Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Supply June 8th, 2000
They are so lacking in arguments, so obsessed by a totally indefensible option that they are taking advantage of a debate on an organization stemming from a profoundly democratic initiative to shoot down all that the government is doing. I am wondering to what extent it is not a normal process for an opposition party to oppose for the sake of opposing.
Supply June 8th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I was explaining that I would have liked a bit more time to talk about other CIO activities, and I thank you for giving me this opportunity.
The CIO is a national organization, with projects and activities all across the country that benefit Canadians from every region.
I know very well that the comments of members opposite are not committed on record, but I find it quite disturbing that people who promote democracy would be trying to disrupt my right to speak by their constant commentaries.
The Canada Information office is only one of several measures and organizations helping to demonstrate our commitment to improving communications with Canadians. I am coming now to the other examples to which I have briefly referred and which include the 1-800-O-Canada toll free information line launched last year, the redesign of the Canada website to make it more user friendly and the service Canada initiative which seeks to create single points of access for citizens across the country to information on Government of Canada programs and services.
The Canada Information Office is an integral part of this overall effort to improve communications with Canadians. It has a duty, an obligation and a responsibility to take this on for all Canadians. The role and responsibility assumed by the Canadian government in this regard are not only a responsibility on the governmental action just because it gives us great pleasure to do it or because we feel like it, it is a matter of strong democratic values.
A government that does not communicate with it's population is a government that is failing in it's democratic duties. The CIO is one of the tools at our disposal to fulfil our democratic duty and responsibility to inform the Canadian population on what it is we are doing.
The CIO is doing such a good job that just last week, it received an award of excellence from a very credible organization known as the International Association of Business Communicators. This award was given to the CIO for a particular project, The Rural Guide, produced last year.
This Guide, featuring programs and services available to rural Canadians, was distributed to rural households across the country. It was the collaborative effort of 26 departments and agencies under the leadership of the Canada Information Office. That is the kind of collaboration that is innovative, productive and in the interests of all Canadians.
That is why the International Association of Business Communicators recognized the merit of the CIO and awarded them this prize.
I am really looking forward to the questions that the members opposite will be asking me, because when I arrived here, before I spoke, I heard the member opposite talk about the CIO. He talked about everything. He talked about human resources. He talked about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in terms that were not very elegant or respectful for that matter. He talked about government administration. He talked about plan B. He talked about the constitution.
Supply June 8th, 2000
It provides an opportunity to listen to their views, needs and concerns.
Community-based outreach activities also provide a two-way flow of information to and from citizens. For instance, workshops on Y2K preparedness, the so-called Y2K bug, electronic commerce, and other topics were conducted last year in response to an expressed need for this kind of information. These are but two examples. I could go on with many more.
I want to talk about another area of activity of the CIO, the organization's support of government activities relating to national unity. I say this with great pride: National unity continues to be a key priority of this government, and as such, all departments and agencies have a role to play in that regard. Obviously, if the Canadian public does not know what its federal government is doing, it has every right to ask whether the Canadian federation is relevant.
The value of our federation is rooted in feelings and sensitivity, but it is also an ideal to reach for. All of this should be expressed in initiatives and actions. The Canadian government has the responsibility to inform Canadians on these initiatives and actions.
The CIO's role in this regard involves promoting the value of Canada by providing information to Canadians on what the country has to offer. It supports various projects that demonstrate how the government's programs and services are relevant to citizens and that encourage Canadians to exchange their ideas and experiences about the greatness of Canada. This too is about communicating, communicating the value of Canada, and therefore the importance of its unity.
Since my time is almost up I will have to cut my remarks short, but I am sure my colleagues opposite will give me a nice opportunity to develop more fully what I have to say.
I would just like to give quickly a few examples. The 1-800-O-Canada, another program—
Supply June 8th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this extremely important debate, which goes to the very heart of one key challenge of the Government of Canada and indeed of all democratic governments on this planet, that of communicating with Canadians.
In that context, I would like to briefly discuss this challenge and the role of the Canada Information Office, or CIO, in helping the government address it.
