Diane Marleau

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member. He is so angry and insulted. I wonder why he has so much fire in his belly. I can tell you that I am proud to be a Liberal. I am proud to be a member of a party that is here for the entire country, that is here to build an important and successful country.

We have here the Bloc party, an eternal opposition party that can do nothing but oppose everything. That is what we hear. We, the Liberals, want to convince Quebeckers that Canada can work, that we can do many things together and that we will continue to do so.

Nonetheless, with all their fine speeches, I really want to know what this party can do for French Canadians throughout the country other than criticize, blither, yell and trigger an election that people do not really want at this time.

[Property Rights, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 227 introduced by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. The member has been making his points on property rights for at least 10 years now, first with Bill C-284, then Bill C-304, Bill C-313 and currently with Bill C-235. He also tabled motions, including the current one, which was debated on April 21.

During the first hour of debate he stated that his motion was based on a general principle, a principle that he would like Parliament to approve so that eventually property rights would be entrenched in a bill of rights and ultimately that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended accordingly.

During the first hour of debate on this motion, on April 21, my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, explained our government's position very well on the motion being debated today.

In our opinion, the scope of the motion is far too broad; it is unreasonable. And if its principle were incorporated in Canadian law, its application would be impossible under modern governance. Should it be passed and implemented, it could cause major repercussions.

I agree with my colleague.

Speaking on behalf of the government, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River explained that the scope of the motion was far too vague. He added that if it were adopted and put into practice through adoption in Canadian laws, the repercussions based on the current wording would be staggering and that if it were taken to its logical conclusion, it would make much of our current governance unworkable.

I will not repeat the sound arguments made by my colleague. He certainly made a very strong case on the reasons why we oppose the motion. I will instead spend time on what could be the ultimate goal of the member for Yorkton—Melville, that is, amending the Canadian Bill of Rights to increase the protection of property rights in Canada.

The Canadian Bill of Rights is part of Canada's longstanding transition to human rights. The Bill of Rights has included provisions protecting property rights since it has been in force. Section 1 of the Bill of Rights recognizes the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.

Property rights are also protected at the federal level by statute in common law. Federal statutes that regulate the disposition of property have been designed to ensure that people are treated fairly; that is, these laws provide for fair procedures and for fair compensation where property rights are affected.

Property rights are also protected at the provincial level. For example, the Alberta individual rights protection act protects the ownership of property by a due process clause. The Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms provides some protection to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of one's property.

The common law also protects property rights. For example, judges frequently apply the presumption that compensation is required where someone is deprived of their property.

It is also important to note that under the Canadian Constitution, property law is primarily the responsibility of the provincial governments. In fact, section 92(13) of the Constitution Act states that the provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction over civil law and property law, notwithstanding matters under federal jurisdiction according to section 91.

This provision does not mean that the federal government is unable to legislate property law. However, its jurisdiction in this area is clearly limited. Should it reach beyond its jurisdiction, this could raise constitutional issues.

Proposals to include greater protection for private property in the Charter have been rejected many times by provincial governments, since, in their eyes, it would be an intrusion upon their constitutional powers.

Canada already protects property rights in a number of ways. On the whole, the average Canadian enjoys a very high level of protection for property rights under statutes and the common law, including the Canadian Bill of Rights. This is generally true at the provincial level as well. This protection reflects the value that we as Canadians place on property rights.

The right to own things, a home, a car or other possessions, is basic to our way of life. The right to use or dispose of property is also very fundamental to our way of life, but we recognize that these are not unlimited rights. These rights we value very highly in our country. These property rights are ingrained in our legal system. They are ingrained in statutes at the federal level. They are ingrained in statutes at the provincial level. They are ingrained in human rights legislation at the federal level and within the common law.

In fact, a basic premise of our legal system is the right to own and dispose of property. Our laws, whether legislated or judge made, are full of examples of rules concerning the ownership and use of property.

