the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics concluded in tabling its fifth report. That is all very well and I have no objection to the process or to the fact that the committee made that statement, and that it is submitted to this House.
What I do have trouble with is that the opposition made such a fuss a few weeks ago about not having its quota of opposition days. In fact, the committee I have the honour to chair was asked to table a report in this House setting out this shortcoming. Today those same members who were demanding their opposition days are in the process of holding a filibuster on the opposition day they themselves asked for. I just do not get it.
I have been in this House for some time, and I find this parliamentary strategy a bit hard to understand. Normally, MPs, particularly those in opposition, consider these opposition days something sacred in a way. They are, to some extent, because they are part of our constitutional conventions to which I have already referred, which require that the grievances of the people must be heard before we vote on supply.
That is what we are doing, or at least what we should be doing today. The members opposite have the opportunity to debate this or that government policy, be it agriculture, foreign affairs or what have you. They have a chance to say that it is not to their liking and that the policy should contain more of this or less of that. They can fault the government for not having done as much as it ought to in connection with this or that issue, or for having done too much in connection with some other. These subjects of debate are totally legitimate. That is why we are here. That is the reason the opposition itself raised in demanding that the 35th report be tabled.
I will summarize that report, on the off chance that some members may have forgotten some points in the text.
(1050)
The 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which I have the honour of chairing, need I point out, said:
|
Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), the Committee has considered a change to the Standing Orders. |
|
The Committee recommends that Standing Order 81(10) be amended by adding the following: |
|
(d) For the Supply period ending no later than June 23, 2005— |
That is the supply period ending this evening, the deadline being June 23. So we will decide tonight, and this is the last opposition day.
|
—if the government has not designated any of the remaining six allotted days so that an opposition motion can be considered— |
This is oddly like what could have happened today, had the opposition chosen to exercise its mandate. According to the Constitution, the opposition must want, by definition, to make the grievances known. The leader of the opposition calls himself the leader of the government in waiting. So, the leader of the opposition wants, rightly or wrongly—this time, I think, wrongly—to replace the Prime Minister. To do so, he must explain to the Canadian public as forcefully as he can, why his ideas are better than those of the government, using the opposition days.
That is not at all what is happening. That is not at all what the opposition is trying to do this morning.
I will continue to read this motion because I know the hon. members find it interesting:
|
—that May 19, 2005 shall be so designated— |
What they wanted the other day was to get as many opposition days possible as quickly as possible. They did not want to miss out on any before the end. However, we are now coming to the end and the opposition finds, believe it or not, they have one opposition day too many. They no longer want it.
I have a question for the New Democrats. If they were offered an additional opposition day, would they take it? I think they would. There are, no doubt, issues the New Democrats would want to raise in this House if they had an extra opposition day. I am sure of it. How is it that the New Democrats would have an issue to raise and the Conservatives seem not to? Do they not have any more matters to address, nothing more to do or to ask? They feel the government is doing a good enough job that there is no need to question it during the last day reserved for that purpose. As a parliamentary strategy, it is nothing to write home about.
I will continue to read the motion from the report I tabled on behalf of the committee that I chair:
|
—the vote shall not be deferred beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on that day. |
According to the opposition members, it was so urgent to have opposition days that the vote could not even be deferred until the next day. They had to have as many opposition days as possible as soon as possible and the votes had to be held the very same evening, such was their need to denounce the government.
(1055)
[English]
Now what do we have? The opposition has a day left over. It ran out of things to ask the government. It put a number of motions on the order paper for supply. It should only be putting one in any event. That was the intent of the first modernization report which I chaired, but that is another matter. Then it looked at all of them and guessed that none were legitimate. None of these so-called grievances were worthwhile raising, so the opposition moved concurrence in a committee report instead of debating an opposition day motion on the last opposition day and the last opportunity that we have to do so before the summer adjournment.
Therefore, I ask all my colleagues sitting on this side of the House, is this what an opposition party should be doing? I know my colleague from Scarborough--Rouge River sat with me in opposition. When we were in opposition, and I was there for a long time, we never ran out of things to ask Brian Mulroney. We never ran out of subjects to raise on opposition days. We know of course that when the Conservatives were in government, they had a number of shortcomings.
Given all the shortcomings that the Conservatives had at the time, we had lots of things to ask of them on the floor of the House. We never ran out of subjects to ask. We never filibustered our own opposition day in order not to get to orders of the day because we wanted to debate our opposition day motion. We wanted to keep the Prime Minister of the day accountable. First, because that particular government had many shortcomings; and second, we saw it as our duty as a government in waiting because that is what we were. We waited very patiently, particularly from 1988 to 1993, as my colleague from Scarborough-- Rouge River will recognize, and then in 1993 having duly waited as the government in waiting, we became the government.
Why did we become the government? It was because the previous government was not very good. As a matter of fact, it was bad. We held it accountable which was our duty and then the Liberals were elected. That is what happened in 1993.
The spectacle we have before us is an opposition day with the opposition having run out of subjects to ask the government. It is filibustering its own opposition day to avoid holding the government accountable. If that makes sense, I guess I will have to eat my hat.
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the truly frightening part about the diatribe of the hon. member is that he actually believes some of what he said. That is really frightening. Basically, he has stood up and said that it is the opposition's job to oppose the things being done by the government. Heaven knows the government makes that very easy for us by doing so much wrong.
However, that is exactly what we are doing. He says that we should be on our opposition day motion. We would very much like to get to that. If the Liberals were honourable people, they would rise right now and support--
(1100)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Order, please. The hon. member of course knows that all members are honourable.
Mr. Jim Gouk: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the party as a whole and not any of the individuals. I was talking collectively.
We have a situation now where we have a Privacy Commissioner who helps make Parliament work, who helps the opposition and the people of Canada by giving us access to the kind of wrongdoings the government is involved in.
I can understand why the hon. member would not want to give us the opportunity to extend the job of one of the few appointees who is actually doing the job. It must have been a great shock to the Liberals when they appointed someone, given their usual track record of appointing hacks who just do whatever they are told, their typical lap dogs, and are now finding they have someone who actually does the job.
Why does the hon. member think that the opposition is not doing its job by opposing the very thing the government is doing by trying to replace someone who is doing their job? The government is ignoring the recommendations of the committee by turning around and saying that it does not want to do what the committee recommended.
If the hon. member can answer that and if his party was honourable, did the right thing and agreed to follow what the committee has recommended, we would be happy to get on to our opposition motion of the day.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken insofar as how the rules work for these appointments. Let me go back a little bit to the history prior to the modernization of committees.
Prior to modernization, some order in council appointments for officers of Parliament were debatable, some were simply by order in council, others were debatable and votable by one House, and others were debatable and votable by both houses. It was a mishmash. No two were the same, so we unanimously agreed to a rule change at the time.
I invite the hon. member to confer with some of his own colleagues who worked very hard on this. We made them all uniform and we said that we would appoint all officers of Parliament. There would be a possible review by committee, if that is what the members wanted. Then when the candidate's name appears before the House, it would carry by a majority vote. For all the appointments, it involves a vote in both houses, the ones that are in legislation anyway. There is one exception, which is the Chief Electoral Officer. That is voted on only in the House of Commons, but in the case of removal, both houses have to vote.
Getting back to the case at hand, the appointments are non-debatable and votable right away. That is the way the process works. Because it involves an officer of Parliament, the threshold of approval is very high. It is not in the rules, but if I were appointed privacy commissioner or something like that, and I am not running for this or any other position for that matter because I am retiring, the threshold would be very high. We would not want to be an officer of the House unless we knew that all parties, or at least a critical mass of them in the House, thought that we were able to do the job. Otherwise, it would be very complicated to do. It is the same for the new Ethics Commissioner and all the others.
That is how the process works. It is not just a matter of the government choosing someone to its liking and imposing that person on the House. In modern times, that would be very difficult to do.
In the case that we have here, the person was a Liberal MP, a Liberal cabinet minister, and the enthusiasm was generated largely by opposition members. The person has now served his term. I have no idea whether the government will propose him again, but I consider Mr. Reid as having been an excellent commissioner. That is how the process works.
I have explained it now to the hon. member. Perhaps we can do the opposition day motion, if the opposition has any grievances at all, which it probably does not.
(1105)
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is an incredible spectacle. We have just witnessed the hon. member standing up pretending he is the defender of opposition days.
The government prevented our parliamentary privilege and right to have opposition days. Why? Because it did not want us to bring forward a motion of non-confidence on a supply day until it had time to buy off enough votes to sustain itself.
That is the most shameful thing I have heard. How can the Liberals say that we are standing here doing something that offends the hon. member when the Liberals were the ones who prevented us, and all opposition members, from bringing forward our opposition day motions? The hon. member should be ashamed of himself. That is my comment.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that may be his comment, but it is factually incorrect. Unless the opposition days are exhausted, the hon. member will be familiar with the fact that the government cannot bring in the supply days, so obviously the government has to produce the number of opposition days necessary in order to arrive at these votes. That is obvious, and the hon. member knows that I am sure. That is the way it works.
Now if the hon. member is arguing that he wanted an opposition day on a particular day, an opposition day is a government order. A government order is set by the government and it is of course announced on the floor of the House by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I held that position previously for some seven and a half years. I designated a number of opposition days in my time. I changed a number of days.
No opposition day officially exists until the day starts. The minister introduces an informal calendar, which he produces for the benefit of members. It did not even exist until I became House leader. Following this, the minister designates an actual day on the Thursday prior, and the minister can reverse the designation any day, even when that occurs. I have done that countless times as well.
The hon. member has not listened to the answer. Maybe that is why he is asking these questions.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the real reason John Reid is not being renewed is because he has a record of exposing Liberal tricks, balderdash and eventually Liberal corruption.
I remember when he came before the government operations committee and exposed the numerous loopholes which the government tried to hide in its so-called whistleblower protection act. Those loopholes, had they been in place during the time the Liberal Party was stealing Canadian tax dollars through the sponsorship scandal, would have covered up the scandal for as many as 20 years. They were exposed by one man, by John Reid.
I remember the Liberal members who were in the committee room at that time. They looked him in the eye with great anger and disappointment. They realized that he was not going to be a lapdog to them. I see some of those members and the same sort of contempt that they have on their faces today is how they looked at John Reid that day. I knew they were coming for John Reid after that moment.
I knew they were furious that he was doing his job as Information Commissioner and that he was exposing Liberal tricks and corruption. Were it not for John Reid's testimony that day, those Liberal tricks would never have been exposed and that whistleblower bill would have become a full instrument to cover up Liberal corruption. That is the real reason the government is trying to assassinate an officer of the House.
Why will the member not stand up in the House of Commons and admit that is what he and his party are trying to do?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty sad spectacle if I ever saw one.
First, I never said that John Reid was not to be reappointed. I have no idea whether it is even possible to have a second mandate for a commissioner because none has ever been granted. The government will decide whether it offers a candidacy. That is the way the process works. Maybe the member should look at his computer because he is not listening to the answer, not that it would make much difference.
Second, he referred to something about 20 years. I have been here 21 years and half of that time were Conservative years. The country was in deficit and going into debt. Almost every week a minister would resign under that regime. Ministers of finance had no credibility. The popularity of the government was about my shoe size. We all remember those Conservative days. We know that it is the same Conservative Party that went down about 10 percentage points in one year. No matter how one splices that, it cannot look different because that is how it is.
Everyone knows they are trying to get out of the mess they got themselves into this morning by failing to produce an opposition day. They are trying to splice that together again, but the last splice did not work and this one will not either.
(1110)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as difficult as it is to follow a gifted orator and journeyman member of Parliament like the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, I would like to begin by complimenting my colleagues on the opposition benches for giving us the opportunity, on a day for their opposition day motion, to debate not one but two pressing issues. Contrary to what my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell says about not using opposition days well, in actual fact they have turned one issue into two and have given Canadians the opportunity in the twilight days of this Parliament to debate the issue that I feel is paramount, and that is access to information.
Let me begin by saying that freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes. There is no greater champion in our country on the issue of freedom of information than our outgoing Information Commissioner, the hon. John Reid, who has valiantly tried in the last seven years to break down the barriers to open government and true access to information.
I would be remiss not to recognize and pay tribute as well to another long-standing champion on this issue who is no longer with us, John Bryden, a former member of Parliament. In his final days as an MP he was with the Conservative Party. He dedicated his entire career toward trying to open up Canadian government to freedom of information so citizens could access the inner workings of the governments that represent them.
Like many Canadians, I look to the senior statesman in Canadian journalism in many ways, Hugh Winsor, for inspiration and comment. He has an article in today's Globe and Mail and the headline reads, “A major government irritant is bowing out”. That sums it up. This is why John Reid is leaving us. He has been a major irritant to the Government of Canada because he has been forthright and honest about his dogged pursuit of changing the access to information rules.
I will not read what Mr. Winsor has to say but I recommend strongly that other people have a serious look at this. He makes the point quite clearly about what happened to Mr. Reid.
There were predictable turning points in Mr. Reid's career. One of them, as my colleague from the Conservatives pointed out, was his presentation to the government operations committee. It was not viewed very favourably when he pointed out glaring loopholes that had been built in to what the government tried to call whistleblowing legislation. It was really more like an act to protect ministers from whistleblowers, which is what Mr. Reid exposed, and that was not viewed too favourably.
I think the thing that was really the turning point in Mr. Reid's career, and my colleagues may agree, was he backed an access request to see former Prime Minister Chrétien's daily agendas. They may have shown how much time he was spending at the Royal Ottawa golf club. He also backed an access request, which he deemed to be appropriate, calling for the daily briefings for Art Eggleton when he was the minister of national defence.
The Privy Council Office attempted to block Mr. Reid's scope by filing 25 applications in the Federal Court for judicial review of his rulings. In other words, Mr. Reid saw it to be absolutely fitting and appropriate that we should have public access to the former prime minister's daily itineraries and Mr. Eggleton's briefing notices.
The PCO clammed up in this culture of secrecy that dominates Ottawa today. It went to ground, threw up the barriers and started filing what we would call in the private sector slap suits. In other words, it filed 25 court appeals for judicial review to silence this issue. It lost all of them. Mr. Reid was found to be absolutely accurate. His interpretation of the access to information laws was correct, and the government should release this information. To this day it has refused. We have not seen those agendas. This is a graphic illustration of what is wrong with the freedom of information laws in our country.
(1115)
The laws exist on paper, but it is like the bill of rights in third world countries where it looks good on paper but the proof is in the pudding. To this day we are still waiting for these things. Even though Mr. Reid won all 25 applications in the federal court, the government is still not coughing up the documents and the commissioner has had to go back to the federal court.
Mr. Reid's career has been seven years of frustration. After focusing attention on the need for reform and trying to enforce the laws as they are, it has been nothing but headaches.
We will be very sorry to see him go. We very much regret what I view to be a binding recommendation of a newly created access to information, privacy and ethics committee. A House of Commons standing committee recommended that Mr. Reid's term of office be extended for one year. Partly because of the sensitive nature of the work the committee is doing and the point that we have reached in terms of trying to achieve access to information, for the purposes of continuity, the committee feels it is critical that the same information officer maintain his office for one more year.
We have noticed a worrisome trend. The Government of Canada has ignored the recommendations of House of Commons standing committees. I am sure we could parrot off four or five recent examples where the standing committees have very clearly given direction to government to take a certain route and they have been ignored, completely contrary to the Prime Minister's commitment to do something about the democratic deficit.
Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant and some of us view freedom of information laws as the sunlight of politics. Freedom of information laws are the natural enemy to a culture of secrecy that has allowed corruption to flourish in the country. It is hard to overstate what a central role freedom of information plays in our culture.
The House of Commons justice committee referred to 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 Act as quasi-constitutional. That is what we are playing with here. These are fundamental rights that are the cornerstone of any western democracy, yet they are being trampled on, ignored and trivialized by the experience, certainly in the past seven years when Mr. Reid has been our access to information officer.
Too clearly, many senior officials in Ottawa subscribe to the views of Sir Humphrey in the British comedy Yes, Minister when he said to his boss, “You can have good government or you can have open government, but Mr. Prime Minister, you cannot have both”. We do not want to reduce ourselves to the level of a sitcom here, but we are approaching that point in our treatment of access to information laws. While transparency and accountability are the buzzwords of the day in Ottawa, in practice there are many who resist them and who spend their every waking moment trying to find ways to confound people's right to know, their right to access to information. Very few government insiders are fans of the public's right to know. That is the fundamental problem that we have.
