House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cio.

Topics

The EnvironmentOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

That would bring to a close our question period for today.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are winding down toward the end of the parliamentary calendar this spring and we have some important legislation that needs to be completed before we adjourn in the weeks to come.

I wonder if the government House leader could tell us what kind of schedule he has for the rest of this week and for the remainder of next week, and if we plan to extend hours next week so we can accomplish some of the necessary legislation before the House adjourns.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement to continue to sit after 6.30 p.m. today to debate third reading of Bill S-10, the DNA bill, and Bill S-3, the tax convention. I thank the House leaders of other parties for having agreed to this extension of hours. We will likely have similar ones, and I will get to them in a minute, concerning other evenings.

On Friday, tomorrow, we will consider report stage of Bill C-19, the war crimes bill, and of Bill C-27, the parks bill. I understand that there is disposition to deal with report stage of those two bills tomorrow.

On Monday, we will debate second reading of Bill C-33, the species at risk bill. This would be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-5, the tourism bill, and Bill C-24, the GST technical bill. If we have not completed those bills on Monday, I would seek consent to continue in the evening to try to move them forward. I will be consulting with House leaders on that topic.

On Tuesday, it is my intention to deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-18, the impaired driving bill. That would be followed by third reading of Bill C-19, the war crimes bill to be dealt with at report stage tomorrow, and Bill C-27, the parks bill at third reading, which is also at report stage tomorrow. Again, if we have not completed that agenda, it would be my intention to seek the agreement of colleagues to continue that in the evening as well.

On Wednesday, it is my intention to call report stage and third reading of Bill C-34, the grain transportation bill.

Next Thursday shall be the final allotted day in the present supply period. The House would probably have to sit, unless we collectively decide otherwise, until 10 p.m., which means that we would also sit in the evening on Thursday of next week.

At the present time, but subject to discussion with other House leaders, it would be my intention to call Bill S-18 on child soldiers on Friday of next week.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Roberval indicated to you, I am sharing my time with him.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion tabled today. Since we have heard speeches that were all over the map, I am going to take the liberty of rereading the motion in order to reorient the debate somewhat, as much for the government members as for the opposition.

We heard some exaggeration from the NDP, something that is fairly rare. But with a motion like today's, they let loose a bit. Subsequently, thanks to the member for Roberval, we understood why some NDP members were rather excited about our motion.

I will read the motion:

That this House condemn the government for having established the Canada Information Office, which gives lucrative contracts to those close to the government party for, among other things, the purpose of gathering, analysing and collating information about a large number of citizens, and that this House urge the government to close that Office.

The only potentially debatable word in this motion is the word “lucrative”. To some, a $100,000 or $200,000 contract is perhaps not really lucrative. Others need $1 million or $2 million.

The rest of the motion remains unchanged. As we have clearly shown with facts and not opinions, thanks to a new creation that emerged after the near defeat of the federalist movement, the Canada Information Office was established.

This whole issue deals with a much more serious question that Canadians could ask themselves. The basic question is: Where do our tax dollars go?

The Canada Information Office is one answer. Here are a few examples of what the government is up to. The people of Canada can wonder where their money is going. We are not talking about federalists or sovereigntists here. We are not talking about separatists or about those who appreciate the “best country in the world”. We are talking about facts.

We all have to agree that close to $1 billion is missing at Human Resources Development Canada. Ordinary Canadians, those who work so hard to make a living, are really at a loss to understand how the federal government could lose $1 billion so easily.

We are told that it is not $1 billion, but rather $152 and so on. However 22 investigations have been launched by the RCMP about HRDC. Most of these 22 investigations involve Shawinigan. This has nothing to do with a political party. It is a fact. There are 22 investigations. Nobody knows where the tax dollars go.

A grant which first appeared in the riding of Rosemont disappeared, and then reappeared in the riding of Saint-Maurice. That is also a fact. Where did our tax dollars go? This is another question that could be asked.

Another grant was given, again in a Liberal riding. This might be mere chance, if not a fact.

A grant was given to a textile company in the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. The company got a great idea. It changed its name, thus leading us to believe that jobs had been created. But in fact no jobs were created. Again, where is the taxpayers' money going?

After so many blunders at HRDC, the minister came up with a bright idea. She decided to hire a spin doctor. It cost $50,000 to have someone tell the minister how to dress and how to answer questions. Later, after having wasted and lost taxpayers' money, this same department sent public servants for group relaxation therapy, because these people had been under some stress after having lost several million dollars worth of Canadian taxpayers' money.

Then, as if it were not bad enough to have one department in hot water, another one found itself in an embarrassing situation. Usually it is the Department of National Defence, but not this time. It is the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, where hundreds of millions of dollars were paid to CINAR, a company run by friends of the government. There again—and this is not because we are nasty separatists—the RCMP launched an investigation. As this point, a total of 23 investigations have been launched.

Probably the government's intention is to get into the Guinness Book of Records as the government investigated the most times during its mandate in a supposedly democratic country. This is a real problem for this government, but it will perhaps be worth it to have earned such a record, having had such a huge number of investigations into the mishandling of public funds.

It has recently been learned that another department, one about which we had certain suspicions that have now been backed with concrete examples, the Department of Canadian Heritage, has sunk $7 million of Canadians' tax dollars into Scully's “Heritage Minutes” on RDI. That this was done in an underhanded way is a proven fact. Those “Heritage Minutes” swallowed up $7 million.

If I were merely to add up all these figures—and that is not even touching on the CIO—the total of the taxpayers' money that has gone to recognize the contribution of buddies, ex-candidates, candidates, ex-official agents, ex-workers, ex-Liberal MPs, would be $500 million, $600 million or $700 million.

