Odina Desrochers

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Liberals are afraid to provide information. I am a fan of freedom of information. The members of my committee, people on other committees and members of the Parliament of Canada are able to decide what should be official and made public and where some restrictions might possibly apply.

However, we cannot accept the Liberal practice over the last few years of hiding behind agencies in order to refuse to provide information. We saw the mess that this has created in the sponsorship scandal, in some Public Works and Government Services Canada contracts, and in many questions asked in this House in order to get at the truth.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing an Access to Information Act that would enable the public, members of Parliament and the media to get what they want.

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

The same is true in the case of seniors. They say yes in committee and no before Parliament. How is the public expected to react? How can they take the work of parliamentary committees seriously if the Liberals fiddle behind the scenes with access to information and order members to toe the party line and ignore what the MPs want to do? It is a matter of privilege. People must have access to information.

At the start of my remarks, I said that I was a journalist for some 20 years. On my arrival here, I was very disappointed to see that things were not going so well.

The Bloc Québécois supports this measure. Given the weakness of the status quo the Liberals are proposing, our committee is still hoping to have an affirmative answer thanks to the work of the other opposition parties. However, we might get a negative answer in Parliament.

If that happens, it will be bad faith, because we will conclude that this government is determined to control information and not share it. If the Liberals want to demonstrate that they can adopt a new mindset and show that things are different in this Parliament, they will have to vote in favour of the motion defended today by the Conservative Party, because it addresses the expectations of the public, the media, MPs and everyone entitled to have access to information.

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to what I was saying before oral question period. I was talking about how important the Access to Information Act is. We saw proof of this again yesterday when the Minister of Finance tabled his mini budget, with a 300% difference between his estimates and reality. And yet this is called transparency. The Minister of Finance talks to the media and financial experts and provides information in order to prove that the surplus will be approximately $4 billion.

With a wave of the Liberal wand, he is now talking about an $11 billion surplus. So, once again, we were not being given all the facts. The Liberals have always boycotted transparency in Parliament. They have always worked to keep information secret. In fact, the best way to control a business is to control the flow of information. The best way to manipulate things is to control the flow of information. These people have become experts in the field since I became a member in June 1997. They have not changed. They may have changed Prime Minister, but their attitude remains the same.

Hon. members will recall last year, within weeks of the election, how the Prime Minister was going on about the democratic deficit. One might have concluded that the measures to eradicate that deficit might have included allowing parliamentarians to have better access to information. Nothing has improved, however. The recent report by the commissioner gave grades from A to F. The Privy Council Office was one of the ones that got the most negative attention, and this is the same office that did not provide full information when the public accounts committee set out to understand the sponsorship scandal.

In my student days, people were graded A, B, C, D or E. E was really bad, so imagine what F means. These people come to committee and promise to improve. There is political interference in access to information, and to counteract that interference, the commissioner needs more power, more staff, more means of obtaining the required information, so that my colleagues, the media and the public will be better served when requesting information.

The whole thing becomes a bit complex, because often the requests go through the PCO and then to the appropriate department. Imagine the interference at the departmental level as well as at the PCO. Now as well we realize that it is also within the committee examining the Access to Information Act.

All parties were unanimous in their desire to revise the legislation. They even asked Commissioner Reid to propose a bill that would improve and reinforce access to information.

Once again, they dragged their feet. It was yes in committee and no before Parliament. That is the Liberal mindset. Have you noticed where things are at with employment insurance? They say yes in committee and no in Parliament. Often decisions are made in committee and denied before Parliament. This is called the democratic deficit.

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in turn to speak about the important issue of access to information. For two decades, I have dedicated myself to the task of providing information. When I first came to the House of Commons, I thought it would be easy for me to get information, but I realized that government and political information was much harder to get in a parliamentary setting.