When members of the public submit access to information requests, too often government officials undermine the intent of the act by imposing unreasonable delays, or performing inadequate searches, or charging outlandish fees or fees that constitute a barrier to getting that access to information, or in the larger policy level, by opposing the expansion of the act so it might apply to more activities of government. That is where my interest comes in.
It is hard for me to understand, for instance, why only 49 of 246 crown agencies and corporations are subject to the act. Why can I get easy access to information on the Atlantic Pilotage Authority and not on Canada Post or VIA Rail?
(1120)
In the last Parliament I was proud to second a private member's bill, Bill C-462, which was put forward by my former colleague, Mr. John Bryden. In that bill, John Bryden for 10 years tried to break the barriers within his own party, his own ruling government, to introduce meaningful amendments to the Access to Information Act. Being a former journalist, Mr. Bryden had firsthand knowledge of the barriers that are in place.
When Mr. Bryden was not re-elected in the last election I took over his bill and introduced an identical bill, in fact word for word, under my own name, Bill C-201.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Pat Martin: I thank hon. members for their recognition but it was not my bill. It was a composite effort from all members of Parliament who are interested in this issue. Many on the Liberal side and the opposition side sat on a special subcommittee that Mr. Bryden put together for that very reason.
I think it is significant to note that Bill C-201 was the first bill, government or private, introduced in the 38th Parliament, which is why it is numbered Bill C-201. I think that is fitting because it is the single most important thing we could do to improve government.
If we had passed no other piece of legislation in this 38th Parliament, Canada would have been a better place had we passed Bill C-201. I say that without any hesitation. I do not say that to pat myself on the back. It is simply the conclusion that I have come to the more I study how critically important freedom of information is. We should not use that term lightly. We should reflect on the weight of those words. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of any western democracy.
In anticipation of speaking I was looking at some notes and reading something a history professor had to say. He states, “Secrecy has been the default rule of government for centuries. Revolutions in England in 1688 and in France in 1789 slowly overturned the absolute rule of monarchs and ushered in the right to free speech and the legislative process of law-making was open to public scrutiny. But within the bowels of the bureaucracy secrecy was still very much the rule and remains so to this day”.
This was stated by the author of Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age which is to be published this year. He goes on to state, “As modern governments expanded their operations and reach, government clerks evolved into bureaucrats with extraordinary new powers to shape the content of government policy and secrecy became the rule of the day. Secrecy became the new absolute power”.
That is a worrisome thought.
In the last couple of weeks I am sure we all noticed a survey, the results of which were on the front pages of 45 newspapers across the country. It was sponsored by the Canadian Association of Journalists and the Canadian Newspaper Association and was entitled “Access denied”.
These journalists conducted a comprehensive survey of every municipal, provincial and the federal government to find out just how easy it is to get access to information under the current regime that exists. Guess where the federal government ranked in their survey? There is no big surprise here. It ranked dead last.
I believe the Province of Alberta ranked first, where 93% of all access to information requests were fulfilled to the satisfaction of the applicant. They were not always completely filled but they were filled to the satisfaction of the applicant unless there were reasonable grounds, such as national security or personal privacy, that the information could not be shared.
Manitoba, I am proud to say, my home province, ranked second, where 88% of all applications for information were filled to the satisfaction of the applicant.
Guess where the federal government wound up on that survey? Twenty-five percent of all access to information requests were filled to the satisfaction of the applicant. That is less than one-quarter.
Open government can and does exist. Two of the most successful provincial governments in the country have no problem living up to the principles of open government.
(1125)
The federal government, however, is slammed shut with access denied. We do not have the right to know, no matter what it says on paper. Notwithstanding the fact that we have an officer of Parliament charged with the enforcement of the Access to Information Act, we cannot get that information. It is like giving people directions and then telling them that they cannot get there from here. Well we cannot get the information that we deserve as Canadian taxpayers in this particular regime.
Mr. John Reid, Canada's outgoing Information Commissioner, made a very poignant statement recently when he said:
|
In one way or another, all the checks and balances designed to limit abuses of government power are dependent upon there being access by outsiders to governments’ insider information. |
|
A public service which holds tight to a culture of secrecy is a public service ripe for abuse. |
We have graphic evidence of that before us daily in the House of Commons. We could spend all of our time chasing what the government likes to call “rogue bureaucrats”, or trying to plug the random ad hoc examples of abuse when we are lucky enough to stumble across them, or we could go to the root of the problem and wipe the slate clean. We could shine the disinfectant of sunlight on this culture of corruption that exists. If it is a powerful disinfectant, we could expose this and let the free democracy in which we live do its job to cleanse corruption from our system.
We have an example of how we might do that, which has been lovingly crafted by my former colleague, John Bryden, into Bill C-201. Let me give a bit of the sad history of what happened to Bill C-201 and where it is languishing today.
Not only was I the first one to table a bill in Parliament, government or private member, on the very first day that I could, a bill that had broad cross party support from all of the parties in the House of Commons, but then, by the greatest of good fortune, my name was drawn in the private members' lottery as the fourth bill to be debated in this 38th Parliament.
The government found itself with a real problem. The Liberals had a minority government, they had a bill they were deathly afraid of and they had a private member with an opportunity to debate the bill in four day's time. They sent out emissaries to approach me and, very wisely, chose one of the Liberals who I have great admiration and respect for, the current Minister of Justice, to be the emissary.
The minister told me that the government had every intention of introducing all the things I was calling for in my bill and that if I would withdraw my bill, take it off the Order Paper, agree not to have it debated in the House and subsequently passed, the government would introduce comparable legislation at least as good if not better in this session of Parliament. That was the commitment made.
Having not just fallen off the turnip truck, I wanted to have that confirmed so I pressed for specifics and details. I received, “Yes, this will be in there; yes, the crown corporations will be there; yes, cabinet confidences within reason will be in there; yes, all of the good things that were crafted laboriously over a decade in Bill C-201 will be included in government legislation and it will be prioritized to be in this session of Parliament”.
That was in October 2004. We now find ourselves in June 2005. The months started ticking by. Department of Justice officials produced bill after bill but we are still waiting for access to information legislation which was supposed to be priority number one.
Six months later, at the access to information committee, with great fanfare and pomp and circumstance, the Minister of Justice tabled at that committee, not a bill, but a discussion paper so we could begin the process of trying to analyze and determine if research is necessary to find out if there might be a problem with the Access to Information Act. What an absolute travesty, a breach of trust, a breach of promise and a clear violation of the commitment that was made to me to produce access to information legislation.
(1130)
The government has no interest in open government. It is a government more along the lines of Sir Humphrey of Yes, Minister. It believes we can have good government and open government but not both. That is the empirical evidence we have to deal with. What other conclusion can we draw?
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the member on bringing forth the Bryden bill again and I understand his frustration with the Minister of Justice. However he did not tell the rest of the story.
I also happen to be on the privacy and ethics committee and I heard the minister say that the government would not be introducing the bill, that it would study the issue first and who knows what. I then heard the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, come out and say that it would be its--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member of course remembers that he is not to use names.
Mr. David Tilson: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
The leader of the official opposition then came out with the Conservative Party's policy on the topic of information. What happens then is that the Minister of Justice comes out and says that the government will introduce a bill in the fall. One minute he says that he will introduce the bill, the next minute he says that he will study it and then, in response to the leader of the official opposition, he says that he will introduce a bill in the fall.
I do not often compliment the Liberal government and I certainly do not compliment past Liberal members, but I will compliment Mr. Reid, a former Liberal minister, who has done an outstanding job. He has been on the commission for about a third of its life and has done an admirable job and is most competent.
It appears we will be having an election sometime in the near future. It appears that unless Minister Cotler changes his mind again, we will have a bill. It appears--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member of course remembers that what applies on the left side also applies to the right side.
Mr. David Tilson: You have corrected me twice, Mr. Speaker, and I do apologize for that.
The Minister of Justice then said that he will introduce a bill in the fall on this subject.
We know we are going to have new legislation and it appears that we will have an election in the very near future. We know the whole issue of access to information is a mess. The member for Winnipeg Centre gave statistics on the federal record for access to information. We know that the Canadian Newspaper Association gave the federal government an F on access to information as far as a grade.
My question to the member for Winnipeg Centre is: Do we have any choice? We have a most competent commissioner, we have a messy situation, we have an election coming and we have a bill that appears will be introduced by the government. I do not see how we have any choice.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague who is the chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. I do feel that the only hope of steering this issue through at this time is if we maintain the continuity of the expertise that exists on this subject as developed by this information officer over his tenure of seven years. I think it would be very difficult for anyone else to pick up where this information officer left off.
What I find really frustrating, and I know my colleague shares my frustration, is that had I not been duped into dropping my bill, Bill C-201 would be law today. It would be one of those rare things where a private member's bill would have succeeded all the way and passed, and Canada would be a better place today had we allowed that bill.
I know it is jaded of me to assume this but I fear that the issue has more to do with political advantage than with actual merits of the argument in that the government would love to go into the next federal election saying that if it is elected it will introduce new access to information legislation. Whereas the truth is that when elected it did everything it could to stifle access to information legislation. It is one of those things that it is saving for the election campaign. It wants to be able to say that if Canadians want meaningful access to information law they had better re-elect another Liberal government because it is the only one that will deliver on it.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence contradicts any such story but that seems to be the motivation here. As a result, another year will go by without freedom of information legislation.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustration of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. However, I want him to explain to me how the Liberal representatives were able to pull the wool over his eyes, when he himself had the opportunity, I believe, to introduce the first private member's bill. He had the opportunity to introduce the bill amended by Mr. Bryden. For the benefit of those listening, I must explain that there is a draw to determine the order in which MPs can introduce a private member's bill. The member for Winnipeg Centre had this opportunity.
I can understand his frustration. However, I want him to try to explain to us how the Liberal representatives—who told him not to introduce this bill under the pretext that they were going to introduce something similar—were able to pull the wool over his eyes. I want to better understand this.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an obvious one that comes to mind.
If a person really is sincere about an issue and not about the political gain, then the person will pass the puck to the one best able to put the puck in the net. We all know that a bill introduced by government is more likely to succeed all the way through the Senate to royal assent than a private member's bill which would hit obstacles all the way.
Because I have great trust and admiration for the Liberal member of Parliament who came to me and made this commitment, I believed him. I trusted him and had confidence in him that he was sincere. As an added bonus, it freed up my private member's slot and allowed me to put forward another bill that I am very committed to, which is bankruptcy protection for workers in the event of bankruptcy. That is the logic. I am trying to answer as honestly as I can.
I trusted the member that he would introduce a government bill because he made that commitment not once, but twice in great detail. It gave me the opportunity to introduce another bill that I am very passionate about and that is protection of employees' wages and pensions in the event of bankruptcy.
I hope that answers my colleague's question.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know the member to be an advocate of accountability around this place. He has been a breath of fresh air in the House of Commons and in committees.
We were sitting in the same committee meeting when John Reid testified. I remember his testimony to be one of the most brilliant interventions I have witnessed in my short time here. I have not been here long, but I recall that intervention. It was very carefully laid out. He explained how the current whistleblower law that the Liberals have introduced would actually do more to cover up corruption than it would to expose it. He laid out his case in meticulous and legalistic detail.
I recall how angry the Liberal members on that committee were that day. They were absolutely furious that someone would expose these loopholes in their bill. I remember at that very moment thinking to myself that the Liberals were going to go for his job. I knew it at that moment. His willingness to be independent and outspoken in defence of freedom of information and in defence of accountability would mean he would pay a very serious price. We are now seeing those predictions come true.
I ask this question with a degree of sadness. I fundamentally believe that the government succeeds in corrupting the process of freedom of information. It will put a blanket over all of the corruption that goes on in government and prevent the light of day from ever shining on it. All of that Liberal fraud, Liberal corruption and Liberal bribery that we have learned about through the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery commission could be suppressed. It all came out because of access to information in the first place.
If the Liberal government succeeds in covering it over by corrupting the freedom of information process, scandals like the sponsorship affair will never reach the public eye. Had the Liberals succeeded in covering up the information process, we would never have known that ad scam had occurred. It might still be ongoing today.
I wonder if the hon. member is as concerned as I am at the deep-seated implications that may genuinely flow from the government's attempt to corrupt the freedom of information process. Is he as concerned as I am that this could lead to greater Liberal theft, greater Liberal fraud, and even greater Liberal bribery? Does he share those concerns?
(1140)
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague too has rapidly earned a reputation as being a champion of the issue of accountability and transparency. I look to him for many years of exposing on behalf of Canadians everything that is wrong about this place.
To answer his question briefly, I can only restate that one cannot overstate what a central place freedom of information holds in our society. The Supreme Court of Canada calls access to information quasi-constitutional. It is one of those fundamental rights and freedoms that a free western society enjoys. We apparently do not appreciate what we have because we have let it go lax. We have let it slide to the point where one can no longer honestly say that Canadians enjoy the right to know and the right to access to information, because the evidence would speak otherwise.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on the motion by the Conservative Party. This motion seeks to extend John Reid's term as the Information Commissioner of Canada by one year. It is an even greater pleasure since there is a story behind the government's decision not to renew this commissioner's contract. This is what I want to talk about.
Obviously, I could quote from the commissioner's annual reports; I could quote statements from the newspapers and so on, but I will leave that to other colleagues who will be speaking. Instead, I want to focus on the Liberal government's decision. We must not forget that the commissioner, John Reid, is a former Liberal minister. So this decision affects the Liberal family. That is the real issue. The Liberal family has had a serious problem since the revelations made at the Gomery commission and since the Bloc Québécois, among others, decided to shed light in the House on what will probably be considered the biggest scandal in the history of Canada and Quebec. This scandal is a direct attack on Quebec.
The problem is that the government is stuck with a promise. Indeed, in the election campaign, the Prime Minister said he would be more transparent. It is all very well to write about transparency and to want to table bills. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre found out the hard way about the Liberals' style of governing. He had a very good private member's bill. He had the opportunity to table it at first reading, to amend the Access to Information Act, to have it apply to all crown corporations so that more quasi-governmental organizations could be brought under the commissioner's sway. However, the Liberal Party decided to introduce a framework for action rather than legislation, as it gave it time. That is the problem. The Liberal Party needs time to try to forget this scandal.
Why are they going after the information commissioner directly? Because this commissioner is getting more and more requests in order to unscramble the impact of this scandal. That is the commissioner's problem.
I am a member of the committee. Since the revelations of the Gomery commission and of the Auditor General, the commissioner has reported an overwhelming number of requests received by his office. Quite rightly, the people are asking questions about things they have seen. They are asking for documents. Journalists are too. So there are a lot of requests, and work is backed up.
The government, the Liberal Party itself, is governing with public money, as we have seen. We will see what the Gomery commission decides. This government does not want us to discover anything else. So it is restricting the means of the information commissioner.
Believe it or not, the information commissioner currently has a backlog of over 2,000 requests. Work is a year and a half behind. All the Liberals can find to do is change the commissioner. Obviously, communications would be simpler if the government said the commissioner was not doing the work, which explained why so many files were late. The officials at the Privy Council told us in committee that perhaps better organization within the office of the information commissioner would result in a saving. In the end, it is quite simple. Too many requests have been made to the office of the information commissioner because of corruption among the Liberals.
They also say they are transparent and have a limited budget. The commissioner was given an 18-month supplemental budget. However, the requests continue to flow in at a rate 25% to 30% higher than previous years. From year to year, since 2002-2003, there has been a 25% increase in requests for access to information. Individuals, some MPs and journalists are making the requests. Many individuals are requesting documents. They want to know about the things they hear coming out of some government departments.
(1145)
They want to have the documents. There is a greater demand not because of the governance of the Canadian government, but simply because of the Liberal corruption. We were told flat out that there is no end in sight to the requests. Individuals feel their opinions on politicians are under attack. They no longer trust them. They want to have certain documents in their own possession and are requesting certain information. They are right to do so.
The only way for us, the politicians, to all come out of this as winners, is for citizens to regain their trust in government, ask questions and request information. The commissioner should have a bigger budget for this.
But no, the governing Liberal Party has decided there is no advantage in having individuals, journalists or even MPs know more. The Liberals are limiting the work of the commissioner. They are not giving him the necessary budget. They know the needs are increasing, but they claim the commissioner might not be doing his job properly, that he is mismanaging his commission and that he should reorganize it.
So the decision is made not to renew his mandate and to instead appoint someone else, in hopes that the new commissioner will do better. That is insulting to the intelligence of the members of this House. Someone new, who does not know the ropes, is going to come along and fix everything right away. The same thing will happen as with Privacy Commissioner Stoddart. She has been trying for two years to get the privacy commissioner's office back on its feet after the mammoth waste by Mr. Radwanski. She has not yet managed to do so. The restructuring has been going on for two years.
