Lucienne Robillard

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2001-02, March 19th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Vote 1b, in the amount of $34,826,049, under PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, be concurred in.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2001-02, March 19th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Vote 5b, in the amount of $131,520,000, under INDUSTRY—Department—Grants and contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, be concurred in.

[Points of Order, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Albert raised a point of order yesterday, March 18, on the supplementary estimates. His comments provided the answer to the issue he raised in the point of order of whether there was statutory authority for the expenditures in question. He indicated that section 12 of the Revolving Funds Act states:

The provisions of this Act may be amended or repealed by an appropriation act.

The government is in no way attempting to legislate through the estimates process. The Revolving Funds Act for the optional services revolving fund sets a maximum limit of $200 million under section 5.3.

The government, through the supply process, sets appropriate limits within the amount authorized. Section 12 states that the provisions of the act may be amended or repealed by an appropriation act. We have several precedents in this regard.

In the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1996-97, the aggregate of expenditures was increased from $100 million to $200 million through vote 17a.

In Supplementary Estimates (B), 1999-2000, an adjustment was made to the limits in the Government Telecommunications and Informatics Services revolving fund by reducing the amount from $64 million to $45 million.

This request does not seek to extend or exceed a sum of money to be paid out. Therefore, in our view, this request is consistent with Speaker Jerome's ruling in 1977. On that basis alone, this request is completely within the legislative authority established by the Revolving Funds Act as passed by parliament.

The same argument applies to votes 7b, 8b and 9b included in this point of order.

Since Speaker Jerome's ruling, we have acted this way on many occasions and this approach has been accepted by successive Speakers.

[Public Service Commission, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let us put things in perspective.

When we created that centre, it was for a limited period of time, to provide advice and opinions to the departments. Now, the departments will be responsible and will be guided by a policy.

Let us look at the results: progress has been made year after year for women, aboriginals and persons with disabilities. We still have problems with visible minorities, but we have an action plan that will help us achieve our objectives.

[Public Service Commission, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is truly committed to employment equity in the federal public service, and particularly so for persons with disabilities.

Efforts have been made for a number of years and positive measures were taken precisely to promote employment equity within federal departments.

A centre had been set up to provide advice to the departments and create a momentum, so that this would truly become standard practice everywhere. We are now at this stage and will definitely keep pursuing the same objective.

[Access to Information, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is of the view that information about government expenses should be made public.

While respecting the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, the Prime Minister has asked all his ministers and their political staffs to release information related to their expense records.

[Access to Information, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The spending of ministers and their staff is always accessible under the Access to Information Act.

But the Privacy Act must also be respected. We are basing this opinion on a Supreme Court decision. We must also respect the rule of law in this country.

[Access to Information, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which the member for St. Albert has raised before.

We issued guidelines to all departments on how to interpret the legislation, the Access to Information Act as well as the Privacy Act.

Not only is spending by ministers and their staff accessible, but individual privacy is protected as well. This was the nature of the guidelines issued to each minister.

[Linguistic Minorities, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this new policy will encourage innovation in service delivery, while maintaining quality and public interest criteria. Guiding principles have also been added to strengthen the government's commitment to the Official Languages Act.

Prior to adopting an alternative method of service delivery, all departments will be required to consult with official language minority communities and file an impact study with the Treasury Board. This will ensure that we continue to provide services in English and in French to our minority communities.

[Access to Information, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert is trying to play games. He knows exactly what the guidelines are and what the advice of the Treasury Board Secretariat is to all departments. The fact is we should find a balance between the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and we should respect both legislations. In that sense, it is clear that all departments should follow those guidelines.