First, why is the government increasingly focussed on communications? There are many reasons. One of them is that it is important to all Canadians, which public opinion polls have shown convincingly. Not only are Canadians receptive to the information provided to them but they want more. Furthermore, it is the government's responsibility, and I insist on the word responsibility, to explain its policies and programs to Canadians.
Let us be practical. What good are the best programs and services if Canadians do not know about them or how to access them? It would be like a hockey coach who would prepare a wonderful game plan in his office with his assistants but who would forget to tell his players about it.
Canadians have the right to get this information. I repeat, they have the right. They want to be informed, which is totally legitimate. Therefore, the question is not whether we must provide the information. The question, and I was going to say the challenge, is to figure out how to get that information to them and make sure it is useful and relevant. As I was saying earlier, this is a challenge that is facing all the communications agencies in all the democracies throughout the world.
People are literally bombarded with a multitude of messages. We all know that. We just have to walk through the streets of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, or go to the movies, or watch television, or listen to the radio, or read the newspapers. Our senses are inundated with hundreds if not thousands of poster panels, advertisements and messages.
To be effective, the Government of Canada, or any other government for that matter, must compete. It must compete if it wants its communications to be useful, especially if it wants to reach all Canadians.
One can easily understand that the fragmentation of audiences makes this all the more difficult. The government can no longer mass communicate with a “one size fits all” approach. It must learn about the particular information needs of different segments of the population. It needs to know which methods work best to reach each of these segments, whether it be television, print, radio, direct mail, the Internet, etc. The government must learn how to harness new technology which offers new possibilities while at the same time creating a whole new set of challenges, imposing new ways of doing things.
Faced with the complexities of modern communications and a heightened expectation by citizens to be informed about and involved in the governing process, many democratic governments around the world and provincial governments here in Canada have reviewed their communications approaches or are in the process of doing so.
It is in that context that the Government of Canada, which is no different from other democratic governments, has given a specific mandate to an ad hoc cabinet committee on government communications, which was struck two years ago. The mandate is extremely clear. The objective is to bring greater oversight to government communications and foster a more corporate, citizen focused approach. By corporate we mean communicating with one voice, that of the Government of Canada as a whole, as an entity.
While individual departments communicate quite well about their respective programs and services, we need to communicate about the government's overall program, key priorities, and a wide array of programs and services. Canadians want this overall picture so they can assess whether they feel the government's agenda reflects their own needs and priorities.
It was in that spirit that the Canada Information Office was created in 1996 and has become one of the government's primary tools in listening to and speaking with Canadians. In that capacity, it provides corporate communications advice and support to the Government of Canada. It collaborates with other departments and agencies as well as with partners outside government, fostering innovation and the sharing of best communications practices. It develops communications products.
For example, it develops citizens' guides to government programs and services. The CIO also undertakes public opinion research and media monitoring activities. These are essential corporate tools to help the government understand and respond more appropriately to the information needs of Canadians.
The ministerial tours in Quebec are another tool used to communicate with citizens.
Petitions May 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from the residents of my riding on the retention of the definition of marriage and recognition of the unique status of the institution of marriage.
Office Of The Correctional Investigator May 4th, 2000
Madam Speaker, we have before us Motion M-228, which deals with the office of the correctional investigator. This motion asks the government to introduce legislative amendments to have the correctional investigator report to parliament directly, and not through the solicitor general, as is the case now.
For reasons which I will explain in greater detail, I simply cannot support this motion.
It seems that the criminal justice system has held a place of prominence in parliament in recent months. The Minister of Justice has initiated action in the area of youth justice. Her extensive proposals are still being considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In the last session, among other initiatives, she oversaw the passage of significant additions to victims rights legislation.
The solicitor general has done his share of legislative reform by extending the protection of young Canadians from sexual predators with amendments to the Criminal Records Act, which has just received royal assent.
Our justice system is being updated practically on a continual basis. In fact, one could consider that correctional reform was undertaken when the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act were replaced by the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act that was passed in 1992. It is in that new act that the Office of the Correctional Investigator was established.
In establishing that office through legislation, the government reinforced the right of inmates to have access to a grievance process, while ensuring better protection of their right to be treated in a fair and humanitarian manner.