So if we change the commissioner, the processing of requests will slow down even more. This may suit the Liberal Party of Canada, which wants to slow them down at least until the next election is over. Then if they do not like the outcome, and are still in a minority in this House, they will want to slow things down.
That is the purpose of my speech: to try to get the Liberals to see some sense, and tell them to quit messing around with the system, to quit using public funds for their Liberal partisan politicking. The information commissioner must be allowed to act. This commissioner wanted to distance himself from everything Liberal, to establish his independence, and now the Liberals will not accept Commissioner Reid's having become independent and anxious to keep his distance from the Liberal machine and the Liberal political organization. He has got the message that the public want responses to their requests for information, want the documents they are asking for, and want an independent commissioner to respond and make them feel secure.
This will be totally to the advantage of parliamentarians, which is why the Bloc Québécois is going to support the Conservative motion to allow the commissioner to continue his work. They are asking for another year. As far as I am concerned, his mandate should be renewed from year to year, so that he can make public everything the public has suspicions about in connection with Liberal Party corruption. That is the reality. His task, in our opinion, is not only to answer requests from MPs, from Bloc Québécois members or their research staff, but also to provide documents readily to journalists.
We want a new bill. As the member for Winnipeg Centre is requesting, we want a new bill quickly to amend the Access to Information Act to permit all crown corporations and quasi-governmental agencies—the whole machine and everything financed by the federal government—to be subject to access to information. That way, when the public decides that something is perhaps not functioning in the system, it can be readily fixed.
The Liberal Party is not capable of doing that. If the federal government is to be fixed up, everyone will have to be involved. The Liberal members, who are up to their necks in corruption, will not manage it on their own. We must not forget that they lack the capability and the intelligence. We have seen that and will see it in Judge Gomery's report. Still, people have to join together, try to reveal everything possible on this subject and call for information in order to get all the facts. Every attempt and anything that has to do with any kind of corruption has to be made public. At that point, slowly but surely, we will manage to straighten out this federal government.
We remind the House that this has been a major effort by the Bloc. We were the ones who began the cleanup here in the Canadian government. It is time people stopped thinking we only oppose. We have proved it. We are showing the people of Canada how the federal government treats Quebec. This is one more reason for Quebeckers to think that, some day, perhaps, they would do better to govern themselves in their own country, rather than in this land of corruption.
(1150)
This will not be because we did not try to open the gates and clean out the Augean stable that the federal government has become. That is what we are doing. I think that it can be done with the help of all the citizens. For starters, they should be entitled to quick answers to their questions.
The only body that should remain neutral and allow the citizens to submit their requests and the important questions they are asking about how the government is managed is the office of the information commissioner. It is his job to provide quick answers to the citizens. He should have all the staff he needs to ask any department or quasi-governmental agency to answer the questions asked by citizens, members of Parliament, journalists and all. This must be done quickly so that no government is ever allowed, as the Liberal party of Canada was, to use government money and all the powers and operations of state to promote its own party. We in Quebec will take a very harsh view of this. We already do in view of all the corruption at the very foundations of the Liberal party. This is a very important effort in which citizens can become involved through access to information
All too often, access to information is taken too lightly. The federal government is a huge apparatus and always expanding. Since 2000, it has grown by 37%. It is not an apparatus that tends to shrink; it always tends to expand. One need only look at the bills introduced in the House: departments are split to create two new ones and new departments are created in all the provinces.
The tendency of the federal Liberal government is to expand the machinery of state. And the larger it gets, the less manageable it becomes. Everyone knows that, except the Liberal party of Canada. In spite of everything, it continues to expand the federal machinery so that public servants will be present all over Canada. It probably aspires to be the biggest employer of all; that is one choice. The difficulty is that, meanwhile, the people's real problems, issues such as health, education and poverty, are not being solved.
That is the reality. Money is spent to establish a presence, raise the government's profile, and have public servants give answers to the people. But in the meantime, men and women are in dire poverty and the health system is suffering. The decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada last week was harsh reality for the Liberal Party.
They have been cutting transfers to the provinces since 1996, when the current Prime Minister was Minister of Finance. Now the highest court in the land states that the health care system can no longer cope; it is falling apart on all sides; and there will be a two-tier health system. That is directly related to the cuts made by the Liberal Party of Canada. It is that simple. It was the cuts in transfer payments that forced the provinces to react by making cuts in health care.
Now, in the view of the court, the government cannot continue like this because everyone is entitled to care. Health care is part of our rights and freedoms. So if someone has the money to pay for private care, a private parallel system must be allowed to exist. That is a two-tier health system.
I am very curious to see how the Quebec health minister will deal with this. He will try to say that it does not exist, when in reality it does. That is the harsh truth. And all because the federal Liberal government cut the transfers to the provinces in 1996.
It should be remembered that when the system was established back in 1960, the federal government paid 50% of the costs; by 1996, it was only paying 12%. This rate is going back up to 25% under the agreement signed by the provincial premiers. But last week, the Supreme Court said that the damage had been done. The health system is in bad shape. Under Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, citizens have a right to demand care. The Supreme Court decided to say that this was correct—and all because the federal Liberal government decided to cut the transfers to the provinces in 1996.
That makes citizens, men and women, Quebeckers most importantly and all Canadians increasingly critical of the federal government. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are more access to information requests regarding everything having to do with the federal government.
(1155)
The Gomery commission, in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, is one such example. The gun registry scandal is another, which gobbled up vast sums of money. Some people do not believe it but the initial cost of the gun registry was set at $2 million, although it has cost $2 billion. The problem is that the Liberal Party has not suffered too much as a result since people refuse to believe it could say that the registry would cost $2 million and have it end up costing $2 billion. Liberal or not, Canadians and Quebeckers do not understand this. They all believe that this is not possible. But it is possible, here, in Canada. The Liberals said it would cost $2 million, but it has cost $2 billion. That is the reality.
More and more people are realizing this, asking questions and demanding answers from the Information Commissioner. This figure is so high that some people cannot believe it. Clearly, the Liberal Party has benefited. This took place in 2003, 2004 and 2005 in Canada. It has completely lost control of the program, which will cost a fortune. Supplementary estimates for this registry have been tabled every fall for the past four years, and next fall will be no different.
Why did the government lose control? Because it is too big. The ministers responsible—both past and present—were perhaps unable to run this program. That is the reality. It is a big machine and running it requires competent people. Sometimes, particularly when it comes to the Liberal Party, the best people are not chosen or the least bad are picked. That is how the Liberals govern. The Liberals will have to live with the consequences. We will be waiting for them in the next federal election campaign. We will be there in order to call them to order and defend, once again, the interests of Quebeckers.
For the interests of Quebeckers would be better defended by extending the contract of Information Commissioner John Reid. Even though he is a former Liberal minister, it would be better if he kept his position. Mr. Reid was a straight shooter. He was always able to tell it like it is in committee and in his annual reports. I sincerely believe that he truly wants to answer every question and to take part in drafting a new bill to make all governmental and para-governmental bodies accountable to the information commissioner.
When we take on such a major reform and try to resolve the 18-month backlog of requests caused by understaffing, it is not the time to bring in beginners, but the time to keep experienced people in place. What is more, Mr. Reid wants to eliminate the backlog and stay on top of the 25% increase in requests. As I was saying, he was quite clear in committee that there was no end in sight to the requests that have been made since the sponsorship scandal.
Mr. Reid is aware of the problem caused by the volume of requests. What he needs is more money in order to hire more staff. He also needs new legislation to make all governmental and para-governmental agencies—Via Rail, Canada Post, or whatever—accountable to the information commissioner.
In the sponsorship scandal, these agencies spent taxpayers' money. They do have their own cash flows, which is what makes them para-governmental. However, these agencies were able—with no questions asked and without having to answer to anyone—to get away with spending money, buying advertising, waving the Canadian flag just about everywhere, all in the name of national unity. At the end of the day, their only purpose is to provide services. The purpose of Via Rail is to get passengers to their destination as quickly as possible, while the purpose of Canada Post is to deliver mail as quickly as possible.
For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will support the request of the Conservative Party to renew Mr. Reid's contract.
(1200)
[English]
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for being an active member on the access to information committee.
It appears quite obvious to me and perhaps every member on this side of the House that what the Liberals are attempting to do, by the refusal to extend the contract of Mr. Reid, is to actually stifle and control information. That is an extremely dangerous thing to have happen in any democracy.
We have seen empirical evidence not only by this action but by other actions. We have heard the member for Winnipeg Centre talk about how he was hoodwinked into not tabling a private member's bill on access to information. We now see the attempt by the government not to extend the contract of a very competent Information Commissioner, despite the overwhelming support from opposition members.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the Liberals are trying to control the flow of information and the access to information. That is probably one of the most dangerous situations that any democracy can see. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on that to see whether or not he shares the concerns that I have just outlined.
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is also a significant contributor in committee.
He is absolutely right. What is even more serious is that the Prime Minister promised to govern with greater transparency. One more example of the Liberal habit of talking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to be more transparent, yet they also want to limit the Information Commissioner's budgets so he cannot process requests from the public.
Because the commissioner was insistent, the government eventually conceded. In fact, he continued to pressure the government by saying that new legislation was needed, as well as more resources. Let me assure you, neither the mechanism nor the machinery is transparent. The commissioner made several recommendations, but the government decided not to renew his contract. Yet he was the most credible person for getting through this crisis.
There is a great deal more work at access to information, because of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. That is the message the commissioner wanted to leave us with. My colleague got that clearly. The Liberal Party—not the Government of Canada—is trying to do away with the best tools for resolving the crisis, in the name of transparency.
I have a great deal of trouble understanding the Prime Minister. He sends out this message of transparency, but then ends up not giving the access to information commissioner sufficient resources. As a result, requests pile up year after year, until there is now an 18-month backlog. More than 2,000 requests have accumulated, but the situation is being allowed to continue.
This is not being done because it is the best way to provide Canada with good governance, but rather because it is the best way of extricating the Liberal Party from this scandal of its own making, which has resulted in even more access to information requests. The commissioner has made no attempt to hide this. When I asked whether he had had more requests since the Auditor General started reporting on the sponsorship scandal, he answered that yes, there was clearly an increase of between 25% and 35% yearly. He has to live with this, but he does not like it. I understand, neither do I.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know why the opposition wishes to convert the issue of the expiry of Mr. Reid's appointment to other political issues, but the hon. member in his remarks referred to the applications being made to Mr. Reid. In fact, applications for access to information are made under the existing statute to the departments involved. All of the departments have bureaucracies created and managed to provide the information that is requested under the terms of the act. All of that is going on. It is not like we are reinventing access to information here.
The hon. member has personalized this, in the sense that Mr. Reid has become the focus of the whole access to information exercise. I would like to ask him to consider whether or not we should be distinguishing between the person and the office.
Mr. Reid's appointment is expiring. It was a seven year appointment. It was intended to be a lengthy appointment. That is what the statute provides for, to give sufficient time for the appointee to get into the office, to bring about good management, and to work through more than one Parliament. That is what Mr. Reid has done in an exemplary fashion.
For some reason the opposition wants to extend it for a year. The opposition has not really explained why it would want to extend an appointment for just one year. A reappointment might be rational, but extending it for one year might not. It is not clear to me, so I would ask the hon. member to focus on the issue here of extension.
The hon. member also referred to extending a contract. This is not a contract. This is a seven year appointment by the government for Parliament. It is not a simple contract that can be extended. Could I ask the hon. member to address those two issues?
(1210)
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Scarborough—Rouge River for his question. I am a little surprised to hear this from him. I recognize his intellectual rigour, but I can see that when his Liberal partisanship rises to the surface, he loses some of it. That is troubling.
He was present at all the meetings when the commissioner came and told us that there was a work overload in his office, since the sponsorship scandal among other things, and he needed more money. Now the hon. member cannot understand why Parliament is being asked to reappoint the commissioner. It is simple. We feel that he is the person most suited to do this work. We do not understand how someone new, more junior, could take over in mid crisis.
We are responsible, as members of Parliament, for making recommendations to the House of Commons regarding access to information and the other committees. I thought that this would have been obvious, even for him. But when Liberal partisanship enters the scene, I can understand that he loses a bit of his intellectual rigour and would prefer, for political reasons, that Mr. Reid was not there because of all the reports he has issued that were very hard on the government.
We think, on the other hand, that he is probably—and increasingly so—the person most suited to handle this office. I should say in passing that this is one office in which the citizens must have confidence. This is where they direct their requests for information. I agree that each department provides the answers. I understand what my hon. friend is trying to say. However, it is still the Information Commissioner who oversees it all, who makes the requests and who ensures that all the answers are given and that in the end, everything that is on file has been turned over to the taxpayer, the journalist, or the member of Parliament who made the application.
I cannot really understand, therefore, why they are saying now that the commissioner's appointment should not be renewed. Maybe the hon. member is wondering why we want another year. If he wanted to suggest renewing the appointment for seven years, I think that he would have the unanimous support of the members of this House. If he wanted to renew the appointment for seven years, it would not be a problem. I think that he would only need to ask. If this were the purpose, it would be fine. Maybe he can make a suggestion to us during the day. We will be pleased to agree.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this concurrence motion of the committee report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The report recommends the extension of the term of the Information Commissioner for one more year.
Before I get into my comments, I want to know why the words “corruption,” “bribery,” “scandals,” “cover-up,” “culture of secrecy” and all these other terms have been used by the opposition members so frequently. This is to let members know that as long as those terms are not directed at an individual member or to a member of the other place, the rules of this place allow that to happen.
It is unfortunate. Those statements that are made in this place are the same statements that they could not walk outside the door and say in public without being subject to prosecution under the laws of Canada. It is in my view a very unfortunate circumstance where members of Parliament will use the protection of this place to say things that they would not otherwise say outside.
The Access to Information Act came into force in the early eighties. It is an act that has not been substantively changed since that time. I do not think that there is any member in this place that would suggest that it does not need to have a thorough review by Parliament. The public and all stakeholders, including those who are currently exempt from the act and who may be coming under the purview of the act, would have an opportunity to have input as to why there may be exemptions. There are a number of exemptions now.
I would like to briefly outline the purpose of the current Access to Information Act. It states:
|
The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific and that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government. |
There have been some suggestions made here. As a matter of fact, when I walked outside the chamber and greeted members of the public, they said they had heard about this debate going on. They said they heard that we were firing the Information Commissioner.
It is amazing, depending on the words that people use, because it appears to be something that indeed is not. The fact is that the Information Commissioner is an officer of Parliament, as are the Auditor General, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Official Languages Commissioner. All of these positions are special officers of Parliament.
These officers are appointed for certain terms, a stated number of years. They cannot be simply taken out of that position for some administrative reason or other. They have total independence. I think members would agree that the current Auditor General has often been in a position where she has been very critical of certain things that happened within the administration of government. That position cannot be suspended and the Auditor General taken out of the role.
In fact, to get rid of an officer of Parliament requires a debate in the House and a vote by both chambers. It is an extremely important process. These are very important positions in terms of the support to the governance of Canada.
There can be no question that once someone has been honoured to be appointed to one of these positions that their credentials and abilities go totally unquestioned.
(1215)
We have had an incident where an officer of Parliament was found to have done some things which were inappropriate. He ultimately resigned from this place without there being a vote on it. I want to make it very clear that as far as I can hear from the commentary of members in this place and from other stakeholders, as it were, Mr. Reid, whose term comes due this month, has performed his duties admirably and with distinction. That is not in question.
If the situation arises where there is an officer of Parliament whose term is coming due and there is no specific provisions within the act for an extension, there could be reappointment for another full term. I do not believe that has happened before. It is a very significant commitment for someone in his or her career. Certainly, the people who take on these roles as officers of Parliament have very distinguished careers elsewhere. Whether it be in politics, or as in the Auditor General's case, in the professional accounting field, they have earned high recognition in their field of endeavour and, to their credit, the accolades of their peers for excellence.
When an officer of Parliament is appointed and knowing the process that we now go through, there is no question about the merit of that individual.
There is another aspect to be considered here. An officer of Parliament's position is coming due and there is this instantaneous motion to extend it for a year, right at the time when the appointment is to expire. The timing of this smacks of disingenuousness.
I do not think members will be surprised to know that a recruitment for replacements for this position has been ongoing for some time. The process to get to a short list and to enter the formal process of the appointment of the new commissioner is well advanced.
