House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was percenters.

Topics

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on wasteful government expenditures. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Ottawa—Vanier.

It has taken less than four years for the Conservative government to spiral into a pattern of abuse of power, irresponsible spending, wasteful ways, hypocrisy, arrogance, character assassination and defamation.

Today, I would like to discuss the issue of the government's misuse of taxpayers' dollars and argue that the practice of sending ten percenters should be limited to members' own ridings or eliminated altogether. I will be speaking on how the government's wasteful spending has gotten out of control, the damage it continues to cause, and the corrective actions that we as parliamentarians should be taking.

While all Canadians understand that we are going to have to tighten our belts to get out of this $56 billion Conservative-made deficit, the public servants who deliver these important services cannot bear the entire burden. The Conservatives should start by cutting their own wasteful spending, like the hundreds of millions in partisan economic action plan advertising and contracts for high-paid consultants, not by cutting services to the public down to the bare bone.

An easy first step would be to eliminate the mass mailings known as ten percenters outside of an MP's own riding. This would save taxpayers $20 million.

Control of the government's structural deficit must begin at home. Some days ago, my hon. colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl released a list of non-essential government spending that has spiked $1.2 billion since 2006 when the Conservatives took power. The list is breathtaking for its arrogance. It states, “In recent years, the biggest spending increases by this government have been in areas that promote the Conservative agenda or dole out contracts to their friends. This waste should be cut first”. It cannot be made more clear than that.

Canadians do not want the government to use taxpayers' funds for self-aggrandizement or self-promotion. They definitely do not want their government to spend tens of millions of dollars of their money on advertising. Canadians want to see results, not commercials or billboards. This shameless self-promotion has to end. The numbers are astronomical since the Conservatives took power in 2006.

Under the Conservatives, spending on transportation and communications has risen by $820 million or 32% since they took power and, by comparison, in the last four years of the previous Liberal government, this category only increased by 2.3%. Spending on management consultants went up by $355 million over the same period. That is an astounding 165% increase.

Public opinion research has also gone up by $5 million, the increase in the size of the cabinet has cost taxpayers an additional $3 million, and spending on the economic action plan advertising campaign has skyrocketed to well over $100 million. The expansion of the communication support services in the Prime Minister's Office cost $1.7 million, and excessive spending on ten percenters has cost well over $20 million.

This non-essential spending spree has cost taxpayers cumulatively $1.2 billion and comes at a time when government is preaching austerity and the tightening of our belts. This is pure hypocrisy, as is using the Canada jet to fly to a photo op in London, Ontario, at a doughnut chain to announce freezes, cutbacks and rollbacks. What is wrong with flying on a commercial airline? It is more hypocrisy.

While the Conservatives expect everyone else to reduce, reuse and recalibrate their spending, they pad their own coffers with an additional 22% or $13 million to boost the Prime Minister's Office. This increase came before they announced a freeze in salaries and budgets. The purpose was to provide support and advice to the Prime Minister. It is purely hypocritical and shameful. Canadians expect and deserve better.

Our motion is clear. I hope every member takes time to reflect upon it, be reminded of our purpose here, what is expected of us, and remember to lead by example.

Ten percenters were designed as a useful tool to communicate with our constituents, but they have eroded into a political propaganda machine that has been abused by the government. Ten percenters have become purely political attack pieces sent to targeted voters in targeted ridings with negative messaging and partisan advertising, abusing the trust of taxpayers, the trust that taxpayers put in their politicians, us as members of Parliament.

Ten percenters were designed to be an effective communication vehicle. Their purpose was to inform constituents of happenings locally or in Ottawa, to create awareness of issues that matter to them, or advance programs in their ridings and communities, town hall meetings, community fairs, art shows, et cetera, but all that has changed. Materials printed used to be screened by the Board of Internal Economy for use of party logos and avert partisanship, but it cannot police them anymore. Today we see logos everywhere. Partisanship is rampant.

During the past year, we have seen it all: vicious, misleading, untrue information distributed across the country; damaging attacks which attack the very character of persons, those of us here, in the form of slander, damage that cannot be easily repaired. I am sure members will remember it well. It is something that the Speaker of the House has had to rule upon when points of privilege were raised. Passionate debates and votes ensued, and apologies followed from Conservative members.

I remind members of some of the examples, such as accusations that Bloc members were supporting pedophiles, how reprehensible, or that Liberals allegedly were anti-Semitic, unpatriotic, or Taliban supporters. What could be further from the truth?

