Debates of Feb. 27th, 2009

Government Expenditures

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, what the government is doing is advancing the output of this money from the June date to an April date. The same controls apply to this. The reason why we are putting the money out earlier is so that there can be a stimulus in the economy.

The coalition kept on saying it had a plan to get the money out quicker. The only plan it has is to block Canadians' access to money for infrastructure.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should remember what Justice Gomery said about how the lack of criteria for the funds in the special reserve for Canadian unity was undeniably an error, and that it invited abuse.

Will the government reconsider and come up with guidelines and criteria to avoid ending up with another outrage like the Liberal sponsorship scandal?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member was not listening to the answer I gave earlier. The same controls exist on the $3 billion if it goes out in April or if it goes out in June.

If the member would only read the material that has been put out, if she would attend the briefing sessions that my department and the Department of Finance has provided to members, she would understand that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his report, Justice Gomery quoted the former clerk of the Privy Council, Alex Himelfarb, who stated that the lack of criteria was not illegal in and of itself, but that it was dangerous.

How can this government, which strongly condemned the sponsorship scandal, ignore Justice Gomery when he says, and I quote, “The absence of clear program criteria opens the selection process to dangerous forces and pressures”?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the member wrote her question before I gave the last answer, so I will just repeat the last answer. The same criteria are in place. We agree with Judge Gomery that we cannot simply shovel money out without criteria.

What we are doing here is ensuring that the money moves earlier; instead of the June date, the April date. The same criteria are in place. We agree with Judge Gomery.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to reassure people, but nobody is buying it.

This government is about to create a $3 billion slush fund that it can spend between April 1 and June 30 without reporting to Parliament at all.

Is the government aware that there is a limit to using the economic crisis as an excuse to spend $3 billion without any criteria, controls or safeguards?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member could have taken the time to come to the briefings and her questions would have been answered.

I am prepared to assure her that the same criteria are in place to safeguard the expenditure of that money. Plus, the Liberals have put this government on probation. We have to bring a report back to the House. If the Bloc member can rest assured that having a Liberal probation officer is a sufficient criteria, I think we are in good shape here.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister is reacting like a school-yard bully to the opposition's request for accountability in the matter of the $3 billion slush fund. This is what the Auditor General said in 2002 about the Liberals' sponsorship fund: “...the basic principle at the root of our concerns is simple: spending by departments must have the prior sanction of Parliament”.

How can the Conservatives justify using the same methods as the Liberals used in the sponsorship scandal? How can they just ignore the Auditor General's warnings about slush funds?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member is entitled to go to the briefings as well. There is a criterion and there is a parliamentary vote that authorizes it. This whole discussion is about a parliamentary vote that will flow the $3 billion on April 1, or soon thereafter, instead of in June so we can meet the demands of that member who said that he wanted the money to flow sooner. He is simply speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He does not want to see the money flow.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the help of the so-called Liberal Party, under its new right-wing leader, the Conservative government has rammed through its budget bill faster than any other in the past 10 years.

If the Liberals will not ask the tough questions of the government's budget, then we will and so will Canadians.

Last night, on CTV Newsnet, the parliamentary secretary said that the idea of a website, like recovery.gov proposed by President Obama in the United States, is “a great idea and something that the Minister of Finance is looking into seriously”.

That is easy to say in an interview but will the government do it, yes or no.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are always open to good ideas but, unfortunately, they do not often come from that side of the House.

While I am on my feet, in answering a previous question I suggested that “The Fiscal Monitor” would be out soon. As a matter of fact, it is. I have it in my hands right now and I would gladly share it with the member for Markham—Unionville because he is so looking forward to it.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question was: Was the parliamentary secretary telling the truth when he said yesterday on CTV that we would have the same transparency as the Americans?

On the Obama recovery.gov website, citizens can track spending “as forecast in legislation”. One problem for the government, though, is there is no such legislation that directs where the $3 billion slush fund will go.