My remarks today will pertain to transparency. If all information were available, if everything were transparent in this Parliament, we would not even need the Office of the Access to Information Commissioner. Everything would function normally. Back in February 2001, after 10 years as Auditor General, Denis Desautels issued a warning, stating that the many special foundations, organizations and agencies created by the federal government made Parliament less and less accountable for overall Government of Canada spending. That was Denis Desautels’ finding.

In April 2002, the person who took over from him, Sheila Fraser, singled out foundations. She again criticized the fact that the federal government continues to use foundations to deliver public programs and that the transfer of funds to those foundations was not subject to ministerial oversight and effective parliamentary scrutiny. She also noted that there were significant gaps and weaknesses, including a lack of information, in the design of delegated management mechanisms to monitor foundations. She said that her mandate was limited in terms of the mechanisms she was able to examine. That prevented her from providing the Parliament of Canada with information on whether federal funds and powers were being properly used. She went on to say that billions of dollars of public money remain in the hands of foundations for years before they are transferred to the intended beneficiaries. She said that the government had little recourse when things went bad and that Parliament had few opportunities to examine those delegated management mechanisms. The Auditor General was already questioning her work in light of a lack of information.

I had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the spring of 2004. I saw that there were weaknesses regarding access to information in the Parliament of Canada. Information was made public in small doses, when it was made public at all. This is the age of communications. Information is distributed through the Internet and by satellite. However, when it comes from a minister’s office, the Treasury Board or the Privy Council Office, it does not even reach the members of the committees set up to monitor federal government spending. I was in a position to see how little information was released by the many crown corporations involved in the sponsorship scandal. The Auditor General complained that she did not have full authority to investigate.

The current Access to Information Act exempts major Crown corporations like VIA Rail, the National Arts Centre, the CBC, EDC, Canada Post Corporation, Atomic Energy Canada and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.

In addition to everything that has been said about the sponsorship scandal, there are a number of pages which meet the expectations of our friends on the other side of the house. However, if one looks at the Gomery report as a whole, these people, needless to say, cannot convince the public that they were not informed and did not know what was happening.

Indeed, this whole affair would never have happened if access to information mechanisms had existed. It is in this spirit that today the Bloc Québécois is supporting the motion introduced by the Conservative Party. We hope that, once we have the tools we need, we will be able to find out what use was made of the $4.8 million that was transferred to Option Canada during the 1995 referendum; that we will understand the decision by the Department of Justice not to lay criminal charges for copyright infringement against the Cinar company and its founders, when a report by the RCMP recommended otherwise; that we will know the name of the minister who, following the Auditor General's report, continued to defend the communications agencies and their exorbitant commissions in the cabinet communications committee.

We are working for the future. The past brought us the worst ever scandal in Canadian history. We realize that, given the refusal of the Liberals to expand the powers of the Access to Information Act, these experiences could well be repeated. Once again, I find it enormously difficult to understand the logical processes of the federal Liberals when it comes to transparency. We discussed it in committee and on that occasion, the committee agreed unanimously that it was essential to commit to a reform of the current Access to Information Act. What a surprise it is today to hear the federal Liberals say that they are not in agreement with what they themselves agreed on with the Opposition parties.

I also had one further occasion to note the weakness of the Access to Information Act when I was sitting on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Everyone will remember the tragedy of the submarine Chicoutimi . You should have seen the report provided to the members of the committee. It contained a large number of blacked out sections. We did not know what had happened. An attempt was made to have us believe that it was all to protect the public interest and the families. What we realized, in reading the actual report, was that the Department of National Defence systematically refused to acknowledge its responsibilities in this tragic affair.

I can tell you that the Bloc Québécois has long been working on a reform of access to information. In fact, I had the privilege of discussing the matter with former Liberal MP John Bryden, who is a former journalist as well. He considered this issue important.

There are lots of examples to show we need this essential tool to enable elected representatives, the media and the public to get the information they need. The government's desire to maintain the status quo would indicate once again that it has things to hide and that it cannot operate transparently.

