House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 40% of the vote.
Public Works and Government Services November 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, finally, despite all the attempts to keep us in the dark, we have learned that there is an investigation underway at Public Works and Government Services. However, the minister will only confirm what is not being investigated.
We are not asking what is not being investigated, we are asking what is being investigated. Why all the secrecy?
Federal Properties November 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but that was not an answer. We need an answer. If an investigation is currently underway, we need details. I specifically asked if the investigation was linked to suspected irregularities in the sale of government assets.
Federal Properties November 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, recent media reports have alluded to mysterious and secretive investigations at the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
Could the minister confirm, one, that an investigation is indeed currently under way and, two, that it relates to suspected irregularities in the government's sell-off of federal properties?
Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that this process allowed for elaboration of questions so that we could in fact obtain more in the way of answers from the government.
The hon. member has not answered a single one of my six questions. In fact he arrived here with a prepared speech. How on earth could my friend opposite have prepared answers to questions that I only came with this evening?
To say that it is an abuse of process is too strong, but it is very disappointing that I have come here this evening with a list of questions to ask of the government, and my friend opposite has arrived with a prepared speech. He has not even acknowledged that I have added questions and he has certainly not answered them.
We have no argument with the government advertising specific information that Canadians need to access programs, but what has been engaged in here—
Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to elaborate on questions asked earlier about the Government of Canada's advertising program, in particular the advertising engaged with regard to the economic action plan. As we now know, very large amounts of money have been spent on government advertising. I will be the first to acknowledge that certain aspects of government advertising are very important. Educational advertising, advertising required to inform Canadians of specific programs that they can take advantage of, advertising, although it was insufficient, for H1N1 are examples of government advertising that are important and we support that.
However, as we have seen, great amounts of money, millions of dollars have been spent on advertising by the government that is rather than educational, purely self-congratulatory. I would reinforce the concern that it is taxpayer money that pays for government advertising, so in effect, taxpayers across the country have paid for millions of dollars of self-congratulatory advertising by the government.
Even worse, these millions of dollars of this self-congratulatory advertising have also blurred the image of the Government of Canada with the image, the colours and slogans associated with the Conservative Party of Canada. That is in breach of several of our federal laws and guidelines. I would list in particular the Treasury Board guidelines of communications policy, the federal identity program, that government advertising use specifically condones Government of Canada symbols. Those symbols do not include a number of the symbols, slogans and colours in particular that this advertising has included.
I have several specific questions with respect to this advertising. I will ask the hon. member opposite to keep track because there are five or six specific questions.
Was the Prime Minister's Office involved in any way in the creation of the economic action plan brand?
What direction was given by the government to communications and advertising agencies responsible for creating the brand and designing the marketing materials and strategies?
Who approved of the use of specific colours, images, slogans, look and feel aspects and other branding elements currently used in the economic action plan brand and associated marketing materials?
Who conceived of and who approved of the duplication, for example, of the cover of the 2008 Conservative Party election platform and used the exact same cover for the Government of Canada's 2009 Speech from the Throne?
Who decided that the economic action plan branded logo would use not just any blue, but out of a choice of millions of options of pigments, the exact same pigment of blue used by the Conservative Party of Canada?
What advice, if any, was received by the creators of the marketing materials and logos about the compliance of the branding elements of the economic action plan that are currently in use? If any advice was given, what was that advice in terms of compliance with the Treasury Board communication policy guidelines, the federal identity program, compliance with the Conflict of Interest Act, the Conflict of Interest Code that applies to all of us as parliamentarians and in fact any other laws that restrict conferring benefits on a political party?
Canadian National Institute for the Blind November 20th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind's record of accomplishment for the many Canadians affected by vision loss is extraordinary.
I have personal knowledge of its good work because my aunt, Nancy Hall Field, devoted many years to volunteering with the CNIB, doing so well into her eighties, translating works into Braille and teaching others to do so, and as a draughtswoman and artist who was a driving force behind the tactile program.
It was wonderful to see the CNIB on Parliament Hill this week, raising awareness of its excellent work among parliamentarians and legislators.
I will add that a good number of the CNIB representatives were of the four-legged kind, the seeing eye dogs. They single handedly or, I should say, “single-pawedly” raised the tenor of behaviour and discourse here on Parliament Hill through their hard work, calm, and attention to others and, first and foremost, their respect for their role in helping and protecting others.
I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating the CNIB for its many decades of contribution and to offer our best wishes for many more.
National Association of Friendship Centres November 17th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the National Association of Friendship Centres' president, Vera Pawis Tabobondung, and the negotiating committee chair, Sylvia Maracle, who are in Ottawa today.
I would also like to congratulate the National Association of Friendship Centres on the launch of the federal friendship centre caucus tonight, a group comprised of representatives from all political parties in support of the friendship centre movement.
