Debates of June 8th, 2000

Supply

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if he did it maliciously or because he is misinformed, but, at the beginning of his speech, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said that there was an information agency in Quebec. If this is the case, I would like the member to name that information agency, because I live in Quebec and I have never heard of such an agency.

Was he mistaken or was he referring to Communication-Québec? This is a government agency that is responsible for promoting all Quebec government programs and that was responsible for providing information on federal programs until the minister took that away from Communication-Québec. He decided to go through the CIO because it was easier to manipulate than Communication-Québec. I would like the member to correct what he said or to give me the name of the agency.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I was not clear enough. I said that, in all Canadian provinces, there are departmental agencies that provide information on government programs to the public. There may not be one agency that provides information on everything, but each department provides information.

The Quebec government is no different than any other provincial government. I know that because I have often seen information from the Government of Quebec in La Presse , Le Droit and other newspapers. It is perfectly normal for a government to do that.

But I said in my speech that it is one thing to provide information on government programs, but quite another to provide information on the party in office.

In some cases, the federal government crossed the line, promoting the position of the Liberal Party and not the position of the federal government. It is altogether different.

I know each province has its own way of providing information to the public. I am not aware of the details of how it is done in Quebec, Newfoundland or Manitoba, but I do know each province has its own way of providing information to the public.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants. I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward today condemning the government for using yet another federal agency, this time the Canada Information Office, to hand out lucrative, untendered government contracts to friends of the Liberal Party in exchange for support or donations.

I would like to start by reviewing some of the history behind the Canada Information Office, the forces behind its creation and its mandate. I then want to examine some of the evidence that has been presented to the House in recent days showing that, contrary to treasury board policy, large contracts were given to individuals and companies without going to public tender. These individuals and companies, in turn, gave money and resources to the Liberal Party of Canada. Finally, I want to link the questionable practices of the Canada Information Office with similar conduct of this government in other departments, such as HRDC and public works.

I will show that incidents at the Canada Information Office are not isolated, but part of a larger picture that shows consistently and convincingly that this government in its dying days has lost its moral compass and that this is a government which is corrupt.

The Canada Information Office was born out of the failure of the Prime Minister to deal with the 1995 Quebec referendum. As members will recall, in the six months leading up to the referendum the Prime Minister's strategy for winning the vote was like so many other issues of vital concern to Canadians, and that was to do nothing. Don't worry, be happy, the Prime Minister reassured us. We all remember how the referendum turned out. The Prime Minister came within one-half of a per cent of destroying this great country founded by the Conservative Party and built through the hard work of four generations of Quebecers and Canadians.

Canadians were outraged at this great failure by the Liberal Prime Minister. In the wake of his self-made disaster, the Prime Minister did what all good Liberals do when faced with public demand for action on an issue. He created a new government program and threw millions of dollars at it. Thus, the Canada Information Office was born.

He did this not because it would provide some long term national unity benefit, but because Liberals always do what is good for the Liberal Party first, not what is good for the nation.

There is an important distinction to be made here. Unlike previous Conservative prime ministers, such as the Right Hon. Joe Clark, who always did what was best for the country first, this Prime Minister ignores the serious problems facing Canada by giving voters the perception of doing something constructive.

Following the fine Liberal tradition of creating taxpayer funded bureaucratic solutions, on July 10, 1996 the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that she was going to be the saviour of our country. How was she going to save the country? She would create this new government agency called the Canada Information Office. She would find $20 million to run it and solve all of our national unity problems.

When the minister made the announcement, she could not say what kind of information the office would provide, how it would distribute the money and where its budget would come from. She was also at a loss for words to explain why the Liberals were creating a new bureaucracy that would duplicate public information operations already in place.

Just about everything the heritage minister announced that day was already being done by the federal government in other departments.

Apparently it did not occur to the Liberal brain trust that public outrage following the 1995 referendum might be an indication that the current propaganda bureaucracy was ineffective and should be scrapped or replaced. Of course not. It meant that the Liberals should spend even more taxpayer dollars on a brand new government agency. Let me quote Toronto Star columnist Rosemary Speirs, who summed up the minister's announcement like this:

The journalists quickly realized that the Canadian heritage minister had only the vaguest notion of what this new $20 million-a-year `non-partisan' agency is supposed to do. She couldn't give examples, couldn't break down the budget, and when she finally called her press conference to a close, she left exasperation and puzzlement in her wake.

And so the Canada Information Office was born. What happens when we have 50 government bureaucrats sitting around with no mandate except that they know they have $20 million a year which they must spend? Is it within the realm of possibility that some of these millions of taxpayers' dollars might end up in the pockets of friends of the Liberal Party?