We were not the ones who said, after the election in 1993, if my memory does not fail me, “Anyway, all Liberal Party candidates will end up with jobs afterward”. It was a now-deceased senator from the Liberal Party who spoke this truth, which everyone suspected, but he came out and stated. His soul is now with God.

He was frank enough and honest enough to come out and say what everyone knew: all Liberal MPs, all defeated Liberal candidates—and there were many of them in Quebec—could count on a job afterward in gratitude for their efforts. A job was already a nice reward, but they are also getting government contracts.

How does one get government contracts? We see John Parisella, who heads BCP and who got $20,000. It is a very small contract, but it helps when one is starting up a business. It is one more contract under administration. BCP is not an SME; it is a fairly large company. But a friend of the government gets a little something anyway.

The list of contracts includes Administration Leduc et Leblanc. The member for Chambly, who went over the file with a fine-tooth comb, put it very well. Administration Leduc et Leblanc, a firm that contributed $15,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada in 1997 and 1998, obtained a contract worth $85,000. GPC, headed by Rémi Bujold—the member for Roberval mentioned him earlier—a former secretary of state in the Liberal government, received a grant of $87,000 from the CIO. But he was very generous with the Liberal Party and gave them $25,000.

Canadian taxpayers are fed up. When we ask ourselves why—I see the government House leader, who has parliamentary procedure down to a fine art—when we see that the public has so little confidence, so little respect for politicians, this is the number one reason. This is why people have nothing but contempt for all things political and do not trust politicians; they know only too well that money is wasted.

The government members say that they cannot be prevented from promoting the federal government, the Canadian government. The government can promote government policies.

When it is a matter of promoting party policy and platform, this has to be done by the party with the money that was generously donated to it. They say they want to explain government policies; but how come only Quebecers do not understand them? Why is the Canada Information Office—which as far as I know is not called the Partisanship in Quebec Office—not informing all the Canadians?

Are we a distinct society for the CIO? Maybe at the CIO they have understood that Quebec is a distinct society and that is why they are granting all CIO contracts to firms belonging to Liberal friends or former Liberal candidates, to people close to the Liberal Party, since it seems that contracts are given only to them.

I continue. Leroux and Associates, $23,000; Mr. Leroux has been nicknamed “the Deputy Minister of Heritage Canada” by a journalist in the National Capital. Everest Communications; that firm was also close to the Conservatives, but eventually they understood; when a political party is dying, you get closer to the other one. That firm got a $75,000 contract and quickly gave back $20,000 to the Liberal Party. How long is it going to last?

I hope everyone will understand—

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to give the floor to the hon. member for Chambly.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, the famous CIO the member for Repentigny is talking about is probably the acronym for cronyism and influence office, or something of the sort.

Is this agency accountable to the public? Do we have details on this? Are those things secret? Did the Auditor General of Canada examine the management and the administration of this agency? In his recent reports, did the auditor general mention certain points that brought about the question the Bloc is asking today? Are there some sources of mismanagement or undue influence or are we talking purely and simply about patronage and cronyism? Really, we should call the agency the cronyism and influence office.

I would like the member for Repentigny to elaborate a bit on the contracts that were awarded without going to tender. To whom were these contracts awarded and why? It could be interesting for the House and particularly for the Speaker who is listening closely.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chambly for his question, and also for uncovering this patronage haven for the Bloc Quebecois caucus, and then, through the House, for all Canadians.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs are currently considering a new process to make the allocation of funds to all federal departments more transparent. Unfortunately, and this is another tactic used by the federal government, when parallel agencies and offices like this one are created, they are not bound by the same financial audit standards that apply to other departments and that are monitored by the treasury board.

My colleague from Chambly is right when he says the creation of parallel offices and agencies like the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the millenium scholarship program is a way for small entities like the Council for Canadian Unity and the Bronfman Foundation to hide money from auditors and avoid federal accounting standards.

Members of parliament can rest assured that, with these speeches and allotted days, the information will get to the people in the auditor general's office, who are doing an excellent job of making sure the taxpayers' money is well spent.

I can assure the hon. members that we will formally request a review or an audit of the funds spent by the Canada Information Office, or cronyism office for the friends of the Liberal Party of Canada. Members can be sure of that. Unfortunately, too often, those organizations are not subject to the same accountability standards as the official departments.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Bloc motion. I should like to read, as my colleague on the other side did, the motion so that everyone in the House is quite clear as to what it is:

That this House condemn the government for having established the Canada Information Office, which gives lucrative contracts to those close to the government party for, among other things, the purpose of gathering, analysing and collating information about a large number of citizens, and that this House urge the government to close that Office.

Before one can speak directly to the motion and determine whether or not it has any basis in fact, whether or not it has any utility for Canadians and for the good governance of Canada, one has to look at the context of the Canada Information Office.

By the way, I will be taking the full amount of time. I rise today to speak about the achievements of the Canada Information Office. In order to do so we need to briefly review the context against which they were realized.

In 1998 the Government of Canada took steps to strengthen its capacity to communicate with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. To strengthen its capacity to communicate with Canadians it gave the Canadian Information Office a mandate for delivering initiatives that reflected the corporate vision of the government.

More specific, the CIO or the Canada Information Office has the mandate to improve communications between the Government of Canada and Canadians. As I mentioned, that means Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including Canadians who live in Quebec, all the Quebec population, of which I am one.

It does this based on three broad objectives. The first is to provide corporate communication, advice and support. The second is to improve co-ordination of regional communications. The third is to strengthen the operational capacity of the Government of Canada on such issues as national unity.