The next time a Conservative member is asked to send out a ten percenter defaming, assaulting or assassinating the character of a peer, I hope he or she thinks twice. These ten percenters now go above and beyond members of Parliament using them as a communications tool. They have become a cesspool for partisan Conservative propaganda, all on the backs of Canadian taxpayers.

Ludicrous, frivolous and vexatious accusations are unacceptable, not to mention costing taxpayers $20 million per year, with more than 10 million ten percenters being sent out per month.

The members who sent out the material apologized, but let us face it, the damage can never be repaired and the Conservatives know it.

I would like to list some of the more egregious abusers of this privilege, but the news is in an article that is readily available. The top 19 out of 20 are Conservative Party members. In fact, 38 of the top 40 are Conservatives, and Conservatives accounted for 62% of all printing costs, even though they only represent 45% of the members of the House, with a large percentage of the list being cabinet ministers. This is clearly an abuse of a privilege.

We are all aware of the limitations of ten percenters. They allow us to mail to 10% of our ridings, and that is an average of 4,000 or 5,000 households depending on the size of the riding. We send the artwork to printing and distribution, and it makes sure that we fall within the guidelines.

The Conservatives have found a way to enhance their allotment. We have reached a point where parliamentarians on the government side have purchased their very own printing presses and paper-folding machines. They keep them in their offices for attack purposes and they share those expenses. Instead of a 10% limit, they mass produce more of those same flyers, fold them and send them out.

Surely, as parliamentarians we must stand up and put a stop to such measures. The Liberal Party was calling for restraint on ten percenters last fall. We requested that ten percenters be limited to a member's own riding, that the practice of ten percenter regrouping be abolished, that the name of the leader of the sending member's party be included in the ten percenter, and that that leader explicitly endorse the content of the product. Why not eliminate them outright and save $20 million?

On this side of the House, we have been advocating the idea of reallocating the $1.2 billion in wasteful spending to high priority areas such as job creation, investment in innovation, R and D, early childhood learning, education or health care, investments in ways that our economy can grow, how jobs can grow, and investing in the jobs and economy of tomorrow.

The Conservatives preach austerity and cost controls, budget cuts and freezes, but why do they not look in the mirror? They are waist deep in waste, and the buck stops with them.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I recognize the hon. member for Kitchener--Conestoga, but I would ask all members to be mindful that the use of props is forbidden in the House.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Madam Speaker, the member opposite engaged in some pretty aggressive finger pointing at the Conservative Party. Repeatedly, throughout her speech, she called for leadership by example.

I have with me here a ten percenter. I am not holding it up; I am just reading from it. It is a ten percenter that went into a riding that was not the riding of the Liberal Party member. On it is a picture of a backpack of one of our Canadian soldiers with a Canadian flag. It says: “We used to wear it with pride”. On the front of it is a Liberal logo prominently displayed. On the back, it refers to turning our backs on the proud Canadian traditions of diplomacy, peacekeeping, human rights and international development.

The current budget has more dollars in it for international development than any previous budget. This is clearly misleading. In terms of the pride with which our men and women in uniform serve our country, I think the record of this government is clear. We stand behind and with our men and women in uniform.

Is this the kind of material that she would refer to as leading by example?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Madam Speaker, I misunderstood the question. Clearly, given the question, you would be supporting the motion, since you would like the practice to be eliminated, and you find—

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order. I would ask the hon. member to address her comments through the Chair.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Madam Speaker, since 38 of the 40 top most egregious ten percenters come from the government side, I can see that the hon. member must be in agreement with our motion and would like to put an end to this reprehensible practice.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, I am sure that my hon. colleague's excitement will also be brought to bear on the notion that the New Democrats put forward today and her party for some reason rejected.

If we were able to stop the attacks that she mentioned in her speech, and I would hope that my Conservative colleagues would express, at least privately, some regret at calling one of the Liberal members anti-Semitic. He is a gentleman who has spent much of his time working for the cause of the Jewish people in Canada, if not most of his life.

The Conservative Party used a ten percenter to accuse this member of anti-Semitism. I hope that there is regret on that side for this, as I hope there is regret from the Liberal Party for the accusations about Canadians not being able to be proud. I would suggest that this tool has been abused and misused by most, if not all, parties in this place.

The recommendation the New Democrats have made is that, while it is important to communicate with Canadians about important issues, there ought to be a limit on attacks against individual members in this place, duly elected by their constituents, or their parties or leaders.

