Debates of March 23rd, 2010

Employment Insurance Act

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made earlier today the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 24, 2010, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

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

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on March 4 I asked a question of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has declined to direct his ministers to be open, transparent and accountable, when it comes to access to information requests.

This stands in stark contrast to the attitude in the United States under President Barack Obama. He really took leadership. On the President's first day in office, he issued an executive order and two presidential memoranda, suggesting and establishing a presumption of disclosure of information that is requested under the freedom of information act.

In Canada, a troubling situation has developed. Requests for information about what the government is doing are being delayed, disrupted and, really, are harming Canadian democracy.

For example, three Conservative cabinet ministers are under investigation by the Information Commissioner. However, the Information Commissioner has had to go even further than that. I quote:

The scope and focus of the systemic investigation will be expanded to examine whether political interference in the processing of access requests is a cause of delay or unduly restricts disclosure under the Act, including any reviews and approvals by the offices of ministers or institutional heads.

This is a very serious issue. Not only do we not have an open, transparent and accountable government but now we have to have our Information Commissioner going forward to see if there is some kind of interference by a minister's office, by staff, by members of other parties, for us to get information.

The Information Commissioner is in place to assist individuals and organizations who believe that federal institutions have not respected their rights under the Access to Information Act. She has been very active because of the government's unwillingness to be accountable to Canadians.

For example, most recently, it was reported that a staff member from the office of the then public works minister had attempted to unrelease information that had been requested by a reporter. A CP reporter, who broke the story on how his access request was handled by the office of the minister, is a veteran access to information user and has been using the system since it came into force in 1983. He said that, in his opinion, the access to information system has pretty much ground to a halt and that he has never seen the system so broken.

A March 2008 access to information request, for example, by the Liberal caucus research bureau, for all documents concerning Canada's decision to stop Afghan detainee transfers, was denied in December 2009. That is 639 days later, after the issue had become a full-blown political controversy for the Conservative government. The request was denied because the reports could be used in anticipated or contemplated litigation.

I want to ask again. When is the Prime Minister going to direct his ministers to be open, transparent and accountable? What do they have to hide?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight with respect to access to information and the government's record on this fundamental principle of democracy in Canada.

This government takes citizens' rights of access to information very seriously. In 2006 it was this government that brought in the Federal Accountability Act. We made public institutions more open, accountable and transparent than at any time in the nation's history. We broadened the law to include crown corporations, foundations and agents of Parliament. As a result, 70 more public institutions are now covered by the Access to Information Act, bringing the total number of organizations subject to the legislation to about 255.

These organizations are now accountable to the same Canadian taxpayers who pay their salaries, organizations like the Canadian Wheat Board, the CBC, Via Rail, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, Export Development Canada and many others.

We did not stop there. We fought for Canadians' right to know how their government operates. We eliminated the coordination of access to information request system, known as CAIRS. That system was used by Liberals to centralize control of access to information requests. When Liberals did not like a request or were worried about being exposed, they filed the request away in a sea of bureaucracy. That is not how this government operates.

However, that is not to say there are not sometimes delays. In fact, the very question we are discussing today refers to a case where Treasury Board was not able to respond to a reporter's request in a timely manner. We in this government think that is unacceptable and are working to ensure that all requesters get their answers in as timely a fashion as possible.

I am happy to point out that Treasury Board Secretariat responded to 72% of requests within 30 days last year, but we think we can still do even better. That is why we are still working to improve the system and transparency and openness across the government.

We have also been pleased to work with the information commissioner to ensure that Canadians have access to information about their government. We have taken action to address the issues identified in his report last year. For example, we have asked officials to improve the administration of the Access to Information Act, and we have updated our information management practices to make the information easier to find. This is at the core of being able to provide information to Canadians in a timely manner.

We have developed a new directive on record keeping under the policy on information management. We have also created an information management strategy and an action plan that establishes annual objectives and priorities to support improved information management.

We are working with Statistics Canada to improve how it tracks statistics. We want to make sure that its data are useful and provide a comprehensive picture of the government's access to information and privacy program.

We are also working to train public servants so they have a better understanding and awareness of the act. This is crucial because it is non-partisan and concerns professional public servants who are responsible for administering the act. Elected officials and political staff are not the ones making the decisions regarding these releases.

Lastly, we are committed to ensuring continued improvements in processing requests for information. Last year, for example, we delivered some 75 training sessions for public service officials. On average, we deliver 60 training sessions every single year.

These actions demonstrate the government's unwavering commitment to openness and accountability and to a strong access to information system that serves Canadians first.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I guess members of the government did not get the memo, as it was perhaps redacted.

It is too bad the government does not enforce its legislation to ensure that we have meaningful access to information. Here I note that Robert Marleau, who was the former Access to Information Commissioner, thought the 30-day rule had become the exception rather than the rule.

We really do need to have leadership in this country to ensure open, effective and transparent government. I ask that the government do so.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, leadership she has and will get. That is why we introduced the new accountability act.

Treasury Board Secretariat responded to 72% of requests within 30 days last year, and that takes into consideration those 70 new institutions that we added.

The delays, however, are still unacceptable and not standard practice. We expect individuals who are requesting information to receive a response within a reasonable timeframe.

This government fought for Canadians' right to know how their government operates and our record is clear. We eliminated the system used by the Liberals to centralize control of access to information. We opened up the Wheat Board, the CBC and dozens of other institutions to the Access to Information Act. Seventy new institutions are now accountable to Canadians through the Access to Information Act. For the first time, Canadians can see how these institutions spend their tax dollars.