As hard as it might be for us to believe it, it appears that is exactly what has happened. Access to information documents released this week show that of the millions of dollars spent by the Canada Information Office each year, more than 20% of the contracts awarded by the office are given out without competition, including many that are worth more than the $25,000 threshold set by treasury board to go out for public tender.

In the previous two years $2.6 million was given to two businesses whose owners have in turn given substantially of their time and money to the Liberal Party of Canada. More than $1.6 million was handed to Communication et Strategie Inc. of Montreal in a joint contract with Groupe Cible between April 1, 1997 and December 31, 1999. Groupe Cible is headed by Serge Paquette, a defeated Liberal Party candidate and a long time party organizer in Quebec. This money was used to plan tours and handle media relations for Quebec ministers, a function normally done by the staff of the minister.

Another beneficiary of the Canada Information Office was Tremblay Guittet Communications Inc. of Ottawa, a company owned in part by Michèle Tremblay, who was press secretary to former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner, and a long time supporter of the minister responsible for the Canada Information Office and the Quebec political minister. Tremblay received an annual contract of $53,500 to advise the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, which has been renewed every year since.

Other Liberals have also benefited from contracts given out by the Canada Information Office. Richard Mongeau, through one of his companies, gave $15,000 to the Liberal Party. In return he received $389,000 in legal and communications contracts. He was handed $144,000 for advice he gave to the Canada Information Office in 1996-97 and was paid $160,000 to provide legal advice to the office in 1997 and 1998. On January 13 of this year he was appointed as a Quebec superior court justice. That is not a bad return for a $15,000 investment. The list goes on. These revelations are shocking, but unfortunately they are not isolated.

I would only make one conclusion from the evidence we have examined today. This is a corrupt government, rotten to its core. Canadians would be well served if the Prime Minister were to call an election this fall so that voters could show this group the door and replace it with a government led by the Right Hon. Joe Clark, who is dedicated to solving public policy problems through honest means.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is criticizing the ministerial tour. Perhaps he should speak to his colleague, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska

For example, in the local newspaper for the Victoriaville-Bois-Francs area, La Nouvelle , I read the following comment from September 26, 1999:

This visit to Victoriaville by Alfonso Gagliano was part of the tour the ministers are taking around Quebec, not to make announcements, not to talk election or referendum, but to take the pulse of the communities—

Again quoting, this time from the April 19, 2000 issue of La Voix de l'Est , which mentions his colleague from Shefford:

The Conservative MP for Shefford, Diane Saint-Jacques, who was in attendance, voiced her satisfaction on this exchange with the ministers. “It is”, she said, “important to get to the grass roots and to meet people where they live”.

I believe the hon. member should speak to his colleagues who are supporting these ministerial tours in Quebec so that we can inform Quebecers of these programs and the programs of the Government of Canada. At the same time, we could receive information and advice from Quebecers so that we can have programs that they really need.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the minister stand up and speak to things that we should be looking at. There are many ways of strengthening Canada and its institutions. One way we could strengthen the institutions is by ensuring, through proper funding and proper organization, that the CBC continues to represent its various regions, not just from a Toronto and central Canadian perspective, but from Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the west coast and the prairies.

We have an institution that was the pride of Canada for so many years. It showed Canada from various parts of the country. What is happening to the CBC at this point is simply unacceptable. It is an affront on the Canadian people. It is an affront on what we have built in this great country.

One of the things that we should keep in mind is that the CBC, by being broadcast only from a central region, does not show Canada to Canadians. It shows Canadians what central Canada and Toronto see Canadians to be. That is one of the ways the government could move ahead and make Canada better and its people more proud of who and what they are.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague from West Nova for his extremely timely and effective remarks about this very important issue.

The motion today, which identifies the problems with the Canada Information Office, particularly in terms of evidence suggesting that the government is using the Canada Information Office as a means to direct lucrative contracts to appropriately placed Liberal Party supporters, either financial supporters or supporters in kind, is very disturbing given the degree to which the information being assembled and utilized by the Canada Information Office carries with it some very significant ramifications in terms of national unity. Clearly, the Canada Information Office cannot be used as a Liberal trough from which supporters can drink and feed themselves.

Government is not a make work program. The Liberals are prone to utilizing these agencies as make work programs for supporters, whether it is HRDC, CIDA or, in this case, the Canada Information Office. The government is clearly out of control.

In lieu of some general policy direction, a coherent and cohesive set of policies and the vision to lead Canada in the 21st century, the government has focused and continues to focus, on an increasing level, on simply funnelling as much largesse to its supporters as possible. It is displaying the classic signs of a government ready to be defeated. At the time of the next federal election I think there will be a very sound message from across Canada.

