Joe McGuire

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 12th, 2007]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Egmont, for the period of January 24, 2006 to November 20, 2007, inclusive and in each case where applicable: (a) the program under which the payment was made; (b) the names of the recipients; (c) the monetary value of the payment made; (d) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received; (e) the specific eligibility requirements, admissibility conditions or criteria and evaluation criteria established for each program; (f) the number deemed eligible and the number approved for funding; and (g) the number of applications declined for funding for each program?

[December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the information she has provided, particularly the information regarding the personal follow up by the department in talking to the people who may or may not know that their security has been compromised. I also thank her for her best wishes.

I would like to ask another question. Legislation is going through the House now dealing with enhanced identity theft legislation. I wonder if this bill could be modified or added to which would take into consideration these types of actions or accidents that do happen when there are security breaches.

I know that when people give out information, they depend on the organizations that are getting it to make them feel secure about them having it, and they should be able to feel safe. I know that 50 of the states in the United States have this type of legislation and I think Canada should do the same.

[December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on November 23, I asked a question regarding the theft of a government computer from the home of a HRSDC employee. The computer contained files with the detailed personal information of over 1,200 seniors and their spouses. These seniors are CPP applicants from the Maritimes, and the information on these records included names, addresses, social insurance numbers, dates of birth, and banking information.

I am concerned about a number of issues arising from this incident.

First, the data on the stolen computer was not encrypted. Encryption refers to changing information to make it unreadable to anyone except the person who has the key required to decode it. It is a very common process used to protect sensitive computer files. Why was the data on this employee's computer not encrypted? It would seem to me to be a necessary tool to protect electronic information, especially on computers, that will leave departmental premises.

In addition, we may need a review of the way that client records are handled within government organizations like Service Canada. Recently in Britain, similar data on about 25 million people was lost by a British civil servant. What is the government's security process when dealing with this type of information internally? How does the government ensure security of electronic files when employees work from home? How does it track whether employees are following this process?

How does the government ensure online security? A Canadian applying for a passport online discovered last week that Passport Canada's website was not as secure as it claimed to be. Jamie Laning of Huntsville, Ontario was able to access the records of other passport applicants by simply changing one character on the website address. He notified Passport Canada immediately, but who knows who else might have discovered this security flaw and used it to his or her advantage. It is unacceptable for the websites of government departments, which frequently handle the confidential records of millions of Canadians, to have these kinds of security defects.

Finally, I would like to know why the government did not see fit to notify financial institutions that 1,200 people's banking details were being compromised?

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development responded to my question, she noted:

There is a process in place and we are doing everything possible to ensure this is taken care of.

I would like to know in detail what this process is and what has been done up to this point to ensure that the information provided by these seniors is secure and to ensure that they do not become victims of identity theft. The people affected were notified by letter, but has anything else been done since? Has the computer been recovered?

[Passport Services, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, P.E.I. congratulates Saskatchewan.

For years now, Prince Edward Islanders have been putting up with inadequate passport services. With the new rules requiring Canadians to have passports to travel to the United States, the demand far outstrips available services.

It is unacceptable that Prince Edward Island continues to be the only province without a passport office. Receiving agents are not enough. They can only review applications, not process them.

Islanders who need a passport on short notice still have to drive to Halifax or Fredericton. This is not a short trip. It is approximately a 700 to 800 kilometres round trip, and there is the toll cost for the Confederation Bridge.

When the passport requirements extend to land border crossings next summer, the demand for passports will be massive. Opening an office in P.E.I. would reduce the workload in the other regional offices, would make it easier for Islanders to get their passports, and would free up constituency office workers to do constituency office work.

[Human Resources and Social Development, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, recently a government computer was stolen from the home of an HRSDC employee which contained the names, addresses, birthdates, SINs and banking information of over 1,300 Canadians, all of them seniors.

Although the government initially notified the people whose identity had been compromised, it has done nothing since, not even notifying banking institutions of the breach or providing counselling to those seniors. These seniors are very concerned and nervous.

What is the minister doing to protect those people and to ensure this does not happen again?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the minister's speech and he did refer a little bit to the Atlantic with regard to funding tidal power.

