House of Commons Hansard #118 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was questions.

Topics

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister what set of witnesses he was looking at when he said that there is a sense that people are generally satisfied with the act. I note that Democracy Watch, in its recommendations, which were simplified in its press release, said that the Conflict of Interest Act and the ethics codes applying to ministers should really be called the “Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest” act.

The Conflict of Interest Commissioner herself tabled 75 recommendations, yet this report from the Conservative majority on the committee takes very few of them into account, and ignores the 2006 Conservative platform commitments, which would include some of those things that today the official opposition has put forward as amendments, such as allowing members of the public to make complaints under the conflict of interest code.

I wonder if the member wants to support the platform from 2006 of the Conservative Party.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member highlighted Democracy Watch. In the last Parliament, I was on this committee and I remember asking I think it was Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch, “If you had some advice to give and somebody wanted an opinion and they said that they would give you $1,000 for that opinion, would that change your outlook?” He said, “No, absolutely not.” I said, “How about $2,000?” He said no. I said, “What about $5,000?” “Well, at that point then I'd start to have to look at the opposite side of the equation.” Therefore, forgive me if I do not take Democracy Watch as the lead when it comes to how an ethical government should operate.

We have a system in a place that is far better than the system that we had before. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. It is not going to be perfect. I do not think we will ever get to a place where we can say that everything that we do is perfect. However, it is fair. That also has to be one of the equations that we look at. Is the act that we brought forward fair to the people who it intends to cover? I think it is. Does it provide more information than the previous act did? Is it accountable to the people of Canada through their Parliament? I think it is. That is why I think this report and this act are good and the changes that are proposed would make the act better and stronger for all Canadians.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House, as always, to speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay.

I am not pleased that Parliament is looking at this report as it stands now. I believe that this report has made a mockery of the work of Parliament and the parliamentary committees and has undermined, in a very egregious manner, the objective of the Conflict of Interest Act and the promise that was made in 2006, when the present Prime Minister came into town promising accountability.

When we go back to 2006, after the endemic corruption that had beset Ottawa under years and years of a Liberal government, there were numerous problems identified. There was the revolving door around the Prime Minister's office; the easy access of the lobbyists to keep people in positions; the lack of accountability mechanisms for the people in the civil service at the very high levels, who were making the procurement decisions; and the inability to devise clear walls between the political operatives of the government and the senior civil service to ensure accountability to the Canadian people.

In 2006, the New Democratic Party worked in good faith with the incoming Conservative government, because we believe in the issue of transparency and accountability, regardless of which party is in power. The Canadian people expect this.

At the time, there were some obvious major failings in the efforts of the accountability act. We had pushed to have the Senate under the same code as the House of Commons so that Canadians could trust that even though the House is elected and the Senate is not elected, and I am not going to get into that issue tonight, there was a standard for ethical behaviour. The Canadian public will certainly agree that if the Senate had agreed to come under the Conflict of Interest Act and to have an empowered ethics commissioner and a lobbying commissioner a number of its members might not be facing fraud or be under investigation the way they are tonight.

That does not mean that the act itself, the way it was administered in Parliament, did not have problems. That was the reason for the five-year statutory review. The reason was that we needed to see what worked and what did not. Certainly over the period of five years, a number of problems came forward that the original enshriners of the act, the Conservative government at the time, working with the New Democrat opposition, may not have envisioned.

One of the problems was the interpretation of the Conflict of Interest Act. Present Commissioner Mary Dawson is very literal. There is no deviation on the issue of apparent conflict of interest.

Yet members will know that in dealing with lobbying or people looking to get access, the issue of apparent conflict of interest is as crucial as conflict of interest, because it is very difficult to prove an exact conflict of interest unless the actual body is lying on the ground, with a gun in the hand, and the ethics commissioner is jumping in the door as it is all happening.

The issue of apparent conflict of interest would have been a reasonable amendment to clarify the role of the ethics commissioner.

We needed to clarify the roles of the lobbying commissioner and the ethics commissioner, because we have had the bizarre situation where the lobbying commissioner has found that lobbyists have acted inappropriately, yet the same ministers who were under investigation through the ethics commissioner for the same act of lobbying were found to have done nothing wrong. There is obviously a problem if the lobbyist did something wrong but the ministers or senior civil servants did not. We had to clarify that. It would have been a good result of the act to clarify that, which would come down to the issue of the apparent conflict of interest role.