Can we not find a way to communicate with Canadians without bashing one another and bringing the debate to a lower level every time? My hon. colleague from Mississauga began his question and comments today with that very thought. We are bringing the debate down in this country. Would she not see the proposal that the NDP has put forward as a reasonable one?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the proposal that the New Democratic Party has brought to the floor is not workable. As we know, the ten percenters are already monitored today by the Board of Internal Economy for their partisanship and use of logos, and they are not enforced, so the proposal is not workable.

The member mentioned the most egregious example, where the Conservatives accused a renowned international lawyer on human rights, who is himself of the Jewish faith, of being anti-Semitic. Today, we voted unanimously to take that issue to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

A very brief question, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River has 20 seconds.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Madam Speaker, I was just doing the math on this. There are 10 million pieces a week of these ten percenters and the Conservatives are just squirming to get up and give more examples of how MPs are abusing these ten percenters. I made a call last year and the guy who mails this stuff said that it is mailed by the kilogram and by the pallet. There is a special deal with the post office: $10 million for printing and $10 million for postage, but it is paid for by the kilogram and pallet. Does she not think that there is a whole lot of savings that could be—

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order. The hon. member has 15 seconds to respond.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Madam Speaker, the $1.2 billion in excessive government waste, not to mention the $20 million plus, could go to far greater purposes. As the hon. member has mentioned, the number far exceeds $20 million. It could go to such purposes as job creation, investment in innovation, research and development—

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Madam Speaker, I, too, am very pleased to take part in this discussion.

I will focus exclusively on the matter of ten percenters. For people who may be tuning in now or listening to the debate, I will take a minute to try to explain what they are.

Every member of Parliament in the House is entitled to send to his or her constituents a householder four times a year. In addition, we are also allowed, as members, to send to 10% of the population in the riding, what is now called a ten percenter, as often as we want.

Over the years, and I would love to understand exactly when it happened and perhaps someday someone will look into it, it evolved to allowing members to send these beyond the borders of their riding as well. Someone told me that it was at the time of a redistribution and members were allowed to send those out to introduce themselves.

Be that as it may, it has now become the routine and the practice in the House that members can send ten percenters to anyone in any other riding as well.

The debate we are now engaged in as parliamentarians is whether this practice has become abusive in the way we have turned to using it. I am not casting aspersions on any particular party. I think we are all engaged in this practice. It is very legitimate discussion on whether we should continue that practice.

I hear numbers that are rather astronomical in terms of their use, ranging from up to or even more than 10 million such pieces being sent per month by one party. I have no way of confirming that. The information is not readily available to members. However, I have yet to hear anyone deny it, and I have yet to hear anyone deny that we are costing taxpayers in excess of $10 million through these instruments.

They have also evolved in their nature. It used to be they were perhaps used to inform and advise, first, our constituents and then beyond. They have evolved to include the logos of parties and, in some instances, almost as attack pieces on individual sitting members. I, for one, think that is wrong and is a misuse of public funds.

I also quite squarely put to each and every one of my colleagues the very simple proposition that it is within each of our means to prevent that. Each one of us must sign off on the use of grouped ten percenters that are sent in a riding, where 10 members get together and each assign themselves 10% and off it goes to someone else's riding. We must give our permission for our name to be put on those.

I will stand here and say that I have squarely refused to engage in that behaviour. All members in the House, regardless of party, has the same ability to refuse if they perceive the practice has become abusive. I have heard comments from here and there that indeed there is that perception. Therefore, I invite them to consider, the same as I have decided, not to allow my party and the officers in my party to send those under my name. I will let that stand where it is.

This thing has now grown beyond these matters. I refer my members to November 18, 2008, the first day of this 40th Parliament, when we were asked to pick a Speaker. Six of us let our names stand. All of us made the same comments on the need for more decorum, civility, respect of each other, especially in the situation where the government is in a minority Parliament.

After these debates and the vote and our current Speaker was reaffirmed in his position, the four party leaders in the House stood up, and I would like to quote what they said.

The Prime Minister, speaking to the Speaker, said:

Today I believe a clear message has been sent. Your colleagues have expressed their desire to see better order prevail in this House, and I am confident that you will ensure that our debates are productive and civilized.

The leader of the official opposition said:

At a time when Canada has a minority government and is facing economic turmoil, we need to have cooperation more than ever. We need to have decorum and mutual respect. We all count on you to help this House with that. It is a responsibility that we must all share as well.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois said:

That said, I believe that we must improve the way we do business in this House. Everyone has called for greater decorum and more discipline. I believe that all parties have a duty to help make things better.