We can take pride in our worldwide reputation for maintaining a correctional system which acts fairly while pursuing its primary goal of public protection. I fear, however, that Motion No. 228 would change our law in ways not envisaged or intended by those who drafted, debated and later amended legislation which became the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as we know it today.
Motion M-228 asks us to reconsider an aspect of the office of the correctional investigator that could have been included in the 1992 legislative package, an item that was indeed proposed by some witnesses and committee members during the hearings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
But the proposal was rejected, and it is no more desirable today than it was then.
I will point out that we are expecting the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights dealing with the most recent review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The solicitor general has said that he looks forward to receiving the recommendations of the subcommittee, and I am certain that he will consider those recommendations very carefully.
Motion No. 228, however, proposes a change to this act, and a change which I cannot support.
In the time I have left, I will try to shed some light on the way the Office of the Correctional Investigator currently reports and explain why this proposal is not judicious.
The solicitor general is responsible for the federal correctional agencies, of which there are two: the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.
The minister is accountable to parliament, thus to the Canadian public; moreover, he has the mandate to make the necessary changes—when they are called for—to the policies and practices of these agencies.
When the correctional investigator reports to the minister, as is the case now, he brings his concerns directly to the attention of the system's responsibility centre. If the report contains recommendations that it would be appropriate to implement, the solicitor general encourages the government to take the necessary measures accordingly.
Their is no chance these reports will get lost along the way, or shelved as they say, because not only does this series of legislative measures make it mandatory for the solicitor general to present such a report, but also the act categorically states that it must be tabled in parliament by the solicitor general within 90 days. In short, the correctional agencies are independently monitored and reports must be submitted.
And besides, there is another important element, of course. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which the author of the motion is a member, may examine, at its own discretion, the annual reports and special reports of the correctional investigator.
Questions may be asked about the follow-up given to recommendations made by the investigator, either in his annual report or in his special reports. Questions may also be asked about the way complaints lodged by inmates have been dealt with.
Therefore today's motion is totally redundant.
We are living in times of tremendous change. You, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues are well aware that change is experienced no less by the criminal justice system than it is by any other institution in our society.
Obviously, the last decade has seen a great deal of activity in the area of criminal justice.
Is our justice system working? Is it indeed protecting our most vulnerable citizens? Are our actions in line with our speech in terms of making the safety of Canadians of paramount concern to the Government of Canada?
Our government was well prepared to deal with those difficulties. I would add that Canadians are not asking us to allow inmates to submit their problems directly to the House.
The rights of offenders imprisoned or on conditional release are protected by the law and by international codes of ethics, of which Canada is a signatory. Besides, the rights of individuals living under the authority of the correctional system are protected by legislative provisions on human rights, as well as by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I sincerely do not believe that the motion moved—in all good faith—by my colleague, who is a hard worker, will improve those protections in any way.
Of course, what interests me most is that this proposal can in no way guarantee better protection of the public.
Therefore, since this motion can neither improve protection of the public nor increase the public's confidence in the correctional system, this motion is useless, in my opinion.
Organized Crime May 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the sidewinder was not shut down. It is as simple as that.
Organized Crime May 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I answered this question in French a few times already and apparently there is a problem. Let me say it again in English this time.
Number one, sidewinder was not shut down. Number two, the report which came out of the sidewinder operation was jointly produced by the RCMP and CSIS. Number three, SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, is looking at this report and is going to produce its own findings.
Instead of basing my assessment on speculation as those members would like us to do, I would rather base it on facts.
Organized Crime May 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, based on what the hon. member said, I think he will support our bill on money laundering.
I understand the member supports our allocating moneys to fight organized crime, particularly the $115 million for the CPIC, the $78 million for the anti-smuggling initiative, the additional $810 million, over a three year period, for the solicitor general, the elimination of the $1,000 bill, and the establishment of 13 joint units to prevent crime.
I could go on for three hours. This is what the member does not want to recognize.
Organized Crime May 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It gives me the opportunity to say something I have wanted to say for some time.
On the subject of international co-operation to protect the security of Canadian territory, Janet Reno, the United States attorney general, contacted our solicitor general to congratulate him on the co-operation she received from the RCMP and CSIS in resolving problems of international terrorism.
Sometimes, perhaps it is worth seeing the glass as half full.