There are certainly issues in terms of clarifying the roles of financial remuneration, particularly for the top parliamentary secretaries and ministers of the crown, because these are the people who can be influenced.

Right now the reading of the act is very narrow. There has to be a personal benefit. A personal benefit is not necessarily money paid to a riding association, yet clearly there is a benefit to a lobbyist who is going to give money to a riding association.

This is not to be draconian on this. I am sure we could have worked it out.

If a senior minister has someone donate to him or her, one does not necessarily have the ability to check everybody who is donating, so that person is not necessarily in a conflict of interest. However, if that person is in his or her office and lobbyists are going to the office and the individual is saying he or she is doing a fundraiser, the person is potentially in a conflict of interest. However, if the word “apparent” is not being used, that issue is not being clarified. These were issues that needed to be addressed.

Certainly Canadians were wondering how it was possible that the most senior inside advisor to the Prime Minister could write a secret cheque for $90,000. Is that a conflict of interest, a breach of the act? These were things that needed to be clarified, so we all understood the rules. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

Let us talk about the administration of the act, the people who are under the act, and about how this whole process was undermined.

In terms of the administration of the role of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, these are officers of Parliament who are some of the finest civil servants I have had the honour to meet. There is extreme professionalism traditionally, by the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, Elections Canada, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and the Lobbying Commissioner. They all play the role of ensuring that parliamentarians in government are accountable to the Canadian people.

However, we saw the full-on attack against the credibility of the head of Elections Canada, insinuating that he was somehow partisan. That undermined his office and his ability to do the work. We saw the attack on the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, which was relentless and completely out of line. The government was trying to undermine the work of an independent officer who was bringing forward the information that parliamentarians need.

The recent appointment of the Privacy Commissioner has caused a great deal of uncertainty in terms of his role. I hope he can fulfill his role with credibility, despite what has happened under the current government. Then we have the issue of the Conflict of Interest Act and how Mary Dawson is going to apply that act. We know she has proven herself to be very literal when she reads the act, so who is it that Mary Dawson or a future ethics commissioner should be overseeing? This was a big issue in terms of what we debated. We heard from expert after expert, right across the political spectrum. The key issue was who it is that the ethics commissioner should be overseeing. It is clearly people who hold power and who have the ability to make decisions.

If a backbencher writes a letter of support for a local business, because that is what backbenchers do, that is considered part of the job. However, someone sitting at the cabinet table is not supposed to do that because that person has the power to influence in a way that a backbencher does not. Therefore, there is a gradation, in terms of the roles of responsibility and accountability.

Elected members of Parliament have certain ethical standards that they have to meet, but the act is meant for key people who are able to influence power. Cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and key advisors around the Prime Minister, would be considered part of that. These are the office holders who can be influenced and who can influence. Who are the lobbyists attempting to influence? Who are they taking out to supper? Who are they buying gifts for? Who are they taking on trips? These are the kinds of questions that the ethics commissioner needs to deal with.

In the 2006 platform of the Conservative Party, there were a number of recommendations about empowering an ethics commissioner. One of the recommendations was that members of the public should be able to make complaints. It does not mean that the ethics commissioner is going to be burdened with all manner of spurious complaints. In fact, if the ethics commissioner believes a complaint is spurious, she can write it off. However, members of the public should have the right to ask for investigations, and the ethics commissioner could decide whether to apply it.

The issue of administrative monetary penalties was a fundamental principle in the 2006 Conservative platform. Administrative monetary penalties mean that the ethics commissioner as well as the Lobbying Commissioner have the power to enforce the act so that they can hold people to account.

We are being told it is simply enough that they have moral weight or that they ask people to stay after school or write an essay saying that they promise they will not do it again.

If someone is dealing with contracts that may be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and is seen as doing something inappropriate, the lobbying and ethics commissioners should have the ability to bring forward administrative monetary penalties, yet the government is against that. It does not want these independent officers to have teeth.

We have talked about the people who hold the power, the people who make the decisions, the people who get lobbied and the people who do the lobbying, the people who decide on procurement, the people who are appointed to key government boards and the big public boards that people are brought forward on. These are all the people we heard again and again should be under the act, to what extent they should be under the act, and what rules should apply to them.

