John Cummins

[Ridley Terminals, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no obligation on the government to proceed with the Fortune Minerals deal, so why the hurry to sell Ridley for a pittance?

When those friends of the Liberal Party declared bankruptcy in 1983, it was reported as one of the largest insolvencies in Canadian history. In 1991, a judge found a reasonable inference of fraud or negligence with regard to the sale of shares of Doumet family companies

Why is the government prepared to sell off the future of northeast coal to its ethically challenged friends?

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the apparent purpose of todays's bill is to enhance Canada's competitiveness in the Pacific Rim. That is a laudable objective, but the government's current efforts to sell Ridley Terminals are not consistent with that objective. That is the issue I would like to address.

In a recent editorial, the Vancouver Sun commented on the sale of Ridley Terminals and said:

Selling Ridley Terminals for a pittance to a private operator, a junior miner with no operating revenue, without any apparent mechanism to guarantee fair and equitable treatment for all producers flies in the face of common sense and makes a mockery of Ottawa's pledge to make B.C. ports the gateway to Asia-Pacific trade.

In another article, the Vancouver Sun identified that company. It said:

The unidentified “B.C. company” teaming up with a junior mining firm to buy a federal coal terminal in Prince Rupert is an Ontario-based cement manufacturer headed by George Doumet, a low-profile Vancouver-based international businessman....

The article goes on to say:

Doumet has rarely been mentioned in the Canadian business media since Candou Industries, the holding company of the Doumet family of Lebanon, declared bankruptcy in 1983 in what was reported at the time to be one of the largest insolvencies in Canadian history.

This is curious, because there seems to be an unholy rush to move ahead with this sale. We have to wonder why. On September 29, the transport minister obtained an unusual cabinet order preventing Ridley's management from signing coal contracts longer than 18 months without his consent and is seeking cabinet approval to negotiate Ridley's sale on a hurry-up basis.

If we take another look at this company and Mr. Doumet, we have to wonder, why the rush? Justice Wood, in a decision on November 29, 1991, on another issue when Mr. Doumet or his companies were before the court, said:

The trial judge made an assessment on the question of whether the discrepancy between the share prices in 1983 and 1989 raised a reasonable inference of fraud or negligence and found that it did.

The folks that he is talking about are the folks that the government wants to sell Ridley to. The judge went on to say:

The judge below made an assessment of this question on the basis of the evidence before him, specifically that set out in Mr. Doumet's affidavit material. He concluded that that material disclosed that there is more than just a discrepancy between the 1983 sale price and the 1989 share price upon which the allegations of fraud are based.

The question is, why is the government in this rush to sell to this company? When we look at the order--

[Petitions, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, members will be absolutely amazed that I am still getting petitions complaining about the government's mismanagement of the 2004 fishery on the Fraser River. I have petitions today from all over British Columbia, including from Annieville school in Delta, from Parksville on Vancouver Island, Deep Bay and French Creek. It is absolutely astounding. I have presented petitions with thousands of names on this issue.

Of course since 2004, we have had the disaster of 2005, where a complete season went by without any fishery for sockeye on the Fraser River. It is an incredible happening.

The petitioners are calling on the government to call for an enquiry into the management of the 2004 fishery. It would only be appropriate if there was an enquiry as well into the management of the 2005 fishery on the Fraser River. I am sure members would agree with that.

[Social Development, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the minister's reluctance to respond to my question earlier, I would be pleased to table the access documents which support the preamble of my question in the hope that it would perhaps jog his memory.

[Housing, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the leaky condo disaster is costing homeowners billions of dollars. The government has known for years that the national energy program caused the disaster and that the department of energy ordered a cover-up.

In 1981, CMHC told the deputy minister of energy that his department's energy conservation measures were the main cause of rotting walls in newly constructed homes. The deputy minister's response was to demand a cover-up.

Would the Minister of Natural Resources acknowledge that his department's demand for a cover-up is costing homeowners billions of dollars?