Why is it that right at the point the process is to move forward, there is a suggestion that we had better extend the appointment for a year? I question the timing. It is very peculiar and unusual for this to happen, because there has been a commitment that an election would be called in this place within 30 days of the tabling of the final report of the Gomery commission.
Depending on the timing of various things, it is very likely that somewhere around the end of this calendar year, an election will be called. It means that between now and then it is quite unlikely that anything could reasonably happen with regard to changes in the Access to Information Act. It is also quite unlikely that the House would have an opportunity to have input into the development of legislation and as well, to have it go through the normal legislative process within six to nine months in any event, if there was full cooperation, but I can say that there are some very important discussions and debates to be held on this.
In my view, it would appear that the earliest a bill could be dealt with on this very, very important matter would be at least another year to two years to get it through all stages. That means should there be an extension of the current commissioner's appointment, he may very well be in that position for the next year, but he would not likely be involved to any great extent in shepherding any legislation through this place.
Maybe the motion should have been a renewal of the commissioner's position as an officer of Parliament for another term under the prescribed form. It is not to say that there is not other candidates who, given their current roles in life, may wish to make a commitment for a significant period of time.
(1220)
Those kinds of things do not fit into everybody's plans, whether it be their professional or their family plans. It is an important responsibility. It means they have to reside here in Ottawa. A significant commitment has to be made.
I want to pay tribute to John Bryden, our former colleague from Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, a riding name that the chair occupants often had difficulty remembering. Mr. Bryden took a lead role in this place for 10 years. I was part of that. He started an ad hoc committee which was internal to our caucus for some time. We opened it up and it became a formal ad hoc task force with representation from all parties in the House. Substantial witnesses, including Mr. Reid, spent a lot of time with us. I must admit that some of his insights were excellent but I did not agree with all of them. It would be a very boring world if everybody agreed on all things.
One of the aspects he thought would be useful to pursue was to combine two officers of Parliament. He wanted to combine the Privacy Commissioner's office and the Access to Information office which deal in very similar domains. There was some disagreement or maybe no consensus as to whether or not combining these two officers of Parliament would be a useful thing to do.
The Access to Information Act is no small act. In the format which I printed it, it is some 26 pages long and includes a number of important sections.
It lays out for instance who can have access to government records. Every Canadian citizen has the opportunity. Any permanent resident within the meaning of the laws of Canada shall have the right and on request be given access to any record under the control of a government institution. There are some exemptions. This was the area in which John Bryden was interested. We are talking about crown corporations and other agencies, et cetera, and I will get to that in a moment.
A request for access to a record under the act can be made in writing to the government institution that has control of the record, and it shall provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution with a reasonable effort to identify the record or the necessary information.
The member for the Bloc may have misspoken when he referred to requests for information going to the commissioner. The role of the Access to Information Commissioner is not to receive communications from Canadian citizens and then start looking for things. There are rules. They exist at virtually every level of government. An individual has to request information directly from the agency, board, department or institution. Within every one of those departments, agencies or institutions, et cetera, there are designated personnel who are required to keep abreast of developments with regard to these matters and to ensure that the provisions of the act are followed.
There are timelines. There is a nominal cost for any request. One request was over one million pages long. I do not know what a Canadian citizen would want with a million pages of documents, but there was a cost and that citizen had to bear the additional cost for the excessive number of pages.
(1225)
Within the act there are some exemptions. The current act states that the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this act that contains information that was obtained in confidence from--and now we have third party information--the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof; an international organization of states or an institution thereof; the government of a province or an institution thereof; a municipal or regional government; or an aboriginal government.
There are certain types of information that are protected or are exemptions, but the institution itself may be subject to other appropriate requests for information.
I do not intend to go through the current act. There is an understanding in this place and I think there is a consensus that there are some important amendments for consideration that should be made with regard to the Access to Information Act. Indeed, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that legislation remains at current levels. Former member of Parliament John Bryden worked tirelessly to champion these changes or a review of the act. He even rewrote the entire act himself and tabled it as private member's Bill C-462 in the last session of Parliament.
I looked at a speech that Mr. Bryden gave in that Parliament. I thought it would be useful to show the commitment of the former Liberal member of Parliament who worked so diligently for all those years. In his speech of February 24, 2004, he said:
|
Let me give members a sense of what is the problem. Right now, under the current Access to Information Act, out of 246 crown agencies and corporations, only 49 are covered by the Access to Information Act. |
This is very significant. Out of 246 only 49 are covered, which means that almost 200 are not subject to the act. We have to ask ourselves why.
Mr. Bryden is one of the reasons we were motivated to set up the ad hoc committee and to consult with Mr. Reid and others about what we could do. He gave an example. The Atlantic Pilotage Authority is subject to the act. He gave as examples the Bank of Canada, Canada Post and VIA Rail which are not subject to the Access to Information Act.
One could ask if it is important that the Canadian public have access to the Bank of Canada to request copies of certain information. Members should understand that certain things will be exempt. It is going to take some time to deal with these, but in the meantime it is not to say that the government has not been doing anything.
Two things have happened. First was the establishment of a standing committee responsible for access to information. It is an important committee and it is doing good work. The other is with regard to the whistleblowing legislation. That legislation is ready to go through clause by clause study next week. We are close now. Under that legislation there will be broad authorities of all agencies and crown employees throughout the government. Virtually anyone who gets paid by the Government of Canada will have an opportunity to go to an independent commissioner to bring information or knowledge to deal with some of the issues that members have raised in their speeches.
That is an important move forward. The Access to Information Act is a little step further. We are now talking about the Canadian public, citizens and landed residents to have access to information within these various institutions. It is a very important debate.
I thank the member for raising this issue. I am not sure whether or not a modest extension is the most appropriate way to go, but it has been an interesting debate. I hope that as a consequence of this there will be a renewed interest by all members to ensure that we have a good plan to update the Access to Information Act.
(1230)
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my hon. colleague regarding something which has been mentioned on a couple of occasions. We have heard members opposite state as one of the reasons for opposition that we are talking about an extension of one year, that this is a seven year appointment and perhaps if we were talking about a reappointment of the commissioner, that would be a different story.
I think every member of the opposition agrees that Mr. Reid is an unqualified success in his role as Information Commissioner. Would the member opposite confirm that the government would agree, should Mr. Reid be willing, to reappoint Mr. Reid for another seven year term? Yes or no?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, as a backbencher I do not have that authority, but I am aware that because this appointment was coming due the process has been ongoing to identify possible nominees to be reviewed in the process.
The member's premise is that the current commissioner is a good commissioner, so why not keep him? I think the commissioner has something to say about it. I personally know what his situation is relative to reappointment for another seven years.
Denis Desautels was an excellent auditor general, one of the most revered for his work and his service to Parliament, so why did we not reappoint him as well? The answer is that there are many very honourable and capable people to do these jobs. The commitment that must be made for these very important jobs is a very serious matter and takes into account not only people's personal willingness and the ability to do it but also their family, health and all other comprehensive situations.
I will simply say that this is not a decision for parliamentarians to make unilaterally. This takes some consultation. That consultation should have started a year ago.
(1235)
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the appointment for one year, it is not a novel idea. The government extended the Governor General's term for a period of time.
Mr. Paul Szabo: She is not an officer of Parliament.
Mr. David Tilson: I understand that. The member for Mississauga South says that she is not an officer of Parliament, but she is appointed by the government.
The member clearly pointed out in his speech that the access to information legislation is badly outdated and badly administered. The Information Commissioner has talked in the access to information committee about how he was blocked each way, how he was underfunded and understaffed and all kinds of things.
Clearly the legislation cries out for change. The Minister of Justice has indicated that he was prepared to introduce legislation in the fall, so something has to be done over the summer to get ready for this. We know there is going to be an election soon. Perhaps not, but it appears that in the next 12 months there will be an election, and maybe sooner.
The last speaker, the member from the Bloc Québécois, said that all the government is doing is delaying things. That is all it is doing.
My question is similar to the question that was just asked. Why will you not appoint a most qualified man who is up to snuff on how this is going to happen in the near future? A lot is going to be happening with respect to information. Why will you not appoint a very experienced and qualified man to lead this process?
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind all hon. members to address their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my comments to the House, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Reid. I have no problem with Mr. Reid being with us for another year, but I think it is important for the members to understand that there is an established process of appointment for a term certain and that this has come forward in a fashion which is somewhat unusual.
I do not think the earth will stop if Mr. Reid is extended for another year, but that is not going to solve the issue. The real issue is that we continue to have the best possible people available in the positions of officers of Parliament and that we take advantage of all opportunities to ensure that the related legislation is up to date. As I said, I have no problem with the extension for Mr. Reid and I do not know if anybody else does; Mr. Reid is an honourable person and I do not think there is any reason to have.
Let us make sure that the process we take is not piecemeal. This has come forward. There has to be a strategic logic to this, reflecting the fact that it is not members of Parliament who are going to be deciding on behalf of these people. There has to be a process to make sure there is transparency in who is in the position, along with some accountability.
We have had the case of Mr. Radwanski, who in fact left in disgrace because there were certain problems that did not come out. We need to deal with this. I think we have by the setting up of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I think we have also dealt with it with regard to the proposed whistleblowing legislation. I am quite happy in principle, but I want to make sure that the process is not sidetracked in terms of the important work that has been set up by Parliament.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the real reason why that member and the Liberal Party oppose extending Mr. Reid's work is that they recognize that Mr. Reid has done an exemplary job of exposing Liberal attempts to cover up corruption.
The hon. member was there when Mr. Reid came before the government operations committee to expose how the current Liberal whistleblower bill could have covered up the sponsorship scandal for 20 years because of provisions embedded deeply in that bill. He made indisputable legal arguments to show how the Liberals were using the bill as an attempt to cover up corruption.
I remember that this particular hon. member, this Liberal member, was fuming mad with his presentation. He was furious that this officer of Parliament would dare expose this Liberal trick. I remember that at that very moment I thought, “They are going to come for Mr. Reid and they are going to take him out because he spoke up against a Liberal trick that the government wanted to sneak through the legislative process very quietly”.
Now that Liberal member is acting as a bodyguard for Liberal corruption once again, as he does in committee on a regular basis. The member has said that he does not have a problem with extending the term. Why will he not then vote in favour of the motion to extend Mr. Reid's term? If he is really telling the truth when he says he supports the extension of Mr. Reid's term, why will he not vote for the motion which would do that?
(1240)
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, first I want to remind the hon. member that when Mr. Reid appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates I was in the chair for that meeting and did not speak. As for him suggesting that I was furious when I did not even speak, I will say that the member has misled the House and the member has been, I believe, an embarrassment to this place. He owes the House an apology.
The member has asked and I will repeat: I have stated in my comments that I personally have no problem with extending Mr. Reid's appointment, but I also understand that as an officer of Parliament there is a process in place. There in fact is a recruitment process that has been going on for some time. That also has to be respected. There is a process in place.
I would say again, also with regard to Mr. Reid's testimony before that particular committee, that ultimately it was found that Mr. Reid was in fact incorrect and no changes will be made to the legislation as he recommended.
Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and address the concurrence motion brought forward by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
The motion states:
|
That the appointment of John Reid, the Information Commissioner of Canada, be extended by an additional term of one year, effective July 1, 2005. This recommendation would not preclude Parliament from further extending the appointment after the one year extension. |
There are many reasons why this government should adhere to the directive expressed in this motion. The most important reason, which I believe we will see quite clearly when we vote on this motion later, is that it is the will of both a sizable majority in Parliament and at least three of the parties present.
In a minority Parliament this is no small matter because, as we have seen already, the Liberal government does not command the full confidence of this House and needs to learn to swallow its pride and work with the other parties in the best interests of the nation.
First, the nation's best interests include providing as much stability as we can at a time of instability in this Parliament. It is not the time to change horses if we can possibly avoid it. In this regard, I note that the House agreed recently, in a spirit of cooperation, to extend the term of office of the Governor General for a year.
Second, the government must accept that the appointment of the Information Commissioner is not like most of the other appointments the governor in council makes. The Information Commissioner is an officer of Parliament and such an appointment must be approved by Parliament. MPs and senators have a much greater direct interest in appointing someone in whom we can have full confidence as an officer of Parliament.
The third reason the government should support Mr. Reid continuing as he has with his job is his curriculum vitae. He is without question the best qualified individual to fill this important role. Who else can bring to the job seven years' experience as commissioner, along with his cabinet and government experience? As a general rule, it makes sense to hire the best qualified individual for the job.
A fourth and related point is that of Mr. Reid's many accomplishments in his first seven years in this office. His latest annual report recounts some of the battles he has fought against this government, battles he has won. As a lawyer, I am impressed by his dogged determination to resolve what are thorny legal questions regarding the proper administration of the act and the exercise of his proper powers under the act.
I ask members to listen to Mr. Reid's description of these battles from his report:
|
For virtually all but one of the past seven years, the government and former Prime Minister Chrétien engaged in numerous legal challenges to the jurisdiction and powers of the Information Commissioner. |
According to the Information Commissioner, there has never been “an organization of government that has been so viciously attacked” as his office by this Liberal administration.
Another reason he should be retained is that Mr. Reid spurred on the creation in this Parliament of the new Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I am privileged to be a founding member.
As well, he is responsible for reducing the backlog of requests and substantially lowering the waiting times that existed before he took office.
It is quite a record of accomplishment. I believe Mr. Reid has created the kind of legacy with his work that is likely to benefit all Canadians in the future. It is my hope that he will be given the opportunity to continue with his reforms.
However, if the government refuses to reappoint Mr. Reid, then we are left in a quandary. His term runs out on June 30. The act is clear about what happens if the office becomes vacant on July 1. Subsection 54(4) of the Access to Information Act states:
|
In the event of the absence or incapacity of the Information Commissioner, or if the office of Information Commissioner is vacant, the Governor in Council may appoint another qualified person to hold office instead of the Commissioner for a term not exceeding six months... |
This means that the government may well be appointing a temporary commissioner to head the office at a time of turmoil and instability. Such a commissioner would lack the approval, and perhaps the support, of the Parliament he or she is supposed to work with. That may also mean lacking the moral authority to hold this government accountable for its continued attempts to veil the administration deeper in secrecy.
Of course, the apparent refusal of this government to reappoint Mr. Reid should highlight for everyone the culture of secrecy and distrust the Liberal government is mired in.
(1245)
In his appearances before our committee and in question period, the justice minister has demonstrated time and again his disregard for the principles of access to information. If this Parliament were to follow the minister's misguided approach to revising the act, we would be preventing even more information from being made available to the public. In fact, as I have pointed out in the House already, if his proposals for reform were followed just a few years ago, the sponsorship scandal, the biggest government scandal in Canadian history, would never have been exposed.
Perhaps some Liberals on that side of the House would prefer that the sponsorship scandal were never exposed. Perhaps it is embarrassing and inconvenient for some members across the way, even though they were not personally involved with the malfeasance of fellow party members. Yet better that some members be embarrassed than other members be allowed to pillage the treasury with impunity.
I did not come in here today to criticize the weak and even dangerous proposals of the justice minister without offering a better solution.
The Liberal sponsorship scandal has done untold damage to the institution of Parliament, to the federal government and to all politicians. It has bred cynicism and distrust and has undermined the confidence that the general public has in their national leadership. We need to restore public trust and confidence and we can only do that over time by offering good government, government with integrity that is both accountable and transparent.
Our party has been hard at work examining ways to make our federal government more transparent by increasing the public's access to all sorts of government information. Transparency in government helps ensure that improper practices such as the money laundering of the sponsorship scandal are exposed. Even better, transparency in government discourages criminal or unethical activity from happening in the first place.
Here are five actions a Conservative government would take.
First, we would expand the Access to Information Act to cover all crown corporations, all officers of Parliament, all foundations and all organizations that spend taxpayer dollars or perform public functions.
Second, we would establish a cabinet confidence exclusion which would be subject to review by the Information Commissioner.
Third, we would establish a duty on public officials to create records necessary to document their actions and decisions, something that is lacking at present.
Fourth, we would provide a general public interest override for all exemptions in order that the public interest should come before the secrecy of government.
Finally, we would make all exemptions discretionary and subject to an injury test.
Of course we will make other changes to increase accountability in government as well, including increasing the powers of the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner, increasing protection for whistleblowers and cleaning up our campaign finance laws.
The Liberal track record on transparency and accountability is very poor at present. I would encourage the government to avoid making it worse by failing to maintain in office one of the few individuals this Parliament has confidence in, listen to the will of Parliament and reappoint John Reid as Information Commissioner.
(1250)
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale for his comments with respect to this important motion to reappoint John Reid for a year as the Information Commissioner.