The leader of the NDP said:

One thing became very clear to all of us and it was raised in this discussion. We have to do a better job on behalf of Canadians to represent the kind of dignified and respectful debate that they look for in the House of Commons. I believe there may be a new sense that we are intent on doing that. I want to encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to use the powers that you have at your disposal to make sure that happens.

This would indicate that there was at the time a genuine desire to see if we could improve the situation. I put to my colleagues in the House that if some ten percenters are used as attack pieces by whomever, against whomever, it does not add to the decorum, the civility and the ability to get along and to work together, whether we may agree on certain issues because we will disagree. This is after all a house of partisan matters. We come here espousing certain beliefs and certain views. We are here to discuss them and to try to convince each other of the rightfulness of our approach. Then at the end of the day a vote is taken and whatever the majority view prevails and we go on.

If we are to engage in these sort of attacks, heaven help us all. It will be very difficult to engage in a very respectful manner. Therefore, I certainly hope we would discontinue the use of ten percenters beyond one's riding.

I understand the NDP has put forward an amendment, but I cannot subscribe to it in the sense that we have, as members of Parliament, an untold range of options available to us to communicate not only with our own constituents, but beyond, be it mail, email, the national media, websites, social media, be it going there and visiting. We have all these capacities at our disposal.

I would hope if we see an abuse of a particular device that has been made available to members, that we would curtail it. The national media have called for that as well. When Le Devoir did a very lengthy and detailed piece on this, it sparked a lot of interest, so much so that the Globe and Mail then picked it up and pontificated about ten percenters. It did not come to a clear decision, but the Toronto Star did. The National Post went even further to say that all ten percenters should be abolished. I do not think we could go that far. They can be a very useful tool for a member in the riding that he or she represents. The Edmonton Journal also called for them to be curtailed.

We have a series of circumstances that have grown beyond what I believe was their original intent, to give a tool to members to communicate with their constituents. That is still a valid use of that tool, but its use beyond ridings has grown into proportions that cast us all in a bad light. I really do believe we ought to take a very serious look, collectively, at curtailing that practice.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments and I say that sincerely, not just in the usual polite way that we often address our colleagues across the aisle.

I have sat here and listened to this debate all day long. It is emblematic of the problem because it has been a divisive debate and a debate on a motion that is designed simply to score points. The back and forth debate all day has been about scoring points until the hon. member opposite rose. I am grateful because his comments embraced the spirit of non-partisanship, if I can call it that, in the House. In the same spirit, I encourage him in that and thank him for that.

He referred to some of the comments that were made at the beginning of this Parliament about decorum in the House. I could not agree with him more when he said that it was within the power of each one of us to stop this divisiveness and stop the point scoring that seems to go on.

However, does the member think that same philosophy might be usefully applied to question period? Just the other day, for example, a scurrilous accusation was impugned in question period that the government had interfered in a court case with a former government member. Could we not all benefit if that kind of thing stopped?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Madam Speaker, I would love to have a debate in this House about question period and I might have some opinions that the member might be interested in as well. We are on ten percenters but I will, nonetheless, try to address it.

I get asked this question quite often by Canadians, not only from the riding I represent but from across the country. My answer is pretty well the same every time. I tell them that there is one member in the House whose behaviour I can control and that is mine. Therefore, I have committed in my behaviour in this House to be as respectful as I can, to be truthful and to be as direct as I possibly can.

Beyond the fact that I categorically refuse to send ten percenters beyond the riding of Ottawa--Vanier, I also refuse to engage in certain questions during question period. It is an individual decision as to how we ask a question, whether or not we were prepared to ask it, and, having been on the other side, answering them as well. It is also an individual decision within certain restrictions because we are all part of a political party and a political formation, so there is that reality as well.

It behooves us all individually to improve the decorum in this House and the responsibility rests with each and every one of us.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, once again I want to note that the Prime Minister, when he was the opposition leader back on November 4, 2005, said that there was no more important job than cleaning up government and bringing accountability back to Ottawa.

What sort of cleaning up of Ottawa and bringing accountability back to Ottawa have we seen under the government in the last four years when government advertising has skyrocketed, the use of government aircraft continues unabated, external consultants have been hired in larger numbers than ever before and the cabinet, the PMO and the Privy Council Office have all increased in size?