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the problems that I outlined with access to information were problems that could essentially be described as problems where politicians had taken over. Politicians had set up a screening process to ensure that the minister or the government would not be embarrassed by any response.

The issue I would like to address now relates to the “leaky condos”. It is a huge issue in British Columbia and it has been an issue as well in Newfoundland and Labrador. It would appear that rather than the ministers or their agents acting to confuse the issue, the bureaucrats seem to be protecting their own interests.

On the leaky condo issue, the access to information coordinator for CMHC, D.V. Tyler, is also the general counsel. As general counsel, Mr. Tyler acts on behalf of CMHC with regard to the wet wall syndrome or what is commonly referred to as leaky condo problem.

While Mr. Tyler is acting on behalf of CMHC in court on leaky condos, he is at the same time, in his capacity as access to information coordinator, withholding leaky condo documents from me under the Access to Information Act and drafting answers for the minister to my letters and parliamentary questions on leaky condos.

Mr. Tyler's direct involvement as counsel to CMHC in a B.C. leaky condo case, his involvement in the preparation of the minister's response to my letters and his involvement in the preparation of a response to my parliamentary questions undermines and taints the administration of the Access to Information Act at CMHC.

At the same time, Mr. Tyler has an interest in ensuring that the complete story of CMHC's transgression remains hidden from public scrutiny. As access to information coordinator at CMHC, he is ruling as to what can be released to me on the leaky condo issue. At the same time, he is a major player in the leaky condo file at CMHC, both in making decisions and providing advice to the corporation. He can hardly put himself in the position of ruling on which of his own documents or documents in which he had an interest should be released to me.

The Information Commissioner must have authority over the administration of the Access to Information Act in any department or agency in government. There is no one in government who has a direct interest in ensuring that the Access to Information Act operates effectively, except for the Information Commissioner, yet he lacks such authority.

We should remember that there is no real advantage for anyone in government to ensure that the public has access to government records. Common sense and the practice I have outlined today would suggest that there is every reason to believe that it is natural for governments to want to limit access to their records and the scrutiny that such access brings.

This access to information bill obviously needs fixing. It is a cart that is broken. The biggest problem is the failure of the government to act in a proper manner and ensure that our rights as parliamentarians are not impacted and the rights of the average citizen are not impacted by the government's desire to protect itself from criticism.

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the minister, it kind of reminds me of that old saw about everyone being out of step but the general's son. Of course, in this instance I guess everybody is out of step but the minister's friends.

On this particular issue of access to information, if the government were acting properly and providing the information in a timely way and open fashion, I guess it could be said that there would be no need for the legislation. However, the fact of the matter is that the administration of the Access to Information Act, for example, at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been severely politicized. The act is administered at fisheries in a manner designed to protect the government from embarrassment rather than provide information in a timely fashion.

DFO administers the act so as to allow the legislation and House planning branch of the Privy Council Office, the minister's office, the executive secretariat that supports the minister, and the department's communication branch to track and intervene in the handling of information requests in a manner designed to protect the government from embarrassment rather than to dispassionately provide public access to departmental records.

DFO's computerized records show the handling of each information request on an activity sheet. I have received from the department computerized records covering my information requests in 2004. First, the activity sheets show that my information requests were routinely categorized as sensitive. Requests that are categorized as sensitive receive heightened scrutiny. Such heightened scrutiny reflects not a special case management system to protect national security but one to address concerns that if certain departmental records were made public, the minister might be politically embarrassed.

Second, the activity sheets reveal that the legislation and House planning branch of the Privy Council Office generally monitors and tracks my information requests to the department. Some of the notations on the activity sheet imply that the legislation and House planning branch was actually involved with what was to be released.

Third, the activity sheets show that the executive secretariat at fisheries was directly involved in tracking and monitoring my requests and, more importantly, was involved in decisions as to what was released.

Before I proceed any further, I should mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Yellowhead.