Let us look first at how the Canada Information Office has been improving corporate communication. It continued to survey Canadians to determine their concerns and their information needs. The findings of these surveys have been released publicly over the past year. Our surveys have come up with two important findings. First, Canadians are not very aware of the programs and services of the Government of Canada. Second, they want to know more about them.

Let me repeat for members of the opposition, particularly those who tabled the motion we are now discussing. The first finding of the surveys was that Canadians are not very aware of the programs and services of the Government of Canada. The second finding was that Canadians want to know more about the programs and services of the Canadian government.

The CIO through the various activities it undertakes is working to bridge the gap indicated in the findings of those surveys.

We believe that Canadians have a right to information. We have an obligation to ensure that they know about the services available to them and their families and to take all necessary measures to ensure that they are informed about them. The Canada Information Office is one of these measures.

Other products have been developed in this context. For instance, the CIO helped to produce a Guide to Government of Canada Programs and Services which was sent in June 1999 to 2.6 million homes in rural and remote areas of the country. It was done in co-operation with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. A total of 26 departments and agencies were involved.

The document was very much appreciated by those who received it. Half of them saved it, 68% thought it was informative, 78% found it easy to use and 56% agreed it helped to improve understanding of what the Government of Canada does.

Not only that, 68% agreed that it was important for the Government of Canada to provide information on its programs and services to Canadians through direct mail brochures sent to their homes or business.

As a result of the guide, there were thousands of calls to the 1-800-O-Canada number and thousands of hits on the Canada site.

The CIO recently piloted the idea of a similar guide for urban Canadians. They were distributed in May and June to nearly 370,000 homes in Quebec City and Saskatoon. The early analysis is showing results similar to the rural guide. This pilot is another example of how the CIO is helping the Government of Canada inform Canadians about its programs and services.

Also in 1999, the CIO successfully tested the idea of letting Canadians know about government services through ads in the weekly newspapers. The CIO will continue this campaign with improvements.

The first wave of ads focuses on concrete priorities such as finding a job. It also promotes the 1-800-O-Canada number, the Canada site, and Service Canada access centres. The ad is being inserted into 1,400 weekly newspapers and will run for three separate weeks during May and June.

With respect to CIO's second objective, improving regional communications, there have been great strides. The CIO is working with the federal regional councils to strengthen the government's on-the-ground capacity to communicate with Canadians.

We believe that it is essential that we become more aware of regional issues and be better able to communicate with Canadians in ways that work most effectively in their part of the country.

With respect to strengthening our operational capacity, the Canada Information Office reaches out to inform Canadians in their own communities. The partnership initiatives program supports local initiatives which inform citizens about government services which are relevant to them. In the past year for example, the CIO worked with other government departments and community partners to support 50 activities and projects of interest to communities, ranging from workshops on the Y2K bug, to a youth project on the elimination of racial discrimination, to a national conference of the community futures development corporation.

Every institution needs to communicate its overall vision. The Government of Canada is no exception. Since receiving its new mandate in 1998, the Canada Information Office has been meeting its challenges with vitality and dynamism. It is to be congratulated, in my view, for that achievement and for positioning itself as a key communications agency in a few short years.

I would like to mention a few other achievements of the Canada Information Office.

As I have already said, the office also helps better inform Canadians about their country. To this end, it contributes to many key events, such as the Canada Conference '99, which marked the 50th anniversary of Newfoundland's entry into Confederation. Who in the House cannot applaud such an activity?

The CIO, together with other federal agencies, organized and sponsored this conference which helped make better known this chapter in our history. Newfoundland's entry into Confederation was indeed an important chapter in our history.

Another activity was veterans week. The Canada Information Office, together with the Department of Veterans Affairs, prepared a promotion campaign for veterans week and the role played by Canada and its veterans during the first world war. What was the result of this activity? The media coverage of veterans week increased by 57% in 1998 as compared to 1997. One cannot say that this event was not a success. It is an event that was successful and that met the goals of the CIO's mandate.

Related activities were held with the help of the CIO. These activities encouraged Canadians to co-operate with the government and other partners in order to promote understanding among citizens.

Here are some examples: South Carleton High School created the website “Unity Peak”, this was the first school to be allowed to name one of the mountain peaks in the Lake Louise area of Alberta. The office contributed to the creation of the website, which enabled the students of this school to tell everyone from sea to sea to sea about their trip up the mountain.

Another activity, “Chez Nous 1998”, was a series of television programs showing the lifestyles, activities and culture of Canada's francophones. Francophones are, as we all know, found from sea to sea. They are not just in the province of Quebec.

The theme of the series was to show such things as Canadian history, current events and sports, and it showcased rising young francophone musicians. Average audiences totalled around 170,000.

Then there were the Y2K bug workshops, which I have already referred to.

The office set up Y2K bug workshops for heads of small businesses and professional corporations. In post-workshop feedback, 95% of participants praised the appropriateness and quality of the tools and information.

Now, I want to return to the motion by the Bloc Quebecois, who allege that the Canada Information Office was created by the government solely for the purpose of awarding contracts to friends.

Since its inception in 1996, the office has adjudicated all its contracts in keeping with treasury board policies. Let me repeat: since 1996, the office has adjudicated all of its contracts in keeping with treasury board policies.

What is more, in 1999-2000 there were public calls for tender for all contracts over $25,000, in compliance with the directives of the minister responsible for the CIO. Contracting out must meet two criteria: ability and deadlines.

What, in reality, is the Bloc motion all about?

It is so clear that yet again the Bloc is out of step with Canadians, that the Bloc is out of step with Quebecers.