There is no improvement over what he suggested. If he juxtaposed that to what Prime Minister Chrétien promised in his--

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. I must give the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier equal time to respond.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Madam Speaker, as this particular period of five minutes is called questions and comments, I will take that as a comment and not a question.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to debate the motion before us today.

When we formed the government in 2006, our top priority was to stand up for accountability and transparency and to change the way government works. After all, we were elected on the heels of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which still taints the Liberal Party and many of the members on that side of the House to this day. Canadian taxpayers have still not recovered from the more than $50 million that were funnelled by Liberals to their friends, and I have yet to hear the hon. member who moved this motion express even one-tenth of the outrage he claims to feel today.

Like many Canadians, I remember the length and extremes to which members of the party opposite went in defence of their sponsorship entitlements. I am left wondering if the hon. member's outrage and indignation would disappear if only members of his party were still benefiting financially from their entitlements, but they are not, not any more. Tax dollars paid by hard-working Canadians are no longer paying the Liberal Party's Visa bill.

We offered Canadians a choice. The Prime Minister offered Canadians an opportunity to walk away from the politics of partisan self-interest and Liberal entitlement. Canadians elected us on a commitment to a more accountable government. This government and the Prime Minister have delivered.

Our first major achievement was the Federal Accountability Act. This landmark piece of legislation made substantive changes to 45 statutes and amends over 100 others. It delivered on the government's promise to put in place a five year lobbying ban, to eliminate corporate and union donations, and to protect whistleblowers, among many other important reforms.

In everything we do, we are driven to ensure that our activities stand up to the highest level of public scrutiny. This extends to our work on the communications front, including advertising.

What does not stand up to scrutiny is the hypocrisy oozing from the Liberal benches. Listen to this quote: “The public has a fundamental right to know what its government is doing and why, all the time”. Who said that? The member for Wascana, the same member who later boasted that the Liberal government was spending $110 million in 2002-03 to keep Canadians informed of programs, services and initiatives.

What we are seeing is just more evidence that the Liberal Party does not see a difference between tax dollars and Liberal funds. The Liberals spent years defending the illegal transfer of taxpayer dollars to their party, but now they claim outrage at legitimate advertising expenses.

As we all know, the economic action plan is a crucial part of our plan to help Canadians weather the global economic recession. It includes measures to help Canadian businesses and families and to secure Canada's long-term prosperity. I am proud to say that our economic action plan is on track and it is delivering results for Canadians.

Thanks to almost 16,000 projects across Canada, more and more Canadians are back at work, and over 12,000 of those projects have begun or have already been completed.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

It being 6:37 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 16, 2010, at the end of government orders.

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

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Madam Speaker, I asked a question in the House which was not answered satisfactorily with respect KAIROS and its abuse by the government. CIDA has cut KAIROS off from a 35 year relationship with the government over an amount of about $7 million.

All the studies and all the reports indicate, the latest being the Auditor General's report, that CIDA is in a state of disarray. It is a broken system. There is a high staff turnover. There are too many people in Ottawa and too few people in the field.

All the reports are themes and variations on the same thing. CIDA is broken. There is no impetus on the part of the government to fix it. There is no senior leadership that is prepared to fix it. There is no attempt to make the minister responsible for CIDA an independent full-fledged minister. There is no effort on the part of the government to make CIDA into the institution that it should be.

Bill C-293, the one legislated mandate with respect to CIDA, is ignored completely, so the minister is left to set her own priorities. Over the past number of years, there have been dozens of priorities that have literally been set and reset.

Into this maelstrom of a mess, of a dysfunctional ministry with a weak minister and an ever-changing set of priorities, comes KAIROS and every other NGO. Therefore, KAIROS applied for its funding. It was told by the agency that it would qualify and it sat on the minister's desk for six months. Then literally one night it gets a telephone call, saying it does not qualify because it does not meet the priorities, whatever the priorities are.

Then a couple of weeks later, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said that really the reason it was defunded was because it is anti-Semitic. If KAIROS is anti-Semitic, then so also is everyone else in the House.

It is just awful. It is even worse than that. Not only was it defunded because of some political agenda, but this hurts people. This hurts the poor people.

In this morning's paper, there is an article by Geoffrey York about the way in which rape is used as a weapon of war in the Congo. It describes a variety of programs that are not effective. The one exception is the KAIROS program.

Here is what Geoffrey York says about it. He goes on to describe a situation involving Eliza M'kazine who was raped. She said, “I was like a dead person. Whenever I saw a man walking toward me, I was afraid it was a soldier coming to rape me again”.

