Debates of Oct. 20th, 2009

National Philanthropy Day Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last May I raised a concern that relates to the transparency and openness that Canadians should come to expect of our government and of our Parliament.

It is extremely important for us to recognize that in the last year the former Information Commissioner, Mr. Robert Marleau, a former clerk of yours, Mr. Speaker, has made a number of assertions about the state of information access in this country and found it to be frankly abysmal, and we agree on this side. While this is not an opportunity for us to go back and say one party can do better than the other, the reality is that Canadians deserve better.

I asked the President of the Treasury Board at the time what his position was with respect to the findings of the Auditor General, but between last May when I asked that question and today, as we have now learned from the justice minister , he has made the decision not to embrace or accept the importance of ensuring that there is full disclosure in this country as it relates to access to information. We now learn that the government has pretty much put the kibosh, so to speak, on the idea of openness and transparency. It has done so against a growing chorus of Canadians who believe that Canada is not only falling behind, but that the government stands very much in the way of the kind of changes necessary and the recommendations made not only by Mr. Marleau but also by the committee responsible, in this case the Standing Committee on Access to Information.

Let us not underestimate the significance of what the government is doing to stonewall and to block. Just last week we learned the $100,000 cheque presentation in the riding of Cambridge would not have come to us had it not been for a successful ATIP. We now know that consistently and for heavily redacted articles, the 30 days within which information is normally shared, as the law requires, is now turning into 120 days. In some cases we can actually say that it goes to six months, eight months, a year or a year and a half. Some of these matters are now heading to the federal court in order to get the transparency that is so important, not just to this Parliament and its ability to function, but in order for the public to have confidence in these institutions.

We may argue as to what recommendations constitute the basis on which we ensure there is transparency. One thing is very clear. In this country at this time we are seeing an accretion of opportunities and the ability of the Canadian government and the public to recognize that information that they want is not deliverable.

I take into consideration not only the concerns that were raised by the committee, but also the basis on which those committee recommendations took place, the 12 recommendation of the Information Commissioner himself. They are simple things like a parliamentary review every five years of access to information, that all persons have a right to access records and that the Access to Information Act provide the Information Commissioner with order-making power for administrative matters.

If we want to ensure that we get full disclosure on information that the public and the media are seeking about these institutions, whether they be our Parliament or our courts, it seems to me it is incumbent on this Parliament and this government to stop stonewalling, stop blocking and start dealing with what the public expects as it relates to access to information.

I see the parliamentary secretary is pretty excited over there. I look forward to his comments.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight. This government is open and transparent with information. The hon. member opposite has the temerity to suggest that just because central agencies disagree with the Auditor General on the documentation of their challenge function that our government is secretive and unaccountable.

Exactly the opposite is true and the hon. member knows it. He is trying to score political points by brewing up a tempest in a teapot and there is no substance to it. It is a witch's brew designed to stir up trouble.

Yes, central agencies do play an important role in challenging departments and agencies during the development of their policies and programs. Their objective is to support cabinet decision making by helping to ensure that the most robust analysis and advice are presented to ministers. The government also wants to strengthen documentation in the right place, that is in departments and agencies which are best positioned to undertake this role.

The member opposite is ignoring the reality that much of this function is done verbally. A lot of it occurs over the phone and in meetings. We are talking about a fast-paced and fluid environment in which this process takes place. It is a process that involves a number of players, each offering new input at a variety of different moments. To try to document all interactions with departments and agencies and ensure that all advice is written down and produced in documents would be impractical and costly and would slow down the government's ability to respond to events like the recent economic crisis.

In short, it would serve neither ministers nor Canadians. What is documented are the results of the challenge function and advice to ministers in support of cabinet discussions and decisions. However, our system of cabinet government holds this advice to be confidential, but that is a far cry from saying this government does not believe in openness and transparency.

The facts speak for themselves and tell the opposite story. It is a fact that it was this government that released information from many of the boards and commissions that previously were not required to release it.

It is a fact that it was this government that brought in the Federal Accountability Act which contained the most sweeping accountability measures in Canadian history. As a result, 69 more public institutions are now covered by the access to information law, bringing the total number of organizations subject to legislation to about 255.