For example, the laws concerning real property, consumer protection or security interests contain many rules protecting both purchasers and vendors. Thus, when I consider the broad range of legislation and judicial precedents that protect property rights, it is not clear to me that the solution offered by the hon. member provides any further protection.

Taking that into account, it is important to reflect on what the proposed motion would actually do if its principle were incorporated into law. It singles out property rights from all the other rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights for very special protection. Again section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights recognizes the rights of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property.

Out of all those very fundamental rights to Canadians, the hon. member tries to raise property rights up for special protection. It seems that all of those rights are very important. When one considers the right to life and liberty, certainly one would not raise the value of property higher than those very special and important rights.

I do not see why, under the circumstances, we should support the motion of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. If it were carried through, it would establish a hierarchy within the rights that are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would not be desirable. Every one of these rights should have equal importance. They are all very important, and I believe it would be inappropriate to try to favour one above the rest.

As I mentioned earlier, the right to own and dispose of property is not an unlimited right. It is limited by laws that regulate the use of property in the public interest. For example, land use, planning and zoning laws may limit the type of building that can be placed on residential lots. They may limit the type of construction in certain types of business districts. Environmental laws regulate everything from the disposal of hazardous waste to the removal of trees. There are laws that regulate the ownership of transactions and shares in limited companies. Other laws regulate bankruptcy and the ownership of corporate interests by non-Canadians, and so on. All of these laws impose real limits on the ownership and use of property.

No one disputes that these are necessary limits in a free and democratic society. When that is realized, it is incumbent upon us to think carefully about the implications of amending the property rights protection in a general human rights document. I am concerned about that effect in general.

The United States has had considerable experience in property rights and we should learn from its experience. On the other hand, Canadian courts have demonstrated that they will go their own way in interpreting the provisions of human rights laws. The proposed motion, if it became a legal principle, would leave us with uncertainty about the meaning of property rights and the effect of the motion on a wide variety of laws that touch on property in one way or another.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do not agree because it was the Liberals who pushed most of the changes to this bill. I cannot tell you what happened in committee with Bill C-25, since I was not there. However, I can say one thing: when there is a will, things get done with the Liberals, and things got done.

One thing I can say is that minority governments may appear to be good, but when Canadians look at this House and see the nastiness, hear the name calling, the false charges and the craziness, I am sure they do not believe that minority governments work.

Minority governments can work, but only if the parties behave responsibly. Minority government says that the onus is not only on government, the onus is on the opposition parties as well. That is most important.

I do not believe for the most part that the opposition has behaved responsibly. The Canadian people know that and they will judge it.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the bill that was tabled before the last elections, the committee had an opportunity to hear only a few witnesses. Even though it did a good job, it could not bring its work to completion. We knew that and we knew we would be proposing another bill. That is what the government did. It reviewed the recommendations of the committee that had reviewed Bill C-25, and it based itself on those recommendations.

A bill will always evolve over time. Such is the case with C-11 that was proposed to us. We knew it was not a perfect bill. Accordingly, we brought it forward and we requested that the committee deal with it after first reading. That is a way the government chose to demonstrate that it was expecting major changes. That is what we did. So, we have a bill which, hopefully, will be effective in protecting whistleblowers and in ensuring that we continue having a good government.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to stand to address this chamber on Bill C-11, an act to protect whistleblowers.

If I may say so, this piece of legislation, which was referred to committee after first reading, is probably one of the best examples of cooperation among groups in this chamber. All parties worked very hard to ensure the best legislation possible. I believe it is, if not the best, then among the best pieces of legislation in the world to protect whistleblowers.

I am here to speak on Bill C-11, which protects whistleblowers and must ensure that they are protected. We met with a number of organizations and amended the bill after listening to what they had to say, to ensure that it did what we wanted it to do, namely protect as fully as possible all public servants who feel the need to make disclosures, because of errors or mistakes. We wanted to ensure that public servants would feel fully protected in future. As you are aware, we managed to convince the government to create an independent agency reporting directly to this Parliament. Public servants have the right to go directly to it and to report to it if they feel uneasy or unsure about reporting directly to their superiors.