We see with the statistics, and I will repeat them, what Canadians think about the work BIC is doing. With regard to the guide that was distributed to over 2.6 million homes in rural and remote regions, 68% of Canadians thought the guide was very useful. Over half of them kept the guide. Seventy-eight per cent found the guide was easy to consult. Fifty-six per cent stated that the guide helped them to better understand what the Canadian government actually does. Sixty-eight per cent indicated that to them, to those Canadians who received the guide, it was important that this kind of promotion of the Canadian government's services and programs take place.

The Bloc is calling for censor of the government for having created the office and is calling for that office to be closed. Yet Canadians have said that the information the office actually produces is not only useful to them but needs to continue. They said that the office is doing a good job in making sure Canadians are better informed about government programs and services.

Yet again, the Bloc is completely out of step with the majority of Quebecers and certainly with the majority of Canadians. But then what else can one expect from the Bloc? It is still advocating the division and breakup of Canada, notwithstanding that for years now the overwhelming majority of Quebecers have said they do not want another referendum. They do not want to know about another referendum. They do not want to hear about another referendum. They want both the federal government and the provincial government in Quebec to get on with the work of providing Canadians, particularly Quebecers, with a good quality of life and good services.

BIC has shown through its achievements over the last four years that it is assisting the government in ensuring that its programs and services meet the needs of Canadians and are known by Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments by my hon. colleague across the way, who no doubt managed to convince herself of what she just said. This had to be a speech that was contracted out by the CIO to someone who wrote it and was probably paid handsomely to do so.

The hon. member said that the CIO was the Canada Information Office, and that Canadians wanted to be informed. I do not deny a government must keep its citizens informed about its policies. But why is that, after the CIO was set up, the first decision that was made was a ministerial order exempting the office from the application of a number of provisions in the Public Service Employment Act and its regulations, especially with regard to hiring?

The office did not want to go through the normal public service channels to do its hiring. It wanted to hire people who espoused its doctrine, who were able to do its dirty work, and shamelessly compromise themselves, people like the infamous Serge Paquette and Richard Bélisle, who were both former Liberal candidates, one in the 1988 general election, the other in a provincial election. One of them was a political attaché to a Liberal MP.

I want to ask the hon. member, who is so concerned about keeping Canadians informed, if she informs them when she is invited to a ribbon-cutting ceremony with the minister in charge of the CIO? Does she inform the taxpayers present at the event that, when Mr. Paquette and Mr. Bélisle attend such events, they are paid $2,500 each, plus 38 cents a kilometre for travelling expenses? Does the Canada Information Office inform taxpayers about these things?

Could she tell us why the CIO does not abide by the public service hiring regulations?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We receive weekly reports from the auditor general. I have been on this committee only since September 1999.

From what I have seen, some government agencies have enabling legislation excluding their employees from the public service. The CIO is not alone in that. I see nothing mysterious in that. I see nothing hidden or harmful in the fact that the CIO does not have to follow the hiring and promotion policies of the public service.

In fact, this is not at all what bothers the Bloc. The Bloc is irritated because the Canadian government found an effective way to provide information on what it does in Quebec, to make Quebecers understand what the Canadian government represents and how they can benefit from federal programs.

This is why the Bloc is irritated. For many years, even decades—although the Bloc did not exist then—those who want to break up Canada had a kind of monopoly on the information provided to Quebecers.

This gave them the opportunity to paint for Quebecers a nightmarish picture of the Canadian government. It gave them the opportunity to make Quebecers believe that the Canadian government was robbing them of their money, that all Canadians except Quebecers were benefiting from the tax dollars that Quebec was sending to the Canadian government.

Today, by communicating through the various departments, and also through agencies like the CIO, the Canadian government has found ways to make Quebecers aware of federal programs, to explain to them how they benefit from these programs, how their tax dollars are being spent and how these programs are to their advantage.

This frightens the Bloc members. It frightens them because, when people understand what is going on, when they are faced with facts, and not with allegations, fantasy and fiction, they see through what is going on.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Willowdale Ontario

Liberal

Jim Peterson LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who has done so much for her electors, within the Liberal caucus or in parliament, and who has great visions for all Canadians, including Quebecers.

Could the hon. member tell us more about the programs we have created for all Canadians and make a comparison between the efforts of the Canadian government, those of the Quebec government and of Ontario government, which has spent so much money to promote very partisan issues which are not beneficial to all Canadians?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I appreciate it very much, because it will allow me to elaborate a bit on the partisan advertising we have witnessed in Quebec, for decades, and during the two mandates of the Harris government in Ontario.

Here is an example I have witnessed personally as a federal member of parliament from Quebec. Human Resources Development Canada contributes to literacy program for Canadians across the country. We know, as my hon. colleague does, that illiteracy is a serious problem in Canada. Despite the fact that Canada is a highly educated society, we still have a unacceptably high percentage of Canadians who are functionally illiterate. We live in a new economy based on technology and we are all aware of the necessity of having a highly educated population.

We must create programs to help Canadians who have difficulty reading or who can read, but not well to understand somewhat complex documents. We must help these people to improve and increase their skills.

In Quebec, the federal government is an important contributor to this kind of program. In my riding, there are two organizations in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and two in Lachine. Before I entered politics, electors and residents in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce knew that their programs were funded by the federal government. In the other part, Lachine, people did not know it.

Today, thanks to my efforts and those of CIO, everyone in my riding knows that the programs there are funded, at least in part, by the federal government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to the motion today, which is a Bloc motion to talk about the Canada Information Office.

The fact is that Bloc members have been hostile toward this exercise since its inception in 1998. They saw it as a rather clumsy or transparent tool of the federal government to intervene in the debate about Quebec sovereignty, separation, whatever we want to call it. They have attacked this office since day one for that reason. They have seen it as an extension of the government using its spending power in Quebec to skew or influence the results of any future referendum. That is the Bloc's concern in a nutshell.