In the last election there was a very sound message from Atlantic Canada. We all know that in Canada some of the greatest shifts and some of the greatest revolutions begin in Atlantic Canada, and the last federal election was an indication of that. We believe that in the next election Canadians all across Canada will follow the leadership demonstrated by Atlantic Canadians in the last election when they said that they were tired of a tired government and that they were ready for a new vision and a more ethical and visionary leadership at a very critical time in our history.

The government's manipulation of information and manipulation of the media is not confined simply to the Canada Information Office. The fact is that every government department has become pervasively focused on spin doctoring and media manipulation. There has never been a government as visionless and as focused on next week's polls as this government.

The government is so focused on next week's polls that it does not even try to provide policies and directions for the next century. Unfortunately Canadians are going to pay a significant price for that in the next 20 or 30 years as they realize, and as the report last week from McGill University professors indicated, that the government ranks dead last of all the governments since the second world war in terms of economic performance and vision.

The McGill study also identified the government that ranked first. The number one government in terms of economic performance and vision on economic issues since World War II was none other than that of the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It must be terribly embarrassing to members opposite, in particular to the Prime Minister with his very thin skin and his inability and distrust of anyone who is even vaguely critical of him, to have to read in the newspapers and in the reports from erudite academics and economists that his government has been dead last.

Instead of trying to manipulate information and manipulate the media, maybe his government should actually try to do something about that abysmal record and actually start trying to develop some of the same vision and long term focus that the previous government had.

I referred to other departments and agencies within government that are also manipulating information and manipulating the media as much as possible and, most offensively, using taxpayers' money to do that.

In February, at the time of the budget, the finance minister's speech, the speech that ultimately was provided and ended up as part of the budget document, the budget speech 2000, was different in several areas from the actual speech provided. I have the Hansard here in front of me.

We have reason to believe and sources to suggest that the reason the finance minister deviated significantly from his text and added several paragraphs that seemed almost incongruent with the rest of the text, was because of information coming from the media in terms of how the policies or the budget was being spun, what the focus was for the media, what policies the media was actually taking hold of and demonstrating a greater level of interest in and, alternatively, what policies the media was less interested in.

According to our sources, the finance minister actually changed his speech for the House to try to focus more on what would get the greatest level of media hits that night. He changed a document prepared by the finance department people for him to provide the budget speech. He changed it directly to try to further manipulate the media.

This is a government of spin doctors. This is what we call focus group economics and poll driven policies. The nation is suffering from a lack of vision and poll driven incrementalism. Canadians need bold, visionary, courageous leadership similar to the leadership of the previous government under the Progressive Conservatives and the leadership of Brian Mulroney.

This is a government by polls, certainly not guided by principle. I would suggest that the media plays an extremely important role in the democratic process in terms of showing that information is disseminated to the public in as clear and unbiased way as possible. For the government to intentionally manipulate the media, either through the Canada Information Office or through other Byzantine and circuitous means as those that allegedly occurred with the finance minister, and probably every ministry opposite, really compromises our democratic framework within which the media plays such a very important role.

I also believe that if the media realized the degree to which this government was playing the media collectively like a Stradivarius to try to spin its messages out and also minimize any negative political fallout, the media would be increasingly offended. The journalistic integrity of the media is being challenged by a government that is certainly not interested in promoting the types of ethics that should be an integral part of any government.

It is very important that we are addressing the issue of the manipulation of information and the use of the Canada Information Office as a Liberal Party trough in the House. It is also very important for us to recognize the degree to which spin doctoring and media manipulation has become routine for the government in every department and every ministry.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope all members, including backbenchers opposite in the Liberal government, would agree that this type of obvious manipulation needs to end and that the government needs to significantly improve its ethics in this regard.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe I heard the hon. member say that the previous Conservative government was good in economics. It really takes courage to say that.

After nine years of trying to reduce the deficit, when the Conservatives were turfed out of office across the country, they left us with a $42 billion deficit and high unemployment. I also remember at that time that every financial institution around the world was telling us to clean up our act or they would put us into bankruptcy.

We have taken a $42 billion annual deficit and turned it into a surplus every year. Unemployment rates are at record low levels. Inflation rates are down. We are one of the leading countries of the G-7 in terms of creating wealth and economic growth.

I do not understand how the hon. member could say such a thing. He should have been here. I have been here since 1984. I lived through the Mulroney government years. Thank God, finally after nine years Canadians had the good sense to throw them out of office. They left the country in a terrible state.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the minister referred to what he called my courage in raising this matter. I expect that he should also thank the previous government for having the courage to implement policies that were controversial, politically risky, but in fact enabled the government to reduce and eliminate the deficit.