He says:

Ms. M'kazine was counting on help from a Congolese human-rights group, Heritiers de la justice, which promised to train her to instruct sexually assaulted women about their legal rights. The program was to be launched this year with $75,000 from Canada. “It gave me strength and courage”, said Ms. M'kazine.

But the program was cancelled. The Canadian government abruptly halted its grants to KAIROS, the Canadian church charity that was supporting the Congolese human-rights group. Citizenship Minister...said it was because of the charity's position on Israel. After a storm of controversy, he said it was actually because the charity did not meet the government's "current priorities...

The church leaders have asked for a meeting to clear the air with the Prime Minister. Yet the government has repeatedly refused the church leaders for an opportunity to clear the air.

6:40 p.m.

Kootenay—Columbia B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to making Canada's international assistance more focused, efficient and accountable. We have made huge strides in implementing our aid effectiveness agenda. We have fought long and hard about how to improve aid and we have brought in some important changes that will help to ensure we deliver on our aid promises both to developing countries and to the Canadians we represent.

Our aid effectiveness agenda will concentrate our resources for a greater impact and will leverage the work of our development partners. CIDA is focusing a portion of our aid on 20 countries and has adopted three priority themes: increasing food security; securing the future of children and youth; and stimulating sustainable economic growth. The priorities we have identified reflect the interests and challenges faced by our partner countries and are consistent with the principles that guide other donor countries' approaches.

I will now turn to the funding question regarding KAIROS.

Setting priorities is about making choices, and sometimes choices are difficult. The recent Speech from the Throne stated that we are a country and a government that stands up for what is right in the world. We will not pursue the easiest path. We do what is right.

CIDA thoroughly analyzed KAIROS' program proposal and determined, with regret, that it did not meet the agency's current priorities. This is important.

KAIROS is a faith-based organization with a base of seven individual organizations, also of faith. Many of KAIROS' members, as individual organizations, continue to receive CIDA support for their work in developing countries. Why? Each of them properly followed the application process and put forward proposals that met with our efforts to focus and improve foreign aid.

For example, we continue to support the Primate's World Relief and Development Fund, which is working in Bangladesh, Mozambique, Burundi and Tanzania to improve the health care for women and prevent and treat HIV-AIDS and malaria. We provide funding to the Mennonite Central Committee because it is providing food security through small farmers, as well as income generation activities and meeting basic human needs.

Allow me to list some of the church organizations that receive CIDA funding: United Church of Canada; Adventist Development and Relief Agency; Canadian Baptist Ministries; Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, Canadian Lutheran World Relief; Christian and Missionary Alliance; Christian Reformed World Relief Committee; Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada; Mennonite Central Committee of Canada; Nazarene Compassionate Ministries; Presbyterian World Service & Development; Anglican Church of Canada; and the Salvation Army. That is not the complete list.

As previously mentioned, and as the Minister of International Cooperation has said in this House, this was a difficult decision to make, but decisions like this are necessary to improve our aid.

CIDA simply cannot fund every proposal. Without a doubt, our foreign aid needs will be focused, effective and accountable. Our government has made some difficult decisions, but they were the right decisions.

Allow me to list some proof that the Conservative government is the best government Canada has seen with respect to aid. We doubled our aid to Africa. We are doubling our foreign aid. We are bringing our aid to a record $5 billion. This is more foreign aid than ever before.

Clearly, our government delivers on our commitments. We get real results. The opposition parties can play politics and throw as much mud as they would like, but the facts remain in our favour.

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Madam Speaker, the mud was thrown by the current government when it called them anti-Semitic. Every one of the church leaders that the member mentioned has asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister to clear the air. Thus far, the Prime Minister has ignored them. The Mennonites, the Catholics, the United Church, the Presbyterians, the leadership of all of the churches that he mentioned, have repeatedly, since January 21, asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister and he has refused. He has refused to meet them because he has unfairly slandered them.

One of the reasons they pool their resources is that they can be more effective. That is why the Mennonites, the Baptists, the Catholics, everybody works together. They are more effective when they pool their resources. Now it has become extremely serious because these women in the Congo looking for support from KAIROS, a very modest grant, an effective grant, an effective grant in a situation of chaos, one of the few programs that was actually working, the current government cut. It is wrong. It was wrong today and it will be wrong tomorrow.

If this is the government's idea of priorities, then we need a real serious conversation.