It is a fact that we have been providing the training, policies, directives and action plans needed to support the capacity of the ATIP community. When we see the big picture and not just a narrow sliver, we get a true representation, not a distorted one.

Thanks to the efforts of this government, Canada has a public service that is more open, transparent and accountable than at any time in its history, and that is a government I am proud to be part of.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the hon. member make comments about openness and transparency. Apparently the only people in this country who actually believe that are the hon. member and his party. It is understandable, because contradicting what they said in campaigns is part of their style.

I want to speak more directly to what the hon. member has failed to mention. Not only was the Accountability Act not properly implemented with respect to the decisions made by officers at arm's-length from this Parliament, including the Information Commissioner, but the comments that were made by the Information Commissioner are not to be fooled around with. The hon. member understands full well that although his party may want to interfere with that, the reality is those recommendations as well as the recommendations of the committees were born to ensure optimal transparency from a government and obviously a minister and perhaps even a member of Parliament who seem to be hiding behind it.

I would encourage the hon. member to look around him, to look at the facts, to walk away from his notes and to start thinking about the fact that the people affected by this are his constituents and Canadians in general. The extent to which they defend the indefensible is indefensible in itself.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member suggested we should look at the facts, so let us look at the facts. This government fought for the right of Canadians to know how their government operates. We opened up the Wheat Board, the CBC and dozens of other institutions to the Access to Information Act. Sixty-nine new institutions are now accountable to Canadians through the ATIA. For the first time Canadians can see how these institutions spend their tax dollars. These are tremendous steps forward for openness and transparency, steps the Liberals never took.

The member is trying to create the impression that decisions about which information to release are driven at the political level. That is absolutely false. ATIA requests are never handled by ministers or political staff. The work is done by professionals in the public service. We are committed to open and transparent government, and our record is clear.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for taking the time to further answer questions on the Auditor General's scathing report on gender-based analysis in federal departments.

As I am sure the parliamentary secretary is well aware, the Auditor General and the Treasury Board secretariat testified yesterday at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I had the opportunity to attend that meeting and hoped to get some answers. During question period on May 12, 2009, the President of the Treasury Board claimed that his government is committed to gender-based analysis and denied that the Auditor General was critical of the government's actions.

The President of the Treasury Board was incorrect. The Auditor General was and still is very critical about how gender-based analysis is or, more accurately, is not performed in government departments and at the Treasury Board. I will briefly summarize her findings.

Gender-based analysis has had a weak take-up in federal departments. Of the 68 cases assessed by the Auditor General, only four had GBA incorporated in policy development. Only 30 of the cases had some analysis done. Twenty-seven cases had not considered GBA at all. There is no policy requiring departments to do GBA, and departments do not know when GBA should be performed.

Furthermore, the Auditor General was astonished that the challenge function at the Treasury Board was based solely on verbal exchanges and no documentation was undertaken. How can anyone be assured if GBA has even been considered, never mind performed, if there is no written record?

Continuing in her criticism, the Auditor General stated that the government does not care about GBA. She found that the lack of documentation made it clear that GBA was and is not a priority. She felt that the government should further help Status of Women Canada fulfill its mandate and support gender-based analysis in all departments.

It was reported yesterday that individual departments are left to their own devices as to how or whether they do GBA. Some training has been done in various departments and at the Treasury Board. Time and money have been invested in GBA, but the results found by the Auditor General show that despite this investment, GBA is rarely performed, often dismissed and very rarely applied.

Transport Canada, for instance, felt that it was gender-neutral and did not need to do GBA at all. It seems very unlikely that absolutely nothing Transport Canada does would affect men and women differently. Sadly, the best the Treasury Board could say for their best practices was that they distribute a pamphlet on GBA and that they include GBA in their boot camp.

They repeated over and over that they did not think that they should have to document whether a GBA was done on a project and that departments should take care of that themselves. If departments are not regulated, encouraged or forced to do GBA and the Treasury Board is uninterested in enforcing GBA, who is left?