Those are not simply my opinions. The Economist magazine said that the credit for deficit reduction in Canada belonged to the previous government's structural reforms, including fee trade, the GST, and deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy.

I am glad the hon. minister cited that he had been a member of the House since 1984 because he and his merry band of opposition members at that time were actively fighting and trying to thwart the attempts of the Conservative government to bring some level of economic vision into the Government of Canada. He was fighting the GST. He was fighting free trade. He was fighting the policies the Liberal government has embraced and utilized to eliminate the deficit.

Last week the report of several McGill University professors and economists ranked the Liberal government as being dead last in economic performance since World War II and ranked the Mulroney government as being number one. It cited several issues. It cited the courageous government of Brian Mulroney that had the vision and energy to implement the policies Canada needed, even though there was significant political risk. It also cited the blatant failure of the current Liberal government in losing nine cents of value in the Canadian dollar over the last seven years, nine cents in the share value of Canada. Under the tenure of the Liberal government nine cents in the Canadian dollar have been lost. This is disgraceful.

It also cited lagging productivity under this government. Woody Allen once said that 80% of life is just showing up. For this government and for the Prime Minister it is about 95%. Canadians are tired of a government that is merely interested in just showing up. They are tired of a caretaker government, a cruise control government, at a time of unprecedented global change in a hypercompetitive global environment.

It is time for the government to get off its collective duff and to do something to try to build a better Canada as we enter the 21st century, not just simply sit back and take credit for the policy successes of the previous government while it hypocritically attacks that government.

This government, this minister and this Prime Minister opposite should be thanking Brian Mulroney and his government for the types of policies that enabled them to do nothing for seven years and look fairly good on paper despite that fact. The Canadian economy is actually doing fairly well despite their best efforts to have it do otherwise.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

I am pleased to speak to this motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois. I find it extremely important because my constituents in the riding of Jonquière also find it very important. What the government is doing is unacceptable. The people of Jonquière are very surprised and very sad to see how the government is completely out of touch with reality.

As everyone knows, our near victory in October 1995 sent shock waves throughout Canada. In this context, the Liberal Party of Canada put its plan B into action, which included the creation of the Canada Information Office, the “grab bag” propaganda and patronage agency that takes care of the Liberal government's buddies and where contracts are often awarded twice or three times.

Initially, the CIO was the responsibility of the heritage minister, but since June 1998 it has become the responsibility of the public works minister, who happens to be the chief organizer of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec.

Is this just a coincidence? I find it very hard to believe. The opportunity to crush the sovereignists is too good and the minister is certainly not holding back. In fact, when looking at the money that was given out, it becomes obvious that that money was given out mostly in Quebec, to incite us to change sides. When the proponents of a particular ideological option get to that point, it means they are desperate.

Currently, the CIO has a $20 million budget and 85 full time employees. I do not understand how the government can tell people that these 85 employees are not competent to do the work they were hired to do. Why is it saying that? Because it is contracting out work that could be done by CIO employees.

Take, for example, the case of Michèle Tremblay, who was awarded contracts in the amount of $53,000 from public works to advise the minister responsible for the CIO. During the same period she was awarded contracts from the CIO to organize visits by federal ministers and to write speeches.

I think there are competent individuals within the CIO who could do that kind of work. Even the minister has on his own staff people who could do it. That is why we have political attachés and assistants. This is part of their job.

The Government of Canada, with its high-mindedness and infinite gratitude to those who have contributed to it, awards contracts and underestimates the ability of the people working for it.

During this time, communications and strategy obtained contracts as well for the ministers' visit to Quebec. Could this overlap be an error by officials? I strongly doubt it. The Minister of Public Works told us earlier that the CIO is his responsibility.

There was as well the case of Richard Mongeau, which is also interesting. He was awarded contracts by the Canada Information Office as a legal adviser. In the same period, he served as acting executive director of the information service, and his communications firm billed the CIO for these activities.

It is clear, therefore, that improvisation is the watchword at the CIO and is the creation of the person in charge, namely the Minister of Public Works. Despite what the Minister of Public Works said, a number of contracts were awarded without tender. Between June 1997 and March 1999, over 30 contracts worth over $25,000 were awarded this way.

Permit me to quote an article that appeared in Le Devoir on June 1, 2000 under the byline of Manon Cornellier, who said:

Since the present minister assumed his duties, 28 contracts have been awarded without call for tender, and some companies have benefited from this approach more than once. They include the Groupe Cible, $27,000, Média Q, $37,500, Ekos Research Associates, $53,500, Muséobus, $27,750, Densan Consultants, $60,000—

And I could name even more.

We might think we were back in the age of patronage under former premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau. Small favours were numerous in exchange for a small contribution to party coffers. The situation became totally ridiculous with Louis-Alexandre Taschereau even appointing his son to his office.