I suppose we could get into that debate. The government contends that it has every right and responsibility to intervene in these debates and to get information out. In one report a government member said that the purpose of the information office would be to correct what he called separatist lies spread in the provincial election. Of course the separatists responded and called this a propaganda exercise for federalism. The federal government retorted “We will defend the country. We will defend the record of the government. It is not participating in the provincial campaign; it is telling the truth”. We have this big war about the good guys and the bad guys. It depends upon one's point of view who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

I will not get into that. Many speakers have done that in this debate. They have their point of view and Canadians should listen.

I would like to approach the debate from a little different angle, which is to have Canadians ask themselves whether an information ministry, so to speak, of the federal government is in our best interests.

The Liberal member who just spoke talked about the fact that many people do not have the skills or ability to get information about issues or are not able to understand issues, and that it is up to government to help citizens get a better handle on issues, et cetera. That is really the argument of “Does the end justify the means?” In other words, almost anything government does can be justified. Goodness knows, the Liberals are masters at putting a pretty face on some very disturbing exercises of government.

The question is a very important one. Do we want to have a ministry of the federal government which is devoted to information?

Other countries, of course, have a ministry of information. Some people would say a ministry of government propaganda. The point I am making is that there is the very clear potential for abuse in government having such a tool at its disposal.

We have seen abuse by these government ministries of information, these propaganda producing departments, in other countries. I think many of us in the House from all parties would be very concerned and would decry the ability and the exercise of some governments having this control and proactivity in shaping the message that goes out to citizens.

This is a very important principle in a democracy, because democracy means that the people rule. However, people's decisions are only as good as the information they have. I think we would all agree on that. Therefore, the question becomes, how do we make sure that people have good information so they can make good decisions in a democracy? The question then becomes, who has the best and most proper role in providing that information to citizens?

I will give an example using members of parliament. Members of parliament can send out a mailing to every household in their riding four times a year. These are called householders. Many members send out these householders to every household in their riding several times a year, up to four if they wish. I have read many of these householders, as I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have done.

I have seen householders from members of parliament which are extremely objective, which give very objective and balanced information to constituents, saying “This is what is happening in parliament. These are some of the pros and cons of some of the issues we are dealing with. Opponents of the measure say this; proponents say that. I invite you to take this information as citizens to be more informed about what is happening and about what debate is looking like in the House of Commons”.

Other householders are, shall we say, much less objective in presenting information to constituents. I am not being partisan. I think that is true of householders from members of parliament from all parties. Some are much more objective than others.

However, in every case the constituents who receive this information have to place some reliance on it. Some are more objective than others. That is just the way life is. That is a very critical issue in a democracy: the ability of citizens to get balanced, objective views and perspectives on important issues of the day.

The Canada Information Office was quite roundly criticized at its inception. One headline read: “An office where spin is in”. I do not think that very many Canadians want to be the victims of spin doctors. All of us know that when information is provided there is generally some kind of bias or agenda or perspective behind it, but there is some desire to not be fed a line, to not be propagandised, and this office was not necessarily seen as being very objective.

Here is another headline: “Putting new shine on government line”. Even the pundits had concerns as they watched the Canada Information Office being set up about just how objective the information would be and just what agenda would be pursued by the office.

The government, of course, had some positive reasons for putting this into place. We have many departments of government. Most of those departments have their own communications department, secretariat or whatever it is called. The human resources development department, for example, which I follow as a shadow critic, employs 150 to 180 communication specialists.

The government has argued that instead of 35 different ministries all trying to get their message out, that it would be better to have a central information department whereby government could speak with one voice. It has said that this office would not be where policies are created but about how information about policies would be shaped and communicated; in other words, communication specialists. That does make some sense. We all know that co-ordination is important. We all know that singing from the same song sheet is important for any organization.

The question really is whether government is inclined to go past that sort of objective, efficient, effective co-ordination of message and into a deliberate attempt to use government muscle, government resources, government money and government clout to actually shape the thinking of the public in a way that is not appropriate. It is very difficult to bring the right balance about.

I think it is fair to say that I have seen the present government become less careful about giving objective information to the public and more concerned about spin doctoring, about managing the message. Again I point to my experiences with the HRDC department where it used to be that the department responded promptly and fully to all access requests. However, after the boondoggle audit, that all changed. Memos starting going out saying “Do not send anything out until it has been vetted at the top and our message has been shaped, the communications have been written, the storyline has been decided and then we will put that information out once we have decided how to manage that message”.

I think Canadians have a right to be very concerned about that approach to government communications. There is a line between efficiency and effectiveness and a genuine desire to provide clear and accessible information about key issues to all Canadians and a desire of government to spin the message, to propagandize, to shape, shade and bend Canadians' thinking along lines which suit government purposes.

This debate is important because it gives us an opportunity to explore the lines we want to draw in the government's ability to inform the public in an open, honest, helpful and public spirited way and the government's tendency, unfortunately, to want to use that ability to plant its own message and its own way of thinking into the public consciousness.

We have to remember that this whole question is important because the resources of government are enormous. If government decides to cross the line beyond good information and helping people know the facts, and giving people necessary facts in important matters to actually try to shape people's thinking and to spin doctor them—and some people use the word brainwash, which I think is a little strong—and move over to what we might call the dark side, it has a pile of resources available to do that.

We, as citizens, must think very long and carefully before we allow the resources of government to be used to shape our way of thinking in a way that we would think is inappropriate, dishonest, self-serving or politically tainted.