Many of the witnesses yesterday insisted that the buck stops at the minister's desk. Ministers alone have the ability to ignore the results of a GBA, if it has even been performed. Only four projects actually took GBA into account. This is a dismal record and it is not acceptable. The system is clearly failing at the department level, at the Treasury Board level and when it arrives at the desk of each and every minister.

I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary. After the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women recommended that GBA be mandatory for all government departments, why does the government refuse to make gender-based analysis mandatory?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to our government's record on gender-based analysis.

The government recognizes the importance of including gender-based analysis in the development and assessment of policies and programs. That is why we have taken significant steps to implement frameworks to support this process.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe got to hear firsthand about these efforts yesterday, October 19. She was at the public accounts committee when the government officials testified on this very subject. She even got to ask a few questions.

I am sure the hon. member is well aware that in our system of government, departments and agencies have the most important role to play in setting the stage for gender equality. This is because their deputy heads are ultimately responsible for the application of gender-based analysis and for documenting the analytical process used.

Meanwhile, the role of central agencies, including TBS, PCO and finance, is to support the work of Status of Women Canada and all departments and agencies in implementing gender-based analysis. This includes challenging departments and agencies during the development of their policies and programs.

The Auditor General has objected to the fact that this challenge function is not always a formally documented process. To that I would say that the government is likewise keen on strengthening the documentation process.

Since we came to office, our government has taken concrete steps on several fronts to improve accountability mechanisms for implementing gender-based analysis across government. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, since 2007, in order to obtain Treasury Board approval, submissions require evidence of gender-based analysis. In 2008 our government took action to ensure all memoranda to cabinet include gender-based analysis. These are initiatives that the Liberals failed to implement over 11 years.

Also included is the use of the management resources and results structure policy to reflect financial and non-financial performance information on all departmental programs, including those with gender-specific outcomes. This includes the Department of Finance actively using gender-based analysis, where data exists, to ensure the consequences of proposed initiatives on various segments of the population are taken into consideration.

I am proud to be part of this government that has demonstrated its commitment to gender-based analysis. Equality for Canadian women, including the implementation of gender-based analysis, is a priority of this government.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nothing I heard yesterday or today reassures me.

Status of Women Canada has the expertise in gender-based analysis, GBA, and this was recognized by Treasury Board and other departments. However, Status of Women Canada lacks any real power to force departments to perform GBA.

Treasury Board fully admits that it has the ability, the tools and leverage needed to enforce GBA within the federal government, yet it refuses to change practices and document the challenge function. The government seems to feel a verbal discussion is all that is needed.

I want to point out that the Auditor General did not find this at all sufficient and was very suspicious of the verbal discussion, as almost all discussions between Treasury Board and the departments are done through email therefore leaving some sort of paper trail. Treasury Board insisted there was no paper trail. With no paper trail, there is no accountability.

Why does the government keep insisting on accountability when there is nothing? When is it going to put in a gender-based analysis that we can be assured of?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under our government, our Prime Minister gave a new directive to all central agencies that all Treasury Board submissions and memos to cabinet show evidence of gender-based analysis, GBA.

Canada is a leader in GBA. When our government was elected in 2006, there was no process in place for gender-based analysis. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister since 2007, in order to obtain funding, Treasury Board submissions require evidence of gender-based analysis.

In 2008 our government took action to ensure all memoranda to cabinet include gender-based analysis.

These are all initiatives that the Liberals failed to take over 11 years. Equality for Canadian women, including implementation of gender-based analysis, is and remains a priority of this government.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, back in May, I asked a question. Circumstances have changed slightly. Allow me to explain what I had asked about at that time.

Workers were laid off from the mill in Grand Falls—Windsor and like any person working in that type of industry or any industry, for that matter, they would be in receipt of severance payments. Unfortunately, AbitibiBowater declared bankruptcy in the U.S. courts and therefore, because it was in trusteeship, it could not pay the severance payments.

However, since then the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has paid these workers in the absence of AbitibiBowater doing so and now there is negotiation, as I understand it, between the two parties as to what the selling price of the assets are going to be.

However, I do have a question and it pertains to the Minister of Natural Resources. In this situation, it involves a smaller community. There are roughly 13,000 people in Grand Falls—Windsor. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary the following question.

