Reg Alcock

[Office of the Auditor General, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I realize it is an ongoing tactic of the other side to put lies in the mouths of important public figures.

The fact is that I met with the Auditor General this morning. I have met with the Auditor General frequently on this issue. I am one of the Auditor General's champions on this particular issue.

In fact, the government has increased the Auditor General's budget by 35%. In fact, there has not been a nickel cut. In fact, what is needed is an appropriate funding mechanism and if members would get their heads around that, we would fix it.

[Office of the Auditor General, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me simply refer the member to the article, in which this is reported, in which Ms. Fraser says:

Ms. Fraser rejects suggestions that her budget is being squeezed because of her controversial reports.

What she is doing is working with us on the establishment of a new mechanism. Frankly, if members on the other side had taken the recommendations of the committee seriously, we would have solved this matter. I have not had a single member on the other side pay attention to these reports.

[Office of the Auditor General, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again I say to the hon. member, the Auditor General never said that. She said, in answer to a question on that, exactly the opposite. The issue that she raises is an important one. It is one I have been raising here. It is one that I met with the Speaker about not too long ago. I raised this with the committee. I raised it with the Senate committee on finance.

The House has to address this, but it is an officer of the House. There has been no reduction in the funding to the auditor's office, and there will not be. In fact, there has been a substantial increase.

[Office of the Auditor General, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the entire premise of the hon. member. If we look at the article that reported on this today, the Auditor General herself said that she did not believe this was retaliatory. This is a conversation that we have had with the House for a long time.

When I was chairman of the committee on government operations, I put down a report on July 16 and again in November to the House which said that the mechanism for funding parliamentary officers needed to be reviewed. The Auditor--

[Whistleblower Protection, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as this is an enormously important issue and an enormously important debate, it would help if the member would take the time to read the reports of the experts and the employees who have informed us of the kind of bill they want.

He has the bill at first reading. It is possible, frankly, for the committee to look at these issues, listen to employees and come to the decisions. The reality of a minority government is that the decisions it makes are real, and to use our employees as a political foil is unacceptable.

[Whistleblower Protection, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to read the report that was put out. The recommendation that is in the legislation was drawn directly from the report of the expert committee. The trade-off is that the committee will have to decide between protecting the confidentiality of the employee who brings it forward, as the committee requested, and dealing with the responsibility of being transparent.

It is a value judgment that the committee will have to make, which is why the bill is at first reading. The member should read the report.

[Privacy, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what I will not do is respond to the analysis of that particular member.

The reality is that the legislation we have is new and it is one of the best in the world. The Privacy Commissioner, who is also one of the best privacy commissioners in the world, will tell him the same thing.

[Privacy, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that I am not in contradiction with the Privacy Commissioner. In fact, what I have said and what she has said is that the legislation we have in Canada is adequate to meet the needs of controlling information held in Canada. Laws in Canada do not protect information held in another jurisdiction, which is why we are changing the contracting policy to prevent information being held offshore.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I said some things earlier in the House. I was caught up in some anger I felt about the kind of language that was used in the House and I was perhaps less than fulsome in my apology and withdrawal. I simply wish to say to the member for Central Nova that I apologize for the language that was used. It does not dignify the House for me to add to the cacophony.

[Points of Order, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am only too willing to retract the remark. I just wanted to clarify what I said.