Tremblay Communications received a one million dollar grant after donating $2,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada between 1997 and 1998. Groupaction, which received $46,000 worth of contracts, donated $6,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada during the same period of time.

There is more to this tragicomedy. Through access to information, the only way we can get information from this government, we learned that CIO has files on some reporters. After learning that the HRDC big brother had a longitudinal labour force file on 34 million Canadians, we now learn that an information office which was to disseminate propaganda for Canada also has that kind of information.

That reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 . I loved that book and I still consider it a masterpiece, though I hope very much that its content would remain in the realm of fiction. George Orwell was right however. Apparently, he was some sort of visionary.

Three months ago, I thought I had a right to some privacy but I now realize that the Canadian government has databases on things which are part of my private life. This is a serious situation.

Coming back to files on reporters, we learn that Pierre Maisonneuve has a tendency to be relatively neutral; that Vincent Marissal rarely makes editorial judgments; that the editorial team of La Presse is very critical toward the federal government, and there is more.

How can the existence of such a file be justified? What is its purpose? Why should we have files on the ideological content of the media? Are we living under a dictatorship? I would like to get some explanation from the government.

I feel even more concerned when I think that there could be similar files on intellectuals, artists, politicians and sovereignists.

The federal government violates the intellectual freedom of people and intrudes on our privacy. What has become of this government's sense of ethics? I find this situation unhealthy.

Yet the public works minister sees this as a simple press review, while the Prime Minister considers it is a compliment to journalists.

Time flies and I will now conclude. I would simply like to remind our viewers that it is very important, from an ethical point of view, that the CIO be dismantled as soon as possible. This office is only concerned with handing out lucrative contracts to those close to the Liberal Party.

I believe that the 20 million dollar budget would be better used in various programs that would be much more beneficial for Quebecers and Canadians. All of this propaganda and search for an identity is shameful. We all know that we are Quebecers and we do not need to hand out flags.

There is no longer any economic justification for Canada's existence. Let us look at its history. Canada was built solely on economic considerations. The railway was built to link the provinces at a time when trade flowed from east to west. Now that it flows from north to south and that protectionism has given way to free trade, the Canadian government is using culture to stir up national sentiment.

I trust and hope that all my colleagues will vote for this motion. However, the Liberals will have to pay the price of their mismanagement in the next election, because Canadians will not accept being manipulated by a propaganda office.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois, which is part of our job as an opposition party.

Our job is to make the government accountable for its actions and the way it carries out its responsibilities. Our job is also to make the government accountable for how its spends taxpayers' money and the fees for services it collects from its citizens. The government must serve the people who voted it in and elected members of parliament such as us, in the Bloc Quebecois, so that we in the House control and monitor government activity.

As such, we are going our duty today reasserting accusations against a government which in our view—and it is a view shared by a number of opposition members in this House—is mismanaging public funds.

It is using it for purely partisan ends to help friends of the regime, friends of a particular party, buddies who are getting rich thanks to said party which is looking out for them, giving them jobs and contracts, making things easy for them even though it does not need the services of these consultants. Civil servants who are paid to provide a public service cannot do their jobs because the work has been contracted out to friends of the regime.

We will never apologize for playing this role, for fulfilling our obligation to monitor, putting questions to the ministers and demanding answers from them, asking the citizens, when the time comes for them to elect new members of parliament, to punish the lack of answers, the government's failure to account for the way it spends taxpayers' money.

Beyond the numbers, the contracts and the identity of the people who benefited from these contracts, which were made public in the House, the propensity of the government to spend money on the so called “national unity” issue, on informing citizens about Canada, is part of a greater plan, plan B. This is what I want to talk about.

Quite obviously, the activities of the Canada Information Office, established in 1996, a few months after the October 30 1995 referendum, are part of a comprehensive plan aimed at countering sovereignty and the rise of the sovereignist feeling.

This plan is aimed at countering a project which, as I was saying earlier, is legitimate and supported by Quebec political parties that have members elected at the national assembly and at the House of Commons. These parties are suggesting eminently democratic means for Quebec to attain sovereignty and believe such attainment of sovereignty must be done with the enlightened consent of Quebecers in a democratic framework and according to democratic rules.

Plan B, which includes this Canada Information Office and its activities, is specifically directed at countering that march of Quebecers on sovereignty. That is what is disturbing and shocking for Quebecers in general, not only for those who support the sovereignist option but also for those who, even though they choose Canada as an option for the future, are seeing to what extent public funds are squandered on the promotion of Canadian unity, which does not need public funds to be promoted in such a way.