I think what the Bloc is saying in its motion is that it has a real fear that the Canada Information Office has been, and certainly could be, used for that purpose. We might argue whether the Bloc comes to that argument with clean hands. We might argue whether the public good that the federal government is trying to achieve with the Canada Information Office in the case of the sovereignty debate would outweigh the disadvantage of not having that kind information out. We can get into all that but I think we need to be careful. Once we set the juggernaut in motion, once we start down the slippery slope for all the good reasons, such as pride, national unity, patriotism and caring about our country, we will have created a tool that can easily be abused.

My own conclusion, from being in the House now for over six year, is that there is a regrettable tendency on the part of the government to abuse that kind of power and abuse its opportunity to use its resources. I do not say that gleefully. I do not say that to be unkind to the government. I am saying that honestly. That is my honest conclusion. I do not believe that is always the case. At times I think the government honestly does try to reach the objectives that Liberal members have talked about by giving good, efficient and effective information that Canadians need and desire. However, I do think there is a tendency to stray over the line.

I commend the Bloc for giving us an opportunity to be very vigilant on that issue. I would say that the role of government in gathering information and disseminating that information to Canadians should be very carefully monitored and even limited because it is the nature of power to corrupt and information is power. People who control information have tremendous power and influence. I do not think I need to give a lot of examples, but the information flow and the control and shaping of it places enormous power and potential for misuse into the hands of whoever has the resources to control it.

On this motion, we have to recognize that government has a legitimate role in providing information. In fact, we have argued strenuously in the House that government is not meeting its obligation to provide information to citizens, particularly because it has now begun, in many cases, to flout the legal requirements of providing information through the Access to Information Act. It is a different thing from providing documents and facts to moving in the direction of packaging that information and shaping it in a way that is very influential on the thinking of citizens and doing that without any checks and balances.

I believe we need to be very strong about open, honest, transparent and full disclosure in government. We also need to be very aware and vigilant. We need to put proper and appropriate limits and checks and balances to curb the potential for abuse in the kind of government activities like the Canada Information Office.

I hope these remarks will be helpful to Canadians in judging this issue and helpful to members of the House. I thank the Bloc Quebecois for the opportunity to consider this important principle.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Mississauga Centre Ontario

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, I never fail to be impressed with how the party opposite can suck and blow at the same time.

I can remember back to the last referendum when members of the Reform Party said that we should engage all Canadians in the issue of Canadian unity, not just politicians from Quebec. They went on to say that we should take a tough line with the separatists, refute their lies, talk directly to Canadians and give them the straight facts without the filter of provincial governments.

I suggest we have done that on a very modest scale to the tune of about 60 cents per person across the country, both to collect their opinions and to impart information. However, I warn the member opposite that she is courting the prime information dispenser of two former leaders, Mr. Mulroney, and Mr. Harris who is currently in Ontario. Mr. Long, who is fighting for the leadership of the member's party, dispensed over $100 million before the 1999 election in Ontario. That was pretty outrageous material that was not exactly not seen through a filter of political taint.

If Mr. Long democratically and fairly wins the leadership of her party, will the member put up or will she not and suggest that he cannot use $100 million of money either from that party opposite or from any party to dispense his venom to the country?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, that was pretty venomous. What the member is pleased to call sucking and blowing is an honest attempt to reach a balance, not to simply condemn full sail the distribution of information. On the other hand, we do not want to make it a completely open process with no checks and balances and no hesitation about the kind of resources that are available to one perspective in putting forward a message.

As the member rightly pointed out, our message during the last election campaign was that all Canadians should be engaged in the important debate about the future of our country, not just leaders from Quebec. We made that very clear as part of our approach to government, and we will continue to do that.

I deplore the member's partisanship in talking about one of our leadership candidates and one of the provincial premiers. This is not only the pot calling the kettle black, but it illustrates my point perfectly. The Liberal government is happy to spend millions of dollars a year on getting their side of the story out, but if other people want to spend money on getting their side of the story out suddenly they are evil and must be stopped. That is ridiculous.

My point is that there has to be honesty and objectivity in putting forward information and a variety of perspectives need to be put forward, which is exactly the principle that we believe government should operate under. The oversight of something like the Canada Information Office is absolutely critical.

Yes, there will be other voices in the debate and there should be. If people want to support those voices coming forward with their own resources, then they are at liberty to do so. I certainly would not support the hon. member's suggestion that we should muzzle other voices or prevent other voices from bringing their point of view forward. I would remind the hon. member that this is a democracy and I am going to fight for it to stay that way.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from the Canadian Alliance if she does not find it strange that this information is targeted at Quebecers?

Is it because the government thinks that Quebecers are a bit slow that they need more information to find out the truth? Did the member notice in her area, in western Canada, whether these “Heritage Minutes” and all this information was broadcast as widely as in Quebec?

If this is information, then all Canadians should be interested. But if only Quebecers are interested, it is not information any more, it is propaganda. Does my colleague from the alliance believe that this information is shared equally across the country for the benefit of all Canadians?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the Bloc has put me in an awkward position. Although I completely reject his agenda of breaking up my country, I cannot help but agree with him that it is very odd and very troubling that the activities of this multimillion dollar information agency seem to be trained mostly on Quebec. That is a rather puzzling circumstance.

I must say if federal propaganda or information were trained mostly on the province I come from, I would be a little upset too. I can see the need for the federal government in such a key issue for our country as the unity of our country wanting to make sure there is information going out to citizens and that it fights for the unity of the country, just as the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are fighting for the separation of our country. However, I think there should be fairness and balance in the use of resources.

As our party has said, that discourse or debate should involve all citizens right across the country. It should not be a duking it out between the federal government and the separatists in Quebec because this does affect all of us. That is what one of our ads said during the last election, that this is such an important debate we do not just want a few voices being heard, we want voices from right across the country.