In that situation, the workers want to diversify their economy and they want to do it through some of the wood products that they harvest. There is still a lot of forest and still permits at play and many of the loggers and wood harvesters are doing the job they had been doing for decades. In their situation, what programs are available for them to help the community diversify?

Let me leave the member with this thought. What specific programs are there within the department that they could avail themselves of to help the loggers and harvesters find gainful employment?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite was able to adjust his question to deal with the situation as it presently exists because, as he mentioned, his question was asked back in May.

I wish I had a little more time than I do tonight to fully explore and speak to the issues he has raised. I appreciate the opportunity to explain to the member opposite and Canadians how this government is helping workers, communities and the industry from coast to coast during this global recession.

We particularly recognize the unique hardships that forest workers, communities and firms right across Canada are experiencing. The Government of Canada is responding to these challenges and we are committing to providing support for these communities and workers.

Let me remind the member that our government, which includes the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, has met extensively with forest leaders across the country. One of the things we were told was that access to credit was a key priority for them. Our government has listened to them and we have taken immediate action in our stimulus package to provide credit and to address the credit issue.

Our economic action plan created a new extraordinary financing framework, providing up to $200 billion to improve access to financing for Canadian businesses, which certainly includes the forest industry.

Budget 2009 also provided Export Development Canada with more financial flexibility to support businesses during the current economic downturn. EDC has working relationships with 90% of the Canadian forest industry and has new flexibility to work with firms in the forest sector and across the economy to address those financing gaps.

In 2008 EDC provided $13 billion in export insurance, $800 million in financing and $200 million in bonding. Those initiatives totalled $14 billion in financing for the forest sector, including financial assistance to 534 different forest companies. At least $5 billion in new financing is to be delivered under the new business credit availability program. That includes another $50 billion in additional insured mortgage pools.

More specific, our action plan provides $8.3 billion to assist Canadian workers through strengthened EI benefits and enhanced availability of training. That certainly would apply in the situation the member opposite has described. The training programs in place will work for his workers.

Our economic action plan also allocates $1 billion over two years for a community adjustment fund to help mitigate the short-term impacts of economic restructuring in communities. That builds on the $1 billion that our government provided for a community development trust just last year.

Our economic action plan has a long-term vision that includes the expansion of markets, which is critically important to the forestry sector both in North America and overseas. We have allocated $50 million to various programs to achieve this vision. By harnessing the potential of new markets and technologies, our industry is reinventing itself and preparing for a competitive comeback that will reinforce and sustain its international reputation as a leader in the world's forest industry.

We are working closely with industry to develop our wood construction market. We are working with it to raise the profile of Canadian wood products. We are encouraging value-added manufacturing, promoting the transfer of technology from labs and research facilities right onto the floors of industry.

It is clear that the future health of Canada's forest sector will depend on innovation and on industrial and entrepreneurial creativity and we are supplying support for that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, granted, in some of these situations, the situation and programs the member is describing may prove to be beneficial, or not. However, the situation is the Grand Falls-Windsor mill. It is gone. There are no markets to explore. There are no research grants to be given. It is gone.

Let me switch gears slightly and talk about the fact that there has to be an investment in environmental remediation. This is a mill that has operated for over 100 years. Within the Department of Natural Resources, will there be an opportunity for the Grand Falls-Windsor mill to receive federal money to help it clean up environmentally?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are focused on the future. As I mentioned, there are a number of initiatives. The $1 billion community adjustment fund certainly comes to mind in terms of communities making adjustments that have taken place because of changes in their economy.

I need to point out a couple of the other investments we have made that may impact places where traditional mills have shut down. We have included a special $170 million forestry sector package which focuses $120 million on innovation, such as finding new products and working on new fibre products for the future. It also includes $50 million on market expansion, trying to find new markets for new products and for the old products that we have had in the past. A strategic $120 million investment is being made to ensure Canada continues to be a leader in developing and demonstrating innovative and sustainably produced forest products.

Through FPInnovations, the federal government has supported revolutionary research regarding the application of nanotechnology in the forestry industry. Certainly the forestry industry is changing over the years, and we will be there for the workers and the communities.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:20 p.m.)