The National Association of Friendships Centres has been assisting and supporting first nation, Inuit and Métis nation community members for more than 50 years. More and more aboriginal people find themselves living in cities and towns across Canada. For many aboriginal Canadians, friendship centres are the first and only place to turn upon leaving their communities and homes.
Friendship centres continue to dedicate themselves tirelessly to providing necessary services to aboriginal families and children during their difficult transition from rural or remote life to an urban environment.
The Liberal Party recognizes the crucial role that friendship centres play in improving the lives and meeting the needs of aboriginal peoples in urban centres across the country—
Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments from my colleague. I think we both appreciate the legion of other colleagues here to give us our respective support.
However, we continue to have the same problem of words. We have heard words, “we have been working”, “the provinces and territories have done their work”, which I have already acknowledged full credit there, “but we continue to raise Canada's concerns” and “there is a coalition of effort”.
These continue to be words. We have not seen any reduction in the buy American effort that requires U.S., states and municipalities to buy only U.S. steel, iron and manufactured goods when using any of the stimulus funds that have been provided by the U.S. federal government.
This continues to be a problem. Could the hon. member please provide some concrete answers to Cambridge Brass that has been based in southern Ontario for more than a century, but has acknowledged that this might be the final straw that causes the company to—
Madam Speaker, my question this evening relates to the buy American clause of the U.S. stimulus package known as the U.S. recovery act.
It states that only American-made iron, steel and manufactured goods can be used in U.S. stimulus projects. Because the clause is subject to U.S. trade obligations, it is subject to NAFTA and thus applies to the U.S. federal government. However, it is the U.S. states and municipalities that are not subject to NAFTA, and it is exactly the states and municipalities that the buy American clause is directed at. That, unfortunately, is exactly what is happening to the significant detriment of Canadian business.
Let me quote a description of just one example from a recent Canwest article, if I may. This was an article from just this past week.
For the second time in six months, pipe fittings in California are being ripped from the ground because they were stamped “Made in Canada,“ a move manufacturing companies say hurts both sides of the border.
Cambridge Brass Inc., a Canadian brass fittings manufacturer, discovered Thursday that it stands to lose more than $1.5 million in this most recent fallout from the Buy American protectionist measure.
Greg Bell, vice-president of sales and marketing for the Cambridge, Ont., company, received a call Thursday from the City of Sacramento, where the parts were being fitted into the public water system. He was told his product was no longer acceptable because it was not made in the United States.
Two months ago in this House I asked a question of the Minister of International Trade. I stressed at the time that words were not enough because, to the minister's credit, the minister acknowledged that the buy American clause was problematic and that we who stood for free trade found that the U.S. protectionist measures were offensive to the concept of free trade. We acknowledged that it was harming Canadian business. To the minister's credit, he said all of the right words.
Unfortunately, and as I raised in my question two months, words are simply not enough. We needed to see action. The minister acknowledged at the time that in fact Canadian provinces and territories had gathered together and agreed on a procurement process, which is a very big step in the right direction. We all agreed, acknowledged and wanted to congratulate Canadian provinces and territories for coming to such an agreement.
The real question remained unanswered, because Canadian action clearly was not going to be enough on its own. The real question, and this was what I had asked the minister, was what the government had done to recognize that a quick visit did not address the fundamental issue that states and municipalities were in fact continuing to cause real problems for Canadian businesses by being required, under the stimulus act in the United States, to not buy Canadian products but to buy only American steel and iron and manufactured goods. By a quick visit, I am referring to the fact that the Prime Minister's last visit to Washington for photo opportunities was a mere 42 minutes long.
I will repeat the question that I had asked at the time, with a reminder to the government and this House that we are no further along, now two months after the original question, in dealing with the buy American clause, which is causing such difficulty for Canadian firms.
It is not words but action that we must have from the United States. That is not how it works in the United States. It is not enough to write letters, to have nice words and to provide weak protest. It was 42 minutes with the president, giving the Prime Minister a photo op and a few pat-on-the-back words, but that was it. We must have people on the ground right from the beginning, not just premiers and territorial leaders, but the municipalities and the states throughout the United States—
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words. He knows well the high esteem that I have for him and I appreciate his answer.
I will concur with my earlier statement that I do support efficiencies in government, very much so, although as for the comment about wanting the government to do what it does best, I am increasingly concerned with trying to determine what in fact it is that the government does best. It is a question I constantly ask.
I am afraid I really did not get an answer to my questions. I asked very specifically whether the $2.3 billion number that was expected for fiscal year 2009-10 was still expected and whether the $10.1 billion over five years was still expected and if not, what the number was, and within that, what assets were being looked at and what the book values are of the assets in question.
Very specific numbers were put in the budget. The only answer I received was that an asset review is continuing. I will repeat my question and I would like—