Fourth, the activity sheets show that the minister's office is directly involved in the information requests I made to fisheries. Copies of the various versions of the released package are provided to the minister's office through the release process. Finally, the activity reports show my information requests are monitored and tracked by the communications branch of the department.

The computerized tracking of my information requests under the Access to Information Act reveal a process organized to protect the political interests of the minister and the Prime Minister rather than dispassionate administration of the act. Let me provide an example.

Last year I asked the department for documents relating to fish farm sites. This request was made in February 2004. Just as an example of how the tracking works, I think there were about 28 people who reviewed that request and the response to it. Later on in the process the documents went to the Privy Council Office, and the legislation and House planning branch, Mr. Côté.

What is interesting are two things. First, when something goes to the Privy Council Office that the it says should not be released, it cannot even be reviewed by the Information Commissioner. It says it is a confidential cabinet document and that is the end of it. In this instance, it went to Mr. Côté and, as we know, he is now the ombudsman for National Defence and the Canadian Forces. In my view, he was up to his neck in cover-up on the issue of these questions. Yet, he was the guy who was screening on behalf of the government, so we have to wonder about his appointment as ombudsman.

After the question went for review to the Privy Council Office, it went to communications. It was sent the entire package with a heads up, so it could prepare a response. Then the minister's office was copied. It received notice. Then there was notice received that the minister wanted to see this again. The file already had been released. It had his go around. Then the file moved on and back to the minister's office. Finally, it went to the communications department before the information was made public.

That sort of routing is disturbing. These access to information requests are asked and they are asked openly and with an anticipation that the government will be forthcoming. We have to wonder what fish farm sites have to do with the Privy Council. Why would the Privy Council Office be concerned about the siting of fish farms? I do not know what is secret about that. I am appalled that this kind of screening process is taking place.

On the issue of the questions that have gone to the fisheries department, we have complained to the Information Commissioner at various times about the information that was not forthcoming. For example, on July 25 we wrote to the Information Commissioner because we sought records on environmental and economic issues posed by the development of sablefish aquaculture.

The department's response was that fisheries claimed a 90 day extension was due to the volume of records and the need to consult with other government departments.

The commissioner investigated and concluded his investigation by saying, “The volume of records was not overly voluminous and there was no evidence to support the length of the extension”. He went on to say, “Furthermore, despite the fact that consultations were completed by January 24, 2005, D&O did not provide you with a response until April 8, 2005”.

Another interesting sidebar is that again we made a request of the Information Commissioner to try to determine what happened to an information request. He replied to us again on the 25th. These were about briefing materials prepared for the minister involving aboriginal fisheries, and the department again demanded an extension.

The commissioner concluded, “There is no evidence to support the length of the extension taken”. He went on to say, “The consultation process took a maximum of three weeks to complete, with most consultations taking approximately one week. Despite the additional 60 days claimed, the department missed the extended deadline. This placed fisheries in a deemed refusal situation”. He went on to say, “The investigation determined that the delay was the result of a lengthy approval process”. This is the approval process to which I referred.

Again we asked about the harvest of salmon caught in unauthorized fisheries on the Fraser River. Again, the department demanded an extension due to the volume and interference with operations. Again the commissioner concluded that DFO failed to meet the extended deadline. Therefore, the department found itself in a deemed refusal situation. He said, “I will remind the department of its obligation to respond to access requests in a timely manner”.

The government's response on these access issues is scandalous. It is beyond me how the minister could stand there and try to defend that action. Rather than complaining about the committee, he should have been complaining about his own ministers.

The strengthening of the powers and independence of the Access to Information Commissioner is necessary and his authority over the administration over the Access to Information Act would guard against the politicization of the administration of the act as has occurred at DFO. The work of the Information Commissioner in ensuring that I have access to government documents is essential to my job as a member of Parliament. I believe his independence and his control over the administration of the Access to Information Act needs strengthening, not weakening.

I do not believe the job of the Information Commissioner should be merged with that of the Privacy Commissioner. The politicization of the administration of the Access to Information Act at fisheries and oceans provides yet another reason for strengthening the powers and independence of the Information Commissioner rather than merging two essentially incompatible offices.