That was the main oversight of our committee, yet all of that evidence was completely ignored. At the last minute, the deus ex machina recommendation dropped in from the Prime Minister's Office, right in the middle of the recommendation. Of all of the recommendations that we heard from the law societies and the experts, recommendation number one, which was rolled down right into our report as though it had actually been presented as evidence, although it had not, came down from the Prime Minister's Office and said that from now on, anybody who has a union card and works in the civil service is going to be treated the same as ministers of the crown.

Poor Mary Dawson was somewhat gobsmacked by that recommendation. We asked her how many people would come under the act and how many people she would now have to administer. It would be like telling Mary Dawson that in addition to making sure that the parliamentary secretary for finance is not being unduly lobbied and in addition to making sure that key ministers are not hanging out and going on weekend trips with key lobbyists, she will now have to look after more people than live in the city of Saskatoon or Longueuil. The number is double the population of Barrie.

Now she is going to have to administer that act herself. What that means in a very simple and cynical fashion is that the Conservatives have watered down the act to make her job functionally impossible. We asked her how she would handle this recommendation. She said that she simply would not be able to do it. The government would have to get some other body to it. What the government has done is it has decided that its number one recommendation, without any evidence or witnesses coming forward, is to make her office unable to do its job, which is keeping the key power brokers in the Conservative government accountable.

The other thing the Conservative government is pushing for is secrecy. This is the government that tells us how much it believes in openness and transparency. What it believes in is total transparency against its enemies and total secrecy for its friends. It wants to make it so that any investigation of any of its ministers or friends who are guilty of wrongdoing has to be kept secret.

The government members do not talk about that here tonight when we hear them talk about transparency, openness and datasets. It was talking about radio waves and fish stocks earlier, but it was not telling the Canadian public that one of the key recommendations they are bringing forward is to make the investigation process secret. How does that help the Canadian public? It does not, but it will certainly help the Conservative Party when it is about protecting Conservatives and hiding the information about whether or not any wrongdoing has been done.

We have enormous respect for these institutions, and we believe that when recommendations or questions for investigations are brought forward, the spurious ones will be looked at and thrown out, but the Canadian public has a right to know that an investigation is under way. They have a right to know that the ethics commissioner has the right, and should have the right, to be able to say, “Yes, I have launched an investigation”, and the person who is bringing it should be able to say it. She should also have the right to say, “I looked at it and I found that it was an absolutely ridiculous request for an investigation. No, I am not doing it.” That should be the power of an independent officer, which the government is taking away, but it has not said that.

There was a number of recommendations that the government ignored. What we are seeing here is a sham. This is not based on what we heard.

The Conservatives completely ignored the 70-some recommendations from the Ethics Commissioner. They ignored the recommendations that came from the law societies and the people who deal with the administration of government who look at these issues. They ignored all of those recommendations and basically brought in a whitewash that will undermine this act.

We believe that the power to bring in administrative monetary penalties is a key power that the Ethics Commissioner needs as well as the Commissioner of Lobbying. That should include the ability to suspend for a specified period, a suspension of a member's right to vote if they refuse to be compliant for a period of time, and require reimbursement for the value of the gift.

We spent hours and hours talking about the value of gifts and whether it should $30, $50, or whether there should be any limit at all. Personally, I think it absurd to think that somebody would be influenced by a gift of $30, a snow globe or a photo book of Saskatoon in the spring. What will influence someone is being flown around the country or flown around Europe and given tens of thousands of dollars in free gifts. That is an issue.

We spent hours arguing about gifts, which was fundamentally irrelevant because it treats the ethics abilities of the civil servants and key ministers and it makes it ridiculous. However, on the issue of gifts, at a certain point we have to set a reasonable fee.

We have to deal with the issue of fundraising and lobbyists, first, so that it is fair, but second, so that it is clear. However, none of that is in there.

Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries should ensure that government facilities and equipment, including ministerial or departmental letterhead, are not used for or in connection with fundraising activities.

These are the straightforward, straight-up responsibilities that should be in the act.

The ministerial code of conduct that the Prime Minister himself brought in should be made part of the act. It is absolutely useless to have a code of conduct that is optional. How can we have a code of conduct for ethics that is optional? The Prime Minister had established what the rules were for ministers of the crown. We should put it in the act, and that should be the standard that people apply to.

Again, on the issue of bringing complaints, it should be fair. If the public believes a complaint should be brought, the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Ethics Commissioner should have the ability and power to decide whether it is reasonable or not.