As commissioner, he has personally advocated for reform of this act, this legislation, since his annual report in 1998. In yesterday's Globe and Mail, Hugh Winsor aptly described him as one of the most persistent thorns in the government's side.
Does the member think this is the real reason why the government is not prepared to appoint a very competent individual who has proven his way to deal with information, not only as a member of this Parliament but as Information Commissioner for the past seven years?
Mr. Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's service on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics as the interim chair. He is doing an outstanding job.
I think the real reason behind why the Liberal government does not want to reappoint Mr. Reid is because he has done an outstanding job of exposing the waste and corruption that exists in this Liberal government. That point was made earlier today and I tried to make it in my speech.
As my colleague from Nepean—Carleton mentioned earlier, the Liberals do not trust this commissioner any longer to do their will or their bidding as a lapdog. They have lost their confidence in his ability to continue to toe the Liberal line that all is good and well in the access to information regime.
That is simply not the case. I draw attention to the comments that were made by the Liberal member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell in his speech earlier today on this motion. We heard his diatribe about how the opposition parties were not using their opposition days to their full effect.
That member does not appreciate or respect the right of Canadians to hold the government accountable through the office of the Information Commissioner. In fact, he suggested that it was wasting time to debate a motion that would call upon the government to reappoint an experienced information commissioner who had done a good job of exposing the Liberal government.
The member wonders why the opposition parties would consider it important to debate the appointment of someone he calls “an extremely competent person” or some who has “done an excellent job”. He is someone his government is refusing to reappoint because he has been too effective in exposing the government's waste and corruption.
The member blundered on ad nauseam about the fact that the Liberals had manipulated the process of his appointment. We have heard from another of his colleagues that now there has been a long extended process of hiring someone else.
I do not understand why the Liberal government would have gone to such efforts to replace somebody who has done such an excellent job, somebody it admits is doing an outstanding job. Is it because he was exposing the very things that they were trying to cover-up?
(1255)
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I noted the hon. member across the way responded with great fury once again to my earlier question. I pointed out that he was at the committee listening to the testimony of Information Commissioner Reid. The Information Commissioner exposed Liberal tricks and Liberal loopholes hidden in the whistleblower law. That hon. member across the way was so furious that an officer of the House would go to lengths such as these to expose Liberal tricks he could hardly even speak. In fact, the member across the way stood in the House and acknowledged that he could not speak he was so angry. He could not even say a word.
I said at that moment to myself that the Liberals would come for John Reid's job because he did something rather remarkable. He exposed loopholes in a law that the Liberals were trying to pass off as a whistleblower law, loopholes that would have seen a sponsorship scandal that was covered up for as long as 20 years.
Those loopholes in the law would have prevented journalists and others from filing access to information requests, the kind of which were used to expose the sponsorship scandal to the Auditor General in the first place. In other words, this loophole would have made it against the law for people to inform the Auditor General and others of potential scandals.
The government wanted to sneak it in so it could never be caught again the next time it engaged in a scandal of this kind. John Reid stopped the Liberals. Now they are coming for his blood. They are coming for his job. They want him out of office.
Would the member comment on the shady motives of the government with respect to firing this honourable, decent man, Commissioner Reid?
Mr. Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Nepean—Carleton talks about his experience at a committee. My experience at the access to information and privacy committee was very similar.
When the justice minister was making his proposals for amendments to the Access to Information Act, I took the time to review the document. It was a lengthy document, probably 30 or 40 pages. About halfway through the document, I noticed one sentence at the top of a particular page. If it had been adopted by the House, it would have done exactly what the hon. member said. It would have prevented the sponsorship scandal from ever being exposed.
The sentence basically stated that if consultants were hired by a minister of the Crown, that information would be excluded from access to information requests. Yet I draw to the attention of the House that it was that kind of information which tipped off the Auditor General several years ago. That is when she began her investigation on what has become known as the sponsorship scandal. If that little sentence had been adopted in law, as proposed by the Liberal Minister of Justice, those kinds of sponsorship scandals or other possible corruptions, which perhaps are going on as we speak, would never have come to public light. That is how the Liberals play the game.
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have heard some statements today describing the furor that erupted from the Liberal side of the committee when Commissioner Reid outlined his findings. It so angered them when he brought these loopholes to light. He showed the witnesses and members of the committee what the Liberals were trying to sneak through. They were angry over what Commission Reid had done.
Does the hon. member see a parallel to the anger that we saw from the Liberals when the Auditor General brought to light the sordid facts of the sponsorship scandal? What did we see the Liberals do then? We saw them slash her budget. We saw them take direct vengeance on an officer of the House when she exposed Liberal wrongdoing, Liberal corruption and the sleazy details of cash in envelopes being passed over the table. Now we see them doing the same thing to the Information Commissioner.
Does the hon. member see a parallel in what is going on here with the pettiness that happened to the Auditor General when she brought those sorts of facts to light?
(1300)
Mr. Russ Hiebert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for drawing such a stark and obviously apparent example of another situation where the Liberals got caught red-handed and reacted in a like manner in the sense that they tried to limit the power of the Auditor General by cutting her budget to investigate the government's corruption. That is a great analogy.
We have the Information Commissioner and the Auditor General, both responsible for investigating government corruption, both getting information and catching the Liberals red-handed and then both being attacked by the very government that they are supposed to investigate for doing such a good job. How is that for a reward?
People do what they are supposed to do. They expose Liberal corruption. What do the Liberals do? They do not thank them. They do not give them a gold watch or a plaque. They cut their budget or they try to fire them. This is the level of contempt that the Liberal government has for people whose job it is to expose corruption.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief opposition whip, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.
* * *
Petitions
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, on the subject matter of marriage.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary, and that it is Parliament's responsibility to define marriage.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, also known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Young Offenders
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a number of petitions signed by the good people of Winnipeg Centre and more specifically the people in the area of Weston and Brooklands in my riding of Winnipeg Centre.
The petitioners point out that juvenile gang activity is a serious problem in their area. They are calling upon Parliament to enforce the current provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act more vigorously and to amend the act, so that youths 14 years of age and over may be charged as adults and that parents be held accountable for the criminal activities of their children aged 12 and under.
* * *
(1305)
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Supply]
* * *
[English]
Supply
Opposition Motion--Child Care
The Deputy Speaker: Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 2005, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) moved:
|
That the government recognize that its current child care proposals creates a two-tier child care system because: (a) the government ignores the fact that each province is unique and faces different challenges with regard to assisting families in finding and providing child care; and (b) that the federal government is discriminating against families who choose to stay at home or find care outside of a publicly funded system or work shift-work, or who are on a low income |
She said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean--Carleton.
I rise today to speak to a motion that we believe will help rectify a wrong. This wrong occurred when the Liberal government decided to finally implement a promise that was in the works for over a decade.
Shortly after the last federal election campaign, the Minister of Social Development announced that the government would ignore the wishes of parents, families, and frankly our nation's children. The government decided that in the name of some, it was easier to leave out most.
The day care plan that is currently being implemented by the government is unfortunately two tier in nature. There is one tier for those who can actually access the Liberal program and another tier for those who are left, which are the majority, to fend for themselves. In contrast, the Conservative Party of Canada plan is universal. We believe in choice, we believe in equality, and we want to treat all families equally.
The Conservative Party of Canada strongly believes that any child care plan must benefit all children. It must be universal. It must especially benefit those who need our help the most. Whether a child's parents are shift workers, live in rural regions, or live on a low income, it is both the duty and an obligation of the government to look after them. We on this side of the House have not forgotten that.
We have watched the minister put together a patchwork child care plan. We are already witnessing some of the pitfalls of this approach. Instead of the promised national plan, we have numerous side agreements between the federal government and provincial governments that are neither equitable nor equal among our federation.
The Conservative Party of Canada is offering a universal and enhanced child care policy that would be inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Our approach, and we sincerely hope that by passing today's motion we can begin to go down that road, is one that would provide choice and recognizes the needs of parents in the 21st century.
By finding ways to get the much needed money into the hands of parents, they will become financially empowered. This debate is about empowering parents, families, and other essential caregivers, and financially empowering all families equally.
The government should have explored other innovative policies, as the Conservative Party has done, such as providing tax incentives for businesses and employers to build child care facilities on-site instead of relying on an existing framework that frankly needs new ideas in order to be sustainable. As a government we should explore long, low tax solutions as opposed to always relying on high spend alternatives.
The greatest travesty with this program, and I have mentioned this before, is that it discriminates against those who actually may need it the most. There is no flexibility or financial support for stay at home parents. Stay at home parents will be paying into this system, but because they choose an alternative to institutionalized day care, they will have no access to the Liberal child care program or financial support.
There is no flexibility or support for shift workers. The Liberal child care program is designed for families with parents who work 9 to 5. Parents who work the graveyard shift or any other odd hours will be unable to access this child care program. What will a waitress who works shift work do for child care? Why are his or her choices not as deserving of much needed financial support from the government?
This program offers no flexibility or support for rural communities. The Liberal child care program is designed for families who live in cities because the infrastructure is just not there to provide the service in rural areas. Some child care experts have suggested that the $7 per day system found in Quebec be used as a model throughout Canada. However, there are those falling between the cracks in the Quebec model as well.
Even though many believe that those families with a higher income should perhaps pay more for child care, and that subsidized day care should be available only to low and middle income families, the Quebec experience has actually demonstrated that it is often families with the higher income who are benefiting from the subsidized spaces.
Critics also argue that the Quebec experience indicates that federal figures concerning the cost of the program may not be accurate. In Quebec alone, it costs $1.1 billion per year to subsidize 234,000 spaces, and there are 33,000 Quebec children on wait lists right now.
Canadians must therefore question whether or not $5 billion over the next five years will be enough to create a child care program across the country, and whether the program will end up costing taxpayers a great deal more than originally anticipated.
(1310)
The provinces were also asking for some flexibility. I remember the comments of Premier Lord from New Brunswick. He said:
|
We should truly meet the needs of children in New Brunswick and not just get caught up in one-size-fits-all that everything's about day care. Everything is not just about day care. |
I have received countless letters, emails and phone calls from concerned parents regarding the child care issue. Parents such as Kate Tennier, the founder of an organization called Advocates for Childcare Choice, are asking quite simply for choice. Ms. Tennier stated in a recent Globe and Mail article:
|
--Advocates for Childcare Choice, along with other groups across Canada, believes parents must retain decision-making power in how their children are cared for. We believe choice must be the cornerstone on which any new child-care deal is predicated. |
|
And the vast majority of middle-class families have no real choice, either, as they are hampered by a regressive child-care tax policy that the government has shown no indication of changing. The new program will severely limit choices; with tax dollars directed to the universal daycare model, parents will not receive equal funding for their own choices. |
|
Those of us in the choice movement are tired of being portrayed as working against the common good of children and society. We find the government's social engineering to be regressive. The rhetoric that charges that a vote against universal daycare is a vote against children doesn't apply to us. We are just asking that the billions of dollars about to be allocated for child care in Canada be given to parents, so they can secure the kind of care and early-learning experiences they believe their children need and deserve. |
Ms. Tennier and other members for Advocates for Childcare Choice are not alone. A survey released by the Vanier Institute found in general that Canadians felt that day care was their least favourite option for child care. As well, 90% of working mothers and 84% of working fathers would prefer to work part time if they could afford it.
In addition, a 2002 strategic council survey found that 76% of respondents across Canada stated that they would prefer to have a parent stay at home with their children rather than have them in some other form of care if money was not the consideration.
Rather than heed the voices of concerned parents, the Minister of Social Development has chosen to ignore them. In fact, he has made light of their concerns stating in a previous supply day motion on child care in the House of Commons:
|
As parents we all feel guilty about the time we are not spending with our kids. However, if we asked the same group of people or any group of people if they would like to lose weight, 90% would say yes. If we asked them if they would like ice cream once a week and chocolate twice a day, about the same percentage would say the same. |
The Minister of Social Development has chosen to listen only to those who share his views on child care and disregard the legitimate voices of concerned parents. The future of our society rests upon the shoulders of those who are too young to even realize it. For that reason we must create the conditions for our young to succeed and flourish while preparing them for all the challenges and obstacles that lay ahead.
The Conservative Party of Canada has clearly recognized the importance of early child care. We want all Canadians to be treated equally and all choices to be respected. I sincerely hope that all hon. members will join me in supporting this motion.
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am having a difficult time understanding, even though we have debated this issue many times, what the hon. member means by choice.
We are giving Canadians a national system of early learning and child care, not babysitting as the opposition has stated, and not only day care but early learning. We are doing that in collaboration with our provincial colleagues. There are five provinces in fact which have already signed an agreement in principle.
The hon. member talked as if money was not a consideration. Unfortunately, money is a consideration for many low income and middle income families across this country. That is why we feel we must have a universal system in order to give children a good start in life.
My children were privileged. They had the benefit of their mother at home and they had the benefit of their grandmother, and also an early learning and day care centre. I have had that experience as a woman, one who chose to work. In general, the women that I speak to, and the groups which the minister and our department have consulted with, feel very strongly about giving the right choice.
The only choice that the opposition has given is a tax break of $400 which does not even buy half a space, as far as I know, either in Toronto or Montreal. But the hon. member and her party have also said that they will honour the agreements in principle. What is really the Conservative policy? Is it going to honour the agreements in principle that have already been signed or is it going to scrap the whole thing and only provide the band-aid solution it provides to every problem in this country, a tax break?
(1315)
Ms. Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, when I refer to what parents are saying, I refer back to many of the polls and surveys that have been done that indicate that almost 100% of working parents have said they would like a choice if money was not a consideration. What we are pointing to is the choice factor. Parents who are working would like the choice of whether or not to work or stay home part time if they would like. Right now they do not feel that choice is financially empowered.
That then leads into equitable and universal policy. Our policy is universal because we would financially empower all parents equally. That is the difference. The Liberal plan would only financially empower a parent to make one choice. We are financially empowering parents to make any choice they think is best suited not only for their children but for their communities and their families. I hope that explains it a little better.
Yes, our policy in the last election surrounded a tax credit. As everyone knows, we have released a policy that is much more enhanced and much more comprehensive. Part of that includes cash subsidies that go directly to parents, in addition to a comprehensive tax regime and policy, tax reforms that will help families to better meet their child care needs and in other areas of family.
In addition to that, we also have a comprehensive package on tax incentives that work with employers and workplaces to create more infrastructure, which is the other challenge the government is not acknowledging and has absolutely no innovative policy to address.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has initiated a debate on a very important motion, one that is important to Quebec families.
I am not surprised by the route proposed today, but I am a bit surprised by the inability to recognize that a child care program—we will not talk about a national child care program but rather about child care programs that could be created in the different provinces—is essential. If we want an inclusive program, families need to have choices.
In order to have a real choice, the idea is not to not have national child care. Not having child care is not a real choice. Perhaps we can discuss the $5 million over five years. This amount is insufficient. I agree with the member; it is not enough.
However, at the same time, we have to bring the debate into the 21st century. If we want to do that, we must also realize that, for thousands and thousands of families, child care is essential so that women can work.
We saw, in Quebec, the creation of a child care system that cost us $500 million. That was the amount set aside to set up the child care program. Now, it is $1.7 billion. People have really taken to it. The need is clear. We needed a child care system. Not allowing such a program in the other provinces means denying thousands of women access to a child care system.
I want the member to reconsider her vision of a child care program so that it would be an inclusive program and not an national child care program. It is not an inclusive system if we talk about having the provinces adopt a national program.
(1320)
[English]
Ms. Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the member's misconception of our policy. I think it is very important for the member to recognize that the Conservative Party supports all forms of day care, which is why we talk about choice. We support any parent's choice to use formal day care but we also support the choice of using informal day care if it meets the needs of the family. The bottom line is that we think parents are the ones who should be making that decision.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that the proposal by the Liberals is far from universal. It only increases regulated subsidized day care spaces from 7% to 10%. This is only a 3% increase. In our estimation this does not even begin to scratch the surface of the child care challenges in this country.
As in Quebec and every other province, we think we need to offer innovative policies and options for parents so that we can actually address the true challenges in the child care arena. We are coming up with a universal program that will offer options and choices for parents to actually meet these challenges head on.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House today in support of a motion that stands for the principles of parental choice and responsibility.
Right now the Minister of Social Development has proposed a $10 billion to $13 billion day care scheme that will mean higher taxes for families and, thus, fewer choices for parents.
Where do I get those numbers, $10 billion to $13 billion? They come from the supporters of the minister's program. They say consistently that in order to finance a massive day care scheme of the size and scope that the minister proposes, one would need to spend 1% of GDP.