Bill C-11 is a great example of the kind of work we can do together. The bill was introduced in the House and sent to committee after first reading. It was done that way so we could make the changes that were appropriate and necessary.

Yes, many changes have been made, not the least of which is an amendment that has been made here today to ensure that it is a totally separate agency that reports directly to the House of Commons. While it is true that the original legislation did not contain that, I can honestly say that we were given a mandate to produce the best possible legislation. Members on both sides of the House took that to heart.

At the beginning of this year the committee sent a unanimous letter to the President of the Treasury Board stating that nothing else would do but a completely independent body to deal with whistleblowers. Because of the magnitude of the change that was made necessary, the President of the Treasury Board actually took this demand to cabinet committees and to full cabinet to get endorsement. He received it. Not only Parliament but also the government supported these changes and made them possible.

It is extremely important that public servants be allowed to choose whether they file a report in their own department. Each department, crown corporation and agency must set up a committee and a plan to deal with people who want to report wrongdoings. It is important that everyone work on this challenge but we thought it appropriate that public servants have the choice of where they wish to report. Some may feel comfortable reporting to their immediate superiors. That is fine. Some may not feel comfortable. People have the choice of going directly to the independent agency to have their concerns either examined or whatever action needs to be taken at that point. All of us certainly hope that this will prevent many wrongdoings. We hope it will make people feel comfortable that their bosses or the people above them will not take action against them.

While the legislation may not be perfect, we have all worked very hard to try to capture the essence of the challenges that were put before us by all of the people who appeared before us. As a result of that, groups such as the RCMP have been included in the legislation. They were not prior to this.

There is also in the legislation a place that would ensure that any kind of losses, financial or otherwise, be paid to those people who may not have had a promotion, who may have been red circled because they had blown the whistle on some wrongdoing. I believe that is essential. It is not always extremely easy for people. People have to realize that if their bosses take any action against them because they have come forward about certain incidents, that the bosses know it will not be acceptable, that someone will listen and not only that but there could be some remuneration. The remuneration and redress so to speak can take place at any time.

The public servant has a duty to report this within 60 days of the time he or she became aware that someone took action against him or her. It could be one year or two years down the line when someone realized that he or she was never promoted and that it must have been when he or she went forward and explained what was happening and since then he or she had been red circled. If someone is just realizing that now, it is not too late. A person has 60 days in which to come forward. I am sure the commissioner would consider any kind of extenuating circumstances if the time were longer.

All parties are in favour of this amended piece of legislation. This is the way Parliament should work. It is a pity that Canadians do not see more of this kind of constructive engagement by all parties. Canadians expect this of us. It often does happen, but it is not always as obvious as we would like it to be. In this case it is certainly something that has made a difference and will make a difference in the future.

Legislation is always a work in progress. We do the best we can with the tools at hand when drafting the legislation. If we have missed something or if one part is not working the way it should, there is a five year review. That review will tell us, hopefully, what worked and what did not work. At that time we can tweak the legislation if it has not been perfect and make sure that it is in better working condition.

In the quest for perfection, we have come a long way with this piece of legislation. Time will tell us whether it is as effective as we want it to be, but we have done everything possible to ensure its effectiveness.

[Main Estimates, 2005-06, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot of heckling tonight.

I have a question for the member from the Bloc Québécois. What does she think about our ancestors' history? It is not about only her ancestors, but mine, ours, the first Canadians, the first French settlers who were called Canadiens. The others, they were called Englishmen.

Our ancestors did not stay for long in one place. They travelled through this great, large country, they opened it, they discovered it and participated in its life. It is a beautiful country. We are proud to be Canadians in this country.

I do not understand how the Bloc Québécois can forget this history that we share, as Francophones and Canadians. Why is this hockey team called The Montreal Canadiens? It is because the players were Francophone Canadians.