Also, there is the extended definition of ministerial staff to include those working within the minister's office on contract work. This is not to say that if one is in a member's office and a student from one's hometown comes by that they should not be part of the act. That would be absurd. However, if one is dealing with a ministerial office and coming in to do contract work, while in the minister's office, one is part of the overall decision-making and under that period of time it would be a reasonable thing. Again, it would not be reasonable to apply that to every single person who comes in to volunteer at the office of a member of Parliament or even over in the Senate, if we imagine it ever did become accountable.

These are the lines that we have to start defining between what is a reasonable request and what is an unreasonable request, and what is doable and what is not.

We believe that we could reduce the gifts. As I said earlier, there was talk about $30 and $500. Right now it is $200, but we believe a $100 gift is fair.

If a member goes out to lunch with someone, the member's doors will not busted down if a member paid for someone's lunch at $100. I mean, I would love a Saskatchewan Roughriders jacket, but nobody has ever given me one. However, if it was under $100, that would be perfectly fine, but not if it was over $100. These are reasonable things.

Also, make automatic divestment rules for reporting public office holders with significant decision-making power and access to privileged information, including but not limited to ministers, ministers of state, parliamentary secretaries, chiefs of staff, deputy ministers, ministerial staff and employees in a minister's office. Keep those rules in place, but extending that to 260,000 civil servants across the country will make this act unenforceable. It will dilute the role of the Ethics Commissioner and it will make a mockery of the work of our committee.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I will advise the House that we normally would have 10 minutes of questions and comments, but time expires on this debate at 8:41 p.m., so we have about five minutes.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, this is so that I can get a better understanding of what the NDP is suggesting in terms of amendments and some of the things the member talked about.

I believe the member was here in 2004. I wonder if he might talk about some of the historical context that brought about the need for an accountability act.

I do note in the House that quite often the members of the Liberal Party chastise the NDP for helping to eject the then Liberal minority government.

However, to help me better understand some of the things that the NDP are talking about in the amendments, I wonder if the member might just refresh some of us who were not here in 2004 on some of the things that were happening back then between 2004 and 2006, before this act was brought in.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, in 2004 we were at about 11, 12 and 13 years of promises. They just ripped the cover off the red book every three years and put a new cover on it. They did not actually change any of the page numbers. They did not change any of the promises. Those broken promises, year after year, certainly did frustrate the Canadian people, but Canadians are patient. They were more than willing to keep waiting for the Liberals to finally start delivering on Kyoto, child care, first nations issues, but I do not know if they ever promised accountability.

What we were dealing with was endless amounts of corruption. They wrapped themselves in the Canadian flag and told Canadians that they had to allow corruption because it was the only way to save the country. That was such an insult to the people of Quebec, who said, “What? We have to be bought with flags? Is that how they are going to save our country?” The people of Quebec and the rest of Canada decided that maybe one thing they had to do was actually toss the bums out, which was why the Federal Accountability Act was brought in.

I would say to my hon. colleague that they have to watch the lessons of history. I do not want my hon. colleague tossed out on his petard the way I have seen some former Liberal members tossed out. Accountability is a fundamental issue. Accountability is what we have to bring here. We need to work together to ensure we never repeat those dim, dark days of the Gomery era.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my friend from Timmins—James Bay was as shocked as I was when I asked the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister about the substantive concerns of Democracy Watch, and the response from the parliamentary secretary was to attack the ethics and honesty of someone who has been an ethics champion in this country, Duff Conacher, whose reputation is beyond reproach. He is so non-partisan that in 2006 he tried to convince me that the Conservative Party's ethics promises were good enough that we should look forward to its forming government. He is totally non-partisan.

I wonder if the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has any thoughts as well on the role played in pursuing a real conflict of interest act from Democracy Watch.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would be more than happy to actually find the quote that I was referencing for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and table it in the House tomorrow. I would be happy to actually provide you with a copy of the quote. Before you rise in the House and impugn my reputation, you might want to take a look at what—

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I would remind the parliamentary secretary to address his comments to the Chair.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to do that for the House, to reference those comments that were made by Democracy Watch and provide a copy to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and table that in the House tomorrow.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, we certainly heard from a wide variety of witnesses. I have to say that one of the great things about the ethics committee is I have immense respect for the people who come forward at the ethics committee, because we deal with issues of access to information, issues of privacy and issues of ethics. I do not want to single out any particular witness, but I would say that we had such a high calibre of witnesses who came forward with such excellent recommendations across the political spectrum.