However, I was wondering what happened to the hydrogen village that was funded in North Cape, Prince Edward Island three years ago in a technology partnerships program, a public-private initiative. It seems they have fallen off the rails ever since the present government took power.

I wonder if the minister would give us an update on the hydrogen village in North Cape.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans seems to be missing the point when it comes to trawlers and quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. He said yesterday about the quotas, “whether they catch it in a dory or in the Queen Mary, it does not make any difference”.

The current uproar in P.E.I. is not related to the quotas. Everybody knows the quotas have not been changed. The uproar is over the use of this specific type of fishing gear which has proven destructive to stocks in other areas.

The minister knows full well that this type of gear has never been used in the gulf for this very reason. Local fishermen are concerned about the safety of the herring and bycatch stocks and have questioned the research methods used by DFO to estimate the health of the stocks.

Until we can be assured that midwater trawlers will not decimate the herring industry, it is best to err on the side of caution, which is what DFO is supposed to do.

If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans thinks that jigging from a dory is no different from dragging a net the size of five football fields through the ocean, he is obviously very dismissive of the valid concerns of people who make their livings from the sea.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

As we know, Mr. Speaker, the present Senate does a lot of great work and should be commended for its work, but things can be improved.

As for the way the government is going about improving the Senate, it seems that the government refuses to sit down and talk with the provinces about reforming the Senate. The Senate was designed as a voice for the regions. The government has yet to call a meeting of any region to discuss what changes the regions may desire in Senate reform.

If the province of Quebec is that keen on Senate--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince Edward—Hastings for his very generous comments. As he said, we worked together on the NATO association meetings in Iceland. That was the first time that we were together on such a mission.

I certainly am impressed with the whole committee and the way it operated on behalf of Canada in putting forth our views and in supporting our troops. As the member said, we received accolades from countries all over the world about the commitment we have made there and the necessity of a country such as Canada taking a lead role in a very tough area.

However, we have to ask when enough is enough. How long are we going to put our troops on the front lines? Is it two more years during which we can reasonably expect our troops to be on the front lines or is it the next 10 years? It is going to take a long time before Afghanistan becomes a country that can function on its own with its own police force and its own army.

There will have to be a long term commitment to Afghanistan made by NATO and by Canada as a member of NATO, but I think the burden of the front line should be shared with other countries that seem to have forgotten the lessons of the first and second world wars, particularly in Europe.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I am splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

I am very pleased this afternoon to have this opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the beautiful riding of Egmont.

At the opening of the new session, I would like to take a moment to thank my constituents and my family for their support over the last 19 years and over the span of six elections. I appreciate their support. During my tenure, I am proud to have represented them and their interests in the federal arena.

I listened with interest to the speech as the Governor General outlined the five priorities on which the government plans to focus during this session. I would like to make remarks on two of those themes.

I am proud of my work with the Standing Committee on National Defence and of my responsibility as an advocate for Atlantic Canadian issues. As a result, I will address two issues that are of great importance to me and to Atlantic Canada: Canada's sovereignty and place in the world and the government's plan to strengthen the Canadian federation.

First I would like to comment on Canada's sovereignty and place in the world. Canada has a long and proud history of leadership in the international community. From Lester B. Pearson's creation of the first international peacekeeping force during the Suez crisis to Canada's condemnation of apartheid in South Africa, we have always been a strong advocate for diplomacy, peacekeeping and the protection of human rights.

We are a committed member of international organizations such as the United Nations, the G-8, the OAS, NATO, the World Bank, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Through these organizations, we have developed our domestic values of democracy, good governance and respect for diversity.

Canada encourages diplomacy and multiculturalism and has often worked hard with other countries to forge important international agreements, yet we have never been afraid to act when it was necessary to protect what we believe in. After the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, we joined in the fight against terrorism by becoming a part of the military mission in Afghanistan. Today, we continue to be a key part of the UN sanctioned NATO force there.

Our combat mission is scheduled to end in February 2009, which was a decision made by Parliament. As we draw closer to the deadline, it is crucial that parliamentarians have an open, informed debate on the future of the mission. It is our responsibility to represent the opinions of our constituents concerning our continuing involvement in the war. This is not a political question. It is a question of what Canadians want.