To answer my friend's question, I would say that if there is a clear perception or evidence of unfairness or imbalance, then that is a legitimate concern to raise. I would also say that he must then be prepared to live by his own rules and also be committed to fairness, balance and honesty in the information he brings forward in the debate, as well as demanding it from other people who are participating.

SupplyGovernment Orders

June 8th, 2000 / 4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, for some time now there has been a lot of talk about the Canada Information Office, the CIO. We have been seeing quite a disinformation campaign being conducted by the Bloc Quebecois, which is trying at all costs to discredit and distort the work done by the CIO, particularly as it relates to the organization of the Quebec ministerial tours.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House to clear up a few matters, particularly in relation to the tours that the CIO has been organizing in the last few months.

First, I want to point out that the CIO's mandate is to assist in improving communications between the government of Canada and Canadian citizens. I would note in passing, with all due respect for the members opposite, that Quebecers have confirmed twice in fifteen years that they wish to remain Canadian citizens; accordingly, they have a right to expect that their government, the Government of Canada, will provide them with information about the programs and services that are available to them, and they are entitled to receive accurate information.

This is where the ministerial tours come in. This is a government initiative, prompted by the desire of Quebec ministers to ensure that Quebecers are better informed and by a willingness to listen to them and engage them in dialogue.

Communication is a two way street. The government must not only adopt approaches that will enable it to communicate better with the public, but it must also, to that end, adopt approaches that will enable it to listen to them, to talk with them, so that it can target its activities more effectively.

That is what the tour is. It is not a secret, it is not propaganda, it is not party politics. It is a vehicle of communication that has been designed to promote the exchange of information between citizens and their government.

For the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the tour provided a vehicle of communication that enabled 12 ministers and secretaries of state to visit 128 different cities in Quebec in 122 days, and to hold 340 activities, meetings or visits.

When we get right down to it, it is not surprising that the members of the Bloc would be worried about this kind of initiative. It has been about ten years since they started using the Canadian parliamentary system and taxpayers' money to push a secessionist agenda that a majority of Quebecers reject. And to help them sell their option, the members opposite are spreading half-truths and disinformation. And now that we have ministers making an end run around them to set the record straight, it is only natural that they are nervous.

But, in fact, what makes the Bloc most nervous is not the fact that the government is outflanking them and correcting the falsehoods they are spreading. What makes them most nervous is that the Quebecers the ministers are meeting on the tour, the mayors and leaders of community organizations, the chambers of commerce, the organizers and decision makers in the regions, are all too happy to be able to talk things over with a minister or a secretary of state.

They appreciate the opportunity this gives them to tell the ministers about their concerns and to get more information about the services and programs their government makes available to them.

This fact is reflected in an editorial published in Le Soleil on September 24, 1999, which stated:

The beginning of this new era of co-operation is promising, and conveys a welcome spirit of co-operation in the Quebec City region.

Last November, following a meeting with the President of the Treasury Board, the mayor of Sainte-Agathe des Monts, Pierre Circé, who knows the member for Laurentides well, said, and I quote:

The minister is now more familiar with our situation here, and we learned more about the programs that are available.

This is definitely something that would make the Bloquistes nervous.

It makes them nervous because it is clear that this kind of initiative, and the positive responses it is receiving, help strengthen Canadian unity. In spite of what members of the opposition would have us believe, there is nothing partisan in the government of Canada coordinating an initiative aimed at better explaining the advantages of Canada.

Yes, the ministers' tour in Quebec was financed with public funds and that is quite legitimate. The tour is one of the numerous information services that the Government of Canada provides to its citizens. It is a communication activity focused on a dialogue with local representatives, just as advertising campaigns, mass mailing or the 1-800-O-CANADA line are.

The government tour approach is not new. It is already well-known in Quebec, because it is an approach used by the Quebec government as well.

By the way, I cannot help but find it bizarre that Bloc members would call it information when the Quebec government goes on tour, but call it propaganda whenever Canada does the same thing.

As always, it is a double standard for our Bloc colleagues, and everybody knows why. The Bloc Quebecois absolutely wants to prevent the Canadian government from having visibility in Quebec, from being present in Quebec and from listening to Quebecers. It wants to deny Quebecers the benefits of their country, Canada.

In fact, both levels of governments have the right and the duty to inform Quebecers. Let me quote what my colleague, the president of the Privy Council and member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville said during a recent symposium on the quiet revolution:

We can and we must have two serious governments, each with its own perspective, two governments exposed to different influences and which...learn from each other and from the other governments of our federation....This way, we give ourselves the best development opportunities.

We should not be surprised that Bloc members would criticize a Canadian government initiative which will show Quebecers that it is possible to talk to each other and to work together, that the Quebec government does not have a monopoly on “dialogue” and “joint action” and that their government is there to serve them and provide them with services that are useful in their day to day life.

In a way, all this hustle and bustle we have seen over the last few days is sort of flattering: it shows that the Government of Canada has found an effective and successful way to better communicate with the citizens of Quebec.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague on his speech. I believe it was his maiden speech in the House. He did a marvellous job in adding to the debate. I know he will be a welcome participant in what we all do here. Congratulations to him.

Not only our party but I believe most Canadians believe in a united Canada, but they cannot support the use of taxpayers' dollars to manipulate information to achieve an agenda if it only serves the government agenda. I think that is the difficulty. Canadians in Quebec as well as Canadians right across the country will be angry and they will have a right to be angry if the government is simply using taxpayers' money to manipulate an outcome for political reasons.