This is why I am so frustrated that these key recommendations were completely ignored and in fact undermined by this report. The respect that should be given to the people who came forward to be heard, to speak, to offer us their ideas were not heard, and that is really what needs to be in this record at the end of the day.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 66 the division stands deferred until Wednesday October 1, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, three months ago, the Conservative cabinet approved Enbridge's northern gateway pipeline. Canadians from coast to coast including most first nations had spoken out against the dangers of the project. Economists and many other experts said it was bad for the economy and the environment. However, the Conservatives approved the pipeline anyway. They tried to do so very quietly. The Minister of Natural Resources hid from the media. He refused to take interviews.

Once upon a time the Conservatives could not stop talking about all the supposed “benefits” Canadians would receive from northern gateway. Now they cannot wait to change the subject.

Here is where we are now after eight years of haphazard energy policy from the Conservatives. Without the means to get western oil to eastern Canada, Canadians from Halifax to Thunder Bay have been forced to import the world's most expensive foreign oil from countries like Venezuela, Africa and the Middle East. All the while, the government has been shipping our unrefined resources to the U.S.A. at much lower prices. We are selling off our oil at a 30% discount, while paying much more for expensive imports.

My father was an investment banker. Dad taught me that the first rule of business is to buy low and sell high. However, the Conservatives do not seem to understand even basic business. They buy high, sell low and their approach is costing Canada $18 billion every single year in balance of trade deficits. We now export twice as much oil as we import and we are failing to meet Canadian energy supply or security needs.

We do not want more pipelines with lax safeguards to ship unrefined oil overseas at a discount. The first step is to develop and approve in Parliament a national energy strategy. We are the only G20 country without one. We need a clear plan to meet Canada's energy needs, address climate change and shift to sustainable energy.

We should look after Canadians' needs first. An east-west pipeline could allow us to do just that. It would reduce our dependency on foreign oil and would create long-term jobs here at home instead of exporting them to the United States and communist China, and FIPA makes that even worse. A cross-country pipeline would reduce our huge trade deficit, giving Canada self-sufficient energy security.

I am not talking about TransCanada's proposed energy east pipeline. I am opposed to energy east as it is currently proposed. Any pipeline from west to east must be brand new and double walled. It must have leak sensors between the walls and shut-off controls that are proven to work. Any pipeline must be virtually spill-proof. It also cannot carry diluted bitumen or dilbit, as proposed by energy east. Tar sands bitumen must be upgraded to synthetic crude before it enters Ontario.

The Green Party knows we will not stop using oil overnight. Any transition to sustainable sources will take time. However, climate change is costing Canadians in real environmental and economic terms. Future generations will face huge burdens if they are forced to pay for the damage climate disruption will do. My proposed carbon fee and dividend bill would dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and end poverty at the same time.

We must go back to the drawing board and come back with a real plan for energy security that also protects the environment of Canada, west and east.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

September 29th, 2014 / 8:45 p.m.

Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar Saskatchewan

Conservative

Kelly Block ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for asking about one of our government's top priorities, reducing our reliance on foreign oil while expanding our export markets.

Our government understands the importance of responsible resource development, creating jobs and economic growth while protecting the environment. When we take direct and indirect impacts into account, the natural resources sector represents nearly one-fifth of Canada's GDP, and of course energy resources are a huge part of that equation.

The opportunities for growth are unlike anything we have seen in our history. According to government analysis, there are hundreds of major resource projects currently planned or underway in Canada over the next 10 years. Those projects represent a total investment of as much as $675 billion. Our government wants to ensure that every dollar of that potential is realized. That is why the expansion and diversification of our energy markets, both within Canada and globally, is a priority for the Government of Canada.

As members know, the United States remains our largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 100% of all of Canada's oil and gas exports. However, as the U.S. becomes more self-sufficient, it is critical that we diversify our markets in order to benefit from the incredible opportunity that our natural resources provide. That is why our government, led by the Prime Minister, promotes Canada's resources in markets around the world. It is also why our government is aggressively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities for Canada in fast growing markets, like Asia-Pacific.