How can Canadians follow a $3 billion discretionary fund that has not even been accounted for in this Parliament?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is what we are having this discussion about. There will be a vote in the House and that there will be regular reporting to Parliament because the Liberals have put our government on probation. So there is a mechanism to assure the member that the expenditures of the money are properly done on a quarterly basis.

If the member wants other briefings, I would be happy to provide those briefings to him.

Agriculture

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board yesterday tried to defend his record of failure at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting, but the facts belie the truth.

At committee, witnesses from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association responded that the minister has not delivered. He insulted P.E.I. producers with 1¢ per pound crop loss, announcing $12 million but delivering $3 million. Now estimates show that the $100 million per year cost of production funding is cancelled, agri-flexibility omitted.

Farmers deserve better. Why do Conservatives make promises and never deliver, especially to farmers?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member knows how much we have done for livestock producers. We can say that we are standing for farmers. In the last two years, we delivered over $1.2 billion to livestock producers through our new business risk management programs and we have provided $550 million in emergency loans with the first $100,000 being interest free.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the main estimates, it was indicated that there was a $40 million cut in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans without any forewarning.

I expect the minister is fully aware of the great need for such things as small craft harbour repairs and science and research, just to name a couple.

Why will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans allow this $40 million cut when she fully understands the demands that are on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that those estimates include some deferrals. The main reason for that difference is some movement and transfer of moneys from this fiscal year to next the fiscal year to deal with the issue of the mid-shore patrol vessels.

I would like to add that as of yesterday the industry was notified that we would be continuing with the procurement of the mid-shore patrol vessels.

Arts and Culture

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are aiming at the wrong targets. They are washing their hands of the shortfall at Radio-Canada and CBC. In addition, they are cutting funding for the National Arts Centre.

Experts continue to say that cultural activities create economic activity, but the Conservatives do not care.

What do the Conservatives have against arts and culture?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to read budget 2009, our economic action plan, a budget that puts more money behind arts and culture than any budget in the history of Canada and any government that certainly she would have been a part of in the past.

We are standing up for arts and culture in this country and putting more money behind it because we believe in it and we believe it is an economic driver. We believe it is part of the heart and soul of this country.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may believe this but the problem is that they do not do anything about it.

The CBC and Radio-Canada are taking a direct hit from the economic crisis. Management does not have the option of borrowing, and the Conservatives do not want to help, in spite of those very nice words. They are considering some desperate solutions to balance its books, such as asset sales and less Canadian programming. Can anyone imagine having more American programs? The list goes on and it is not pretty.

We, on this side of the House, care about the CBC and Radio-Canada and its future. Why do the Conservatives not care?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to give the member some context. A direct hit would be like what the Liberals did in 1995 when they slashed CBC's funding by 40% in the 1995 budget. That is a direct hit.

However, that is not what we are doing. We are maintaining funding to the CBC. We are providing it with $1.1 billion in funding in this budget, with no cuts to the CBC. We expect that the CBC will still be able to deliver the product that Canadians have come to expect.

Access to Information

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the conclusions in the Information Commissioner's report confirm this government's culture of secrecy. Processing times are increasing because the majority of access to information requests have to go through the Prime Minister's Office before being made public.

How can the Prime Minister, who promised transparency, justify putting his interests first and denying those of citizens wishing to have access to information?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I must correct the member. The decision to release or protect information is not driven by the political people. It is driven by the government department that has a staff of public servants who are trained in the Access to Information Act. In fact, our government increased access to government information. We have seen, in 2007-08, an increase of 38% in requests over five years.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that may be true, but processing times continue to increase.

The commissioner states that the Access to Information Act is in terrible shape because of a lack of leadership at the highest levels of government.

How can the government explain its lack of action after Judge Gomery and four commissioners have denounced Liberal secrecy and this government's lack of transparency?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, as I recall, it was that member and his party, along with Liberals and New Democrats, who opposed the opening up of the Access to Information Act to include more crown corporations. We opened up access to the Wheat Board, the CBC and dozens of other institutions. The members should have worked with us to ensure that there was access. We got the job done. They refused to do it.