These are important steps forward toward openness and transparency, steps the Liberals never took. We are committed to running an open and transparent government.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about a growing concern in our society, which is the amount of violence we have started to see in sports.

We have all seen the disturbing images of Marc Savard lying on the ice, not moving after a head shot by Matt Cooke. This is at the NHL level. We have also seen Patrick Cormier and the elbow to Mikael Tam at the junior levels. Unfortunately, what we hear and see more and more are incidents at the amateur levels. Just a few weeks ago a young hockey player in Edmonton was speared and ended up having half of his intestines removed. These are examples of what is tarnishing sports in general but particularly hockey right now.

It is high time this issue of violence in sports is taken seriously. League authorities need help to end the violence. They are doing what they can with the tools that they have, but why does a savage assault, which would result in charges of aggravated assault anywhere else, warrant nothing but a few game suspensions?

That is why we are calling on the government to establish a royal commission on violence in sports. Why a royal commission? I will answer that shortly.

First, let us look at what a royal commission into violence in sports would look like. A royal commission is a government public inquiry into an issue. It is called to look into matters of great importance. These can be matters such as government structure, the treatment of minorities or events of considerable public concern, such as the growing amount of violence in sports.

Royal commissions usually involve research into an issue, consultations with experts both within and outside of government and public consultations as well. If the government agreed to call a royal commission, a number of stakeholders could participate from all affected areas, from amateur sports leagues to all the players, so to speak, in the sporting world.

We could also bring in health and talk to organizations like the Brain Injury Association of Canada, sports psychologists to look at how social trends are affecting sports and members of the legal community to talk about law enforcement so when an assault happened on the ice or on a soccer pitch or on a football field or wherever it would be, we would know what laws to implement.

The royal commission would also allow us to talk about and look into other areas such as coaching, officiating and what the sports equipment manufacturers are making this equipment out of these days, Kevlar for example.

I am huge sports fan. I played, I coached and I refereed hockey, lacrosse and football. A royal commission would allow us to work together in a non-partisan fashion for the betterment of all athletes from young to old and from amateur to professional.

I urge the government to do the right thing and answer the call for a royal commission so our young players can play our games safely, without fear of violence that could end their fun and enjoyment, which is what sport is truly all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I not only commend the member for his efforts in supporting minor sports and his participation in them, but also for his efforts to work with children in Sudbury and to support them in refereeing various sports. These are all things he has done because he is passionate about sport, and I admire that, as a person who is also passionate about it.

On the specific issue raised by the member, I want to assure the member that the government is strongly committed to encouraging a safe and welcoming environment for all sports participants. We are fundamentally opposed to violence in sport at any level.

Guided by the true sport strategy and, frankly, following the true sport steering committee, there was a federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting in 2008. They collectively acknowledged at the meeting the issue of violence in some sports and paid particular attention to hockey. They agreed to encourage sports to take actions to eliminate violence in sport with a view to creating a healthier and safer sport environment. Ministers directed the officials to monitor the progress on eliminating violence in sport. As a result of that, the true sport steering committee has established a working group to explore the development of a database to monitor violent incidents in sport.

Our Conservative government, through Sport Canada, provides $700,000 annually to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to support the implementation of the true sport strategy. The CCES promotes the adoption of true sport values and provides information and resources to sport teams, clubs, leagues, organizations and communities to help them ensure that sport participants, especially children and youth, have a safe and positive experience in sport. This is so critical and important.

We discussed this in question period a couple of weeks ago, and I agree with the member. Some of the issues pertain to equipment and the fact that some of this equipment may go a little beyond simply protecting a participant from injuring themselves, and we need to look at those things. However, I also think there is a fundamental issue of respect. We need to encourage respect very broadly in society, not just in sport. If we respect each other when we enter the playing field, whether it is a hockey arena or a football field or wherever that happens to be, then we really go out and compete, but ultimately, there is no intent to injure each other and no malice toward fellow members competing in sport.

That is the beauty of sport. We saw that during the Winter Paralympics and Olympic Games in Vancouver. We saw the power of sport, how it could ignite the human spirit and unite people.

We also see some of the incidents that have occurred, as alluded to by the member, which I think really concern folks. A lot of that comes back to the fundamental issue of respect. We really need to encourage that throughout society and in all factions of society. If we respect each other, then we simply will not do that to each other.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in following my hon. colleague's words and respect, I would also like to show him respect and congratulate him for his efforts with the Canadian Lacrosse team last week. It is great to show our support for that great sport, as also a player, a coach and a ref in that league.

The things my hon. colleague has talked about in relation to some of the things that have been happening now are all on the reactive side of violence in sport. We monitor it when it has already happened.

What we are talking about in violence in sport, in calling on this royal commission, is looking at how we can be proactive, how we can nip this in the bud so we do not see the head shots in hockey, or some of the other violence in other sport. A royal commission allows us to talk with psychologists, look at social trends and all the things that bring violence into sport. It is a way that we can do this in a non-partisan fashion, where we can respect one another and work together to try to end violence in sport.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know the NHL general managers met recently. They came out very strongly and put forward a motion to their board of governors to crack down on hits to the head with very significant penalties. I believe they will do this.

The International Ice Hockey Federation and the Canadian Hockey League are organizing an open ice summit in Toronto in August. They are bringing together constituents in leadership roles responsible for all aspects of the game with the potential to impact hockey at the grassroots level. That is what they are doing to address violence in their sport. They know they have some issues there, and we want to support them in that. We want to ensure that people feel they can participate in sport, and in doing so, they are not subjecting themselves to violence.

[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 6:40 p.m.)