We are also looking at reducing our reliance on foreign oil imports. Our government welcomes the prospect of shipping western Canadian oil to eastern Canada, as long as it is proven safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. Unlike the NDP and Liberals, who have said they will decide which projects should or should not be reviewed, our government will make these decisions based on a scientific review. That is why the independent National Energy Board is tasked with undertaking a regulatory review of proposed pipeline projects that fall under federal jurisdiction. For example, the reversal of Line 9 from Sarnia to Montreal was approved by the National Energy Board and will reduce the amount of oil that is imported from foreign sources.

Refineries have also said that the project will protect jobs associated with Quebec's refineries. This is a made-in-Canada solution that will protect jobs and grow the economy in a responsible manner.

Other proposed projects will be reviewed by the National Energy Board in an open and transparent manner, and our government will make a decision on those projects once a recommendation is made. Canadians expect their government to make decisions based on science and facts, not ideology.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

8:50 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are digging our economy and ecology deeper into the tar sands. They are ignoring Canadians from coast to coast who are calling for leadership on climate change and energy innovation.

The government has no plan to meet Canadian energy needs. After eight years of stumbling along, their failure to plan has caught up with all of us. Luckily, we have an opportunity, after the next election unfortunately, to overcome Conservative mismanagement here. We need a national energy strategy, one that is approved in Parliament. We need to price CO2 with carbon fee and dividends, which I will introduce soon. We need to meet Canadian energy needs, create jobs, and protect the environment.

We can achieve Canadian oil self-sufficiency. We can balance economic growth with smart choices about sustainable energy. We can create jobs here at home and become a global energy leader, not follower. Let us do it.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Our government's responsible resource development plan is creating jobs, growing the economy, and enhancing environmental protection. As I mentioned earlier, the natural resources sector generates close to 20% of all economic activity here in Canada.

We all know how important the energy sector has been to Canada's economic development over the past century. We recognize that Canada cannot continue to rely on the United States as our sole purchaser of energy products. At the same time, Canada must reduce its reliance on foreign oil in eastern Canada. That is why our government supports, in principle, the prospect of moving western Canadian oil to eastern Canada.

We have been clear that these projects will only be approved if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. I am sure that all members agree that this is the correct way to move forward on this important file.

Social DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

8:50 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, on every paycheque, Canadians contribute to safety nets that are supposed to help them make ends meet when they need it most, like employment insurance and CPP. Canadians expect that these services will be there for them should they run into hard times, but under the Conservative government, more Canadians are seeing their claims denied, and too many are waiting too long to have their appeals heard.

The Social Security Tribunal which was created by the Conservative government to hear appeals is a complete mess. Canadians are waiting a year or more to appeal decisions on employment insurance, old age security and Canada pension plan claims. Unlike the old system, which was not problem free, by the way, there is no guarantee of a fair hearing in a reasonable amount of time, and recently we learned that the Social Security Tribunal does not intend to eliminate the backlog of cases until 2017 at the earliest.

Seniors, Canadians living with a disability and those who are out of work cannot afford to live for months and years without any income. Why is the government leaving vulnerable Canadians to pay the price for its incompetence?

The government even set out with a specific goal of reducing the number of hearings by 25%. The new tribunal has more than delivered on that goal.

I would like the minister to tell us why the Conservative government refuses to fully staff the tribunal or to develop service standards for Canadians. I would like him to tell us why he is not collecting or releasing statistics.

I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that I have received several letters from people who have been so completely discouraged by the bureaucratic nightmare the government has created that they have actually given up on their cases and they are living in poverty. Sometimes I wonder if that is not part of the strategy: to make a system so incredibly discouraging that people actually give up on their claims.

On September 18, I introduced a motion that would see this House agree that the government should hear the entire backlog of cases in no longer than 365 days, hire more staff so that appeals do not continue to backlog, track wait times for appeals, and resume tracking the success and failure rates of all appeals.

In addition to my motion, I also have a motion on notice before HUMA asking that the committee study this badly broken program so that ailing and out-of-work Canadians do not continue to wait to have their cases heard.

I hope that the cases are heard as quickly as possible so that Canadians are not left suffering. We cannot have unemployed Canadians denied employment insurance, Canada pension plan or old age security benefits.

Someone who has been on the inside, someone who has seen first-hand how badly broken this current system really is and how much that is hurting people, that former member also emphasized that under the current system she felt rushed, and that there was a possibility to feel resentful under the workload expectations caused by understaffing. She talked about fairness to the client and fairness of the process in past tense, suggesting instead that the current process is only about production and getting cases out of the way.

We need to have a serious look at this tribunal and we need to see it fixed.