The Liberals have the opportunity today to show they will change—pardon my skepticism—and support a real Access to Information Act, legislation that will provide the authority, the personnel and the mandate so the job can get done reasonably, legislation that will make it possible to obtain the information required.

My colleagues have told me they often requested access to information. On this, the commissioner was very clear in his justification for the delays in the case of many requests. We do not know the reason, but they do. It is the meddling by the offices of ministers and deputy ministers because of an unjustified fear with respect to the political sensitivity of the request.

What is needed is a clear desire for change in order to give the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada all the powers it needs. Auditor General Denis Desautels and current Auditor General Sheila Fraser have issued many warnings.

I will continue my speech after members' statements.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, one could think by the comments made by my colleague opposite that she has yet to read the whole Gomery report. She has trouble quoting some excerpts. I would have assumed that a Liberal member would have rushed to read the whole thing. Here is how they go about it in the House since the tabling of the report: they quote short paragraphs to justify the sponsorship scandal. I have one simple question for the member. Did she take the time to go through all three parts of the Gomery report?

[Sponsorship Program, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Gomery report has confirmed the magnitude of the sponsorship scandal and the political leadership that presided over this vast exercise in propaganda.

The most influential members of the Liberal Party of Canada spared no expense in trying to try to buy the conscience and affection of Quebeckers, while lining the pockets of their friends who returned the favour by doing likewise for the Liberal Party.

The sponsorship scandal is a Liberal scandal skilfully orchestrated by the mandarins of the Liberal Party of Canada. Justice Gomery made note of “the existence of a 'culture of entitlement' among political officials and bureaucrats involved with the Sponsorship Program, including the receipt of monetary and non-monetary benefits”.

The Gomery report reveals this conspiracy by the Liberal Party of Canada, which, having nothing to offer Quebec, decided to use public funds to try to buy Quebeckers. How pathetic.

[Cigarette Taxes, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has issued permits to more than 13 cigarette manufacturing plants on the Kahnawake aboriginal territory. But the taxes on each pack sold would not go to the federal government.

What is the Minister of National Revenue waiting for before assuming his responsibilities and collecting the taxes due to him?

[Petitions, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's decision to close down the Quebec City sorting centre has raised a furor in our region, from both the socio-economic and political stakeholders and the general public. I have proof of their support in this petition bearing the signatures of 130,000 people who are demanding that the mail processing operations and the jobs connected with them be kept in Quebec City. Today I am presenting a portion of this, with several thousand signatures.

[Marichel Teaching Farm, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Marichel teaching farm in Sainte-Agathe-de-Lotbinière is celebrating its 10th anniversary. This farm is not only introducing children to the benefits of agriculture, it is teaching them the importance of preserving our environment to ensure the survival of our planet.

In celebration, the 2005 student interns wrote a song to raise public awareness about the effects of climate change.

I had the pleasure of hearing this song on September 16, between the two hurricanes that devastated the southern United States. Everyone agrees that these two tragedies were caused by climate change in that region over the last 25 years.

These young people have summed it up as follows:

Such great ideas sung with forceThey do affect my mood, of courseNow tell me what we need to doTo save the earth for me and you

Bravo and long live the Marichel teaching farm.

[Firefighters, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I always stand in awe when I hear my friends opposite defending Mr. David Dingwall. If he was such a good president and if he was so effective, why then has he quit his job? On this issue, we are not really able to know the truth.

At certain times, he says he contacted the national revenue minister. At other times, he says the handed his resignation to the board or, yet another version, he tells us that the personally talked to the Prime Minister. One thing is sure: he resigned.

They would have us believe that this man, who has spent enormously, was justified in doing so because his crown corporation was making money. I do not know a president of a single public or private corporation who tenders their resignation when their corporation is doing very well.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us what her understanding is of the fact that Mr. Dingwall has tendered his resignation when the public corporation he was running was doing so well.