With a sensible plan A competing with the plan sovereignist Quebecers have for Quebec, the debate might be held in more interesting and stimulating conditions for those Quebecers who have still not made up their mind and want to know what is the best option for the future of Quebec and its citizens. No, it seems there is now a need to resort to a Canada Information Office and to excessive amounts spent on all kinds of ludicrous contracts.

I mentioned this morning as an example a contract to study the status of provincial legislation with regard to the constitution amending process.

This has already been done by academics and constitutional experts. It has certainly been done by the Department of Justice as well as officials from the Privy Council, but it had to be redone by the Canada Information Office. No doubt this was done as well by the Council of Canadian Unity, in which this government also invests major amounts to promote Canadian unity.

An element of this plan B is the activities of the Canada Information Office. But the government does not stop there when it comes to plan B. It spends millions of dollars to promote identity through the flag, which must be shown in all public events where the government has invested money. It even wanted to have it displayed in the works of every Quebec writer who receives a federal grant from the Department of Canadian Heritage. Writers and publishers in Quebec forcefully opposed this, until the government withdrew its idea of imposing the Canadian flag in all books published in Quebec.

When the government scares Quebecers with the issue of partition, with the idea that the Quebec territory should be divided in several parts, this is also part of a plan B that does not lead anywhere, since the support for sovereignty is stable and is even increasing these days.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, which was probably inspired by the architect of plan B, even offered a catechism to its diplomats to teach them how to answer sovereignists who are abroad to promote their democratic project all over the world. People abroad have the right to know that, in Quebec, there are some of us who support that option for Quebec's future.

Plan B culminated with Bill C-20 on the so-called clarity. This is a bill that we reviewed here, in totally unacceptable conditions, conditions that violated the most elementary democratic practices.

The senators are now questioning the bill, because they too feel that it is absolutely unnecessary for the promotion of Canadian unity. On the contrary, it could hinder those who want to promote that unity. Bill C-20 also poses major constitutional problems and puts into question, as argued by the senators, the equality of the two houses of parliament.

We did not need big brother. The Minister of Human Resources Development finally realized that she should not keep a database on Quebecers and other Canadians. We do not need the BIC/CIO brother either. We do not need an office that will hold information about journalists and will probably have information on people like the Bloc Quebecois members in this House who promote sovereignty. We do not need an office that does this kind of work. Canadians do not have to pay for that and nor do Quebecers.

Through its propaganda disguised as information, the Liberal government will not succeed in winning Quebecers over, identifying them to or having them identify to the Canada that the Liberals want and are building. This is not how they will succeed in promoting Canada. This is not how they will contribute to a truly democratic debate on the future of Canada and Quebec.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate and thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for his vivid depiction of the situation. He has demonstrated how this plan, this approach to the establishment of this office was concocted after the near defeat of federalist forces in the 1995 referendum in Quebec.

I have an additional question for my colleague. The motion before us, by the Bloc Quebecois, expresses very clearly its wish to have the CIO dismantled. Could my colleague tell us how, why, and on what basis this office should be quickly dismantled?

When we see the Prime Minister of Canada travelling the world over to say that we have the best country in the world, and spending $20 million to convince Canadians that what he says is true, I really have to wonder whether the government is out of touch with the grassroots.

The Liberal ministers came to my region with their great speeches. Where I come from, we are polite and when people come to visit, we welcome them with tact. So, they came. What did they do? They invited people who agreed with them. Unfortunately for them, they did not know we also wanted to be there. So we showed up. However, we noticed that as soon as they saw us, they no longer had anything to say. They did not say why they were there, which was to meet their political friends.

I think this amounts to taking Canadians for fools. Yet they too might want a piece of the pie.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Blueberry pie.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Blueberry pie, even better. In my region, we have the finest blueberries of the whole world. I must say that I find the government's behaviour insulting. I ask my colleague to tell us why the CIO must be dismantled without delay.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer that quickly. If there are good reasons to dismantle the Department of Human Resources Development because of the abuses there, there are even more reasons to dismantle the Canada Information Office, with the abuses we are revealing and will continue to reveal in the near future.

It gives us an opportunity show that this government is using old methods, trying to reward the friends of the party, who contribute unlimited amounts to its coffers, with no thought for the public, which is paying these people, who then turn around and hand some of the money over to the Liberal Party.

Madam Speaker, I would like to add something else, which concerns you. One result of these tours organized by the Canada Information Office is that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can come to my riding and speak to community groups. Two weeks ago, he came to my riding of Beauharnois to meet with members of community groups. He did not invite me. He did not have the courtesy to invite the member who knows these community groups very well, who works with them all the time.