[Privilege, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments and certainly accept them but I wonder if you could clarify a couple of points for me.

I fully understand that it is the minister's prerogative to either answer or to refuse to answer a question but I am somewhat concerned about the point that was made. As you know, in this instance the government stated that it was unable to respond to my question because the matters were before the courts of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, if that rationale or that excuse, for want of a better word I guess, is to be used, I wonder if you could provide some guidance on that. In particular, I have four questions for you that I think would help to give some clarification and definition to this response.

First, are there occasions when it is inappropriate for the government to claim that it was unable to answer because a matter was before the courts?

Second, when would such occasions arise that it would be inappropriate to claim that a matter was before the courts?

Third, is it necessary for the actual subject matter of the question to be before the courts in a trial that is underway?

And fourth, is there a difference between a criminal and a civil trial on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, those questions are not meant to be a challenge but to be for clarification. I am obviously troubled by the government's response to these issues. Personally, I think when questions are asked we are entitled to complete answers. I understand full well that all members tell the truth, but I wonder if you could just clarify that issue for me, please.

[Question No. 174, October 17th, 2005]

With regard to the anthropological and historical study undertaken by Professor Alexander von Gernet for the Department of Justice entitled, “The Early History of Lobster Harvesting Among Natives and Newcomers in Atlantic Canada”, and the transfer to aboriginals in the Maritime Provinces access to lobster for food, social and ceremonial purposes (Sparrow) and commercial purposes (Marshall): ( a ) what year was identified as the year of first contact between Mi’kmaq and Europeans; ( b ) does the report find evidence or come to a conclusion that lobster was important to the Mi’kmaq prior to contact or at the time of contact with Europeans; ( c ) does the report find evidence or come to a conclusion that lobster was important to the Maliseet prior to contact or at the time of contact with Europeans; ( d ) does the report find evidence of significant lobster harvest by the Mi’kmaq during the first three centuries after contact with Europeans and, if so, what was the evidence or indication of significant harvest or reliance on the harvest of lobster; ( e ) does the report find evidence of a significant Mi’kmaq reliance on lobster as a food source prior to contact or at the time of contact with Europeans; ( f ) does the report find evidence of a significant Mi’kmaq reliance on lobster as a food source in the first three centuries after contact; ( g ) does the report conclude that either individual bands or the Mi’kmaq as a whole relied on lobster for food at this time, and, if so, which bands; ( h ) does the report conclude that there was a significant difference between the reliance of Fraser River aboriginals on salmon and that of the Mi’kmaq on lobster and, if so, what was the difference; ( i ) does the report find evidence that the Europeans were harvesting lobster immediately following contact; ( j ) which Mi’kmaq and Maliseet bands have received licences to harvest lobster for food, social and ceremonial purposes and how much was harvested in each year by each band following the Marshall decisions; ( k ) which Mi’kmaq and Maliseet bands have received licences to harvest lobster for commercial purposes and what was the amount harvested in each year by each band following the Marshall decisions; ( l ) is the decision to provide these food and commercial licences consistent with the findings of the report and, if so, in what way is it consistent with the historical evidence outlined in the report; ( m ) following a review of the report, what action did the Department of Fisheries take to revise its plan to implement the transfer of lobster licences and vessels to aboriginal organizations; and ( n ) how many licensed lobster fishermen (other than aboriginal organizations) were engaged in the public fishery in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 in (i) New Brunswick, (ii) Nova Scotia, and (iii) Prince Edward Island?

(Return table)

[Question No. 138, October 7th, 2005]

With regard to programs and all other special expenditures involving the Musqueam Indian Band, what was the total expenditure by department, agency, or Crown corporation for fiscal years (i) 2000-2001, (ii) 2001-2002, (iii) 2002-2003, (iv) 2003-2004 and (v) 2004-2005 to the band or any corporation in which it has a controlling interest?

(Return tabled)