The information Canadians want to know is what the government is doing and how it is doing it. We believe that the Government should be prepared to demonstrate to Canadians that the Canada Information Office is achieving positive objectives that most Canadians support.

Can the member propose any way to demonstrate to Canadians that the Canada Information Office would serve Canadian interests and not the Liberal Party's own agenda?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for congratulating me and at the same time giving me the opportunity to give her more information.

I want to confirm that the Canada Information Office has also provided information to Canadians about their country by supporting key events such as the Canada Conference '99 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Newfoundland joining Canada. The Canada Information Office worked with a number of federal government organizations to sponsor and assist in the co-ordination of Canada Conference '99 which helped create cross-Canada awareness of this historic anniversary.

In partnership with Veterans Affairs Canada, the CIO developed a veterans week media promotion campaign to develop greater awareness of the contribution of Canada and its veterans during World War I. Media coverage of veterans week in 1998 increased by 57% over the previous years. There are other examples.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, what bothers the Bloc Quebecois is not the fact that the government party travels at the taxpayers' expense for so-called information purposes. What bothers us is that they are not providing information; they are handing out cheques for projects on which opposition members have worked. They show up in the riding just to hand out a cheque, and the information they have to give is so public that they forget to actually invite people.

If it were public information, why would the member representing the riding not be invited when the minister stops by? I would be interested to hear the information government members have to give.

If it were real information, it should be public, transparent and clear. They should not be afraid to speak openly and publicly.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is mixing carrots with potatoes.

When departments want to give good news, announce projects or give out cheques, they do so through their ministers or other ministers or members. When the CIO organizes tours for Quebec ministers, it is for a different kind of activities.

The Canada Information Office is there to better inform Canadians about government policies, priorities, programs and services. However, once again, when the Government of Quebec does it, it is called information, but when the Government of Canada does the same thing, my colleague calls it propaganda.

It is not quite the same thing. The CIO provides information to Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I was advised that the member was sharing his time. If that is the case, I will have enough time to make the statement before the member with whom the time is being shared gets back to her place.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Jonquière, Importation of Plutonium and the hon. member York North, Infrastructure.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak today to the whole concept of media monitoring which was raised by some of our speakers in the debate this morning.

Do we really need to be reminded that we are living in the information age? Every day we in the industrialized world take in a wide variety of information. Over the last 20 years we have been witness to the continuous acceleration and improvement of information technology. One need only think of the computer and the Internet which are part of the daily lives of so many Canadians and which make information increasingly and ever more quickly accessible.

In Canada alone we have four 24 hour television news channels: RDI, LCN, Newsworld and CTV News, which often provide live coverage of current events. The information age has substantially changed the relationship between citizens and the government. Elected officials are finding citizens to be increasingly well informed as most of them now have the benefit of sophisticated tools for finding out what their governments are doing.

The public is paying attention. We can never underestimate its interest in what we do here. For example, on the new immigration bill that is being debated and has now gone to committee, droves of people have come into my office in Mississauga asking when it will be implemented, when the process will start and when new people can be sponsored under the new rules. We can never underestimate citizens.

The citizens of Canada want a say in the directions adopted by the government. For this to be possible, there must be a dialogue between the government and its citizens. Let us remember the commitment of the government in this regard. The Government of Canada will demonstrate in its daily activities that it is listening to its citizens.

At the Canada Information Office, the Quebec ministerial tours are a success precisely because their purpose is to communicate with citizens. If they were out there simply to give one way information it would be a useless endeavour, but they are there to listen, and listening is equally as important as giving out information. The ministers meet with and listen to the concerns of mayors, presidents of chambers of commerce, and volunteer and community workers.

Is the Bloc living on the same planet as the rest of us? I must confess that I find it incredible that the Bloc should be surprised that the Government of Canada, like all governments serious about establishing a fruitful dialogue with their citizens, engages in media monitoring events in the news which in French is called suivi médiatique.

We are living in a world of information, and that is reality. It is a very palpable reality for governments which have to be able to keep abreast of the latest news developments so they can manage public affairs properly. When we get down to it, what is media monitoring?

I will disappoint the Bloc but I have no secrets to reveal on the subject. The CIO carries out reviews of the print and electronic media and of analyses of current events, very similar to the Quorum which we get in the lobbies every day. The Government of Canada needs these reviews to be appropriately informed to make the decisions that are necessary. Not to be thus equipped would be irresponsible.

All members of the House know that the people who come into our constituency offices, often to complain about something, are not representative samples of what the Canadian public is thinking. If we just depended on those who come into our offices and those that we choose to listen to, we would have a very slanted view of the world, indeed.

When the Bloc describes the CIO's media monitoring as secret surveillance, or says that it keeps personal information records on journalists, no one takes them very seriously, not even the journalists who are being greatly underestimated. If the journalists believed for one minute this was happening, there would be a massive hue and cry.

I should like to quote Ms. Manon Cornellier, a journalist with Le Devoir , who stated recently:

It is common practice for departments and organizations to analyze media content and particularly the trends of their editorial pages.

No one is therefore surprised to learn that the CIO has analyzed the editorial evolution of the Gazette . No one is surprised. These documents the Bloc keeps talking about are nothing more than a failed attempt to create something out of nothing.

Let me be perfectly clear. There exists no personal records at the CIO, neither on journalists nor on anyone else. The documents in question date back to more than three years ago. They are simple media analyses that contain absolutely no secret or personal information.

These analyses turned out to be of very little use and the CIO does not prepare them any more. Using loaded words to try and instil fear in the hope of winning a few political points is becoming rather more typical of the Bloc. Though it is true it does need some points at the moment, there is always the double standard: what is good for one is not good for the other; what is good for the PQ government is not good for the Government of Canada.