When he visited Saint-Lambert, he invited the member for Saint-Lambert. He wanted her to be there when he spoke to community groups, at taxpayers' expense, at the expense of citizens, who were treated to a visit by the government. Through the work of the Canada Information Office, they saw the government investing in tours that gave ministers an opportunity to talk about the government's ideas for supporting community groups with a member such as you, but not with a member such as me.

There is something very partisan about what this government is doing and about the manner in which it wishes to inform the public about its services. It excludes Bloc Quebecois members when it comes to tours but includes Liberal Party members. There is something very unhealthy about the way this Liberal government delivers government services.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this extremely important debate, which goes to the very heart of one key challenge of the Government of Canada and indeed of all democratic governments on this planet, that of communicating with Canadians.

In that context, I would like to briefly discuss this challenge and the role of the Canada Information Office, or CIO, in helping the government address it.

First, why is the government increasingly focussed on communications? There are many reasons. One of them is that it is important to all Canadians, which public opinion polls have shown convincingly. Not only are Canadians receptive to the information provided to them but they want more. Furthermore, it is the government's responsibility, and I insist on the word responsibility, to explain its policies and programs to Canadians.

Let us be practical. What good are the best programs and services if Canadians do not know about them or how to access them? It would be like a hockey coach who would prepare a wonderful game plan in his office with his assistants but who would forget to tell his players about it.

Canadians have the right to get this information. I repeat, they have the right. They want to be informed, which is totally legitimate. Therefore, the question is not whether we must provide the information. The question, and I was going to say the challenge, is to figure out how to get that information to them and make sure it is useful and relevant. As I was saying earlier, this is a challenge that is facing all the communications agencies in all the democracies throughout the world.

People are literally bombarded with a multitude of messages. We all know that. We just have to walk through the streets of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, or go to the movies, or watch television, or listen to the radio, or read the newspapers. Our senses are inundated with hundreds if not thousands of poster panels, advertisements and messages.

To be effective, the Government of Canada, or any other government for that matter, must compete. It must compete if it wants its communications to be useful, especially if it wants to reach all Canadians.

One can easily understand that the fragmentation of audiences makes this all the more difficult. The government can no longer mass communicate with a “one size fits all” approach. It must learn about the particular information needs of different segments of the population. It needs to know which methods work best to reach each of these segments, whether it be television, print, radio, direct mail, the Internet, etc. The government must learn how to harness new technology which offers new possibilities while at the same time creating a whole new set of challenges, imposing new ways of doing things.

Faced with the complexities of modern communications and a heightened expectation by citizens to be informed about and involved in the governing process, many democratic governments around the world and provincial governments here in Canada have reviewed their communications approaches or are in the process of doing so.

It is in that context that the Government of Canada, which is no different from other democratic governments, has given a specific mandate to an ad hoc cabinet committee on government communications, which was struck two years ago. The mandate is extremely clear. The objective is to bring greater oversight to government communications and foster a more corporate, citizen focused approach. By corporate we mean communicating with one voice, that of the Government of Canada as a whole, as an entity.

While individual departments communicate quite well about their respective programs and services, we need to communicate about the government's overall program, key priorities, and a wide array of programs and services. Canadians want this overall picture so they can assess whether they feel the government's agenda reflects their own needs and priorities.

It was in that spirit that the Canada Information Office was created in 1996 and has become one of the government's primary tools in listening to and speaking with Canadians. In that capacity, it provides corporate communications advice and support to the Government of Canada. It collaborates with other departments and agencies as well as with partners outside government, fostering innovation and the sharing of best communications practices. It develops communications products.

For example, it develops citizens' guides to government programs and services. The CIO also undertakes public opinion research and media monitoring activities. These are essential corporate tools to help the government understand and respond more appropriately to the information needs of Canadians.

The ministerial tours in Quebec are another tool used to communicate with citizens.

[An hon. member]

To do propaganda.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It provides an opportunity to listen to their views, needs and concerns.

Community-based outreach activities also provide a two-way flow of information to and from citizens. For instance, workshops on Y2K preparedness, the so-called Y2K bug, electronic commerce, and other topics were conducted last year in response to an expressed need for this kind of information. These are but two examples. I could go on with many more.

I want to talk about another area of activity of the CIO, the organization's support of government activities relating to national unity. I say this with great pride: National unity continues to be a key priority of this government, and as such, all departments and agencies have a role to play in that regard. Obviously, if the Canadian public does not know what its federal government is doing, it has every right to ask whether the Canadian federation is relevant.

The value of our federation is rooted in feelings and sensitivity, but it is also an ideal to reach for. All of this should be expressed in initiatives and actions. The Canadian government has the responsibility to inform Canadians on these initiatives and actions.