Our national GDP at this time is in the neighbourhood of $1.3 trillion, meaning that 1% is $13 billion. The minister has tried to tell this House that he can finance his day care scheme with $1 billion a year, meaning there is at least a $9 billion gap in his day care scheme. The program will actually cost $10 billion to $13 billion and he has allotted $1 billion.
Therefore we ask how this $9 billion to $12 billion black hole will be filled. We know the answer to that question. It will be filled through higher taxes on working families and, thus, fewer choices for working parents.
When parents have fewer dollars left in their pockets, they can afford less choice. There are fewer options available to them when their financial positions are constrained. To impose a $13 billion tax obligation on working families and on parents would dramatically diminish the scope of child care options available to those families and to those parents.
I am proud to support a different policy that takes dollars and puts them directly in the pockets of the millions of child care experts who already exist. Their names are mom and dad. We believe in mom and dad. We believe in parents and we believe that no one loves the nation's children more than the people who gave them birth. It is they who ought to have the right to decide what is in the best interests of their children.
The social development minister would take dollars out of their pockets through higher taxes to finance a $13 billion day care scheme that those parents do not want. How do I know they do not want it? I know because the left leaning Vanier Institute, which conducted probably the farthest-reaching and broadest public opinion research of parents, told us so.
In fact, the number one choice among parents for child care options was to have one parent stay in the home. This choice was particularly popular among the female respondents to the scientifically conducted survey but there were a number of other options: having a family member provide child care throughout the day; having neighbourhood-based care; or having a church, synagogue or mosque provide the care throughout the day. All of these options found some support among parents but the option that the minister proposes finished fifth. It was one of the least popular options.
It is his position that we ought to take $10 billion to $13 billion out of the pockets of parents and taxpayers and put all of those dollars into the option that parents favour the least.
On this side of the House, we understand that the child care choice is not the minister's choice and it is not the Prime Minister's choice, but we have the humility to admit that it is not our choice either. It is not my choice or hers or his. It is not a choice for any politician. It is a choice for parents.
(1325)
We will take those child care dollars and give them directly to parents because we have faith in their ability to do their jobs. We have faith in the love they have for their kids and their desire to see them grow and prosper.
Many of my constituents were deeply offended when they heard the minister refer to stay at home parents as being providers of mediocre child care and when he said that the desire of a young parent to stay at home and raise the kids was about as frivolous as wanting ice cream once a week or chocolate twice a day. That is exactly what he said before this House. He would be welcome to stand at any time and prove me wrong but those words are burned forever into the records of this House and they have done serious harm to parents who found them deeply offensive.
I think this debate will provide the minister with an opportunity to apologize for those very offensive and harmful words. It will also provide him with the opportunity to change course: to admit that his $13 billion day care scheme is unaffordable; to admit that it cannot be financed and will mean higher taxes and therefore fewer choices for parents; to renounce the whole idea and decide to put the dollars in the pockets of parents themselves instead. That would be a real act of humility but it would go a long way to restoring faith in this place.
I want to move on to some of the discussions that we have had in our party. A lot of young families are represented on this side of the House. We have a lot of young parents, some young mothers, and they have put forward some excellent ideas that are supported widely by the young families in my constituency. For example, how about a cash subsidy for parents directly? Let us send them a child care cheque so they can be helped with the daily child care costs they face. They can choose day care if they wish but if they decide to keep a parent in the home, that option would be supported as well.
Once again, that is not a choice for a politician to make. That is a choice for a parent. We on this side of the House understand that child care is not federal jurisdiction nor is it provincial jurisdiction either. It is parental jurisdiction.
The minister said that his plan includes choice, his government's choice. His government will choose how child care dollars are spent and, thus, the system has choice.
What he does not understand is that it is not his choice how to raise other people's kids. It is not his choice how to spend other people's money. However his $13 billion day care scheme takes other people's money and spends it on raising other people's kids. That runs contrary to basic respect of family jurisdiction, of the family unit.
Finally, he says that it is impractical to expect that parents' dreams of having one parent stay in the home and take care of the kids will ever be realized again. He says that is an old-fashioned idea, even though it is an idea that I understand his family used. I congratulate him for doing so. However he says that it is old-fashioned, that it cannot be done and, while parents are telling us that is what they want, that it just cannot happen. He says that statistics show that it does not happen. To whatever extent those statistics may or may not be true, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Government policy has made it impossible for parents to make the sacrifice of staying in the home. A much higher rate of taxation is imposed on a single income family than on a dual income family. If he really wanted to enhance child care options he would bring in income splitting, allowing parents to divide their income so that a single income family earning $60,000 would be taxed the same as a dual income family earning $30,000 each, meaning there would be tax fairness for those people who made the choice of keeping one parent in the home. That is a hopeful idea but it is the kind of idea that can inspire family life, rebuild communities and build a new sense of hope that one generation can pass on all the best to the next.
I would like to work with the minister to accomplish that. I hope he will stand in this House today and announce that we can get started today.
(1330)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a subject matter on which I have done a fair bit of work over my career. We heard the member's last comment about the taxation burden on people. I want to try to dispel the notion by this question.
The member suggested that the tax burden of someone making $60,000 a year is greater than two persons each making $30,000 a year. Under our progressive system of taxation that is absolutely correct. The question is not whether or not $60,000 has the same tax burden as two persons each earning $30,000. We have to look at a family.
We look at a family and if one spouse is making $60,000 and the other is perhaps making $30,000, the question is not whether or not somehow we get $60,000 versus two at $30,000. It is whether or not someone gives up that $30,000 a year job to stay at home and care for their children, if that is the person's choice. Comparing two $30,000 a year incomes to a $60,000 a year income really is not a very good argument.
I want to ask the member about how we get money into the hands of families so that they can provide care for their children in the fashion that they wish. All families are different. I do not think we could put very many families into the same pigeonhole.
We have what is called the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit. Both of these programs provide, based on the number of children and their ages, right up to age 18, direct moneys on a monthly basis to families.
There is one difference from what the Conservatives are proposing. There is an income test. There is a means test. There is a certain level of income beyond which the amounts are reduced. The reason is that it is important for us to make sure that those in most need get the greatest amount of money.
The Conservative plan basically suggests that a tax credit be given to all regardless of their income, and it basically dilutes the amount that anyone gets. It gets down to the lowest common denominator and has nothing to do with a person's ability to meet those demands.
I would ask the member whether or not he would concur that there should be a means test for any kind of a benefit to the extent that it is delivered in a way, for instance, that the Conservatives suggest, so that the most needy in our society have the supports they need for their children.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not. I believe that all families regardless of income should have some support for child care in those crucial early years. I believe that those dollars should go directly into the pockets of parents. Instead of sending the dollars to bureaucrats and public sector unions, we would give the dollars directly to parents.
It is interesting that the member asked a question about dollars allocated. The member did not mention anything about this, but I wonder what he thinks about the fact that in Quebec where the day care system is up and running, workers are going on strike. They are putting parents in a position of peril. Their position is being jeopardized. Those parents have come to rely on the system to take care of their children every day. They are paying for it through their taxes. Now it will not even be provided because the day care workers are going on strike.
Can we expect these kinds of strikes to occur nation wide? Can we expect nationwide day care strikes where parents have committed their children to attend a day care throughout the day? The parents rely on that service being there. A strike could suddenly be called and the parents would be left with no option, even though they had been forced to pay for the service through their taxes.
Those are the kinds of massive hurdles that will present themselves in this bureaucratic scheme.
I note also that the government member did not explain where the $13 billion will come from for the government day care scheme. Will it come from higher taxes? Will it require cuts to health care? Will it require cuts to old age security at a time when the baby boomers are moving into a higher age group? Where will this $13 billion come from?
Why is it that even though he has been questioned almost 10 times in the House of Commons, the minister continues to refuse to answer how much his day care scheme will really cost? He wants to keep it secret. He wants us to pursue a program that he admitted this weekend might never be able to work.
(1335)
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about the government's policies on families and early learning and child care.
All of these policies and programs emerge from the understanding that at the very centre of every child's life is his or her relationship with his or her parents. The centrality of this relationship has always been the case and it always will be.
Recognizing that a fair, vibrant and productive society requires investment in our children, the Government of Canada has put in place a comprehensive set of policies and programs to assist parents and to support and enhance the range of families' choices. It is into this context that the government's commitment of $5 billion over five years for early learning and child care fits and should be understood.
The Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement provide assistance for low income families. These benefits have been described as the most important social program since the introduction of medicare. They help more than 3.5 million families meet the cost of raising their children.
In 2002-03 the Government of Canada's total annual assistance to families with children through the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit was $7.76 billion. That number is projected to reach $10 billion by 2007.
Maternity and parental benefits are offered through the employment insurance program. Five years ago these benefits were extended to provide replacement income for up to one year while a parent stays home with their new baby or newly adopted child.
In 2003, 86.4% of women with children under a year old and with insurable earnings received maternity and/or parental benefits. These benefits are also becoming increasingly attractive to men. In 2003 about 11% of men with children under a year old either claimed or intended to claim parental benefits.
These benefits can make an immense difference to these families. They create an opportunity for parents to spend time with their child during the child's first days of life and spend time with each other to help create the habits of parenthood, the joys of family. When parents return to work, they return with a feeling and a memory with the growing instinct of family and with the growing desire for family life.
To ensure that parents who take time out from full time work to raise their young children do not experience reduced pensions later on in their lives, the Canada pension plan has a child rearing dropout provision. All of this is to encourage and not to discourage the development of this important early parent-child bond.
[Translation]
In order to provide families with a handicapped child with financial assistance, the Government of Canada has introduced certain targeted measures such as the new child disability benefit and other tax initiatives.
We are also helping to improve and expand early childhood education programs via joint initiatives with the provinces and territories. Under the 2003 multilateral framework on early learning and child care, the Government of Canada is transferring $1.05 billion to the provinces and territories over five years to help them improve and expand their programs and services. By 2007-08, this commitment will represent $350 million annually.
(1340)
[English]
One year ago we decided to do more. We decided the time had come to build on the important work of many dedicated people. We made a commitment to develop a system of early learning and child care in every province and territory in the country. One year ago the members opposite were not talking about building early learning and child care in this country. I am glad that early learning and child care has risen to the top of the national agenda. It is time.
As I said earlier, at the centre of a child's life is the relationship with his or her parents. That has always been the case and will always be the case. The lives of families can and do change over time. The challenge for a child to develop and learn to his or her fullest potential remains the same.
Early learning and child care is not, was never intended to be and never will be the only answer to a child's development, just as elementary school and high school are not understood as the only answer to learning and education. Simply put, early learning and child care is a tool, one of many for a child's development and for parents to use as they see fit.
As I have said on many occasions, as the members opposite know, early learning and child care is the way we live in this country. Seventy per cent of parents with children under the age of six are both in the workforce. The great majority of those kids are in child care of some form, but not in a form that is good enough. Only 20% are in regulated care and not in a form that reflects the importance of learning and development in a child's early years; not in a form that utilizes best the opportunities of all those hours of a day, days of a week, weeks of a year, years of a life, all the possibilities. This time is this an opportunity to be realized or an opportunity missed? We want to make this time work.
One year ago in this country early learning and child care was nowhere near that. Outside Quebec none of the other provinces or territories had the capacity or had as a priority to build an important ambitious system. The party opposite had no interest.
In last year's election, the Liberal platform commitment was for $5 billion over five years to help build a system of early learning and child care across the country. We were on our way. Then for a few weeks not long ago, when it appeared the opposition might not pass the budget bill, it seemed we might not be. The stakes were enormous. As the executive director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada said, “We are so close. I just can't imagine being this close again. I feel I have been waiting my entire professional life for this moment. If it slips away, I don't know how I will carry on”.
We kept going. We signed several bilateral agreements with the provinces. The first one was in Winnipeg. The Prime Minister, the premier of Manitoba and the Manitoba minister for social services were there. The room was jammed. Every person who was there had inside them that quote, but there was also an agreement. We were on our way. The event was a celebration. In Regina, Hamilton, Gander and Halifax, it was the same, because Canadians, provincial and territorial governments want an early learning and child care system in every province and territory in the country. They know how important it is. They know that this is an opportunity too important to miss.
To provide a context, what the $5 billion over five years represents is a 48% increase in what all governments are currently spending on child care in this country. By the third year, midway through this five year program, what it will mean for the province of British Columbia is a 105% increase; for Alberta, 121%; for Saskatchewan, 95%; for Manitoba, 48%; and for Ontario, 69%. Even for Quebec, with all the money it put in, it is a 21% increase. It will mean for New Brunswick, 132%; Nova Scotia, 90%; P.E.I., 85%; Newfoundland and Labrador, 130%.
(1345)
These agreements set out: the overarching national vision, principles and goals for early learning and child care; clear and measurable objectives; funding levels and eligible areas for investment; strong accountability through public reporting; a commitment to collaborate with each other on information, knowledge and best practices; and a commitment on the part of provinces and territories to develop an action plan in consultation with citizens and stakeholders for the period of federal funding.
These are the common elements, but we also recognize that every province and territory is unique. We recognize that in each province and territory early learning and child care is in a different stage of development. They have different immediate priorities. Their needs and circumstances may vary, so in addition to a common set of principles and parameters, we have also built in the flexibility to allow provinces and territories to meet the requirements of their citizens.
There is great flexibility in an early learning and child care system because the scale is so small and the system so much still evolving. The Government of Canada comes to agreement with the provinces and territories on the principles, expectations, understandings and accountabilities. The provinces and territories decide on how best to meet those obligations, with the flexibility to find different answers for rural areas and big cities and the flexibility to meet the circumstances of linguistic minorities, off hours or specific needs.
This is not an elementary school. This does not require a core of 150 students and millions of dollars for a building to make everything work. Nor is early learning and child care an all or nothing. It is not something for eight hours a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year, or nothing. Even most stay at home parents want some time in the week for their children to have other experiences with other kids in other places. Early learning and child care can be two mornings a week or a day a week, for parents and kids as they see fit.
We want parents to have real choice. We want them to have the chance to choose quality, affordability and availability. We did not build schools by putting money into parents' pockets and asking parents to get together, if they wished, to put some of that money into a pot to build a school and hire some teachers.
We did not build hospitals or roads that way either. We decided that schools, hospitals and roads were important enough to enough people and were important enough to our present and future society that we put the public money directly toward them. This is what we are doing with early learning and child care.
Choice also means understanding the reality around us. The majority of Canadian women and men do not have university degrees. The great majority do not have professional degrees. They make modest incomes. For them, not working outside the home is not a choice. For them, no child care is not a choice. The only choice they might have, but too rarely, the choice they desperately seek for their kids, is good affordable child care. For them and for the great majority of Canadians, that is the only choice they might have.
Choice is not having nothing to buy. Choice is not waiting for a bus that has a $2.50 fare and having 10¢ in our pockets. Choice is not too many mediocre or non-existent child care spaces in too many parts of the country. Choice is not knocking on an $8,000 a year child care door, on average, with $320 in our pockets.
Choice is making available to all parents who want it, urban and rural, rich, middle income and poor, in every province and territory in the country, good, affordable, available early learning and child care. That is the choice we are looking to provide.
No one program ever offers an answer for everything. Nothing does. The health system does not. The education system does not. Even if we would like them to do more, doing what they do matters and matters a lot. We are a lot better off because of them. And we will be a lot better off for an early learning and child care system in every province and territory in this country.
(1350)
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the effort by the new Minister of Social Development to implement a child care network. However, I take issue with the fact that he does not recognize that early childhood development, which also includes child care centres and families, is a provincial jurisdiction.
I will ask him a question outside oral question period. Quite often we do not have enough time to say what we want then. The minister now has the time to answer properly.
During the last election campaign, several of the minister's colleagues were very clear about this government's commitment to respect provincial jurisdictions.
When a journalist asked whether he would respect provincial jurisdictions, the Prime Minister responded, “Absolutely”. We know all about his famous “absolutely”. In other words, the answer was “yes”. We know full well that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was also asked something similar. She said that the provinces could do as they wished with the specific agreement that faithfully represents the priorities of the provinces, with no strings attached. The Minister of Canadian Heritage also said something along the same lines. That makes three ministers who promised to make payments to Quebec with no strings attached.
Will the Minister of Social Development say the same thing these three ministers did during the election campaign? These promises were made. The quotes in various papers can be used as proof of their promises to respect the provinces, Quebec especially, since this is a Quebec issue. Will the minister give the same answer to this same question?
[English]
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the hon. member and to the House on many occasions, we certainly recognize the jurisdiction of the provinces in the area of early learning and child care.