I am fed up with those comments. Because I was born in Ontario, just like my parents and my grand-parents, does that mean I have no part in the history of this country. I am sorry, but this is my history and this is our history.

[Main Estimates, 2005-06, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard spin but this is not even good spin. I am trying to figure out what it is exactly that the member wants.

I was at committee when members opposite talked about a war room. It is not a war room. It is a coordinating committee to ensure everyone gives the paper forward.

It is kind of sad. This government called the inquiry because we wanted to get to the bottom of it. Yes, it is costly, but the only way we can clean it up is to air it.

I am angry about this. Are members opposite trying to tell us that Mr. Gomery has not done his job and has not received the information he was looking for? That is not my impression and I think Canadians across the country know we have been cooperating. To be honest, members opposite would not have heard all the things they have if we had not been cooperating. I say to the member that we want to get to the bottom of this. Is it cheap? No. However we are not a lynch mob.

I went to committee today. We want to condemn people. We want to be like a lynch mob. We want to decide who is guilty and who is not. I thought we lived in a democracy. Yes, bad things happen, but we have to make sure that proper legal steps are taken. Yes, we may not like it, but even the worse criminal has the right to a defence, and it is very important that happens.

We cannot impugn motives to members in the House or in the other House. I think it is wrong. I would ask that member to stop the spin and stop impugning motives to honest, hardworking members and especially an honest, hardworking public service.

[Committees of the House, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it seems rather sad that at a time when things are going so well for this country, low interest rates, decent unemployment rates, no deficit, we are paying down the debt, that all the opposition can centre on are all kinds of scandals and inquiries. We do not like what happened. That is why Paul Martin set up the Gomery inquiry. That is why he took all of the steps that he did, but it does not prevent us from being--

[Committees of the House, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I am wrong but if memory serves me right the office of the comptroller general was decimated under the Conservatives prior to our taking office, but I am not absolutely sure.

I want to talk a little more about some of the good things that we have been able to do. Not everything is doom and gloom.

The government has made a strong and clear commitment to improve effectiveness and provide better value for Canadians' tax dollars. I am pleased to say that we have made some significant progress in the quality of the services that we offer and I know we have to make more progress.

During the last decade, the Government of Canada has significantly increased its use of technology to improve services. For example, about 70% of our financial transactions, payments and transfers are now done through the electronic banking network that we have established with Canadian financial institutions. The Canada Revenue Agency has become one of the most automated and efficient tax agencies in the world.

I am proud to say that Canada has earned a well-deserved reputation as a global leader in e-government. The 2005 Accenture report on customer service for citizens ranked Canada first among 22 countries in e-government for the fifth consecutive year. Canada has once again been ranked number one because of our citizen centred vision to meet the growing expectations of our citizens and businesses.

The Government of Canada continues to provide high quality programs and services for Canadians. For example, all of our 130 most commonly used services are now online. We also recognize that Canadians look for access through traditional means. We are working to improve telephone and in person services. Service Canada is part of this effort.

Our permanent goal is to provide easy access to programs and services that are better suited to the changing needs of Canadians, whether they live in urban, rural or remote communities.

The government has made significant progress on a wide range of fronts. We will continue to focus on improving services, lowering costs and providing better services for people across the country.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is quite normal around here that nobody listens. I believe I have said at least 5 times, if not 8 or 10 times in the course of the debate, that I believe the Auditor General ought to have the right to do performance audits on foundations.

The problem is not with the performance audit, it is with the fact that the motion also includes that the Auditor General be appointed as the external auditor of foundations. I think that is going too far. The foundations have auditors. If they want to have the Auditor General as their external auditor, they can ask for that, but it is not necessary. It is the performance audits that are important. That is what we should be asking the Auditor General to do. That is what I am supporting.

People ought to listen to what is being said here. We are not out there to hide anything. We are trying to do the right thing. We have to be responsible because we are the government. Opposing is fine because the opposition can throw all kinds of stuff out. It does not have to be based on truth. It does not have to be based on reality. We, on the other hand, must be realistic and we must manage things properly.