The CIO's role in this regard involves promoting the value of Canada by providing information to Canadians on what the country has to offer. It supports various projects that demonstrate how the government's programs and services are relevant to citizens and that encourage Canadians to exchange their ideas and experiences about the greatness of Canada. This too is about communicating, communicating the value of Canada, and therefore the importance of its unity.

Since my time is almost up I will have to cut my remarks short, but I am sure my colleagues opposite will give me a nice opportunity to develop more fully what I have to say.

I would just like to give quickly a few examples. The 1-800-O-Canada, another program—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member. The indication I have is that the hon. member wanted to make a 10 minute speech. If that is not right, the hon. member can go on for another 10 minutes.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was explaining that I would have liked a bit more time to talk about other CIO activities, and I thank you for giving me this opportunity.

The CIO is a national organization, with projects and activities all across the country that benefit Canadians from every region.

I know very well that the comments of members opposite are not committed on record, but I find it quite disturbing that people who promote democracy would be trying to disrupt my right to speak by their constant commentaries.

The Canada Information office is only one of several measures and organizations helping to demonstrate our commitment to improving communications with Canadians. I am coming now to the other examples to which I have briefly referred and which include the 1-800-O-Canada toll free information line launched last year, the redesign of the Canada website to make it more user friendly and the service Canada initiative which seeks to create single points of access for citizens across the country to information on Government of Canada programs and services.

The Canada Information Office is an integral part of this overall effort to improve communications with Canadians. It has a duty, an obligation and a responsibility to take this on for all Canadians. The role and responsibility assumed by the Canadian government in this regard are not only a responsibility on the governmental action just because it gives us great pleasure to do it or because we feel like it, it is a matter of strong democratic values.

A government that does not communicate with it's population is a government that is failing in it's democratic duties. The CIO is one of the tools at our disposal to fulfil our democratic duty and responsibility to inform the Canadian population on what it is we are doing.

The CIO is doing such a good job that just last week, it received an award of excellence from a very credible organization known as the International Association of Business Communicators. This award was given to the CIO for a particular project, The Rural Guide, produced last year.

This Guide, featuring programs and services available to rural Canadians, was distributed to rural households across the country. It was the collaborative effort of 26 departments and agencies under the leadership of the Canada Information Office. That is the kind of collaboration that is innovative, productive and in the interests of all Canadians.

That is why the International Association of Business Communicators recognized the merit of the CIO and awarded them this prize.

I am really looking forward to the questions that the members opposite will be asking me, because when I arrived here, before I spoke, I heard the member opposite talk about the CIO. He talked about everything. He talked about human resources. He talked about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in terms that were not very elegant or respectful for that matter. He talked about government administration. He talked about plan B. He talked about the constitution.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

They are so lacking in arguments, so obsessed by a totally indefensible option that they are taking advantage of a debate on an organization stemming from a profoundly democratic initiative to shoot down all that the government is doing. I am wondering to what extent it is not a normal process for an opposition party to oppose for the sake of opposing.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie.

During his speech, he moaned about not being listened to. I hung on his every word and noted that our hon. colleague was not really familiar with the Canada Information Office. I saw that he was totally disconnected from our reasons for wanting this office completely dismantled.

I would take care if I were he, because the CIO may have personal information about him.

As for what he said concerning my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry, that colleague's words to all those in this House were elegantly delivered. His comments on the CIO were elegantly and intelligently set out.

I find it immensely regrettable that this hon. member should be telling us things that are not true. He must be the only person who has not been reading the newspapers the past few weeks, I think. He seems to be the only one who thinks he possesses the truth. All this has been in our newspapers. Even the Minister of Public Works has admitted that contracts had been awarded, but now the hon. member is telling us the opposite.

I would like to ask him if he knows exactly what the CIO is, apart from the propaganda he has been dumping on us for the past 20 minutes?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again I see that when the party over there is talking about something, it is called information, but when I do, it is called propaganda. It is always very interesting to see the imbalance.

My hon. colleague over the way faults me for moaning. I did not. I merely pointed out that I kept getting interrupted.

I picked up one extremely interesting thing in what my colleague just said, and it was repeated in the question. It was the word dismantled. It is remarkable that they want to dismantle the Canada Information Office, Human Resources Development Canada and Canada itself. What we have here in this House is the dismantling party. Quite remarkable, that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

As far as the contracts are concerned, because it is easy to make allegations without necessarily being able to support them, I would like to confirm for my colleague quite earnestly, as did the minister in his response in the House on several occasions in this regard, that all the contracts awarded in the context of the terms of reference of the CIO were awarded according to treasury board standards.

These standards are very similar to those found in each of the provinces of our country. To criticize treasury board standards or their application is to move onto very slippery terrain, I would suggest, because these standards were established to ensure a certain transparency—