We also respect the work done and the efforts and commitment made by the government and the people of Quebec in terms of Quebec's early learning and child care system. As has been mentioned by others, that is to a level of somewhere around $1.5 billion, which is much more than anybody else in the country spends on early learning and child care.
We also respect the fact that when one takes a step like that in the right direction, with the kind of ambition with which the government and people took that step, it is a step that is to be acknowledged, recognized, understood, applauded and in no way penalized. Really, all I can say to the member beyond that is that all of those things are part of our understanding as we continue our discussions and negotiations with the government of Quebec.
(1355)
Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's little Liberal cradle to grave diatribe. I would like to ask him about this, particularly as it affects the people in my constituency. I have a riding that has 19 official communities, the largest of which has 8,000 people. Several have less than 1,000. These are official communities.
I would like to know a number of things. First, does he really believe that rich socialites should be able to drop their kids off for free while in essence being subsidized by taxpaying Canadians where one family member stays at home to raise their kids because they think that is of value?
Next, what is he going to do for shift workers who need help but who would get nothing unless there is an around the clock type of centre available?
Last, particularly as it relates to my riding, what kind of service or help are hard-pressed people going to get when they live in communities of less than 1,000? Does the government really think it is going to put in tens of thousands of day care centres around this country, including in these small communities in my riding?
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to briefly earlier, this program will represent to the hon. member's province of British Columbia at the midway point of those five years a 105% increase in what is currently being spent by all levels of government on early learning and child care.
As the hon. member knows and as I have pointed out before, decisions as to how all of this will get implemented are decisions of the provinces and the territories. We set the principles, but the provinces and the territories make the decisions on its implementation.
A 105% increase in early learning and child care represents a remarkable new opportunity for the province of British Columbia to find ways of delivering early learning and child care to those small communities the hon. member represents. That is a huge development and a huge change in what is currently the situation in his particular riding.
Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, everybody in the House knows that we in the NDP are committed to a national child care program rooted in principles and legislation, with sufficient funds to make sure that everybody across this country can access it.
When we look at what is happening out there at this point, with some money rolled out and a number of bilateral agreements, it makes this program a national program. What research is the minister using to support his insistence on it being open to both for profit and not for profit delivery systems? When can we see legislation tabled in the House to frame this important new national program?
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the hon. member on this issue. In terms of his question about the national quality of this particular program, with individual provincial and territorial agreements, as I have said to him and to others in the past, the right analogy for me on this is the way in which education works in this country. Education is provincial jurisdiction. There is an education system in the province of Ontario. There is one in the province of British Columbia. There is one in Saskatchewan.
Each province and territory has its own education system, but what Canadians have come to understand with the system of education in each province is a certain level of expectation and understanding of what an education system is across the country: what is there and what is not there, what should be assumed and what should not be, and what one would normally have because it is available in other provinces.
Briefly in terms of for profit and not for profit, as the hon. member knows, in every province and territory in this country early learning and child care is currently being delivered by both systems, not for profit and for profit. This is happening not just in Canada but in western Europe as well, where the early learning and child care systems are much more advanced. Both systems are in play as well.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Canadian Women's Health Network
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Madeline Boscoe, executive director of the Canadian Women's Health Network located in Winnipeg and one of Canada's foremost leaders in the field of health promotion for women and girls.
Whether it is as a health care provider or a project manager, an intervenor at the Supreme Court, an author and editor or a participant in various national and international conferences, Ms. Boscoe is one of Canada's chief proponents for healthy women and notably, for women who are in low income and marginalized positions.
Last week the University of Ottawa paid tribute to Ms. Boscoe, bestowing upon her the degree of “doctor of the university”. I believe the Chancellor most eloquently summed up what Madeline Boscoe is all about when he decreed:
|
I think I speak for many Canadians--women and men--when I say thank goodness that Madeline Boscoe is out there, talking about these issues, and making such an important difference in the world. |
I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Boscoe and thanking her for her tireless efforts.
* * *
Canadian Cancer Society
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the residents of Oxford county for their generosity and commitment to cancer support and research.
The Canadian Cancer Society Relay for Life is drawing huge numbers in Tillsonburg, Woodstock and Ingersoll. Over 3,200 people in these three communities are participating, including over 200 survivors in each city.
The Relay for Life is a result of months of planning and is made possible through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and the generosity of many sponsors. Oxford's generosity has resulted in a Golden Baton award for the highest fundraising per capita.
I would like to congratulate all those who participated in Tillsonburg and to wish the very best to those who will be participating in Woodstock and Ingersoll.
I would also like to thank the many volunteers, sponsors and participants who made this relay possible. Congratulations, Oxford.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this statement, the sixth in my series exploring whether the courts are protecting our children, I want to bring another case to the attention of the House.
A 40-year-old man named Randall Weber kept a collection of over 600 photos of child pornography on his family computer, easily accessible to his wife and three children. The photos contained horrendous images of real children as young as two years old being sexually abused in various degrading and disgusting ways. He even shared these photos with hundreds of others via the Internet.
Ontario Justice Roy Bogusky sentenced this man to a 14-month conditional sentence. What a sad joke. At least the Crown appealed the sentence. However, the Court of Appeal Justices Catzman, Feldman and Gillese dismissed the Crown's appeal.
Rulings like this are not protecting our children from anything. I ask the House, when will Canada's courts start taking the protection of our children seriously?
* * *
[Translation]
Canada Steamship Lines
Mr. Réal Lapierre (Lévis—Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while our shipbuilding industry is experiencing difficulties, Canada Steamship Lines, which belongs to the Prime Minister's family, has decided to have two new ships built in China.
Despite Canada Steamship Lines' claims, the shipyard in Lévis is very capable of doing the job. Unfortunately, the lack of a marine policy undermines its competitiveness against aggressive competitors such as the Chinese shipyards. In any case, CSL did not invite that shipyard to tender.
Canada Steamship Lines registers its branches in tax havens, to avoid paying taxes here. Its ships fly flags of convenience to circumvent environmental, labour and marine safety laws. Now it is abandoning our shipyards.
Instead of implementing a marine policy worthy of the name, the Prime Minister is contributing to the decline of our shipyards. This speaks volumes about the true interests of the Prime Minister and his family.
* * *
[English]
Cole Harbour Heritage Farm Museum
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently I was delighted to visit the Cole Harbour Heritage Farm Museum in my riding.
In 1973, faced with rapid urban expansion and the threat of losing touch with its rural past, residents founded the Cole Harbour Rural Heritage Society. Their goal was to record and preserve what they could of the area's agricultural and natural heritage.
Later, the Farm Museum was established, a museum that continues to rely on community support for maintenance and operations. With the help of volunteers, this community museum has grown to include a comprehensive collection of local farm and personal artifacts, as well as local archival material, including oral history tapes and over 1,000 photographs, a resource library, heritage plants and more.
I want to congratulate the many volunteers who over the years sustained and built the museum, people like the recent Order of Canada recipient Mike Eaton and the late Rosemary Eaton, Millie Richardson, current chair and vice-chair of the board, Judith Tulloch and Jill Hogg, as well as Elizabeth Corser, the executive director.
I encourage everybody to visit and support the Cole Harbour Heritage Farm Museum.
* * *
(1405)
Perth—Wellington
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it promises to be a very exciting summer this year in my riding of Perth--Wellington.
On May 30, I was very pleased to attend the opening performance for the 53rd season at Stratford Festival of Canada. The entire group at Stratford work very hard each year to offer fans a great experience in theatre.
Later in June I will be at the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame in St. Marys. I have come to look forward to this event that each year celebrates athletic achievement, community activism and Canadian heritage.
Beginning July 27, the Stratford Summer Music Festival will bring together musicians from across Canada and around the world as they salute the centennials of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
A short drive along the highway and visitors may be entertained by another group of skilled actors at the Drayton Festival.
If this is not enough, we also look forward to hosting the International Plowing Match at Listowel, September 20 to 24.
Perth--Wellington offers something for everyone.
* * *
Arnie Hakala
Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Arnie Hakala, a journalist for the North Bay Nugget who passed away Friday, just 22 days shy of his 65th birthday.
Arnie was a veteran journalist who personified the profession for more than 40 years. His career began in 1962 in Kapuskasing and his newspaper trail went from Timmins, the Port Arthur News Chronicle, the Canadian Press in Toronto, the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Star, the Oshawa Times and the North Bay Nugget.
Arnie was set to retire from the Nugget on July 29, but was determined to continue to write as a freelance journalist. In his final column he wrote the evening before he passed away, he said:
|
I have no intention of putting my feet up. I love what I do and there are still stories that have never been written. |
Arnie Hakala was a tough reporter but he wore his heart on his sleeve. He had a special way of making those around him feel important and he lived his life through his readers and the people he wrote about.
Arnie Hakala will be missed dearly.
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the launching of an aquaponic ecological farm producing trout and lettuce, the construction of a positive pressure vertical wind tunnel, and a study on the revitalization of the village nucleus: such are the projects designed to help the softwood lumber industry, which the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was boasting about in this House, on June 10.
These projects, while very interesting for the communities, are not related to the softwood lumber industry, or to the workers affected, who have been left to fend for themselves by the Liberal government in Ottawa.
The federal government must provide direct support to the industry and it must change the employment insurance rules for affected workers. A true assistance plan must also be put in place to help the industry assume legal costs that are now in excess of $350 million, and include loan guarantees for the companies affected.
The type of programs developed by the Liberals will not save the Quebec and Canadian softwood lumber industry. Action is urgently needed.
* * *
[English]
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a former Charlottetown mayor, George MacDonald, who recently received the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' highest honour.
George MacDonald was added to the FCM's roll of honour during the annual meeting in St. John's, which brought together over 2,500 delegates from across Canada.
The roll of honour pays tribute to FCM's officers and officials who have served municipal government in Canada with distinction and dedication. Mr. MacDonald has had a long and distinguished career in civic politics in Charlottetown serving five terms as a city councillor and two terms as Charlottetown's mayor.
He is only the third Prince Edward Islander to receive this honour and joins only 56 other Canadians in this achievement.
Congratulations to George MacDonald on this tremendous honour.
* * *
Fraser River Bird Habitat
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there has been a steady erosion of the bird habitat at the mouth of B.C.'s Fraser River.
The river's estuary is an international crossroad of bird migration routes from 20 countries and three continents. Five million waterfowl, shorebirds and songbirds migrate through the estuary. Up to 180,000 ducks and geese fly into the Fraser Delta in a single day. Its coastal lowlands and marshes provide critical feeding opportunities.
However, in the face of growing development, current lands protected in the Alaskan National Wildlife Area and Reifel Bird Sanctuary are inadequate. Naturalists say that 1,400 hectares are needed to ensure the migratory pathway is maintained.
The federal government must buy threatened land and expand the wildlife area and sanctuary to ensure a sustainable future for the estuary. Instead of taking the lead and bringing together all stakeholders, the Liberal government says that it will do nothing until other parties buy in.
* * *
(1410)
Open Doors 2005
Hon. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage residents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore to participate in Open Doors 2005. Open Doors is a wonderful opportunity for older Ontarians and their families to explore the various long term care facilities and residences that operate in the Etobicoke—Lakeshore community and throughout the province of Ontario.
Choosing a future residence is a very personal matter and this is an opportunity to ensure seniors of a potential residence that meets their specific needs.
This Saturday numerous long term care facilities and retirement homes will host seniors and their families in order to have them become familiar with the residences' amenities, staff and atmosphere.
I urge everyone considering retirement to take advantage of visiting some of our local long term residences such as the Versa Care Centre in Rexdale, the Highbourne Lifecare Centre and Lakeshore Lodge.
Congratulations to the sponsors and volunteers for--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
* * *
The Budget
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, despite Conservative obstruction, Bill C-48, the NDP's better balanced budget bill, is back in the House for third and final reading. What is the Conservative contribution to delivering much needed investments in every region of our country so far? To delete all the clauses of the bill.
Conservative MPs, including from Nova Scotia, are asking the House not to invest in lower tuition fees in post-secondary education, not to invest in affordable housing, not to invest in public transit or cleaner air, not to invest half a billion dollars more in international aid, despite their own members' voting at the foreign affairs committee to support an NDP motion to increase Canada's ODA to 0.7% of our GDP. What hypocrisy.
Canadians deserve better. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. I am proud to be part of a caucus that has worked relentlessly to make this Parliament work and to deliver the investments Canadians need. It is past time for the official opposition in the same spirit to stop the huffing and puffing, get to work and deliver Bill C-48 to Canadians.
* * *
Natural Resources
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today as we speak, the state of North Dakota is moving forward to divert water from Devils Lake into the Red River, Lake Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg and beyond to Hudson Bay. It will jeopardize the health of Lake Winnipeg and the Manitoba ecosystems.
Once the outlet is opened, there will be a great risk of ecological and economic damage to Manitoba by polluting our waters, not to mention violating international law.
Devils Lake contains high levels of salt, phosphorous and other contaminants and is home to fish parasites which will affect our freshwater resources by introducing foreign marine species and bacteria.
The House is urging the federal government to take immediate action to resolve this issue by referring it to the International Joint Commission and to convince the U.S. administration and the U.S. Senate to make an IJC referral immediately.
These water issues in Manitoba are heating up and the Canadian government is not living up to its responsibilities.
* * *
[Translation]
Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Awareness Month
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is spina bifida month.
In Quebec, one baby in a thousand is born with this condition, for which there is no cure as yet.
Spina bifida is a Latin term meaning “open spine”. It refers to a birth defect, the causes of which are still unknown. Spinal damage is irreversible and permanent.
Spina bifida may be accompanied by hydrocephalus, which is an excessive buildup of spinal fluid in the brain. This can result in limited mobility.
The Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of Quebec provides information and promotes the use of folic acid, which, if taken during pregnancy, can prevent this condition.
I commend the Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association of Quebec for their devotion to this cause.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Canadian Forces
Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today the defence committee rejected the appointment of the government's preferred choice for the new Canadian Forces ombudsman. The ombudsman is supposed to represent the individual against the organization, but based on his career history, committee members felt the government's selection of Yves Côté seemed an inappropriate choice.
No doubt Mr. Côté is a competent lawyer; however, he has a long history of defending the government and many of its branches and organizations. Committee members felt Mr. Côté was not predisposed to making a successful switch to defend the individual against the system.
If history repeats itself, and I am sure it will, the Liberal government will again ignore recommendations of one of its committees and appoint its preferred choice. I urge the government to make the right decision for our men and women in uniform and respect the committee's decision to reject Mr. Côté.
* * *
Police Youth Corps
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise today to congratulate the Thunder Bay Police Youth Corps on its 12th anniversary.
The Thunder Bay Police Youth Corps was created in 1994 with the vision of enhancing the experience of local youth with law enforcement organizations and the community. The youth corps is a non-profit, fully volunteer organization with a chain of command that mirrors the Thunder Bay police service.
The cadets, aged 13 to 19, are introduced to many aspects of a police officer's job, including fingerprinting, radio procedures and parade drill. Their motto of “Lead By Example” is not just a motto but a way of life for anyone involved with the youth corps, which is one of the few remaining police youth corps in Canada.
Please join me in congratulating Commanding Officer Charles Meeking and his fellow officers, the board of directors and the cadets of the Thunder Bay Police Youth Corps.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[Translation]
Sponsorship Program
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we now know that the government concluded a secret agreement that would allow Jean Chrétien to prevent Justice Gomery from completing his task. The government's secret agreement puts Justice Gomery “in an extremely difficult position”, to quote his own lawyer.
Knowing that this undermines the work of Justice Gomery, why did the Prime Minister authorize this secret agreement?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no secret agreement or secret anything. There was an exchange of correspondence between lawyers, that is all.
We have supported the work of Justice Gomery right from the start and we will continue to support it. I must say that Justice Gomery is not partial, and we will defend him against any allegations to the contrary. Furthermore, we will oppose any attempt to delay the report.
[English]
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Prime Minister did not tell the House the whole truth about the existence of this correspondence. Yesterday and today he again misleads the House about the nature of that deal. Contrary to what he is claiming, Justice Gomery himself says that the secret deal deliberately undermines his work. His lawyer said, “To have...the outstanding possibility that Mr. Chrétien may renew his application...is, simply put, unacceptable”.
Once again, knowing that this exchange of letters, whatever the Prime Minister wants to call the deal, would undermine Justice Gomery, why did the Prime Minister agree to it?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no secret deal. There was no pact and as they say “Honni soit qui mal y pense”. There was no deal and there was no accord.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister said the deal was not secret, but when we asked about it, we could not get straightforward answers here in the House of Commons. Yesterday and again today the Prime Minister and the government claim they support the work of Judge Gomery, that he is impartial, and that they stand behind him ferociously.