We have been doing good work in Afghanistan. I would like to congratulate our troops, who have been outstanding. They have sacrificed time with their families, the comforts of home and, in some respects, their lives to fight for Canada.

Our appreciation and admiration for the men and women of the Canadian Forces is limitless. The House of Commons standing committee visited Kandahar province. We met with the soldiers first-hand and saw first-hand the pride they had in serving their country in that benighted country.

Their efforts have included improving the security situation in Afghanistan, decommissioning weapons, clearing landmines, reconstructing roads, schools and other infrastructure and providing development aid, and training the Afghan police force and the Afghan army. No one can deny the importance of these efforts.

However, it is time to evaluate the success of the mission up to this point, our goals in Afghanistan and our strategy for the future. It is important that parliamentarians and Canadians are informed about the mission's progress and the plan going forward so that we can make the right decision.

Information from the government and from the military on what is going on in Afghanistan on a going forward basis is something that the standing committee has always had difficulty getting. The creation of an independent, non-partisan panel to investigate our options for the continuation of the mission is a step in the right direction.

I look forward to hearing the recommendations in January 2008. However, in the end, it is members of Parliament who will make the final decision. In order for MPs to have all the tools necessary to make the right decision, I ask the government to consider creating a special parliamentary committee to review the mission, in addition to the independent panel. Six hours of debate in the House will not be sufficient. This matter deserves careful attention and examination.

Some of the questions that come to mind regarding the mission in Afghanistan are as follows.

What are the indicators of success? What are Canada's and NATO's specific operational goals and are they being achieved? It is simply not enough to say, with no proof, that we are making progress. Parliamentarians need to be able to assess how close we are to reaching our goals.

Is Canada taking on more of the military burden than other NATO nations? Canada has been involved in heavy fighting in Kandahar province while other NATO nations refuse to allow their troops to operate in the region of Kandahar and Helmand provinces. It is ultimately up to every country to decide what degree of involvement it should shoulder in any conflict; however, we have to ask ourselves why other nations have not been fully committed to this war.

At the fall meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Association held in Iceland just recently, Canada tried to get a commitment from parliamentarians in the 26 NATO nations, particularly those from Germany, France, Italy and other European countries, to share the burden with Canada on the front lines. Our success, I must say, probably was not resounding, as we did not get a firm commitment from the parliamentarians from these countries to pick up their share of the burden.

Canada's efforts in Afghanistan should be a combination of the three Ds: defence, diplomacy and development. Have development and diplomacy been given enough attention? That is the question. Total defence spending for the combat mission is estimated to reach $4.3 billion by February 2009. The total financial commitment for development is $1 billion over 10 years. Will concentrating more of our efforts on diplomacy and development help us reach our goals more quickly and be more in keeping with our reputation as a force for cooperative change?

If the mission were to continue beyond 2009, what roles and responsibilities would we take on? The panel has been presented with four scenarios: continue training the Afghan army and police so Canada can begin withdrawing its forces; focus on reconstruction and have forces from another country take over security in Kandahar province; shift Canadian security and reconstruction efforts to another region in Afghanistan; or withdraw all Canadian military except a minimal force to protect aid workers and diplomats.

However, as noted by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, in his response last Wednesday, the government seems to have already chosen the first option. If the panel proposes a different route, will the government listen?

In the Speech from the Throne, the government refers to the first option by stating that “Canada should...accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its own sovereignty”, which is a noble objective.

Currently, Operation Archer, the Canadian contribution to the retraining of the Afghan National Army and Afghan police, is comprised of only 30 Canadian Forces members, compared to the 2,500 troops deployed in Kandahar. It is a massive difference in commitment: 2,500 to 30. What is the government's plan to increase the number of Canadian Forces members participating in the retraining of the Afghan army and police?

These are questions we have a right to debate as parliamentarians. I urge the government to give us a forum in which to do that and to provide us with full and complete information about the mission so that we can make the right decision when the issue comes back to the House for a vote.

My last comments are about strengthening the federation. Since I am running out of time, I will save my comments on that initiative for a later date.