Can the Prime Minister show us that letter and tell us where anywhere in that letter Justice Gomery is defended?
(1420)
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I defended Judge Gomery in this House yesterday. The government and I have defended Mr. Justice Gomery every single day in this House when he has been attacked by the Leader of the Opposition.
Let me make it unequivocally clear. Judge Gomery has acted impartially and there should be no delay in the issuance of his report. We will defend Judge Gomery against any allegations to the contrary.
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again it is an interesting defence, so I will give the Prime Minister this challenge.
Will he stand in the House right now, say that he withdraws the support in the arrangement he made with Mr. Chrétien, and will he assist Justice Gomery in having this application withdrawn for good? Will the Prime Minister do that?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me simply read from the letter: “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the letter.
Justice Gomery says the government's recent position of leaving the door open for a potential challenge to his final report puts a cloud over him and places him in an extremely difficult position. Justice Gomery is now going to court to get a definitive dismissal of Mr. Chrétien's challenge. Protecting Justice Gomery's integrity and the guarantee of a final report are extremely important to Canadians.
Will the government support Justice Gomery in his fight to protect the integrity and the timeliness of the report, or is the Prime Minister again just setting up an election escape hatch?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the floor. He is going to answer, apparently.
Hon. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the government's view was expressed by counsel. That view was that we did not want to see any delay in Justice Gomery's report and that in fact, if there were going to be any action by Mr. Chrétien that would allege bias, it would be preferable to have that action after Justice Gomery provided his report to Canadians.
Justice Gomery wants to deal with this issue in the short term. We respect Justice Gomery's position and support him in that position because we continue to support the work of Justice Gomery. We believe he is doing important work and positive work on behalf of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House that sending a letter to Jean Chrétien's lawyer was quite normal. In a letter dated June 6, which the Prime Minister had in hand yesterday, the lawyer for Justice Gomery said that the guarantee to Jean Chrétien that he could mount another challenge in order to get the judge's head puts the judge in an “extremely difficult position”. Those are his words.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, despite his claim, the guarantee made to Jean Chrétien is no minor matter, as it could interfere with Justice Gomery's work?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no guarantee, nor secret deal nor agreement, as I have said. Honni soit qui mal y pense evil to him who evil thinks. We have supported Justice Gomery and will continue to do so. We have blocked all attempts to delay the commission and we will oppose any similar ones that may arise.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a proverb that would suit better: When you lie long enough, the lie becomes the truth. That is more like it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: The civility of the other side is apparent.
If a letter was sent, it was not because the parties had nothing to say to one another. A letter was sent. So, I am asking the Prime Minister, who, since the time of the sponsorships, has done everything to see nothing, why he did not tell us yesterday that he had a letter dated June 6, which said exactly the opposite to what he claimed. Why did he hide things from the House, as is his wont—
(1425)
The Speaker: The Minister of Justice.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the leader of the Bloc does not like my saying: evil to him who evil thinks., but I will repeat it because there was no agreement, no secret, period.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery feels it is essential that the doubt cast on his objectivity by Jean Chrétien be immediately dispelled. He has therefore instructed his counsel to file a motion with the Federal Court as soon as possible.
How could the government claim again yesterday that it supports Justice Gomery when a letter dated June 6 from Justice Gomery's own counsel, which the government had in its possession yesterday, says the opposite, namely that the position taken by the government regarding Justice Gomery is placing him in an extremely difficult situation?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have shown and will continue to show support for Justice Gomery against any allegations of lack of objectivity on his part, because we have every confidence in the Gomery commission.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all the government had to do yesterday was to reveal the substance of the letter it had in its possession. It also had Justice Gomery's opinion about being placed in an extremely difficult situation by the government's deal. Come on, enough is enough.
The Minister of Justice can say whatever he wants, but facts are facts. Justice Gomery himself said that his efforts were seriously hindered by the position taken by the government and he has taken steps to get out of that situation.
Why did the government try, yesterday, to hide the existence of that letter, the malaise that prevailed and the problems it has created for Justice Gomery?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not hidden anything. Everything is public. There has been an exchange of letters between lawyers. There is nothing to hide.
* * *
[English]
Natural Resources
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Canada Day is approaching and yet Canada Day is the day that North Dakota, in a perverse sense of what it means to be a neighbour, has decided to turn on the tap of the Devils Lake diversion.
The Prime Minister has talked to George Bush. When does he expect to hear back from the White House as to whether or not we are going to celebrate Canada Day from here on in as the day the United States chose to ignore the boundary waters treaty?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the seriousness of this situation. There is also no doubt that the actions being taken by North Dakota are simply unacceptable.
I have raised this with the President and, as the hon. member ought to know, we are in constant negotiations now with the Americans. I am not in a position to say when those negotiations will conclude, but let me tell the House that we will leave no stone unturned in solving this problem.
* * *
The Environment
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on another environmental issue, the Canadian Medical Association has released a study which says that there are 5,800 premature deaths a year in this country as a result of smog.
My question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment. Does the government not think that it is time for some real action on this? We have had 12 years of talking about voluntary this and voluntary that. Does the government not think it is time for mandatory emissions standards, a strong Kyoto plan, and doing something about smog because people are dying? People are dying. Let us get some action from the government.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue and if the strong regulations had not been put in place for the clean air 10 year agenda, the situation would be much worse today.
We have been able to reduce mercury emissions by 90%. New sulphur and diesel regulations have been established that will reduce and eliminate emissions by 97% for 2006. We have also established very strong regulations that will reduce emissions from buses by 95%. We are acting very seriously in addressing a very serious problem.
* * *
[Translation]
Sponsorship Program
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the government misled the House by denying the existence of a secret arrangement with Jean Chrétien. Yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House about the contents of this arrangement. He incorrectly said that the letter read, and I quote, “We fiercely oppose anything that could delay the report”.
Why did the Prime Minister mislead the House yet again?
(1430)
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the problem has to do with the question. There was no secret agreement and there was no secret deal, period.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that in the letter, which two weeks ago did not exist according to the government, it stated, “We opposed ferociously anything that could delay the Gomery report”. I have the letter here and I have read it several times. I cannot find a single word of opposition to Jean Chrétien's effort to put a cloud over the head of Judge Gomery.
Perhaps the Prime Minister could stand up with his copy of the letter and cite where it says that the government ferociously opposes the effort to put a cloud over Judge Gomery. Where is it? Will he cite from the letter?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, conspiracy is in the mouth of the speaker. There is no sense here of any conspiracy. We can stretch it all we want. There is no pact. There is no secret accord. There is only support for the Gomery commission. If we have to, we will continue to repeat it. That is the situation.
* * *
[Translation]
Child Care
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's child care network is still on strike, which is making life very difficult for Quebec parents.
Why is the government insisting on implementing such a vulnerable model across Canada?
[English]
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what does one say to a question like that?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Social Development has the floor and I cannot hear a word he is saying. There seems to be a lot of assistance coming from my left to help the minister but I cannot hear the minister. We want to hear the minister.
Hon. Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, what we are looking to do is to try to create an early learning and child care system in every province and territory in this country. The closest analogy would be an education system where the jurisdiction is in the provinces. The provinces in instances such as that, and ones like the hon. member cited, those things can happen. They happen as part of the relationship between the provincial government and the education system.
[Translation]
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Quebec created its child care program six years ago. Last week on television, we saw parents lining up in the streets, some for over 24 hours, in order to get a spot.
Is this model for child care, which the Liberals want to adopt, not just a waiting list system?
[English]
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House many times before, the Quebec system is an inspiration. It is what has inspired early learning and child care development across the country.
The problems in the province of Quebec are mostly problems of ambition. However, it is much better to have problems of ambition than problems of a lack of ambition.
* * *
[Translation]
AudioTaped Conversations
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 31, the Prime Minister was very clear about the taping affair: an offer was solicited. This was stated in this House and can be read in the official report of the Debates of the House of Commons.
Since we have this tangible proof that the Prime Minister was aware that a criminal offence might have been committed, what remains to be determined is when he was informed of it.
I will again ask the Prime Minister: When was he informed that the Conservative member had approached his chief of staff? Was it during the negotiations or after they were all over?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been repeated in this House, the member for Newton—North Delta wanted to cross the floor. The Prime Minister said that no offer was made and no offer was in fact made.
I understand that the Bloc has contacted the RCMP and I understand that the member wants to conduct his own investigation on the floor of the House of Commons. However, if he has actually written to the RCMP and if he does in fact have more information that he can share with the RCMP, I would encourage him to do exactly that.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has said on numerous occasions that anyone with information on the taping affair should contact the RCMP. We therefore filed a complaint with the RCMP based on what the Prime Minister told us here in this House.
The Prime Minister knew before the rest of us that a criminal offence had possibly been committed. Why was he so remiss in his duty and complicit in the matter by not alerting the RCMP? Why does the Prime Minister not want to reply?
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister knew was that the member for Newton—North Delta wanted to cross the floor. What the Prime Minister said was that no offer was to be made and no offer was made.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has been saying for several days that there was an insistent request on the part of a given member but that there were no offers made to encourage him to cross the floor. Setting aside for the moment whether or not offers were made by the government, there would appear to have been a criminal offence committed from the moment someone allegedly sought out an offer in exchange for selling his vote to the government.
When did the Prime Minister know that the member had made that request?
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I am getting the same question and to that question I would suggest that if there is additional information, the Bloc should provide that to the RCMP.
Rather than conduct an investigation on the floor of the House of Commons, the Bloc members should follow up on their letter. If they have more information, I would suggest they provide that information to the RCMP.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said too much, and now he is not willing to be accountable for his actions. This is just like the sponsorship scandal. The Prime Minister wanted to see nothing and hear nothing, and to let things just happen, without anyone being able to pin anything on him.
This is my question for him: A criminal offence may have been committed. We want to know when he was informed of it.
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whether a crime has been committed or not is really the domain of the people doing the investigation. The Bloc has indicated in the House that it has sent a letter to the RCMP to determine whether an investigation is required.
The Bloc has the opportunity to let the RCMP do the work that it has asked the RCMP to do. If it has further information, it should provide that information.
* * *
Child Care
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development is not willing to listen to constructive criticism of his day care scheme. He is refusing to meet with Kids First and other groups that are in favour of choice in child care. He will not even take a phone call. He refuses to consider families who are left out of his plan. He refuses to hear about innovative alternatives to institutional day care.
Why does the minister believe he knows better than everyone else?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since last July, I have travelled across the country many times. I have been coast to coast and almost to coast. Everywhere I go I listen to people talk about their lives and how they have lived their lives. I listen to them talk about the challenges of having children and the goals, the ambitions and the hopes they have for their children. I listen to them talk about what they have, what they would like to have and what they are missing.
One of the things they would like to have is the choice of good, affordable, available early learning and child care.
(1440)
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has an obligation to consider all options before spending billions of dollars but he refuses. He has an obligation to discuss policy options with all Canadians but he refuses. He has an obligation to consider the true cost of his day care scheme but he refuses. He talks about opening the minds of children and exposing them to all the world has to offer.
Why is he not following his own advice?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member, in just about everything she said, is wrong. She was wrong yesterday and she is wrong today. At a certain point one would have to assume that she is purposely wrong.
What we are trying to do is create a national early learning and child care system that will be there for all parents and for all children, a system that has ambitions of early learning, a system that will be there for rural areas, remote areas and urban areas, not $320 a year for the lowest income.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, he is so new to this place and yet so arrogant. It is amazing.
Yesterday the finance minister had the nerve to blame the private sector for Canada's sagging productivity. Canada has some of the highest tax rates on capital investment in the world, which the finance minister is responsible for. Businesses are drowning in red ink, which his government is responsible for.
If the minister wants to blame someone for sagging productivity why does he not look in the mirror?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman would do better in his research than just to depend on newspaper clippings. He might have attended the speech and heard the whole recitation.
Productivity is Canada's 21st century challenge. It is our prime economic priority. In government and in the private sector, we both have very important and urgent work to do to enhance productivity.
For example, we have to work on a stronger economic union, regulatory efficiency, innovation and commercialization. Indeed, the private sector needs to increase its investment in research and development.
We lead in public sector investment. We trail in private sector investment.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is not doing his job. One of the keys to productivity growth and more and better jobs is low taxes for businesses on important things, like investment in technology and equipment, but Canada has some of the highest taxes in the world on those things.
Unfortunately for workers and entrepreneurs, the minister caved in and produced a gimme-gimme budget for his friends in the NDP.
When will he admit that he sacrificed Canadian productivity to buy the approval of the most anti-business, anti-job creation party in the country, the NDP?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the ovation from the other side. I would point out that I will make no such admission because in fact the honourable gentleman is wrong in his allegation.
I have said that on the government's part we need to improve regulatory efficiency and have a stronger economic union. We have to work on infrastructure, education, skills, innovation and commercialization, as well as competitive taxes.
On the private sector side, we do have to pick up the rate of investment in research and development. We have moved from being number six to number one in the G-7 in publicly financed research and development, but we still lag behind on the private sector side.
* * *
[Translation]
Infrastructure
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities recently announced the allocation of $800 million for public transit.
Across Canada, mayors are counting on this funding to build better transit systems in their communities. But this funding, along with the $5 billion gas tax commitment to municipalities, cannot flow until the budget passes. Mayors are unanimous: they need this funding now.
The fact is that the budget implementation bill has been amended by the Standing Committee on Finance and introduced in the House. Are the Conservatives and the Bloc listening to their communities?
Hon. John Godfrey (Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sadly, last night, the Conservatives and Bloc combined forces to remove all the relevant clauses from budget Bill C-48 at committee.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that his party is just as committed to the new deal as we are. How can he say that, and then turn around and instruct his party, as the Bloc has also done, to take the $800 million earmarked for public transit out of the budget bill? This is funding that cities need now.
* * *
(1445)
[English]
Maher Arar Inquiry
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the senior RCMP superintendent in charge of the national security investigation that led to the Maher Arar fiasco has called for his evidence to be now heard in uncensored form in public before the Arar public inquiry.
It is time for the government to set aside its security paranoia and its claim that the security investigation is open-ended.
When will the government lift the veil of secrecy and let the truth telling begin? Why not start with RCMP superintendent Michel Cabana's public testimony?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The question here is what can be released publicly.
All information has been made available to Justice O'Connor. What has to be considered here is that Mr. Justice O'Connor will hear arguments later this week on this question and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
* * *
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The government likes to hide information from everybody.
During the 1960s, under Conservative and Liberal governments, we found that agent orange was sprayed upon unsuspecting civilian and military personnel.
Now we hear that agent purple, a carcinogen three times more lethal, was also used against unsuspecting military and civilian workers.
My question for the Minister of National Defence is quite clear. Instead of having to file freedom of information requests, will you now release all the information you have on these two agents that have been--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, I am sure, hardly needs reminding that he must address his questions to the Chair. He is fully conversant with that rule.
The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. It is one where we are seeking the best we can to get as much information as we can into the hands of those who can help them to reconstruct what happened a long time ago.
These were herbicides that were used widely by other authorities throughout the province. They were herbicides that were used in accordance with industrial and commercial standards at the time and there was no belief there was any risk to humans.
We are now doing our best to make sure that all those who were exposed can get the best information and work with Veterans Affairs Canada for any disability pensions they are entitled to. We will continue to do that. It is laborious, it is time consuming, but we are committed to getting to the bottom of this so people can be--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops--Thompson--Cariboo.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Canadian veterans have served this country proudly through two world wars, Korea, and in peacekeeping roles throughout the world. They put their lives on the line for us and then have to defend themselves against their own government.
The chemical testing program in Suffield and Ottawa is a prime example of this. Now we have the spraying of CFB Gagetown with agent orange.
Are we going to have another long, drawn out process where elderly and sick veterans are put through the wringer in order to be awarded compensation?
Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at Veterans Affairs Canada we have an agenda of care, as the hon. member well knows. We have established a review committee to ensure that our programs deliver for our veterans.
The member knows that there is a longstanding policy of assisting our veterans in terms of getting their--
An hon. member: What's the deadline?
Hon. Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, no one is ever denied a pension at veterans affairs for being late. No information is ever denied for a veteran to advance his or her case--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops--Thompson--Cariboo.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, routinely veterans have been turned down for benefits because they could not prove their disability was related to their service in the armed forces. Retired Brigadier General Gordon Sellar and his wife, Gloria, are a prime example. It took a pitched battle with veterans affairs